When things got started here on this side of the pond, it was "I, Queen Elizabeth" who called the shots here in the American Colonies. Later on some of the locals got fed up with their contemporary version of Elizabeth. They took the risk of winding up like William Wallace “Brave Heart” of Scotland and challenged their current leader, King George. They challenged King George's updated version, "I King George". They did something new; they changed it to, "We the people".
In France, in England and here in the USA the Law is not mostly about property and kings. The Law as we know it began as a way to bend the will of property owners and kings to reflect the common good. The Law here is about community and the equal treatment of every individual in that community.
There are still remnants of the "might makes right" attitude of Dark Ages Feudal Kings in our society, but the concept of fairness permeates every pore of our culture.
Those people back in the 18th Century who challenged the “Rights of Kings” foresaw the very human possibility of those with property and power making themselves new ‘kings”. They put checks on unlimited power into the foundations of our government. One of the checks is our concept of the law.
One thing about prosecutors and police; the overwhelming majority of them are in it to enforce the law. "The law is not a cold, impersonal thing; it springs from that passion to respect every person equally, to establish fairness on life's playing field."
Sometimes political favoritism gets in the way of enforcing the law; but most of the time political favoritism ultimately loses the battle in a law enforcement officer's head. And that passion to establish fairness on life's playing field wins.
Jim Pitcherella
Published on Capitol Hill Blue (http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont)
It's hard to arrest a Congressman
Campaigning under the cloud of federal investigations is tough enough, but could Sen. Ted Stevens or Rep. Don Young have the added worries of an indictment before they face the voters of Alaska?
It's been 21 months since the federal corruption investigation surfaced in Alaska with a series of dramatic raids on legislative and other offices. Eight cases have been brought, resulting in convictions in all but one -- and that matter is still pending.
No one outside the government is privy to where the investigation is headed and whether it will eventually lead to charges against Stevens and Young, who deny wrongdoing but who won't discuss specifics about the allegations.
It remains especially difficult to charge members of Congress for matters related to legislation. The Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause offers a broad shield against interference by the Justice Department and other agencies of the executive branch into how a congressman might have created, for example, an earmark that benefited a campaign contributor, family member or former aide -- matters that are part of the investigations of Young and Stevens.
Last year, that clause was cited by an appeals court in tossing out evidence seized by the FBI in a raid on the office of Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., the congressman famous for keeping $90,000 in marked bills in his home freezer.
Yet the government is pressing ahead, with grand juries continuing to hear evidence in at least Anchorage and Washington, D.C.
Questions about the timing of future indictments, should more be handed up by the grand juries, are being heard with increasing frequency in Alaska as the investigation drags on in relative secrecy and the elections approach. It's just three months to the Republican primary, where both Stevens and Young face opponents, and just over five months to the general election, where strong Democratic challengers await.
The Justice Department's policy manual for U.S. attorneys doesn't impose any restrictions on the timing of indictments in public corruption cases. A department spokeswoman in Washington, Laura Sweeney, said such decisions are made on a "case-by-case basis," much like the other factors that go into whether to indict or not.
The Alaska investigation is being managed by the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section, a headquarters unit of career prosecutors noted for working on its own timetable and setting its own priorities. But that section also has a record of not bringing cases against sitting politicians in the immediate run-up to an election.
Stevens, 84, is the longest-serving Republican senator. His Girdwood home was searched last summer by FBI and IRS agents investigating his connection to Bill Allen, the chairman of the now-defunct oil field services company Veco. That firm managed and paid some of the employees who worked on renovations that doubled the size of Stevens' home in 2000.
Young, 74, has never lost an election since he gained office in a special election in March 1973, when he replaced Rep. Nick Begich, the father of Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich, who vanished on a flight from Anchorage and was never found. Young is a subject of at least two federal investigations: the Veco case and an earmark he introduced for a highway interchange in Florida sought by a campaign contributor. Young is also connected to the long-running investigation of super lobbyist Jack Abramoff, now in federal prison.
Investigations don't necessarily mean charges will be brought. Many more elected officials have been investigated than have been indicted. Yet political damage has already been done.
"A politician like Stevens or Young who is under investigation during an election year is in deep trouble," said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics and a frequent media analyst. "It really does affect the likelihood of re-election."
"The feds are very conscious of what they're doing in an election year, and they know that if they indict or even investigate a senator or a congressman during an
READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE AT:
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/8000
Friday, May 30, 2008
Monday, May 26, 2008
The Obama Connection
I support Mr. Obama because he is going to the next President of the United States. I believe that he is because the political organization that he has built is a 21st Century political organization and the other candidates are back in the 1980’s.
When I saw what the Obama organization did in Chester County very early in 2008 I understood that nothing like this ever happened in Chester County. The possibility that any other candidate can beat the Obama organization in Chester County is just not there.
When you add that the Chester County Republicans are split almost evenly between McCain and Ron Paul (that is the Republicans who cannot vote for a Democrat). And that people are aware of the problems with certain Republican committeepersons you can conclude that:
We are looking at a landslide victory for not only Mr. Obama but all Democratic candidates in Chester County in November.
Jim Pitcherella
_______________________________________
May 26, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
The Obama Connection
By ROGER COHEN
It’s the networks, stupid.
More than any other factor, it has been Barack Obama’s grasp of the central place of Internet-driven social networking that has propelled his campaign for the Democratic nomination into a seemingly unassailable lead over Hillary Clinton. Her campaign has been so 20th-century. His has been of the century we’re in.
That’s not surprising. Obama spent only 10 years of his adult life in the split world of the cold war, double that in a post-Berlin Wall world of growing interconnectedness. MAC — mutually assured connectivity — has replaced the MAD — mutually assured destruction — of cold-war days.
For Clinton, born in 1947, that ratio is different. Her mental paradigm is division. When her husband last ran for president in 1996, the Internet was marginal. The thinking and people from that campaign have proved unable to fast-forward a dozen years. They’ve been left like deer blinded by the Webcam lights of the Obama juggernaut.
This cultural failure has been devastating for Clinton. As Joshua Green chronicles in an important piece in The Atlantic, Obama has used social networking and his user-friendly Web site to develop the money machine, and the youthful engagement, that has swept him forward.
Green notes, “Obama’s claim of 1,276,000 donors is so large that Clinton doesn’t bother to compete.” He gives some other Obama campaign numbers: 750,000 active volunteers and 8,000 affinity groups. In February, a month in which he raised $55 million ($45 million over the Internet), 94 percent of donations were of $200 or less, a number dwarfing small contributions to Clinton and John McCain.
Obama has been a classic Internet-start up, a movement spreading with viral intensity and propelled by some of Silicon Valley’s most creative minds. As with any online phenomenon, he has jumped national borders, stirring as much buzz in Berlin as he does back home.
He could not have achieved this without a sense of history, a conviction that the nature of the post-post-9/11 world — the one beyond war without end — is going to be determined by sociability and connectivity. In the globalized world of MySpace, LinkedIn and the rest, sociability is a force as strong as sovereignty.
I’ve searched in vain for a sense of this pivotal historical moment in Clinton. Her threat to “totally obliterate” Iran, her stomach-turning reference to the June 1968 assassination of Robert Kennedy as a reason to stay in the race, her Bosnian fabrications, all reflect a view of history as something that’s there for political ends rather than as a source of inspiration or reflection.
It’s history as “Me, me, me.” That tends to be blinding.
Her most crippling blindness has been to networks, national and global, the threads that bind and have changed society. As David Singh Grewal writes in his excellent new book, “Network Power,” a core tension in the world is that: “Everything is being globalized except politics.”
Grewal continues: “We live in a world in which our relations of sociability — our commerce, culture, ideas, manners — are increasingly shared,
READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE HERE:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/26/opinion/26cohen.html?hp
When I saw what the Obama organization did in Chester County very early in 2008 I understood that nothing like this ever happened in Chester County. The possibility that any other candidate can beat the Obama organization in Chester County is just not there.
When you add that the Chester County Republicans are split almost evenly between McCain and Ron Paul (that is the Republicans who cannot vote for a Democrat). And that people are aware of the problems with certain Republican committeepersons you can conclude that:
We are looking at a landslide victory for not only Mr. Obama but all Democratic candidates in Chester County in November.
Jim Pitcherella
_______________________________________
May 26, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
The Obama Connection
By ROGER COHEN
It’s the networks, stupid.
More than any other factor, it has been Barack Obama’s grasp of the central place of Internet-driven social networking that has propelled his campaign for the Democratic nomination into a seemingly unassailable lead over Hillary Clinton. Her campaign has been so 20th-century. His has been of the century we’re in.
That’s not surprising. Obama spent only 10 years of his adult life in the split world of the cold war, double that in a post-Berlin Wall world of growing interconnectedness. MAC — mutually assured connectivity — has replaced the MAD — mutually assured destruction — of cold-war days.
For Clinton, born in 1947, that ratio is different. Her mental paradigm is division. When her husband last ran for president in 1996, the Internet was marginal. The thinking and people from that campaign have proved unable to fast-forward a dozen years. They’ve been left like deer blinded by the Webcam lights of the Obama juggernaut.
This cultural failure has been devastating for Clinton. As Joshua Green chronicles in an important piece in The Atlantic, Obama has used social networking and his user-friendly Web site to develop the money machine, and the youthful engagement, that has swept him forward.
Green notes, “Obama’s claim of 1,276,000 donors is so large that Clinton doesn’t bother to compete.” He gives some other Obama campaign numbers: 750,000 active volunteers and 8,000 affinity groups. In February, a month in which he raised $55 million ($45 million over the Internet), 94 percent of donations were of $200 or less, a number dwarfing small contributions to Clinton and John McCain.
Obama has been a classic Internet-start up, a movement spreading with viral intensity and propelled by some of Silicon Valley’s most creative minds. As with any online phenomenon, he has jumped national borders, stirring as much buzz in Berlin as he does back home.
He could not have achieved this without a sense of history, a conviction that the nature of the post-post-9/11 world — the one beyond war without end — is going to be determined by sociability and connectivity. In the globalized world of MySpace, LinkedIn and the rest, sociability is a force as strong as sovereignty.
I’ve searched in vain for a sense of this pivotal historical moment in Clinton. Her threat to “totally obliterate” Iran, her stomach-turning reference to the June 1968 assassination of Robert Kennedy as a reason to stay in the race, her Bosnian fabrications, all reflect a view of history as something that’s there for political ends rather than as a source of inspiration or reflection.
It’s history as “Me, me, me.” That tends to be blinding.
Her most crippling blindness has been to networks, national and global, the threads that bind and have changed society. As David Singh Grewal writes in his excellent new book, “Network Power,” a core tension in the world is that: “Everything is being globalized except politics.”
Grewal continues: “We live in a world in which our relations of sociability — our commerce, culture, ideas, manners — are increasingly shared,
READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE HERE:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/26/opinion/26cohen.html?hp
Sunday, May 25, 2008
In PA it's the Judge with the most cash that usually wins elections.
Just something to think about:
When you follow the drugs you end up with street level dealers and someone in Colombia or Pakistan.
Just a for instance:
Let’s say that the money trail from drug sales is like a money bush with many roots, trunks and limbs. Following that money trail can lead you anywhere. It could lead to an election committee for a PA judge.
I am not saying that we abandon electing judges. I am saying that our system for electing judges is flawed in PA. Setting a low dollar limit on campaign contributions to Judges might help.
Jim Pitcherella
________________________________________
THE NEW YORK TIMES
May 25, 2008
American Exception
Rendering Justice, With One Eye on Re-election
By ADAM LIPTAK
Last month, Wisconsin voters did something that is routine in the United States but virtually unknown in the rest of the world: They elected a judge.
The vote came after a bitter $5 million campaign in which a small-town trial judge with thin credentials ran a television advertisement falsely suggesting that the only black justice on the state Supreme Court had helped free a black rapist. The challenger unseated the justice with 51 percent of the vote, and will join the court in August.
The election was unusually hard-fought, with caustic advertisements on both sides, many from independent groups.
Contrast that distinctively American method of selecting judges with the path to the bench of Jean-Marc Baissus, a judge on the Tribunal de Grand Instance, a district court, in Toulouse, France. He still recalls the four-day written test he had to pass in 1984 to enter the 27-month training program at the École Nationale de la Magistrature, the elite academy in Bordeaux that trains judges in France.
