panchovilla

Whatever.

Now, for an interesting, friendly, and *informed* critical comment on Obama's op ed in the NY Times, Juan Cole:

http://www.juancole.com/2008/07/obama-on-iraq-and-afghanistan-friendly.html posted 07/14/2008 at 22:22:09

Of course they broke up. She was fooling around with Matt Damon (and bragging about it publicly) and he with Ben Affleck. Those Hollywood people! posted 07/14/2008 at 17:54:54

McCain probably meant the Czech Republic, which does exist. It doesn't seem like a big deal to me. posted 07/14/2008 at 17:58:24

So, is Obama going to use this cartoon as an excuse to further triangulate himself into irrelevance? posted 07/13/2008 at 20:08:28

Brain farts are no laughing matter. LOL. posted 07/13/2008 at 22:25:27

So, are you saying then that the higher proportion of Black people (mostly men) in prison, the higher proportion of single parent families, etc. are mere individual failures? Are you saying that these phenomena are not related to much broader social conditions that Black people didn't choose, social conditions related to centuries of slavery, disenfranchisement, poverty, and discrimination? So, on top of all those calamities, to add insult to injury, Blacks are supposed to be patient with the hypocritical moral sermonizing thrown at them by politicians, entertainers, and racists who would rather not acknowledge that they have been -- and are -- part of the problem? Thanks but no thanks. posted 07/09/2008 at 21:45:07

Us -- us who post or read on the Huffington Post. posted 07/07/2008 at 14:12:02

Excellent. Appealing to the fence sitters is a losing strategy. Those people are cool and cannot even warm up themselves. On the other hand, those of us who opposed the war and demand universal health care are fired up. So much so that we're now taking Obama at his word, that this is all about us, and demanding that he stick to a progressive agenda. posted 07/03/2008 at 06:13:02

Maybe he will, maybe he won't. But that's beside the point. His argument is cogent. Obama, only make a political statement when said statement is an actual improvement upon silence. Oh, and lest I forget, read carefully Arianna Huffington's memo. A freebie. posted 07/01/2008 at 14:45:18

"Where was FEMA during Hurricane Katrina? Who helped the citizens first?"

Doesn't that suggest to you that the effective remedy is to fix FEMA, rather than weaken it by throwing religion into the mix?

Assistance to people in need shouldn't be charity, but an elementary duty -- solidarity and cooperation with fellow human beings affected by disasters and phenomena over which have little or no control. Primarily, our public agency, the government, should be charged with that responsibility. posted 07/01/2008 at 11:08:48

(3 of 3)

We don't want another Republican administration. But we want to do much better than just forgetting and forgiving the crimes and offenses they have committed at the public expense. If we do that, we only invite their repetition. That's political moral hazard of the worst kind. No. No. We want to advance on a new political basis. I admit that our choices are limited at this point. We may have to stick to Obama in November, even if he continues to waver and pander to those responsible for the sorry state of the nation. But he should consider himself warned. We can take so much crap only for so long. But we won't take all the crap all the time. Consequences will follow.

[Note: Clearly, I dare to speak for others -- many, I believe -- who think like me.] posted 07/01/2008 at 09:50:49

(2 of 3)

Naively perhaps, but I have so far interpreted Obama "post-partisanship" statements as indicative of his willingness to advance the public interest *even if* at the expense of special interests in his own (Democratic) party. However, if -- with further declarations and, more importantly, *actions* -- Obama portends to be above "partisanship" by appeasing, condoning, pardoning, or glossing over crimes and offenses committed by the Republicans in the last 8 years against the nation, then I will take that as a sign of the worst kind of partisanship, the partisanship that enables the abuse of the public interest for the sake of the private interests of the few. In other words, I'll take that as betrayal of the public. posted 07/01/2008 at 09:48:14

(1 of 3)

I expect Obama to commit himself to the steadfast defense of the interests of the people of the United States -- first and foremost, the interest of the majority, that is, middle-class and working Americans -- through all legal, legitimate, and moral political means. I voted for Obama in the primaries, because he seemed like the candidate that was more likely to make this commitment and deliver on it. And even though, in November I am most likely to vote for him (I will definitely *not* vote for McCain), I will take any deviation from the above as a betrayal of trust and, then, will act accordingly to the best of my ability. posted 07/01/2008 at 09:47:39

