The Myth Of JFK And The Beginning Of The Cult Of Personality

I’ve been thinking about JFK. It all began as a sidebar conversation with one of my favorite blog buddies Cujo359. He wondered if the present generation of Kennedy generation was living up to the standards set by the Jack, Joe Jr. , and Ted. This progressed, or perhaps degraded, into a conversation about the relative merits of John F. Kennedy vs. Lyndon Baines Johnson.

It is brutally hard to do an honest accounting of the charismatic and martyred JFK vs the man who succeeded him. LBJ had none of JFK’s charisma, was quite the brutal SOB, and had the extra large albatross of the Vietnam War hanging around his neck. There is not much love for LBJ. Johnson’s legacy is also shorted because he exploited the death, and image, of his predecessor to twist the arms of politicians, and others, into supporting a specific agenda that was all LBJ, all the time. LBJ was quite complacent in the construction of the myth of John F Kennedy, as were others. I’m going to try to put down my flame thrower and attempt to deconstruct that myth, and its very real, very political effects.

There is a reason that I have to proceed with caution. There is a small cottage industry with the only object of buffing up JFK’s image to a lustrous shine. Topmost is the Kennedy clan. JFK is very much their holy relic, their entre’e into politics, and their get-out-of-jail-free card.

But they are not the only people out there constructing the myth. The Media loves the image of JFK. They love pulling the heart strings of the ill and uninformed. They love diving into the warm, deep,waters of Kennedy bathos and nostalgia. It is a sure-fire way of getting high ratings.

Then you have all the retainers and hangers on that surround the Kennedy clan. The actual people who were attached to Jack’s presidency are fading and passing away, but their are plenty of people willing and able to pick up the dropped banners and carry on the cause. Each and every one of these professionals has good reason to keep the myth of JFK alive, and at the forefront of people’s mind.

So what is the cottage industry at? What are they constructing? What is the product they are selling? It’s an image, carefully crafted, expertly preserved, and mostly bunk. It is the image of a young, vital president, dashing, brilliant and progressive. It is an image of a man of political courage. It is an image of man who brought about massive political and social change. It is an image of a champion for Civil Rights, and a champion of the poor and dispossessed. Most of all it is an image of a great life cut short, brutally ended by murder most foul.

Like any good myth, there is a small grain of truth, a core to build on. Jack Kennedy was charming, handsome, dashing and photogenic. He was the first politician who really understood the then new media of television, and exploited it to the hilt. He really knew  how to use the image of his family, the image of him as young Pater Familias, to great effect. But like much of the JFK mystique, the image and the truth of the matter are very different. JFK did have the beautiful wife, and the large brood of children, but the family dynamics were a lot worse than advertised.

I am not going to go into the long, sordid tale of JFK’s numerous infidelities, it is subject that is far too long to relate. JFK followed one of the iron laws of history and biography: men with out-sized charisma, and out-sized egos, have out-sized sexual appetites. There was a pretense of happily married man and wife. This type of hypocrisy was tolerated in the 1960’s. Even today, the visual image of JFK as virile and dedicated family man still trumps the reality of JFK’s serial, and sometimes reckless, sexual affairs.

And since we are, in a way, discussing JFK’s image of virility, now is as good a time as any to drill down into the reality of JFK’s health. Be warned it is not a pretty picture. I really feel for the medical professionals that had to deal with JFK. I also really feel for the patient who those professionals attempted to treat.

If there was one true cross JFK did have to bear, it was his bad health. Where to begin? Do I begin with his war injuries? If so, how deeply do I go in to the symptoms of his ruined back? I’m not going to go too deeply because it is a truly awful thing to contemplate. We are dealing with unbelievable pain and suffering; chronic in nature, with no real end in site. The heavy duty meds Jack was given were only palliative, they temporary eased the pain, but never dealt with the underlying medical issue. There were other work-arounds, other palliative measures, a laundry list actually, but they were equally unsatisfactory. For Jack Kennedy, and many others who shared his type of traumatic back injury, you don’t look forward to a cure to the condition, because the only real cure is the grave.

The back was only one of JFK’s problems. He also suffered from Addison’s disease. As this disease affects the bodies hormone balance, it causes a plethora of symptoms in the sufferer.  Unfortunately for JFK, he had to deal with this disease back in the days when the treatment options were just plain awful. Medicine has advanced since that time, and the management of Addison’s is quantum leaps better. In JFK’s time, the treatment for Addison’s had barely advanced from the stone knives and incantations stage. The health care professionals did the best they could with the tools provided, but JFK was often in ill health.

The contrast between the image of a young vital JFK, and the reality of chronically ill, and often debilitated man could not be more stark; yet we cling to the images of youthful vigor, while ignoring the medical reality. As with so much with JFK, image trumps reality.

Having dealt as best and sympathetically as I can with the actual man; let me attempt to deal with the politician as sympathetically as I can. Be warned though, in attempting any such consideration my default is, “results matter.” The one true light I will follow is what JFK achieved in his own lifetime; in his tragically truncated presidency. I am not going to deal with counterfactuals, with could-of, should-of, would-of. The only honest appraisal of any person, but especially a politician, is what they achieved during their time in office; not what was achieved after the fact.

By this measure I must be honest, it really does not look good for the home team. What JFK actually achieved while alive places him, for the most part, in the presidential category of “above average.” He was brilliant in the Cuban Missile Crisis, avoiding nuclear Armageddon, but domestically he was middling.

Granted I have the advantage of hindsight that JFK did not enjoy, but on the core moral issue of Civil Rights, both Jack an Bobby did not cover themselves in glory. They were an improvement over Ike, a step above, they did move the game forward, but not in the way that is now advertised.

Like Ike, the two brothers were mostly dragged into the Civil Rights struggle by other parties. Let us zero in on the Freedom Rides as a prime example. The brothers did everything in there power to make this issue just go away. In this regard they were not alone. Even Martian Luther King Jr. was initially opposed to the idea of the Freedom Rides. But the movement took a life of its own, and as it progressed the awful images of Freedom Riders being beaten, abused and harassed forced Jack and Bobby to do something. It became a matter of protecting US citizens right to life and limb. Jack and Bobby had to act in the face of Southern attempts to nullify Federal protections.

They did the absolute minimum. JFK and RFK negotiated a peaceful extraction of the first set of Freedom Riders from Louisiana and called it a day. But when the second set of Freedom Riders upped the political pressure, Jack and Bobby finally brought out the sledgehammer of Federal Power. This particular sledgehammer happened to be the ICC, but all the same it got the job done. The segregationists of the south howled in pain, but they were not about to challenge the brute application of Federal prerogatives.

JFK dedication to the advancement of Civil Rights is a fraught subject. He did make motions in that area. He did make incremental gains in Civil Rights during his time in office. Unfortunately, it gets really difficult to measure the real amount of political capital he invested, and was willing to invest, because LBJ muddied those waters so thoroughly after JFK was assassinated.

LBJ flogged the image of the holy, sainted, martyr for the last bit of political advantage possible. JFK might have set up the political chess board of Civil Rights, but LBJ and MLK pushed those pieces around to brutal effect. Both LBJ and MLK were grand masters of that political game. King provided the moral force and the outside agitation, wile Johnson provided the inside game of brow-beating and cajoling the Senate into action. Together they steamrolled the recalcitrant Dixiecrats in the Senate.

I just do not see the partnership of JFK and MLK working in the same way. Even if JFK did bring his A game to the effort, how does a second term of JFK match the first term of LBJ in effectiveness? LBJ had a deep knowledge of the Senate, he had a historic mandate after the1964 election, and he had the image of the martyred JFK to use as a holy talisman. Again, I just do not see either the Great Society, nor the Civil Rights happening as they did without that triple threat that LBJ brought to the political table. I sure do not see JFK racing ahead of MLK the way LBJ did.

