huffyanika

I can't possibly put into the right words just how much this straightforward talk heartens me. -- And to think it is so rare! I had the same feeling when a woman journalist (women! yeah!) said (and I forget which station or which journalist, sorry) said, straight out in public that Condi Rice was a terrible Sec'y of State; maybe she said, 'the worst'. Finally! Thank you to anybody who can find it in them to say the truth, speak out about media. -- Speak out about 'leaders'. Thank you again! posted 04/24/2008 at 13:40:10

In general, I would say 'let everyone vote'.And t I remember when California (my vote) did not count when I wanted to vote for John Edwards for presidential candidate; ALL the states which hadn't voted yet were suddenly moot -- Kerry had been elected in the east coast. It was a pretty helpless feeling -- I simply didn't get to vote for the presidential nominee! But I also didn't get to vote for my favorite nominee this time, because all but Obama and Clinton had dropped out (as Hillary could do now, just as the others have done) by the time it came around to my state. As has happened to many other people's favorites in many other states. -- So why would Hillary dropping out be any different?

So, now I agree with James Zogby: There is damage being done in this leg of the primary; this is not just an election. It is an erosion of party unity and therefore of Democratic electability in the fall; that is no negligible matter; we need new, much better, Supreme Court Justices, for one thing. We need the possibility of health care at least for the people who might get it under Obama's plan, which is far from ideal, granted. We need someone who has a wider vision, an understanding of other cultures, and who seems flexible to new information.

And if we don't stop this terrible shredding of the candidate now we won't get those and many other things -- posted 04/24/2008 at 17:48:02

Are we counting the possibly up to '1 million' people who switched parties in response to Ruch Limbaugh's (and others of his ilk's) injunction to vote for Hillary? Because she is the most un-electable of the two. Is this 'win' a 'win' or an empty ploy? posted 04/23/2008 at 03:56:59

When I saw your title I really thought it would be about the real chance that Right-Wingers had switched party in order to vote for the relatively 'UN-electable' Clinton.

I haven't heard on televison (MSNBC or CNN) any mention of what must be hordes of right-wing voters who may have switched registrations in order to vote for Clinton -- responding to the request of people like Rush Limbaugh? I heard this may have run to 1 million voters. Therefore, Clinton's 'win' may not be a righteous win at all.

The pundits this evening often were willing to dismiss Obama's electability, his not having 'pulled it off'' and not being able to. If the 'Rush' injunction were followed religiously (and many of these people are VERY religious in sheep respects) it may have made the 'electability' factor, if it exists, moot.

(Buchanan, Conservative, on MSNBC was one of the most vociferous that Clinton was 'more electable' -- and Obama not. Is his motive the same as Limbaugh's, that they are really afraid of Obama's chances against McCain?) posted 04/23/2008 at 03:52:12

I haven't heard on televison (MSNBC or CNN) any mention of what must be hordes of right-wing voters who may have switched registrations in order to vote for Clinton -- responding to the request of people like Ruch Limbaugh? I heard this may have run to 1 million voters. Therefore, Clinton's 'win' may not be a righteous win at all.

The pundits this evening often were willing to diss Obama's winability, his not having 'pulled it off'' and not being able to. If the 'Rush' injunction were followed religiously (and many of these people are VERY religious in sheep respects) it may have made the 'winability' factor, if it exists, moot.

(Buchanan, Conservative, on MSNBC was one of the most vociferous that Clinton was more 'winable'. Is his motive the same as Limbaugh's, that they are really afraid of Obama's chances against McCain?) posted 04/23/2008 at 02:11:06

This is very funny. ( L. O. L.) [Which, in my day, by the way, used to mean Little Old Lady. Do the young folk know this? Do they care?] posted 04/20/2008 at 11:18:05

Have you ever heard of 'Consider the source?' posted 04/20/2008 at 11:15:29

According to Glenn Greenwald (on Democracy Now on Friday) this is true: Newspaper reporters do love McCain. But Editors are not reporters, necessarily. And maybe the reporters, being -- I don't know, maybe... I don't know....I just hope...well....maybe...maybe the reporters will stop going to McCain barbecues and swinging on his tire swings and thus not be as beholden to him for his gracious hospitality -- as they were before, as they are now. Maybe. I am hopeful, for one.

I read McCain's book and I do think that there is some kind of heroism in SIMPLY SURVIVING. I do. There is. But McCain's values and policies, when looked at closely (which I admit I haven't taken notes on) would set this country back even further. He is indeed Bush III. posted 04/20/2008 at 11:30:58

Whoaaa.... posted 04/17/2008 at 07:33:18

last word cut off: -- 'Why is he given so much power?' posted 04/16/2008 at 13:13:19

Yes to all the above, with the addition of

-- denying the use of condoms to Africans in an effort to prevent AIDS; this ends up with high infection rates among women in Africa (and elsewhere).

-- denying pregnancy protection to women though they may already have too many children to feed --and in face of the world's inability to feed all its people.

-- Protecting Bishops like Bernard Law by removing him to the Vatican (and having him inaugurate the new pope) after being accused in New York of protecting dozens of pedophile priests. Thus does his comment today -- that he is 'ashamed' of finding pedophiles in the Catholic hierarchy -- ring hallow. IGNORING for so long all pedophilia in the Catholic church at the cost of balanced lives and trusting hearts of so many, many sexually abused children.

-- and so much more: behaving like an ordinary cult leader (see Warren Jeffs) who controls his parishioners lives (through 'holy' injunctions and guilt and threat of being shunned by the church) and marriages.

Why are journalists falling all over themselves to report on this visit? Why are public radio stations like NPR allowing hosts and reporters to 'act Catholic' as they report 'the news'? (.e.g. Meeshell Norris, NPR and Cherry Glaser, KCRW.)