Yes! Thank you, Arianna. posted 06/30/2008 at 20:26:10

Gen. Clark could even up the ante a bit. Aside from what he pointed out (i.e. that McCain is untested in "the matters of national security policy making"), he could also say that McCain has shown to be temperamentally unfit to the task of leading the country. His temper and lack of psychological balance are not a good personal foundation in the grave matters of policy making that involve the lives of Americans. posted 06/30/2008 at 13:51:54

Our demons from early childhood are never too far from the surface of our behavior. Some times it seems to me that we are all a just couple of serious personal crises away from meltdown. Some of us are luckier, in some ways, than others. All we can and should do is keep fighting. The sheer fact that this obviously talented woman with so much stuff going on in her life decides to sing to celebrate a true freedom fighter like Nelson Mandela, almost regardless of her "true" motivations, makes me respect her more as a fellow human being. That's how partisan I am. posted 06/28/2008 at 12:23:27

This is a very interesting story, I guess.

Here's another one though: One hundred years ago, Salvador Allende was born. He went to become a physician, a social fighter, and the president of Chile, until in 1973 -- under a plan hatched by the U.S. (Nixon and Kissinger) -- he was overthrown by Augusto Pinochet.

Here's a video of Salvador Allende addressing a crowd, making it clear that he had no intention of becoming a martyr, but that he would do his best to implement the program that the people of Chile mandated:

http://www.radiomundial.com.ve/yvke/files/allende_final_136.flv posted 06/26/2008 at 13:14:51

Are there 350 million opinions about the success or failure of the occupation of Iraq? Are there 350 million opinions about the need of leaving Iraq or lack thereof? Are there 350 million opinions about whether or not the continuous occupation of Iraq is in the best interest of regular working-class and middle-class Americans? 350 million opinions about the need or lack thereof of universal health care? Really?!! Who needs to get a grip? posted 06/26/2008 at 21:11:16

It is understandable that, in the face of large obstacles (e.g. a Congress dominated by special interests), Obama would not alone be able to get us out of Iraq, implement universal health care, phase out the tax cuts for the rich, reduce the dependence of our economy on fossil fuels, and use fiscal policy and international leadership to create better economic conditions for working and middle-class Americans. We know that we need to remain active and engaged, and elect in other positions of power people aligned with this agenda.

The troubling thing is that Obama, when you scratch the rhetorical surface, seems uncommitted to that progressive agenda. He should take note though, and avoid misreading the evidence. He prevailed over Hillary Clinton because many of us who voted for him saw Clinton's support of Bush's decision to invade Iraq as a deal breaker. Obama has given us the impression that, opposed to the invasion from the start and critical of the occupation as he's been, he'd order the withdrawal with relatively few ifs or buts. I know that was a gamble and it will remain one until we see him take action -- or not.

If he doesn't deliver, many of us are going to turn against him. I will. What is the point of supporting a politician is he's not going to serve as an instrument to accomplish the goals of us citizens? We will keep getting self-serving politicians for as long as we enable them. posted 06/26/2008 at 15:39:00

Markets are smarter than human beings? Aren't markets just *people* buying and selling stuff? If markets are people relating to one another in a certain way, where do the extra wits come from? Heaven? What is it with this mysticism of markets? It reminds me of Indiana Jones' latest flick, in which the achievements of pre-Columbian civilizations in this continent are taken away from actual people and attributed to aliens. posted 06/26/2008 at 07:17:48

I hate to say it, but Nader is starting to look good. posted 06/23/2008 at 11:44:27

I care.

With a strong voter turnout, Obama will have a mandate to lead in ending the occupation of Iraq, implementing universal health care, and strengthening the position of the working and middle classes in the economy. He would have no excuse to simply be marginally better than McCain. From whom much is given, much is demanded.

