Highlight

This feature was written by Wally, Cedric, Betty, Rebecca, Elaine and Mike and all selections picked by them unless otherwise noted.





"What a drag, he is getting old" -- Betty's latest chapter finds Betinna donning male drag and going in search of Thomas Friedman.





"Mandarin Oranges & Wild Rice in the Kitchen" -- Trina wrote late/early (late Friday, early Saturday morning) and that's due to the fact that her son and daughter-in-law moved in on Saturday. One reader (Sammy) e-mailed this site that they enjoyed it but Trina seemed a little reserved. A little reserved?



"Friday" -- what she could have done was link to Mike's post but his kid sister would have thrown a fit. (She's already pissed at Mike for writing about it.) For what's what in the McKinnon house, read this.




"And the war drags on . . ." -- Ty says very popular in the e-mails and very popular with us. C.I.'s addressing the media silences on Iraq at The Nation. To repeat, check out any community site on July 4th and Labor Day. You won't want to miss those days. (Or those joint-posts.)





"Ford and CIA discuss Jane Fonda, Kissinger tries to cover his own War Criminal ass" -- Kat addresses what the CIA has finally released so far. Gerry Ford and the CIA discuss Jane Fonda and Henry Kissinger worried about prison.





"THIS JUST IN! JONESTOWN II ENDS IN BOREDOM!" & "They drank the kool-aid" -- Wally and Cedric's joint-post that prompted a coffee fetcher to respond. We weren't aware of that. Cedric never checks for comments (but notes community members responded to one post and he intends to grab that and make it its own post at some point). Betty was struggling with her chapter and needed some "laugh inspiration." She checked to see if their latest post was up yet (it wasn't -- they were holding so they could link to Betty) and saw that a coffee fetcher was displeased. You'll want to read Betty's strong rebuttal. (Yes, she commented.)

"Lakshimi shows up late and lost (Ava and C.I.)" -- One of the things that sometimes gets tossed around is all of us doing one site. Rebecca's even said, before, that she'd curb the language if we wanted to do that. How that would work would be we still post as we normally do but all at one site. That would be interesting. Hasn't happened yet. But one thing that has happened is a true joint-entry by Ava and C.I. Those are rare but we always love them (and so do you, Ty told us this was the most mentioned thing from another site in the e-mails to Third this week). The way this worked was members were complaining in e-mails about Lakshimi. (Imagine that.) C.I. and Ava had addressed her here (unnamed) many times and C.I. felt if it was going to be addressed, Ava needed to be brought in. C.I. then called Jim and checked to make sure the fiction edition was still on for this one. It was. C.I. explained what Ava was about to be asked to co-tackle and checked to make sure Jim wasn't going to feel it should have gone up here? Jim agreed it needed to be addressed quickly and said they should tackle it today. Then Ava and C.I. discussed what they were going to write. Then, between speaking, they scribbled down one liners. They dictated it to a friend over the phone, writing around the one liners. Jim reads it and his reaction (according to Ty) is, "Damn. I should have said, 'Write it, but we want it for this site."

"Law and Disorder" -- ever say something that's correct and have someone blow you off like you don't know what you're talking about? That was done to Dalia Hashad. Mike explains it here.

"John Halle, Norman Finkelstein, Ruth Conniff, etc...." -- Elaine addressing a topic that everyone involved in this takes very personal. At one point or another everyone (except Elaine but including the Third gang) has had someone go running to C.I. about some 'mean' old thing that was said. We firmly believe that if you have a problem with something someone wrote, you take it up with them, you don't try to go over their heads.

"Two snorts over the line" & "THIS JUST IN! RUDY'S HOUSE PARTIES TAKE A HIT!" -- that Rudy, he was running quite the campaign.

"grab mag," "thomas ravenel was the state treasurer," "mixed bag," "robert parry, jonathan weisman" and "our law breaking attorney general" -- Rebecca continues to explore the Alberto Gonzales cesspool.

Ava and C.I. bonus

This our yearly fiction edition. You'll shortly be seeing six pieces of fiction along with "Highlights," an editorial and, yes, Ava and C.I.'s latest. But Ava and C.I. did a joint-post at The Common Ills last week and we're reposting it to make sure you didn't miss it and to give you something to enjoy while we do another draft of our editorial (the only piece not yet finished).

"Lakshimi shows up late and lost (Ava and C.I.)"

We've never doubted that a woman could be president (and at some point will be). But we've never assumed that gender would be an answer. A woman who supports equality? Absolutely, that's a great thing. A woman who makes her way as an exception, backs up an agenda she doesn't believe in and does nothing to help other women? We don't see the point in applauding that.It's a pertinent issue as two women are repeatedly named as potential candidates in the real world: Condi Rice and Hillary Clinton. If either woman (or both) runs, will we get the same giddy "It's a woman!" nonsense? Under no circumstance would either of us vote for Rice. We'd be reluctant to vote for Clinton considering her waffles on the issue of choice and her stance on the war. But will those issues be silenced in the giddy cry of, "It's a woman! It's a first!"
That's troubling.

We, Ava and C.I., wrote the above November 20, 2005. Last week, Lakshmi Chaudhry showed up late to the party.

Cake's all gone, Lakshmi, but there may be some punch left.

What's that?

No, we don't want your help cleaning up. In fact, considering the way you mangle everything, please keep your hands off our fine china.

Now Baby War Hawk Lakshmi's latest scattered doodles have enraged some community members. No one should be enraged. Lakshmi dances badly but the general consensus is someone else is handling the choreography and, no, it's not Debbie Allen.

Last week, it was noted here what's been whispered, Katrina vanden Heuvel imitated/ripped off/paid homage to Nora Ephron's "Upstairs, Downstairs" essay from several decades back (to write about the pressing issue of American Idol) so is it any surprise Lakshmi is suddenly dispatched to write an article for The Nation that goes after Ephron? Not at all and many spent this past weekend laughing.

Of course laughter often greets Lakshmi's writing. As the Little Richard song notes, "The Girl Can't Help It." Baby War Hawk got her wings in Januray 2005 when she demonstrated that the Party Hack Who Hacks Loudest Hacks Last. That's when Lakshmi decided to sell the war.

