This is merely my opinion regarding Clinton as SOS and therefore I cannot speak for everyone who did not support her in the primary (I did not support her, I was first an Edwards supporter then moved to Obama rather quickly despite some of my reservations). From some comments (by others) in various threads there are some very interesting themes emerging.
One... many at Kos hated Clinton, so that anyone that now supports her appointment as SOS was lying then or lying now.
Secondly... Clinton is so damn hawkish because of her support and vote for the war she is completely unfit to serve in Obama’s administration.
So, here I must refute these ideas...
Clinton fought hard during the primary and said some things that really pissed me off, just as many here were pissed. Some chose to express that anger in ways that might not seem as productive as other means but things were said during the primary, we all know that.
But when Clinton conceded and endorsed Obama, I was a bit shocked. I did believe she might keep fighting until the convention and even challenge his nomination at the roll call. But as history now shows us, Clinton not only endorsed Obama, she campaigned for him and urged her supporters to vote for him.
How much clearer could she have been, No McCain, no way, no how? She was very clear that McCain was not an alternative to Obama and by Republicans picking Sarah Palin as the VP choice (Sure, we all know McCain did not get his way) they gave Clinton an even bigger bat to hit that point home ; McCain/Palin were not an alternative to Clinton either.
I teared up when Clinton stopped the roll call and spoke those words that ended it as clearly as anyone could have, she will forever have a huge part in history for many different reasons and I think one of the most important was the grit and class she showed after she had lost the primary. It turned my head and it gave me the ability to forgive and forget. Yes, it can happen in politics as well, some things are just not worth hanging on to.
Is it possible that I might be the only one whose opinion of Clinton was drastically changed? I highly doubt it and I’m hoping that is the case, that many allowed themselves to be won over by her ardent support of Obama and her ability to be a “team player”.
Obama is also playing the game and he has given her a great opportunity to be a tremendous Secretary of State to put forth HIS agenda on Foreign Policy not her own. That’s where her perceived hawkishness is irrelevant to me, ultimately Clinton was chosen for her standing in the international community and relationships between world leaders that already exist. It is also a nod to her competency as a Senator and an opponent. It was a brilliant move by Obama in my opinion and a deserving position for Clinton as well, in my opinion.
But do you really think that Clinton would have enough sway over Obama to start another useless and illegal war? Really?
I know many here admired the fact that Obama stood up and spoke out against the Iraq war when it was not the politically expedient thing to do. I was also one of the many who never supported this war and I still feel betrayed by all that allowed themselves to be swayed by the bullshit meme put forth by the Bush Administration, either you are for us or against us. Clinton is not politically un-savvy, she knew she had to support the war, at least in her mind and at the time it was what she felt was necessary.
Clinton also knew (yes, all supposition on my part, I admit it) that she could not fully repudiate her stance on the war, it would mean admitting she did not do her homework and that she was possibly like every other Democrat (according to the right wing) soft on national security, etc. Clinton was in it to win and she made a calculated decision (just as John Edwards did, by the way, but he had nothing to lose in saying he was sorry, I wonder even now if he ever meant to see it through Super Tuesday).
Obama has proven that you can be for America and be against stupid wars. He’s held his own in showing that inexperience doesn’t mean dumb and that his intellect far outweighs the experience of the many people who supported this war in the first place. Clinton in his Cabinet will not overpower Obama nor will her “hawkishness”. Obama will not allow that to be the driving force of his Foreign Policy.
It is possible for former Clintons skeptics to support her appointment as Secretary of State without it meaning that we all lied just a few months ago. And by her full throated support of Obama during the general election she’s also proven that his agenda can be her agenda if it means improving our standing in the world and helping America be a better place for all of us.
Just call me a pragmatic optimist, I would much rather give people the benefit of the doubt and hope for the best once Obama is sworn in rather than mope about something that is completely out of my control in the first place. (Yes, the left has every right to speak out against the perceived move to the center, which is still more left than McCain would have ever been if he had won).
Showing posts with label obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label obama. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Friday, August 22, 2008
Politico: Clinton was never vetted.
The Politico is reporting Hillary Clinton was never vetted for the role of VP.
Obama has often said, most recently on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on July 27, that Clinton “would be on anybody’s short list.”So I guess we can cross this one off potentials?
