Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Hillary won

Yet the campaign has exposed Obama's glaring weakness among the working-class whites Democrats need to win the presidency.
"If I told you somebody was winning California, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey, Michigan and Florida and was not winning the nomination, you'd say something was wrong," said Democratic consultant Doug Schoen, who is unaligned in the race. "And something arguably is not right."
If Democrats had the same winner-take-all process that catapulted McCain toward the GOP nomination despite close victories in a fractured field, Clinton would have all but wrapped up the Democratic nomination on Feb. 5., when she took four of the six largest states, including California by a nine-point margin.
The Electoral College is a similar winner-take-all system that would seem to play to Clinton's strengths and prey on Obama's weaknesses.

That's from Carolyn Lochhead's San Francisco Chronicle article. Congratulations to Hillary. That's going to be pretty much it for me tonight. I made the mistake of surfing the web and stumbled across Tom Hayden's latest trash which I mentioned to C.I. who hit the roof. Ava and I are laughing so hard as C.I. ticks off Tom's various crimes (and they are pretty severe and, of course with Chicago's Days of Rage, they do include actual crimes).


Here's Howard Wolfson's "HUBdate: Election Day in Pennsylvania" (HillaryClinton.com):

Previewing Today: This morning, Hillary visits Pennsylvanians as they go to the polls. Tonight, Hillary will celebrate Election Day in Philadelphia, PA at the Park Hyatt Philadelphia."Who Do You Think Has What it Takes?" An ad released yesterday offers Hillary's closing argument to Pennsylvania: "It's the toughest job in the world. You need to be ready for anything -- especially now, with two wars, oil prices skyrocketing and an economy in crisis. Harry Truman said it best -- if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Who do you think has what it takes?" Watch here.Who is Hillary Clinton? From the Huffington Post: "If you want to know what Hillary believes in, what she stands for, and what’s in her heart, then look at what she’s been fighting for her whole life: she’s been fighting for people who need help... And Hillary's supporters are standing up for her, because they know she will stand up for them as President, as their advocate abroad and their champion at home. They are standing up for her, because they know she will work her heart out for them. And they know that, because that's what she's been doing her whole life." Read more.
If You Watch One Thing Today: Hillary tells Larry King, "I think it's important that we have an election that asks people who they would hire for the toughest job in the world." Watch here and here.
Madame President: "Joined by her husband and daughter,...Hillary...wrapped up her final Pennsylvania campaign push last night at a passionate rally at the packed and sweltering Palestra. [Hillary said:] 'This has been an extraordinary campaign, and it has been for all the right reasons,' Clinton told the audience...who frequently drowned her out by stomping on the old bleachers of the University of Pennsylvania's arena." Read more.
Hoosiers for Hillary: Across Indiana, Hillary supporters will participate in phone banks today to reach out to Pennsylvania voters during the final hours of the primary there.Oregon for Hillary: 20 prominent Oregonians have joined Hillary's state steering committee. These supporters know Hillary "understands Oregon's needs and who has the experience to work with our state to get things done," said Steering Committee Chair Josh Kardon. Read more.
On Tap: Tomorrow, Hillary returns to Indiana. She will make stops across the Hoosier state through Saturday, sharing her plans to jumpstart the economy, create jobs, and strengthen the middle class.

Hillary won. She won big. And she did it with at least a third less money. Watch Amy Goodman and other Human Trash spend all day tomorrow trying to rob Hillary of her victory.

Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Tuesday, April 22, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces more deaths, the VA gets sued, Patty Murray calls for a resignation, Condi Rice continues to fail at diplomacy and more.


Starting with war resistance. All who self-checkout of the military are not war resisters; however, in reporting on a husband and wife who self-checkedout and have now returned,
Rick Rogers (San Diego Union-Tribune) notes, "For a variety of reasons, at least 640 Marines based in California -- most of them from Camp Pendleton -- have landed in military court since June 2005 because they went AWOL, according to an analysis of Marine dockets by The San Diego Union-Tribune. Those records showed at least 30 AWOL proceedings in the past month." That is significant in and of itself (and Rogers notes that most do not end up in court so they aren't included in the public count). It's all the more significant when you grasp that the figures given to the public repeatedly have been of the US Army. Repeatedly the public has been told that this is just a problem for the army and that the marines don't have any problem with AWOLs or desertions.

Let's turn to known war resisters. The Canadian Parliament will debate a measure this month on that issue. You can make your voice heard. Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).

Last month Iraq Veterans Against the War's Winter Soldier took place -- you can stream online at Iraq Veterans Against the War, at War Comes Home, at KPFK, at the Pacifica Radio homepage and at KPFA, here for Friday, here for Saturday, here for Sunday. Aimee Allison (co-host of the station's The Morning Show and co-author with David Solnit of Army Of None) and Aaron Glantz were the anchors for Pacifica's live coverage. Today Allison and Glantz hosted a live report on KPFA about the trial where veterans are being represented by Gordon Erspamer in their lawsuit against the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Dropping back to yesterday's snapshot:


This morning Paul Elias (AP) reported on the lawsuit against the US Department of Veterans Affairs alleging that they were not "doing enough to prevent suicide and provide adequate medical care for the Americans who have served in the armed forces" -- a charge the government, naturally, denies. CBS News' Armen Keteyian reports (link has text and text and video to past reports) that despite the government's denials in court today of problems and a rise in suicide risks, an e-mail exists, written earlier this year by the Veterans Affairs' head of Mental Health, Dr. Iraq Katz, which states "Our suicide prevention coordinators are identifying about 1,000 suicide attempts per month among veterans we see in our medical facilities." Keteyian explains, "Katz's email was written shortly after the VA provided CBS News data showing there were only 790 attemped suicides in all 2007 -- a fraction of Katz's estimate" and that when US House Rep and chair of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs Bob Filner was shown Katz' e-mail by CBS, Filner stated, "This is disgraceful. This is a crime against our nation, our nation's veterans. They do not want to come to grips with reality, with the truth."


Allison and Glantz began the broadcast with some highlights from Winter Soldier and then began speaking with Gordon Erspamer who sketched out how few cases ever make it as far as this one has because the VA moves to dismiss. An 86-year-old Nixon appointee agreed to hear this case despite the VA's efforts to dismiss the case. The VA showed up with seven attorneys and a press flack. Glantz revealed that while Erspamer was making points, the flack was repeatedly whispering into the ear of the New York Times reporter assigned to cover the case. The VA was invited on the broadcast but they refused to send anyone, including their flack. The flack was played via a taped interview where, when asked about the fact that approximately 18 veterans are attempting suicide every day, she insisted "We care very, very much" while also saying that's only about 21% of the rate for the entire US. The most amusing moment in the first hour of the broadcast came from a reporter for a weekly explaining how important this was. That was all the funnier when testimony was played from Winter Soldier and he dubbed it "tragic." Tragic was his outlet's refusal to print a story on Winter Soldier. Why was he there? He said it was an important issue. The reality is that CBS is all over this story so everyone else is rushing to get onboard as well. The reality is that it's follow the leader as opposed to any bravery. The reality is it's an easier story to cover because it can be turned into "Oooooh" and clucking as opposed to something that really challenges.

Reality is also that pathetic job the Veterans Affairs Dept has done. They were happy to trot out their suicide prevention work on The Diane Rehm Show and others late last year. And one of their big things, their big improvements, was their new toll free number to provide assistance for veterans contemplating suicide! They didn't do crap. The number is 1-800-273-TALK (1-800-273-8255) and, guess what, that's the National Suicide Prevention Hot Line. That's the number that's always been in existance for ALL US citizens. The VA's total contribution to the crisis is that the National Suicide Prevention Hotline now allows you, at approximately 20 seconds into the automate message, to press "one" and identify yourself as a veteran. That's the sum total of what the VA has done -- they've hopped on board the National Suicide Prevention Hotline.

One person who is calling the Veterans Affairs Department out, Pia Malbran (CBS News) reports. is US Senator Patty Murray who is calling for the resignation of the VA's Dr. Ira Katz. Senator Murray released the following statement today:

"It is imperative that the individual responsible for providing top notch mental health services to our veterans be open and honest about the VA's needs.
"Doctor Katz's irresponsible actions have been a disservice to our veterans and it is time for him to go. The number one priority of the VA should be caring for our veterans, not covering up the truth.
"I have spoken with Secretary Peake and I have asked him to take immediate action to restore the faith of our veterans in the mental health care provided by the VA.
"The epidemic of veterans' suicide is horrifying but it should also be preventable. In order to ensure that it is, the VA must be honest about the numbers and the needs. It is time for the VA to own up to the true cost of the war and ensure our heroes aren't lost when they come home."




Turning to the 'diplomatic front,' US Secretary Condi Rice's trip to the Middle East has producded no photo-ops and no results. AFP reports: "Rice failed to clinch any firm Arab pledges on debt relief or diplomatic presence at talks in Bahrain earlier on Monday but took her campaign to Kuwait for a meeting Tuesday with Iraq, Arab states, Turkey, Iran and world powers. Speaking after a meeting in Bahrain with counterparts from six Gulf monarchies, Egypt, Jordan and Iraq, Rice said the talks covered relieving Iraq debt and sending ambassadors to the war-torn nation. But she did not report any decision on either score." Why has Rice's charm-assault failed so badly? It probably doesn't help you make your case when you rely on lies that the US press might bite their tongues but foreign governments have to reaspon to. Today in Kuwait, she included this following in her speech, "I would just note that violence in Iraq has decreased. Iraq's leaders have certainly made progress in passing legislation on the budget, provincial powers, de-Baathification reform, pensions and amnesty. They have significantly improved Iraq's budget execution and they are now allocating more of Iraq's own budget to build the infrastructure and provide the services that the Iraqi people expect from their elected government." Neighboring countries don't have oceans between themselves and Iraq, they are fully aware of what the puppet government in Baghdad hasn't done and probably find it insulting when Rice thinks she can spin them as if they were the press corps.. The de-de-Baathifciation (actual de-Baathification was started by Paul Bremer, overturning that would be de-de-Baathification) 'reform'? Nothing's happened on that. A laughable piece of legislation was passed, never implemented and considered by most, impossible to do so. "Provincial powers" translates as the issue of Kirkuk and Iraq's neighbors pay a lot closer attention to that struggle over who get claim to Kirkuk than the US does. The puppet-government sits on millions of dollars for reconstruction, none of which it is spending and neighboring countries are as aware of that as they are of the number of Iraqi refugees trying to enter their countries. Despite the fact that puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki became a worldwide joke for his attempts at 'commanding' the assault on Basra, Rice not only wanted to cite that as 'success,' she wanted to imply that those attending were too stupid to grasp that with remarks such as, "And here, I want just to underscore that we need to really understand what happened in Basra." Everyone understood what happened. Not content selling failure as a success, she then wanted to encourage Iraqi's neighbors to back failure, "This is something that the Iraqi Government needed to do, and we all need to support what has been done there." On the subject of Iraqi refugees her remarks were just insulting. The US government has not met their (tiny) stated goals for admitting Iraqi refugees and the Iraqi government has not paid neighboring countries any reasonable amount of money so the last thing Iraq's neighbors needed to hear was Rice babbling on about 'success' on that front and all the money Iraq is investing to aid its citizens.. In fact, on Monday, Tom Casey, US State Dept' spokesperson, was asked about the puppet government not spending the oil revenues on the Iraqi people ("they're investing in US treasuries") and the best that Casey could respond was to state he didn't have the information in front of him and then the standard talking point of how "Iraq is investing in its own people." Casey ignored the reference to January's GAO report. James Glanz (New York Times) reporting on that report at the start of this year noted the White House claimed in September 2007 (when asking for more war funding) that Iraq had increased their spending on infrastructure, "The Iraqi government had been severely criticized for failing to spend billions of dollars of its oil revenues in 2006 to finance its own reconstruction, but last September the administration said Iraq had greatly accelerated such spending. By July 2007, the administration said, Iraq had spent some 24 percent of $10 billion set aside for reconstruction that year. As Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, and Ryan C. Crocker, the American ambassador to Iraq, prepared in September to report to Congress on the state of the war, the economic figures were a rare sign of progress within Iraq's often dysfunctional government. But in its report on Tuesday, the accountability office said official Iraqi Finance Ministry records showed that Iraq had spent only 4.4 percent of the reconstruction budget by August 2007. It also said that the rate of spending had substantially slowed from the previous year." Despite that reality, Casey in the US and Rice in Kuwait, were eager to spin. Rice's most laughable claim -- in the midst of the continued assault on Sadr City -- may have been maintaining "that the Iraqi government is working now to establish the trust of all of its citizens". Earlier this month, US Senator Chuck Hagel asked US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker about the alleged diplomatic 'surge,' what they were doing and how Rice was not looking "Kissinger-esque." Nothing from her current trip abroad would suggest any reason to stop questioning those claims.