Tom Hayden called her out on it. Community members, no links to either piece because they are you know where. Yes, the site that thought their employees could bully and spy on a 14-year-old boy. But we will note Tom Hayden called her out. Lakshmi, like the Democratic Party leadership and others, was all about WalkOn, WalkOn.org from Iraq post the 2004 elections. Then came Lakshmi's debut as a blogger which owed a clear debt to Mike (some say "theft," not "debt") and between the two events, we all grasped how useless Lakshmi was.

She moved on over to In These Times and, silly us, we thought Susan J. Douglas not only already covered pop culture but did a wonderful job of it. Lakshmi just knew she could do better. Better was apparently the fact free musings she churned out which provided even more gales of laughter.

At The Third Estate Sunday Review, we tried to be kind and not name her when catching her many errors (such as the false claim that ABC refused to promote Commander-in-Chief). And, of course, she was an inspiration in the parody "The Elector" (November 26, 2006) -- see the section entitled "Our Popular Cultures by Lazy" -- "Lazy" is a parody of her and two others.


Prior to the latest hilarity, Lakshmi provided belly laughs when she decided she was going to take on Black Snake Moan.

We wanted to nod our heads. We agreed on some points. But -- due to the hallmark of her (bad) writing -- we couldn't.

It's really hard to say "Yeah!" if that means backing up stupidity.

Working herself into a lather over the thought of a semi-dressed and chained up Jake Gyllenhaal, Lakshmi forgot that, before writing, it helps to know what you are talking about. As we pointed out at The Third Estate Sunday Review, the comparison she was reaching for but never finding is 3 in the Attic. In her refusal to be bound by facts or knowledge, Lakshmi has acted as the chief spokesperson for Gas Bags USA and, in the process, brought joy to the nation
. . . however unintentionally.

So when she showed up to go after Nora Ephron and others, it wasn't a surprise to most people. It was generally assumed she'd either been ordered to clean her mistress' drapes or decided to do it on her own, good lackey that Lakshmi is. Baby War Hawk works for The Peace Resister.


Lakshmi wants to take a look at the issue of women and Hillary Clinton -- or that's her cover. Were she truly wanting to take a look at those issues, she might have to examine The Nation's cover of Hillary Clinton not all that long ago as well as their article on Clinton and wonder what all that says? (Muse, Lakshmi, muse!)

Lakshami's . . . 'article' has produced laughs in most left circles and that's due to the fact that it's seen as a response and due to the fact that it's doodled by Lakshmi who has apparently never met a 'fact' she wouldn't attempt to bend to her will. The standout in her current doodle is this one:

It's why antiwar feminist organizations like CodePink are less likely to give her a pass for her Iraq vote than they would, say, John Edwards. Explaining the reasoning behind their "bird-dog Hillary" campaign to The Nation, founder Medea Benjamin wore her double standard on her sleeve: "You expect more of a woman."

Bird-dogging Hillary (and others) took place in the summer of 2006 (and Katha Pollitt wrote about it then). Why didn't they bird-dog John Edwards? Since they were lobbying Congress and the campaign season wasn't in full bloom, why would they?

Logic like that escapes Lakshmi. (She needs to review Pollitt's article which is what she's taken Medea's quote from. No surprise that our non-feminist Lakshmi prefers to credit "The Nation" and not Pollitt.) Hillary Clinton was targeted a) because she was a War Hawk, b) because it was thought she would run for president and c) because she was 'representing' a state overwhelming against the illegal war at that point. Medea Benjamin wore her courage, her strong spirit and many other things; however, she wore no double standard. Only in what passes for a 'mind' to Lakshmi could the three reasons Hillary was bird-dogged be missed and Medea be accused of a double standard for noting that we do expect women to be smart about war.

The article's nonsense -- as much so as the efforts of The Nation to attack Hillary (that really is the topic Lakshmi's attempting to connect with, right?) while building up Barack Obama. "Harvard Law Review," gushed Patti Williams in wide-eyed wonder. Patti's not aware that any African-Americans wouldn't be on board with the bi-racial Barack and shared, on KPFA, that's just Fox 'News' talking. If you're surprised the names Glen Ford, Bruce Dixon and Margaret Kimberley don't register with Professor Patti you obviously missed her latest where she compared African-Americans to dogs. Maybe that sort of offensive comparison pops up when you use People magazine as source material for an article in an alleged political weekly?


But while Barack Obama's half-African-American nature led to lengthy musings in print (and a cover story) that read like "Mash Notes From Patti!" . . . note the contrast. This is the first thing The Nation's decided to run on Hillary and gender. Barack gets Patti rubbing her knees so furiously you might think she's about to ignite. Hillary?

She gets Lakshmi and bad writing, such as this:

To be fair, the women and the organizations supporting Hillary are hardly advocating a "vagina litmus test." As Gandy points out, NOW has supported male candidates in the past and is now backing Clinton because of "a demonstrated history" of her commitment to feminist ideals.

NOW has not endorsed Hillary Clinton. Follow us on this, Lakshmi, it's an important point. NOW Pac has endorsed Hillary. They are two separate entities and must remain so due to tax status. As for Kim Gandy's comment, since Hillary Clinton is one of the few women to run for the Democratic presidential nomination (NOW PAC doesn't do third parties nationally and probably never will after the beating Molly Yard took in the 80s), NOW PAC would have had to have given support to male candidates in the past. (However, NOW PAC did endorse the female candidate in the 2004 Democratic presidential primary.)

The most laughter enducing section for many is where Lakshmi can't grasp why someone could praise Hillary Clinton as First Lady, well over a decade prior, yet be against her for president. Apparently, in Lakshmi's world, little things like a record in the Senate (or running from abortion so well that Clinton won praise from the New York Times editorial board in 2005) are unimportant factors. Nora Ephron, like many women, saw the attacks on First Lady Hillary Clinton for what they were, sexism. Ephron, like many women, defended Hillary. Let's be clear (to use a favorite expression of ours and, we'll assume, of Lakshmi's), when Hillary made feminists cringe from time to time in the 90s, we told ourselves, "She's under attack." "She's under attack" only works as an excuse for so long.