“It gives you nightmares for years afterwards,” Judge Baissus said of the test, which is open to people who already have a law degree, and the oral examinations that followed it. In some years, as few as 5 percent of the applicants survive. “You come out of this completely shattered,” Judge Baissus said.
The question of how best to select judges has baffled lawyers and political scientists for centuries, but in the United States most states have made their choice in favor of popular election. The tradition goes back to Jacksonian populism, and supporters say it has the advantage of making judges accountable to the will of the people. A judge who makes a series of unpopular decisions can be challenged in an election and removed from the bench.
“If you want judges to be responsive to public opinion, then having elected judges is the way to do that,” said Sean Parnell, the president of the Center for Competitive Politics, an advocacy group that opposes most campaign finance regulation.
Nationwide, 87 percent of all state court judges face elections, and 39 states elect at least some of their judges, according to the National Center for State Courts.
In the rest of the world, the usual selection methods emphasize technical skill and insulate judges from the popular will, tilting in the direction of independence. The most common methods of judicial selection abroad are appointment by an executive branch official, which is how federal judges in the United States are chosen, and a sort of civil service made up of career professionals.
Outside of the United States, experts in comparative judicial selection say, there are only two nations that have judicial elections, and then only in limited
READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE HERE:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/25/us/25exception.html?hp
When you follow the drugs you end up with street level dealers and someone in Colombia or Pakistan.
Just a for instance:
Let’s say that the money trail from drug sales is like a money bush with many roots, trunks and limbs. Following that money trail can lead you anywhere. It could lead to an election committee for a PA judge.
I am not saying that we abandon electing judges. I am saying that our system for electing judges is flawed in PA. Setting a low dollar limit on campaign contributions to Judges might help.
Jim Pitcherella
________________________________________
THE NEW YORK TIMES
May 25, 2008
American Exception
Rendering Justice, With One Eye on Re-election
By ADAM LIPTAK
Last month, Wisconsin voters did something that is routine in the United States but virtually unknown in the rest of the world: They elected a judge.
The vote came after a bitter $5 million campaign in which a small-town trial judge with thin credentials ran a television advertisement falsely suggesting that the only black justice on the state Supreme Court had helped free a black rapist. The challenger unseated the justice with 51 percent of the vote, and will join the court in August.
The election was unusually hard-fought, with caustic advertisements on both sides, many from independent groups.
Contrast that distinctively American method of selecting judges with the path to the bench of Jean-Marc Baissus, a judge on the Tribunal de Grand Instance, a district court, in Toulouse, France. He still recalls the four-day written test he had to pass in 1984 to enter the 27-month training program at the École Nationale de la Magistrature, the elite academy in Bordeaux that trains judges in France.
“It gives you nightmares for years afterwards,” Judge Baissus said of the test, which is open to people who already have a law degree, and the oral examinations that followed it. In some years, as few as 5 percent of the applicants survive. “You come out of this completely shattered,” Judge Baissus said.
The question of how best to select judges has baffled lawyers and political scientists for centuries, but in the United States most states have made their choice in favor of popular election. The tradition goes back to Jacksonian populism, and supporters say it has the advantage of making judges accountable to the will of the people. A judge who makes a series of unpopular decisions can be challenged in an election and removed from the bench.
“If you want judges to be responsive to public opinion, then having elected judges is the way to do that,” said Sean Parnell, the president of the Center for Competitive Politics, an advocacy group that opposes most campaign finance regulation.
Nationwide, 87 percent of all state court judges face elections, and 39 states elect at least some of their judges, according to the National Center for State Courts.
In the rest of the world, the usual selection methods emphasize technical skill and insulate judges from the popular will, tilting in the direction of independence. The most common methods of judicial selection abroad are appointment by an executive branch official, which is how federal judges in the United States are chosen, and a sort of civil service made up of career professionals.
Outside of the United States, experts in comparative judicial selection say, there are only two nations that have judicial elections, and then only in limited
READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE HERE:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/25/us/25exception.html?hp
Trouble brewing in N.Y. for Clinton
Hillary Clinton has a very big hole to climb out of if she ever wants to run for public office again. See the article below.
If I were an enemy of the Clintons, I would give them more shovels and tell her to fight on to victory. Because, the longer they campaign the more trouble they seem to make for themselves. If they keep it up what they are doing and saying, they will have no political future at all.
That would be a tragic thing because both of the Clintons have years of public service in them; public service that could improve the lives of all of us.
Jim Pitcherella
_____________________________________
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/campaign08/newsletter/la-na-clintonblacks25-2008may25,0,6813334.story
From the Los Angeles Times
Trouble brewing in N.Y. for Clinton
Black leaders say that if Hillary Rodham Clinton returns as senator, she'll need to heal racial wounds her campaign has inflicted.
By Peter Nicholas
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
May 25, 2008
Even as she continues her longshot presidential bid, Hillary Rodham Clinton faces a political rift in New York, where black leaders say her standing has dropped due to racially charged comments by her and her husband during the campaign.
African American elected officials and clerics based in New York City say Clinton will need to defuse resentment over the campaign's racial overtones if she returns to New York as U.S. senator.
State Sen. Bill Perkins, who represents Harlem, said constituents recently phoned him because they wanted to demonstrate outside Bill Clinton's Harlem office against comments by the former president.
Michael Benjamin, a state assemblyman who represents parts of the Bronx, said his wife removed a photograph of Bill Clinton from her office wall -- an expression of the misgivings that some black New Yorkers feel.
Assemblyman Karim Camara of Brooklyn contributed $500 to Hillary Clinton's Senate reelection campaign in 2006 and described Bill Clinton as a political hero. He said: "Once the campaign is over there has to be a lot of work to heal the wounds. She needs to go back to the black churches she visited in the course of her campaign and have a frank conversation about who she is and how much the support of the black community means. There would not have been a first Clinton presidency in 1992 if not for the African American community."
Many of the officials back the presidential bid of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, Clinton's rival for the Democratic nomination, though they say they have long supported the Clintons, defending him in the past and supporting her Senate run.
Their sentiments reflect the peculiar arc of the 2008 campaign. Black voters were once central to the Clinton family's political identity and base of support. But that relationship has been strained by the emergence of a charismatic African American candidate who has been propelled by black voters.
"The Clintons have their die-hard fans who would never abandon them," said Eric Adams, a state senator who represents Brooklyn. "But there are those New Yorkers who feel there was a lot of insult, slight and disrespect toward an African American candidate, and it translated as a slight to the African American community."
Clinton's campaign declined to comment. In New York, she still enjoys the support of some high-profile black leaders. U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel has endorsed Clinton, as has the state's first black governor, David Paterson. But both men have been critical of her recently.
Rangel told reporters this month that her claim she has the support of white voters was "the dumbest thing she could ever have said." Clinton later agreed with that.
Paterson recently told a radio show he saw "desperation" in Clinton's effort to count in her favor disputed delegates from Michigan and Florida. Clinton's dwindling chance of winning the nomination includes snagging as many Florida and Michigan delegates as possible.
As the campaign unfolded, both Clintons made comments that some black leaders deemed dismissive of Obama. There was Bill Clinton's suggestion that Obama's victory in South Carolina carried no more weight than Jesse Jackson's success there in the 1980s. Other sore points were Hillary Clinton's claim that she enjoys the support of "hard-working Americans, white Americans" and the credit she gave to President Lyndon Johnson -- rather than the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. -- on civil rights legislation.
"There has been a consistent pattern of comments made by both Sen. Clinton and President Clinton from January until this moment that are deeply troubling to the African American community," said Assemblyman Hakeem Jeffries, whose district is in Brooklyn. "That will require meaningful reconciliation and discussion when Sen. Clinton returns to New York."
The Rev. Clinton Miller of Brown Memorial Baptist Church in Brooklyn said that any hurt feelings left by the campaign could be easily overcome.
"There are wounds, but I don't think they necessarily have to be that deep," Miller said. "They're deep wounds for people who never liked Hillary in the first place."
He encouraged her to be more of a presence in the city's neighborhoods.
"For her to heal those wounds, she would be well served either in public office or just in her private life by being herself and working toward those ideals that she's always espoused as a person."
African American leaders said she could repair frayed ties by visiting black churches, backing legislation that shows she is sensitive to conditions in black neighborhoods, and apologizing for comments she and her husband made that seemed to polarize voters and marginalize Obama.
"She has a problem," said the Rev. Al Sharpton, a New York-based civil rights activist. "If she doesn't aggressively deal with the problem -- rather than sit in denial -- it will haunt her at home in her Senate race."
Clinton's Senate term ends in January 2013.
Some Democrats have mentioned that she could run for governor of New York if she isn't nominated for president.
That prospect unnerves some black leaders
READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE HERE:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/campaign08/newsletter/la-na-clintonblacks25-2008may25,0,6813334.story
If I were an enemy of the Clintons, I would give them more shovels and tell her to fight on to victory. Because, the longer they campaign the more trouble they seem to make for themselves. If they keep it up what they are doing and saying, they will have no political future at all.
That would be a tragic thing because both of the Clintons have years of public service in them; public service that could improve the lives of all of us.
Jim Pitcherella
_____________________________________
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/campaign08/newsletter/la-na-clintonblacks25-2008may25,0,6813334.story
From the Los Angeles Times
Trouble brewing in N.Y. for Clinton
Black leaders say that if Hillary Rodham Clinton returns as senator, she'll need to heal racial wounds her campaign has inflicted.
By Peter Nicholas
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
May 25, 2008
Even as she continues her longshot presidential bid, Hillary Rodham Clinton faces a political rift in New York, where black leaders say her standing has dropped due to racially charged comments by her and her husband during the campaign.
African American elected officials and clerics based in New York City say Clinton will need to defuse resentment over the campaign's racial overtones if she returns to New York as U.S. senator.
State Sen. Bill Perkins, who represents Harlem, said constituents recently phoned him because they wanted to demonstrate outside Bill Clinton's Harlem office against comments by the former president.
Michael Benjamin, a state assemblyman who represents parts of the Bronx, said his wife removed a photograph of Bill Clinton from her office wall -- an expression of the misgivings that some black New Yorkers feel.
Assemblyman Karim Camara of Brooklyn contributed $500 to Hillary Clinton's Senate reelection campaign in 2006 and described Bill Clinton as a political hero. He said: "Once the campaign is over there has to be a lot of work to heal the wounds. She needs to go back to the black churches she visited in the course of her campaign and have a frank conversation about who she is and how much the support of the black community means. There would not have been a first Clinton presidency in 1992 if not for the African American community."
Many of the officials back the presidential bid of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, Clinton's rival for the Democratic nomination, though they say they have long supported the Clintons, defending him in the past and supporting her Senate run.
Their sentiments reflect the peculiar arc of the 2008 campaign. Black voters were once central to the Clinton family's political identity and base of support. But that relationship has been strained by the emergence of a charismatic African American candidate who has been propelled by black voters.
"The Clintons have their die-hard fans who would never abandon them," said Eric Adams, a state senator who represents Brooklyn. "But there are those New Yorkers who feel there was a lot of insult, slight and disrespect toward an African American candidate, and it translated as a slight to the African American community."
Clinton's campaign declined to comment. In New York, she still enjoys the support of some high-profile black leaders. U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel has endorsed Clinton, as has the state's first black governor, David Paterson. But both men have been critical of her recently.
Rangel told reporters this month that her claim she has the support of white voters was "the dumbest thing she could ever have said." Clinton later agreed with that.
Paterson recently told a radio show he saw "desperation" in Clinton's effort to count in her favor disputed delegates from Michigan and Florida. Clinton's dwindling chance of winning the nomination includes snagging as many Florida and Michigan delegates as possible.
As the campaign unfolded, both Clintons made comments that some black leaders deemed dismissive of Obama. There was Bill Clinton's suggestion that Obama's victory in South Carolina carried no more weight than Jesse Jackson's success there in the 1980s. Other sore points were Hillary Clinton's claim that she enjoys the support of "hard-working Americans, white Americans" and the credit she gave to President Lyndon Johnson -- rather than the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. -- on civil rights legislation.
"There has been a consistent pattern of comments made by both Sen. Clinton and President Clinton from January until this moment that are deeply troubling to the African American community," said Assemblyman Hakeem Jeffries, whose district is in Brooklyn. "That will require meaningful reconciliation and discussion when Sen. Clinton returns to New York."
The Rev. Clinton Miller of Brown Memorial Baptist Church in Brooklyn said that any hurt feelings left by the campaign could be easily overcome.