"At the southern entrance to Sadr City several Iraqi men on the US military's payroll are sweeping the street in the latest attempt to stop al-Mahdi Army militia from recruiting new fighters," explains Deborah Haynes (Times of London) of the realities in the Baghdad neighborhood loyal to Moqtada al-Sadr. Just to repeat "Iraqi men on the US military's payroll". That would be the turncoats who turned with coin was tossed at them. As US Senator Barbara Boxer noted in the April 8th US Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, "You are asking us for millions more to pay off the militias and, by the way, I have an article here that says Maliki recently told a London paper that he was concerned about half of them" out of doubts about their loyalty --- loyalty that the US pays $18 million a month, $182 milliion a year for.

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

Bombings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad bombing that left five people injured, a Baghdad car bombing claimed the lives of 2 Iraqi soldiers and left eighteen civilians and two soldiers wounded, a Baghdad bombing wounded two Iraqi police officers, a Baghdad mortar attack claimed 5 lives and left eight more people injured, a Ramadi truck bombing claimed the lives of 4 people and left twenty-one injured, a Kirkuk bombing wounded a PUK party member "and three of his guards," a Mosul car bombing claimed 1 life and left ten more injured, a Mosul roadside bombing wounded a father and his daughter and a Baquba bomber killed herself "near the police station of Jalawlaa" as well as 8 others ("including five policemen") while wounding seventeen more. AFP notes, "The attack was the second by a woman in as many days in Diyala". Reuters notes a Baghdad rocket attack that claimed 6 lives and left ten injured, ups the Mosul car bombing by 1 to two killed and the injured count to twenty. And CBS and AP note: "In Basra, a senior aide to Iraq's top Shiite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani died on Tuesday, a week after being seriously injured in an assassination attempt. Two other al-Sistani representatives were injured in separate ambushes. The attacks came just days after a top aide of al-Sadr was killed in Najaf, suggesting the violence could be part of an internal Shiite power struggle."

Shootings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports "an employee of Baghdad municipality" was shot dead in Baghdad, a Baghdad shooting left one Iraqi soldier wounded. Reuters reports today that "Gunmen wounded a reporter and cameramn from local television station Biladi and their driver on Monday in a drive-by shooting" in Baghdad.

Corpses?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 3 corpses were discovered in Baghdad.


Today the US military announced: "A Multi-National Force -- West Marine was killed by an improvised explosive device in Basra, Iraq, April 21. Additionally, one Marine was injured in the attack." On that death, AFP notes, "This is the first US military loss in Basra since Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki launched a crackdown against Shiite militiamen there on March 25." CBS and AP add: "AP Television News footage from Basra on Monday showed thick smoke rising from a military vehicle burning on a highway overpass." And the US military announced: "Two Multi-National Force -- West Marines were killed when a suicide vehicle-borne improvised explosive device detonated at an entry control point in the vicinity of Ramadi, Iraq, at approximately 7:30 a.m. April 22. The SVBIED attack wounded three other Marines. Two Iraqi Police and 24 local Iraqis were also wounded in the attack." The announced deaths bring to 4044 the number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war.

In other US military news, Ann Scott Tyson (Washington Post) reports in the increased used of moral waivers by the US army to meet recruiting goals, the increase of approximately 1/4 in the number now admitted under the waivers ("8,129 in fascal 2006 to 10,258 in fiscal 2007" for the army), "In particular, the Army accepted more than double the number of applicants with convictions for felony crimes such as burglary, grand larceny and aggravated assault, rising from 249 to 511, while the corresponding number for the Marines increased by two-thirds, from 208 to 350. The vast majority of such convictions stem from juvenile offenses. Most involved theft, but a handful involved sexual assault and terrorist threats, and there were three cases of involuntary manslaughter."

In US presidinatila campaign news, the state of Pennsylvania is voting today. Though John McCain is considered the GOP presidential nominee, the race continues for the Democratic nomination with US Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama the last two standing and tied in a dead heat. Fernando Suarez (CBS News) reports Hillary raised the obvious question about the media favorite Barack, if after outspending her (3 to 1 or 4 to 1) in Penn, he can't win the primary, the question on everyone's minds should be: "Why can't he close the deal?" Meanwhile CBS News' Maria Gavrilovic reports that Barack is upset that some question his patriotism and that he doesn't understand why they would? Being close to two members of the Weather Underground -- Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dorhn -- who declared war on the US and have refused to renounce their past acts of violence might be one reason. Another might be the online face of his campaign: Sam Graham-Felsen who is the Obama's campaign official blogger and who, less than a year prior to taking that post, was publishing in a periodical that explained: "The Socialist Workers Organization was formed to advance the revolutionary Marxist political program in the United States. . . . The capitalist ruling class of the United States exercises a virtual dictatorship not only over American society, but also over the entire world. This capitalist class rule is the basic cause of the poverty, wars, and the degradation of the natural environment." What was the vetting process in that hire? Is it a lack of judgement? Is Barack endorsing that point of view? What's going on there? Susan UnPC (No Quarter) previews how the Bambi Groupies will attempt to spin a Bambi loss. And the Clinton campaign released this statement:

The Obama campaign is attempting to pre-spin the results from tonight's Pennsylvania primary by suggesting that Sen. Clinton should -- and will -- win.
But after the Obama campaign's "go-for-broke" Pennsylvania strategy, after their avalanche of negative ads, negative mailers and negative attacks against Sen. Clinton, after their record-breaking spending in the state, a fundamental question must be asked: Why shouldn't Sen. Obama win?
Sen. Obama's supporters -- and many pundits -- have argued that the delegate "math" makes him the prohibitive frontrunner. They have argued that Sen. Clinton's chances are slim to none. So if he's already the frontrunner, if he's had six weeks of unlimited resources to get his message out, shouldn't he be the one expected to win tonight? If not, why not?
As the phrase goes, watch what they do not what they say.
There's a reason Sen. Obama and his campaign have ratcheted up their year-long assault on Sen. Clinton's character and ended the Pennsylvania campaign with a flurry of harsh negative attacks. It's because they know that a loss in Pennsylvania will raise troubling questions about his candidacy and his ability to take on John McCain in the general election. And it's because they know that the race is neck and neck and tonight's contest is a measure of where the campaign stands.
The reality is this: both candidates need a combination of pledged and super delegates to secure the nomination -- and either candidate can reach the required number. The press and the pundits have repeatedly counted Sen. Clinton out and she has repeatedly proved them wrong. The vote in the bellwether state of Pennsylvania is another head to head measure of the two candidates and of the coalition they will put together to compete and win in November.
No amount of spin from the Obama campaign will change that -- nor will it explain away anything less than a victory by Sen. Obama.






aaron glantz
mcclatchy newspapers
Posted by at

Monday, April 21, 2008

Carly

Many waters have run under the bridge since You're So Vain, and it was a little trepidation that I put This Kind Of Love on my player. How you sing in your 20’s is somewhat different to how you sing when 62. There is something awful in destroying memories, but, I was not let down by this CD. Indeed her voice has changed, but she has still maintained the essence that we loved in You're So Vain.
Track one, and the title track This Kind Of Love is a blending of old and new, while it has the Carly Simon DNA, it also has signs of a move toward a very different and fusion oriented style. I am not entirely sure that it was what I was expecting. Track two Hold Out Your Heart though is classic and consummate Carly Simon. This was what I was looking for. I fell in love with it on the first listen. And you can too, I have a streaming audio of the track.

That's from Simon Barrett's "CD Review: This Kind Of Love by Carly Simon" (Blogger News Network). If you missed it a pip-squeak at the Guardian of London recently suggested that a new book focusing on Smon, Carole King and Joni Mitchell made a mistake by including Simon who is not, according to him, in their league.

Yes, it was a man. Carly's miles ahead of Carole King who has done nothing but write fantasies. They were catchy ones, they were recorded by the Cookies, et al. They're not really art. Carole's always been about the product, about the charts. And when she could no longer pretend, she could no longer hit the charts.

But Carly Simon documented women's lives. There was no one like before and women like Tori Amos follow in her footsteps. Simon was grappling with the world around her and no one's melodies were ever stronger.

Carly and Joni are two different kinds of artist and there's no point in comparing and contrasting them. But only a Brit male could be so obtose as to mistake Carole King's pop songs (the majority of which she only provided the music to) as a document of women's lives. As she currently demonstrates in her old age, that long period of 'peace queen' was nothing but an act, a nod to the youngsters. A bid at staying on the charts. Carole's responsible for some extremely well crafted pop songs but "The Locomotion" did not change anyone's understanding (nor did "The Turkey Trot"). Prior to this decade, I would've made a case for Carole's artisty with a small "a" and I never could grasp why Rolling Stone (and others) were so hostile to her; however, she's demonstrated she's not an artist, just the song pitcher she always was trying to get the next Drifters' single.

Carole was as impersonal as the men. It was up to Carly to chart a young woman's life, to chart motherhood, to chart cancer, etc. Carly's songs stand up and, unlike Carole, Carly has an Academy Award in addition to Grammys for her work.

Most days, I don't make a point to rank on Carole but anyone claiming that Carole is up to Joni's standards is demented. Nor is she a better artist than Carly. The real test of an artist is whether they know who are. Carole's songs, year after year, demonstrate trickery and posing. There's no consistency to her work because she's not working from inside, she's trying to hop on whatever she feels will sale. I'm not merely talking about musically. In fact, I'm talking about her lyrics (when she does write them). She's not in Joni and Carly's league.

Here's Howard Wolfson's "HUBdate: Pennsylvania Primary Eve" (HillaryClinton.com):

Previewing Today in PA: Hillary hosts "Solutions for Pennsylvania" rallies in Scranton, Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, and Philadelphia. She is joined by former President Bill Clinton in Pittsburgh and later in Philadelphia.
"Answer:" In response to increasingly negative attacks from the Obama campaign, the Clinton campaign unveiled "Answer" a new 30-second TV spot: "There are more and more questions about Barack Obama. Instead of attacking, maybe he should answer them." Read more.
"A Few Last Words" for Pennsylvanians: In an op-ed in the Philadelphia Daily News, Hillary writes: "Traveling across this state today, I see that same Pennsylvania spirit my family instilled in me -- that wonderful combination of resilience, patriotism and optimism. A spirit that says anything is possible when we roll up our sleeves and get to work. That is the spirit I'm bringing to my campaign, and the spirit I will bring to my presidency." Read more.
"Almost Obscene Spending:" Gov. Rendell said yesterday the "the race has tightened because of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's 'almost obscene' spending.” Read more.
Details Matter: "ABC News' Eloise Harper reports: Sen. Hillary Clinton was fired up [yesterday] evening at her final stop…[Hillary said:] 'I think we have to…get beyond the generalities, get beyond the speeches, because when the cameras disappear and the lights are turned off you’re electing a president to solve problems, not to give speeches.'" Read more.
Praising McCain?: Sen. Obama suggested yesterday that Sen. McCain would be a better President than Bush. Hillary’s response: "Sen. McCain would follow the same failed policies that have been so wrong for our country the last seven years." Read more and more. Read Hillary’s full response here.
Grit to Lead: "Hillary Clinton supporter Kathleen Kennedy Townsend answered a few questions from The [South Bend] Tribune: ...We want somebody who's got the grit to get down in the details and solve problems. I want somebody who knows that we are in the worst economic times since the Great Depression, who understands what that requires, and who has a grasp on how to solve these problems." Read more.
Surrogates in the States: Ted Danson spent yesterday in Terre Haute, IN: "If I tell Hillary about a problem I’m having I’d better be ready for her to fix it." Read more... Sean Astin campaigns in the Tar Heel state today.
In Case You Missed It: "Electability: Why Hillary Is More Likely to Beat McCain" Read more.

I planned to post Isaiah's latest comic tonight; however, I've got an e-mail from Mike saying there's some problem with it displaying. I'll post it tomorrow after I see what's going on there.

Closing with C.I.'s very hard hitting "Iraq snapshot" for today:

Monday, April 21, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces more deaths, Robert Gates delivers an attention getting speech, Condi Rice goes through the motions, the US Veterans Affairs Dept did know about the increased suicide risks (and hid it), Panhandle Media skirts the law and risks their tax status, and more.

Starting with war resistance. Lou Michel (The Buffalo News) reported Sunday on US war resister Patrick Hart who is seeking safe harbor in Canada and explains, "This is home for me now. I love Canada. A lot of us have been here a few years and planted roots." Hart is an Iraq War veteran who was stationed in Iraq from 2003 (April) to 2004 (March) and who self-checked out and went to Canada in August of 2005. He, his wife Jill and their son Rian have made Canada their home. Michel notes that, "The Canadian House of Commons is expected to vote soon on a resolution that would allow him and the other deserters to seek residency there. It's considered a last resort -- a political solution -- because the Canadian courts have determined they lack the jurisdiction to rule on deserters' claims that the war in Iraq is illegal and make them eligible for asylum as refugees."

The Canadian Parliament will debate a measure this month on that issue. You can make your voice heard. Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).

Last month Iraq Veterans Against the War's Winter Soldier took place and KPFA has a live program coming up April 22nd: Live On Air and Online at kpfa.org!
April 22 from 10am-1pm Join us on April 22nd for this very important follow up to Pacifica's groundbreaking Winter Soldier live coverage. We will be following the San Francisco trial involving wounded vets and the Department of Veterans Affairs. In this first class action lawsuit U.S. Veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder sue the VA, alleging a system wide breakdown in the way the Government treats those soldiers.During this special broadcast we will be bringing our listeners live updates from the San Francisco federal courthouse, we'll speak with wounded Veterans attorney Gordon Erspamer, (taking this case pro bono because his father was permanently disabled in World War II and never received proper health care) and speak with Veterans advocates including Veterans for Common Sense, and Vets for America.Read more about the broadcast here.