The woman who was seen as a feminist, against the illegal war of her generation, pro-women, et al got a lot of passes when her husband's actions put her in an unflattering light regularly. But those days are gone. She's not the wife of . . . She stepped out on her own, as many hoped she would, and now she's being judged accordingly.

It's equally true that some of her actions wouldn't cause so much concern at another time. Were it 1997 and not 2007, it's doubtful the War Hark nature of the senator would be remarked upon or cause so much concern. That was a more peaceful ("more peaceful," not peaceful) time and we all knew, right, what side she was on in the '60s'?

Those passes don't fly anymore. She has cheerleaded this war (partly because her husband supported it in his own terms but no one's supposed to note that). She has stood toe to toe with the likes of Joe Biden and John McCain while playing More-War-Hawk-Than-Thou and she's won. Many of us don't see that as a good thing.

Throughout the 90s, we saw Hillary go softer and gauzier and knew it was due to the attacks -- the constant attacks. Politician's wife, we said, and weren't all that surprised. We expected that, if she ever ran for office, her own strengths would kick in; however, we weren't expecting her to ape her one time Poster Boy Barry Goldwater. And maybe that was our mistake?

Maybe we should have all grasped that Hillary's soft spot for Goldwater wasn't just an amusing story she shared but indicative of her own character? If so, the fact that she's now the least Democratic Senator any of us could have imagined wouldn't be so surprising.

There are a lot of issues at stake here and her record on the illegal war is appallling. It doesn't surprise that Baby War Hawk Lakshmi can't grasp these issues. This is the woman of whom Tom Hayden wrote, "Throughout Chaudhry's analysis runs the superpower assumption that we, the United States, are in charge of deciding whether we stay or leave, and on what terms." Baby War Hawk can't see what's wrong in Hillary when it's the same thing staring back from her own mirror.

To members who are outraged, try reading Lakshami again for laughter. This is the woman who, promoting an event in our area (Bay Area) appeared on a morning show, The Morning Show in fact, and confused herself so much with the sound of her own voice that she eventually had to offer the excuse that it was so early in the morning. 7:00 am is early? It wasn't that early for us. But, and here's the thing, Lakshmi was calling from where and it was what time there?

"What time is it?" should be the refrain when stumbling through her writing. As the always delightful Gal Beckerman observed at the start of this year (Columbia Journalism Review):

We are hoping that Lakshmi Chaudhry is ninety years old. Somehow misanthropy, a deep mistrust of technology, and a snarling skepticism about the ability of the masses to make good decisions for themselves goes down a little easier coming from an old windbag. But we have a sense she isn't aged.

No, as Beckerman knows, Lakshmi is not 90. An addled brain could explain it but so could an immature one. Which is why whether or not Hillary might cry in public is a concern to Chaudhry (and Faye Wattleton) while we don't see it as an issue. We don't feel Pat Schroeder's concession speech, while running for her party's nomination to be the presidential nominee in 1988, was a big deal. We're quite aware that when Darrell Issa was informed "Step away from the Gubenatorial recall" he sobbed in public as well. And that it wasn't the end of the world.

Lakshmi has a larger point and we should probably address that as well.

Could she churn out 2,500 words on a topic she knew so little about?

The answer was "almost." At roughly 2,440, she almost made it.

Outside of her slams and the reason the doodle probably came about in the first place, we would love to applaud her. We really would. But she remains the least attentive writer to detail (or fact) the 'left' has.

That's really too bad because the world could use some more strong women voices; however, they won't be found in the doodles of a writer who can't grasp why CODEPINK would bird-dog Hillary Clinton and other senators in the summer of 2006 but not John Edwards at the same time?


Speaking slowly for Lakshmi, "John . . . Edwards . . . left . . . the . . . Senate . . . when . . . the . . . 2005 . . . Congress . . . was . . . sworn . . . in."

Get it yet?

Probably not.

Truest statement of the week

But when you're discussing something C.I.'s covered from the beginning and you're not giving credit, you really aren't hurting C.I. You're just demonstrating that, like most of the great unwashed indymedia crowd, you were raised in a barn where manners meant you snorted before nudging your way to the trough.

-- Elaine addressing the backstab of last week. 14 readers e-mailed saying this was the choice for truest statement of the week.

A Note to Our Readers

Hey --

We're back. C.I.'s going through the e-mails at The Common Ills and passed on that a lot of people aren't seeing the note we came back and filled in. It's a Blogger/Blogspot problem. Closing your browser and re-opening it won't fix it. But it does give a chance at a second note! After we've all had some sleep.

First off, this is who took part in the writing of this edition:

The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz,
and Wally of The Daily Jot

And Dallas was link locator and sounding board, plus C.I. got Dallas to go on record for one story. We thank Dallas and we thank Rebecca for help with the visuals.

This was an interesting edition and it needed to be a strong one. By last Monday, it was pretty much decided that we would be doing our fiction edition this weekend. Ava and C.I. prepped by watching a show they hoped they could fit in (they don't have to, remember that next weekend -- great if they do, but it's not required). Then came the thing that everyone knows about and this had to be a strong edition.

Truest statement of the week -- Elaine saying it loud and clear. A lot of times with our picks, there are several we could go with and debate back and forth. On Tuesday, Elaine posted and her post was amazing but these lines took on a life of their own as they were echoed in the gina & krista round-robin (and today in Polly's newsletter and Miguel, Maria and Francisco's newsletter) and in e-mails. To be honest, many of us were also quoting those lines back and forth to one another throughout last week. It really was the truest statement of the week.

Editorial: Iraqis & Benchmarks -- we try to note war resisters every week. We almost didn't this week. Thanks to Ava and C.I. for the save in another feature. But I (Jim) had thought we needed to drop the fiction edition on Thursday. I shared that with C.I. and why and C.I. was on board. (C.I. and I were on the road speaking to students last week.) We e-mailed Cedric because we saw something in a paper we knew he'd be interested in. But it really wasn't going to happen until everyone got to weigh in. We presented it Friday night and why and there were groans but everyone agreed. Rebecca, Wally, Mike and Elaine were all attending a conference in Chicago and part of the reason we were decided on a fiction edition was it would mean less research work (more writing work), so with that out the window we were all scrambling. No one remembers who came up with the idea for this editorial but we were all on board with it.