But apparently not his.
“She was never vetted,” a Democratic official reported. “She was not asked for a single piece of paper. She and Senator Obama have never had a single conversation about it. How would he know if she’d take it?”
The official also said Clinton never met with Obama’s vetting team of Eric Holder and Caroline Kennedy.
And the official said she was never asked for medical records or for any financial 2008 information about her or former President Bill Clinton. The last information the couple has disclosed about taxes and financial holdings was for 2007.
“This would be the biggest leap of faith ever,” the official said. “She’s waiting for the text message like everyone else.”
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Darfur.
Darfur, which means 'land of the fur' is a region in western Sudan. The region is divided into three states: West Darfur, South Darfur, and North Darfur. Approximately the size of Spain, the arid and impoverished region has been in a state of humanitarian emergency since February 2003.
The original conflict broke out after a rebel group began attacking government targets, claiming that the region was being neglected by its capital in Khartoum and oppressing black Africans in favour of Arabs.
One side of the armed conflict is composed mainly of the Sudanese military and the Janjaweed, a militia group recruited mostly from the Arab Abbala tribes of the northern Rizeigat, camel-herding nomads. The Janjaweed are accused of the worst atrocities. The other side comprises a variety of rebel groups, notably the Sudan Liberation Movement (SLA) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), recruited primarily from the land-tilling non-Arab Fur, Zaghawa, and Massaleit ethnic groups.
The Sudanese government, while publicly denying that it supports the Janjaweed, has provided money and assistance to the militia and has participated in joint attacks targeting the tribes from which the rebels draw support.
The current lines of conflict are seen to be ethnic and tribal, rather than religious, some attest that the combination of decades of drought, desertification, and overpopulation are among the causes of the conflict, because the Arab nomads searching for water have to take their livestock further south, to land mainly occupied by Black African farming communities. There are now more than a dozen rebel groups - making peace talks extremely difficult.
The Sudanese government, led by President Omar al-Bashir admits mobilizing "self-defence militias" following rebel attacks, however it denies any links or control to the Janjaweed, who are accused of trying to "cleanse" black Africans from large swathes of territory. Refugees say that following air raids by government aircraft, the Janjaweed ride into villages on horses and camels, slaughtering men, raping women and stealing whatever they can find. Many women report being abducted and held as sex slaves for more than a week before being released.
After strong international pressure and the threat of sanctions, the government promised to disarm the Janjaweed. But so far there is little evidence this has happened. Trials have been announced in Khartoum of some members of the security forces suspected of abuses - but this is viewed as part of a campaign against UN-backed attempts to get some 50 key suspects tried at the International Criminal Court in The Hague.
Millions of civilians have fled their destroyed villages, with more than two million in camps near Darfur's main towns. The Janjaweed patrol outside the camps and Darfuris say the men are killed and the women raped if they venture too far in search of firewood or water.
As the conflict enters its sixth year, with much of Darfur inaccessible to aid workers and researchers, conditions continue to deteriorate for civilians. Hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, even by the most conservative estimates. The United Nations puts the death toll at roughly 300,000, while the former U.N. undersecretary-general puts the number at no less than 400,000. Up to 2.5 million have fled their homes and sought safety in camps throughout Darfur, or in refugee camps in neighboring Chad and the Central African Republic. But many of these are camped along the stretch of the borders remain vulnerable to attacks from Sudan. As well Chad's eastern areas have a similar ethnic make-up and the violence has spilled over into the border area. Both capitals have also been attacked this year by rebel groups.
Based on Sudan’s actions over the past five years, it is clear that unless the international community imposes additional political costs for Sudanese President Bashir, his government will continue to buy time by either accepting initiatives only to backtrack later or impose new conditions that render them useless. The Sudanese government stresses that the situation and numbers are being exaggerated.
Humanitarian assistance in Darfur continues to be at risk of collapse, in part because of sustained harassment by the Sudanese government, and in part because of the government’s militia allies and common criminals. In September 2006, the United Nations estimated that such a collapse would cause up to 100,000 civilian deaths every month. Troublesome developments suggest that such a failure is becoming more likely with the World Food Program’s Humanitarian Air Service receiving no funding in the first three months of 2008. Last-minute donations totaling six million dollars funded it through the beginning of May and many aid agencies working in Darfur but they are unable to get access to vast areas because of the fighting.