That announcement will appear in the snapshots until the broadcast. If you missed Winter Soldier you can stream online at Iraq Veterans Against the War, at War Comes Home, at KPFK, at the Pacifica Radio homepage and at KPFA, here for Friday, here for Saturday, here for Sunday. Aimee Allison (co-host of the station's The Morning Show and co-author with David Solnit of Army Of None) and Aaron Glantz were the anchors for Pacifica's live coverage.


Today William Branigin (Washington Post) reports, "Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates chided the U.S. armed forces today for not providing enough intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance help to troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, saying it has been 'like pulling teeth' to get the services to change old habits." Gates was speaking at Maxwell-Gunter Air Force Base in Montgomery, Alabama and he opened with memories that drew (intentional) laughter -- four times at the start of his speech. Getting more serious, Gates began pushing counter-insurgency: "Furthermore, the counterinsurgency manual issued by the Army and Marines is over 200 pages long and yet only four pages are dedicated to air, space and cyberspace. Not long ago, the Air Force published a doctrine document on irregular warfare, but as future leaders of air power, you should consider whether there is more the service might do to articulate and codify the unique role of air power in instability operations." He pushed predators and other "unmanned systems" (they "cost much less and offer greater loiter times") which is only surprising if you missed the hard sell done by the military last week (Thursday) in the US House Armed Service Committee's Strategic Forces Subcommittee when THAAD was being pushed hard. If you caught that hearing, you know drones are being pushed hard by the military which is being creative with the funding aspect. Mark Thompson (Time magazine) observes, "Gate's comments richoeted at supersonic speed around the Pentagon and across broader defense networks, as officers -- and contracters -- tried to parse their implications. His bottom line: The Air Force ought to be less concerned with buying more $350 million F-22 fighters for use in future wars that may never happen, and do more to deliver what is needed to fight the wars currently underway 'while their outcome may still be in doubt'." Of course the pitch may have been undercut by the fact that a US drone crashed today in Musayyib. Gates also took a swipe at the intelligence communtiy noting that "the intelligence community has wrestled with this over the years and, I would say, mostly unsuccessfully. And one example is the role of the national intelligence officer for warning. Now, this is supposed to be the out-of-the-box thinker who spots the threat coming down the road that nobody else can spot. But since most of the time, most threats don't materialize, eventually that person gets sidelined, and they don't play a constructive role." Okay, who's job was national security on 9-11? Condi Rice. Her title was National Security Advisor. Today she's the US Secretary of State and she just finished a for show trip to Iraq.

Staging three press events there yesterday, she conveyed that the State Dept had accomplished nothing with her recent visit, that 'progress' in Iraq is not a foward motion and that a for-show trips needs to provide something you can show. The trip was a failure on all fronts and did not respond to US Senator Chuck Hagel's critique of Rice's performance on the job being far from "Kissenger-esque." Rice went through the usual song and dance: she promised $100 million in reconstruction aid to Basra and another $100 million to Sadr City. She got the administration's talking point across by calling Moqtada al-Sadr a "coward" and that may have been her sole 'sucess' from the White House's viewpoint. Directly questioned about the reconstruction aid and the 'progress' she babbled unconvincinly about how "there have been problems" which requires she either spell them out (implying to everyone that now the aministration has learned a lesson) or that she turn the issue around. She did neither. From all three press events, the only thing she had to show was that she had reviewed "election plans" for the fall elections. Yes, that 'work' could have been done in the US. It was a very large embarrassment for Rice and, most of all, she failed to convey appreciation for those in the State Dept working in Iraq. As head of the State Dept doing that was her cheif responsibility -- at any time, but especially when State Dept staff is balking at being stationed in Iraq and there are threats that they will be assigned there regardless. Her trips was a disaster.

Following Gates speech today, he took questions and one was about the New York Times' report Sunday "about the number of retired senior officers who are commentators but who also serve on boards for companies that are profiting from the war. Sir, what do you think about all these senior officers who are now retired influencing public opinion about the Department of Defense and the war effort?" Gates tried to merge the issue with the issue of political campaigns referring to retired generals ("these guys") who are "eithering up for different candidates or as media experts and so on". Gates stated, "I did read the article, and frankly, I think that -- I couldn't quite tell how much of it was an implied political conflict of interest, an implied finanical conflict of interest or what." He did allow "I think that the one service they owe everybody is making clear that they're speaking only for themselves."

Sunday's front page article was written by David Barstow and he noted:

Hidden behind that appearance of objectivy, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration's wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found. The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynmaic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to asses on air.

No, Gates really didn't answer the question.

Saturday and Sunday saw at least 80 reported deaths of Iraqis. In some of today's reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports three Baghdad bombings that wounded three people, a Baghdad roadside bombing that claimed 1 life and left five more people wounded, a Baghdad mortar attack that wounded two people and a Baquba bombing where a woman killed herself outside "one of the popular committees headquarters at Mafraq in Baquba" and took the lives of 3 other people as well as leaving four more wounded. Reuters notes a Mosul roadside bombing that left two police officers injured and a Kirkuk roadside bombing that claimed the life of 1 police officer and left four more injured.

Shootings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports armed clashes in Baghdad that claimed the lives of 6 people and left five wounded. Reuters notes 1 man shot dead in Basra.

Corpses?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 4 corpses were discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes Sadr City hospitals stated today that they had taken in 14 corpses and fifty-six injured people in the last 24 hours.


Today the US military announced: "Two Multi-National Division -- North Soldiers were killed when an improvised explosived device detonated during operations in the Salah and Din Province April 21. Two Soldiers were also wounded in the attack, as well as two Sons of Iraq members and a civilian interpreter. The wounded were transported to a Coalition force medical facility for treatment." The announcement brings to 4041 the total number of US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war.

This morning Paul Elias (AP) reported on the lawsuit against the US Department of Veterans Affairs alleging that they were not "doing enough to prevent suicide and provide adequate medical care for the Americans who have served in the armed forces" -- a charge the government, naturally, denies. CBS News' Armen Keteyian reports (link has text and text and video to past reports) that despite the government's denials in court today of problems and a rise in suicide risks, an e-mail exists, written earlier this year by the Veterans Affairs' head of Mental Health, Dr. Iraq Katz, which states "Our suicide prevention coordinators are identifying about 1,000 suicide attempts per month among veterans we see in our medical facilities." Keteyian explains, "Katz's email was written shortly after the VA provided CBS News data showing there were only 790 attemped suicides in all 2007 -- a fraction of Katz's estimate" and that when US House Rep and chair of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs Bob Filner was shown Katz' e-mail by CBS, Filner stated, "This is disgraceful. This is a crime against our nation, our nation's veterans. They do not want to come to grips with reality, with the truth."


Turning to the cesspool that is Panhandle Media. On Thursday, after screaming like a holler monkey in a conference call, David Corn felt the need to put his ignorance into print: "When it came time for questions for Wolfson, I asked an obvious one: Did Hillary Clinton believe that it had been appropriate in 2001 for President Bill Clinton to have pardoned two members of the Weather Underground as he left office?" David Corn is an idiot and if Mother Jones is going to treat a community member like crap, we're not going to be nice. David Corn is acting very imbalanced and very non-professional. Possibly the guilt over Gary Webb's suicide is finally taking hold because David Corn's laughable 'journalism' is responsible for ending the career of Gary Webb. Were it not for people like David Corn, people who repeated spin from the CIA as fact, people who never corrected the record while Webb was alive, Gary Webb wouldn't have been destroyed. For many people, David Corn has blood on his hands. And maybe the guilt's finally kicking in and that's why he's behaving in such an irrational manner?

Or maybe he's just bound and determined to be a hack? Mother Jones apparently doesn't care about corrections. Several community members e-mailed the magazine using their generic contact form last week to give them a heads up about Corn's HUGE ERROR. As of Monday afternoon, they still haven't corrected it. A community member called them today and his e-mail's been read to me. All I can tell you is that Panhandle Media is so totally incompetent, refuses to take responsibility and so unprofessional that they could never work in the real world of journalism. The member's a tax attorney and says they are in violation of the tax status.

Yes, they are. So is KPFA, so is Democracy Now!, so is The Progressive. It's a point Ava and I have been making repeatedly this year. Because they can't make money on what they do, they form, in effect, a shelter through which their 'news' is conveyed. For most, that's a 501 (c) (3). They are forbidden from endorsing candidates. Endorsement does not just mean that they cannot say "I endorse . . ." It also means that they cannot have the cumaltive coverage read as endorsement. At The Progressive, Ruth Conniff, the closest to sympathetic (forget supportive) of Hillary Clinton's campaign rendered a one-word judgement when Hillary won New Hampshire: "Yuck." It is not only smart in a two-person race for an outlet to have people favorably covering both candidates (it increases your likely audience), it is needed to avoid losing your tax status. Equally true is that Cynthia McKinney's run has been ignored and Matthew Rothschild has dismissed Ralph Nader's run. There is no way the magazine can argue that their coverage has not been an endorsement of Obama. Their tax status could be pulled instantly. Now KPFA could lose their license over the entire coverage but especially over the Larry Bensky hosted two hour post-debate coverage which featured only Barack Obama supporters. Not only did it feature those people who had already publicly endorsed Obama, Benksy didn't disclose that fact to the listening audience. KPFA not only has a tax status, it has a broadcasting license and it receives government money. The little stunt Bensky pulled, the little slanted one-sided echo chamber could get KPFA knocked off the air.

They cannot do an echo chamber and maintain their tax free status while pretending they are not endorsing a candidate. Their coverage is slanted and it's outrageous. Churches are in trouble right now for allowing one candidate to speak. By the same token, sticking with KPFA, inviting on only Obama supporters -- people who have publicly endorsed Obama -- to dissect a debate is an endorsement. It's an echo chamber and it's an endorsement. Regardless of whom gets the Democratic nomination, people should be paying attention and, yes, they could file complaints with the federal government.

They can't do this on your tax dollar. They cannot enlist in a campaign. But that's exactly what the coverage has been. It's why Amy Goodman's in trouble with NPR stations currently because, leaving her tax stastus aside, her decision to bring on Barack supporters and people with his campaign and not identify them as such to the audience is in complete violation of NPR's guidelines for programming. If someone has a conflict of interest -- and Melissa Harris-Lacewell being part of the Obama campaign is a conflict of interest -- Amy Goodman's required to disclose it on air. She didn't do that. Now the second time when she wanted to attack Gloria Steinem (when she plotted with Melissa on that), she did reveal. But she failed to do so when she had Melissa on as an "objective" commentator who just happened to catch a speech by Barack and was wowed by it.

Amy Goodman's also in trouble for allowing John Nichols to smear a governor of a state. Goodman made no effort to get a comment from the governor (a Democrat, by the way) but allowed Nichols to repeat whispers about her. That's not journalism. Nothing that Panhandle Media has produced in this election cycle (which they began in 2006) passes for journalism.

In Mother Jones case, just last week you had idiot Justy posting again about Hillary's prayer group. Forget that the story has been ridiculed by the real press, the fact remains that Barack participates in the same activities. But Mother Jones doesn't tell you that and wants to pretend that they are somehow doing journalism? They're not doing journalism. They're endorsing a candidate. They are non-stop smearing one candidate to advance another and, yes, that is an endorsement and, yes, they can lose their tax status.

If they or any other outlet loses that tax status, the government doesn't say, "We're pulling it, nah-nah." They have to pay fines, they've been operating in violation of their tax status. For Mother Jones that would mean losing their mailing status and having to pay back monies from when they first went into the tank for one campaign. Some may wrongly equate what they're doing with what Rush Limbaugh does on a daily basis. Rush Limbaugh is a for-profit radio program. He's not taking a tax shelter. He does hideous work but he does it for-profit. The left rushed to the non-profit status thinking that would save it and it really hasn't. But if they're going to grab that status, if they're going to get those tax breaks, then they need to follow the rules and they are not in compliance.

Again, Ava and I have tried to kindly issue those warnings but if this is the step people want to pursue, have at it. Complain to the IRS. They are in violation, they should have to pay fines, they should lose their status, all of them. They're disgusting. They can't turn a profit so they hop on board that tax status that requires all Americans pay for their crap and yet they don't want to follow the basic rules. You can't have it both ways. You can't get your tax ememptions and not follow the guidelins required for that exemption. In fact, as late as May 2006, Matthew Rothschild was explaining the tax status to readers of The Progressive on the letters' page. It's a real shame he forgot it. But, no, they don't deserve that tax status. If they want the freedom that comes with a for-profit magazine, then they have to ditch their tax status. If they want to mainatin the tax status, they have to cover both. (Peggy Simpons' WMC article last week does not take sides and WMC has posted pro-Hillary and pro-Barack stories. Equally true, they have reported stories that just reported what happened.)

