JUAN GONZALEZ: I'd like to turn also now to Max Fraser, who joins us. He’s with The Nation magazine. He’s written an article recently called "Subprime Obama," where he looks at the housing crisis, and initially the article dealt with--John Edwards was still in the race--with the positions of Edwards, Clinton and Barack Obama on the housing crisis sweeping the nation. Welcome to Democracy Now!
MAX FRASER: Thanks for having me.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Could you outline the differences between--the major differences between the candidates? And it would be instructive also to talk about John Edwards's policies, as well.
MAX FRASER: Sure. Well, when he was in the race, Edwards’s plan was by far the most comprehensive and aggressive, insofar as it really committed the government to intervening on behalf of homeowners and resolving the crisis in such a way that it would keep people from losing their homes. Edwards called for a mandatory moratorium on foreclosures, a freeze on rising interest rates, a real kind of redoubled efforts to not only regulate the mortgage markets, but financial markets generally.
Clinton and Obama fall short of that, and Obama falls short most significantly. He is the only one of the three who hasn't called for a moratorium on foreclosures or a freeze on interest rates, which really are the most effective short-term measures that can be taken to keep homeowners in their homes. And beyond that, his plan calls for the least aggressive government intervention, the most limited spending to bail out homeowners and to especially borrowers who are at risk of defaulting on their mortgages and to help them restructure their loans in such a way that they're affordable moving forward. And his plan actually really most relies on a pretty insignificant tax credit, which comes out to about $500 on average for homeowners, which might make a difference for those who are just barely falling behind, but not for those who are falling further and further behind.
AMY GOODMAN: Max, in your piece, "Subprime Obama," you talk about his three main economic advisers.
MAX FRASER: Right.
AMY GOODMAN: Tell us who they are.
MAX FRASER: Well, there are these three young economists: David Cutler, Jeffrey Liebman and Austan Goolsbee. Cutler and Liebman are Harvard economists who hail from the Clinton administration. Goolsbee, who does the lion's share of the work on this issue, comes from the University of Chicago. They're all centrist market economists, I mean, what you would call them Clintonian in their politics, and that's really where they're coming from. They are oriented towards, you know, market-based solutions to social welfare issues. Cutler writes about incentivizing the healthcare industry as a way to improving care. Liebman has endorsed the partial privatization of Social Security. And Goolsbee also is one of the kind of market faithful.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Yeah, I'd like to ask you about Liebman in particular, because I think that, from what I understand, he is proposing a--has proposed for a 20 percent increase in the Social Security payroll tax to, in essence, create private accounts for all Americans. It would be like the equivalent of dues check-off for Wall Street.
MAX FRASER: Yeah.
JUAN GONZALEZ: It would be an enormous windfall for the Wall Street firms to be able to get that kind of a operation.
MAX FRASER: Right.
JUAN GONZALEZ: But it's not clear--Obama has never said anything about this in the campaign trail, but his key adviser is known as the main proponent of this, right?
MAX FRASER: Well, one of the--a proponent of it, that's right, entirely true. And, you know, Obama, I think what he says on the campaign trail on various issues of domestic policy are, you know, not wholly in line with where these policy advisers are, but they clearly are animating where he stands on these issues, like Social Security and the housing crisis, most notably, I think.
The above is from Friday's Democracy Now! and one thing we'd like to turn to is thanking Juan Gonzalez because before Gonalzes brought Max Fraser into the conversation it was Drone Central with swipes at Hillary (and laughable defenses of Bambi). Thing is though, the above wasn't played over Pacifica airwaves. It's fund raising time for Pacifica and Democracy Now! is reduced in air time to make time to ask for money. And on stations, such as KPFA, where it airs twice, they didn't use the second airing to feature anything but Robert Kuttner.
Ah, yes, Robert Kuttner, the man who's spent forever turning himself into Paul Krugman nemisis. It was interesting to follow that. How many sentences will it take Kuttner to introduce Krugman into the conservation?
Seven.
"Clinton and some liberal commentators, like Paul Krugman, have whacked Obama for not having a mandate," Kuttner declared.
What was especially interesting was that Paul Krugman's argument about the flaws in Obama's health care plan was being dismissed to Democracy Now!'s audience when . . . formerly frequent DN! guest Krugman has never been invited on to discuss the topic.
Do you get that?