I’m sorry this took so long. It has been a very long and twisted shaggy dog story; even for me. I’ll try to drive to end of this narrative as best as I can. History matters gentle reader, you can’t discuss were we are without setting up how we got here. I have spent an inordinate amount of time on the history and biography of JFK, on the chasm between that myth and that reality for a reason. I think that it is with Kennedy that our present toxic cult of personality in politics began. It is in the manipulation of image, the choice of surface over substance, that the John F. Kennedy myth began, that our present political woes find their source.

We have made this choice gentle reader, and we have doubled down on our preference for style over substance every time we, as a nation, have been offered the chance. We did it with Nixon, if barely, accepting a very complex and angry man as a moral defender of a mythical silent majority. We did it, in a way, with Jimmy Carter, thinking that somehow an “outsider” could cure all the ills of a post-Watergate USA. We really went in for myth when we voted for Don Renaldo; the sunny, affable cowboy who would make all things bright and shiny again. What Reagan actually did was a whole different matter, best left for a different discussion. With Pappy Bush, we took a bit of a breather before diving back into the calming waters of myth with the man from Hope. After Bill Clinton departed, we wildly gyrated from the faux cowboy presidency of Bush Jr. , who we could have a beer with, to the professorial Obama, who offered Hope and Change.

It is with Obama we have reached an apex of sorts. The myth of Obama, and the reality of his presidency have been at such odds, that to even contemplate such things brings on nose bleeds. As I would rather not bleed over my keyboard at the moment, I will let that discussion pass for now. I will also leave the epic cult of personality his supporters indulge themselves in for other times as well. Obama did not create the present cult of political personality, as much as he has both exploited it and enlarged it. The cult of personality is quite the 800 pound gorilla, is quite the dangerous, lumbering beast.

It is this tendency toward political cultism that I find so toxic. The willingness of voters to  cling to an image, while ignoring the reality beneath, is distressing. It becomes almost farcical when you look at the present election of 2012. The fluffing up of both WIllard “Mitt” Romney and Barack Obama by their partisans is disconcerting, to say the least. Both these men are ethically challenged empty suites, political operators and hacks. But to their supporters, they walk on water; and possess an overarching  competence that is sadly lacking in reality. It is all smoke and mirrors, and we are without Toto to provide the helpful parting of the curtain.

Sorry, to end on such a down note. Sorry, to end the discussion with such a flame-thrower of invective. Our nation is in a bad way, and our refusal to do the hard work of due diligence with our political class is a big part of why our nation is in such a lamentable state. What to do? What to do?

Inauthentically Authentic.

Tons of ink has been spilled and millions of cyber ones and zeros have been stored on the issue of how “authentic” Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are. Barack was seen rubbing elbows at a bowling alley while Hillary was knocking down a beer and a bump in PA. Partisans on both sides sang hosannas about their candidate while relegating the opponent to the ninth level of hell for fraudulence and fakery. Can everyone please relax?

Barack did look goofy in that tie trying to bowl and the “bitter” comment did not help him with the lunch-bucket crowd. But honestly, when do you think was the last time Hillary pushed a cart down the cereal isle at Kroger? Come one, do you really think that she has pulled out any coupons from her purse to save on the Special K offer lately? It is sincerely doubtful that her bowling skills are much better than Barack’s. Can you really see her in a league bowling shirt with “Hill the Hammer” emblazoned on the back?

Of course Barack is an “elitist.” He belongs to a very special club of one hundred people. That is 100 out of 300,000,000. If that does not qualify one as part of the elite, what does? Yes he has gone to some very privileged schools and has lead a charmed life. The bull-pucky about him being the child of a “Single Mom” is just that-garbage. He had two loving grandparents help raise him and the support of a highly educated mom too. His life in Hawaii was miles away both figuratively and literally from the hard-scrabble lives of ghetto kids living with one parent. He had resources those down-and-out children could not even dream of.

Not to say that Barry Obama is not a success story; he is. But the story is a very middle-class story. It is a story of education and enlightenment; it is, to be blunt, a story of comfort and security. Barack never had to really deal with the gritty urban reality that so many other children of color had to. While he may have worked with the urban poor and with the working class, he never was part of that cohort.

Hillary too is the child of middle-class values and mores. Her daddy may have shown her how to handle small arms but she will never be confused for a hard core NRA type. Put a M1911 .45 ACP in her hands and she would be totally lost. She might be ok with a hunting rifle, but it would be advisable to stand well behind her if she had one in her hands. Truth be told, that is ok. We really don’t need a pistol packing momma to become the president. She gets the gun thing a little better than Obama; Barry was really stupid trying to walk away from that questionnaire. Honestly though, neither of them is going to get the blessings of the hard core god,guts, and guns crew.

We have also been treated to dueling lunch-bucket contempt. Barry was first out of the box with the “bitter” quote, then came Bill with a similar quote in ’92 and finally Hillary checked in with her “screw ‘em” quote. Note to the cognizant, there is a whole book out on how the Democrats should stop pining for Dixie and go west for votes. Now you might disagree with the premise of Whistling Past Dixie, especially if your name is Mudcat Saunders, but the theory behind the book is solid. Why are we spending time and resources on people who refuse to vote for us? Even Bill Clinton did awful with white male voters and he got reelected. Note to Taylor Marsh and Larry Johnson, Regan Democrats might just be a lost cause.

This is not to say we should not reach out to Moderates, swing voters and that rarest of breeds moderate Republicans. The way you reach them is via programs, not hot button issues. You got to keep hammering the Elephants on bread-and-butter issues like the war, the economy, health care, and social equality. You have to push the issue of how Bush and McCain favor the super-rich over everyone else.

Regan and Bush were able to push the regular guy meme to the hilt. John McCain is also getting a pass too. If we let the debate about whom the “regular guy” or “regular gal” is; Democrats loose. Republicans will jump into the rotten skin of Sainted Ronnie and the Donkeys get creamed. John McCain is the “straight talking Maverick” don’t cha know? The moron media is going to stick with that meme until the sun explodes. Prove the opposite and they will just accuse you of being negative.

Of course the man is a fraud. We like frauds. We like having sunshine blown up our nether regions. If we were at all logical we would stop worrying if a politician is “in touch” with the great unwashed masses and start holding them accountable for their actions. We would stop worrying if Hillary or Barack or McCain would be good beer buddies and start worrying if they had the chops to do the job. We would look at their philosophy of governance and how that effects us. We would be wary of someone who is offering up just more of the same as John McCain is.

Politicians are always going to be way different than most “ordinary” people. It is part of the job description . They are going to plow through position papers, polls, studies, memos and other documents. They are not going to have time to watch Dancing With The Stars nor work on their jump shot. That is how it should be, would you rather Barack Obama get real smart on nuclear proliferation or work on his free throw?

If we want really authentic politicians then we have to reward them with our votes. We need to call them when they do something right. We have to support them when they give us reality and not spin. Politicians spin because they are rewarded for it. They craft vague meaningless bromides because that what gets them elected. They craft their messages via polling because people want to hear that stuff. If you are really tiered of dog-whistles then stop coming to them when they are blown. If you are really tiered of gotcha politics then stop voting the gotchas. If you want the “truth” then vote for it when you hear it; stop rewarding spin.

Pols spin because spin wins. Giving real “straight talk” is political suicide. There is no pol living who could come out and say “gun ownership really does not make sense for most Americans.” Are we really ready to be told that our beloved SUV’s are no longer practical or that gas prices are going nowhere but up? Can we really be told that maybe, just maybe, exporting “freedom” and “democracy” is hard? Can we understand that we are not always right and not always loveable? Can we really come to grips with our faults, our failures, our missteps? Can we really stop the idol worship and delving into trivia to find out what really matters? We expect our leaders to be disingenuous, we expect them to pander, we expect them to lie, we expect them spin. Is it any surprise when they succeed in meeting such low expectations?