"There are wounds, but I don't think they necessarily have to be that deep," Miller said. "They're deep wounds for people who never liked Hillary in the first place."
He encouraged her to be more of a presence in the city's neighborhoods.
"For her to heal those wounds, she would be well served either in public office or just in her private life by being herself and working toward those ideals that she's always espoused as a person."
African American leaders said she could repair frayed ties by visiting black churches, backing legislation that shows she is sensitive to conditions in black neighborhoods, and apologizing for comments she and her husband made that seemed to polarize voters and marginalize Obama.
"She has a problem," said the Rev. Al Sharpton, a New York-based civil rights activist. "If she doesn't aggressively deal with the problem -- rather than sit in denial -- it will haunt her at home in her Senate race."
Clinton's Senate term ends in January 2013.
Some Democrats have mentioned that she could run for governor of New York if she isn't nominated for president.
That prospect unnerves some black leaders
READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE HERE:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/campaign08/newsletter/la-na-clintonblacks25-2008may25,0,6813334.story
Campaign headlines appearing soon?
Barry’s column appears every other week (I think) in the “Life” section of the Daily Local News. If you don’t always read that section you might miss it.
He comes from a long line of “humorists”. If you sit at his table, make sure that someone knows the “Heimlich Maneuver”, laughing and eating don’t always go together.
He is also a Democratic Party attorney.
Jim Pitcherella
Sunday, May 25, 2008
DAILY LOCAL NEWS
Campaign headlines appearing soon?
With this year’s incredibly long presidential primary season (comedian Jon Stewart refers to it as “The long, slow, Bataan Death March to the White House”), I think we’ve seen just about every newspaper headline you could possibly imagine.
Except these, which I expect to see any day now:
Hillary endorses Barack, vows to fight on
In a nationally televised news conference last night, presidential candidate and former first lady Hillary Clinton announced that she had finally decided to endorse Barack Obama to be the Democratic nominee for President of the United States.
Immediately after the announcement, however, Clinton gave a speech at a bar in Sore Bottom, Ore., in which she vowed – over shots of tequila – to stay in the race.
“This race is far from over. I am not about to drop out of it because of one little endorsement. Just because Senator Obama has received my endorsement doesn’t mean that I’m going to stop fighting to be this party’s nominee. No, I am in this race until the last dog dies. Oh, but don’t tell Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick that, or it might happen.
“Besides, it’s clear at this point that hard-working, white male Americans who go to meetings where they dress up in white sheets and hoods and burn crosses are never going to vote for Barack Obama. But they will vote for me!“
Upon hearing of both the endorsement and the later statement, the Obama campaign released a statement, which said:
“Barack Obama is pleased and gratified to receive the endorsement of such an able individual as Hillary Clinton. We’re kind of puzzled, however, as to why she’s not getting out of the race like every other candidate who has dropped out and endorsed us. Frankly, we think this woman is an out-of-control maniac who just won’t take a hint. At this point, we’re frankly worried that if Mr. Obama is nominated and wins the election in November, Mrs. Clinton will show up at the inauguration in January and insist on being sworn in!”
McCain promises victory in Iraq
Republican presidential candidate John McCain, in a nationally televised speech in front of a packed VFW hall in tiny Stench Hollow, W. Va., promised that if he is elected president, the U.S. would achieve victory in Iraq by 2108.
Said McCain, “The problem with this war is that everyone is taking such a short-term view of it. The fact that this thing has gone on longer than World War II without our troops pacifying even the capital city
READ THE REST OF THE COLUMN HERE:
http://www.dailylocal.com/WebApp/appmanager/JRC/Daily?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pg_article&r21.pgpath=%2FDLN%2FLife&r21.content=%2FDLN%2FLife%2FTopStoryList_Story_2101349
He comes from a long line of “humorists”. If you sit at his table, make sure that someone knows the “Heimlich Maneuver”, laughing and eating don’t always go together.
He is also a Democratic Party attorney.
Jim Pitcherella
Sunday, May 25, 2008
DAILY LOCAL NEWS
Campaign headlines appearing soon?
With this year’s incredibly long presidential primary season (comedian Jon Stewart refers to it as “The long, slow, Bataan Death March to the White House”), I think we’ve seen just about every newspaper headline you could possibly imagine.
Except these, which I expect to see any day now:
Hillary endorses Barack, vows to fight on
In a nationally televised news conference last night, presidential candidate and former first lady Hillary Clinton announced that she had finally decided to endorse Barack Obama to be the Democratic nominee for President of the United States.
Immediately after the announcement, however, Clinton gave a speech at a bar in Sore Bottom, Ore., in which she vowed – over shots of tequila – to stay in the race.
“This race is far from over. I am not about to drop out of it because of one little endorsement. Just because Senator Obama has received my endorsement doesn’t mean that I’m going to stop fighting to be this party’s nominee. No, I am in this race until the last dog dies. Oh, but don’t tell Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick that, or it might happen.
“Besides, it’s clear at this point that hard-working, white male Americans who go to meetings where they dress up in white sheets and hoods and burn crosses are never going to vote for Barack Obama. But they will vote for me!“
Upon hearing of both the endorsement and the later statement, the Obama campaign released a statement, which said:
“Barack Obama is pleased and gratified to receive the endorsement of such an able individual as Hillary Clinton. We’re kind of puzzled, however, as to why she’s not getting out of the race like every other candidate who has dropped out and endorsed us. Frankly, we think this woman is an out-of-control maniac who just won’t take a hint. At this point, we’re frankly worried that if Mr. Obama is nominated and wins the election in November, Mrs. Clinton will show up at the inauguration in January and insist on being sworn in!”
McCain promises victory in Iraq
Republican presidential candidate John McCain, in a nationally televised speech in front of a packed VFW hall in tiny Stench Hollow, W. Va., promised that if he is elected president, the U.S. would achieve victory in Iraq by 2108.
Said McCain, “The problem with this war is that everyone is taking such a short-term view of it. The fact that this thing has gone on longer than World War II without our troops pacifying even the capital city
READ THE REST OF THE COLUMN HERE:
http://www.dailylocal.com/WebApp/appmanager/JRC/Daily?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pg_article&r21.pgpath=%2FDLN%2FLife&r21.content=%2FDLN%2FLife%2FTopStoryList_Story_2101349
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Hillary Clinton is now un-electable for any office.
I am not going to use any slang words but as I said a few weeks ago the Clintons need to stop before their political careers are over and their legacy is tarnished.
They did not.
Hillary Clinton is now un-electable for any office. Her political career is over.
But as I said before the end of Hillary Clinton’s political career is not a tragedy. The tragedy is that Hillary Clinton’s campaign puts a dark cloud over the entire Clinton Presidency.
They did not.
Hillary Clinton is now un-electable for any office. Her political career is over.
But as I said before the end of Hillary Clinton’s political career is not a tragedy. The tragedy is that Hillary Clinton’s campaign puts a dark cloud over the entire Clinton Presidency.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Talking With the Enemy
If the wheels of the earth were governed by sanity, Bush and Cheney would acknowledge the near total failure of their administration, step down and allow Nancy Pelosi to finish out their term. The next best thing would be for the Executive office of the United States to do nothing until President Obama assumes office.
Jim Pitcherella
THE NEW YORK TIMES
May 23, 2008
Editorial
Talking With the Enemy
Everybody knew President Bush was aiming at Senator Barack Obama last week when he likened those who endorse talks with “terrorists and radicals” to appeasers of the Nazis. But now we know what Mr. Bush knew then — that Israel is in indirect peace talks with Syria, a prominent member of Mr. Bush’s list of shunned nations — and it seems as if the president was going for a two-for-one in his crack about appeasement.
If so, it was breathtakingly cynical to compare the leadership of the Jewish state with those who stood aside in the face of the Nazi onslaught, and irresponsible to try to restrain this American ally from pursuing a settlement that it judges as possibly being in its best interests.
But Mr. Bush turned his back on Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts for seven years (before opening the anemic Annapolis process in November), and he resisted previous moves by Jerusalem and Damascus to revive serious negotiations, last held in 2000, over the Golan Heights. Instead, he has sought to isolate Syria.
The list of Syria’s bad behavior is long: support for Hamas and Hezbollah, interference in Iraq; objections to Israeli-Palestinian peace; a suspected role in the assassination of the former Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Hariri; and increasingly close ties to Iran. But Israel has chosen to keep talking anyway and despite discovering — and bombing — an alleged nuclear reactor in Syria.
There are reasons to be skeptical that the negotiations, brokered by Turkey, will succeed. The Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, is politically weak and under a corruption inquiry. Syria is more closely tied to Iran than ever. Many Israelis believe returning the Golan Heights, seized in the 1967 war, could put their country at greater risk. There also are concerns that a focus on Syria will divert Israeli attention from peacemaking with the Palestinians.
There could, however, be a big payoff if Syria can be weaned from Iran. We’ll never know unless Damascus’s willingness to talk is tested. We trust that Israel would not accept a deal that does not meet minimum demands, including an end to Syria enabling Hezbollah and Hamas and undermining democracy in Lebanon.
When he lashes out, as he did in Israel, Mr. Bush makes it harder for reasonable people to pursue diplomacy. And it is hypocritical. His administration has negotiated successfully with Libya (formerly on the terrorism list) and North Korea (still on the terrorism list) and has had limited, largely unsuccessful, contacts with Iran over its support for insurgents in Iraq. Israel is indirectly negotiating a cease-fire in Gaza with Hamas with the help of Egypt.
Mr. Bush’s approach is increasingly undermining American interests and causing Washington to be sidelined. To wit: an Arab-brokered political settlement on Lebanon reached Wednesday strengthened Hezbollah
READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE HERE:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/23/opinion/
Jim Pitcherella
THE NEW YORK TIMES
May 23, 2008
Editorial
Talking With the Enemy
Everybody knew President Bush was aiming at Senator Barack Obama last week when he likened those who endorse talks with “terrorists and radicals” to appeasers of the Nazis. But now we know what Mr. Bush knew then — that Israel is in indirect peace talks with Syria, a prominent member of Mr. Bush’s list of shunned nations — and it seems as if the president was going for a two-for-one in his crack about appeasement.
If so, it was breathtakingly cynical to compare the leadership of the Jewish state with those who stood aside in the face of the Nazi onslaught, and irresponsible to try to restrain this American ally from pursuing a settlement that it judges as possibly being in its best interests.
But Mr. Bush turned his back on Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts for seven years (before opening the anemic Annapolis process in November), and he resisted previous moves by Jerusalem and Damascus to revive serious negotiations, last held in 2000, over the Golan Heights. Instead, he has sought to isolate Syria.
The list of Syria’s bad behavior is long: support for Hamas and Hezbollah, interference in Iraq; objections to Israeli-Palestinian peace; a suspected role in the assassination of the former Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Hariri; and increasingly close ties to Iran. But Israel has chosen to keep talking anyway and despite discovering — and bombing — an alleged nuclear reactor in Syria.
There are reasons to be skeptical that the negotiations, brokered by Turkey, will succeed. The Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, is politically weak and under a corruption inquiry. Syria is more closely tied to Iran than ever. Many Israelis believe returning the Golan Heights, seized in the 1967 war, could put their country at greater risk. There also are concerns that a focus on Syria will divert Israeli attention from peacemaking with the Palestinians.
There could, however, be a big payoff if Syria can be weaned from Iran. We’ll never know unless Damascus’s willingness to talk is tested. We trust that Israel would not accept a deal that does not meet minimum demands, including an end to Syria enabling Hezbollah and Hamas and undermining democracy in Lebanon.
When he lashes out, as he did in Israel, Mr. Bush makes it harder for reasonable people to pursue diplomacy. And it is hypocritical. His administration has negotiated successfully with Libya (formerly on the terrorism list) and North Korea (still on the terrorism list) and has had limited, largely unsuccessful, contacts with Iran over its support for insurgents in Iraq. Israel is indirectly negotiating a cease-fire in Gaza with Hamas with the help of Egypt.
Mr. Bush’s approach is increasingly undermining American interests and causing Washington to be sidelined. To wit: an Arab-brokered political settlement on Lebanon reached Wednesday strengthened Hezbollah
READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE HERE:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/23/opinion/
Thursday, May 22, 2008
As Race Wanes, Talk of Obama-Clinton Ticket Grows
What I have been hoping for a long time:
Jim Pitcherella
Mew York Times_______________________________________
May 23, 2008
As Race Wanes, Talk of Obama-Clinton Ticket Grows
By PATRICK HEALY and JEFF ZELENY
While Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and her advisers insist that she is determined to win the Democratic nomination, former President Bill Clinton, for one, has begun privately contemplating a different outcome for her: As Senator Barack Obama’s running mate.