This man, who has perpetrated egregious abuses, systemically, on the world is only one leader of a religion in this courntry (and the world). -- Only one religion of many. Why is he GIVEN so much posted 04/16/2008 at 13:09:37

On the article on Alberto Gonzales (not being able to get a job), someone wrote: 'Who wants to hire a liar?' posted 04/14/2008 at 03:50:40

Part II

Bitter (from Oxford American Dictionary) "(of people or their feelings or behavior) angry, hurt, or resentful because of one's bad experiences or a sense of unjust treatment.'

Who wouldn't be bitter about the lack of jobs and being wooed by right-wing religious cultists? Do they think that these people are fools? Who wouldn't be bitter? Bitter is being left with a taste of gall in the mouth. Apropriate for so many of our current situations which are being left untreated. posted 04/13/2008 at 03:19:37

I love your anger, Jane Smiley. And I appreciate your relatives' fears about your safety in your truth-telling about the war -- and this. I feel the same and think twice about posting my truths on thiis site, even. (I heard the other day about a father, a good man, being shot in the East Bay for 'making faces' at' someone in a car driving by; he had his three small kids in the car; they saw the whole thing. Their father is dead; and I felt and feel like crying. It's the second time I've heard about a father being killed on the same freeway, with a small child in his car (by another man who also had a one-year old in his car). And today Hillary Clinton is touting guns. Her gall-full irresponsibility is unrelenting.

Her dishonesty is unapologetic and unrelenting. On another article here (the one about Alberto Gonzales not being able to find a job) someone says 'Who would vcte for someone who lies?' Evidently many people would, all who vote for Clinton. (And people on this site counter this as a horrible trait by saying, 'They all lie, why don't you get it?' That is not true and why would that be an excuse?

(See Part II) posted 04/13/2008 at 03:19:00

I am remembering now, Bill Maher, your rant about the Catholic Church at the end of your show, and I agree with it. It was extreme, it was shocking, but not wrong. posted 04/13/2008 at 03:50:50

I agree that 'certainly they deserve punishment'.

I don't know where to put my outrage at TV commentators who say about the attackers, glibly, 'they won't do time'. And, especially, Bill Maher, who said on Friday night that the video of the girls beating up on one other girl 'is fun', and that this is equivalent to 'a schoolyard fight, in which a fight starts and everyone pulls the kids apart'.

Maher may be reflective of a certain part of our society, but I wouldn't know how to characterize it. I don't know people who say things like this. Or like other things Maher has said on his show, such as when a Congressman was caught sending sexual emails to several of his Congressional pages, age around 16. Maher blamed the boy-victims, saying 'they were 16!' 'They participated in this!', as if that would let the perpetrator/pederast off the hook. It has been my surprised experience that sexual predators don't have any clue what damage they do, and they never learn.

Maher also said that he hated seeing women breast-feed their babies in public and this should never be allowed.

Maher grew up in the Catholic church and has been caught in an extreme reaction to that training. Extreme reactions don't lead necessarily to sanity, but often include the twisted thinking of the original teachings. (Was Maher sexually molested by a priest? He hasn't come out with it, if so.) posted 04/13/2008 at 03:47:49

-- (See above, or below, for my previous comment.) By which I am referring to old age, not the current thinking (on tv) in which I hear that these bullies should be let off for being teenagers.

On the other hand, no one underage should EVER be 'tried as an adult'. Underage kids are not adults; their brains are not finished being formed and in all states (I presume) they have different laws or consequences. They should be tried, and in this case I think convicted, but no one under 21 should be 'tried as an adult'; that is an oxymoron and prosecutors who want to get ahead on the backs of the outrage of the populace should not be allowed to get away with it. posted 04/13/2008 at 03:31:01

'History has infinitely shown that all persons, races, and sexes are equally capable of doing great good or great evil.'

And ages. You left out ages. posted 04/13/2008 at 03:24:37

I didn't hear Feingold but this is very good. It is the first time I have heard a word from Senators about Bin Laden's motivations. I have long thought Bin Laden sees himself involved in a game. He wants to keep it going. Last election he sent a video 'endorsing' Kerry. This would predictably win votes AGAINST Kerry. And that is what it did. He wanted to keep Bush in the White House. It is interesting that Feingold thinks it is because he knew Bush would play into his hands and bankrupt our country. posted 04/09/2008 at 15:11:49

This is exactly what I was wanting to hear. It does me good to hear someone saying, 'This is killing us!' And to repeat his comments again and again. It does me good to hear someone being angry about people being killed. Not to mention protesting all the money going away from desperate needs here at home. None of it makes any sense.

(I heard a Congressman, R. from S. Carolina, today praising Petraeus for his work and telling him so proudly how many people in his own family are/were in the military and that his son is or was in Iraq. He believes that 'if we don't get them there they will come here'. This rhetoric is extremely disheartening. Has the word about the war and all its losses and cost to our nation not gotten to South Carolina? Is this man and his familyt suicidal? Or what?) posted 04/09/2008 at 15:07:15

Re: Tuesday's Hearing: You had to feel sorry for them, the only two people holding up the whole reputation of the war and the only two explaining it.

Their droning, mind-numbing reports -- were they designed to hypnotize, so that it would be hard to focus on the meaning of what they were saying? Or was it just a coincidence?

How many in Congress were hypnotized? How many in the House will be tomorrow -- Wednesday? I didn't notice any heated confrontations. Was this due to their being in a trance? [I noticed with horror that when Roberts was up for Supreme Court Chief Justice he did a good job of hypnotizing Congresspeople, but he used the 'Confusion Technique' (see Milton Erickson, MD, on this approach to getting people to agree with your goals; Sen. Leahy seemed especially susceptible to this: he began by confronting him but ended by smiling and complimenting him. At least one other succumbed in exactly the same way.)]