Krugman, a frequent guest, has never made his argument on the program. But Krugman's self-created nemisis can come on to distort it. Which, for the record, he did.
Here's Kuttner again, "Clinton has what’s known as a mandate. She requires people to get coverage. Obama doesn't. Clinton and some liberal commentators, like Paul Krugman, have whacked Obama for not having a mandate. I think a mandate is a very bad idea. I think the difference between universal social insurance and a mandate is that universal social insurance, like Medicare, says that, as an American or a permanent resident of the country, you get health insurance, the same way you get Social Security. A mandate takes a social problem and makes it the individual’s problem." Try to follow that 'logic.' Kuttner's arguing bad Hillary Clinton has a mandate and Obama's not for mandates!
That is the talking point from the Bambi camp. It's not, however, reality. Obama does have a mandate in his program as well. When Kuttner's lies are called out, watch how Kuttner tries to spin:
JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, I'd like to ask you, in terms of the mandates issue, because obviously both Krugman, in his various articles, and Clinton have claimed, on the one hand, that Obama does have mandates--he has mandates for coverage of all children--so that the mandates issue is not a principled issue, it's a tactical issue as to what you think could be approved. Your sense of that?
ROBERT KUTTNER: My point is that a mandate, in a situation where the whole system is sick, makes that sickness the problem of the individual. Instead of putting a gun to people's heads, typically people who can't afford good quality insurance, and saying to them, "You must, under penalty of law, or pay a tax or pay a fine, go out and find decent insurance," it's so much better policy to just have insurance for everybody. Then there's no question of a mandate.
I think it's a very bad position for progressives to back into, because it signals that government is being coercive, rather than government being helpful. Now, we can split hairs and argue whether Obama is being principled or tactical, but I think his discomfort with the idea of a mandate is something that I applaud.
Did you hear a discussion of mandates? No, you heard Kuttner confess to his crush -- he "applaud"s his crush. His crush that has mandates in his plan. It's a funny sort of standard and one that we hear over and over from the Bambi groupies -- "Bambi doesn't do that! Oh, well he does do it, but it makes him uncomfortable!" Like when Allan Nairn declared, okay, Bambi does take money from Big Business but just because, if he didn't, Big Business would attack him. No matter what the issue, the groupies manage to ignore it and find a way to justify Bambi's actions.
When it's time for Kuttner to add his two cents to Gonzalez and Fraser, the first thing he does is circulate a lie. "I think it was National Journal," he works in because he wants to, "recently came out with a rating that showed that Obama has the most left-of-center record."
Do you get how lame that is to offer? No?
Janine Jackson addressed The National Journal's 'rankings' in last week's CounterSpin and, thing is, someone like Kuttner should have already been aware of it because this pops up every four years.
Janine Jackson: In the run up to the 2004 presidential election, The National Journal magazine unveiled a study that found John Kerry was the most liberal senator. That ultra-liberal designation became a regular feature about Kerry's campaign. The magazine just unveiled its rankings for this year and, wouldn't you know it, the winner was another Democratic presidential contender: Barack Obama. And just like 2004, the magazine's ranking became big news even though few reporters or pundits bothered to look into its curious methodology. But anyone might find the ranking a bit odd. Is Obama really more liberal than, say, Russ Feingold or independent socialist Bernie Saunders? The magazine gets there by a complex process that considers only certain votes in certain categories, weights some of those votes to make them more important, and then decides what the liberal or conservative position would be. Looking at the actual votes, Obama -- ranked number one -- and Hillary Clinton -- ranked number sixteen -- differed exactly twice. For example on the matter of establishing an Office of Senate Integrity, Obama voted "yes" and Clinton "no." Supporting that Joe Lieberman amendment was taking the "liberal" position according to The National Journal. Their votes also differed on an immigration amendment. There are other rankings, like Voteview that found Obama around the tenth most liberal Democrat with Clinton somewhat further to his right. That would seem to make a lot more sense and that's in line with other vote rankings but none of those others get nearly as much attention as those from the Beltway publication The National Journal. If he is the eventual nominee, expect to hear the "Obama is the most liberal" line often in the press but don't expect many reporters to explain it.
And, for that matter, don't expect Robert Kuttner to explain it either. And feel especially sorry for WBAI listeners because they didn't hear Janine Jackson offering those truths -- CounterSpin didn't air on WBAI Friday, instead listeners got Amy Goodman for an additional hour of pledge time discussing Pacifica founder Lewis Hill's suicide . . . his 1957 suicide.