TV: A down and up week for women -- Scramble? When you've not only decided on the show, as Ava and C.I. had, and spent the week tossing ideas at each other on it and how to fit it into the planned theme (fiction edition), what do you do when the theme gets tossed out the window? They weren't sure. They said they'd have something. What? They didn't know. They put out calls to friends asking what they thought needed addressing? Obviously, the continued trashing of Katie Couric. And another thing as well. They don't often write about soaps, but when they do, it's popular. This was so insta-popular that when we couldn't get the editorial to post for over 20 minutes and Ty was noting e-mails, they decided to go back in and add more to it. (They didn't take anything out.) If you're not, for instance, seeing Nola, Kelly and Morgan mentioned, you're not seeing it all. Again, closing your browser and re-opening it won't fix it. You might try clearing your history because that's working for some. What did we think? We've never seen them so tired or so frantic or so sure that they would have nothing. This time we believed them. (Partly due to Ava being sick and C.I. stepping on broken glass.) And then we read it. We love it. We laughed throughout but loudest as the "camera ready" line.
The photo of Genie Francis and Doug Sheehan is not a professional photo. It's also been cropped. They advised that by posting it online, it could pop up elsewhere. If it does, a link to the piece it appeared in would be nice (probably more than nice after last week's rip off). Again, the picture's cropped. Meaning? We'll know full well if it pops up everywhere with people claiming they didn't swipe it. (And that's the main reason it's cropped. Rebecca thought that up.)

The Dirty Politics of Barack Obama -- Something's are news and somethings get little comment. The narrative is "Even Obama's had to turn to dirty politics." That's the popular narrative. The reality, as we've repeatedly pointed out, is that Obama's built many a campaign on dirty politics.

Precedent is again tossed out the window -- This is another thing that should have been much bigger news. How many times is the five majority on the Court going to toss out precedent before we start hearing some serious concern about this? Apparently, it's going to have to happen a few more times before people really start paying attention.

Independent media -- "Naval gazing," C.I. dismissed the suggestion with. Ty countered, "Do you know how many e-mails came in on this topic?" (C.I. had also received many, many e-mails on this topic all last week.) C.I.'s attitude was fine, everyone else could write it. We pointed out we needed everyone's participation. The original line was all C.I. was going to say publicly. Through pestering and persistance, we got more. Some have asked about others not being quoted in it? Wally wanted the piece written (everyone but C.I. was on board immediately) but noted he wasn't saying anything for the piece. He would work on it and suggest things but he was putting up a wall. Betty elected to do that as well. Cedric stated that, in terms of a quote, we'd have to use too many "*" to replace letters in order to make work friendly. (This edition had to be because C.I. had no time to do a mass e-mailing to members who only read on their work computers.) Elaine, probably echoing C.I.'s feelings, chose to participate but give no quote.

Ed Oakley -- This was done early on. And features Dallas contributing for the record! But while we were waiting on the illustration (Billie sent us a great one but it wouldn't upload to Flickr. We e-mailed her early this morning and she sent us a smaller version of it), C.I. checked the e-mails for The Common Ills and three members had suspected we'd be writing about this and forwarded letters they had received from New Voices. We include one in them. We thank Billie for allowing us to interview her for the piece.

Dumbest Headline of the week -- Two types of e-mails have come in on this. One group thinks it needs a link to some story on Jolie. We don't. It was an attack on the press and we're not going to reward it by linking. Another camp seems to think that Jolie's movie has been attacked. We really don't get into the movie but if you're looking for a prediction, Ava and C.I. say Jolie uses a voice that would work for a fictional character but doesn't work for the real life person she's playing, that the story received saturation in real time and most people aren't willing to relive it, that it's coming out in an action summer (there are barely any comedies, for instance) and will likely be buried, and that Jolie really needs appealing actors to help with the box office. Translation, this will not be one of summer's big films.

Peter Pace fired -- Wally said we needed to do this because Ruth's report had posted here indicating that our stuff was posting. Isaiah, due to the problems at The Common Ills, was given the day off and Wally said we needed to note that to help out (cut down on e-mails asking "Where is Isaiah?"). We all agreed.

Highlights -- Mike, Cedric, Wally, Rebecca, Betty and Elaine wrote this and we thank them for it. (The credit is rotated in the feature every week and we also try to rotate it in the note. We're more likely to mention Mike first because he usually insists -- in the credit within the feature -- that he go last.)

Ruth's Report -- Ruth posted her report and it would not show. She called C.I. who tried to see what was going on. Blogger/Blogspot issue. We added it here a) to get it online and b) to make sure we weren't having the same problem. It's a great report and thanks to Ruth for permission to repost.

And that's it. It was really important we have a strong edition. That we all focus at a time when many were wondering "What's the point?" The point is always, and this is something C.I. used to stress when this site started, the people who respond. Yes, rip-offs hurt. Yes, it's rude and it's theft. But we've got passionate and informed readers and, in the end, that's more important than the fact that others are so untalented or ill mannered that they conduct themselves in the manner that they do. We actually had another feature idea but didn't have time to finish it. Cedric pointed out that we covered race "kind of" in the Obama feature. His feelings were, we've got Iraq, we've got the Supreme Court, we've got race, we've got feminism, we've got it all! (That's a paraphrase only because I was really tired and can't remember the exact wording.) I'd agree with that. Thank you to everyone who reads and those who shared the outrage over last week. Thank you to everyone who came together and got the work done this edition.

-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.

Editorial: Iraqis & Benchmarks

Iraqi people need to show some responsibility!



That's the call of the administration and many in Congress. Those lazy, ungrateful Iraqis, after the US started an illegal war, invaded their country, destroyed their country, just can't roll up their sleeves and show some gratitude, let alone kiss some butt. How dare the Iraqi parliament begin addressing the need for foreign forces to leave their country!