The Save Darfur Coalition who is raising awareness and demanding an end to the genocide describe the current situation as follows:
The original conflict broke out after a rebel group began attacking government targets, claiming that the region was being neglected by its capital in Khartoum and oppressing black Africans in favour of Arabs.
One side of the armed conflict is composed mainly of the Sudanese military and the Janjaweed, a militia group recruited mostly from the Arab Abbala tribes of the northern Rizeigat, camel-herding nomads. The Janjaweed are accused of the worst atrocities. The other side comprises a variety of rebel groups, notably the Sudan Liberation Movement (SLA) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), recruited primarily from the land-tilling non-Arab Fur, Zaghawa, and Massaleit ethnic groups.
The Sudanese government, while publicly denying that it supports the Janjaweed, has provided money and assistance to the militia and has participated in joint attacks targeting the tribes from which the rebels draw support.
The current lines of conflict are seen to be ethnic and tribal, rather than religious, some attest that the combination of decades of drought, desertification, and overpopulation are among the causes of the conflict, because the Arab nomads searching for water have to take their livestock further south, to land mainly occupied by Black African farming communities. There are now more than a dozen rebel groups - making peace talks extremely difficult.
The Sudanese government, led by President Omar al-Bashir admits mobilizing "self-defence militias" following rebel attacks, however it denies any links or control to the Janjaweed, who are accused of trying to "cleanse" black Africans from large swathes of territory. Refugees say that following air raids by government aircraft, the Janjaweed ride into villages on horses and camels, slaughtering men, raping women and stealing whatever they can find. Many women report being abducted and held as sex slaves for more than a week before being released.
After strong international pressure and the threat of sanctions, the government promised to disarm the Janjaweed. But so far there is little evidence this has happened. Trials have been announced in Khartoum of some members of the security forces suspected of abuses - but this is viewed as part of a campaign against UN-backed attempts to get some 50 key suspects tried at the International Criminal Court in The Hague.
Millions of civilians have fled their destroyed villages, with more than two million in camps near Darfur's main towns. The Janjaweed patrol outside the camps and Darfuris say the men are killed and the women raped if they venture too far in search of firewood or water.
As the conflict enters its sixth year, with much of Darfur inaccessible to aid workers and researchers, conditions continue to deteriorate for civilians. Hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, even by the most conservative estimates. The United Nations puts the death toll at roughly 300,000, while the former U.N. undersecretary-general puts the number at no less than 400,000. Up to 2.5 million have fled their homes and sought safety in camps throughout Darfur, or in refugee camps in neighboring Chad and the Central African Republic. But many of these are camped along the stretch of the borders remain vulnerable to attacks from Sudan. As well Chad's eastern areas have a similar ethnic make-up and the violence has spilled over into the border area. Both capitals have also been attacked this year by rebel groups.
Based on Sudan’s actions over the past five years, it is clear that unless the international community imposes additional political costs for Sudanese President Bashir, his government will continue to buy time by either accepting initiatives only to backtrack later or impose new conditions that render them useless. The Sudanese government stresses that the situation and numbers are being exaggerated.
Humanitarian assistance in Darfur continues to be at risk of collapse, in part because of sustained harassment by the Sudanese government, and in part because of the government’s militia allies and common criminals. In September 2006, the United Nations estimated that such a collapse would cause up to 100,000 civilian deaths every month. Troublesome developments suggest that such a failure is becoming more likely with the World Food Program’s Humanitarian Air Service receiving no funding in the first three months of 2008. Last-minute donations totaling six million dollars funded it through the beginning of May and many aid agencies working in Darfur but they are unable to get access to vast areas because of the fighting.
The Save Darfur Coalition who is raising awareness and demanding an end to the genocide describe the current situation as follows:
In the second half of 2007, the Sudanese government’s divide-and-conquer strategy, described by Human Rights Watch as “chaos by design,” caused an increasingly frenzied free-for-all in Darfur. Rebel groups fragmented further and criminal activity as well as intertribal fighting increased exponentially. Still, the effects of tribal fighting should not be overemphasized. Of the eight largest displacements between January and November 2007, seven resulted from government or Janjaweed attacks. Only one was the result of intertribal fighting. In early 2008, deaths and displacements from military operations by the government, its allied militias and rebels were even more common relative to those caused by tribal conflicts.Darfur activists and other human rights organizations wrote a letter to both presidential candidates this week outlining resolution SR 632:
Senator John McCainIn addition to contacting both Senators Obama and McCain (who have both remained silent on this to date) to co-sponsor SR 632 , you can also contact the Save Darfur Coalition.