The reports about Mr. Clinton’s musings, which come from friends, surface as the Obama camp has quietly begun the process of choosing a running mate.
The prospect of an Obama-Clinton ticket has been fodder for political gossip for months, with some Democratic leaders pushing the idea as a way to unify the party. The Obama and Clinton campaigns have consistently shrugged off the idea, however, and Mrs. Clinton has been adamant that she is only interested in the presidency.
Yet anyone who knows the Clintons is well aware that, at times, they come to politics with different motivations. Both of them want to return to the White House; Mrs. Clinton, of New York, also enjoys being a senator, while Mr. Clinton, according to associates, sees the vice presidency as perhaps her best path to becoming president someday if she loses the nominating fight. And Mr. Clinton has his own ideas about his wife’s best interests — even if she sometimes does not share them.
A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton’s campaign said Thursday that Mr. Clinton had not had private conversations in which he was pushing her for the vice presidency or arguing that she deserved it, and that he believed the choice of a running mate was a personal one for the nominee.
Friends of the former president say his musings have been more casual: He believes that an Obama-Clinton ticket could help unify the party, and he thinks she has earned a meeting with Mr. Obama to discuss the possibility.
According to these friends, who spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to be identified revealing private talks, Mr. Clinton believes that his wife’s victories in major primary battles, like Ohio and Pennsylvania, and the 16 million votes cast for her candidacy make her the proper choice for Mr. Obama.
“If she’s not going to be the nominee, then he wants her in the second spot,” said one friend of the Clintons. “In the long run, it’s the best way for her to run again in 2016.”
Time magazine first reported Mr. Clinton’s interest in the No. 2 slot for Mrs. Clinton on Thursday.
Clinton advisers were emphatic that neither Mr. Clinton nor anyone else in the campaign had given up on Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy, and they emphasized that no efforts were being made to position Mrs. Clinton to be the running mate with the Illinois senator.
“Senator Clinton is solely focused on being the Democratic nominee,” said Howard Wolfson, the Clinton campaign’s communications director. “I have seen no interest on her part in being vice president.”
The chief strategist for the Obama campaign, David Axelrod, said Thursday that no overtures had been made by Mr. Clinton or any prominent supporters to place Mrs. Clinton on the ticket.
“There have been no contacts between the campaigns, and no one is looking for a deal of any kind,” Mr. Axelrod said in an interview. “She’s running for the nomination for president, as we are. We’re focusing on closing out the nominating fight. We’ll deal with vice presidential questions in sequence.”
Mr. Obama has asked a tight circle of advisers to set up a confidential search for prospective running mates, with a goal of having an early list of names to begin sifting through shortly after the final two primaries on June 3.
With the Democratic National Convention three months away, Mr. Obama is already about two months behind the period when preliminary vetting would normally have begun. The search will be guided by Jim Johnson, a longtime Democratic hand in Washington.
Mr. Johnson, who is a vice chairman of the Obama campaign, led the vice presidential searches for Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, in 2004 and for Walter F. Mondale in 1984. In recent weeks, officials said, he started to compile information — largely biographical and political — for a list of potential running mates.
Democratic officials on Thursday discussed Mr. Johnson’s role on condition of anonymity because Mr. Obama had demanded that the process be kept secret and they did not want him to know they were talking about it. Advisers to Mr. Obama declined to discuss the search or any elements of the process.
Mr. Obama declined on Thursday to discuss the role Mr. Johnson would be playing.
“I haven’t hired him,” Mr. Obama told reporters at the Capitol. “He’s not on retainer. I’m not paying him any money. He is a friend of mine. I know him. I am not commenting on vice presidential matters because I have not won this nomination.”
Mr. Obama, who this week crossed the threshold of winning a majority of pledged delegates, intends to wait until next month before declaring victory in the Democratic nominating fight.
A wide array of Democrats — from Congress, governor’s offices, the military and the private sector — will be included on an early list of possible ticket mates. Mr. Obama has told his associates that he wants to keep an open mind and to cast a wide net, even possibly including independents Read the rest of the article here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/23/us/politics/23veep.html?hp
Jim Pitcherella
Mew York Times_______________________________________
May 23, 2008
As Race Wanes, Talk of Obama-Clinton Ticket Grows
By PATRICK HEALY and JEFF ZELENY
While Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and her advisers insist that she is determined to win the Democratic nomination, former President Bill Clinton, for one, has begun privately contemplating a different outcome for her: As Senator Barack Obama’s running mate.
The reports about Mr. Clinton’s musings, which come from friends, surface as the Obama camp has quietly begun the process of choosing a running mate.
The prospect of an Obama-Clinton ticket has been fodder for political gossip for months, with some Democratic leaders pushing the idea as a way to unify the party. The Obama and Clinton campaigns have consistently shrugged off the idea, however, and Mrs. Clinton has been adamant that she is only interested in the presidency.
Yet anyone who knows the Clintons is well aware that, at times, they come to politics with different motivations. Both of them want to return to the White House; Mrs. Clinton, of New York, also enjoys being a senator, while Mr. Clinton, according to associates, sees the vice presidency as perhaps her best path to becoming president someday if she loses the nominating fight. And Mr. Clinton has his own ideas about his wife’s best interests — even if she sometimes does not share them.
A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton’s campaign said Thursday that Mr. Clinton had not had private conversations in which he was pushing her for the vice presidency or arguing that she deserved it, and that he believed the choice of a running mate was a personal one for the nominee.
Friends of the former president say his musings have been more casual: He believes that an Obama-Clinton ticket could help unify the party, and he thinks she has earned a meeting with Mr. Obama to discuss the possibility.
According to these friends, who spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to be identified revealing private talks, Mr. Clinton believes that his wife’s victories in major primary battles, like Ohio and Pennsylvania, and the 16 million votes cast for her candidacy make her the proper choice for Mr. Obama.
“If she’s not going to be the nominee, then he wants her in the second spot,” said one friend of the Clintons. “In the long run, it’s the best way for her to run again in 2016.”
Time magazine first reported Mr. Clinton’s interest in the No. 2 slot for Mrs. Clinton on Thursday.
Clinton advisers were emphatic that neither Mr. Clinton nor anyone else in the campaign had given up on Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy, and they emphasized that no efforts were being made to position Mrs. Clinton to be the running mate with the Illinois senator.
“Senator Clinton is solely focused on being the Democratic nominee,” said Howard Wolfson, the Clinton campaign’s communications director. “I have seen no interest on her part in being vice president.”
The chief strategist for the Obama campaign, David Axelrod, said Thursday that no overtures had been made by Mr. Clinton or any prominent supporters to place Mrs. Clinton on the ticket.
“There have been no contacts between the campaigns, and no one is looking for a deal of any kind,” Mr. Axelrod said in an interview. “She’s running for the nomination for president, as we are. We’re focusing on closing out the nominating fight. We’ll deal with vice presidential questions in sequence.”
Mr. Obama has asked a tight circle of advisers to set up a confidential search for prospective running mates, with a goal of having an early list of names to begin sifting through shortly after the final two primaries on June 3.
With the Democratic National Convention three months away, Mr. Obama is already about two months behind the period when preliminary vetting would normally have begun. The search will be guided by Jim Johnson, a longtime Democratic hand in Washington.
Mr. Johnson, who is a vice chairman of the Obama campaign, led the vice presidential searches for Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, in 2004 and for Walter F. Mondale in 1984. In recent weeks, officials said, he started to compile information — largely biographical and political — for a list of potential running mates.
Democratic officials on Thursday discussed Mr. Johnson’s role on condition of anonymity because Mr. Obama had demanded that the process be kept secret and they did not want him to know they were talking about it. Advisers to Mr. Obama declined to discuss the search or any elements of the process.
Mr. Obama declined on Thursday to discuss the role Mr. Johnson would be playing.
“I haven’t hired him,” Mr. Obama told reporters at the Capitol. “He’s not on retainer. I’m not paying him any money. He is a friend of mine. I know him. I am not commenting on vice presidential matters because I have not won this nomination.”
Mr. Obama, who this week crossed the threshold of winning a majority of pledged delegates, intends to wait until next month before declaring victory in the Democratic nominating fight.
A wide array of Democrats — from Congress, governor’s offices, the military and the private sector — will be included on an early list of possible ticket mates. Mr. Obama has told his associates that he wants to keep an open mind and to cast a wide net, even possibly including independents Read the rest of the article here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/23/us/politics/23veep.html?hp
Saturday, May 17, 2008
McCain tells NRA members they should fear Obama and Clinton-LA Times
One such alleged “unscrupulous gun dealer” from Maryland who allegedly sold many guns that were later used in criminal activity was on the Board of Directors of the National Rifle Association. I do not know he still has a high position at the NRA.
Just acknowledging that there could be “unscrupulous gun dealers” may be a no-no to the NRA higheracrchy.
From an NRA perspective, McCain and Obama hold nearly identical positions on gun control.
I believe that the NRA as it now exists cannot wholly support any presidential candidate.
Of course McCain could link guns with his “Republican Health Care Plan”. If you get really, really sick his "Republican Heath Care Plan" could authorize insurance payments for a revolver to shoot yourself in the head with; thus saving McCain’s precious insurance companies tons of cash.
Jim Pitcherella
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-mccain17-2008may17,0,4987662.story
From the Los Angeles Times
McCain tells NRA members they should fear Obama and Clinton
The Republican, trying to appeal to gun owners, speaks at NRA convention in Louisville. Obama, in South Dakota, says law-abiding gun owners 'have nothing to worry about from me.'
By Michael Muskal
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
2:48 PM PDT, May 16, 2008
Sen. John McCain moved to mend some political fences today, reaching out to reassure gun rights supporters that he will make a better president than his possible Democratic opponents.
At a stop at the annual meeting of National Rifle Assn. in Louisville, Ky., McCain acknowledged that he had differed with the group on some forms of gun regulation and on campaign financing. But the presumptive GOP presidential nominee insisted that he was a better choice that either Sen. Barack Obama or Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, still battling for the Democratic nod.
"Over the years, I haven't agreed with the NRA on every issue," McCain said. But "those disagreements do not detract from my long record of support for the Second Amendment and the work we have done together to protect the rights of gun owners."
"We have real differences with the Democratic candidates for president," he said. "They have learned something since 2000. They don't talk about their plans for gun control. They claim to support hunters and gun owners. But just because they don't talk about gun control doesn't mean they won't support gun control. Let's be clear. If either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama is elected president, the rights of law-abiding gun owners will be at risk."
Obama, at a televised news conference in Watertown, S.D., responded to a question by saying that he expected the GOP to use gun-related issues in the campaign. He said he supported the individual right to bear arms.
"I do believe that there is nothing inconsistent with also saying…
READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE HERE:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-mccain17-2008may17,0,4987662.story
Just acknowledging that there could be “unscrupulous gun dealers” may be a no-no to the NRA higheracrchy.
From an NRA perspective, McCain and Obama hold nearly identical positions on gun control.
I believe that the NRA as it now exists cannot wholly support any presidential candidate.
Of course McCain could link guns with his “Republican Health Care Plan”. If you get really, really sick his "Republican Heath Care Plan" could authorize insurance payments for a revolver to shoot yourself in the head with; thus saving McCain’s precious insurance companies tons of cash.
Jim Pitcherella
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-mccain17-2008may17,0,4987662.story
From the Los Angeles Times
McCain tells NRA members they should fear Obama and Clinton
The Republican, trying to appeal to gun owners, speaks at NRA convention in Louisville. Obama, in South Dakota, says law-abiding gun owners 'have nothing to worry about from me.'
By Michael Muskal
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
2:48 PM PDT, May 16, 2008
Sen. John McCain moved to mend some political fences today, reaching out to reassure gun rights supporters that he will make a better president than his possible Democratic opponents.
At a stop at the annual meeting of National Rifle Assn. in Louisville, Ky., McCain acknowledged that he had differed with the group on some forms of gun regulation and on campaign financing. But the presumptive GOP presidential nominee insisted that he was a better choice that either Sen. Barack Obama or Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, still battling for the Democratic nod.