Who knows, maybe someday Krugman will be brought back on the show to address the differences between Obama and Clinton's health care? That would be "Paul Krugman, the award-winning New York Times op-ed columnist. He spoke recently in New York about the new class war in America. In addition to writing for the Times, Paul Krugman is a world-renowned economist. He teaches at Princeton University" (Goodman, June 19, 2006 broadcast of Democracy Now!). Maybe you've heard of him? "Paul Krugman was named Columnist of the Year by Editor & Publisher magazine. He teaches economics and international affairs at Princeton University -- his new book, just published, is The Conscience of a Liberal-- joining us now in our firehouse studio" (Goodman, October 17, 2007 broadcast of Democracy Now!).
Poor Krugman. A relic of shows past -- not unlike the former firehouse studio -- all because he didn't toe the line that Bambi pees rainbows and holy water.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Reality check
We wanted this for a truest statement but C.I. says no. So we're making it a stand alone to be sure it's not lost in the "Roundtable."
C.I.: I don't know which articles you looked at, but in terms of The Nation, in March of 2003, before the illegal war started, John Nichols was writing about challenging the rush to war and noted John Bonifaz's federal court argument, then being presented, that no war could start without authorization from Congress. Clearly at that moment, people such as Bonifaz and Nancy Lessin did not believe the 2002 resolution was an authorization for war. I think Bambi plays fast and slick with the title of the bill and think 'independent' media's a joke since it's just as easy to use his 'logic' to claim that the legislation billed as "The P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act" was about patriotism. When you've got Bambi saying, "What was the title?" and allowing discussion to end there you're arguing that the Patriot Act, by it's title, must also be about patriotism. This is a paraphrase, from memory, of Nichols March 2003 article, before the illegal war started, he's quoting Bonifaz who states, "We aren't saying that the war cannot occur if Congress declares it. Our position is that the Constitution requires the president to go to Congress before launching a premeditated, first-strike invasion of another country. This is precisely what the framers of the Constitution intended to prevent. They placed Article I, Section Eight in the Constitution to assure that the President of the United States would not have the power that European monarchs had held in the past in matters of war and peace." Clearly, Bonifaz was arguing, in 2003, that the 2002 authorization was not an authorization for war and since Nichols repeating it without question, one would assume Nichols either agrees with it or is choosing to stay silent. Now Nichols could argue that in October 2002, he was portraying it differently. He certainly was in an article entitled "Five Ways to Help Win The House." That's right, Nichols is among the commentators who couldn't seriously address Iraq before the vote or immediately after. It was more important to Nichols to find a way to "win" the House. In that column he lays the blame clearly on Richard Gephardt's doorstep noting that Gephardt, a Democrat and the leader of the Dems in the House, co-authored the legislation. And his big complaint? Nichols big complaint in October immediately after the resolution was voted on? That there were only a few campaign weeks left and Gephart was, this is a direct quote, "Gephardt was still testing themes in Washington". He's not sounding alarms about the resolution, he's arguing ways for Dems to take back the House. So maybe The Nation needs to get off their high horse about that resolution because their position and how much emphasis they placed on it in real time has been all over the map. Prior to Paul Wellstone's death, in a column that ran in October, Nichols again wasn't concerned about the resolution itself, he was concerned about electibility declaring that, "The 'regime change' Rove is most focused on is not in Iraq but in the Senate, where the defeat of a single Democrat would give Republicans control." He argues Wellstone must vote against it and then explain why to his voters as he did on the 1996 so-called 'welfare reform' vote. This not a column opposing impending war, it's a column on how to finesse your vote. So it's really funny that Nichols -- who doesn't write about Iraq and really hasn't since 2006 -- has such a big problem with Hillary's vote. Where was Nichols when it mattered? Arguing ways to finesse, not taking a stand. In fact, the only one the little pisher really took to task was Barbra Streisand in an October 3, 2002 piece. Elected Congress members he wanted to counsel, Barbra Streisand -- who had no vote in Congress -- he wants to rip apart. Well, he's not that fond of women. "Babs-land"? Did Nichols really use that insulting phrase? Yes, he did. The little nothing who's made nothing with his life and tried to hop the impeachment wagon with a bad book that he then dropped like crazy when the magazine decided impeachment was a no-go -- there's a