Another thing done to disarm was Petraeus' repeated use of emotional flag-waving (irrelevantly; we are talking about people fighting in an ill-gotten, purposeless war, 11 of whom got killed dead the very day before) by 'appreciating' and 'honoring' and 'standing beside' his troops. This always seems to bring Congresspersons to their very knees in supplication -- one said he was speaking 'in deference' to Petraeus. [See Oxford American on 'deference': Including: dutifulness; submissiveness, submission, obedience, surrender, capitulation, acquiescence, obeisance.] Is this Congress's role? posted 04/09/2008 at 10:34:43

Yesterday I had to turn it off due to Ambassador Crocker's distracting 'Hmh, uh' said at a rhythmical frequency, not two or three times in a reply but two or three times in a sentence -- every few words, almost like clockwork. His neck is very stiff, I noticed last time. Does anyone know if he has a cerebral disorder, such as Tourette's, or is it just an extreme tic?

Does anyone know, as well, if Secretary Rice has gone there, even once, to negotiate any kind of peace with -- anybody? The heads of militias, Sadre, Maliki, anybody?

Are these two individuals, Crocker and Petraeus, the only ones running the show?
And why is that? posted 04/09/2008 at 10:33:35

Dear ProudLiberalDan,

'Please Congressional Democrats, ....You may not be able to override a Bush veto or stop a Republican filibuster yourselves, but you have scheduling power and the power to filibuster any Bush bills.'

It seems, according to Petraeus yesterday, that these hearingsn are not about funding the war. (My comment here:)

" I heard parts of it. The saddest, most despairing part was when Petraeus, in cold and mannerly language said that they weren't there to get an OK from Congress on what he was doing because the 'Executive Branch' was all that was needed to keep going. He said that without any trouble. But when he was asked questions about how it is going, he stumbled, several times."

Maybe you are right, that Congress has not given up all their power already, has not already given enough money to keep it going for as long as Bush is in the White House. I don't know. posted 04/09/2008 at 09:11:34

See my suggestions as to why they aren't getting it at around '7:30-ish' to '8:30-ish', three of them in a row (if they ever get approved). posted 04/09/2008 at 08:54:53

Part III in descending order:

You had to feel sorry for them, the only two people holding up the whole reputation of the war and the only two explaining it.

Their droning, mind-numbing reports -- were they designed to hypnotize, so that it would be hard to focus on the meaning of what they were saying? Or was it just a coincidence?

How many in Congress were hypnotized? How many in the House will be tomorrow -- Wednesday? I didn't notice any heated confrontations. Was this due to their being in a trance? [I noticed with horror that when Roberts was up for Supreme Court Chief Justice he did a good job of hypnotizing Congresspeople, but he used the 'Confusion Technique' (see Milton Erickson, MD, on this approach to getting people to agree with your goals; Sen. Leahy seemed especially susceptible to this: he began by confronting him but ended by smiling and complimenting him. At least one other succumbed in exactly the same way.)]

Another thing done to disarm was Petraeus' repeated use of emotional flag-waving (irrelevantly; we are talking about people fighting in an ill-gotten, purposeless war, 11 of whom got killed dead the very day before) by 'appreciating' and 'honoring' and 'standing beside' his troops. This always seems to bring Congresspersons to their very knees in supplication -- one said he was speaking 'in deference' to Petraeus. [See Oxford American on 'deference': Including: dutifulness; submissiveness, submission, obedience, surrender, capitulation, acquiescence, obeisance.] Is this Congress's role? posted 04/09/2008 at 08:31:45

I had to turn it off due to Ambassador Crocker's distracting 'Hmh, uh' said at a rhythmical frequency, not two or three times in a reply but two or three times in a sentence -- every few words, almost like clockwork. His neck is very stiff, I noticed last time. Does anyone know if he has a cerebral disorder, such as Tourette's, or is it just an extreme tic.

Does anyone know, as well, if Secretary Rice has gone there, even once, to negotiate any kind of peace with -- anybody? The heads of militias, Sadre, Maliki, anybody?

Are these two individuals, Crocker and Petraeus, the only ones running the show?
And why is that? posted 04/09/2008 at 07:53:15

I heard parts of it. The saddest, most despairing part was when Petraeus, in cold and mannerly language said that they weren't there to get an OK from Congress on what he was doing because the 'Executive Branch' was all that was needed to keep going. He said that without any trouble. But when he was asked questions about how it is going, he stumbled, several times. posted 04/09/2008 at 07:42:19

PART II OF ONE NEXT TO (ABOVE OR BELOW) IT:

And, finally, above above all, plan for all contingencies. A presidential candidate is not just a 'talent', sent out there to wow the masses, after 'taking a lot of time to get ready'. She has to be involved with and be an integral part of the planning -- for anything possible that may come up. And that requires imagination. That is what Rove, Rice and Bush didn't have before 9/11, although they had all the facts they lacked imagination. So does Clinton.

When you think of all the poor management skills, lack thereof, of Hillary Clinton, you can imagine a White House with exactly the same 1) poor planning, 2) poor blend of staff choice team, 3) neglect of oversight and keeping a finger on the pulse, 4) inability to imagine disasters -- and to catch it when someone else might. Same kind of mess. posted 04/08/2008 at 02:08:00

What about a hypothetical vision for the future if Hillary is future president? Neglect would be her style: Neglect of teams which have in them poisonous individuals which bog down the whole works. Neglect when it comes to choosing people who have goals similar to hers (which hers? the public hers or the ...others? or somebody's who is running her?). Neglect of the work it takes to find -- and stay with -- one's own center, stay with someone you can trust and not give yourself over to someone who puts him/herself over as knowing what she should do (better than she can herself).
(I think Kerry did this; the woman who ran his campaign made terrible suggestions and he followed them; I could see from here that they weren't going to work, sent emails about it -- nothing changed.)