"Benchmarks" translates as "theft of oil" the way it's currently being used. Many have addressed this and done so repeatedly. Most recently, Matthew Rothschild (The Progressive) noted of the flurry of meetings last week between puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki and US officials:



And what were they leaning on him for, above all?
Passage of the new oil bill, which would turn over Iraqi's liquid treasure to foreign corporations like ExxonMobil.
This is the paramount concern of the Bush Administration.
It is being sold to the American people as a way to equalize revenues to various segments of Iraqi society.
But the true reason for it is to line the pockets of U.S. oil executives.
"The law would transform Iraq's oil industry from a nationalized model closed to American oil companies except for limited (although highly lucrative) marketing contracts into a commercial industry, all-but-privatized, that is fully open to all international oil companies," Antonia Juhasz, author of The Bush Agenda, wrote in an op-ed for The New York Times on March 13.



If it didn't register with you last week, you must have missed War Pornographer Michael Gordon Tuesday report where he revealed that, good stenographer that he is, he accomanied US Admiral William J. Fallon and US ambassador Ryan Crocker to a meeting with al-Maliki that was supposed to be off the record (Gordo whined and whined and they finally, after the meeting, gave him permission to write of it -- Fallon and Crocker gave permission, no word on al-Maliki's permission but puppet's don't have privacy rights) in which Gordo didn't even feel the need to conceal that there were no benchmarks as far as Fallon and Crocker were concerned other than the privatization/theft of Iraqi oil.



By the next day, Damien Cave's "Iraqis Are Failing to Meet U.S. Benchmarks" was back to using 'benchmarks' -- plural. But if you were confused by "benchmark" swiftly becoming "benchmarks" in one day's time, Damien Cave's "Second U.S. Official Presses Iraqi Premier for Action" (also last Wednesday) set you wise about what al-Maliki and John Negroponte (deputy at the State Department) discussed:



Mr. Maliki, in a statement after the meeting, said Iraq's government was determined to persuade Parliament to approve several proposals that the Americans had identified as benchmarks, including an oil law that could more evenly distribute revenues to provinces and among Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.



Theft of the oil (but remember the illegal war never had anything to do with oil and the maps drawn up before 9-11 for Cheney's secret task force were mere coincidence). That's the 'benchmark' and few in the US Congress have addressed that or called it out.



So let's talk benchmarks.



IRIN, last week, reported on the fact that Iraqi children are now having to work to support their family and interviewed one 12 year-old-boy who works a 12-hour day doing just that. Though Paul Bremer was interested in cutting off the safety net of food subsidies, he wasn't interested in providing for Iraqis. (Another problem with contractors shipped into Iraq, at a time when Iraqis see massive unemployment, jobs that are available go to outsiders.) Apparently, public health also wasn't an issue which is why malnutrition runs rampant in Iraq, why cholera is now a serious problem and polio's a problem as well.



Meanwhile, Paul Bremer fled Baghdad like a thief and, strangely, $9 billion under his control is unaccounted for to this day. Now we aren't accusing Bremer. We'd assumed if he personally pocketed it, he could do better than SuperCuts for a hair cut. But where did that money go?



It didn't go towards reconstruction as it was supposed to. And, oh yes, potable water and reliable electricity never came to Iraq. Over four years after the illegal war began, neither can be depended upon.



Where did the money go? To bribe tribal leaders? That's really worked out well, hasn't it?



Now we firmly believe that US troops neeed to leave Iraq ASAP. We're not arguing against that. We are stating that the US government has responsibilities that need to be met. So the next time a politician wants to talk 'tough' and note Iraq's 'need' to meet so-called benchmarks, you need to absorb two things. 'Benchmarks' are the sort of the talk that will keep the US occupying Iraq (illegally) for years and 'benchmarks' fail to recognize that the US never met its own obligation. It's easy to talk 'tough.' It's much harder to talk truth which must be why presidential candidates Barack Obama and Joe Biden are all over the 'benchmark' talk.

TV: A down and up week for women

Last week was an interesting week for women and TV, one that ended on a high note. Before we could get the high note, we had to trudge through cesspool.

Enter Dan Rather who, to no one's surprise after being dumped in a very public manner by CBS, decided to seek his revenge by proclaiming (from exile, who would have him but a start up these days?) that CBS Evening News had made a mistake -- "the mistake was to try to bring the Today show ethos to the Evening News, and to dumb it down, tart it up in hopes of attracting a younger audience."

Some rushed to Dan Rather's defense when his remarks resulted in criticism. This is the man whom, as Lewis Lapham notes in Gag Rule (page 9), "enlisted for the duration" (in Bully Boy's fight against 'evil-doers'), "proud to inform the viewers of the CBS Evening News that 'George Bush is the president. Whereever he wants me to line up, just tell me where.'" This is the man that Project Censored's Censored 2004 noted greeted the news that the US military had knocked out Al Jazeera's signal by declaring that Saddam Huseine's "propaganda" network had it's plug pulled (page 225) and noted:

Indeed, 23 days after the [Iraq] war started, CBS's 48 Hours (April 10, 2003) opened its celebratory sgement, "After the Fall," with footage of the [staged] toppling statue [of Saddam Hussein]. As Dan Rather observed with evident approval, "Remnants of the regime still stand, but surrounded now by a conquering power." Rather encountered burnt-out vehilces and intoned, "In this one, there is a body. What happened, who shot him, who knows?" In the world of militainment, the "conquering power" bears no responsibility for the death left in its wake. In the chaos that was Baghdad, where soldiers served as "police and social workers," no phrase was too hackneyed for Rather: "Theirs is not to reason why, their is but to do or die."

The actual quotation, from Tennyson's "Charge of the Light Brigade," is the less melodramatic "theirs but to do and die." In either case, an ominous quoation at a time of endless war, when democracy's critical dialogue is replaced with militainment.

We could note many other examples but one that's required is from Amy Goodman and David Goodman's The Exception to the Rulers (page 165):

Let's let Dan speak for himself. On BBC Newsnight on May 16, 2002, Rather talked candidly about how he and other journalists censor themselves. "There was a time in South Africa that people would put flaming tires around people's necks if they dissented," he said. "And in some ways the fear is that you will be necklaced here, you will have a flaming tire of lack of patriotism put around your neck. Now it is that fear that keeps journalists from asking the toughest questions, and to continue to bore in on the tough questions so often. And again, I am humbled to say, I do not except myself from this criticism."