I know he cannot do any of these changes alone. But he would not be alone. He'd have tremendous active support. That's why it would be unforgivable if he continued to pander and cave to the very special interests that brought us the mess we are in now and that, initially, opposed his candidacy. I find it troubling that Obama seems so eager to seek accommodation with the status quo. At this point, I still support him, but I'm watchful of him and of the Democrats as a political instrument to bring about change. I demand serious change. Down with lies and opportunism! posted 06/20/2008 at 07:40:51

Another strong argument for the U.S. to become a nudist camp. posted 06/12/2008 at 17:34:02

Webbs may not like to politicize the debate on the benefits for vets, but that's a political debate. There are those in favor of providing more benefits to veterans and those opposed to those benefits, because they prefer to provide benefits to special interests alone at the expense of everybody else. Simple as that. The latter tend to congregate in the Republican Party, although there's also a fair amount of them in the Democratic Party. So, this is an essential political issue. We progressives need to take over the Democratic Party, get rid of those who want to subordinate the Democratic Party to the interests of the few, at the same time as we fight the Republican Party and its regressive agenda. posted 06/11/2008 at 21:59:50

Thank you, Mis Couric. Well said. posted 06/11/2008 at 21:53:08

That's okay. Richard Mellon Scaife, the conservative mudslinger, used to be in that list and then the Clintons came around to like him. Nothing wrong with changing one's mind, although I'd hope that the Clinton's next change of mind is towards a more sincere, full embrace of party unity around Obama and -- more importantly -- around the progressive agenda: Out of Iraq, universal health care, reversing the tax cuts for the plutocrats, etc. posted 06/11/2008 at 10:23:38

I'm still hoping that he'll say that he'll be partnering with the antiwar movement to get the troops out of Iraq immediately. posted 06/09/2008 at 23:33:27

Right. If you make a movie about New York City circa 2008, you want to show rich East-Side white socialites watching the Symphonic and sipping white wine in Central Park, rich pampered whites shopping on Fifth Avenue or eating at trendy French restaurants. The Mexican washing the dishes, the Jamaican nanny taking care of the babies, the African American opening the door or carrying the bags, they are not real -- you know -- NYC people. posted 06/06/2008 at 22:28:11

Why don't you google her name and find out what she's done with her life, instead of presuming she's just a name?

If you did, you'd find that:

- she worked as an intern at the office of her uncle, Sen. Ted Kennedy,
- was a journalist for the NY Daily News,
- worked for the NY Metropolitan Museum of Art,
- became a lawyer (took and passed the bar exams both at New York and Washington),
- wrote or co-wrote books ("In Our Defense: The Bill of Rights In Action," "The Right to Privacy," and "A Family Christmas"),
- edited books (the New York Times best-sellers, "A Patriot"s Handbook," "The Best-Loved Poems of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis," "A Family of Poems: My Favorite Poetry for Children," and "Profiles in Courage for Our Time"),
- presides the Kennedy Library foundation,
- recently helped the NYC Board of Ed raise funds for public schools,
- directs the Commission on Presidential Debates and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund,
- is honorary chairman of the American Ballet Theatre, and
- is an adviser at the Harvard Institute of Politics.

And that's just the highlights.

What have you done lately, bish66? posted 06/04/2008 at 21:27:52

"The decision to remain abstinent is no less valid, or feminist, than the decision to have responsible, consensual sex - and abstinence in itself is an effective method of prevention against sexually transmitted infections and unwanted pregnancy."

Well, in the very long run, this approach leads to the death of the human race. posted 04/01/2008 at 18:13:05

Keith,

It should be "worser", "worser", and "worsEST" (not "worst").

You're welcome. posted 04/01/2008 at 17:37:29

To make it *better*. So? Where's the contradiction? Can't the greatest nation in the history of the world become even greater? Since when did we become perfect as a nation? Wouldn't it help if we could reform our foreign policy, bring the troops home, give ourselves decent, universal health care, and get the economy in some shape? posted 03/30/2008 at 18:14:48

America is about arguments? How about getting things done? Like, say, prepare for the presidential election with a candidate that has the united support of the party and a greater chance of defeating the Republicans. Nah, I guess that's not it. Bill wants to sink Obama and the Democrats this time (like Reagan did to Ford and the Republicans in 1976) so that in 4 years Hillary can go at it again against McCain (like Reagan did against Carter). Except that history doesn't repeat itself identically. Or if it repeats itself, then the first time it's drama and the second time it's comedy. posted 03/26/2008 at 17:18:38

I'm not surprised that Elisabeth can't grasp Whoopi's point. Maybe if she (and people who think like her) start by reading this, they may have a chance of seeing Whoopi's point:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/23/AR2008032301417.html posted 03/25/2008 at 20:24:06