Above all have a sensitive ear to when things are not harmonious; do something about it if things get bogged down, self-defeating or tense. Don't let a toxic 'runaway' run away with the show. This Penn guy was quoted several times as foisting his 'managerial' title on anyone who didn't get it. A good manager is often someone who runs things by watching, nudging a bit to the right and to the left and doesn't lord it over everybody what his/her role is, doesn't pull rank.

(SEE PART II) posted 04/08/2008 at 02:07:13

My mistake. posted 04/07/2008 at 00:49:51

Shouldn't this be John Yu (not Yoo)? If we want to keep track of his whereabouts it would be important to spell his name correctly. posted 04/06/2008 at 19:06:20

These thoughts are exactly right.

The criticisms of speakers-out that they are not 'patriotic' are using that as a knee-jerk reaction, a defensive reaction to being criticised themselves. Elected officials who are thus criticised should not even blink; they should not allow themselves to be moved by such 'criticism'; their expressions of the truth, and making laws to reflect and balance that truth, are the only things they should be worried about. posted 04/06/2008 at 19:46:50

This is the Second Part of my post to MissT -- on responses to Cornel West's article complaining about Obama's being in Indianapolis (where RFK broke the news to the crowd about MLK's death and gave a memorable speech). (Cornel West's article which has disappeared from the HuffPost though the marriage of celebrities is still on it and so is a senator's husband's dalliance with a prostitute.)

I have sent Tavis Smiley an email congratulating him for his comments on BillMahrer (re)defining patriotism. Now I send part of what I wrote to West (in response to a brilliant MissT):

"I encountered MissT's comment just after I was thinking that Cornel West is mired in a certain old-time viewpoint and needs to get a longer, wider perspective, and then MissT said that she thinks he is suffering from SPS, Small Perspective Syndrome -- in his criticism of Obama for not attending a King ceremony in Memphis.

Why do Tavis Smiley and West stand on one foot and then another in their relationship to Obama?

[See my Second part next. I am not going to spend another hour trying to cut down my pearls to fit into this tiny space.] posted 04/06/2008 at 03:56:11

What total nonsense. posted 04/06/2008 at 03:25:11

MissT:
I was just browsing through the comments and Just before I came to yours I had been thinking: Cornel West and others are mired in some old views; they need to take several super-giant steps backward/outward (I see it as going upwards, up above the globe, being able to see the whole United States (and the world) at one time, including all of history and implications for the future). Then I ran across your statement: 'It seems to me that he [West] has succumbed to a certain disease that I like to call SPS (Small Picture Syndrome). I love it.

You say:

'I believe that Obama is the embodiment of a new paradigm. Some of us who have been active in the movement are behaving somewhat like a bureaucracy. In other words, self perpetuating.. '

I like so much your point of view. I have been perplexed at Tavis Smiley's and West's hopping back and forth from one foot to the other about Barack Obama. I agree with you that Obama's multi-cultural experience is far and away above Clinton's, West's and Smiley's. Once you live in another country you cannot see your own country in the narrow ways you once saw it. This vantage point is invaluable.
Please see the Second Part of this post to MissT. (It may have come first.) posted 04/06/2008 at 00:53:51

I had thought you were going to say the obvious: There are too many posters here who seem to think any criticism of Obama is prevented! So many people here complain that 'Obama gets away with Everything!' He is the one who has been pounded obliquely on the issue of race for the last two or three months. And the media takes and runs with the racist parts! And these people think that he 'gets away with everything'? Wha'? posted 04/06/2008 at 00:07:14

I've followed Cornel West for years, both with Tikkun and Tavis. I will share a thought I had when I was listening to him on the radio last night: I wanted to ask him, as a performance consultant and therapist, 'Try leaving off the posturing. Try dropping the fluff. Just be you.' I found I missed a good part of what he was saying, just due to the fluff. -- By which I mean: all the 'Brother this and Brother that', the compulsory chanting repetition of rhyming phrases (great in church, but wearing and eyes-glazing when used every single time he speaks on the media), (and another aspect which I can't remember right now).
I think West would be more effective if he decided he was all right by his own moral, sweet and smart self.

To underline a thought from the above NY Times comments person -- which I have not heard said but which I have thought many times: 'Obama has more maternal love in him than Hillary has in all her years.'
Mr. West, why not support this fact, and not give in to (jealousy?) purism, at the expense of not asking the person you are critcising what his reason was, and getting on the bandwagon with hypocrites.

As somebody said, 'Self-righteousness is a hard nut..' posted 04/05/2008 at 19:22:41

Two people's earlier comments suggested that Obama went to Indiana, where RFK gave his memorable speech -- after announcing to the crowd the death of Martin Luther King, in order to memorialize that moment. Indianapolis was the only city not to be trashed that night. That for Clinton and McCain to go to Memphis, the hypocrites (after all Hillary's racist bashing), was itself for political gain.

A writer in the NY Times describes that night:
Calm " and Hope " in Indianapolis
By Ron Klain
April 3, 2008, 7:26 pm
I was reminded and educated by all the thoufhtful comments to that article. One of them bears repeating here:

70.
April 4th,
2008
5:37 pm
...at 70 years old, I lived through those times as an adult and remember every moment of every hope, dream, and the death of that hope and dreams.
No one can fill the shoes of MLK or RFK; they were unique. We do not have one politician at this moment that can come close to filling their shoes.
We never will...
Hillary has made this campaign a slap in the face to the memory of these two men. Filled with hate, greed, ambition and lies....
Obama has more maternal love in him than Hillary has in all her years. You want love and hope? Obama has it. If the phone rings at 3 AM, I don"t want a hard headed, mean spirited person to answer it.
" Posted by gfaigen

See Part2 on Cornel West: posted 04/05/2008 at 19:16:40

Thanks Ursa and Stringer.