We could do this all day and go back to when Rather joined CBS but we think the point is made, Dan Rather was not a brave or honest voice on American TV. (Though not brave, he did show more honesty when appearing on British television.)

So last week's declaration that "the mistake was to try to bring the Today show ethos to the Evening News, and to dumb it down, tart it up in hopes of attracting a younger audience" should have been widely condemned for what it was: sexism.

Instead, some rushed to assure that it was not sexism, as if Dan Rather meant "pastry it up"? The most damaging of the voices defending Dan Rather last week was Katrina vanden Heuvel because, to too many not paying attention, she is a woman of power who is concerned about women. So if this woman was saying, "It's not sexism" (as she did), then, surely, it wasn't sexism.

It was sexism. Those not paying attention shouldn't take vouching from a woman who, as editor and publisher of the weekly Nation magazine, has seen fit to print approximately four male writers for every one woman. Those not paying attention shouldn't take vouching from a woman who is attempting to grab on to some big bucks via the fund raiser/pyramid scheme that is The Nation Cruise -- which, this summer, includes the 'honor' of speaking to Mary Mapes, Dan Rather's former producer. In her defense of Dan Rather, vanden Heuvel failed to note either her own record of publishing women or her magazine's financial gain from her defense of Dan Rather.

That's a bit like saying you're for economic justice and then attempting to weasel out of paying taxes by taking your case as high as the Supreme Court (where you still lose) and . . . Oh, wait.

We first wrote of the organized attacks on Katie Couric (we know Couric, we know her current producer, we know Katrina vanden Heuvel and we know Dan Rather) in December of 2005. At that point, they were all "insider baseball" and had yet to reach mass saturation. Mass saturation would happen in April of 2006 and, during that time, we wrote "TV: Katie Was a Cheerleader." Now that was April of 2006 when the non-stop slams and attacks that make up a solid round of Bash the Bitch were taking place as the news came that Couric would become the anchor of the CBS Evening News; however, despite all the attacks going on then, Couric didn't do her first broadcast as anchor until September 5, 2006. Translation, five months before she ever first did the job, she was already being slammed non-stop.

Last week, we weighed in on vanden Heuvel's damaging remarks. That happened because one of us (C.I.) awoke Thursday morning to non-stop calls and messages from women in broadcasting about the outrageous thing vanden Heuvel had written. For readers of this site, let us just note that there are always women happy to pick up awards from pro-women and feminists organizations (though Katrina vanden Heuvel herself, to be clear, did not win an award from Planned Parenthood, that award went to The Nation magazine and someone needs to clean up the woman's bio) while never doing a thing to help other women. Women like that tend to, when they either ascend to roles of power or buy their way in, be the first to make sure no one is lifted up with them. (Or maybe they're just too busy trying to change the centrist Council for Foreign Relations from within?) But, though feminists have gone from low grumblings about the ratio of women published under vanden Heuvel to more loud remarks, to many in the American public, vanden Heuvel is seen as a woman who made it (up from Harlem! -- or at least her mansion there) and so when she's used to front a cover for sexism, it is twice as offensive.

While Katrina vanden Heuvel spun widly (out of her depths since she wasn't addressing reality TV again), it was left to our Manny Named Brian to note the obvious: "But the fact is the broadcast has gotten a lot better under new Executive Producer Rick Kaplan – newsier, harder, and less features oriented. Last week, according to Andrew Tyndall, the Evening News spent 11 minutes on Iraq, while ratings champ World News With Charles Gibson spent just two." (Disclosure, we have exchanged e-mails with Candy Perfume Boy and offered recommendations when asked by friends at CBS, but we have never met or spoken to Our Manny Named Brian.)

So while Katrina vanden Heuvel and others used Dan Rather's sexism to engage in yet another round of Bash the Bitch, the truth was actually that Couric's program was offering much more news on Iraq than Charlie Gibsons? Gibson, who, for the record, got his job only after ABC decided screw discrimination laws, they were going to demote a pregnant woman due to the fact that she was pregnant, not due to her abilities? Yes, unlike Katrina vanden Heuvel, we covered that topic.

A lot is made of the fact that CBS Evening News' ratings have dropped to approximately 6 million from the average of 7 million under Dan Rather. Forgetting the network's effort to alter the format (announced before they even selected an anchor), considering the fact that Katie Couric has been the target of Bash the Bitch for 15 months without let up, we think the fact that the show's held on to that many viewers is amazing. We further think that the focus on Katie Couric's ratings (which even some media watchdogs have seen as worth discussing as opposed to the content of the program) goes a long way towards explaining how Charlie Gibson can reduce Iraq to two minutes without comment from the watchdogs on the left.

For those not familiar with the week of June 4th through June 8th (Monday through Friday), Iraqi oil workers went on strike, Adam Kokesh suffered through a trumped up, kangaroo hearing, Liam Madden (whom the military was also attempting to silence) held a press conference, the number of US service members killed in the illegal war passed the 3500 mark,

tensions between Turkey and northern Iraq increased, two Sunni mosques were attacked in Baghdad (which may have been the motivation for the Samarra mosque attack last Wednesday, but people would have to know of the two mosques attacked June 7th to even consider that), a video of Byron Fouty and Alex Jimenez -- two US soldiers missing since a May 12th attack -- turned up portraying them as dead (June 5th), an unnamed Iraq veteran was publicly protesting the war by doing laps around the State Capitol Building in Sacramento, California, and those were just some of the events from the week in which Charlie Gibson could only spare two minutes for the topic of Iraq.

Now tell us again, which program was dumbed down? The one that spent 11 minutes on Iraq or the one that spent 2 minutes?

The continued Bash the Bitch proved so popular that even some women, such as Katrina vanden Heuvel, elected to go wading in the cesspool last week, facts be damned. And it didn't matter that the man they were rushing to prop up is "left" only in the eyes of the extreme right and is a "journalist" only if you abuse and self-mutilate the term. Of course Dan Rather's going to slam Katie Couric, his own reputation is in tatters and there's little he can do to salvage it so better to slam a woman and hope that takes the heat off him. Last week you saw many attempts to turn the national joke (of too many years) into an elder statesman (note the "man" in "statesman") when, honestly, his image can't be refurbished. But they were willing to try. A really bad news reader attacks a woman and too many of left and 'left' enlisted in Rather's Holy War.