Here's what David Corn -- who needs to have that wart removed from his face -- wrote in his infamous blog post:

Wolfson went on to accuse the Obama campaign of trying to conflate the pardons and the Ayers issues. And indeed it is. The Obama campaign did disseminate email about the Weather Underground radicals pardoned by Bill Clinton. Wolfson then maintained the critical difference here is that Ayers had been a "key supporter" of Obama.

Guess what David Corn, it's not your job to repeat Obama campaign spin. THERE WERE NO PARDONS. You got caught doing the Obama campaign's job for them. You are not a journalist, you gave up the right to call yourself that when you refused to check out claims by the Obama campaign and instead ran with them. You embarrased yourself in that Thursday media conference call bellowing about the pardons -- the pardons THAT NEVER TOOK PLACE. You then shamed yourself further by taking to the MoJo blog to brag about yourself and what a great job you did. You did a s**t poor job because you're supposed to be a journalist. Your open hostility towards the Clinton campaign, your admission that you are using talking points furnished by the Obama campaign and your body of work -- such as it is -- are in complete violation of Mother Jones' tax status.

There were NO PARDONS. As Ava and I explained on Sunday:

Despite Professor Patti Williams public orgasms over Barack's legal 'knowledge,' we've long noted the man's an idiot who can't even grasp what "verus" in the title of a court case means. We have no idea how he ended up president of the Harvard Law Review (not much of a credit in our eyes) but it was due to something other than a grasp of the law. So we'll assume that he wasn't trying to lie, he just truly doesn't know (idiot) whether Clinton pardoned or commuted the sentences of Linda Evans and Susan Rosenberg. He commuted them. They were not pardoned. We pointed that out Thursday morning. Sadly, it required pointing out again Thursday night. No pardons took place. But if you need a better example of the bias the press has in favor of Obama and against Clinton, you need look no further. Barack declared that Bill Clinton "pardoned or commuted" and the press ran with what? Pardoned. Given the choice to run with either, they went for the one that painted the Clintons badly and excused Barack's friendship with a domestic terrorist.That tells you a lot. What a journalist actually does -- a real one -- is examine that charge, research it. In doing so, it would have been obvious that the two women had their sentences commuted, not that they were pardoned. But why bother to actually do your job when it's so much easier to repeat a lie -- one that benefits Barack and one that his campaign repeated on Thursday and as late as Friday. Barack's campaign is lying, there was no pardon.


It does tell you exactly about the bias in favor of Obama. His campaign makes a claim and the press runs with it as fact, never bothering to check it out. And no one looked like a bigger idiot than David Corn, disgracing himself on that media conference call as he yelled and screamed about pardons that never took place.

Turning to the Democratic race for the presidential nomination, Liz Sidoti (AP) reports on the losing campaign of Barack Obama who yesterday gave any undecideds a reason to vote for the GOP's John McCain:Democrat Barack Obama, who often argues that John McCain is the same as President Bush, said Sunday that the Republican presidential candidate would be an improvement over Bush's eight-year reign."You have a real choice in this election. Either Democrat would be better than John McCain. And all three of us would be better than George Bush," Obama said.A sure sign of the ineffective campaign he'd run if he got the nomination. He lacks experience, maturity and, as he demonstrates above, common sense. I could see him doing like Jared Ball in the Green Party debate, stopping mid-debate with John McCain to announce he was dropping out. (Ball announced it and that he was supporting Cynthia McKinney.) Here's "Hillary Clinton Responds to Sen. Obama's Suggestion that Sen. McCain Would be a Better President than George Bush:"Hillary Clinton responded today to a statement made by Sen. Obama suggestion that Sen. McCain would be a better President than George W. Bush.In Reading, PA, Sen. Obama's said: "You have a real choice in this election. Either Democrat would be better than John McCain...And all three of us would be better than George Bush." Read more. Hillary Clinton's response from Johnstown, PA (For an actuality of the audio, click here):"Sen. Obama said today that John McCain would be better for the country than George Bush. Now, Sen. McCain is a real American patriot who has served our country with distinction, but Sen. McCain would follow the same failed policies that have been so wrong for our country the last seven years."Sen. McCain thinks it is okay to keep our troops in Iraq for the next 100 years. Is that better than George Bush?Audience: No!"Sen. McCain will continue the failed economic policies of George Bush that have brought us deficit and increasing debt. Is that better than George Bush?Audience: No!"Sen. McCain does not have a health care plan that will cover every American. In fact, we will have more and more uninsured Americans. Is that better than George Bush?Audience: No!"Sen. McCain has no plans to end the housing foreclosure crisis or cut the cost of gas at the pump. Is that better than George Bush?Audience: No!"We need a nominee who will take on John McCain, not cheer on John McCain, and I will be that nominee."







aaron glantz
mcclatchy newspapers

Posted by at

Saturday, April 19, 2008

The roundtable

Rebecca: I'm Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude and tonight we've got a roundtable. Participating are Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review, Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills), Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz, Ruth of Ruth's Report, Marcia SICKOFITRDLZ, Trina of Trina's Kitchen and The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona and Ava. The Third Estate Sunday Review also includes Jim, Jess and Ty. They aren't participating but in case they're mentioned, FYI. For the same reason, Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Mike of Mikey Likes It! and Wally of The Daily Jot are being noted now. In case they are mentioned. C.I. and Ava are responsible for typing this and we can knock out those links right at the start and not require them later on. This is a rush transcript. We're going to be talking about a number of topics including the prospective presidents, Iraq and more.I actually did some planning ahead of time. I have questions from e-mails that we'll hopefully get to. In addition, in honor of Tuesday night's debate we have two hot seats. Everyone was informed of that ahead of time and asked to vote. The 'winners'? Elaine and C.I. As moderator, I wasn't eligible. So I will periodically go to them, or that's the plan. Betty's participating by phone and I think that gets all the background out of the way. First hot seat moment. I have a number of readers at my site who hate my guts and enjoy e-mailing me to tell me just how much they hate me. Yes, they are all men. And I generally ignore them but I e-mailed them to inform them of this debate. TrickRick self-describes as a White male, 23 y.o., Republican. He states, "We" meaning the GOP "will wipe the floor with BO" Barack Obama "but the only reason you're for Hillary is because she's a woman. My question is are you ready to lose?"

Elaine: C.I. is pointing to me. If I was just supporting Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary today because she was a woman, I would've voted for her in my state primary. I didn't. I voted Super Tuesday for Mike Gravel due to his past work regarding the Pentagon Papers and ending the draft. Best of luck to him in his new party but it's not a left party and I won't be supporting him in the general election. The non-stop attacks on Hillary Clinton bothered me. I had made the decision, weeks ahead of time, that Mike Gravel stood up in the past and, if nothing else, my vote said, "Thank you. It was appreciated." I've called out Hillary Clinton at my site before for any number of things. I suffer no illusions that she's perfect. I also know she's not the anti-Christ. I also know that there are standards and they weren't applied. I also know what blatant sexism is and am happy to list the 'left' participating in that. It would include "There's no such thing as global warming!" crackpot Alexander Cockburn, the pathetic Matthew Rothschild who thought a word that rhymes with "runt" was apparently delightful, the insane Robert Parry who claims to be a journalist but thinks he can resort to some form of spousal tea leaf reading to peer into Hillary's soul and see things with no backing, David Corn who will let no fact interfere with his need to rip apart Hillary, the twin punks Ari of the Nation who think the thing for a 'left' magazine to do is repeat false charges from the 90s that the right-wing started . . . It's a very long list and along with these evil and overt sexist, you need to include the bystanders. The ones who sat on the sidelines and did nothing. Include Ms. magazine on that list and the laughable lie that they can't cover a race because it would hurt their tax status. I don't know which is worse, that lie or that they hired a homphobe.Donna Brazile's little public snit fit against gays and lesbians means her ass needs to be fired. Let me be clear, Ms. wasn't saved repeatedly so that it could be this -- on the sidelines or publishing a homophobe. Dona Brazile needs to be fired. And a number of us who have given big money have decided next time Ms. is in trouble, tough s**t. We didn't support that magazine, we didn't donate all that money, so that they could ignore women running for president. But that's what they've done, that's what they're doing. And don't even get me started on Bill Moyers. Ava and C.I. have documented how he has refused to explore sexism but every other damn week it's time for him to wallow in his own White guilt and pretend to explore racism. I blame the ones on the sidelines. I'm not standing on the sidelines. I'm for Hillary and I can give you a hundred reasons and, trust me, the fact that she's a woman doesn't even enter into it for my support. The fact that she is a woman and that Ms. won't explore her candidacy does piss me off. But my support for her is not predicated on her historical run. I was able to note that history being made and not support her earlier. I was able then, as a non-supporter, to do that. Some may support her because she's a woman and if so more power to them. Candidates have been selected for far less worthy reasons.

Rebecca: C.I.?

C.I.: Well I could repeat what Elaine just said or I could expand on it and since she did such a wonderful job, I'll expand on it. Elaine and I honestly planned to sit this out. Electoral politics wasn't anything we were interested in writing about. We assumed that Hillary would rise or fail on her own. We assumed there would be some level of fairness. We assumed that Barack Obama would be probed. We actully assumed that if that happened in depth -- and it still hasn't -- he would be out of the race. He's not qualified and he's a fraud and Elaine and I know that very well. I assumed the race would come down to Clinton, Edwards and Biden. And, of the three of them, I assumed the battle would be between Edwards and Biden who represent two different aspects of the Democratic Party. Hillary might or might not have benefitted from that but that's what I assumed would happen. I wasn't following it. I was paying attention to Iraq. I had no idea about Iowa until after the caucus. Now Real Media, the kind who are trained, has a million and one excuses for why they didn't probe Barack. And Ava and I can back up the fact that they promised over and over that they would publicly. On chat show after show. It's coming. We're going to do it, they'd say. But they really didn't. America still doesn't know Barack Obama. Now that's Real Media. Panhandle Media? They claimed they had standards and that they were higher standards than Real Media. We saw something completely different, didn't we? We saw KPFA do two hours after the Texas debate, two hours of allegedly free speech radio, where every guest was pro-Obama. Not only were they pro-Obama, they had already endorsed Obama. But Larry Bensky and KPFA didn't feel the need to inform the audience of that. Probably not a good idea to inform the audience that you've rigged the show before you started broadcasting. Amy Goodman is disgusting filth. Ava and I will be taking on that beggar in Sunday's commentary. But she did 'roundtables' where no one was supporting a candidate. The guests all came to the conclusion that Hillary was Pure Evil. Of course, disclosing that your guests are supporting Barack would have allowed the audience to factor in all the Hillary hatred. Frances Fox Piven endorses him, then goes on Democracy Now! and is an 'objective' and 'impartial' guest who just happens to think Hillary's done poorly on something. Listeners and viewers had a right to know FFP had already publicly endorsed Barack Obama. Amy Goodman likes to talk a lot about Michael Gordon and Judith Miller's 'ethics,' but she has none of her own. She flaunted that again this week but Ava and I are taking that on, so I'll bite my tongue here.

Rebecca: Elaine?

Elaine: I didn't realize we were going back and forth. I hope this isn't boring for anyone. I meant participating but reading as well. Let me pick up with Amy Goodman. People were calling me, friends, saying, "I've told C.I." That Amy Goodman was willingly slanting the show. C.I. was giving Amy the benefit of the doubt. I wouldn't, she's a total fraud. It's always great when a beggar grew up 'nicely' and enriches herself but continues begging. But Ava and C.I. both were hearing the warnings. Then, the week before Goody created her Geraldo moment, how proud her pathetic family must be, a mutual friend presented Ava and C.I. with proof of how close Melissa Harris-Lacewell and Goody were. Melissa Harris-Lacewell had just been on Goody's show. Goody had presented her as a professor not vested in any candidate. That was a lie. Melissa was actively campaiging for Obama and had been for months and Amy Goodman knew that. But Amy didn't disclose it to her audience. Not only did she not disclose it, she allowed Melissa to lie to viewers by bragging -- as a disinterested party -- on a speech by Barack. Now I want everyone to absorb that because that's the sort of thing that gets people fired. Amy Goodman knew Melissa was part of the Obama campaign. She didn't tell her audience. When Melissa bragged about Barack, Amy still didn't tell them. Now tell me what world Amy Goodman thinks she lives in that what she did, that her actions, are allowed? They aren't allowed. That's not journalism and she can never lecture anyone on ethics without being laughed at by real media because she is hypocrite.

Rebecca: C.I.?

C.I.: Like Elaine, I assumed we'd speak a bit and then you'd move on. Well what followed that -- the immediate following was I was sick to my stomach -- was that Ava, Elaine and I did 'reporting' -- we started working everyone we knew, we started speaking to people and we started finding out just how deep this goes. And where it's coming from. And my attitude today is, "If I burn your Red Playground down, oh well." This is a campaign driven by closet Communists. They have no business in a Democratic primary.

Rebecca: Trina's nodding so I'll toss to her.