reason Elizabeth Holtzman's pieces on impeachment these days appear elsewhere and we addressed that after the 2006 elections here -- has the nerve to criticize Barbra Streisand for anything? Oh the petty jealousies of the pettiest of nobodies. He goes on to write, in that piece, after getting his fangs into Barbra and tasting blood, "It is no secret that on Capitol Hill, many Democrats are motivated to vote for the resolution out of political calculation. They do not believe war against Iraq at this time is a good idea, but they fear looking soft or being caught on the wrong side of what might be a popular war. They are hoping to buy security--their own-- with blood." That was probably his strongest pre-vote statment and he had to tear apart non-Senator, non-Congressmember Barbra Streisand to get there. How proud he must be. After the 2002 elections, Nichols penned a column, "Failed Midterms," that sprinkled in a little about the authorization vote but was equally taking the Dems to task on their response to the White House's tax cuts. He wrote, "The election of 2002 has taught two lessons that should not be lost as the 2004 presidential contest begins: Bush is a relentless and effective campaigner; and the only way to beat him and his party will be for Democrats to distinguish themselves as a relentless and effective party of opposition." Which does not explain Nichols current support for Bambi. But it does make clear the Iraq War was never a huge issue for him when it came time to write. Then, as now, he wasted all of his time playing advisor to the Democratic Party. Again, how proud he must be. The Democratic Party's own little Rona Barrett. That would explain the hairstyle.
C.I.: I don't know which articles you looked at, but in terms of The Nation, in March of 2003, before the illegal war started, John Nichols was writing about challenging the rush to war and noted John Bonifaz's federal court argument, then being presented, that no war could start without authorization from Congress. Clearly at that moment, people such as Bonifaz and Nancy Lessin did not believe the 2002 resolution was an authorization for war. I think Bambi plays fast and slick with the title of the bill and think 'independent' media's a joke since it's just as easy to use his 'logic' to claim that the legislation billed as "The P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act" was about patriotism. When you've got Bambi saying, "What was the title?" and allowing discussion to end there you're arguing that the Patriot Act, by it's title, must also be about patriotism. This is a paraphrase, from memory, of Nichols March 2003 article, before the illegal war started, he's quoting Bonifaz who states, "We aren't saying that the war cannot occur if Congress declares it. Our position is that the Constitution requires the president to go to Congress before launching a premeditated, first-strike invasion of another country. This is precisely what the framers of the Constitution intended to prevent. They placed Article I, Section Eight in the Constitution to assure that the President of the United States would not have the power that European monarchs had held in the past in matters of war and peace." Clearly, Bonifaz was arguing, in 2003, that the 2002 authorization was not an authorization for war and since Nichols repeating it without question, one would assume Nichols either agrees with it or is choosing to stay silent. Now Nichols could argue that in October 2002, he was portraying it differently. He certainly was in an article entitled "Five Ways to Help Win The House." That's right, Nichols is among the commentators who couldn't seriously address Iraq before the vote or immediately after. It was more important to Nichols to find a way to "win" the House. In that column he lays the blame clearly on Richard Gephardt's doorstep noting that Gephardt, a Democrat and the leader of the Dems in the House, co-authored the legislation. And his big complaint? Nichols big complaint in October immediately after the resolution was voted on? That there were only a few campaign weeks left and Gephart was, this is a direct quote, "Gephardt was still testing themes in Washington". He's not sounding alarms about the resolution, he's arguing ways for Dems to take back the House. So maybe The Nation needs to get off their high horse about that resolution because their position and how much emphasis they placed on it in real time has been all over the map. Prior to Paul Wellstone's death, in a column that ran in October, Nichols again wasn't concerned about the resolution itself, he was concerned about electibility declaring that, "The 'regime change' Rove is most focused on is not in Iraq but in the Senate, where the defeat of a single Democrat would give Republicans control." He argues Wellstone must vote against it and then explain why to his voters as he did on the 1996 so-called 'welfare reform' vote. This not a column opposing impending war, it's a column on how to finesse your vote. So it's really funny that Nichols -- who doesn't write about Iraq and really hasn't since 2006 -- has such a big problem with Hillary's vote. Where was Nichols when it mattered? Arguing ways to finesse, not