"Over the years, I haven't agreed with the NRA on every issue," McCain said. But "those disagreements do not detract from my long record of support for the Second Amendment and the work we have done together to protect the rights of gun owners."
"We have real differences with the Democratic candidates for president," he said. "They have learned something since 2000. They don't talk about their plans for gun control. They claim to support hunters and gun owners. But just because they don't talk about gun control doesn't mean they won't support gun control. Let's be clear. If either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama is elected president, the rights of law-abiding gun owners will be at risk."
Obama, at a televised news conference in Watertown, S.D., responded to a question by saying that he expected the GOP to use gun-related issues in the campaign. He said he supported the individual right to bear arms.
"I do believe that there is nothing inconsistent with also saying…
READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE HERE:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-mccain17-2008may17,0,4987662.story
Friday, May 16, 2008
A Few Good Soldiers
We may have a “commander in chief” with no sense of honor or duty but the military that he leads does not just click their heels and follow.
Jim
jurisprudence
A Few Good Soldiers
More members of the military turn against the terror trials.
By Emily Bazelon and Dahlia Lithwick
Posted Tuesday, May 13, 2008, at 6:35 PM ET
________________________________________
Legal commentators have argued for years about whether there might ever be legitimate trials for the so-called "enemy combatants" we're holding at Guantanamo Bay. Some say no. Others, like our friend Ben Wittes, argue that the evidence is inconclusive. They want to see what the Guantanamo military commissions produce before pronouncing them a failure.
We may never get there. Key actors are declining to play their part in a piece of theater designed to produce all convictions all the time. These refusals, affecting two trials this week, suggest that the whole apparatus—seven years and counting in the making—cannot ever be fixed. The trials are doomed, and they are doomed from the inside out.
Today we learned that the Pentagon has dropped charges against Mohammed al-Qahtani—the alleged 20th hijacker (or maybe the 21st or 22nd, since that title has gone to others before him). Along with five other "high value" detainees, al-Qahtani was facing capital charges at Guantanamo. The decision not to try him comes from the convening authority for the commissions, Susan Crawford. She didn't give an explanation for halting the prosecution, but, then, we don't really need one. As Phillip Carter notes elsewhere in Slate, it's been clear for a while that the evidence against al-Qahtani was torture (or near-torture) tainted, and prosecutors at Guantanamo had announced long ago that "what had been done to him would prevent him from ever being put on trial." In light of all that, you might wonder why he was one of the six trotted out for the big show trials in the first place.
Something in the unsavory history of al-Qahtani's interrogation (featuring sexual humiliation, attack dogs, stress positions, and sleep deprivation) must have proved too much for Crawford, which may reveal that Crawford has some filament of legal integrity or simply that she knows when to cut her losses. Either way, it's important that for every course correction at Gitmo from the Supreme Court, there have been many more from within the Pentagon. If the same people who joined the military in the hopes of fighting terrorism have had enough of the government's jury-rigged apparatus of Guantanamo justice, it's probably time to stick a fork in the whole thing.
Since the inception of the commissions, the brakes have almost always been applied when some member of the military has balked, even when going along would have been
READ THE REST OF THE STORY HERE:
http://www.slate.com/id/2191301/pagenum/3/
Jim
jurisprudence
A Few Good Soldiers
More members of the military turn against the terror trials.
By Emily Bazelon and Dahlia Lithwick
Posted Tuesday, May 13, 2008, at 6:35 PM ET
________________________________________
Legal commentators have argued for years about whether there might ever be legitimate trials for the so-called "enemy combatants" we're holding at Guantanamo Bay. Some say no. Others, like our friend Ben Wittes, argue that the evidence is inconclusive. They want to see what the Guantanamo military commissions produce before pronouncing them a failure.
We may never get there. Key actors are declining to play their part in a piece of theater designed to produce all convictions all the time. These refusals, affecting two trials this week, suggest that the whole apparatus—seven years and counting in the making—cannot ever be fixed. The trials are doomed, and they are doomed from the inside out.
Today we learned that the Pentagon has dropped charges against Mohammed al-Qahtani—the alleged 20th hijacker (or maybe the 21st or 22nd, since that title has gone to others before him). Along with five other "high value" detainees, al-Qahtani was facing capital charges at Guantanamo. The decision not to try him comes from the convening authority for the commissions, Susan Crawford. She didn't give an explanation for halting the prosecution, but, then, we don't really need one. As Phillip Carter notes elsewhere in Slate, it's been clear for a while that the evidence against al-Qahtani was torture (or near-torture) tainted, and prosecutors at Guantanamo had announced long ago that "what had been done to him would prevent him from ever being put on trial." In light of all that, you might wonder why he was one of the six trotted out for the big show trials in the first place.
Something in the unsavory history of al-Qahtani's interrogation (featuring sexual humiliation, attack dogs, stress positions, and sleep deprivation) must have proved too much for Crawford, which may reveal that Crawford has some filament of legal integrity or simply that she knows when to cut her losses. Either way, it's important that for every course correction at Gitmo from the Supreme Court, there have been many more from within the Pentagon. If the same people who joined the military in the hopes of fighting terrorism have had enough of the government's jury-rigged apparatus of Guantanamo justice, it's probably time to stick a fork in the whole thing.
Since the inception of the commissions, the brakes have almost always been applied when some member of the military has balked, even when going along would have been
READ THE REST OF THE STORY HERE:
http://www.slate.com/id/2191301/pagenum/3/
Thursday, May 15, 2008
How to make this blog effective.
This blog can be a very effective in building the Democratic Party:
- Paste http://coatesvilledems.blogspot.com/ in your emails
- Encourage people to post their opinions
- Keep posts short and local
- Post events with dates and location
New Math for November
New York Times
Outposts
Timothy Egan
May 14, 2008, 9:26 pm
New Math for November
PORTLAND, Ore. — This state is known for many things — good wine, the imperial branding of the Nike swoosh, a political culture that produces contrarians of both parties — but ethnic diversity is not one of them. This state has an African-American population of less than 2 percent.
And yet on May 20, when voters here could finally end the Democratic presidential marathon by giving Senator Barack Obama an outright majority of pledged delegates, don’t expect to hear much about how a black man has broadened the playing field for his party by winning a heavily white state. Apparently, white people in Gore-Tex country don’t count as much as white people in Appalachia. Nor, if you look at Colorado, a Bush state that Obama won this year, do white people who sing “Rocky Mountain High” matter as much as white people who sing, “Almost heaven, West Virginia.”
It’s absurd, of course, to tout the implied superiority of “hard-working Americans, white Americans,” as Hillary Clinton said last week of her core supporters. And those other white Americans, in Iowa, Wisconsin, or here in Oregon — all heavy Obama supporters — are slackers? Not to mention black supporters.
In Oregon, in recent days, we’ve seen fresh themes for the general election presented by Obama and Senator John McCain — and they have very little to do with dated, tribal politics. The fruit trees in the Willamette Valley may be in full blossom, but in Oregon it’s November in May.
The map of counties that Hillary Clinton won big this year shows a broad swath of Appalachia and rural America, places where a Democrat is unlikely to prevail in the general election. The scab of racial animus can be thick in those counties, judging by exit polls of Clinton supporters who say they would never vote for a black man, and by anecdotal reporting.
The political math of the future lies with the new America — fast-growing communities in Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, Oregon and elsewhere, where people are trying to step out of the cement shoes of race. Yes, race is still a
READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE HERE:
http://egan.blogs.nytimes.com/
Outposts
Timothy Egan
May 14, 2008, 9:26 pm
New Math for November
PORTLAND, Ore. — This state is known for many things — good wine, the imperial branding of the Nike swoosh, a political culture that produces contrarians of both parties — but ethnic diversity is not one of them. This state has an African-American population of less than 2 percent.
And yet on May 20, when voters here could finally end the Democratic presidential marathon by giving Senator Barack Obama an outright majority of pledged delegates, don’t expect to hear much about how a black man has broadened the playing field for his party by winning a heavily white state. Apparently, white people in Gore-Tex country don’t count as much as white people in Appalachia. Nor, if you look at Colorado, a Bush state that Obama won this year, do white people who sing “Rocky Mountain High” matter as much as white people who sing, “Almost heaven, West Virginia.”
It’s absurd, of course, to tout the implied superiority of “hard-working Americans, white Americans,” as Hillary Clinton said last week of her core supporters. And those other white Americans, in Iowa, Wisconsin, or here in Oregon — all heavy Obama supporters — are slackers? Not to mention black supporters.
In Oregon, in recent days, we’ve seen fresh themes for the general election presented by Obama and Senator John McCain — and they have very little to do with dated, tribal politics. The fruit trees in the Willamette Valley may be in full blossom, but in Oregon it’s November in May.
The map of counties that Hillary Clinton won big this year shows a broad swath of Appalachia and rural America, places where a Democrat is unlikely to prevail in the general election. The scab of racial animus can be thick in those counties, judging by exit polls of Clinton supporters who say they would never vote for a black man, and by anecdotal reporting.
The political math of the future lies with the new America — fast-growing communities in Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, Oregon and elsewhere, where people are trying to step out of the cement shoes of race. Yes, race is still a
READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE HERE:
http://egan.blogs.nytimes.com/
Healthcare
To: Coatesville-area residents concerned about healthcare
From: Phila Back, Working Families Win organizer
Subject: Summary & ACTION - 5/13 healthcare program at community center
For everybody who did and didn't attend the Working Families Win and the PA Healthcare Access Network program this past Tuesday, here's the key info:
Pennsylvania is 3 STATE SENATE VOTES away from expanding the subsidized Adult Basic health insurance to an additional 270,000 Pennsylvanians. 80,000 people are on the waiting list and there are 800,000 uninsured adult Pennsylvanians, including nearly 26,000 in Chester County, 1,727 who are on the Adult Basic waiting list. 3,220 adults in Coatesville are uninsured. Please call your state senator, John Rafferty NOW at 610-469-8390 and urge him to vote for H.B. 1137 http://pahealthaccess.org/?page_id=30 The plan would be funded principally by the surplus in the malpractice premium fund and raising the tobacco tax. Visit the website above for full information. If you are uninsured or have personal story, consider sharing it with Senator Rafferty. He must realize the need in his district. You can also send a letter to his office, 170 Main Capitol, Harrisburg, PA 17120, or fax it to 717-783-4587. His email address is jarafferty@pasen.gov, although emails get less attention than phone calls or letters on paper.
4 federal healthcare reform proposals were discussed:
Barack Obama http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/ proposes creating a new public healthcare plan, similar to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. All employers would be required to provide healthcare or contribute to the public plan. He would make denying coverage for pre-existing conditions illegal and provide income-based subsidies for people to buy insurance. Medicaid and SCHIP would be strengthened. He would require all children to be insured.
Hillary Clinton http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/healthcare/ proposes giving all Americans access to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. She would also create a public plan similar to Medicare. Large employers must provide healthcare or contribute to the public plans. Small businesses will receive a tax credit for healthcare. Everyone would be required to be insured. Exclusions for pre-existing conditions would be illegal and working families would receive an income-based refundable tax credit. Medicaid and SCHIP would be strengthened.
John McCain http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/19ba2f1c-c03f-4ac2-8cd5-5cf2edb527cf.htm would eliminate the current tax deduction for employers who offer healthcare. He would provide a refundable tax credit of $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families to pay for insurance premiums. He would promote competition in the national insurance market. He would work with states to establish a guaranteed access plan for people without prior group coverage and pre-existing conditions.
Congressman John Conyer's United States National Health Insurance Act http://www.house.gov/conyers/news_hr676.shtml is not socialized medicine (where doctors work for the government) but Medicare for all (doctors remain private and you have free choice among them). It would cover everyone and save $387 billion/year.
Phila Back
Organizer
Working Families Win
30 Pine Street, Kutztown, PA 19530
610-334-5563
610-683-8629 (FAX)
Phila_Back@verizon.net
www.wfwin.org
From: Phila Back, Working Families Win organizer
Subject: Summary & ACTION - 5/13 healthcare program at community center
For everybody who did and didn't attend the Working Families Win and the PA Healthcare Access Network program this past Tuesday, here's the key info:
Pennsylvania is 3 STATE SENATE VOTES away from expanding the subsidized Adult Basic health insurance to an additional 270,000 Pennsylvanians. 80,000 people are on the waiting list and there are 800,000 uninsured adult Pennsylvanians, including nearly 26,000 in Chester County, 1,727 who are on the Adult Basic waiting list. 3,220 adults in Coatesville are uninsured. Please call your state senator, John Rafferty NOW at 610-469-8390 and urge him to vote for H.B. 1137 http://pahealthaccess.org/?page_id=30 The plan would be funded principally by the surplus in the malpractice premium fund and raising the tobacco tax. Visit the website above for full information. If you are uninsured or have personal story, consider sharing it with Senator Rafferty. He must realize the need in his district. You can also send a letter to his office, 170 Main Capitol, Harrisburg, PA 17120, or fax it to 717-783-4587. His email address is jarafferty@pasen.gov, although emails get less attention than phone calls or letters on paper.