Senator Barack Obama
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
August 7, 2008
Dear Senators McCain and Obama,
The day before Olympian Joey Cheek, a 2006 Gold Medalist in speed skating, was to travel to Beijing, the government of China revoked his visa. Mr. Cheek is one of the strongest voices in the pursuit of peace in Darfur.
Mr. Cheek and a group of other current and former Olympic athletes had been calling for an Olympic Truce for Darfur – a cessation of hostilities in the Darfur region for a period before, during and after the Games. The Olympic Truce dates from ancient Greece and has been revived as a diplomatic tool over the past several decades.
Earlier this week, Darfur activist leaders and human rights groups from across the country sent an open letter calling upon each of you, as US Senators and presumptive presidential nominees, to promptly announce your intention to co-sponsor a new resolution, SR 632, that urges the Chinese government and the broader international community to use the upcoming Olympic Games as an opportunity to push for peace and security in Darfur. We also asked that you support an Olympic Truce for Darfur in your public statements in the coming week and during the Olympic Games.
Although the Senate is in recess, additional Senate co-sponsors can submit their names now, to the offices of current co-sponsors, and those names will be officially recorded in September when the recess is over. As presumptive presidential nominees, your co-sponsorship will send a clear message to China and the international community that you are committed to help bring an end to the genocide in Darfur.
Your co-sponsorship of the resolution is critical, particularly in light of the significant advertising time your campaigns have purchased to air during the Olympic Games. We believe there is an obligation to balance the purchase of Olympic advertising time with a message about Beijing’s responsibility, as Olympic host and close partner of Sudan, to do more to bring security to Darfur.
Mr. Cheek’s visa revocation and Senate Resolution 632 both present important opportunities for you to act. The White House has already expressed the President’s concern and instructed the US embassy in Beijing to discuss Mr. Cheek’s visa with the Chinese government.
Last month, Mr. Cheek and more than 200 other athletes issued an open letter to world leaders calling for an Olympic Truce for Darfur. The athletes, including more than 70 hopefuls for the 2008 Games, called on world leaders to (1) ask the Government of Sudan to cease hostilities against civilians, at least for the 55-day truce period of the 2008 Beijing Games, (2) use the truce period to allow humanitarian workers to access the civilians in Darfur who have been without food, clean water and medical care for years and (3) make progress on deployment of peacekeepers.
We ask both of you to join these athletes – men and women who represent all that is great about American and Olympic values – and release public statements announcing your co-sponsorship of Senate Resolution 632 and your support for an Olympic Truce for Darfur.
Sincerely,
American Jewish World Service
Ruth Messinger, President
New York, NY
Americans Against the Darfur Genocide
Nikki Serapio, Director
Palo Alto, CA
Colorado Coalition for Genocide Awareness and Action
Roz Duman, Founder/Coordinator
Denver, CO
Darfur Action Coalition of Wisconsin
Sachin Chheda, Coordinator
Milwaukee, WI
Damanga Coalition for Freedom and Democracy
Mohamed Yahya
Founder/ Executive Director
Washington, DC.
Darfur Metro
Eileen Weiss, Director
New York, NY
Darfur People's Association of New York
Motasim Adam, Director
Brooklyn, NY
Dream for Darfur
Jill Savitt, Executive Director
New York, NY
Essex County Coalition for Darfur
Gloria Crist, Founding Member
Montclair, NJ
Investors Against Genocide
Eric Cohen, Chairperson
Boston, MA
Kentuckian Interfaith Taskforce On Darfur
Bob Brousseau, Chair
Louisville, Kentucky
Louisvillians Helping to Save Darfur
Dave Robinson, Chair
Louisville, KY
Massachusetts Coalition to Save Darfur
Susan Morgan, Director of Communications
Boston, MA
New York City Coalition for Darfur
Sharon Silber, Director
New York, NY
Physicians for Human Rights
Frank Donaghue, Chief Executive Officer
Cambridge, MA
San Francisco Bay Area Darfur Coalition
Esther Sprague, Executive Committee
San Francisco, CA
Save Darfur Washington State
Deborah Jones, President
Seattle, WA
Team Darfur
Martha Heinemann Bixby
Executive Director
Washington, DC
Unitarian Universalist Service Committee
Charlie Clements, President and CEO
Cambridge, MA
Use Your Voice to Save Darfur RI
Sandra Hammel, Director
Providence, RI
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Beef, Smears, C4O and Other Dramz!