taking a stand. In fact, the only one the little pisher really took to task was Barbra Streisand in an October 3, 2002 piece. Elected Congress members he wanted to counsel, Barbra Streisand -- who had no vote in Congress -- he wants to rip apart. Well, he's not that fond of women. "Babs-land"? Did Nichols really use that insulting phrase? Yes, he did. The little nothing who's made nothing with his life and tried to hop the impeachment wagon with a bad book that he then dropped like crazy when the magazine decided impeachment was a no-go -- there's a reason Elizabeth Holtzman's pieces on impeachment these days appear elsewhere and we addressed that after the 2006 elections here -- has the nerve to criticize Barbra Streisand for anything? Oh the petty jealousies of the pettiest of nobodies. He goes on to write, in that piece, after getting his fangs into Barbra and tasting blood, "It is no secret that on Capitol Hill, many Democrats are motivated to vote for the resolution out of political calculation. They do not believe war against Iraq at this time is a good idea, but they fear looking soft or being caught on the wrong side of what might be a popular war. They are hoping to buy security--their own-- with blood." That was probably his strongest pre-vote statment and he had to tear apart non-Senator, non-Congressmember Barbra Streisand to get there. How proud he must be. After the 2002 elections, Nichols penned a column, "Failed Midterms," that sprinkled in a little about the authorization vote but was equally taking the Dems to task on their response to the White House's tax cuts. He wrote, "The election of 2002 has taught two lessons that should not be lost as the 2004 presidential contest begins: Bush is a relentless and effective campaigner; and the only way to beat him and his party will be for Democrats to distinguish themselves as a relentless and effective party of opposition." Which does not explain Nichols current support for Bambi. But it does make clear the Iraq War was never a huge issue for him when it came time to write. Then, as now, he wasted all of his time playing advisor to the Democratic Party. Again, how proud he must be. The Democratic Party's own little Rona Barrett. That would explain the hairstyle.
Women, you're her third choice!
Professional crier Kate Michelman felt the need to share ("What I Really Wanted To Say To Chris Matthews" -- you sort of picture her tossing and turning unable to sleep as she relives it) that with John Edwards out of the race, her new pick, Barack Obama, is about qualifactions.
Strange qualifications, apparently, since she rates Hillary Clinton "very good." Just not good enough to be the first pick or the second. But presumably Clinton would be her third pick, unless Mike Gravel showed a surprising skill on the field.
See, 'feminist' Kate thinks even "very good" women aren't good enough for the Michelman first round draft choice, nor the second. But when only two others are left (Clinton and Gravel), she might go with Hillary. Maybe.
That's cry baby Kate for you. You can never make her useless because she'll always beat you to it.
Strange qualifications, apparently, since she rates Hillary Clinton "very good." Just not good enough to be the first pick or the second. But presumably Clinton would be her third pick, unless Mike Gravel showed a surprising skill on the field.
See, 'feminist' Kate thinks even "very good" women aren't good enough for the Michelman first round draft choice, nor the second. But when only two others are left (Clinton and Gravel), she might go with Hillary. Maybe.
That's cry baby Kate for you. You can never make her useless because she'll always beat you to it.
Philip Roth, stuck on stupid
Speaking with Germany's Der Spiegel, author and magpie Philip Roth shares that he's supporting Barack Obama for presidnet. It isn't, however, enough to leave it there:
SPIEGEL: What made you interested in Obama?
Roth: I'm interested in the fact that he's black. I feel the race issue in this country is more important than the feminist issue. I think that the importance to blacks would be tremendous. He's an attractive man, he's smart, he happens to be tremendously articulate. His position in the Democratic Party is more or less okay with me. And I think it would be important to American blacks if he became president.
[. . .]
SPIEGEL: The discussions around Obama remind us of your figure Coleman Silk, the hero of "The Human Stain," who is black with unusually light skin and then invents a Jewish biography. What we mean is the questions of belonging, of right and wrong behavior. Is Barack Obama black enough?
Roth: I know this discussion goes on, but I think it will disappear if he gets the nomination. The reality of his running will wash that away. Anybody who's half white and half black is considered black anyway. That's one drop of blood.
SPIEGEL: For whites to consider him black, yes. But the question is whether the blacks consider him black.
Roth: They will once the election goes on. If he gets the nomination.
Philip Roth, guaranteeing that the "Ugly American" stereotype will live on in Europe. Oh for the days when he focused on masturbation.
SPIEGEL: What made you interested in Obama?