4 federal healthcare reform proposals were discussed:
Barack Obama http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/ proposes creating a new public healthcare plan, similar to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. All employers would be required to provide healthcare or contribute to the public plan. He would make denying coverage for pre-existing conditions illegal and provide income-based subsidies for people to buy insurance. Medicaid and SCHIP would be strengthened. He would require all children to be insured.
Hillary Clinton http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/healthcare/ proposes giving all Americans access to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. She would also create a public plan similar to Medicare. Large employers must provide healthcare or contribute to the public plans. Small businesses will receive a tax credit for healthcare. Everyone would be required to be insured. Exclusions for pre-existing conditions would be illegal and working families would receive an income-based refundable tax credit. Medicaid and SCHIP would be strengthened.
John McCain http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/19ba2f1c-c03f-4ac2-8cd5-5cf2edb527cf.htm would eliminate the current tax deduction for employers who offer healthcare. He would provide a refundable tax credit of $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families to pay for insurance premiums. He would promote competition in the national insurance market. He would work with states to establish a guaranteed access plan for people without prior group coverage and pre-existing conditions.
Congressman John Conyer's United States National Health Insurance Act http://www.house.gov/conyers/news_hr676.shtml is not socialized medicine (where doctors work for the government) but Medicare for all (doctors remain private and you have free choice among them). It would cover everyone and save $387 billion/year.
Phila Back
Organizer
Working Families Win
30 Pine Street, Kutztown, PA 19530
610-334-5563
610-683-8629 (FAX)
Phila_Back@verizon.net
www.wfwin.org
Friday, May 9, 2008
They were once heroes. The Clintons and Jim Crow racism
The Clintons are changing their place in history. They stand the chance of being remembered as fair weather friends who used Blacks to further their own political interests and that they are really just southern white segregationists. I don’t know if that is really true but it does look that way.
They were once heroes.
Jim Pitcherella
Published on Capitol Hill Blue (http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont)
The Clintons and Jim Crow racism
Hillary Clinton Thursday admitted that she is the candidate of dumb whites - no more, no less.
As her campaign continues its slide into the dustbin of political also-rans, she told USA Today that she should be president because ignorant white people want her in the White House and they are the only people who really matter in this election year.
In other words, she said vote for me because I'm white because the black guy from Chicago doesn't stand a chance in this racially-divided nation.
Reports USA Today [1]:
In an interview Wednesday with USA TODAY, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said that she would be the stronger nominee because she appeals to a wider coalition of voters -- including whites who have not supported Barack Obama in recent contests. "I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article that she said "found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."
A card-carrying member of the Ku Klux Klan could made a statement any more racist or ignorant.
Writes an angry Eugene Robinson [2] in The Washington Post:
From the beginning, Hillary Clinton has campaigned as if the Democratic nomination were hers by divine right. That's why she is falling short -- and that's why she should be persuaded to quit now, rather than later, before her majestic sense of entitlement splits the party along racial lines.
If that sounds harsh, look at the argument she made Wednesday, in an interview with USA Today, as to why she should be the nominee instead of Barack Obama. She cited an Associated Press article "that found how Senator Obama's support . . . among working, hardworking Americans, white Americans, is weakening again. I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on."
As a statement of fact, that's debatable at best. As a rationale for why Democratic Party superdelegates should pick her over Obama, it's a slap in the face to the party's most loyal constituency -- African Americans -- and a repudiation of principles the party claims to stand for. Here's what she's really saying to party leaders: There's no way that white people are going to vote for the black guy. Come November, you'll be sorry.
You can't blame Robinson for being
READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE HERE:
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/7168
They were once heroes.
Jim Pitcherella
Published on Capitol Hill Blue (http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont)
The Clintons and Jim Crow racism
Hillary Clinton Thursday admitted that she is the candidate of dumb whites - no more, no less.
As her campaign continues its slide into the dustbin of political also-rans, she told USA Today that she should be president because ignorant white people want her in the White House and they are the only people who really matter in this election year.
In other words, she said vote for me because I'm white because the black guy from Chicago doesn't stand a chance in this racially-divided nation.
Reports USA Today [1]:
In an interview Wednesday with USA TODAY, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said that she would be the stronger nominee because she appeals to a wider coalition of voters -- including whites who have not supported Barack Obama in recent contests. "I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article that she said "found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."
A card-carrying member of the Ku Klux Klan could made a statement any more racist or ignorant.
Writes an angry Eugene Robinson [2] in The Washington Post:
From the beginning, Hillary Clinton has campaigned as if the Democratic nomination were hers by divine right. That's why she is falling short -- and that's why she should be persuaded to quit now, rather than later, before her majestic sense of entitlement splits the party along racial lines.
If that sounds harsh, look at the argument she made Wednesday, in an interview with USA Today, as to why she should be the nominee instead of Barack Obama. She cited an Associated Press article "that found how Senator Obama's support . . . among working, hardworking Americans, white Americans, is weakening again. I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on."
As a statement of fact, that's debatable at best. As a rationale for why Democratic Party superdelegates should pick her over Obama, it's a slap in the face to the party's most loyal constituency -- African Americans -- and a repudiation of principles the party claims to stand for. Here's what she's really saying to party leaders: There's no way that white people are going to vote for the black guy. Come November, you'll be sorry.
You can't blame Robinson for being
READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE HERE:
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/7168
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
It's over Hillary; go home
The Clintons lost much more than an election when they courted the white separatist “Regan Democrats”.
Jim Pitcherella
Published on Capitol Hill Blue (http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont)
It's over Hillary; go home
Hilary Rodham Clinton's struggling, long shot campaign for the Presidency turned into no shot Tuesday night. She's out of cash, out of time and out of excuses. It's time to fold and head for the wings.
Financial reports scheduled for release today will show a debt-ridden campaign that will need another loan from the candidate to keep the doors open and the thumping from Barack Obama in North Carolina and her narrow win in Indiana will not convince donors to waste any more money on her futile effort.
It's over. The fat lady sang, collected her fee, and went home. Clinton needs to follow her out the door.
The only question that remains in the long, bitter campaign for the Democratic Presidential nomination is whether or not Clinton recognizes the obvious and finally puts what's left of her political party ahead of her avarice and personal ambition. If she doesn't, any chance of ever regaining a prominent position in the party that once revered her and her former President husband is long gone.
Clinton put on a brave face late last night, claiming her hallow victory in Indiana but the distracted, morose face of Bill Clinton told the story. Her campaign sent him into the bowels of North Carolina to try and wake up the uneducated, uninformed white vote that forms the core of her electability and Bubba failed to deliver.
Her brief flirtation with momentum, sparked by the win in Pennsylvania, is gone. The Clinton campaign bus is stalled, mired in a swamp
READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE HERE:
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/7052
Jim Pitcherella
Published on Capitol Hill Blue (http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont)
It's over Hillary; go home
Hilary Rodham Clinton's struggling, long shot campaign for the Presidency turned into no shot Tuesday night. She's out of cash, out of time and out of excuses. It's time to fold and head for the wings.
Financial reports scheduled for release today will show a debt-ridden campaign that will need another loan from the candidate to keep the doors open and the thumping from Barack Obama in North Carolina and her narrow win in Indiana will not convince donors to waste any more money on her futile effort.
It's over. The fat lady sang, collected her fee, and went home. Clinton needs to follow her out the door.
The only question that remains in the long, bitter campaign for the Democratic Presidential nomination is whether or not Clinton recognizes the obvious and finally puts what's left of her political party ahead of her avarice and personal ambition. If she doesn't, any chance of ever regaining a prominent position in the party that once revered her and her former President husband is long gone.
Clinton put on a brave face late last night, claiming her hallow victory in Indiana but the distracted, morose face of Bill Clinton told the story. Her campaign sent him into the bowels of North Carolina to try and wake up the uneducated, uninformed white vote that forms the core of her electability and Bubba failed to deliver.
Her brief flirtation with momentum, sparked by the win in Pennsylvania, is gone. The Clinton campaign bus is stalled, mired in a swamp
READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE HERE:
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/7052
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
McCain sides with George Bush and opposes G.I.Bill
McCain sides with George Bush and opposes G.I.Bill
Jim Pitcherella
NEW YORK TIMES
May 6, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
Doing the Troops Wrong
By BOB HERBERT
At the top of the list of no-brainers in Washington should be Senator Jim Webb’s proposed expansion of education benefits for the men and women who have served in the armed forces since Sept. 11, 2001.
It’s awfully hard to make the case that these young people who have sacrificed so much don’t deserve a shot at a better future once their wartime service has ended.
Senator Webb, a Virginia Democrat, has been the guiding force behind this legislation, which has been dubbed the new G.I. bill. The measure is decidedly bipartisan. Mr. Webb’s principal co-sponsors include Republican Senators Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and John Warner of Virginia, and Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey.
(All four senators are veterans of wartime service — Senators Webb and Hagel in Vietnam, Warner in World War II and Korea and Lautenberg in World War II.)
Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are on board, as are Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, and Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House.
Who wouldn’t support an effort to pay for college for G.I.’s who have willingly suited up and put their lives on the line, who in many cases have served multiple tours in combat zones and in some cases have been wounded?
We did it for those who served in World War II. Why not now?
Well, you might be surprised at who is not supporting this effort. The Bush administration opposes it, and so does Senator John McCain.
Reinvigorating the G.I. bill is one of the best things this nation could do. The original G.I. Bill of Rights, signed into law by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1944, paid the full load of a returning veteran’s education at a college or technical school and provided a monthly stipend. It was an investment that paid astounding dividends. Millions of veterans benefited, and they helped transform the nation. College would no longer be the exclusive preserve of the wealthy and those who crowned themselves the intellectual elite.
As The New York Times wrote on the 50th anniversary of the G.I. bill: “Few laws have done so much for so many.”
“These veterans were able to get a first-class
READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE HERE:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/opinion/06herbert.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Jim Pitcherella
NEW YORK TIMES
May 6, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
Doing the Troops Wrong
By BOB HERBERT
At the top of the list of no-brainers in Washington should be Senator Jim Webb’s proposed expansion of education benefits for the men and women who have served in the armed forces since Sept. 11, 2001.
It’s awfully hard to make the case that these young people who have sacrificed so much don’t deserve a shot at a better future once their wartime service has ended.
Senator Webb, a Virginia Democrat, has been the guiding force behind this legislation, which has been dubbed the new G.I. bill. The measure is decidedly bipartisan. Mr. Webb’s principal co-sponsors include Republican Senators Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and John Warner of Virginia, and Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey.
(All four senators are veterans of wartime service — Senators Webb and Hagel in Vietnam, Warner in World War II and Korea and Lautenberg in World War II.)
Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are on board, as are Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, and Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House.
Who wouldn’t support an effort to pay for college for G.I.’s who have willingly suited up and put their lives on the line, who in many cases have served multiple tours in combat zones and in some cases have been wounded?
We did it for those who served in World War II. Why not now?
Well, you might be surprised at who is not supporting this effort. The Bush administration opposes it, and so does Senator John McCain.
Reinvigorating the G.I. bill is one of the best things this nation could do. The original G.I. Bill of Rights, signed into law by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1944, paid the full load of a returning veteran’s education at a college or technical school and provided a monthly stipend. It was an investment that paid astounding dividends. Millions of veterans benefited, and they helped transform the nation. College would no longer be the exclusive preserve of the wealthy and those who crowned themselves the intellectual elite.
As The New York Times wrote on the 50th anniversary of the G.I. bill: “Few laws have done so much for so many.”
“These veterans were able to get a first-class
READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE HERE:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/opinion/06herbert.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Monday, May 5, 2008
It looks like the Democratic Party may be separating into two groups.
The Democrats who want to bring back the old Southern Democratic Party of segregationists and a new Democratic Party that looks to the multi-cultural future of the United States.