Trina: My father smelled it from the start. My father's a Socialist. Never been in the closet on that. Never hidden even when it cost him. Who are the ones who made sure he paid a price during the witch hunt years? The ones who betrayed him were closet Communists. And that's because the rats always save their own asses. That's a rat by defintion. For awhile, there was a big rumor going around that Barack was a Socialist. Barack's a corporatist Democrat. But his benefactors were feeling like they weren't getting their due and they didn't like the shadows so they started whispering that lie. But the mania, the devotion, the whole thing had cult of personality written all over it and today people may, for example, criticize the fact that it built up around Putin but it built up because that system requires a cult of personality. Or it requires from those people. They are the same ones that created "Uncle Joe" -- and refused to later get honest about Stalin's crimes. Maybe this will change in this country because of the young. But, I mean, I knew this growing up. I knew these people, these rats, they lived in our neighborhood. They were authoritarian. They needed a daddy figure. And each daddy had to destroy the previous one. That's one of the reasons that it falters today. They disown to embrace the newly selected leader. They run off a Trotsky, they rewrite history. They need that daddy. And that daddy must be supreme. And we would see their hand picked candidates running for local office -- sometimes labor offices -- and we would know just from the campaign, just from the slogans, just from the fact that a new 'man of the people' had sprung up and the devotionals and the testimonials, just from that we'd know who was backing this candidate. We'd find out we were correct at some point, but just the way the campaign was being run, we'd know. So it's not a surprise to me.

Betty: I hope I'm not stepping on anyone who was about to talk but think about what Trina just said about the way those campaigns were run and tell me she didn't just describe the Obama campaign.

Dona: I was actually thinking the exact same thing.

Marcia: I agree and, if I can take the conversation in a different direction, and you know I can, I'm a lesbian. I'm out of the closet. I can't imagine the self-hatred involved in placing yourself in a political closet. Myself, I have no respect for any gay person who stays in the closet. At some point, you need to step out or admit you're a fraud and a fake. So I really don't have any respect for these closeted Communists. David Corn's not a Communist, here's where I go off topic --

Rebecca: That's fine we'll probably return to this later.

Marcia: Well I mean what kind of sick mind thinks that setting bombs and serving on the board of Wal-Mart is the same thing?

Ava: I need to step in here. This topic isn't a problem, pursuing it, isn't a problem with C.I. or I but we're addressing it Sunday in our commentary so we're not going to be able to say much on it if anything at all. Just to explain that.

Marcia: Sure. To me that's the perfect example of how biased Panhandle Media has been. You can argue the complexities all you want and I have no problem listening to them. However, at the very basic level, Weather Underground set boms. They wanted an armed revolution that would overthrow the country.They broke laws. What did Hillary do? A new member of the Wal-Mart board, before Bill was president so we're going way back into the past, focused on areas she thought she could have an impact on? I mean, do we all get that? Do we get that Hillary's being slammed for not using her junior position on the board to go after every flaw in Wal-Mart? And we're talking about things that weren't even known as flwas at the time. Two decades after she joined the board, we're holding her accountable for everything the company did?

Betty: Well, let's offer that perspective. You're talking the Reagan and Poppy Bush presidency when jobs were in decline and times were tough. Wal-Mart was a job creator. It wasn't perfect but, like Marcia's saying, what the left emphasizes about Wal-Mart now wasn't big news then. What was she supposed to do? I don't really understand that and, if David Corn wrote that, he is an idiot. He's made a non-stop embarrassment of himself for some time now and I don't read him. Ruth's ignored him because he lies on NPR.

Ruth: Oh, does he. I thought he was a journalist. He slants everything. He is not supposed to be on as a columnist. He is presented as a reporter. How about telling the facts then? I have no respect for him and the snapshot today is hilarious. Mr. Corn insisting "everyone knows" that Bill Clinton gave a pardon to two members of the Weather Underground when President Clinton never did any such thing. He should probably hang his head in shame. He was shouting in that conference. He came off not just like a jerk, but like an ignorant jerk and, sadly, that has happened far too often lately.

Rebecca: It really has and I actually have him in my prep work. He's been working overtime to lie for Samantha Power. Was Power fired, C.I.?
C.I.: No. Barack should have fired her. He didn't. I was told that by friends of Power and by friends in the Obama campaign. Samantha Power resigned. She did not resign strictly for calling Hillary Clinton a "monster." She also insulted Gordon Brown. Which was a big deal in England although you didn't hear about it from Corn or John Nichols --

Rebecca: Let me stop you for a second. You noted that John Nichols in his sob-fest for Sammy Power LIED and stated that Power knew Hillary "for years" and that wasn't true. You quoted her on The Charlie Rose Show and in October 2007 stating she'd only met Hillary once. For the record, The Nation has never corrected their LIE.

Ava: Do they ever? Come on, they never corrected their lie about John Kerry where they slammed him for saying something at the DNC convention that he never said at the DNC convention and they knew about that lie, the writer of the piece even admits it's wrong. But they never corrected it. They just lie. They have no standards, they just lie and they lie again. And they don't seem to grasp that all these lies build and build until no one believes a word they say.

Elaine: Well look at who's in charge. I can remember her pissing her panties and lying about that. Foul, foul odor -- you had to wonder what the child was drinking -- and she'd lie and say she hadn't.

C.I.: We are off topic. I'm laughing because it is true. But, back to the topic. Samantha Power couldn't stop spilling the beans. Rebecca's referring to David Corn writing that 'everyone knows' that Obama saying he's going to end the illegal war is just a "proposal" and not a "plan." Everyone knows that, Corn? Just like everyone knows there were pardons for Susan Rosenberg and Linda Evans? When there were no pardons? David Corn's made himself a joke, he's far from alone, but it's embarrassing to see. I'd be very happy to go through life without calling Corn out. I know the thing you're talking about Rebecca, it was a post to his own website/blog. I just ignored it. But I'm not going to ignore the Constitution and that's not an option with me. I thought he was smarter. I mean, it's stupid to write about "pardons" without researching to find out if pardons actually took place. But to be so arrogant about it when you are so wrong. I mean, the next time he calls in, instead of yelling over the phone, he needs to immediately apologize and Mother Jones needs to issue a correction.

Dona: Can I talk about corrections a minute? Years ago, Ava and C.I. had nothing to write about one weekend and an actress called them, a friend of their's, who had been on a program and the program had turned a rapist into a boyfriend. They wrote the commentary on that. And then it turned out that he was drugged or something, I don't remember. They heard about it as soon as the commentary went up. Now, just so you know, we're working at The Third Estate Sunday Review starting Saturday night until we drop. We were all going to bed when the phone rang on that. Ava and C.I. didn't blow it off. They stayed up and worked three hours on a new commentary. As soon as they knew it was a mistake, they wrote a note at the posted piece explaining that. They then rewrote and posted every half hour as they finished the piece. They were completely transparent. They took full responsibility for it. And that's what you do. Mistakes will be made. That's a given, my degree's in journalism, it's a given. But what blows your credibility is refusing to make corrections.

Kat: I agree with Dona and to talk about that, there was a difference of opinion. Jim wanted a correction note at the end and thought they were making too big of a deal out of it. But Ava and C.I. acknowledged their mistake. They rewrote the entire piece. The opening they wrote acknowledges the mistake and then they explore the plot twists. The piece actually was stronger and that's got to be in part because they owned their mistake.

Dona: And I'm trying to remember the title. Ava and C.I. won't because Jim comes up with the titles to Ava and C.I.'s commentaries. And our archives at Third are so screwed up. I can't even remember the show.

Ava: Veronica Mars.

C.I.: "TV: We're losing ground and now is not the time for silence." We actually did write that title. I don't remember if it was the original title or not.

Ava: But we made a mistake. As Dona pointed out, it does happen. And the test is how you handle that. Do you do so honestly or do you do it dishonestly? I agree with Kat that it was stronger because of the entire process. But I also know I said to C.I., "I don't know if I'm writing another one." That had nothing to do with the mistake. It had to do with having to stay up throughout the rewriting of that piece. We didn't just insert a correction. We completely rewrote that piece. Because we did, Jim argued that the correction, which we put at the top in all caps, could be dropped. He said it could be added to his note to the readers. But our feeling was that it was our mistake and we owned it. And I think you saw Hillary do that in the debate Tuesday by the way but I have to bite my tongue there because that's one of the topics we have on our list that we're hoping to address Sunday. I can say that if you think you're infallible, you've got problems. I remember C.I. freaking out in a cab one day. I'll let Elaine pick up that story if she wants.

Elaine: Well, C.I. called my office and I was between sessions. Sunny hollers, and she's not a screamer, for me to grab the phone. Because C.I. was so upset. I pick up and C.I. asks, "What is Dorn's first name?" I'm thinking, "Dorn who?" It was Bernardine. C.I. and I both know Bernardine and have known her for years. Some radio program --

C.I.: Pacifica's From The Vault.

Elaine: Thank you, I didn't listen, had an announcer repeatedly call her "Bernadine." And C.I. was thinking, "I've insulted her for decades by getting her name wrong. I don't even know her name." While I'm saying, "No, you've got it right," Bernardine's speaking and says, "This is Bernardine." I say, "See." But I mean, C.I. doesn't operate under a "I'm right!" philosophy. C.I. never has a problem saying, "I was wrong." And when someone's so sure of themselves, like that announcer was to that Women's History program back in March, C.I. will immediately go to, "I must be wrong." And I know the argument there will be, "Well, they do have a staff and they're just compiling tapes so if they're saying 'Bernadine,' maybe they're right?"

Kat: And when C.I. wrote the thing Thursday night, Ava and C.I. had already covered this topic in the morning and C.I. was still making sure it was right -- how there were no pardons -- even though C.I. knew it for a fact.

Marcia: If I can add to that, I once corrected C.I. in an e-mail. This was like March 2005. I got an e-mail back saying, "I'm so sorry. I'll fix it and note the correction and credit you." I was, this was before my blog obviously, pleased. I felt really good. That's what I expect when I'm reading something. The sad part comes after. I feel so good and mention it to my mother and she says, "Marcia, you're wrong." And I was wrong. I had to immediately e-mail C.I. with a heading of "911! You were right!" But I didn't have a problem admitting to that and, obviously, C.I. had no problem owning a mistake that, it turned out, wasn't one.

Dona: What ticks me off is when you go to the trouble of explaining how something's not an error -- I don't do this anymore and don't do it because it was Pig Male Journalist the last time and I said never again -- and they still want to argue. There have been court cases that Ty and I -- we read the bulk of the e-mails at Third -- have had to research because someone's convinced that Elaine and C.I. are wrong. So we research and find out they were right, provide the section of the majority opinion and someone still wants to argue. But in terms of Piggy, I went out of my way to be nice --

Kat: Always a mistake.

Dona: Agree. And he writes back to Jim. Not to me and basically calling me "emotional." Look, Middle Aged Man, if I want to get emotional, I'll tell you what I think of you. I went out of my way to be kind to you even though there is NO defense for a man who beats a woman. A man who beats a woman repeatedly, throughout their marriage. And, for anyone who doesn't know this, Jim and I are a couple. So it wasn't just offensive that he's running to Jim about how 'emotional' I am, it was stupid.

Rebecca: Men or women, who are the worst in e-mails?

Betty: Men. No woman has ever called me the n-word. No woman has ever threatened me.

Ruth: To use the word Dona was accused of being, "emotional," disagreements in e-mails I have received from men have been vrey "emotional." Women who disagree with me tend to write a basic, matter of fact e-mail. Men can be very threatening. Wally was really helpful to me when I started my site and has been since. But when I got the worst e-mail I have ever received, he listened and did not try to fix it, just let me vent, and then explained to me that Cedric gets screamed at in e-mails and he never gets those. He and Cedric are doing joint-posts and the same men, writing both of them to complain, call Cedric vile names but with Wally act like the picture of maturity.

Betty: It's the race. It really is. I mean Marcia had to delete over 30 comments to her Kovco post because the people were using the n-word as they screamed at her or Keesha and Latrice, community members who had left comments. And if you talk to Cedric -- who has written about Kovco and written with the exact position Marcia expressed -- he gets that in private. Cedric allows comments at his site and his mirror site. But they won't call him the n-word at his site. They'll call Marcia that, they'll call her a "lez" and other things. I can only imagine what her e-mails must be like.

Marcia: They're actually not as bad as the comments I deleted to the post where I was defending Judy Kovco, the mother of Jake Kovco, the first Australian soldier to be killed in Iraq.

Kat: Well we all know the story of Ava and C.I. In January 2005, The Third Estate Sunday Review starts up. For three or four weeks, all of them -- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I. -- are writing the TV commentaries. No threatening e-mails. Some people disagree but no cursing, no threats. Ava and C.I. start doing those all by themselves and it's not announced that it's just them. Still no problem. The first time Jim gives credit and notes they are writing it by themselves, e-mails start pouring in with threats. There are certain categories of people that apparently allow for attacks.

Rebecca: Kat's right because that is the perfect example. No problems when everyone was writing. No problems when readers thought everyone was writing, the second it's identified that Ava and C.I. are writing them, it's non-stop attacks. There's not a better example. I find that in my e-mails as well, by the way. And why not when the males of Panhandle Left -- and the women -- have declared open season on Hillary Clinton and will tell any lie, use any smear, to attack? Trina?

Trina: I really don't get a lot of hate mail. If you need a lot of men, or a certain type of men, I may drive them away automatically due to the fact that I'm offering recipes. Of the small number of vile e-mails I have received, I believe all but one was from a man. My biggest problem is a lot go into the spam folder and I always forget to check that so I'm writing someone back two weeks late because I never saw their e-mail until I happened to remember to check the spam folder.