Roth: I'm interested in the fact that he's black. I feel the race issue in this country is more important than the feminist issue. I think that the importance to blacks would be tremendous. He's an attractive man, he's smart, he happens to be tremendously articulate. His position in the Democratic Party is more or less okay with me. And I think it would be important to American blacks if he became president.
[. . .]
SPIEGEL: The discussions around Obama remind us of your figure Coleman Silk, the hero of "The Human Stain," who is black with unusually light skin and then invents a Jewish biography. What we mean is the questions of belonging, of right and wrong behavior. Is Barack Obama black enough?
Roth: I know this discussion goes on, but I think it will disappear if he gets the nomination. The reality of his running will wash that away. Anybody who's half white and half black is considered black anyway. That's one drop of blood.
SPIEGEL: For whites to consider him black, yes. But the question is whether the blacks consider him black.
Roth: They will once the election goes on. If he gets the nomination.
Philip Roth, guaranteeing that the "Ugly American" stereotype will live on in Europe. Oh for the days when he focused on masturbation.
Katrina vanden Heuvel kind of remembers she's a woman
And when she does, it's her moment to speak out, in anger and in sorrow, at those snarky sexist men at MSNBC, and others in our media (think of the right wing ranters like Limbaugh and Savage) who traffic in misognynist and demeaning commentary on women and their children.
Queen Bee Katrina vanden Heuvel wrote the above on Friday ("Does MSNBC Stand for 'Most Sexist Nasty Boys Club'?") and you can rejoice and see it as what can happen when a Queen Bee gets called out or you can grasp that it's nothing but sop tossed out by a woman who regularly features the writing of a man twice busted for attempting to set up sexual encounters with underage females online.
We're waiting, Katrina, for the day you "to speak out, in anger and sorrow," against Pig. We doubt it will ever come. We doubt you'll even stop running his scribbles.
When the reports of the arrests came to light, that was it for Pig and the MSM. Lucky for him a lot of women weren't bothered by his arrests or the fact that he was arrested for being an online predator targeting young women. Katrina's only one of many. But of course, sincerity wasn't the motivator for the Chris Matthews regular, just fear that Hillary might take the nomination after all.
[Illustration of vanden Heuvel from Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts, "From the kitchen of the Peace Resister."]
Queen Bee Katrina vanden Heuvel wrote the above on Friday ("Does MSNBC Stand for 'Most Sexist Nasty Boys Club'?") and you can rejoice and see it as what can happen when a Queen Bee gets called out or you can grasp that it's nothing but sop tossed out by a woman who regularly features the writing of a man twice busted for attempting to set up sexual encounters with underage females online.
We're waiting, Katrina, for the day you "to speak out, in anger and sorrow," against Pig. We doubt it will ever come. We doubt you'll even stop running his scribbles.
When the reports of the arrests came to light, that was it for Pig and the MSM. Lucky for him a lot of women weren't bothered by his arrests or the fact that he was arrested for being an online predator targeting young women. Katrina's only one of many. But of course, sincerity wasn't the motivator for the Chris Matthews regular, just fear that Hillary might take the nomination after all.
[Illustration of vanden Heuvel from Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts, "From the kitchen of the Peace Resister."]
Highlights
This piece is written by Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Kat of Kat's Korner, Betty of Thomas Friedman is a Great Man, Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz and Wally of The Daily Jot. Unless otherwise noted, we picked all highlights.
"The tears of a clown -- named Cathy Pollitt" -- Cathy Pollitt is a drag and a drip (art imitates life!) but she's also an unintentional wealth of informatin (ibid). Don't miss the latest in Betinna's world!
"Chief Pesto in the Kitchen" -- Marcia wanted us to note that Trina never tries to fancy it up or play gourmet, "she's interested in helping and this may be my favorite thing she's ever written."
"the need for a feminist revolution right about now..." & "a revolution right about now" -- Rebecca charts the problem with weak sisters tagging themselves as 'feminists' to justify their weakness. This is a powerful two-parter and Rebecca says she'll pick up next week as well.
""Idiot of the week" and my interview with Marcia" -- Mike interviews Marcia and you don't want to miss it. (Check out this week's "Idiot of the Week" as well.)