For far too long we have looked at “Character issues.” It makes for great TV; Character follows an easy story arch. 99.99% of it is facile, meaningless garbage. Jimmy Carter had outstanding character, he was moral, deeply religious, faithful, hard working, goal oriented and sharp. As president he was a failure. FDR on the other hand was underhanded, amoral, devious, faithless, and slick. FDR was one of the great presidents. Watch what politicians do, not what they say. JFK’s private life was a house of horrors, he had several closets full of skeletons, but he is now seen as a hero. Even MLK’s private life was better left private- he caused Coretta infinite heartbreak with his dalliances. But MLK is still a beacon of righteousness when we look at his writings and his speeches and accomplishments.

These days’ candidates “Characters” have been fluffed and spun to absurdity. The gap between the image and the reality is a mile wide and a mile deep. Ever since Nixon, candidates have been packaged for the tube. The image is the message; the web has only amplified that image. The web only heightens the buzz, sells the sizzle not the steak. On the web authenticity can be a dirty word. On the web pot bellied 40 something males can become 20 year olds with Herculean proportions. The disconnect between reality and imagination only gets larger on the Web.

The web also seems to amplify political differences and passions. Again the “authentic” candidate is lost in the passions of partisanship. Web diarist offer cardboard cut outs of the candidates; all the better to throw darts at. It is even worse with the commenters; they get on their favorite hobby horses and off to the races we go. Why would any smart pol bother to be authentic if he or she has got to answer to this lot? It would be a whole lot simpler to pour gasoline on oneself and then walk into a raging forest fire.

We live in a representative democracy. If our pols are sleazy, corrupt, backstabbing, rude and dishonest who is really to blame? They are fun-house reflections of us. If they are inauthentic it is perhaps, just perhaps, we too are inauthentic. If authenticity is what we truly desire then we need to start in out own back yard. We need to talk to each other honestly and with genuine acceptance. We need to dialogue and really find out where the common ground is. Most of all we have to ask ourselves what sacrifices we are willing to make to achieve our goal. It is inauthentic to demand a war against terror and then cut taxes. It is inauthentic to support the troops but then cut VA benefits. It is inauthentic to scream about racial injustice while indulging in rancid anti-Semitism. It is inauthentic to claim to be Christian whilst hating Gays, Mexicans, Crackers, Catholics, etc. If we can not be authentic in our own private lives why should public figures be authentic in their public lives?

DALLAS — In the wake of the controversy over statements by a former pastor of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, leaders of a black church summit took issue with characterizations of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright as racist.

"What is eminently clear is the degree to which the black church is still largely misunderstood and routinely caricatured in U.S. popular culture. ... We now realize why the 11 o'clock hour on Sunday is the most segregated hour of the week," said Stacey Floyd-Thomas, director of black church studies at Fort Worth's Brite Divinity School, during a news conference Friday at Dallas' Friendship West Baptist Church.

About 20 scholars from the summit stood with Floyd-Thomas, an associate professor of ethics, among them Wright's cousin, the Rev. Dennis Wiley of Covenant Baptist Church in Washington D.C. Wright was to have appeared at the summit Saturday, but canceled. The summit was moved to Dallas from Texas Christian University in Fort Worth out of security concerns.

Read the full story at Star-Telegram.com.

Snip

The Black Church is closing ranks around both Obama and Rev Wright. Senator Hope will ride this wave in North Carolina and blow out Clinton in the Primary there. This is why Obama is to tepid in his denunciation of Rev Wright, this is why he is not leaving Trinity United in Chicago.

Could Gore Be The Nominee?

By Taegan Goddard | March 8, 2008 9:25 PM at Political Insider
It's clear that for either Sen. Barack Obama or Sen. Hillary Clinton to win the Democratic presidential nomination, they'll have to win the majority of superdelegates at the convention. But what if the superdelegates split right down the middle like Democrats across the nation?

Talk of a joint ticket -- Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama -- might be an elegant solution to the problem. But what if Clinton wins the popular vote and Obama wins the majority of delegates? What if the next two months of campaigning turns so ugly they can't stand each other? Would either candidate willingly step aside to take the number two spot?

The answer might be for someone else entirely to step into the race at the convention. The most likely candidate would be Al Gore. Most Democrats think he was robbed of the presidency in 2000 by the Supreme Court and could be the only one to unite the party.

All Hail The Glorious Comrade Bush's Most Wondrous Justice!

Former Prosecutor to Testify for Guantanamo Detainee
By William Glaberson
The New York Times

Thursday 28 February 2008

Until four months ago, Col. Morris D. Davis was the chief prosecutor at Guantánamo Bay and the most colorful champion of the Bush administration's military commission system. He once said sympathy for detainees was nauseating and compared putting them on trial to dragging "Dracula out into the sunlight."

Then in October he had a dispute with his boss, a general. Ever since, he has been one of those critics who will not go away: a former top insider, with broad shoulders and a well-pressed uniform, willing to turn on the system he helped run.

Still in the military, he has irritated the administration, saying in articles and interviews that Pentagon officials interfered with prosecutors, exerted political pressure and approved the use of evidence obtained by torture.

Now, Colonel Davis has taken his most provocative step, completing his transformation from Guantánamo's chief prosecutor to its new chief critic. He has agreed to testify at Guantánamo on behalf of one of the detainees, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a driver for Osama bin Laden.

Colonel Davis, a career military lawyer nearing retirement at 49, said that he would never argue that Mr. Hamdan was innocent, but that he was ready to try to put the commission system itself on trial by questioning its fairness. He said that there "is a potential for rigged outcomes" and that he had "significant doubts about whether it will deliver full, fair and open hearings."

"I'm in a unique position where I can raise the flag and aggravate the Pentagon and try to get this fixed," he said, acknowledging that he is enjoying some aspects of his new role. He was replaced as chief Guantánamo prosecutor after he stepped down but is still a senior legal official for the Air Force.

Among detainees' advocates, there has been something of a gasp since it was announced last week that Colonel Davis would be taking the witness stand in April.

Mr. Hamdan's chief military lawyer, Lt. Cmdr. Brian L. Mizer, said he would offer Colonel Davis to argue that charges against Mr. Hamdan should be dismissed because of improper influence by Pentagon officials over the commission process. Prosecutors may object, and it is unclear how military judges may rule.

But whatever happens, some advocates for detainees say, officials are likely to have difficulty erasing the image of a uniformed former Guantánamo champion challenging them so directly.

Particularly, some of them said, one who was known for scorched-earth attacks on adversaries, be they terror suspects or lawyers. "He was the attack dog for the military commission system," said Zachary Katznelson, a lawyer for Guantánamo detainees.

Last year as chief prosecutor, Colonel Davis publicly suggested that a Marine defense lawyer for a detainee might be guilty of a crime for using "contemptuous words" about the president when the marine questioned the fairness of the Guantánamo system.

At the time, critics ridiculed Colonel Moe as an administration apologist. But in recent weeks, some of them have described him in nearly heroic terms.

Jennifer Daskal of Human Rights Watch called Colonel Davis the most significant insider to tell what he knew about Guantánamo. "He has put his career on the line," Ms. Daskal said.

Pentagon officials have steamed about the extraordinary role Colonel Davis has staked out. Some people with Pentagon ties say the unusual story started as a power struggle between Colonel Davis and a Pentagon official who has broad powers over the Guantánamo legal system, Brig. Gen. Thomas W. Hartmann, who has declined to comment.

Brig. Gen. Thomas L. Hemingway, a retired military official who once supervised Colonel Davis at the Office of Military Commissions, said this week that he was surprised Colonel Davis was attacking the system he had once championed.

"That's not whistle-blowing you hear," General Hemingway said. "It's a whine."

In his contentious days at Guantánamo, lawyers who battled him said, Colonel Davis was known for a you're-with-us-or-you're-against-us style of news-conference warfare, delivered in an amiable North Carolina twang.

He is an experienced military lawyer, with years of work both in the prosecution and the defense. He is the son of a disabled veteran of World War II, and he is married with one daughter.

In interviews this week he was in his combative mode, challenging Pentagon officials to take lie-detector tests and asserting that commanders had praised him in the past.