Mr. West, I hope you heard these two statements; they seem to make a lot of sense. Watch out, I would say, for purism -- in the place of (...what?) seeing deeper, asking questions, for instance, of the person you are criticising.

(I heard you twice, by the way, in Memphis, today, with Tavis -- on radio and TV; I found it hard to understand much of what you were saying. I have followed you for a long time, with Tikkun and Tavis; I am going out on a limb with this: I kept feeling I wished I could say to you: Leave off the posturing; give us You; without all the fluff.) posted 04/05/2008 at 07:48:12

THANK YOU for this very apt article. THANK YOU! posted 04/05/2008 at 07:31:12

I have been wondering about this silence for some time. You've expressed my question exactly. posted 04/05/2008 at 07:28:58

Obviously that should be 'good hearts'. posted 04/02/2008 at 05:36:13

PLEASE STOP assuming people with rude comments are Obama supporters! Why would Obama supporters, who, I have heard, tend to be people with good heats and are more educated than the general populace, diss Chelsea Clinton? They wouldn't! We wouldn't.

I have supported Chelsea on this subject for several days now. I think Obama supporters support her as much as Clinton supporters do. People who make assumptions should give concrete reasons, specific dats, to prove their points. Otherwise it is just a slur. And I, myself, will have to think you are from right wing circles. posted 04/02/2008 at 05:35:43

This woman has made a multitude of ugly statements about Obama on this thread. Can we assume she is a McCain supporter? Or, maybe, a Hillary supporter? Or what? It is ugly, and she is wrong on all counts, that is what is interesting. Not what she says. She is clear a plant. posted 04/02/2008 at 05:21:30

You should not call someone like this poster 'lefties' or Obama-supporters. You have no idea where this person is coming from. His comment is stupid. I have made several comments on this thread supporting Chelsea Clinton. (She should never be asked about her father's infidelities. The issue is irrelevant to his wife's candidacy. Chelsea is the offspring of that marriage and thus is SO unrelated to the issue. It is ill-mannered.)

I am an Obama-supporter.

I am also a 'lefty'. This type of anti-intellectual post is anathema to us. posted 04/02/2008 at 05:14:39

I especially like the first question.

As to Chelsea's being an adult, I have stood up for her on this question of her father's sex habit (which is irrelevant in the extreme to anything Chelsea is doing there) but I think she -- like Laura Bush -- should be and could be asked about the lies of anyone running for president and, in the case of Laura Bush, someone who is already president -- why do you support someone who lies? posted 03/31/2008 at 23:28:36

Re: the comment next to this one assuming anyone piling on is an Obama supporter. I doubt it.

I should have said, in my comment above that I am an Obama supporter.) posted 03/31/2008 at 23:24:19

Re: the comment next to this one assuming anyone piling on is an Obama supporter. I doubt it.

I should have said, in my comment above that I am an Obama supporter.) posted 03/31/2008 at 23:22:50

'Her Father's behavior and character is an issue and should be dealt with in an adult way.'

Chelsea Clinton's father is not running for president, her mother is. Neither Chelsea nor her mother had anything to do with Bill Clinton's habit of skirt-chasing. This issue has so many degrees of irrelevance to what Chelsea is doing there as to make the PEOPLE PILING ON HERE seem stupid and salacious in their motives. I would guess that the person(s) bringing it up again and again to a daughter -- in public -- must be looking to get their faces in the newspaper and for no other reason. posted 03/31/2008 at 23:21:33

Chelsea Clinton is not a politician, or a football player. She is a daughter. She is several steps removed from the Bill/Lewinsky scandal. It hurt Chelsea very much, as we have read, when it happened. Why open up someone's hurt -- especially when it has so many degrees of irrelevance to anything she is there to do. My guess is that the people who bring this up are anxious to get some degree of notoriety for themselves. posted 03/31/2008 at 22:56:14

(I agree with this.) But what does Btw mean? I have seen it before. It makes no sense as it stands. posted 03/31/2008 at 22:52:49

This 'matter' is so far away from anything relevant to Chelsea's mother running for president that I cannot understand your comment. Would you ask your neighbor's child, no matter how old, if her father had been caught having an affair and the scandal was all over the neighborhood, 'Does this discredit your MOTHER?' (I am behind; I can't see videos so didn't see this one; I am referring to the first time this happened.)

How possibly could a man's affair have anything to do with his wife's 'CREDIBILITY'?

And why would anyone ask the offspring of the couple ANY question about it? It is so far beyond bad manners: it is bad intellect. It just doesn't make sense, EXCEPT AS A WAY TO GET ONE'S OWN SLEAZY, IRRELEVANT, RATHER STUPID FACE INTO THE NEWSPAPER.

(I am not for Hillary.) posted 03/31/2008 at 22:49:29

Same for me. posted 03/31/2008 at 03:09:57

Nice to read some positive ideas. Keep it up. Thanks. posted 03/31/2008 at 03:08:18

Good calls! posted 03/31/2008 at 03:03:17

Good call. posted 03/31/2008 at 02:59:40

Don't let the 'perfect' be the enemy of the good.

So what if he stands to make money. Are you really saying that his ideas, and this initiative, are not worthwhile? If you are, say that. If not, who else is doing this? Let history judge the rest. posted 03/31/2008 at 02:58:08

Thank you. VERY much. posted 03/30/2008 at 21:26:12

Someone on this site reminded me today that right-wing radio stations have been exhorting listeners to vote for Hillary. They don't want Obama because he has a better chance to beat McCain. So they swell the votes. And the polls? Maybe. This idea should give the Dem leaders pause. What are they going to do about this phenomenon? posted 03/30/2008 at 21:22:54

Not my own church, but when the minister at my daughter's church said, during her and her husband-to-be's wedding rehearsal, 'Now I give you "Mr. and Mrs. (Bob Smith)"!' I jumped up and said, No! His saying this was the same as saying 'Now you will cease to exist as an individual.' -- It would have sent them off on their married lives on exactly the wrong assumption. -- He revised this during the actual ceremony, thank you very much. What gall.