"the 'fighting' kucinich" & "Dennis Kucinich puts impeachment off the table" & "About impeachment . . ." -- Did you hear about Dennis Kucinich deciding impeachment can wait? He did. He declared that on Air America Radio and it's hilarious to visit impeachment sites and watch how they bend over backwards to not cover that. Rebecca, Ruth and Kat didn't blink. They noted reality. Guess others were trying to 'protect' the people from the truth. Maybe that's why one 'impeachment' site features a chatty boy who can't shut up about his love for Bambi? He's a joke and a jerk.
Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "State of Misunion" -- Isaiah captures 'bipartisanship' perfectly.
"Amy Goodman's Lie & Homophobia report" -- Marcia calls out Goody on her silence over the Bambi campaign's use of homophobia.
"Letter to an Old Sell Out" -- "That may be the most e-mailed on post I've ever written," says Elaine. Read it and see why. We're sick of the sell outs. This is a must read.
"Banned from Democracy Now!" & "THIS JUST IN! KICKED OFF THE DN! SET!" -- When Goodman presents a roundtable of four and three are Bambi supporters and the other doesn't root for Bambi or Hillary, it's another wobbly table built by Goody.
"Iraq snapshot" -- C.I.'s Wednesday snapshot which was requested non-stop in e-mails to this site that Ty read. Read it and grasp why. There are several sections that could qualify as "Truest statement of the week."
"THIS JUST IN! STONERS FOR BAMBI!" & "Bambi wraps up the roll your own vote" -- C.I. picked this and thought it was among Wally and Cedric's best. We agree. Bambi doesn't like the 60s but some sellouts from that period are happy to tongue bathe him.
"Hillary" & "Hillary predicted win for Big Mass!" -- Kat and Mike on Hillary's wins on Tuesday night.
"The Nation and Rachel Maddow caught lying" -- If you're advertising a product, shouldn't your facts be correct? Rachel Maddow and The Nation don't practice truth in advertising as Ruth demonstrates.
"Flanders remembers the LGBTs ... for a moment" -- Closet case Laura Flanders (closeted with straights, open to the gay press) just gets more ridiculous every day. Marcia explains why.
"I Hate The War" -- C.I.'s "I Hate The War" remains the most requested highlight each week.
"The tears of a clown -- named Cathy Pollitt" -- Cathy Pollitt is a drag and a drip (art imitates life!) but she's also an unintentional wealth of informatin (ibid). Don't miss the latest in Betinna's world!
"Chief Pesto in the Kitchen" -- Marcia wanted us to note that Trina never tries to fancy it up or play gourmet, "she's interested in helping and this may be my favorite thing she's ever written."
"the need for a feminist revolution right about now..." & "a revolution right about now" -- Rebecca charts the problem with weak sisters tagging themselves as 'feminists' to justify their weakness. This is a powerful two-parter and Rebecca says she'll pick up next week as well.
""Idiot of the week" and my interview with Marcia" -- Mike interviews Marcia and you don't want to miss it. (Check out this week's "Idiot of the Week" as well.)
"the 'fighting' kucinich" & "Dennis Kucinich puts impeachment off the table" & "About impeachment . . ." -- Did you hear about Dennis Kucinich deciding impeachment can wait? He did. He declared that on Air America Radio and it's hilarious to visit impeachment sites and watch how they bend over backwards to not cover that. Rebecca, Ruth and Kat didn't blink. They noted reality. Guess others were trying to 'protect' the people from the truth. Maybe that's why one 'impeachment' site features a chatty boy who can't shut up about his love for Bambi? He's a joke and a jerk.
Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "State of Misunion" -- Isaiah captures 'bipartisanship' perfectly.
"Amy Goodman's Lie & Homophobia report" -- Marcia calls out Goody on her silence over the Bambi campaign's use of homophobia.
"Letter to an Old Sell Out" -- "That may be the most e-mailed on post I've ever written," says Elaine. Read it and see why. We're sick of the sell outs. This is a must read.
"Banned from Democracy Now!" & "THIS JUST IN! KICKED OFF THE DN! SET!" -- When Goodman presents a roundtable of four and three are Bambi supporters and the other doesn't root for Bambi or Hillary, it's another wobbly table built by Goody.
"Iraq snapshot" -- C.I.'s Wednesday snapshot which was requested non-stop in e-mails to this site that Ty read. Read it and grasp why. There are several sections that could qualify as "Truest statement of the week."
"THIS JUST IN! STONERS FOR BAMBI!" & "Bambi wraps up the roll your own vote" -- C.I. picked this and thought it was among Wally and Cedric's best. We agree. Bambi doesn't like the 60s but some sellouts from that period are happy to tongue bathe him.