He portrayed himself as battling political appointees. But he said he still believed that a military commission system could work. "It's gotten so tarnished that if we're going to convince the world that this isn't some rigged process we have to bend over backwards," he said. He said the solutions were simple - giving control to military officials. But he suggested darkly that there are "people at key points in the process, that I just don't know what their allegiance is."

There is little question that Colonel Davis's unusual path began with some angry exchanges with General Hartmann last summer. When the colonel resigned as chief military prosecutor, officials disclosed that he had filed a formal complaint asserting that General Hartmann improperly pressed for more war crimes cases and demanded "sexy" cases that would excite the public. An internal report sided with General Hartmann but suggested that he should avoid too much influence over the military prosecutors.

From there, after being reassigned by the Air Force, Colonel Davis found an audience for his accusations.

He told one newspaper that top defense officials discussed the "strategic political value" of putting prominent detainees on trial before the 2008 presidential election. He told another that he had been pressed to hold hearings in closed courtrooms. He wrote op-ed pieces saying General Hartmann had reversed his policy of refusing to use evidence derived through torture.

He told The Nation that the general counsel of the Pentagon, William J. Haynes II, informed him "we can't have acquittals" at Guantánamo.

In a statement Wednesday a Pentagon official would say only, "We disagree with the assertions made by Colonel Davis."

Some detainees' lawyers say they recognize a pattern in Colonel Davis's approach. He once wrote an article in an Air Force journal offering advice to military leaders on how to handle the media. "Take the offensive," it said.

Muneer I. Ahmad, a law professor at American University who fought Colonel Davis in a detainee's case at Guantánamo, said he recognized the strategy in the attacks on Pentagon officials. "It's his way of trying to reshape what the story is," Professor Ahmad said.

If it is, Colonel Davis hinted he is not satisfied yet. "I'm hoping at some point to retire, so I can say what I really think," he said.

Exxon is Going to the Supremes

WASHINGTON — Nineteen years after an Exxon oil tanker hit a reef and spilled 11 million gallons of crude oil in Alaska's Prince William Sound, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the final lawsuit lingering from one of the nation's worst environmental disasters.

On Wednesday, the court will consider Exxon Mobil's appeal, a 14-year effort that, if successful, would overturn a $2.5 billion punitive damages award considered by many to be the largest verdict ever against a U.S. corporation.

The case is superlative in many ways, most notably for the environmental havoc. An estimated 85 tons of crude have yet to be removed, according to a federal study released last year.

But the case also is notable for how it pits nearly everyone in Alaska against the world's biggest oil company — whose $40 billion net profits in 2007 broke all records for publicly traded companies.

Former governors, the current governor, supertanker captains, environmentalists, state lawmakers, Alaska natives and experts in maritime law all have joined forces with the 33,000 plaintiffs whose lawyers will ask the nation's highest court to uphold the $2.5 billion verdict.

"I've said this before, but this seems to be a case of justice delayed being justice denied," Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said. "Nineteen years later after the spill, the ongoing tragedy is that there has not been this closure. And truly we need to see closure in this case."

Snip

Why do I see a very bad 5 to 4 decision supporting Exxon and screwing every one else?

Obama Ducks Out Again

By Taylor Marsh

Obama Ducks Out Again

But this time it's on his own community. Ohio, that's where Obama will be, along with Texas: "In the final stretch, I will be on the campaign trail every day in states like Ohio, Texas and Wisconsin talking directly with voters about the causes that are at the heart of my campaign and the State of the Black Union forum." He's skipping the annual State of the Black Union forum in New Orleans so he can campaign. John McCain is skipping it too, but we expect that from him. However, Clinton will be there. She'll be standing with some of the most important leaders in the African American community in this country.

Tavis Smiley is speaking out, simply disagreeing with Obama's priorities. As a result, his family is getting harassed. Welcome to the club, which includes anyone who offers criticism, let alone proof, that Obama is less than what he says he is. Obamabots and the people supporting Mr. Obama are the most unhinged, rhetorically violent and truth averse bunch I've seen online, and I've been around since 1996, including during the Lewinski imbroglio. Nothing compares.

"I think it's a missed opportunity on Mr. Obama's part," Smiley told CNN. "Now, I am not interested in demonizing him for his choice, but I do disagree with it." But Smiley's criticism has also prompted many people to come to Obama's defense. The talk show host told The Washington Post he has been inundated with angry e-mails and even death threats. "I have family in Indianapolis. They are harassing my momma, harassing my brother. It's getting to be crazy," Smiley told the newspaper. He will be busy despite Obama's absence. Some of the nation's top black activists and politicians attend the State of the Black Union. ... .. Obama takes heat for skipping State of the Black Union

The Progressive Village, those big blogs that genuflect to all things Obama, is no doubt taken by surprise by Obama ducking out on his own community, right? Next you'll say they're insulted that LieberDem Dan Gerstein and the DLC are on Obama's team too. Read Big Tent Democrat.

This is all so predictable. Even taking Clinton out of the equation -- because not everything is about Hillary Clinton -- there is nothing about Obama's choices that are surprising. Again, this has nothing to do with Clinton. It's about Obama's choices, which, quite frankly, are misaligned and hypocritical, especially for someone who has relied on African Americans to get the nomination. I guess he feels now that he's likely to win he just isn't as concerned with reaching out anymore. I'm shocked! To use one of Mr. Obama's favorite words, which he trotted out so conveniently in South Carolina, bamboozled, baby. You've been played.

Oh, For The Love of God! More B.S. From The Bush Administration

Missile defence works, says Gates

The US defence secretary has said that the shooting down of a disabled spy satellite with a missile shows the country's missile defence system works.

Robert Gates said the operation "speaks for itself", adding the US was prepared to share some technology with China.

The comments came after China said the missile strike could harm security in outer space.

US officials are confident that the satellite's potentially toxic fuel tank was destroyed by the missile.

Marine Gen James Cartwright said there was a 80-90% chance the tank had been hit.

A fire ball, vapour cloud and spectral analysis indicating the presence of hydrazine all indicated this, he told reporters.

It would take 24-48 hours for officials to confirm whether the operations had been completely successful, he said.

'Complete transparency'

The satellite, USA 193, was struck 153 nautical miles (283 km) above earth by an SM-3 missile fired from a warship in waters west of Hawaii.

BROKEN SATELLITE Owner: National Reconnaissance Office Mission: Classified Launched: 14 Dec 2006 Weight: 2,300 kg (5,000lbs) 1,134kg (2,500lbs) could survive re-entry Carrying hydrazine thruster fuel

Mr Gates said the issue of whether the technology would work was already decided.

"I think the question over whether this capability works has been settled," he said, quoted by AFP news agency.

"The question is what kind of threat, how large a threat, how sophisticated a threat [the US faces]."

The US approach was one of "complete transparency", he said.

"We provided a lot of information... before it took place," he said, adding: "We are prepared to share whatever appropriately we can."

China called on the US on Thursday to provide more information about the mission.

Russia suspects the operation was a cover to test anti-satellite technology under the US missile defence programme.

Frozen solid

Operatives had only a 10-second window to hit the satellite, which went out of control shortly after it was launched in December 2006.

The missile needed to pierce the bus-sized satellite's fuel tank, containing more than 450kg (1,000lbs) of toxic hydrazine, which was otherwise expected to survive re-entry.

The US denies the operation was a response to an anti-satellite test carried out by China last year, which prompted fears of a space arms race.

US officials had said that without an attempt to destroy the fuel tank, and with the satellite's thermal control system gone, the fuel would have been frozen solid, allowing the tank to resist the heat of re-entry.

If the tank were to have landed intact, it could have leaked toxic gas over a wide area - harming or killing humans if inhaled, officials had warned.

The US has denied that it shot down the satellite to prevent parts of it from falling into the hands of foreign powers.

Gen Cartwright said most of the satellite's intelligence value was likely to have been destroyed.