About 2 months ago, give or take - I was approached by psychodrew and atdleft and asked if I wanted to join as a contributor for the blog Clintonistas for Obama.
I went to the site and saw the list of people that were involved. Some of the names I didnt recognize, but others not only did I know - but were some of my favourite people at MyDD. I didn't hesitate in accepting.
Around the same time that I was working on a diary that was not particularly flattering to Obama. I didn't know what to do - should I cross post it or not? Since now it was not just little old canadian gal speaking - I was afraid that the C4O's may not want to be associated with it. So I emailed psychodrew and atdleft asking what I should do. They were split - on one hand we agreed that the C4O are explicitly not cheerleaders but on the other - this would be my first post - would this be a good introduction?
In the end - they both encouraged me to cross post - I did. But the fact that I considered censoring myself due to the political climate should be bothersome to those that share progressive values. For the record C4O do not ask for consensus before posting - although I did this particular time.
Why am I sharing this, or better yet why should you care?
Well currently one of the C4O is being attacked for 'smearing' Obama. We are not a monolithic voice. Just like none of you are. And speaking only for myself is I COULDN'T GIVE A DAMN WHETHER A PRAYER WAS LEAKED OR NOT. And I might add that not only am I Jewish but have been to the Wall.
But that's not the point of this diary really - rather that this hysteria of criticism of Obama - whether accurate, warranted or not needs to stop. *YOU* ARE NOT A PURVEYOR OF DISCUSSION THAT IS ALLOWED. Now that isn't to say that there are some blatant troll diaries around like this or this, but I think the disctinction is pretty clear to intellectually honest people.
We, as bloggers are not water carriers for a particular candidate but rather united in are desire to see liberal (or Democratic) values and agenda in governance (at least most of us are).
I read a piece at Talk Left that summed this problem up rather nicely:
So really this has got to stop. People have a right to gripe and complain about Obama and anyone else, you want to debate them - go for it. That's why its called Democracy!
I went to the site and saw the list of people that were involved. Some of the names I didnt recognize, but others not only did I know - but were some of my favourite people at MyDD. I didn't hesitate in accepting.
Around the same time that I was working on a diary that was not particularly flattering to Obama. I didn't know what to do - should I cross post it or not? Since now it was not just little old canadian gal speaking - I was afraid that the C4O's may not want to be associated with it. So I emailed psychodrew and atdleft asking what I should do. They were split - on one hand we agreed that the C4O are explicitly not cheerleaders but on the other - this would be my first post - would this be a good introduction?
In the end - they both encouraged me to cross post - I did. But the fact that I considered censoring myself due to the political climate should be bothersome to those that share progressive values. For the record C4O do not ask for consensus before posting - although I did this particular time.
Why am I sharing this, or better yet why should you care?
Well currently one of the C4O is being attacked for 'smearing' Obama. We are not a monolithic voice. Just like none of you are. And speaking only for myself is I COULDN'T GIVE A DAMN WHETHER A PRAYER WAS LEAKED OR NOT. And I might add that not only am I Jewish but have been to the Wall.
But that's not the point of this diary really - rather that this hysteria of criticism of Obama - whether accurate, warranted or not needs to stop. *YOU* ARE NOT A PURVEYOR OF DISCUSSION THAT IS ALLOWED. Now that isn't to say that there are some blatant troll diaries around like this or this, but I think the disctinction is pretty clear to intellectually honest people.
We, as bloggers are not water carriers for a particular candidate but rather united in are desire to see liberal (or Democratic) values and agenda in governance (at least most of us are).
I read a piece at Talk Left that summed this problem up rather nicely:
Consider how some on the Left react to any criticism of Barack Obama. Instead of thinking about the ramifications for the policies they claim to support (or oppose), their kneejerk reaction is to defend Obama at all costs and to lash out at anyone who criticizes Obama.