"Hillary" & "Hillary predicted win for Big Mass!" -- Kat and Mike on Hillary's wins on Tuesday night.
"The Nation and Rachel Maddow caught lying" -- If you're advertising a product, shouldn't your facts be correct? Rachel Maddow and The Nation don't practice truth in advertising as Ruth demonstrates.
"Flanders remembers the LGBTs ... for a moment" -- Closet case Laura Flanders (closeted with straights, open to the gay press) just gets more ridiculous every day. Marcia explains why.
"I Hate The War" -- C.I.'s "I Hate The War" remains the most requested highlight each week.
Note
Features will post late today. We have seven edited and typed up. The two missing include the transcript to the roundtable which was nearly completed and is now lost. We're going to sleep on whether or not it's worth it to us spend significant type retyping the notes. (Audio from it will be included in Hilda's Mix this week regardless.) For the regular readers, Ava and C.I. have completed another epic. Dona thinks if we don't retype the transcript (she's against retyping), Ava and C.I.'s piece is strong enough that if we also bump a feature into an editorial, it'll be a strong edition. Check back after 8:00 pm EST.
Ty just read an e-mail to us. A semi-regular reader asks, "When you're late, do you really have anything finished?"
Uh, yeah. And we'll go ahead and post some things in draft form (typos especially). We'll come back tonight and offer more. Wait, that's me (Jim) talking. Dona says, "Just post Ava and C.I.'s piece. That'll shut him up." So that's what we'll do. Come back after eight tonight and you can find out about Philip Roth, a professional crybaby, 'independent' media and much more.
Ty just read an e-mail to us. A semi-regular reader asks, "When you're late, do you really have anything finished?"
Uh, yeah. And we'll go ahead and post some things in draft form (typos especially). We'll come back tonight and offer more. Wait, that's me (Jim) talking. Dona says, "Just post Ava and C.I.'s piece. That'll shut him up." So that's what we'll do. Come back after eight tonight and you can find out about Philip Roth, a professional crybaby, 'independent' media and much more.
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Truest statement of the week
DOLORES HUERTA: Yeah. There was a big issue, if you will recall, where we had a woman who--in Chicago, Elvira Arellano, who refused to be deported, and she was undocumented. She was in sanctuary for twelve months, for an entire year, right there in Chicago, where Obama lives. The people who did that campaign, these were the same ones that organized the big marches in Chicago, went to see Obama to get some support for Elvira Arellano. He not only refused to help them, but he didn't even bother to go see Elvira. I went from California four times to be there with her. We had a large delegation from Mexico from all the political parties that went to see Elvira. Five ambassadors, they all flew to Washington, D.C. to plead on her behalf. Obama never, never lifted a finger to help her, as he never did when we had two Latinos that had been unjustly incarcerated for a murder that they did not commit. Again, a big campaign to free these two young men from prison. They were ultimately freed. But when they went to see Senator Obama, he refused to help them. I have been a civil rights activist like this all of my life, and I have been to Chicago many times for many different campaigns that the community there--the Latino community was there. I have, to this day, to meet Mr. Obama. I have never encountered him in any of these big campaigns that we have done in Chicago on different issues. And, as I say, I have never yet to meet the man. And so, I don't know about his--
AMY GOODMAN: Did Senator Clinton weigh in--Dolores Huerta, did Senator Clinton weigh in in either of those cases?
DOLORES HUERTA: Well, let me--yeah, let me just say this, that this is a--we're talking about Chicago. We're talking about the third largest Latino area outside of Mexico City, right?
Dolores Huerta attempting to get some reality into the conversation on Friday's Democracy Now! Notice how Amy Goodman cuts her off to ask about Clinton. "We're talking about Chicago." Only Amy Goodman's confused by that remark.
AMY GOODMAN: Did Senator Clinton weigh in--Dolores Huerta, did Senator Clinton weigh in in either of those cases?
DOLORES HUERTA: Well, let me--yeah, let me just say this, that this is a--we're talking about Chicago. We're talking about the third largest Latino area outside of Mexico City, right?
Dolores Huerta attempting to get some reality into the conversation on Friday's Democracy Now! Notice how Amy Goodman cuts her off to ask about Clinton. "We're talking about Chicago." Only Amy Goodman's confused by that remark.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