SATELLITE DESTRUCTION 1 SM-3 missile launched from a US Navy cruiser in Pacific Ocean 2 The three-stage missile headed for collision location, where the relative "closing" speed was expected to be 10km/s (22,000mph) 3 Satellite came in range at altitude of 247km (133 nautical miles), close to edge of Earth's atmosphere 4 Missile made contact with satellite with objective of breaking fuel tank, freeing hydrazine into space 5 Much of the debris will burn up but an as yet unknown amount is expected to be scattered over hundreds of kilometres

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/7257865.stm

Published: 2008/02/21 20:52:58 GMT

© BBC MMVIII

Frameshop: The Chink In Obama's Armor

http://jeffrey-feldman.typepad.com/frameshop/2008/02/frameshop-the-c.html

If the Clinton campaign's accusation that Obama 'plagiarized' Deval Patrick demonstrates anything, it is the first law of presidential election thermodynamics: Every candidate who rises to 'extraordinary,' will eventually be brought down to 'normal.'

For certain, very few people will ever be convinced that Barack Obama stole Patrick's words and tried to pass them off as his own. Taken at face value it is a laughable accusation that will be seen by most for exactly what it is: a preemptive distraction by the Clinton communications team from what appears to be yet another primary loss to Obama, this time in Wisconsin. Beyond face value, however, the accusation is not so easy to swat away. Accusing Obama of plagiarism did not brand him a plagiarist, but demonstrated exactly what happened has had another, unexpected and most definitely unwelcome effect on his campaign.

What was the chink the Clinton comment revealed? Simply put, it showed that Obama is not quite as unique, not quite as historic, and--most importantly--not nearly as anti-politics-as-usual as his campaign rhetoric claims him to be.

Of course he's not. Who could possibly be?

But for months, the central claim of the Obama camp has been precisely that their candidate is not like the others, that he is not a politician's politician like all the other politician's politicians in Washington, DC, or anywhere else.

In this narrative that defines and propels the Obama campaign, a vote for Barack Obama is not just a vote for a gifted orator and a deft campaigner, but a vote to end "politics as usual" in America--a vote to usher in a new era.

The flip side of this framing, of course, is Obama's claim that Hillary Clinton is "politics as usual," that when we look at or listen to Hillary Clinton what we see is a politician like all other politicians. And to change this country, so the Obama message goes, we must reject politicians who look and sound like all other politicians. That, in a nutshell, is the kernel of Obama's message of 'change.' And it has proven successful for him beyond anyone's wildest imagination.

The only thing that could bring it down, of course, would be some kind of event--some campaign moment--that revealed to the voters, quickly and easily, that Obama was not only similar to all other politicians, but that he was exactly like them.

Enter Deval Patrick, the young and charismatic first-term governor of Massachusetts.

As Americans would find out with the help of the Clinton campaign's Howard Wolfson, one of Obama's recent counter-critiques of Hillary was not only similar to one used by Patrick in his 2006 run for Governor--it was virtually identical. The observation gave rise to a video demonstrating the similarities between Patrick's words and Obama's.

Not 'plagiarism'--but still trouble for Obama.

Say what one may about the politics of accusing one's opponent of 'plagiarism,' the video of Patrick and Obama saying virtually the exact same words in two different campaign speeches has the effect of instantly dulling Obama's golden patina.

How could it be, voters will likely ask, that a candidate who claims to be unique--a singular figure who so many people refer to as a once-in-a-lifetime politician--is using the exact same words as another politician that most people outside of Massachusetts have never even heard of?

The answer is not 'plagiarism,' but something much more mundane and--in stark contrast to Obama campaign message--something 100% "politics as usual."

Obama's speeches, it turns out, are similar and even identical to Patrick's in places because they both hired the same political consultant to head their campaigns: David Axelrod.

Therein lies the answer to the 'plagiarism' charge. Obama did not say the same phrase as Patrick because Obama plagiarized Patrick's speeches, but because both candidates hired the same political consultant to manage the message of their campaigns. When Patrick was accused of being all-words-and-no-action by his opponent in the 2006 gubernatorial election, Axelrod devised a response for him that involved poking fun of the charge by referencing great speeches of iconic American leaders--JFK, FDR, MLK. And it worked.

When Clinton used the same critique to go after Obama, Axelrod simply reached for the same solution that had worked for Patrick and gave it to Obama.

Why not? What is wrong with doing this?

Absolutely nothing is wrong from a legal or even a political perspective. Candidates often draw on the successful messages of other politicians, both those that came before them and those against whom they are currently competing.

The problem is one of perception and image.

More than anything else, the 'plagiarism' incident has the potential to transform Obama's image from that of a singular historic figure who soars above "politics as usual," to that of a gifted, but ordinary politician--just another client of the handful of media Svengalis who pull the strings of candidates and manipulate public opinion to win elections. The curtain has suddenly dropped, and behind it we see: the political consultant.

Because Obama's supporters have responded with such passion to his claim that he can move politics to a new place (real passion, not 'cult' following, as some have arrogantly suggested), any viable evidence that Obama is a normal politician will inevitably erode some of his support. How much it will erode is unclear.

One thing is perfectly clear, however. Republicans always seek to turn the Democratic candidate's strength into his/her weakness. That means that if Obama were to win the nomination--as it seems likely that he will--the Republicans will strive to transform his rhetorical skill into his greatest political liability.

For many in the Obama camp, it is not even possible to imagine Obama's rhetoric being turned against him--his speaking skill becoming the very thing that turns people away from him. This is because for so many, Obama's speaking style has been the source of ardor, the sine qua non of their support for him as president. And for good reason. Obama is a great speaker. Listening to him is not only exciting, it is energizing and at times thrilling.

But this is an election, and laws of politics--like physics--still apply: What goes up, will inevitably come down.

Now we see how the Republicans will turn that against him--ironically, as a result of a stone thrown at the Obama camp by his Democratic rival for the nomination. The Republicans seeking to turn his rhetorical strength into his weakness will argue over and over that Obama's fancy words are evidence of his that he is a political huckster like all the rest. In this new frame, authenticity will trump inspiration. The candidate with the thickest tongue will be the candidate who is really real. John McCain's soporific, halting speeches will become the new gold standard of presidential trustworthiness.

The Deval Patrick moment reveals the direction that the inevitable 'swift-boating' of Barack Obama will take. He will be recast by the Republican machine as a duplicitous establishment politician gifted not at telling the truth, but at finding the right words to convince people of anything.

In that logic, the narrative will become 'the maverick versus the salesman.' And the speeches that once gave so many people hope, will suddenly make people wonder what this new man in town is selling and to what end.

If Democrats cannot imagine a November where 45% of the country equates Barack Obama with doublespeak instead of hope, with politics-as-usual instead of change--then they better try much harder.

Does this mean that the Democrats would do better to nominate Hillary Clinton to run against John McCain in the general election? Not especially. Hillary Clinton is the cosmic 'big bang' of right-wing attack politics. Whatever the Republicans have already brought out against her in past campaigns will pale in comparison to what they hit her with were she to win the nomination and head to the general election against McCain.

It simply means that Democrats should not delude themselves into thinking that one candidate has baggage and the other does not, that one candidate at the top of the ticket will bring easy landslide, while the other will bring certain failure.

This week's events revealed that there is indeed a chink in Obama's armor, and exploiting that weakness could well have a devastating impact on the passionate support his campaign has enjoyed, not to mention the outcome of the general election.

© 2008 Jeffrey Feldman, Frameshop

Posted by Jeffrey Feldman on February 19, 2008 at 11:38 AM

It's Official

UK admits to rendition flights

David Miliband, the British foreign minister, has admitted two planes from the United States carrying terrorism suspects refuelled on the British island of Diego Garcia in 2002, contradicting earlier denials by the government.

Previously the government had insisted it was unaware of any British territory being used to transfer terrorism suspects outside normal extradition procedures prior to George Bush, the US president, taking office.

Washington has already admitted to using the practice known as "rendition".