Do they care about the effect on the actual policies? Not so much. By attempting to create a political landscape where Obama can do no wrong - they lose the war on issues.
So really this has got to stop. People have a right to gripe and complain about Obama and anyone else, you want to debate them - go for it. That's why its called Democracy!
Monday, July 28, 2008
Of Tents and Partisanship.
Yesterday there was a diary posted on MyDD that made the Recommended List entitled 'What if Obama was a Republican?' In it, the diarist - a self-described Republican - outlined his/her support for Obama. But after reading the diary and following rah-rah comments, I got to thinking about the complexities of partisanship, progressivism, PUMA's and the General Election.
Seeing this diary both annoyed and perplexed me. I asked myself, is MyDD viewed by some as a personal advertisement for a particular candidate or rather a champion for progressive values? I think that it is safe to say that people who believe in liberal values and agenda to governance have very little in common with Republicans. So save for wanting the democratic nominee to win. Do we agree on much?
And while I share the 'big tent' philosophy, I also believe in liberal ideology and Obama's will to govern with these principles.
As well, I have seen PUMA's (save for the bunch that have really gone off the deep end) be criticized for not supporting Obama. Many of which are life-long Democrats and state that they aren't voting for McCain but leaving the ballot spot blank in protest.
This is the paradox.
I shared my confusion with some close friends today and got some interesting answers - but the following stands out the most to me.
So I'll throw it the following out there to the community:
If a Republican supports Obama but not the Democratic party ideals and/or downticket races - then how are they any better/different than PUMA who will not support Obama but assuredly the Democratic downticket races?
Seeing this diary both annoyed and perplexed me. I asked myself, is MyDD viewed by some as a personal advertisement for a particular candidate or rather a champion for progressive values? I think that it is safe to say that people who believe in liberal values and agenda to governance have very little in common with Republicans. So save for wanting the democratic nominee to win. Do we agree on much?
And while I share the 'big tent' philosophy, I also believe in liberal ideology and Obama's will to govern with these principles.
As well, I have seen PUMA's (save for the bunch that have really gone off the deep end) be criticized for not supporting Obama. Many of which are life-long Democrats and state that they aren't voting for McCain but leaving the ballot spot blank in protest.
This is the paradox.
I shared my confusion with some close friends today and got some interesting answers - but the following stands out the most to me.
I find it counter-intuitive to turn against Democrats who don't like the nominee while welcoming Republicans who are angry with their party. The former shares are values and beliefs while the latter do not. I don't see why we can't just welcome both. Why has expressing enthusiastic support (as grudging support does not seem to be enough these days) for a single candidate become a litmus test for MyDD?
So I'll throw it the following out there to the community:
If a Republican supports Obama but not the Democratic party ideals and/or downticket races - then how are they any better/different than PUMA who will not support Obama but assuredly the Democratic downticket races?
Friday, July 11, 2008
mediaFail: Liddy Edition.
On the July 9 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, while discussing a July 8 speech in which Sen. Barack Obama discussed the importance of learning a second language, G. Gordon Liddy claimed that Obama "wants you to be sure your child can speak fluent illegal alien." He added: "Sadly, with every legal and cultural step we take to make our life more immediately convenient for non-English-speaking illegal aliens, we merely feed the beast."
Liddy later stated: " 'Round here, let's see, I speak some French, some German as well as English. Franklin [Liddy's producer] speaks fluent French, fluent Italian, as well as English. But none of us here, so far as I know, speak illegal alien." He had previously said of undocumented workers from Mexico: "[T]hey want to speak Spanish, you know, and other varieties of illegal alien."
From the July 9 broadcast of Radio America's The G. Gordon Liddy Show:
What a Douche.
Click here to hear the clip if you can stomach it.
Liddy later stated: " 'Round here, let's see, I speak some French, some German as well as English. Franklin [Liddy's producer] speaks fluent French, fluent Italian, as well as English. But none of us here, so far as I know, speak illegal alien." He had previously said of undocumented workers from Mexico: "[T]hey want to speak Spanish, you know, and other varieties of illegal alien."