And, if I were a superdelegate and Carville threatened me that way, then I'd have an extra little reason to switch to Obama. I admire the decision made by Richardson. That's -- I heard -- the direct product of Obama's speech on race. posted 03/22/2008 at 16:32:42

The problem is that -- if the history of this country in the 20th and 21st century is any guide, and it is! -- there's a very slippery slope that goes from heated (and, frankly, hypocritical, often times campaign-finance, lobby-dovy payola) denunciations by politicians to diplomatic pressure to commercial sanctions to threats to bombing to invasion, etc. No, no. This is the richest and most powerful country in history. And the way it's used its power hasn't shown to be very benevolent. So, we, the people, need to rein in our special interests and take away the design of foreign policy from them, because they have hijacked it and used it to advance their ends at the expense of regular Americans and the rest of the world.

We don't have the slightest moral authority to criticize the Chinese when we have such a high percentage of Black and Hispanic males incarcerated, we have Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, etc. And this is the short list. Golden rule applies. If Americans as individuals -- not invoking the power of their state, but as individuals -- are really adamant about saving the Tibetan, please go to Tibet, learn the relevant languages, help those people get organized, and deal with the Chinese government through the channels available to regular Tibetans and Chinese. Ultimately, if nothing else works, as individuals in Tibet/China, wage guerrilla warfare or whatever to overthrow the communists in China, if that suits you. But don't ask a state to back you up. You're on your own.

Regime change is hard. Look at us trying to evict the Bushies from the White House. How would you react if we asked the French (or the Chinese!) to help us get the Republicans out of power? American politicians must abstain of this type of grandstanding, because the implication is clear: our politicians speak from the position of somebody backed by the full power of the treasury and war-making might of the U.S. of A. posted 03/23/2008 at 00:26:05

Why does Nancy Pelosi (and you) believe that she (and you) can pull China's troops out of Tibet when she (and you?) have done nothing visible to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq?

This belief that it's up to Americans to change the political systems of other nations when/if we dislike them is a huge part of the problem that got this country where it currently is. Stop it. Change your own regime. posted 03/23/2008 at 00:04:37

I'm sure that put-down is going to go well among Latinos. posted 03/22/2008 at 11:05:14

Who are you? Why are you being divisive? Tell the truth, are you Rush Limbaugh? posted 03/23/2008 at 00:31:16

In politics, multinomial choices are forced into binary ones. You may want out of Iraq now, comprehensive foreign policy reform, single-payer universal health care, open borders, better overall working and living conditions for Americans, purple flowers in your garden, and chocolate ice cream, yet life narrows your effective choices to Hillary or Obama or McCain. Does that mean that the candidates left behind were zeros? Not really. Now or in the future, as we approach the convention, the endorsement by Edwards may prove decisive. In life and politics, little events can have disproportionately large effects. So, the fact that Richardson lost badly in the primaries doesn't mean that he lacked appealing traits as a candidate or that he had no political clout in a given state or region of the country, or among certain demographic groups (e.g. Hispanics). On the contrary, this guy is very influential among Hispanic voters, especially in the West, and Obama needs those Hispanic voters to come around. So it's a big win for Obama. posted 03/21/2008 at 15:36:43

No contradiction. As a superdelegate, Bill Richardson *is* going vote according to who he *represents* -- who he represents *now*, not who he represented back on 2/5/2008, when the New Mexico primary took place. As he says, Hillary won back then by a meager 1%. But that was then. Now is now. Richardson is reading well the shift in sentiments among Hispanic voters in New Mexico (and the rest of the country). Hispanics have been gradually, but steadily switching to Obama's side. How do I know this? Because I'm Hispanic myself and I shifted towards Obama recently. Although I'm not from New Mexico, I believe I have a bit of sense of how and why this is happening in New Mexico and other parts of the U.S. It's gutsy of Richardson to do this. And the right thing to do. posted 03/21/2008 at 15:26:36

Late? Hey, last time I checked, Obama hadn't yet clinched the nomination. Hillary was still campaigning. The "racial" brouhaha in the media -- using as an excuse a few of Rev. Wright's remarks and intending to arouse racist reactions among some white voters -- hadn't yet settled and could still cause hard-to-repair damage to Obama's campaign. Yet you dismiss Richardson's endorsement? Do you think that only those who were born Obamaniacs can make a difference? posted 03/21/2008 at 12:06:48