More at the NeoCons most favorite news site Al Jazeera

This is still a long way from claims that prisoners are being held on the Island. The claims are beloved of the tin-foil-hatters and CT fanboys and fangirls. Any one who has actually served on Diego Garcia will tell you that those claims are ridiculous. The bit about holding prisoners on ships in the lagoon is especially cuckoo-for-cocoa puffs. Check out the webpage also check this out and look at the ships in question (called ro-ros) these are contracted civilian and US Navy Sealift command ships who's main function is to carry equipment, they have no facilities for even holding drunken mariners / sailors, never mind terrorist prisoners. There are no floating brigs in the US Navy inventory not even as auxiliaries or as contracted civilian ships. There is a local Navy Brig / jail on Diego but it mainly houses ill-behaved mariners and contract workers. As such most detainees do not stay long in the jail. Diego does have a British Magistrate and he is responsible to his superiors who run the legal entity known as the British Indian Ocean Territory. There is no way the Magistrate is going to violate the laws and traditions of Great Brittan by having people tortured on his island.

Oh Goody, More Great News About Mr. Hope

Feb. 15 (Bloomberg) -- Hillary Clinton questions whether Barack Obama would be able to withstand what she calls the ``Republican attack machine.'' If Obama does become the Democratic presidential nominee, his Chicago ties might provide the fuel.

While the Illinois senator has never been accused of wrongdoing, some of the associations he formed as a community organizer and politician in Chicago may provide fodder for attacks, Democratic and Republican political experts say.

Besides his relationship with indicted businessman Antoin Rezko, Obama might face Republican criticism over contacts with a former leader of the Weather Underground, a banker with ties to a convicted felon and even his church.

``He has had relationships with individuals who are controversial, he has had relationships with individuals who are in trouble,'' said Cindi Canary, director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform.

More at Bloomburg and No Quarter

What will tomorrow's daily fish wrap tell us about Mr Purity and Light: Calling Taylor Marsh, Calling Taylor Marsh, come in please Taylor

Barack Obama, Establishment Man

By Larry Johnson on February 13, 2008 at 1:28 AM in Current Affairs
Originally Posted in No Quarter.

What’s wrong with this picture? Barack Obama runs as the “outsider” fighting against the “special” interests. Barack claims:

“I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists — and won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not get a job in my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president.”

— Barack Obama, Speech in Des Moines, IA, November 10, 2007

Okay. Then if he is the candidate of change fighting Washington, why did a majority of the Washington, DC and the government employees in the surrounding suburbs and those pesky lobbyists and their spouses and employees, vote for Barack? You see, I believe that people act in their own interest. So, when the folks who live inside the beltway, vote in large measure for Barack, then maybe he is not what he claims to be.

The Obama cult is a phenomenom. A weird phenomenom. People are enthralled with the idea of Obama and know nothing about his past, his performance, and the scandals that will bring him down. And, smack dab in the middle of the enablers, are most of the TV and print journalists. Very few are writing or reporting the kind of tough stories they unleash on Hillary on a regular basis.

My neighbor, who is a prominent Republican lobbyist, was commenting the other day on the inspiring nature of the Obama campaign. He was repeating the positive vibe. I then asked him about issues such as Rezko and the disconnect between his rhetoric and how he actually votes. He was surprised and shocked. He said, “I haven’t heard any of this.” Obviously he’s not a reader of NoQuarter. But he is a politically astute, well-informed guy. When he heard the true story of Obama’s past (including Obama’s Kenyan ties and muslim relatives). He flipped.

Let’s face it. The establishment media have a habit of doing this shit. They happily went along with selling the Bush Administration bullshit and lies about the threat of terrorism and the need to invade Iraq. Oh sure, some, like Sy Hersh pushed back, but his efforts were overwhelmed by the likes of Michael Gordon and Judith Miller, Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, and the Washington Post. There were clear voices warning beforehand that the intelligence was fixed and that the war was not needed, but the press played along with the Bush propaganda machine and persuaded a majority of Americans that war with Iraq was the only solution for keeping us safe.

And don’t start in with Obama’s so-called opposition to the war. One damn speech really doesn’t count. What counts is what he has done since coming to Washington. He hasn’t joined the likes of Russ Feingold in pushing for an immediate withdrawal. He’s played the politically safe game. I do not fault him for that. My beef is he thinks, rightly so, that most of the voters are too fucking dumb to realize that he is blowing smoke up their ass. Say one thing and do another.

Yeah, Obama is Mr. Anti-Washington. He is surrounded by Tom Daschle, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Patrick Leahy. If you believe that those guys represent “changing the way business is done in Washington,” then you will believe anything.

We will know next week if Hillary can recover. I give the Obama camp credit. They organized and spent resources in Virginia and Maryland and thumped Hillary. Hillary’s campaign was awful in Maryland and Virginia. Obama’s folks made an effort to personally visit and speak with every registered Democrat. Hillary did not. Obama’s folks called every registered Democrat (or at least tried to) to ask for their vote. Hillary did not. This explains in part, I think, why Patti Doyle, the campaign manager, was fired. She is incompetent. I hope for the sake of the country that Maggie Williams has time to right the ship and get Hillary back on top.

In the meantime, we have to watch the equivalent of a papal coronation, as the media and fans exhult in the Obama Messiah, the black Jesus come to save us. But sometime in the next four months, the excitement will fade as the reality of who Obama is comes out.

Consider this simple example. How do Hillary and Obama handle foreign contributions?

Hillary requires every contribution from overseas to be made as a check and must be accompanied by a copy of the passport or green card that corresponds to the name on the check. This part of her fundraising is kept separate from that raised within the borders of the United. States

Obama, does not segregate his foreign money and has no controls in place to verify that the contributors are in fact legally entitled to contribute to his campaign.

Now I know Obamaphiles will simply bend over and stick their head in their neighbor’s ass and proclaim the putrid aroma as the heaven-sent breath of God. They will say this means nothing and is just carping.

Well, what happens a month or two down the road when the vetting of those contributions–whether by Hillary’s camp, the Republicans, or the FEC–occurs and it turns out laws were broken? If Obama is so brilliant, then why does he not understand that he needs to avoid these problems and avoid giving his opponents ammo? That tells me he ain’t all that bright. He does not have to worry about those details because, HE IS OBAMA.

What we have, ladies and gents, is another Establishment Man. Easily manipulated by the father figures he desperately seeks and gratified by the adulation of the masses, he is buying into his “man of destiny” nonsense. Many in the public are seized with this religious, worshipful madness. Unfortunately, Obama, conquering hero is riding in the parade and soaked in the praise of frenetic crowds. He has received very little pushback so far. But it will come. And Obama would be wise to heed the following advice:

For over a thousand years Roman conquerors returning from the wars enjoyed the honor of triumph, a tumultuous parade. The conqueror rode in a triumphal chariot, the dazed prisoners walking in chains before him. And a slave stood behind the conqueror holding a golden crown and whispering in his ear a warning: that all glory is fleeting.”

Why Kennedy Really Supported Obama

Clinton's LBJ Comments Infuriated Ted Kennedy

Posted by Mary Ann Akers at The Washington Post at "The Sleuth "

There's more to Sen. Edward Kennedy's endorsement of Barack Obama than meets the eye. Apparently, part of the reason why the liberal lion from Massachusetts embraced Obama was because of a perceived slight at the Kennedy family's civil rights legacy by the other Democratic presidential primary frontrunner, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).

Sources say Kennedy was privately furious at Clinton for her praise of President Lyndon Baines Johnson for getting the 1964 Civil Rights Act accomplished. Jealously guarding the legacy of the Kennedy family dynasty, Senator Kennedy felt Clinton's LBJ comments were an implicit slight of his brother, President John F. Kennedy, who first proposed the landmark civil rights initiative in a famous televised civil rights address in June 1963.

One anonymous source described Kennedy as having a "meltdown" in reaction to Clinton's comments. Another source close to the Kennedy family says Senator Kennedy was upset about two instances that occurred on a single day of campaigning in New Hampshire on Jan. 7, a day before the state's primary.