From the July 9 broadcast of Radio America's The G. Gordon Liddy Show:
LIDDY: And that, of course is the latest pander from Barack Obama. He says that Europeans coming over here can speak German and French. Well, yes, if you're from Germany I would suspect you would speak German. And you -- you would speak French and they do study English because English is the universal language. All aircraft communications and all the rest all over the world are in English. No, they're not in Russian or Chinese, or anything else. But think about that; he wants you to be sure your child can speak fluent illegal alien. Sadly, with every legal and cultural step we take to make our life more immediately convenient for non-English-speaking illegal aliens, we merely feed the beast.
[...]
LIDDY: You've just heard Barack Obama insisting that we all teach our children Spanish. Well, not mine, no way. 'Round here, let's see, I speak some French, some German as well as English. Franklin speaks fluent French, fluent Italian, as well as English. But none of us here, so far as I know, speak illegal alien.
What a Douche.
Click here to hear the clip if you can stomach it.
Saturday, July 5, 2008
Throwing Hillary Under the Bus.
When Hillary Clinton conceded several weeks ago I was sad. I truly wanted her to win the Democratic nomination and become the president in January 2009.
But....
It.Didn't.Happen.
Since that time we have seen the PUMA movement take hold. Which for those living under a rock, stands for Party Unity My Ass. I am not going to get into a diatribe about them because in some ways I understand what they are doing and somewhat how they are feeling.
- Disappointed that Hillary will not be the President in 2009? Okay.
- Don't agree with some of his policies? Okay.
- Reviled at his campaign's tactics during the primary? Okay.
- Think Hillary would have been the better candidate? Okay.
- Dislike Obama? Okay.
But you know what? THE PRIMARY IS OVER.
And for those that are thinking of voting for McCain? Stop and think what you are doing -you are throwing Hillary under the bus. Everything she stands for has very little to do with the Republican party ideals and voting for them would be a slap in her face. Yes - a slap.
As my good pal Kysen wrote:
So for the love of god - if you cannot vote for the Democratic nominee - people may not like your decision but will understand it. But DO NOT betray Hillary and everything she stands for by voting for McCain.
But....
It.Didn't.Happen.
Since that time we have seen the PUMA movement take hold. Which for those living under a rock, stands for Party Unity My Ass. I am not going to get into a diatribe about them because in some ways I understand what they are doing and somewhat how they are feeling.
- Disappointed that Hillary will not be the President in 2009? Okay.
- Don't agree with some of his policies? Okay.
- Reviled at his campaign's tactics during the primary? Okay.
- Think Hillary would have been the better candidate? Okay.
- Dislike Obama? Okay.
But you know what? THE PRIMARY IS OVER.
And for those that are thinking of voting for McCain? Stop and think what you are doing -you are throwing Hillary under the bus. Everything she stands for has very little to do with the Republican party ideals and voting for them would be a slap in her face. Yes - a slap.
As my good pal Kysen wrote:
But, opting not to vote?
Voting only downticket?
Writing in Hillary?
Fine.
Whatever.
Seems a bit like holding one's breath to get one's way....but, at least it is not sullying Hillary's name.
So for the love of god - if you cannot vote for the Democratic nominee - people may not like your decision but will understand it. But DO NOT betray Hillary and everything she stands for by voting for McCain.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Silencing Dissension.
Last week this blog was locked by Blogger. The following message was provided:
To unlock, a code had to be entered to request an editorial review from a live person, which took four days.
I also would like to preface that C4O's mandate is as follows...
We agree with Hillary Clinton, we support the progressive values she supports, and we share her dedication to making this nation better... That's why we support Barack Obama for President! :-)
The locking of the blog puzzled the group that posts there, and personally made me suspicious since C4O is the furthest thing from being spam. So I decided to investigate this a bit further. What I discovered was shocking and disturbing to be frank.
My investigation began with a Washington Post article that exposes that the Obama smear emails originated on Free Republic. No shocker there. Freepers have been leaders of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy since its inception and full of smears, slime and innuendoes, especially about the Clintons.
But after the article was published, a Freeper, charged that the WaPo reporter has exposed the identity of anonymous posters in the past, and the WaPo article also “exposed” ordinary people who dared to think the rumour was important, but who denied being involved in the spamming.