And, no, of course you aren't a 'liar' or anything else bad, for not making sure to cross something when the minister made you promise to bring up your baby nephew to 'fear god'. What nonsense. Are they still doing this kind of thing all over these days?

And of course if a minister is not emotionally whole, or is uneducated as to how far race has come or if women should cease to exist if they get married or whether god is loving and accepting or not, someone may have other reasons to stay in a church: liking the company of their fellow parishioners, believing in the creed of the church as a larger whole. And one may be able to (I think 'should') challenge the minister (in private) on his or her narrow style or belief. (And if it doesn't work, you can challenge the minister in public.) posted 03/30/2008 at 21:08:01

Thanks, Nora Ephron, for such an honest and resonating ...blurt. It was good to read. And I knew that the comments after it would be worth reading because you bring out the smartness in people. And they are. posted 03/30/2008 at 17:53:03

Women don't want to go on Maher's show since he ranted and raved against women breast-feeding their babies 'in public', He can't stand to watch such a horrible spectacle. It would be sad to see women being complicit in that nonsense. posted 03/30/2008 at 17:49:03

"Remember, anything can happen between now and then..."

That sounds scary.

But I agree that everyone should have a chance to vote. As a Californian, who has too often voted after the nominee was already chosen (and then standing there -- Hunh?!) I support the next states rights to vote. But Hillary Clinton should stop her tearing apart tactics. posted 03/30/2008 at 17:39:39

Would you please tell me what ROLTFLMAO means? posted 03/30/2008 at 17:32:38

PS You are absolutely right about the Clinton supporters (and some of the placating media) saying that Obama takes the low road while Hillary flies above it but that it is exactly the opposite in fact. This is like George Bush saying the grass is red and watching as so many people believe him. posted 03/30/2008 at 17:31:11

To AuntSam and Everybody!
I have heard this, that right-wing talk stations are exhorting their listeners to vote for Hillary -- so that Obama will be booted out of the race. Those votes don't match the low numbers of people attending Hillary's rallies; compared to Obama's thousands. Superdelegates need to get this. New voters in upcoming primaries need to get this. All Democrats need to get it, that Hillary is not as popular, far from it, as her votes may seem to indicate. Hillary needs to get it, but her blindness so far implies that she can't and won't. This is only one reason -- her character structure -- that having her as president would be a great mistake.

My only thought is : what do the Democratic powers-that-be think of it and what are they trying to do about it? posted 03/30/2008 at 17:16:53

This sounds promising. I worry about the nay-sayers who posted the last posts. All with 'good reasons' why this will 'not work'. It is worth a try, certainly. And it will need as many supporters of it as possible for it to work.

I didn't read anything about 'What becomes of Iraq?' and 'How to Make Proper Reparations for Ruining This Country?" George McGovern and William Polk have a wonderful book ('Out of Iraq') which addresses these burning issues, which include ethically taking responsibility for the mess and recovering it. It is over a year old at this point so the ideas may have to be brought up to date. Its ethical approach I think will convince most Americans that it is a good idea; otherwise the voices for staying in Iraq find it far too easy to guilt-make about getting out quickly and people think we really should stay because it will be 'far worse' when troops go.

The fact that the ideas in the above article include 'addressing the root causes that led us into this mess' makes it seem grounded and whole. posted 03/31/2008 at 02:39:35

There are two things here: 1) Hillary's tearing/ripping-up comments about Barack Obama and 2) whether she has a right to continue or not. I do not resonate at all with Leahy's angry exhortation that she get out of the race. He could just as well have said, 'stop tearing up Obama personally and stick to the issues, (fool)'. A few weeks ago Gwen Ifill described Hillary as 'making nice while tearing his face off'. I liked that; it was a fact. (I saw a brief nice-making on her part -- attempt at getting together against McCain -- yesterday but it has or will have gone away soon I bet.)

I do not think she 'should' get out of the race. For one thing, as Tavis Smiley said tonight on Bill Mahrer, we Californians can empathize with the next states which have yet to vote; we were that for years, voting after the nominee was already chosen or polls still open when the 'winner' was announced in the east.

Let the states vote. Let all candidates campaign. (Including Edwards and Kucinich; Dennis Kucinich was forced to stay out of debates though he was a legitimate candidate -- this should be illegal. The other candidates should not have stood for it.)

I am hoping Obama will win the presidency -- Hillary has lost too much credibility with her lies and exaggerations of resume. But I think anybody who is running should have a right to run if they want to. posted 03/29/2008 at 06:49:31

Misspelling: Should be 'Jeremiah'. posted 03/27/2008 at 19:32:30

This article is well put.

And...I have an additional complaint. Where is any reference to Barack Obama's speech this morning (during the 6-7 o'clock hour) and why did MSNBC not only cut away from it before it was finished but began their next discussion with yet another bit of Jeremicah Wright's speeches? A brash young woman asserted, smiling, that 'this will stay with Barack Obama throughout the election'. It sounded like a promise.

After hearing that MSNBC promises to dog Obama with this kind of (or this actual) sound-bite drip(irrelevant since he dealt with this) I have the image of Obama trying to climb a snowy hill and someone rushing out from the side with a huge club and slamming it into his knees. Each time he gets up the same guy (or woman) slams his knees again and again. I guess that's why someone coined this process 'the Tonya Harding' ploy.

The despicable, irresponsible media coverage can actually cause an election to be decided in the way the owners of the station(s) want it to be decided. This is no longer reporting; it is making the news. Not only Hillary Clinton's disappointing lies, distortions and ad hominem attacks are disappointing, but media's skewed coverage is equally so.