In just a few years there will be no White majority in the United States. Most of the segregationist, Regan Democrats in Pennsylvania that are the Clinton base here, will be dead.
I see what the Clintons are doing as winning the Primary Election at any cost. In this case the cost is the future of the Democratic Party.
In just a few years there will be no White majority in the United States. Most of the segregationist, Regan Democrats in Pennsylvania that are the Clinton base here, will be dead.
I see what the Clintons are doing as winning the Primary Election at any cost. In this case the cost is the future of the Democratic Party.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Drug dealer to serve 6 to 15 years in prison
First it was CCRC Area 14 Chairperson Richard Legree’s son now it’s CCRC Committeperson Clayton Ayers’ son. The children of the Area 14 Chester County Republican Committee are falling (into prison) like flies.
Of course Richard (Fat Boy) Legree Jr. can have his potential 130 year prison term reduced if he cooperates sufficiently with the Federal ADA’s.
On another matter; Modena borough councilman and state constable are both elected offices. Is it now OK to hold two elected offices in Pennsylvania? See the article below.
Jim Pitcherella
DAILY LOCAL NEWS-Chester County, PA
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Drug dealer to serve 6 to 15 years in prison
EAST BRANDYWINE MAN HAD BEEN A FUGITIVE
By MICHAEL P. RELLAHAN, Staff Writer
WEST CHESTER — Judge Thomas G. Gavin may not have a degree in mathematics, but he knows how to count. And the numbers he presented to a drug dealer Friday added up to a glaring reality.
For the $2,255 that Clayton J. Ayers III made from four cocaine transactions he completed in 2005, he will be spending at least the next 2,199 days in state prison, under the terms of a plea agreement that calls for a sentence of six to 15 years in prison.
That, Gavin said, calculates to about $1.03 for every day in prison, or about a nickel an hour.
“If you look at it in that sense, maybe you knuckleheads (who sell drugs) will begin to look at (the business) differently,” Gavin told Ayers.
“I’m not certain that $2,255 buys an awful lot, but when you put it against losing 2,190 days of your life it doesn’t even begin to compute,” he said.
Ayres attorney, Curtis Norcini of West Chester, said his client was “humbled” by what had become of his life and that he was hoping to serve his sentence and move on with his life. “He is sorry for his actions,” Norcini told Gavin. “If he could take them back, he would.”
Ayers, 39, of East Brandywine was charged with four separate counts of delivery of a controlled substance. He had been a fugitive for two years as police tried to track him down after Ayers apparently learned he was about to be arrested for the sales, which involved a confidential informant. A fugitive warrant was issued for him in October 2005, and the married father of three children was taken into custody in September.
The sales in February and March 2005 were each for varying amounts of cocaine and at various prices, with the transactions occurring in a grocery store parking lot in East Brandywine and at an intersection in West Bradford. The most Ayers delivered at one time was 20.6 grams of cocaine, for which he was paid $1,100.
During the transactions, Ayers either sold the cocaine to an undercover
READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE HERE:
http://www.dailylocal.com/WebApp/appmanager/JRC/Daily?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pg_article&r21.pgpath=%2FDLN%2FNews%2FLocal+News&r21.content=%2FDLN%2FNews%2FLocal+News%2FTopStoryList_Story_1996860
Of course Richard (Fat Boy) Legree Jr. can have his potential 130 year prison term reduced if he cooperates sufficiently with the Federal ADA’s.
On another matter; Modena borough councilman and state constable are both elected offices. Is it now OK to hold two elected offices in Pennsylvania? See the article below.
Jim Pitcherella
DAILY LOCAL NEWS-Chester County, PA
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Drug dealer to serve 6 to 15 years in prison
EAST BRANDYWINE MAN HAD BEEN A FUGITIVE
By MICHAEL P. RELLAHAN, Staff Writer
WEST CHESTER — Judge Thomas G. Gavin may not have a degree in mathematics, but he knows how to count. And the numbers he presented to a drug dealer Friday added up to a glaring reality.
For the $2,255 that Clayton J. Ayers III made from four cocaine transactions he completed in 2005, he will be spending at least the next 2,199 days in state prison, under the terms of a plea agreement that calls for a sentence of six to 15 years in prison.
That, Gavin said, calculates to about $1.03 for every day in prison, or about a nickel an hour.
“If you look at it in that sense, maybe you knuckleheads (who sell drugs) will begin to look at (the business) differently,” Gavin told Ayers.
“I’m not certain that $2,255 buys an awful lot, but when you put it against losing 2,190 days of your life it doesn’t even begin to compute,” he said.
Ayres attorney, Curtis Norcini of West Chester, said his client was “humbled” by what had become of his life and that he was hoping to serve his sentence and move on with his life. “He is sorry for his actions,” Norcini told Gavin. “If he could take them back, he would.”
Ayers, 39, of East Brandywine was charged with four separate counts of delivery of a controlled substance. He had been a fugitive for two years as police tried to track him down after Ayers apparently learned he was about to be arrested for the sales, which involved a confidential informant. A fugitive warrant was issued for him in October 2005, and the married father of three children was taken into custody in September.
The sales in February and March 2005 were each for varying amounts of cocaine and at various prices, with the transactions occurring in a grocery store parking lot in East Brandywine and at an intersection in West Bradford. The most Ayers delivered at one time was 20.6 grams of cocaine, for which he was paid $1,100.
During the transactions, Ayers either sold the cocaine to an undercover
READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE HERE:
http://www.dailylocal.com/WebApp/appmanager/JRC/Daily?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pg_article&r21.pgpath=%2FDLN%2FNews%2FLocal+News&r21.content=%2FDLN%2FNews%2FLocal+News%2FTopStoryList_Story_1996860
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Hey, What About the 24th?
From Slate:
Hey, What About the 24th?
The constitutional amendment about voting rights that the Supreme Court forgot.
By Bruce Ackerman and Jennifer Nou
Posted Friday, May 2, 2008, at 12:34 PM ET
________________________________________
Americans have long fought hard to protect the right to vote and a generation ago emphatically rejected the idea of paying for the ballot. As the civil rights revolution reached its peak, Congress and the states in 1964 enacted the 24th Amendment, forbidding any "poll-tax or other tax" in federal elections. Yet, remarkably enough, this basic text went unmentioned by the Supreme Court when it upheld Indiana's photo-ID law this week.
Indiana's law insists on a photo ID to vote, which in turn requires documents, like a birth certificate or passport, that verify identity. Getting these papers costs voters money as well as time and effort. This leads to the question the court failed to ask: Does the extra expense violate the absolute ban on all "taxes" imposed by the 24th Amendment?
The leading Supreme Court decision about this amendment provides a starting point. In Harman v. Forssenius, Virginia responded to the new constitutional prohibition by allowing citizens to escape its poll tax if they filed a formal certificate establishing their place of residence. Otherwise, they would be obliged to continue paying a state tax of $1.50 if they wanted to cast a ballot. Lars Forssenius refused to pay the tax or file the residency certificate and brought a class action suit attacking the statute as unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court agreed with Forssenius in 1965, only a year after the amendment came into force. Chief Justice Earl Warren emphasized that Virginia's escape clause for avoiding the $1.50 was unconstitutionally burdensome: "For federal elections," he explained, "the poll tax is abolished absolutely as a prerequisite to voting, and no equivalent or milder substitute may be imposed." Although the Roberts Court divided sharply this week over Indiana's voter ID law, Warren's opinion gained the support of all the sitting justices except the conservative Justice John Marshall Harlan—and even he concurred in the result.
Harman casts a shadow over Indiana's photo-ID law. On the face of things, Indiana provides identification free of charge, but so did Virginia when it required proof of residence. Like Virginians trying to avoid the tax, Indianans must file paperwork to get their IDs. And their burden is often heavier. It was enough for a Virginian to swear that he or she was a resident in front of witnesses or a notary public. Indianans must also travel to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles to get a photo ID as well as pay for supporting documents like a birth certificate or passport. They can escape the requisite fees only by casting a provisional ballot and then taking another trip to a local official to swear that they are too poor to comply. And they must repeat this humiliating procedure every time they cast a ballot.
Like Indiana, Virginia told the court that a certificate of residency was necessary to preserve the integrity of its elections. But in 1965, the justices would have none of it. According to Harman, the 24th Amendment could not be satisfied by a showing of "remote administrative benefits"—especially when other less burdensome devices were available for proving residency. In particular, the court pointed out that Virginia could ask voters to take an oath and rely on the threat of punishment to deter lying. The same is true today in Indiana.
We don't suggest that the Roberts Court isn't clever enough to find a way around Harman. Our point is that the justices didn't even try. They
READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE HERE:
http://www.slate.com/id/2190372/
Hey, What About the 24th?
The constitutional amendment about voting rights that the Supreme Court forgot.
By Bruce Ackerman and Jennifer Nou
Posted Friday, May 2, 2008, at 12:34 PM ET
________________________________________
Americans have long fought hard to protect the right to vote and a generation ago emphatically rejected the idea of paying for the ballot. As the civil rights revolution reached its peak, Congress and the states in 1964 enacted the 24th Amendment, forbidding any "poll-tax or other tax" in federal elections. Yet, remarkably enough, this basic text went unmentioned by the Supreme Court when it upheld Indiana's photo-ID law this week.
Indiana's law insists on a photo ID to vote, which in turn requires documents, like a birth certificate or passport, that verify identity. Getting these papers costs voters money as well as time and effort. This leads to the question the court failed to ask: Does the extra expense violate the absolute ban on all "taxes" imposed by the 24th Amendment?
The leading Supreme Court decision about this amendment provides a starting point. In Harman v. Forssenius, Virginia responded to the new constitutional prohibition by allowing citizens to escape its poll tax if they filed a formal certificate establishing their place of residence. Otherwise, they would be obliged to continue paying a state tax of $1.50 if they wanted to cast a ballot. Lars Forssenius refused to pay the tax or file the residency certificate and brought a class action suit attacking the statute as unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court agreed with Forssenius in 1965, only a year after the amendment came into force. Chief Justice Earl Warren emphasized that Virginia's escape clause for avoiding the $1.50 was unconstitutionally burdensome: "For federal elections," he explained, "the poll tax is abolished absolutely as a prerequisite to voting, and no equivalent or milder substitute may be imposed." Although the Roberts Court divided sharply this week over Indiana's voter ID law, Warren's opinion gained the support of all the sitting justices except the conservative Justice John Marshall Harlan—and even he concurred in the result.
Harman casts a shadow over Indiana's photo-ID law. On the face of things, Indiana provides identification free of charge, but so did Virginia when it required proof of residence. Like Virginians trying to avoid the tax, Indianans must file paperwork to get their IDs. And their burden is often heavier. It was enough for a Virginian to swear that he or she was a resident in front of witnesses or a notary public. Indianans must also travel to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles to get a photo ID as well as pay for supporting documents like a birth certificate or passport. They can escape the requisite fees only by casting a provisional ballot and then taking another trip to a local official to swear that they are too poor to comply. And they must repeat this humiliating procedure every time they cast a ballot.
Like Indiana, Virginia told the court that a certificate of residency was necessary to preserve the integrity of its elections. But in 1965, the justices would have none of it. According to Harman, the 24th Amendment could not be satisfied by a showing of "remote administrative benefits"—especially when other less burdensome devices were available for proving residency. In particular, the court pointed out that Virginia could ask voters to take an oath and rely on the threat of punishment to deter lying. The same is true today in Indiana.
We don't suggest that the Roberts Court isn't clever enough to find a way around Harman. Our point is that the justices didn't even try. They
READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE HERE:
http://www.slate.com/id/2190372/
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Sidney Blumenthal Uses Former Right-Wing Foes To Attack Obama
Sidney Blumenthal Uses Former Right-Wing Foes To Attack Obama
THE HUFFINGTON POST
Posted May 1, 2008 | 03:34 PM (EST)
________________________________________
Former journalist Sidney Blumenthal has been widely credited with coining the term "vast right-wing conspiracy" used by Hillary Clinton in 1998 to describe the alliance of conservative media, think tanks, and political operatives that sought to destroy the Clinton White House where he worked as a high-level aide. A decade later, and now acting as a senior campaign advisor to Senator Clinton, Blumenthal is exploiting that same right-wing network to attack and discredit Barack Obama. And he's not hesitating to use the same sort of guilt-by-association tactics that have been the hallmark of the political right dating back to the McCarthy era.