The author is quite paranoid about it:
While it literally pains me to agree with a Freeper, is this what is going on? Shutting down free speech online? Finding the name and address of people who post anonymously on websites? Reporters harassing them and exposing them to ridicule? I am embarrassed to say that I have witnessed behaviour akin to this on 'progressive' blogs as well.
Which brings me back to C4O. It seems that there is a concerted effort amongst a group to shut down political criticism of Obama.
Blogger offers readers the opportunity to flag blogs as spam or complain about objectionable content. And apparently someone has been using this to shut down blogs that are perceived as critical to Obama.
Several sources, including Blogspasm report that several blogs that have been shut down by Google that are critical of Obama, and the suspicion is that Google is being manipulated to shut down the opposition.
Now no one could think that the Obama campaign is promoting such deeds, but when people attack and try to shut down sites critical of a political candidate - we all have to worry.
Is this really what some people have become, bullying and intimidation to fall in line with what is 'acceptable' discussion?
Dear Blogger User,
This is a message from the Blogger team.
Your blog, at http://clintonistasforobama.blogspot.com/, has been identified as a potential spam blog. You will not be able to publish posts to your blog until we review your site and confirm that it is not a spam blog.
Sincerely,
The Blogger Team
To unlock, a code had to be entered to request an editorial review from a live person, which took four days.
I also would like to preface that C4O's mandate is as follows...
We agree with Hillary Clinton, we support the progressive values she supports, and we share her dedication to making this nation better... That's why we support Barack Obama for President! :-)
The locking of the blog puzzled the group that posts there, and personally made me suspicious since C4O is the furthest thing from being spam. So I decided to investigate this a bit further. What I discovered was shocking and disturbing to be frank.
My investigation began with a Washington Post article that exposes that the Obama smear emails originated on Free Republic. No shocker there. Freepers have been leaders of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy since its inception and full of smears, slime and innuendoes, especially about the Clintons.
But after the article was published, a Freeper, charged that the WaPo reporter has exposed the identity of anonymous posters in the past, and the WaPo article also “exposed” ordinary people who dared to think the rumour was important, but who denied being involved in the spamming.
The author is quite paranoid about it:
The article Mosk wrote today purports to be about efforts to track down where the ‘Obama is a Muslim’ allegations began. However, it is actually a warning shot across the bow to opponents of Obama that they will be tracked down and exposed for speaking ill of the Obamessiah.
While it literally pains me to agree with a Freeper, is this what is going on? Shutting down free speech online? Finding the name and address of people who post anonymously on websites? Reporters harassing them and exposing them to ridicule? I am embarrassed to say that I have witnessed behaviour akin to this on 'progressive' blogs as well.
Which brings me back to C4O. It seems that there is a concerted effort amongst a group to shut down political criticism of Obama.
Blogger offers readers the opportunity to flag blogs as spam or complain about objectionable content. And apparently someone has been using this to shut down blogs that are perceived as critical to Obama.
Several sources, including Blogspasm report that several blogs that have been shut down by Google that are critical of Obama, and the suspicion is that Google is being manipulated to shut down the opposition.
Now no one could think that the Obama campaign is promoting such deeds, but when people attack and try to shut down sites critical of a political candidate - we all have to worry.
Is this really what some people have become, bullying and intimidation to fall in line with what is 'acceptable' discussion?
Sunday, June 22, 2008
MediaFail: Bolton Edition.
On Thursday, Fox News’s John Gibson had former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton on his radio show. They discussed Obama’s foreign policy. Bolton charged that “the best outcome” of an Obama presidency would be “a replay of the Clinton administration,” meaning “more embassy bombings” and “more World Trade Center attacks”:
Here's a listen:
Gibson failed to ask and Bolton declined to mention that the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon occurred during the Bush administration, while Bolton was serving in the Department of State.
GIBSON: The Obama team is going back to some of the old complaints about the war and the war on terror…that the left has been articulating for a long time now, and not really coming up with anything new.
BOLTON: Yeah I think honestly that’s an optimistic view of it, that it will simply be a replay of the Clinton administration. It will simply have more embassy bombings, more bombings of our warships like the Cole, more World Trade Center attacks. That would be the best outcome from that perspective.
Here's a listen:
Gibson failed to ask and Bolton declined to mention that the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon occurred during the Bush administration, while Bolton was serving in the Department of State.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