The first was at an event in Dover, N.H., at which Clinton supporter Francine Torge introduced the former first lady saying, "Some people compare one of the other candidates to John F. Kennedy. But he was assassinated. And Lyndon Baines Johnson was the one who actually" signed the civil rights bill into law.

The Kennedy insider says Senator Kennedy was deeply offended that Clinton remained silent and "sat passively by" rather than correcting the record on his slain brother's civil rights record.

Kennedy was also apparently upset that Clinton said on the same day: "Dr. [Martin Luther] King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Ac. It took a president to get it done."

Both comments that day, by Clinton and her supporter, were meant to make the point that Clinton would be better equipped to get things done as president than Obama, her chief Democratic rival. Sources say Clinton called Kennedy to apologize for the LBJ comments. But whatever she said clearly wasn't enough to assuage Kennedy, who endorsed Obama earlier this week.

Kennedy insiders say the Massachusetts senator has also been angry with former President Bill Clinton for his "Southern strategy" themed comments on the campaign trail. The senator didn't hide his disdain for the nasty tone of the campaign during his endorsement speech at American University on Monday.

Kennedy's spokeswoman, Melissa Wagoner, would neither confirm nor deny that the senator was angered by Senator Clinton's LBJ comments. She simply said: "Senator Kennedy knows that candidates can't always be responsible for the things their supporters say. He's proud of President Kennedy's role in the civil rights movement, and believes that it's time to unify and inspire Americans to believe we can achieve great things again."

The Clinton campaign hasn't responded yet to our evening-time request for comment on Clinton's telephone apology to Kennedy. On the day of the LBJ rhetoric, however, a Clinton campaign spokesman was quoted on the New York Times' politics blog distancing Clinton from the surrogate who made the inappropriate assassination comment.

The Audacity of Hype

Monday, January 14, 2008

By Dale Carrico

Can somebody explain to me what is supposed to be so fresh and new about the politics of hope?

How is the politics of hope really that different from what we have been suffering from for the last seven years?

Invade Iraq and hope for the best? Hope the economy will balance itself out? Hope Movement Conservative appointees to the Court won't dismantle Roe and our other Civil Liberties? Hope our infrastructure will hold up without tax money to maintain it? Hope deregulated companies will act in the public interest even when the opposite is more profitable? Hope those levees won't break?
There were plenty who knew Iraq looked like shaping up to be a disaster -- quite apart from being illegal and immoral. There were plenty who knew the housing bubble would burst, that tax cuts for the rich during wartime was madness, and so on. There were plenty who knew the danger New Orleans was in.


Reagan talked about hope. Reagan talked about "Morning in America" as he set out to destroy the achievements of the New Deal and the Summer of Love. That's when our long national nightmare of corporatism and theocratic pandering began.

Hope is frankly unwarranted in my opinion given our recent history, our debased present, and our palpable future. Indeed, to focus on hope right about now may be delusive and outright dangerous.
The alternative I propose is not Hopelessness.

Right about now Hope Without Fight is Hype.

We need to fight our way to a place of hope that makes sense. I'm hopeful enough to think we can fight our way to hope. But I'm not ready to make nice.

Make sense first. Fight second. Hope third.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. I'll cheerfully vote for Obama (or for Clinton), I'll fight to get Obama in the White House. I think any of the three front runners would be a better President than any of the Republican alternatives, would possibly be even a better President than any in my recent memory.

But Obama needs to make more sense (for example, neither his health nor his energy policies are as good as Edwards's or Clinton's already imperfect plans) and he needs to signal more awareness of the need to fight and more willingness to do so. I'll even settle for a few dog-whistle signals of commitments to his progressive base here and there rather than this constant refrain from dreamy-eyed supporters that I can "trust him" to have real progressive commitments despite all the feel-good vacuities and corporate/centrist policy papers.

As for Edwards, I'm still a committed Edwards guy. Edwards's delegate counts are fine, thank you all very much. Edwards is polling plenty well in upcoming primary contests. Obama and Clinton are both objectively to the right of Edwards on domestic policy, and I'm on the democratic left. Edwards is the best candidate for progressives and I think it's lunacy (wishful thinking, more like) to pretend he's out of the race this early on, and given his impact in driving all the candidates toward progressive stances more in line with what the country needs and already believes it would be lunacy to push him out of the race even if his prospects for a win begin to dim (as they have not yet objectively done).

Obama Hearts Ronald Regan.

There are many reason progressives should admire Ronald Reagan, politically speaking. He realigned the country around his vision, he brought into power a new movement that created conservative change, and he was an extremely skilled politician. But that is not why Obama admires Reagan. Obama admires Reagan because he agrees with Reagan's basic frame that the 1960s and 1970s were full of 'excesses' and that government had grown large and unaccountable.

Those excesses, of course, were feminism, the consumer rights movement, the civil rights movement, the environmental movement, and the antiwar movement. The libertarian anti-government ideology of an unaccountable large liberal government was designed by ideological conservatives to take advantage of the backlash against these 'excesses'.

It is extremely disturbing to hear, not that Obama admires Reagan, but why he does so. Reagan was not a sunny optimist pushing dynamic entrepreneurship, but a savvy politician using a civil rights backlash to catapult conservatives to power. Lots of people don't agree with this, of course, since it doesn't fit a coherent narrative of GOP ascendancy. Masking Reagan's true political underpinning principles is a central goal of the conservative movement, with someone as powerful as Grover Norquist seeking to put Reagan's name on as many monuments as possible and the Republican candidates themselves using Reagan's name instead of George Bush's in GOP debates as a mark of greatness. Why would the conservative movement create such idolatry around Reagan? Is is because they just want to honor a great man? Perhaps that is some of it. Or are they trying to escape the legacy of the conservative movement so that it can be rebuilt in a few years, as they did after Nixon, Reagan, and Bush I?

I don't know. But if you think, as Obama does, that Reagan's rise to power was premised on a sunny optimism in contrast to an out of control government and a society rife with liberal excess, then you don't understand the conservative movement. Reagan tapped into greed and fear and tribalism, and those are powerful forces. Ignoring that isn't going to make them go away.

Snip

Just a recap folks in his own words:

"I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what's different are the times. I do think that for example the 1980 was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing." (bolding and italics mine- to add emphasis.)

What excesses would those be Mr. Obama? Government growing and growing with no accountability? That is verbiage straight from wing-nut radio. This is a Rush Limbaugh talking point. Tell me again how Barack Obama is a Liberal and represents change.

In Iraq Untill 2018?

January 15, 2008
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

Iraq Defense Minister Sees Need for U.S. Security Help Until 2018

By THOM SHANKER

FORT MONROE, Va. — The Iraqi defense minister said Monday that his nation would not be able to take full responsibility for its internal security until 2012, nor be able on its own to defend Iraq’s borders from external threat until at least 2018.

Those comments from the minister, Abdul Qadir, were among the most specific public projections of a timeline for the American commitment in Iraq by officials in either Washington or Baghdad. And they suggested a longer commitment than either government had previously indicated.

Pentagon officials expressed no surprise at Mr. Qadir’s projections, which were even less optimistic than those he made last year.

President Bush has never given a date for a military withdrawal from Iraq but has repeatedly said that American forces would stand down as Iraqi forces stand up. Given Mr. Qadir’s assessment of Iraq’s military capabilities on Monday, such a withdrawal appeared to be quite distant, and further away than any American officials have previously stated in public.

Mr. Qadir’s comments are likely to become a factor in political debate over the war. All of the Democratic presidential candidates have promised a swift American withdrawal, while the leading Republican candidates have generally supported President Bush’s plan. Now that rough dates have been attached to his formula, they will certainly come under scrutiny from both sides.

Senior Pentagon and military officials said Mr. Qadir had been consistent throughout his weeklong visit in pressing that timeline, and also in laying out requests for purchasing new weapons through Washington’s program of foreign military sales.