Almost every day over the past six months, I have been the recipient of an email that attacks Obama's character, political views, electability, and real or manufactured associations. The original source of many of these hit pieces are virulent and sometimes extreme right-wing websites, bloggers, and publications. But they aren't being emailed out from some fringe right-wing group that somehow managed to get my email address. Instead, it is Sidney Blumenthal who, on a regular basis, methodically dispatches these email mudballs to an influential list of opinion shapers -- including journalists, former Clinton administration officials, academics, policy entrepreneurs, and think tankers -- in what is an obvious attempt to create an echo chamber that reverberates among talk shows, columnists, and Democratic Party funders and activists. One of the recipients of the Blumenthal email blast, himself a Clinton supporter, forwards the material to me and perhaps to others.
These attacks sent out by Blumenthal, long known for his fierce and combative loyalty to the Clintons, draw on a wide variety of sources to spread his Obama-bashing. Some of the pieces are culled from the mainstream media and include some reasoned swipes at Obama's policy and political positions.
But, rather remarkably for such a self-professed liberal operative like Blumenthal, a staggering number of the anti-Obama attacks he circulates derive from highly-ideological and militant right-wing sources such as the misnamed Accuracy in Media (AIM), The Weekly Standard, City Journal, The American Conservative, and The National Review.
To cite just one recent example, Blumenthal circulated an article taken from the fervently hard-right AIM website on February 18 entitled, "Obama's Communist Mentor" by Cliff Kincaid. Kincaid is a right-wing writer and activist, a longtime critic of the United Nations, whose group, America's Survival, has been funded by foundations controlled by conservative financier Richard Mellon Scaife, the same millionaire who helped fund attacks on the Clintons during their White House years. Scaife also funds AIM, the right-wing media "watchdog" group.
The Kincaid article that Blumenthal circulated sought to discredit Obama by linking him to an African-American poet and writer whom Obama knew while he was in high school in Hawaii. That writer, Frank Marshall Davis, was, Kincaid wrote, a member of the Communist Party. Supported by no tangible evidence, Kincaid claimed that Obama considered his relationship to Davis to be "almost like a son." In his memoir, Dreams from My Father, Obama wrote about meeting, during his teenage years, a writer named "Frank" who "had some modest notoriety once" and with whom he occasionally discussed poetry and politics. From this snippet, Kincaid weaves an incredulous tale that turns Davis into Obama's "mentor."
Kincaid's piece had been previously circulating within the right-wing blogosphere, but
READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE HERE:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/sidney-blumenthal-uses-fo_b_99695.html
THE HUFFINGTON POST
Posted May 1, 2008 | 03:34 PM (EST)
________________________________________
Former journalist Sidney Blumenthal has been widely credited with coining the term "vast right-wing conspiracy" used by Hillary Clinton in 1998 to describe the alliance of conservative media, think tanks, and political operatives that sought to destroy the Clinton White House where he worked as a high-level aide. A decade later, and now acting as a senior campaign advisor to Senator Clinton, Blumenthal is exploiting that same right-wing network to attack and discredit Barack Obama. And he's not hesitating to use the same sort of guilt-by-association tactics that have been the hallmark of the political right dating back to the McCarthy era.
Almost every day over the past six months, I have been the recipient of an email that attacks Obama's character, political views, electability, and real or manufactured associations. The original source of many of these hit pieces are virulent and sometimes extreme right-wing websites, bloggers, and publications. But they aren't being emailed out from some fringe right-wing group that somehow managed to get my email address. Instead, it is Sidney Blumenthal who, on a regular basis, methodically dispatches these email mudballs to an influential list of opinion shapers -- including journalists, former Clinton administration officials, academics, policy entrepreneurs, and think tankers -- in what is an obvious attempt to create an echo chamber that reverberates among talk shows, columnists, and Democratic Party funders and activists. One of the recipients of the Blumenthal email blast, himself a Clinton supporter, forwards the material to me and perhaps to others.
These attacks sent out by Blumenthal, long known for his fierce and combative loyalty to the Clintons, draw on a wide variety of sources to spread his Obama-bashing. Some of the pieces are culled from the mainstream media and include some reasoned swipes at Obama's policy and political positions.
But, rather remarkably for such a self-professed liberal operative like Blumenthal, a staggering number of the anti-Obama attacks he circulates derive from highly-ideological and militant right-wing sources such as the misnamed Accuracy in Media (AIM), The Weekly Standard, City Journal, The American Conservative, and The National Review.
To cite just one recent example, Blumenthal circulated an article taken from the fervently hard-right AIM website on February 18 entitled, "Obama's Communist Mentor" by Cliff Kincaid. Kincaid is a right-wing writer and activist, a longtime critic of the United Nations, whose group, America's Survival, has been funded by foundations controlled by conservative financier Richard Mellon Scaife, the same millionaire who helped fund attacks on the Clintons during their White House years. Scaife also funds AIM, the right-wing media "watchdog" group.
The Kincaid article that Blumenthal circulated sought to discredit Obama by linking him to an African-American poet and writer whom Obama knew while he was in high school in Hawaii. That writer, Frank Marshall Davis, was, Kincaid wrote, a member of the Communist Party. Supported by no tangible evidence, Kincaid claimed that Obama considered his relationship to Davis to be "almost like a son." In his memoir, Dreams from My Father, Obama wrote about meeting, during his teenage years, a writer named "Frank" who "had some modest notoriety once" and with whom he occasionally discussed poetry and politics. From this snippet, Kincaid weaves an incredulous tale that turns Davis into Obama's "mentor."
Kincaid's piece had been previously circulating within the right-wing blogosphere, but
READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE HERE:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/sidney-blumenthal-uses-fo_b_99695.html
"A vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote to continue' a long, self-destructive Democratic campaign"
As far as the National Elections, the Republican Party is in a death spiral in a pilotless aircraft. I believe that any Democrat will win against McCain.
But Hillary on the ballot in November could mean heavy losses for local candidates here in Chester County PA.
The Clintons may now be considered “fair weather friends” by Black voters. Judging from what local Black people here have said they will not come out to vote for the Clintons. I am not sure if the Clintons have permanently lost the support of Black voters or if it is possible for the Clintons to regain the support of Black voters.
The Democratic Party has achieved a plurality in voter registration here in Chester County Pennsylvania. That is mostly because of the voter registration efforts by the Obama Campaign that began in October of 2007. I feel that most of those new Democratic votes would be lost with Hillary Clinton on the ballot. The support for Hillary Clinton is also just not there among independents and Republicans here and we still need them to win elections in Chester County.
Jim Pitcherella
From THE HUFFINGTON POST:
Hillary Rodham Clinton was jolted Thursday by the defection of one of her longtime superdelegate supporters, a former national party chairman who urged fellow Democrats to "reject the old negative politics" and unify behind Barack Obama.
"A vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote to continue" a long, self-destructive Democratic campaign, Joe Andrew added in a letter designed to have an impact on the turbulent race nationally as well as in his home state of Indiana, site of a primary next week. ...
Andrew's defection came at a particularly opportune time for Obama. The front-runner in the race, he has won more states than his rival as well as more of the popular vote, and he has an overall lead in delegates, 1736.5-1602.5. It takes 2,025 to clinch the nomination.
But he has struggled in recent days to limit the political damage caused by controversial comments by his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
Clinton's hopes of stalling Obama's drive to the nomination rest on a strong showing in the remaining primaries, beginning Tuesday in Indiana. At the same time, she hopes to persuade superdelegates that she would be a stronger candidate for the party this fall against McCain and
READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE HERE:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/01/defection-of-longtime-sup_n_99741.html
But Hillary on the ballot in November could mean heavy losses for local candidates here in Chester County PA.
The Clintons may now be considered “fair weather friends” by Black voters. Judging from what local Black people here have said they will not come out to vote for the Clintons. I am not sure if the Clintons have permanently lost the support of Black voters or if it is possible for the Clintons to regain the support of Black voters.
The Democratic Party has achieved a plurality in voter registration here in Chester County Pennsylvania. That is mostly because of the voter registration efforts by the Obama Campaign that began in October of 2007. I feel that most of those new Democratic votes would be lost with Hillary Clinton on the ballot. The support for Hillary Clinton is also just not there among independents and Republicans here and we still need them to win elections in Chester County.
Jim Pitcherella
From THE HUFFINGTON POST:
Hillary Rodham Clinton was jolted Thursday by the defection of one of her longtime superdelegate supporters, a former national party chairman who urged fellow Democrats to "reject the old negative politics" and unify behind Barack Obama.
"A vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote to continue" a long, self-destructive Democratic campaign, Joe Andrew added in a letter designed to have an impact on the turbulent race nationally as well as in his home state of Indiana, site of a primary next week. ...
Andrew's defection came at a particularly opportune time for Obama. The front-runner in the race, he has won more states than his rival as well as more of the popular vote, and he has an overall lead in delegates, 1736.5-1602.5. It takes 2,025 to clinch the nomination.
But he has struggled in recent days to limit the political damage caused by controversial comments by his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
Clinton's hopes of stalling Obama's drive to the nomination rest on a strong showing in the remaining primaries, beginning Tuesday in Indiana. At the same time, she hopes to persuade superdelegates that she would be a stronger candidate for the party this fall against McCain and
READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE HERE:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/01/defection-of-longtime-sup_n_99741.html
Reaction to smear ads
Here is my suggestion for how Barack Obama should handle the North Carolina smear ad.
He should run an ad telling everyone that this type of distraction is exactly what he was talking about in San Francisco. The Republicans are running an ad, focusing on an issue that may be emotional, but it is not going to help improve the life of the average person. The Republicans are talking about Rev. Wright because they cannot talk about jobs, they cannot talk about the economy, they cannot talk about improving your life or leveling the playing field for the average person. They want you to look at Rev. Wright to distract you from focusing on things that could actually help the average person. They want you to look away from the issues that are so difficult for you to deal with everyday, and look at something that will take your eye off of the ball.
I'm clearly not an advertising professional, but I'm sure that a good pro could do something effective with this theme.
--Susan Murray, Glenmoore
He should run an ad telling everyone that this type of distraction is exactly what he was talking about in San Francisco. The Republicans are running an ad, focusing on an issue that may be emotional, but it is not going to help improve the life of the average person. The Republicans are talking about Rev. Wright because they cannot talk about jobs, they cannot talk about the economy, they cannot talk about improving your life or leveling the playing field for the average person. They want you to look at Rev. Wright to distract you from focusing on things that could actually help the average person. They want you to look away from the issues that are so difficult for you to deal with everyday, and look at something that will take your eye off of the ball.
I'm clearly not an advertising professional, but I'm sure that a good pro could do something effective with this theme.
--Susan Murray, Glenmoore
Dirty Politics
It is unfortunate that these dirty politics are again and again played and playing on Barack while the real culprit in many ways candidate Hillary is being treated Scott free - look how she is provoking Barack for debate - look in the msnbc channel today morning just around 9 am today - how the reporter is provoking Barack advisor David on Rev. Jeremiah Wright issues - they do not have remotest morals out there and they are looking ways to destroy the Barack Obama wave - they are finding all demeaning ways to destroy the strength and support for this man called Barack Obama who is very simple and without any political play - history is witness that change is not so easy - however, now in 21st century, when the change wave reached this far supporting Barack Obama is clear indication that this many people want and are desperate for change in their lives – Senator Clinton talks about experience all the time – what experience former President Bill Clinton has when he took oath as President – does anybody remember his Presidency for the first 3 years that almost reached to impeachment? Why doesn't anybody dare to ask this question to him or to Hilary Clinton? Hillary is involved in felony charges [true or not – there is a charge on her] why doesn't anybody talk about it? Once a while media did hint about Hilary being not right with negative campaign why don't media ask her or insist her to stop and be fair? Why doesn't media show the full remarks or full version of Rev. Jermaiah Wright comments and explode the channel with only sound byte which is provocative and damaging to people and not just Barack Obama ?
Hello North Carolina and Indiana – please do not all for any negative campaign – use all your intelligence and your desire for change- Barack Obama is for real and he is for change for better of all of us Americans – support Barack Obama with you heart and your intellect
- swati gana
Hello North Carolina and Indiana – please do not all for any negative campaign – use all your intelligence and your desire for change- Barack Obama is for real and he is for change for better of all of us Americans – support Barack Obama with you heart and your intellect
- swati gana
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)