Tag: 2008 elections

So I’ve been suffering through the Paul-less Thug “Forum” of the Thug Network, Faux Noise, so heinous their open and obvious advocacy of 9iu11ani that even Thugs shun them as biased Beltway bootlickers.

And I’m about to take it apart bit by bit but I suddenly flash on the fact that the fantasy fest is finally exposed anyway, that last night’s juxtaposition of their back to back bizarro and reality world visions seal the deal.

This in studio puff piece of makeuped and lighted comedy cuts to the chase that is the manicured mannequin idiot mouthpieces of the plutocrat class and their Villager serfs.  I hope they broadcast it forever- corrupt to the core corporatist cronies of our totalitarian takeover and the surveillance society.

TV watch you.

The reasons they need Do-Overs is they are ashamed and embarrassed by the very nature of the shameless sycophants, racists and greedos that ditto their dubious declarations.  A bunch of Bible brandishing brainless twits they seek nothing so much as to openly display their basest biased prejudices to cheers of forced approval.

Clap.  Clap.  Clap.  Clap.  All hail the Hypnotoad.

I hope the hypocrisy of anyone who takes this travesty of what used to be a political party and is now nothing more than a cadre of criminals seriously self identifies as Villagers so we can shun them.

Even Hollywood can’t put lipstick on this pig.

Look, I’m not going to write a “candidate diary.” I never read those, and I wouldn’t expect anyone else to read them, either.

But BenGoshi’s diary on the Big Orange Satan today got me. I hear what he’s saying.

MR. GIBSON: So I hope we have time to get to some of that. But before we get to it, talking about domestic policy, I want to get to the concept of change.

The word “change” was uttered 74 times in the New Hampshire Democratic debate on Saturday.  A total of 42 of these came during the segment in which Charlie Gibson asked the candidates to say the word “change”.

Like many battles, this one began quietly.  Sen. Clinton tried to meet Charlie’s challenge by uttering the word “change” a mere four times.

SEN. CLINTON: Well, let me say first that I think we’re all advocating for change. We all want to change the status quo, which is George W. Bush and the Republican domination of Washington for so many years. And we all are putting forth ideas about how best to deliver that change.

But I don’t think you make change by, you know, calling for it or by demanding it. I think it is a result of very hard work, bringing people together, stating clearly what your goals are, what your principles are, and then achieving them.

But that wasn’t going to do!  Edwards explained things to her . . .  

Mr. Edwards: Thank you. Thank you. No, you’re welcome. You’re more than welcome.

Let me just say a quick word about this. You know, Senator Obama and I have differences. We do. We have a difference about health care, which he and I have talked about before. We have a fundamental difference about the way you bring about change. But both of us are powerful voices for change.

And I might add, we finished first and second in the Iowa caucus, I think in part as a result of that.

Now, what I would say is this: Any time you speak out powerfully for change, the forces of status quo attack. That’s exactly what happens. It’s fine to have a disagreement about health care. To say that Senator Obama is having a debate with himself from some Associated Press story, I think is just not — that’s not the kind of discussion we should be having. I think that every time this happens — what will occur every time he speaks out for change, every time I fight for change, the forces of status quo are going to attack. Every single time. And what we have to remember — and this is the overarching issue here — because what we really need in New Hampshire and in future state primaries is we need an unfiltered debate between the agents of change, about how we bring about that change, because we have differences about that. But the — the one thing I do not argue with him about is he believes deeply in change and I believe deeply in change. And anytime you’re fighting for that, I mean, I didn’t hear these kinds of attacks from Senator Clinton when she was ahead. Now that she’s not, we hear them. And anytime you speak out — anytime you speak out for change, this is what happens.

Edwards took Clinton’s four “changes” and fired back ten!  Clearly, he was having none of this “four” bullshit.  

The tension mounted . . .

With George McGovern joining the growing chorus for impeachment, we know that the momentum is on impeachment’s side!  On Tuesday, New Hampshirites have a chance to push this important movement forward!

Melissa gets it right.  We know that the big three and Richardson are all pretty much the same as far as substance goes.  The media, party and most of the blogosphere have what they want.

Thanks to Iowa, we have the big three having thinned the Democratic field somewhat.  Dodd and Biden, both honorable public servants, have dropped out.  Mike Gravel, my second choice, hangs in there though he’s been thouroughly marginalized.  Bill Richardson will be on the stage tomorrow with the big three, and to be honest, he belongs with them.  From my perspective, electing HRC, BO, JE or BR will pretty much get us the same thing.  The differences among themselves are window dressing, and the differences they will bring to the White House are window dressing.  Yes, better than the Repugs, but window dressing none the less.

Realistically, the Iowa Caucuses are a ridiculous measure of the electorate. It’s a massively flawed system in an absurdly unrepresentative state. But none of that matters. What matters is how the media spin it, and what happened tonight will be easy for their simplistic framing: Obama won big, Hillary sputtered to a weak third place, not even breaking 30%. Edwards really needed to win, and didn’t.

Keep an eye on the New Hampshire polls. The media want this to give Obama a big bump. It probably will. The size of his win in this massively flawed system in this absurdly unrepresentative state makes him the clear frontrunner for the Democratic nomination. Hillary polls far ahead, in later states, but that could quickly erode. The pressure is on her to do much better in New Hampshire. Even a close loss might not be enough. If Obama carries this big win into a second win, next week, he may be unstoppable.

It’s tough to see where Edwards goes, from here. He’s not polling well in New Hampshire or South Carolina, and he needed a big boost, to get any traction in either. He didn’t get it. His campaign is in serious trouble. Should he be out, after South Carolina, it will be interesting to see what his supporters do. None are more passionate. If they move as a bloc, they could make the difference.

Obama’s centrist strategy worked, in Iowa. It’s not popular with many die-hard liberals. If the only alternative turns out to be Hillary, where do they go? Obama also proved enormously inspiring to young voters. Should he win the nomination, they could help sweep Democrats into all levels of offices. Such a Democratic landslide could mean a much more liberal Obama Administration than many now fear.

In the end, though, this race is far from over. Bill Clinton was known as the Comeback Kid. We’ll now find out if Hillary has similar skill and tenacity. She won’t go down easily.  

Originally posted here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/…

For those of you who read me, for the past week or so I’ve been changed the sign-off on my postings a bit:  Where I used to have Choose Peace, I’ve gone to Vote your conscience, choose peace.  You’ll see what I mean at the end of this diary should you have not noticed (I don’t suspect many will care one way or the other).

It appears there may be some more panky-hanky going on in Iowa.  If you live there, or know folks who live there, please alert them to the following:

My friend Jerry Berkman has been very active in electoral reform for the last 7-8 years.  He played a major role in helping to correct problems in California.

I just received the following note from him:

California Election Reform Alert, Dec. 31, 2007 The Iowa Caucuses happen this Thursday. So far, both the Democratics and Republicans have been unwilling to release the procedures for counting and tabulating the votes, and are unwilling to commit to posting the precinct results and how they arrive at the state wide totals. Since a poor showing in Iowa can knock a candidate out of the race, transparency of procedures should be a requirement. If you know anyone in Iowa, forward the link below to them and ask them to contact the Democratic and/or Republican parties. For details, see the lead article at: http://www.blackboxvoting.org archived at: http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-b… – Jerry

I know it’s short timing, but see what you can do to let people know.  

The price of democracy is eternal vigilance.

         Thomas Jefferson.  (Is this quote accurate?)

Thanks!