“According to our calculations and our timelines, we think that from the first quarter of 2009 until 2012 we will be able to take full control of the internal affairs of the country,” Mr. Qadir said in an interview on Monday, conducted in Arabic through an interpreter.

“In regard to the borders, regarding protection from any external threats, our calculation appears that we are not going to be able to answer to any external threats until 2018 to 2020,” he added.

He offered no specifics on a timeline for reducing the number of American troops in Iraq.

His statements were slightly less optimistic than what he told an independent United States commission examining the progress of Iraqi security forces last year, according to the September report of the commission, led by a former NATO commander, Gen. James L. Jones of the Marines, who is retired. Then Mr. Qadir said he expected that Iraq would be able to fully defend its borders by 2018.

Mr. Qadir was in the United States to discuss the two nations’ long-term military relationship, starting with how to build the new Iraqi armed forces from the ground up over the next decade and beyond, with American assistance.

The United States and Iraq announced in November that they would negotiate formal agreements on that relationship, including the legal status of American military forces remaining in Iraq and an array of measures for cooperation in the diplomatic and economic arenas.

Negotiations have yet to begin in earnest, but both countries have begun sketching their goals, and Mr. Qadir’s visit certainly is part of measures by the Iraqi government to lay the foundation for those talks, which are to be completed by July.

“This trip is indicative of where we are in our military relationship with Iraq,” said Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary. “We are transitioning from crisis mode, from dealing with day-to-day battlefield decisions, to a long-term strategic relationship.”

Mr. Morrell said the goal was to end a period in which Iraq has been a military dependent and build a relationship with Iraq as “a more traditional military partner.”

Meanwhile, Mr. Qadir sketched out a shopping list that included ground vehicles and helicopters, as well as tanks, artillery and armored personnel carriers.

Those, he said, are needed as Iraq moves toward taking full responsibility for internal security. In the years after that, as his nation assumes full control over its defense against foreign threats, Iraq will need additional aircraft, both warplanes and reconnaissance vehicles, he said.

Pentagon officials said that Mr. Qadir’s visit, which includes the usual agenda of meetings at the Pentagon, White House and on Capitol Hill, was expanded to include his first talks with commanders of American headquarters that are responsible for long-term military planning, training, personnel development and doctrine.

Mr. Qadir, a career armor officer who commanded Iraqi troops who fought alongside Marine Corps forces during the battle for Falluja in 2004, spent part of Monday here, at the headquarters of the Army’s Training and Doctrine Command, where he questioned senior officers on how the ground force trains its leaders, from sergeants through senior officers.

Even in wartime, “it is a requirement for somebody to think about the future,” said Gen. William S. Wallace, the Army’s training and doctrine commander. While Army training cannot ignore “the urgency of the next assignment,” General Wallace told his visitor, the complexity of modern warfare proved the importance of the Army’s program of pulling its leadership out of the fight on a routine schedule to take courses on tactics, operations and strategy, as well as logistics.

At a meeting with senior officers at the nearby Joint Forces Command, Mr. Qadir was told of the American military’s latest efforts at synchronizing the efforts of its ground, air and naval forces for combat, and to use computer exercises to train headquarters units for deployment.

“We are keenly aware that you are not engaged in an exercise in your country,” said Gen. James N. Mattis of the Marine Corps, the Joint Forces commander.

General Mattis acknowledged how different the dialogue with Mr. Qadir was on Monday from when the two served together in Falluja. Iraq is still at war, General Mattis said, but Mr. Qadir is carrying out the traditional functions of any regular defense minister.

It is a positive development that “it is just the norm to have an Iraqi come and visit us,” General Mattis said.

Democrat For A Day

By SusanUnPC on January 14, 2008
Here in Nevada Barack Obama has put out a flyer reading, in part, “You Can Be A Democrat for A Day,” reports Taylor Marsh. who lives and broadcasts in Las Vegas. [UPDATE: Obama’s campaign is doing this nationwide. Here’s an official Florida Obama campaign release on how to be a “Democrat for a Day.”] Then there’s the manipulation by Obama-ite leaders of the Culinary Workers Local 226 in Nevada that forced Obama on union members (more below). (Let’s not forget that Obama dissed unions as “special interests” — that is, when they supported his rivals John Edwards and Hillary Clinton.)

So THIS is Chicago-style politics! Barack Obama, stung by his New Hampshire loss, promised a “Chicago-style smackdown,” and he’s delivered. Beyond this shocking invitation to let Republicans invade Democratic caucuses, there’s the disturbing prospect that Republicans — knowing that Obama will be the easiest Democratic nominee to defeat in the general election — will do just that. Gleefully! God almighty. Is Karl Rove advising the Obama campaign now, beyond the pages of the Wall Street Journal? Don’t forget Larry Johnson’s warnings in “Why Are the Rightwing Republicans Hyping Obama?” — which should be re-read by every true Democrat.

Yes there is MORE

Doh!!

FBI Wiretaps Dropped Due to Unpaid Bills
By Lara Jakes Jordan
The Associated Press

Thursday 10 January 2008

Washington - Telephone companies have cut off FBI wiretaps used to eavesdrop on suspected criminals because of the bureau's repeated failures to pay phone bills on time.

A Justice Department audit released Thursday blamed the lost connections on the FBI's lax oversight of money used in undercover investigations. Poor supervision of the program also allowed one agent to steal $25,000, the audit said.

In at least one case, a wiretap used in a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act investigation "was halted due to untimely payment," the audit found. FISA wiretaps are used in the government's most sensitive and secretive criminal investigations, and allow eavesdropping on suspected terrorists or spies.

"We also found that late payments have resulted in telecommunications carriers actually disconnecting phone lines established to deliver surveillance results to the FBI, resulting in lost evidence," according to the audit by Inspector General Glenn A. Fine.

More than half of 990 bills to pay for telecommunication surveillance in five unidentified FBI field offices were not paid on time, the report shows. In one office alone, unpaid costs for wiretaps from one phone company totaled $66,000.

The FBI did not have an immediate comment.

The report released Thursday was a highly edited version of Fine's 87-page audit that the FBI deemed too sensitive to be viewed publicly. It focused on what the FBI admitted was an "antiquated" system to track money sent to its 56 field offices nationwide for undercover work. Generally, the money pays for rental cars, leases and surveillance, the audit noted.

It also found that some field offices paid for expenses on undercover cases that should have been financed by FBI headquarters. Out of 130 undercover payments examined, auditors found 14 cases of at least $6,000 each where field offices dipped into their own budgets to pay for work that should have been picked up by headquarters.

The faulty bookkeeping was blamed, in large part, in the case of an FBI agent who pleaded guilty in June 2006 to stealing $25,000 for her own use, the audit noted.

"As demonstrated by the FBI employee who stole funds intended to support undercover activities, procedural controls by themselves have not ensured proper tracking and use of confidential case funds," it concluded.

Fine's report offered 16 recommendations to improve the FBI's tracking and management of the funding system, including its telecommunication costs. The FBI has agreed to follow 11 of the suggestions but said that four "would be either unfeasible or too cost prohibitive." The recommendations were not specifically outlined in the edited version of the report.

Behind The Mask of Mr. Hope

The day after New Year's 1996, operatives for Barack Obama filed into a barren hearing room of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners.

There they began the tedious process of challenging hundreds of signatures on the nominating petitions of state Sen. Alice Palmer, the longtime progressive activist from the city's South Side. And they kept challenging petitions until every one of Obama's four Democratic primary rivals was forced off the ballot.

Fresh from his work as a civil rights lawyer and head of a voter registration project that expanded access to the ballot box, Obama launched his first campaign for the Illinois Senate saying he wanted to empower disenfranchised citizens.
But in that initial bid for political office, Obama quickly mastered the bare-knuckle arts of Chicago electoral politics. His overwhelming legal onslaught signaled his impatience to gain office, even if that meant elbowing aside an elder stateswoman like Palmer.

A close examination of Obama's first campaign clouds the image he has cultivated throughout his political career: The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it.

There is more, much more