Dona: Can I say something here regarding e-mails?

Rebecca: Go for it. I think I know what you're going to say.

Dona: Don't ask for a highlight if you've slammed Hillary since the start of 2008 unless you've also slammed Barack Obama. I don't mean you've smeared Hillary and said, "Maybe Bambi's really not a peace candidate?" That's not equal standards. I'm getting damn tired of all the e-mails to Third begging for links, especially from third parties, who think they can slam Hillary and then beg us for a link. Reality is the bulk of the beggars have never done s**t for Third. They've never linked to us. But they regularly ask for links.

Ruth: I agree with Dona and understand this was actually a discussion.

Dona: It was. Everyone helps out at Third and we thank them for that. But, at the end of the day, Jim, Ty, Jess, Ava, C.I. and I am responsible. So we did have a discussion and our feeling is that we've done enough to help others at this point. I'm talking about repeat e-mailers. And we also held to a standard. We've explored Hillary. We were doing it in real time. Third exists as a corrective. When the whole world's bashing Hillary, when we're not highlighting your site if you're doing that. We're not interested. There has been no equal standard and we're sick of it.

Trina: I agree with that. I have been very tough on Hillary and I am glad I was. Because I was using a standard. I applied to all the candidates. Now? I've played fair. I'm not going to lie for Hillary -- who I am supporting and who I voted for on Super Tuesday -- but you're b.s. nonsense that you rehash the same points while excusing Barack, I'm not interested. I don't even reply to those people. I just delete their e-mails.

Betty: There was a topic raised in the roundtable we did for the gina & krista round-robin this week. I thought we could talk about that but I feel like Ava should address it because of Jess.

Ava: Sure. Jess, my boyfriend, brought it up. It was bubbling under but no one was mentioning it. Jess is a Green Party member. I think that's all the backstory anyone needs. But Barack Obama made comments that offended many Small Town Americans. This week, Amy Goodman interviewed Matt Gonzalez whom Ralph Nader has picked as his running mate. Always eager to advance Barack's political campaign, Amy asked Matt about Barack's offensive comments. Matt Gonzalez said it wasn't a big deal. That sets it up. Jess isn't going to be angry with any comment made here, he thinks Matt Gonzalez needs to apologize, so say what you want, no one's going to offend him.

Betty: Okay, well he's not here and none of us want to hurt Jess. I thought that was the most stupid thing in the world. I agree with Jess that Matt Gonzalez needs to apologize and, if he can't, I don't know where Ralph Nader thinks he has the right to expect any votes.

Elaine: I have group on Thursday nights so, unless the roundtables are done at another time, I never participate. If it's okay, I'll comment first?

Rebecca: Go for it.

Elaine: Well Matt Gonzalez may think it's no big deal. That may be his opinion. But it really doesn't matter what Matt Gonzales thinks. What matters is that people are offended. Ralph will need every vote he can get. I wouldn't be so quick to assume that Ralph won't get those votes. If Barack gets the nomination, a number of Democratic voters will go elsewhere or leave the spot blank. Ralph Nader is known for his work on issues that impact the lives of working Americans. He also has name recognition. That was a stupid remark by Matt Gonzalez. It was already known that Barack's statements had offended and for Matt, running on the Nader-Gonzales ticket, to interject himself in there and say what he did was offensive. And it was stupid because the problem was known. If I can add something else, it is not the "Nader/Gonzalez" ticket. It is the "Nader-Gonzalez" ticket. Otherwise, you're implying the ticket is "Nader or Gonzalez." I'm sorry to bring that up but we all use "Nader-Gonzalez." However, the campaign's site uses "Nader/Gonzales" and I have received e-mails on that.

Rebecca: It's like the polls by CBS and the New York Times. They do that as well, implying it's a CBS or NYT poll. No, it's a joint poll. You use a dash. I believe the Washington Post uses a dash for their joint polls with ABC News. But what Elaine said is exactly true. A third party candidate needs votes and you're not going to get them by defending comments that have already been seen as offensive. In fact, you are saying -- Matt Gonzalez was saying -- "You're feelings do not matter." I don't think a vice presidential candidate is picked to run off voters. It was a mistake.

Betty: It really was and when Jess brought it up, everyone came up alive. We're not noting Ralph until Monday -- community wide -- at the earliest. The campaign's not being noted. C.I. imposed that for The Common Ills and Jess carried it over to Third. It has offended people and no one's promoting Ralph right now as a result. Cynthia McKinney could be promoted but probably won't be because all she's offered is a video at her campaign site. And let me speak for Hilda and other hard of hearing and deaf community members, a video with no text may as well not go up. Whatever message you think you're conveying, you're adding an addition one: "You don't matter if you can't hear." Hilda's Mix has really opened my eyes to how many barriers exist for the disabled.

Ruth: I would agree with you on that. I really think Hilda's done an amazing job. And now there are two Hilda's Mixes. There's the newsletter in text and there is an audio version. I think all the newsletters add to the community but the focus on the disabled really has made a big impression on me.

Kat: I think it has on all of us. And what's really amazing to me is that we've got two wars going on, going on for years, and veterans are returning disabled and there's so little awareness of that in the press coverage. To focus on hearing issues, ringing of the ears and loss of hearing are very much a part of the Iraq War and where is the coverage? I mean, C.I. can and does cover the Congressional hearings. Where are the news outlets? Where is The Nation? They've got time to smear Hillary several times each day but do they offer anything of value ever? Is that what they want to be remembered for?

Rebecca: Good point. Hot seat time. There were questions for everyone from Weston who didn't provide his age or stats even after I had asked. But for the two of you. Elaine, I'll start with you. "She never writes a word about her life. I would assume she's been married. I don't know why everything has to be such a big secret. Is she the Queen of England?"

Elaine: Yes, I am the queen of the England. What the heck kind of question is that? I mean how tired is that phrase? I don't write about my personal life. Rebecca has written about her personal life before. That's her comfort area. I have no interest in putting my personal life online. If I have been married, if I have children, I will never write about it. I really have nothing more to say on the issue. I don't talk about my personal life outside of my circle of friends. I've acknowledged that I'm in a relationship with Mike. Mike respects my privacy and doesn't blog about that at his site. He'll mention it or me but he's not blogging about us.

Rebecca: Okay. Weston notes that he knows C.I. was married -- "at least I know that. But I have a problem. What's with the not talking about religion?"

C.I.: Like Elaine, there are topics I'm not going to discuss.

Rebecca: That's it?

C.I.: You can ask any question, I don't have to answer. Which, for the record, Barack Obama, if he was so offended in the debate Tuesday could have done.

Rebecca: Well then let me substitute. Something was pulled from today's snapshot, so will you talk about that?

C.I.: Sure. That was only pulled as a result of space. I'm assuming we're back to the closet topic, right?

Rebecca: Yes.

C.I.: We, this was what was in the snapshot, will highlight Socialists and Communists. I have no problem with that. We're a site for the left. But we don't highlight closeted types. I explained that Ava and I grew tired of one man and we don't include him. Ava noted it was going to blow up in everyone's face and we weren't taking part in that. The man is a Communist and he hides that to the public. We don't include him on the list of war resisters. He's really not one though some other sites count him as one. His story is fake. He was against the illegal war and signed up. Why did he do that? I think we're all smart enough to figure that out. Despite the fact that he has considerable advanced education, he tries to play like he doesn't and tries to speak as if he's a high school drop out. I'm not putting forward the lie -- any of those lies. Ava publicly noted, at Third, two years ago that we're not getting behind that nonsense. We knew he was a member of the Communist Party. We weren't bothered by that. Then we heard the interview where he was playing like he was politically naive and playing like he wasn't a college graduate and that was it. Go tell your lies somewhere else. Go advance your crap somewhere else. There is not a "no Communist" policy at The Common Ills. They are part of the left, we're a left site. But I'm not interested in closeted types. And I may start doing that across the board.

Marcia: Carl Webb is a radical and he's open about it and someone who does get highlighted but I want to toss this in, I'm not highlighting MySpace for anyone, I'm not signing up for Facebook or highlighting Facebook. I want to mention that because I did get a Facebook something from him. I respect him. I don't respect Facebook. I get Facebook stuff in my e-mails all the time. I don't believe in that and am not taking part in it. I believe that's true of all sites. In terms of what C.I.'s saying, if they had stayed out of electoral politics, the closeted types, that would be one thing.

Trina: But they didn't stay out. They lied and called themselves "progressives," or presented themselves as "Democrats." They're not. And I agree that if you're endorsing a candidate in a primary, it needs to be your own political party's primary or you need to be upfront about who you are politically.

Kat: That's just basic. It's political primary. If you're not a member of the primary, butt the hell out. The general election, as C.I. notes, is open to all. There's no reason for non-party members to be endorsing.

Dona: I think that's true. I -- it's basic. But if they were open about who they were their endorsements would not only be meaningless to many people, they would also taint Barack. His "Democratic" support among the gasbags isn't Democratic. But if they don't present themselves as Democrats, then people would be making this very point: "It's not your party, butt the hell out." It really is amazing how they're trying to subvert and control the Democratic Party. If they're allowed to, they'll destroy it the same way they splintered their own party.

Rebecca: This has been a long roundtable and we'll probably wrap up in a second so I want to give everyone a chance to bring in anything on this that they want.

Ava: I'll go next because I want to touch on what Dona was saying as well as the point C.I. made. It is a Democratic primary. Not a Democrat? Stay out of it. It doesn't concern you so there's no reason for you to be endorsing. You're a liar and I have no respect for you. In terms of the non-war resister. I'm not going to be around for when that explodes. Someone against the Iraq War chooses to enlist and then does attention getting stunts while telling the world that he's apolitical and he's a member of the Communist Party? I'm not interested in your 'work.' Trickery and deceit do not interest me but, no surprise, the closet cases would resort to that. They've build up Barack through trickery and deceit, it's all they have to offer. In terms of the 'war resister,' when he lies he risks everyone being seen as a liar if he's exposed. I'm sick of it. There are war resisters of all political types. The ones who aren't closeted -- regardless of what they belong to -- add to the fabric of the movement. The ones who are closeted and go around lying risk the entire movement being called liars.

Ruth: Which is the damage that could result from it. And that same damage could result from their promotion and endorsement of Obama. In either case, they brought it on themselves. No one forced them into closets.

Betty: I'm going to grab that and go somewhere else. The closeted Communists think the Civil Rights are their story. They think, these White Communists, that they gave Black people a gift. They didn't. We fought for our rights. I have no problem giving Communists -- especially Black Communists -- credit for their part in the Civil Rights struggle, but there is a preening attitude about some. You saw it during Jena 6 as well. You saw the lie that reduced it to a town with all the Blacks on one side and all the Whites on the other. As Ava and C.I. pointed out ("Stop the madness!" cry the Goodmans, "You first," reply Ava and C.I. ), that wasn't the case and they did it by pointing to what Amy and David Goodman left out of their book but what Amy Goomdan broadcast on her show. I think the White, closeted Communists think they're going to "give" Black people another gift: Barack! That really is all they have to latch onto, the Civil Rights struggle. But they go back to that over and over, the early days, before MLK emerges. They seem to think they birthed MLK. They didn't. Nor did they give Black people rights. We fought for the rights we have. I don't know how clear I'm being here because I'm condensing many points but my point is that White, closeted Communists may think Black people are tickled pink -- or is it Red? -- that they're doing all this for us. They're not. And they need to get off their high horses because no one considers them an "honorary Black" or even honest.

Marcia: That's such a strong point. You really can trace it back there. These good Whites, these northern Whites, so helpful, saving us Black people from the mean White folk. Reality is that Black people fought for their rights. Reality is the Black people died doing so. Reality is MLK was interested in addressing the racism in the north but that offended some people. Reality is that you have your own problems in your "People's Republic of" whatever. I think we anyone who paid attention grasped which Whites were Communists and which weren't by the way they amplified their lies. Some were at least honest about it like that White woman going on her speaking tour to 'get out the word' and bending most facts while doing so. I'm sick of it and I'm sick of them. Their faux missionary work among the alleged savages. I'm sick of their simplistic b.s. and how they lie and it's African-Americans left holding the bag. And I'm sick of Bill Moyers. Next week, Mr. White Guilt sits down with Jeremiah Wright. Yes, Bill, the world has been waiting for that interview. Not. Be a yeller and screamer or a shuck and jive artist and Bill Moyers will invite you onto his show. Be a competent person and forget it. In fact, the way he's set up his show this year, the conservative Shelby Steel came off better than any other African-American because he was intelligent and not putting on a ministrel act for the White folk. He doesn't do that with White people, does he? But his White viewers are left with the impression that we're either yellers or shuck & jive artists. It's insulting. I can make my point without raising my voice or without mentioning Jesus every other word. Look at who Bill Moyers has booked. I'd call it Prissy, from Gone With The Wind, but it's all men. I'm sick of it. I'm sick of the show telling White America that African-Americans are all a bunch of screaming, superstitious people. It's insulting.