But there was a bright spot as well. Friday night, Genie Francis won a Daytime Emmy for best supporting actress. Sadly, this was her first.

TV viewers owe a huge debt to Genie Francis whether they realize it or not. The TV landscape in the late 70s wasn't all that friendly to young women. Kristy McNichol was playing Buddy on Family (Francis guest starred as a skate boarding friend) and that was really about it as for women steering any action (as any episode of Eight Is Enough . . . So The Males Get The Storylines will attest). In 1976, Francis joined the cast of General Hospital as Laura. (Laura Webber eventually, then a host of other last names, don't make us go through all of this.)

There were other young, teenage females on daytime . . . and they knew their place. (Even on The Hot and The Horny -- as The Young & the Restless was known for years.)

Some pick up the storyline with the match up of Laura with Luke while some think that going back to Laura and Scotty is "historical." The truth is Laura was in sex cult before she knew either. The truth is, General Hospital was on its last legs and (new producer) Gloria Monty was the show's last chance. Surveying tapes, she infamously remarked that the cast was so immobile that she wondered if all the characters were supposed to paraplegics -- and so unattractive, that they should all be disposed of with a plane crash. Instead, she went to work on hiring (actors, directors -- Marlena Laird especially deserves noting -- and writers), went to work on lighting and went to work figuring out how General Hospital -- the typical life and love around a hospital setting show -- could be different. Early on, she seized upon the character Laura.

This included the storyline where Laura killed a man in love with her mother and went on the run (her first time on the run, a story that would repeat and repeat). She supposedly found 'happiness' in marriage to Scotty but it played like boredom (and the then not 18 year old Francis handled that storyline very well) and the ratings began to rise. Rise? We're getting ahead of ourselves.

In 1979, to the tune of Herb Albert's "Rise," mobster Luke would rape Laura. It was to be Luke's (Tony Geary) farewell to the show but he was too much of an audience favorite so, instead, Luke and Laura became a couple. (Over the objections of many, including Leslie Charleson [Monica] due to the nature of the storyline: Woman falls in love with rapist.) The show had been steadily improving in the ratings and, by this point, was no longer in danger of cancellation. What happened next shocked the world of daytime TV, shocked the world of TV and still has some pop commentators scratching their heads.

In 1980, Luke ran out on a wedding to a mafia daughter as he and Laura hit the road while TV viewers hit their TV sets all summer long to see what would happen: would the love last, would they catch on that Sally was actually Hutch (a man hired to kill them), would they have to remain on the run, on and on. Or as a top 40 'rap' song about the soap noted, "On and on it goes, where it ends up, nobody knows."

It ended up a craze and the summer of 1981 would find them on an island in a wacky sci-fi storyline during a writers' strike where all involved basically ad libbed. The show had long since passed being merely the number one soap opera and, at that point, was averaging more viewers than most programs on TV, daytime or primetime, which resulted in Genie Francis and Tony Geary landing on the cover of Newsweek. By then, the 19-year-old Francis was ready to move on and the story quickly wrapped up with a November wedding (Elizabeth Taylor guest starred as Helena Cassadine and 30 million viewers tuned in) and a January disappearance on the waterfront (and the appearance of supposed lookalike Laura Templeton [Janine Turner] and her sister Jackie [Demi Moore]). Francis was always a strong actress and deserving of attention so you have to wonder how much jealousy was involved to prevent the female face of daytime TV from even being nominated? (That's male and female jealousy.) The woman broke the industry wide, found new audiences, something unheard of in any industry.

We're not trying to take anything away from Anthony Geary who broke every 'rule' there was for daytime and remains one of the best actors; however, the storyline could have never taken off if the audience hadn't already been tied to one of the characters and that was the teenage Laura. Other soaps quickly copied with their 'teen storylines' (so much so that Francis and two other young actresses would end up on the cover of People). Genie Francis and Laura clearly influenced daytime. However, things like climbing out the bathroom window of the Campus Disco to avoid Robert Scorpio passed as "action" in those days and a line can be drawn from Laura to Buffy and beyond. Francis' impact cannot be understated and Luke was never in another super couple (Emma Samms' Holly did not make for a super couple).

The 'teen' storyline really didn't happen back then. Oh sure, back in 1970, 22-year-old Susan Lucci played a high school student. On All My Children, Erica was trying to break up Phil and Tara. As Liza would try to break up Jenny and Greg in the 80s. But on General Hospital, this wasn't a B-plot. Laura was a driving force and a focal point of teens which is how General Hospital became a craze and moved beyond the then usual soap watcher in those pre-VCR in every home days. All that came before Laura's marriage to Scotty (including the days of Laura Vining) was not the usual run of the mill storylines and "Laura Baldwin" didn't take with the audiences who were as restless as the character was. Francis' many exists and return from the show perfectly fit with Laura's restless nature and, long before there was Luke and Laura, teenagers had become a significant part of the show. When Luke and Laura went on the run, other soaps attempted to copy. There were grumblings from older cast members, such as at Guiding Light where Nola, Kelly and Morgan suddenly owned the summer. A lot of bad actors had previously held the limelight, the storyline and the show's attention (if not the audiences') due to something they'd done four or five years prior. The transformation Francis was a part of ended those days.

Francis would play many other roles and also repeatedly return to General Hospital. But she never won an Emmy. Not even a "young actor" one because they didn't have those when she started on General Hospital -- that's how much of a breakthrough the character of Laura was. Landing on the covers of People, US and Newsweek -- the latter when celebrity covers were uncommon, period, and daytime stars even more so -- she and Tony Geary changed daytime. Bringing in 19 million viewers in the summer of 1981 changed daytime. Celebrities like Richard Simmons (playing himself) and Elizabeth Taylor (among others) showing up for guest spots changed daytime.

Yet at the height of her fame, while transforming daytime, Genie Francis never got a Daytime Emmy award or even nomination. That's partly due to the fact that two of those years were years when Judith Light was doing amazing work on One Life To Live. It's also true that two other winners (and many nominees during that time period) didn't deserve any of the attention they received from the industry. Don't say from the public, they had no real attention there. They were cardboard stars of daytime. The ones who had a clever line or storyline and rode that one moment for years, usually mailing themselves repeatedly to pump up their producers' beliefs that they were popular.