Why would media moguls prefer Hillary Clinton as a Democratic candidate? Because John McCain will cream her. But Barack Obama has the potential to go the distance and become a new and scintillating, flowering, effective president for our country. posted 03/27/2008 at 19:31:12

Maybe. But why would the wife's 'credibility' be 'hurt' by her husband's affair? This question makes no sense.

(As much as I don't trust Hillary. At all.) posted 03/26/2008 at 02:40:46

Really, man, what is your problem? What is your problem also with Barack Obama?
What do you mean: He sold out his grandmother?
When a grandmother, or any other person, makes statements in front of a child which demean something about the child which the child can't change, this is child abuse. Child abuse should always be named. It sticks in the craw. It puts the child on a poorer path than they would otherwise be on. Racism abandons the child, fundamentally.
ESPECIALLY when it comes from a grandmother.
This kind of injury should be NAMED.

How could you protect someone who did that? posted 03/25/2008 at 18:26:03

The big, erroneous, criticism of universal health care is that it is 'socialized medicine', whatever that is. This phrase has been used to scare the pants off -- everyone. So nobody votes for it. Because it is 'socialized medicine'! Oh, scary. The AMA (Medical Association) has promoted this. Many medical doctors would actually prefer to work in a system; which supports them, and doesn't demand that they pay for so much insurance. They just want to earn a good living and do good. There are also doctors who just want to make money, and have little regard for patients -- most of us have met some of these creeps.

As it is, the corporate health care system is not working. Insurance doesn't pay for some things which are necessary. Insurance companies drop people for flimsy reasons, just when they need the most help. This wouldn't happen under a government-sponsored health system. Like in Britain, France, and other advanced countries. Our baby death rate is higher than a couple of dozen countries'. Preventive care is mostly absent here.

More to the point, Barack Obama is NOT promoting any real universal health care. I gather what he sugggests would just be better. Not good enough. posted 03/30/2008 at 21:44:32

MikeKev58, (I am only writing to you because you sound like a thoughtful person),
Hillary has shown herself to be an easy liar.The airport in Tuzla incident; no bullets, instead, flowers.
There are so many times she has lied and exaggerated about her history and her resume.

How could you not understand how much the American people don't need another liar? Bush is obvious when he lies; he also seems to have a speaker in his ear -- from the way he hesitates and stalls and then says something as if he has finally found (!) the answer! He also begins to speak -- when he lies -- as if he is protesting to his mother who has caught him doing something wrong; his voice shuffles, gets whiny and shlurry. It has been this way (compared to his voice in the beginning, much more sure, clear and authoritarian!) for some time now, almost all the time. Hillary's 'tells' when she is lying are: chin tilted up, voice ever so much cheerier, laughing when she tells it.' Serious, ponderous 'truth', as when she tells us she 'would never sit still if her paster were saying the things Obama's paster said'. That is more a propagandistic slur than a lie, perhaps. But when it comes to her own religious dalliances see Barbara Ehrenreich's latest article on the Huffington Post about that.

Don't you understand that if she can lie like this now she will lie as president to all of us? posted 03/30/2008 at 19:28:49

This is a right-wing misdirection. Obama has not said anything about socialism or promoted any socialist ideas. From listening to him closely I cannot imagine that this man would promote any socialist agenda if he became president. (In some cases, more's the pity.) posted 03/30/2008 at 18:27:11

Not to mention, Obama has shown no clues that he might be or become a socialist. posted 03/30/2008 at 18:13:16

Originally written to respond to a woman's comment who said: Whoopi should have explained Wrigiht's writings, not just left it to discuss the out-of-context comments CNN and Fox put on again and again. posted 03/25/2008 at 03:44:34

(I wrote this in response to a woman who said that she was perplexed that Whoopi didn't explain the context of Wright's sermons. But now I can't find her post.) posted 03/25/2008 at 03:34:40

This comment has not yet been posted posted 03/24/2008 at 20:57:00

Right. This comment should be printed again and again in response to the article. There are so many people who haven't gotten the truth. I would suggest that racism is indeed behind people leaping to judgement against a black man, and another black man -- such as CNN replaying ad nauseum the comments which are then attributed to Wright, not the ambassador. posted 03/24/2008 at 20:54:56

I sent an email to [a media-oriented radio show] recently when the interviewer did not comment at all on some wrong information and slant given on the war in Iraq; rather she smiled and welcomed the guy she interviewed and thanked him warmly -- all without putting into context the person's assertions, allowing her own opinion or asking challenging questions. I pointed out my views about neutrality in journalism:

There is no neutrality in journalism. Not expressing one's opinion openly still leaves the opinion generally reflected in one's choice of guests (on a show) or people to quote. When one doesn't ever express one's opinion the listeners or targets are left open to influence -- by slant and innuendo, and again by choices -- and this (not having an opinion to play off of or to provoke one's own thoughts) doesn't encourage listeners to make up their own minds.

As said, journalists who do not express their opinions about such a thing as starting the Iraq war -- due to a skewed idea of 'neutrality' are simply protecting themselves from disagreement, maybe from potentially being fired or not promoted. (Or in the case of editors, losing advertising.) In this way they are cowards. Neutrality is a dodge. Used to cover up cowardice.


From the above article:
"Pincus' primary concerns stand in contrast to those voiced by Washington Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie.


"In an interview published by the American Society of Newspaper Editors in 1998, Downie talked about his worry over reporters' political neutrality, reflecting his anxiety that journalists' political convictions might influence their reporting:


"I have not voted since becoming managing editor in 1984 because, as the final gatekeeper for all coverage in the Post, I DO NOT WANT TO MAKE UP MY OWN MIND even in the voting booth, about candidates or issues. I would be pleased if none of our political reporters or editors voted, but it would be unreasonable to ask for that (and I remain the final gatekeeper for all they do). We prohibit all staff members from engaging in any political activity except voting."