Kat: I would agree with you and Betty and I talked about one of his screaming guests and how, no matter what the man said, who gave a damn? He was so loud that who wanted to hear him? You're in a TV studio. Bill Moyers might not respect you but there's no reason for you to disrespect yourself by putting on a ministrel show for Bill and his audience's benefit. I really think if we had an actual movement, a lot of shows would be the focus of protests and I'd put Bill Moyers program on the list as one to picket.

Rebecca: Trina?

Trina: Sorry, I'm watching Ava and C.I. take notes and thinking about how long this is going to take to type up. The point's been made before, by Ava, C.I. and Dona, but I think history will not be kind to a number of women who have taken part in these attacks on Hillary or stayed silent while they went on. It went beyond criticism, it was a non-stop bashing. It continues and still some women stay silent. All women are not feminists. Even those who claim to be. C.I. would you talk about the idiot who writes for The Seattle Times?
C.I.: Not this week but last, she felt the need to self-describe as a feminist and explain why she was supporting Barack. She explains, in her column, that she doesn't think there's a butter knife's bit of difference between Hillary and Barack. She also explains that she's tired of Hillary, Hillary's been around too long, she argues. She uses the term "goldenboy" to describe Barack. And she wants to claim to be a feminist. There is nothing feminist about that argument. That argument says a young man comes along and you toss aside a woman with experience and you do so happily because he's a "goldenboy." It says that experience doesn't mean anything. It says that you valued "newness" more. There's nothing feminist about it.

Trina: Thank you. I think women willl like that will be exposed for the non-feminists they were when it mattered. I want to plug Paul Krugman really quick because it was his going over the differences between Hillary and Barck's healthcare plans that led me to vote for Hillary on Super Tuesday. While I thank him, I think it's very disturbing that a number of female voices didn't write that column. I think it's very disturbing and I'm all for revoking membership in the club. I also think it's hilarious that C.I. worked to ensure an event by a Hillary hater was ignored by the press. I know no one else will mention that but I thought that was wonderful. You can't say you're pro-woman, let alone a feminist, stage your crappy event on the backs of African-American's misfortune, hide in your political closet and get away with it. And C.I. worked overtime calling in favors to make sure your 'big event' was a non-event. That's exactly what you deserved for your attacks on Hillary while claiming you were pro-woman. Don't expect anyone to take your "I want to help the women of the world!" lies seriously. You're nothing but a semi-closeted Communist. You play like you're not a Communist to the rest of the world and hope and pray no one reads the pieces you've written for Communist 'art' magazines. Those things do have a low circiulation, granted, but I thought it was wonderful how C.I. did a little press package assembling all your crappy writing that most people are unware of.

Elaine: C.I.'s not going to comment on that but I will say I agree with Trina 100%. And that little self-styled leader better grasp how many women no longer support her. As for women stabbing Hillary in the back, and that's what a lot of this is, Ava and C.I., in one of their TV commentaries, mention the disgusting George McGovern and note the scars of Miami. Those are scars you don't know about because you have worthless gender traitors like Amy Goodman who bring McGovern on and fawn all over him. McGovern lost and he lost big time. And Amy Goodman who published in Larry F**nt's skin magazine H**tler never tells you the reality about his campaign. When the battles in Miami went down and, over and over, women were losing -- not just on abortion by the way -- it destroyed his campaign. McGovern and his people were shameful. Today he's as disgusting as he always was and that's only a surprise if you bought into the Amy Goodman Truth which, hate to break it to you, is never the truth. It's never reality. But I don't remember Robin Morgan mentioning Miami in her wonderful essay "Goodbye To All That (#2)." She may have and I may be remembering wrong. But Robin Morgan certainly knows what happened in Miami and, briefly, what happened was a significant number of women joined men in selling women out. Women were thrown under the bus for McGovern. So those little namby pamby women today who want to criticize Robin Morgan, get your facts first, find out about Miami. We saw it happen then, what's going on now, we saw little girls posing as women betray us. It wasn't pretty and payback was hell. Again, that's not part of the 'official' McGovern story as told by Panhandle Media today.

Rebecca: We're going to close and I'll just note, Amy Goodman isn't the one to ever go to for the truth. She gets her facts wrong accidentally -- such as this week when she made a real howler -- and she gets it wrong intentionally because she's not working in journalism, she's serving a higher 'calling.' As for Elaine's points about Miami, exactly right. And battle lines are being drawn. Gender traitors -- especially those who are serial gender traitors -- better grasp that regardless of what happens in the Democratic primary, life as they know it is over. There is no 'let's forget about it' as too many sellouts had to learn following Miami.

Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Friday, April 18, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces a death, Sadr City remains under assault, Bambi threatens to take his marbles home, what's up with the closeted Communists' interest in a Democratic primary and more.

Starting with war resistance. Chris Carr (KBS Radio) reports the latest on Kyle Snyder. Before the latest, Kyle Snyder self-checked out of the military after serving in Iraq (and being lied to repeatedly -- before joining and after). He then moved to Canada. Following Darrell Anderson's returning from Canada to the US and turning himself in, others wondered about that. Ivan Brobeck would be among the ones who did. Kyle did as well. At the end of October 2006, he came back to the US and turned himself in under the agreement that had been worked out. The military that lied to him before had lied again. Kyle self-checked out again. He went on a speaking tour. The unit that tracks AWOL and deserting soldiers (the one that doesn't exist to read most press accounts) phoned in a tip to the local police on the West Coast hoping to have Kyle arrested while speaking out. Kyle was too smart for them and when they showed up, he showed up to speak by phone. He went back to Canada to reclaim his life. He was set to be married and the US military was getting antsy. With the help of the Nelson police, they managed to get him arrested. Right before his wedding. Drug him off in handcuffs, his robe and underwear. The Nelson police changed their story multiple times. Kyle had to be released because he was arrested on trumped up charges.

Coming at the same time as the US military crossing into Canada and posing as Canadian police to locate US war resister Joshua Key, it helped create an incident. There would be an investigation! And of course the best person to investigate what happened in Nelson was . . . the best friend of the Nelson police chief. It was always going to be a white wash.
Carr reports that the white was has found charges "unbsubstantiated." What a shocker. Kyle Snyder did get married. He is now the husband of a Canadian citizen. Translation, the US military can't touch him.

However, in Canada, other US war resisters are waiting to find out whether they will be granted safe harbor. The Canadian Parliament will debate a measure this month on that issue. You can make your voice heard. Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).

Last month Iraq Veterans Against the War's Winter Soldier took place and KPFA has a live program coming up April 22nd: Live On Air and Online at kpfa.org!
April 22 from 10am-1pm Join us on April 22nd for this very important follow up to Pacifica's groundbreaking Winter Soldier live coverage. We will be following the San Francisco trial involving wounded vets and the Department of Veterans Affairs. In this first class action lawsuit U.S. Veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder sue the VA, alleging a system wide breakdown in the way the Government treats those soldiers.During this special broadcast we will be bringing our listeners live updates from the San Francisco federal courthouse, we'll speak with wounded Veterans attorney Gordon Erspamer, (taking this case pro bono because his father was permanently disabled in World War II and never received proper health care) and speak with Veterans advocates including Veterans for Common Sense, and Vets for America.Read more about the broadcast here.

That announcement will appear in the snapshots until the broadcast. If you missed Winter Soldier you can stream online at Iraq Veterans Against the War, at War Comes Home, at KPFK, at the Pacifica Radio homepage and at KPFA, here for Friday, here for Saturday, here for Sunday. Aimee Allison (co-host of the station's The Morning Show and co-author with David Solnit of Army Of None) and Aaron Glantz were the anchors for Pacifica's live coverage.


Yesterday at the Pentagon, US Defense Dept flack Geoff Morrell did a song and dance before reporters. Reuters Kristin Roberts asked a question:

Can you help me understand how it is that there are 163,000 troops in Iraq now that you're even beyond the halfway point of pulling the surge brigades out? And 163,000 is even higher than what was originally expected when the surge was announced, for all five BCTs [Brigade Combat Teams]. Now you have three out out. How do you have 163,000 troops?

Yes, how does Morrell explain that? By ignoring it and stating he isn't "the best person to ask in terms of the daily numbers as to where we are in terms of forces in Iraq." He concluded with, "I'm sorry if that's not a satisfactory answer. I'm just not the expert on that one." Numbers are hard for Geoff. No doubt they're hard for the Bully Boy as well which must why the press avoided asking him about them during his joint press conference yesterday with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Gordon Brown -- apparently chafing at his lack of nickname (Tony Blair was "poodle") -- kissed up big time: "The world owes President George Bush a huge debt of gratitude for leading the world in our determination to root out terrorism, and to ensure that there is no safe haven for terrorism and no hiding place for terrorists." He chatted up the "special relationship" between the UK and US. He claimed that Iraq (and Afghanistan) was the topic "of much our discussions" and went on to declare, "We praise the commitment of the troops of both America and Britain and all who serve in these two countries. And we believe that our program of overwatch in Basra in the south of Iraq is making substantial progress." In response to a question, Brown delcared Iraq "now a democracy, that democratic rights have been restored to the Iraqi people, that we're now building schools and hospitals" -- you know, the usual lies.

Andrew Porter and Thomas Harding (Telgraph of London -- link also provides video of the press conference) report, "The Prime Minister faced questions" throughout his visit, "over the decision for British troops not to get involved in the recent fighting in the city of Basra". The Telegraph of London asks readers whether the time has come for British troops to leave Iraq? Meanwhile Sam Coates (Times of London) finds the correct verb for Brown's brown-nosing: "lavishing" and notes how it was a "coup" for Brown to meet face-to-face with Senators Hillary Clinton, John McCain and Barack Obama. (Obama blew off Australia's Prime Minister Kevin Rudd during his recent visit and Coates notes only Clinton met with France's president "during his visit"). At the White House press conference, Brown declared, "It is, if I might answer your second question, it is for Americans to decide who their President is going to be. I was delighted to meet the three presidential candidates who remain in the field. What I was convinced of after talking to each of them, and talking about the issues that concern them and concern the world, is that the relationship between America and Britain will remain strong, remain steadfast, it will be one that will be able to rise to the challenges of the future." Yes, there are other candidates for president besides the ones offered by the Democratic and Republican Party, take it up with Gordon Brown.

AP's Terry Hunt asked Bully Boy, "You said last week that Iraq was not an endless war, but others have called it an open-ended war and a war with no end in sight. Do you agree with those descriptions?" Bully Boy, never one to miss a chance at laughing at the deaths his illegal war caused, joked, "One of those three has a good chance of winning." He then claimed that Iraq was "succeeding" in terms of security, "getting better" in terms of economy and "improving" with regards to politics. Sadly, those remarks weren't also received as jokes. In the real world, Jonathan S. Landay and John Walcott (McClatchy Newspapers) report, "The war in Iraq has become 'a major debacle' and the outcome 'is in doubt' despite improvements in security from the buildup in U.S. forces, according to a highly critical study published Thursday by the Pentagon's premier military educational institute. The report released by the National Defense University raises fresh doubts about President Bush's projections of a U.S. victory in Iraq just a week after Bush announced that he was suspending U.S. troop reductions. The report carries considerable weight because it was written by Joseph Collins, a former senior Pentagon official, and was based in part on interviews with other former senior defense and intelligence officials who played roles in prewar preparations."

Turning to Iraq. Simon Assaf (Great Britain's Socialist Worker) reports, "The US is laying siege to the Baghdad slum of Sadr City in an attempt to crush the Iraqi resistance. Thousands of US troops and their Iraqi allies are surrounding the Shia Muslim neighbourhoods in a new battle for control of the capital." The assault on Sadr City has continued -- even when the assault on Basra briefly stopped, the assault on Sadr City continued. The region is seen as a strong hold for Moqtada al-Sadr. Arthur Bright (Christian Science Monitor) reports, "US forces began work this week on a concrete barrier to protect against militia intrusions" in Sadr City. The move may be a sign that puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki is no longer willing to make a token show of support for Moqtada al-Sadr (see also the shutting down of al-Sadr's offices in Basra). When the US first proposed erecting "walls" throughout Baghdad (as well as creating a moat around the city), al-Maliki denounced the plan and hurried back into Iraq to protest. As the barriers go up (which won't protect anyone, just trap them -- and that really is the point of the 'walls'), Noah Barkin (Reuters) reports that Sadr City today witnessed "what was described as some of the heaviest fighting in Baghdad for weeks." Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) maintains that US troops are "caught in crossfire between Shiite militiamen and the mostly Shiite Iraqi army." (Apparently, she's still smarting over a US soldier's comments.) Fadel informs you of the 'horrors' for the US military in the two-story home they took over (abandoned "just before the fighting started"), "It has rats and clogged toilets but no electricity or hot water, and no air conditioning or heating." Ahh. That's so sad for the temporary guests. The only thing that might be sadder, of course, was the fact that an Iraqi family had to live there . . . with no electricity or hot water, and no air conditioning or heating. Somehow that thought didn't enter Fadel's head. Fadel will be a guest on Bill Moyers Journal tonight -- hopefully, she'll have a stronger sense of perspective. As the Los Angeles Times (credited to "staff") observed yesterday, "In Baghdad's Sadr City neighborhood, the scene of frequent clashes between militia fighers and Iraqi and U.S. forces, the storm was heaping problems on overstretched doctors. They already are dealing with casualties from the violence, but the choking dust was sending them additional emergency cases of people with respiratory problems. Doctors at Imam Ali General Hospital in Sadr City said they didn't have enough medicine to meet the demand. Medicine shortages are a problem across Iraq, where many people buy their drugs on the black market because of shortages at pharmacies. Many people in Sadr City, though, are poor and cannot afford black market prices. Fighting there has also limited their movements, making it harder for them to shop around for medication if they don't find it at the hospital." Fadel misses all of that. Despite the fact that an Iraqi family is now homeless (unless they're dead).

In reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports Baghdad car bombing that claimed 1 life (two wounded), a Baghdad roadside bombing that left two people wounded, a mortar attack on a US base in Baghdad, a Baghdad mortar attack that wounded three people, a Baghdad roadside bombing that claimed the life of 1 Iraqi soldier and left four more wounded and a Diyala Province roadside bombing that claimed the live of 6 farmers and left four more wounded. Reuters notes a Baquba roadside bombing that claimed 6 lives (all members of the same family) and a Tuz Khurmato roadside bombing that claimed the lives of 2 Iraqi soldiers.

Shootings?

Reuters notes that the ongoing assault on Sadr City left 3 residents dead and another ten injured.

Corpses?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad.

Today the US military announced: "A Multi-National Division -- Baghdad Soldier was killed in an improvised-explosive device attack at approximately 1:45 p.m. April 18. The attack struck the vehicle the Soldier was riding in while conducting a combat patrol just north of Baghdad."

TV . . . As already noted, Leila Fadel will be on Bill Moyers Journal discussing Sadr City (tonight on PBS, check local listings). NOW on PBS (also tonight in most markets) focuses on healthcare. On Fox tonight, Canterbury's Law concludes it's debut season. Julianna Margulies stars (the strong cast also includes Aidan Quinn as her husband) and she's just escaped the threat of disbarment and prison in the previous episodes. Radio . . . Sunday on WBAI (11:00 a.m. EST), The Next Hour offers Theatres Against War (THAW) presents live excerpts from "Dirt," "The Fifth Column," and "Rapsida" (A play from a Rwandan theater group that uses theater to educate people about HIV/AIDS). Hosted by Joanie Fritz Zosike and Suzanne Hayes while Monday, Cat Radio Cafe (2:00 p.m. EST) offers:Representing the PEN World Voices Festival are journalist/playwright George Packer, PEN Freedom to Write and International Programs Director Larry Siems and Sameer Padania from WITNESS, the New York-based international human righs organization; and cast members of the new musical adaptation of Elmer Rice's "The Adding Machine." Hosted by Janet Coleman and David Dozer.


Turning to US presidential politics. Ruth and Marcia addressed Hillary's big win in the debate. Mike focused on Barack Obama's attempts to blame the media for his bad performance (blame that's not deserved -- Bambi was awful). Kat and Rebecca focused on the threat Bambi floated yesterday: NO MORE DEBATES! When you lose, when you're reduced to flipping off your opponent in a speech, you really can't afford another debate that would reveal just how hollow you are. Women's eNews reports it's co-sponsoring "a non partisan forum on the power of the women's vote at Bryn Mawr College, just outside Philadelphia" on Sunday. That will begin at one p.m. in the Thomas Great Hall and, the day before, starting at eleven in the morning, Women to Women Voter Turnout Workshop will take place at Pennsylvania's State College. Earlier this week US House Rep Darlene Hooley explained, noting the state of 'progress' for women in the US, "I want them to see a change, and that's why I want to see Hillary Clinton in the White House. Hillary knows what it means to fight for equality in the workplace, and she knows what it means to fight on behalf of women across America. She has championed the Paycheck Fairness Act to strengthen women's negotiating position and give them the tools they need to get the paycheck they deserve. That's real change, real progress, and with Hillary in the White House, I believe it is change that counts." In other news (news ) Hillary picked up three more super delegates todaay: Jim Florio and Brendan Byrne, former New Jersey Governors, and US House Rep Betty Sutton.

And the always inspiring and amazing Dolores Huerta explains:

When I look to the strength of our country, I look to the mothers who built homes and raised families, and to the working women who were and are this nation's lifeline. All during my childhood, it was my mother who kept our family going. She worked two jobs as a cook to support our family through the Great Depression and through her hard work bought her own business, two hotels that she would run herself.
In families all across America, mothers like my own are working hard everyday just to make sure their children have food on the table. My mother taught me to hold my head high and to work for a better future, but mothers and daughters alike have to work harder than their husbands or brothers just to make the same amount.
April 22, Equal Pay Day, marks the day when women's pay will finally catch up to men's from the year before -- earning 77 cents to ever dollar made by a man, it takes us an extra four months to earn what they would have made in a year. Almost a century after women earned the right to vote, we live in a world where we afford only 77 cents on the dollar worth of rent, health care, education, and opportunity for our children and families. Our children deserve better; they deserve a change.
Throughout her life, Hillary has refused to wait for change to come. She has pushed for change with the full weight of her body and soul and she has done so all over the world, from Arkansas to China to Washington, D.C. She's fought for equal pay, a living wage, health care for our children, and security for our families.
Any mother knows that these are all issues we face together, and we need a president who will help us answer the call for change, who will help us to make the world better, and who won't shy away from the hard fight. Hillary is that leader, and I know she'll stand with us.

Dolores Huerta has been fighting the good fight for decades. Paul Krugman (New York Times) explains the insult to Small Town Americans (by Barack) was "cling" and explains why that was. Bud White (No Quarter) attempts to address the Barack's relationship with William Ayers and why it may offend a number of Americans. (Tries isn't an insult but everyone's making the same mistake. It'll be flipped on Sunday. I'm not calling Bud White factually incorrect, I'm noting a detail is missing. It's a big one.) (Repeating, I'm not insulting White. Nor am I noting the defense for the actions taken by Weather Underground which we've gone over already. I'm speaking of a chunk of the puzzle -- known and out in the open -- being ignored.) Joanna Weiss (Boston Globe via IHT) also attempts to walk through the issue. Fernando Suarez (CBS News) notes Hillary's response to Barack's non-stop whining about how 'tough' it was for him: "We were both asked some pretty tough questions and that's part of what happens in a debate and in a campaign. And I know he spent all day yesterday complaining about the hard questions he was asked. Being asked tough questions in a debate is nothing like the pressures you face inside the White House. In fact, when the going gets tough, you just can't walk away because we're going to have some very tough decisions that we have to make." Time magazine has video of Hillary addressing that topic from an earlier interview today. A Houston Chronicle blog notes the "meltdown" on the "far left" -- the offensive video 'announcing' the death of George Stephanopoulos (ABC News, all he did was ask, Amy Goodman -- yeah, Ava and I will be taking on Goody in our Sunday piece at Third) and writes: "OK, so Obama was asked some tough questions, questions for which he may not have been prepared, questions about his associations and his patriotism. That's part of the political game, like it or not, it is what it is. Whining about it doesn't make it go away or make it any better." Gene Lyons (Arkansas Democrat Gazette) notes that the comments by Barack (about "clinging"), " A more perfect expression of pseudo-Marxist / academic cant--or a greater gift to Sen. John McCain and the Republicans--would be hard to imagine." How right he is. Joe Wilson (link goes to TaylorMarsh.com) explains that there were other insulting remarks made by Barack in the Cling-gate speech that were equally offensive to those serving in the country overseas diplomatically and more.

"THAT'S NOT WHAT I ASKED!" screamed David Corn sounding like the Village Idiot and harming his own reputation in the process. On a media conference call yesterday, David Corn decided he needed to remind people how easy it is to be wrong when you don't do your own work and are instead fed your 'facts.' Susan UnPC (No Quarter) has posted the audio of the disgraceful meltdown and tackles that. Let's tackle the facts because David Corn is NOT ALLOWED to make up his own facts. "You didn't ask her what she thought about the pardons!" cries Corn determined to expose just how stupid he can be and does not delight me to point out that fact. But David Corn was STUPID. He opened with "On the Bill Ayers front, so just called it one of the important issues, you guys obviously know, we all know that President Clinton pardoned two Weathermen . . . uh . . . activists, terrorists, whatever you want to call them." David Corn, the Male Cokie Roberts, isn't sure what to label the two women? But he's comfortable calling the two women "Weathermen"? What a fool. What a stupid, stupid fool. No, David, "we" don't "all know that because IT NEVER HAPPENED. I can't believe how low David Corn has sunk. He's a reactionary that tilts to the center but he's usually -- Gary Webb aside -- stuck to the facts. There are NO FACTS here because the two women were not PARDONED. Ava and I addressed that issue yesterday morning, I grabbed it again last night. If you listen to that call, you'll hear David Corn embarrassing himself acting like a blowhard, maintaining that he's right when he is soooooooo wrong. It's embarrassing. I don't call out Corn most of the time, I usually just roll my eyes. But this is soooooooo wrong that there's no excuse for it. David wanted to showboat in the phone call, wanted to play attack dog. Well, David, get your facts right. There were no pardons for Linda Evans (of Weather Underground, not Dynasty) or Susan Rosenberg from Bill Clinton.

David Corn wants to humiliate himself so let's help him. Clicking here takes you to Mother Jones where, after the phone call, David was drooling over what he'd done for his man crush Barack Obama: "I asked an obvious one: Did Hillary Clinton believe that it had been appropriate in 2001 for President Bill Clinton to have pardoned two members of the Weather Underground as he left office?" No, David, it's not an obvious question because IT NEVER HAPPENED. Quit bragging, start apologizing. That's embarrassing. You've embarrassed yourself. You've demonstrated that when fueled by your own hate you will gladly rush to print any charge without even investigating it. You need to take a look at yourself and the damage you're doing because it is beneath you. By the way, Sunday, Ava and I flip this issue and explain what the press is missing. And they're missing it. For obvious reasons.

Back to the issue of pardons, didn't happen. Credit to Jake Tapper (ABC News) who did correct his piece from last night. Wally and Cedric lampooned Tapper yesterday. Meanwhile, in endorsement news . . . Obama's endorsed by Carl Davidson, just another "progressive" for Obama? He's not a "progressive," he is a Communist. That is the bulk of his long (and tedious) writing (academic and pamphlet) and it's typical of the so-called "Progressives" For Obama. What the hell is a Communist doing butting into a Democratic Party primary?

Because, if the issue was left to Democrats, Bambi wouldn't stand a chance. He needs all the red diapers in the world to keep him clean and Carl Davidson is only one example of one. Here's an exchange Carl had with Louis Proyect (The Unrepentan Marxist) and it's cute the way he claims, that during Vietnam, the Communist Party deserves credit for war resistance because they were in the ranks "doing SWP revolutionary propaganda work among the GIs." Yeah, all four of them. There is nothing wrong with being a Communist, a Socialist, a Green, a Democrat or what have you. But there is something sad about hiding in the closet -- especially those middle-aged an older. Carl Davidson hasn't hid except in his endorsement of Bambi. He's not a Democrat and, frankly, he needs to butt the hell out of Democratic Party politics.

He's far from alone. That rag-tag group (of non-Democrats) has really steered this primary and the coverage of it. When people are talking about the 'movement' behind Bambi, there's no 'movement.' There are some genuine supporters of him but the base, the framework, was documented years ago by Max Elbaum -- writing of a different cycle. Carl's very familiar with that cycle. (And to avoid big whiners, Carl self-describes as "Marxist-Lennist." That would be, pay attention, Communism.) So let's all repeat the question: "What is a Communist doing endorsing ANY candidate in a Democratic Primary?"

The general election is open to all Americans. But a primary is supposed to be for political party members. And for those (like the Communist bating Marc Cooper) who want to scream, "That's McCarthyism!" No, it's not. That's noting where the support for Barack comes from. The same way Panhandle Media thought, in 2004, it was fair game to note that Republicans were donating to Ralph Nader's campaign. Fair's fair. Thing is, Republicans weren't in the closet. Panhandle Media thought, at that time, that America had a right to know who was 'really behind' Ralph's campaign. So maybe it's time to take a glimpse at who's really behind Bambi?

And Carl's long been behind Barack. They go way back. So far back that Carl was screeching to people last year about his "disappointment" in Barack. ("Triangulator!" was Carl's charge then.) But, hey, the bulk of the SDS males (which were all political persuasions, to be clear) were nothing but sexist pigs to begin with so it's no surprise that, when it's down to Hillary or Barack, Carl thinks the 'good thing' for the (Communist) Party is to silence his criticism and hop on board! And, just FYI, they didn't care for "liberal" back then either. They were "radicals" and "revolutionaries." So it's no surprise they'd dub themselves "Progressives" for Obama today -- they spent their lives rejecting liberals (and Democrats). Here's another hint for those wanting to play "Who's Really A Democrat?" Any pundit/gasbag/writer claiming they made the decision to endorse Bambi based on "the movement" behind Bambi and not Bambi himself? Nine times out of ten, that's a Communist. Apparently, you can't anchor programs or write books or columns or gas bag and be open about what political party you belong to. Who knew?


iraq
kyle snyder




aaron glantz




Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)