This quote betrays shocking ineptness. And mind-boggling double-messaging. Downie seems to be saying he wants his reporters NOT TO THINK.

An old professor friend who taught at SF State University told her classes at the start where she stood politically and told them that they had better hope their other teachers did the same thing, otherwise they were going to be (coerced, hypnotized, persuaded, mystified, etc.), by (the teachers') leaking opinions. When they knew whom they were dealing with, they were free to express disagreement and able to hone their own opinions (and she was fair about letting them do so, although she might argue with them).

In psychotherapy, there is also a myth about neutrality. When therapists put out that they are neutral (especially if they actually think they are neutral), they are crazy-making the client. They cannot be neutral. Their feelings about what the client said, and judgments, show on their faces and in their bodies. To deny strong feelings or judgments is to make the person crazy (iatrogenic mental illness).
posted 03/23/2008 at 09:03:08

I did go to read this. It is nice Anderson Cooper put this on his blog.

BUT there are several steps between this and what needs to be done. He needs to say it himself and he needs to say it as many times on CNN as he has put on out-of-context excerpts from Wright on CNN. posted 03/23/2008 at 01:43:58

this statement from Lissa Muscatine: "I was on the plane with then First Lady Hillary Clinton for the trip from Germany into Bosnia in 1996. We were put on a C17-- a plane capable of steep ascents and descents -- precisely because we were flying into what was considered a combat zone. We were issued flak jackets for the final leg because of possible sniper fire near Tuzla. As an additional precaution, the First Lady and Chelsea were moved to the armored cockpit for the descent into Tuzla. We were told that a welcoming ceremony on the tarmac might be canceled because of sniper fire in the hills surrounding the air strip. [XX] From Tuzla, Hillary flew to two outposts in Bosnia with gunships escorting her helicopter."'

In this statement from Lissa Muscatine, it seems she evades confronting the criticism of Hillary Clinton by simply jumping over the critical point, that Hillary and Chelsea were met at the airport by a child carrying flowers. No sniper fire. She jumps right over Tuzla completely, going to: "From Tuzla, Hillary flew to two outposts...."

She didn't deny it or deal with Hillary's 'misstatement', if there was one, at all. It seems she didn't lie, not at all. This has become the style of the Hillary campaign, as the writer says: Evade, withhold, divert, expand, exaggerate, minimize. More obfuscation.

It does seem as if she is going for the ignorant voters, or the ones who don't have time to keep up with this kind of trick. Other people have to develop super-screening antennae in order to sort the lies from the sincerity. And, really, this has become wearing. I am considering not voting for her under any circumstances -- Supreme Court nominees nothwithstanding. She just isn't credible; no one with such a willingness to tear down the basic need we all have to trust, with truth and reliability, one's leader, should be given a single vote. (And that includes McCain, whose unreliability takes a different form and style but has similar devastating consequences.) posted 03/23/2008 at 01:30:26

'this statement from Lissa Muscatine: "I was on the plane with then First Lady Hillary Clinton for the trip from Germany into Bosnia in 1996. We were put on a C17-- a plane capable of steep ascents and descents -- precisely because we were flying into what was considered a combat zone. We were issued flak jackets for the final leg because of possible sniper fire near Tuzla. As an additional precaution, the First Lady and Chelsea were moved to the armored cockpit for the descent into Tuzla. We were told that a welcoming ceremony on the tarmac might be canceled because of sniper fire in the hills surrounding the air strip." [Missing event.] "From Tuzla, Hillary flew to two outposts in Bosnia with gunships escorting her helicopter."'

In this statement from Lissa Muscatine, it seems she evades confronting the criticism of Hillary Clinton by simply jumping over the critical point, that Hillary and Chelsea were met at the airport by a child carrying flowers. No sniper fire. She jumps right over Tuzla completely, going to: "From Tuzla, Hillary flew to two outposts...."



Muscatine didn't deny it or deal with Hillary's 'misstatement', if there was one, at all. It seems she didn't lie, not at all. This has become the style of the Hillary campaign, as the writer says: Evade, withhold, divert, expand, exaggerate, minimize. More obfuscation.



It does seem as if she is going for the ignorant voters, or the ones who don't have time to keep up with this kind of trick. Other people have to develop super-screening antennae in order to sort the lies from the sincerity. (And, really, that has been wearing.) I am strongly considering not voting for her under any circumstances -- Supreme Court nominees nothwithstanding; I can't imagine voting FOR her. She just isn't credible; no one with such a willingness to tear up and tear down the basic need we all have to trust, with truth and reliability, one's leader, should not be given a single vote. (And that includes McCain, whose unreliability plays out differently, but to similarly devestating effect.) posted 03/23/2008 at 00:21:24

Good for Gergen and Bernstein. When the current CEO of CNN began his job he told Charlie Rose (who seemed bemused) that his new style on CNN would be 'three stories'. This by definition is no longer a 24-hour news program. Also, their putting on hate-filled ranters and giving them whole programs also discredits them.

I do agree with someone above (later) that CNN must surely have taken exception to protesters' having used CNN studios as a rallying point for their anti-war rally.

CNN, not covering the iraq war anymore is another discrediting fact. It seems to fit, doesn't it, exactly with the preferences of the Bush administration, what a coincidence.

Does anyone still watch CNN? Anderson Cooper's dour, self-referential, self-righteous 'reporting' and his complaining (was it?) that 'the story about the State Department's breach of Obama's passport would divert attention from the pastor story, which Wolf Blitzer describes as "a swirling controversy" ', is an example of a corrupt, skewed 'three-story' excuse for journalism.

posted 03/21/2008 at 07:22:51