Yeah, that trick worked on the P&G soaps where P&G tracked the mail, counted it and read it before it ever made its way to the performer but it also worked on non-P&G shows such as at ABC in the early 80s when an actress with serious weight issues was told "lose it or you're fired" and took to writing herself until people caught on. (We're not supposed to name names right? So we probably shouldn't note her most recent connection to the Bully Boy in a TV production.) The reality is that you're either a real star or not. Cardboard ones (including one who has too often won for best actress) take a lot of work to convince (and continue to convince) producers that they are stars. Real ones, are stars near instantly, such as Cameron Mathison who had everyone watching All My Children's attention the moment his Ryan doffed all his clothes at the office to catch Erica Kane's attention. It wasn't the body (though it's a considerable body), it was the immediate connection with the audience that made Mathison a star as he conveyed Ryan's bravado and insecurity in varying degrees.

Francis emerged as a real star early on as well. Before Luke and Laura, ABC had already noticed that she was getting more mail than most of their night time stars. That teens were writing to say they identified with Laura, they were like Laura, they dated someone who was like Laura, they knew someone (or wished they did) like Laura. There were other strong actors on the show, but Monty and ABC both knew Genie Francis went beyond audience favorite and was a genuine star. Despite this, her considerably strong acting went unnoted in her original run (and in the time since) and it did go to professional jealousy and it did go to organized voting (which went far beyond P&G's block voting 'suggestions').

Upon winning the Emmy for Best Supporting Actress Friday, Francis declared that she waited 31 years for that day. She wasn't alone in waiting and one of the few ups in a week of bad news for women was seeing the actress who mainstreamed daytime dramas, who brought in new audiences and co-created a phenomen finally get some of the credit she deserved.

We always have a great deal help on these pieces. Friends take calls at all hours of the night. As we wind down, one showed up with the script from Laura and Luke's return to Port Charles (where he buys the cigar to get the band and put it on her finger) and another showed up with a picture. We'll use the picture but we're too tired to include a cutting from the script. (And also aware that Tony Geary regularly ad libbed so including dialogue that was written doesn't mean it was dialogue that aired.) But we thank everyone who always takes our calls (often late night and mid-morning ones) and everyone who helps us. Like Barbara Walters before a taping of The View, we require a large crew to be 'camera ready.' Our friend that brought the script begged us to end with a quote and since we're not using the script, we'll use the quote. As Fallon (Pamela Sue Martin) said on Dynasty, "Score one for the good guys." Or, the good gals. That's what Francis' win Friday was. And long overdue.

The Dirty Politics of Barack Obama

Betty's sister has a phrase she uses when talking of liars and fools, "He knows not what he says." She says it with just the right amount of sarcasm that you have to listen closely in order to know she's not being kind. With that in mind, we turn to The New York Times Jeff Zeleny and say, "He knows not what he says."





Last week, a boy wonder lost a little sheen. He should have lost a lot of sheen but Barack Obama got caught with his pants down and the 'amplification' required to make news BIG NEWS just wasn't there.



We'll get to it. As always we start with Iraq.



Barack Obama, a first term US Senator yet to complete his first term, sent out campaign material last week. It was surprisingly cheap. There's a glossy fold out that we're guessing is the campaign's idea of a political Playgirl centerfold but we're not seeing the attraction -- that irritating smirk is featured on the top. Fold it out and you've got a shot Barack Obama grinning down at two White women, one of him engaged in a rather bizarre arm lock with an African-American male, and one of him engaged in the weakest handshake to hit the campaign trail (he shakes fingers -- maybe that's another thing he can pin on an absent father?). In the foldout, Obama's endorsing the myth of "Red" and "Blue" states and doing so no doubt explains why Hillary Clinton's beating him in the polls. If his tired ass ever spoke with southern Democratic voters, he'd know how pissed off so many of them are by this continued myth.



Also included in the mailing is a three page letter. It's front back one page and only front the other which means he wasted a whole page of a mailing. Page one is the typical Chicken Sop for the Soul he's becoming infamous for. He really loves to speak in vague generalities, doesn't he? In 28 lines on the first page, he waits until line 12 to offer up Iraq:



And we have seen the stubborn escalation of a costly war in Iraq that our government never should have waged and is not willing to end.



Page two is 39 lines and he waits until line 18 to mention Iraq:



Most Americans believe that a tried and failed policy of escalation will not end the war in Iraq. I opposed giving the President the broad, open-ended authority to wage this war in 2002 because I feared we would arrive at this point -- a point where the President's ideological pursuit of an ill-defined victory would overwhelm the reality of the facts on the ground. That's why I've called for a phased redeployment of our troops that would put pressure on the Iraqis to reach a political settlement and allow our brave men and women to start coming home.



Actually, most Americans (as poll after poll demonstrates) believe the war was a mistake. Obama informs us in the letter that he wasn't against the war because it was illegal but because he feared it would drag on. That is a bit different than the way he usually portrays it but he's now reaching out to the soggy middle. (Who are far more aware than he gives them credit for being.) It also needs to be noted that no pressure on Iraqis will make a bit of difference because Iraqis do not control their country. They are represented by a puppet government installed by the US.



Page 3 is 30 lines and Iraq is mentioned . . . never. 97 lines over 3 pages and Iraq gets 8 lines. None dare call it leadership.



Also enclosed is a prepaid postage envelope and a contribution form with the heading "Dear Barack, I believe in the politics of hope." He's pictured on the form as well. He's toothy there too. Is he running for Miss Congeniality or President? We went through C.I.'s old John Kerry campaign material and the postcard below (sent out July 14, 2003) doesn't picture John Kerry with a goony grin. Maybe Obama believes that's why Kerry's not in the White House?

On Friday, The New York Times front paged Patrick Healy's "To Avoid Any Conflict, Clintons Liquidate Millions in Holdings." In a classic case of burying the lede, readers had to turn to A16 and make it through fourteen paragraphs on that page before coming to this:

Shortly after the Clinton campaign released the financial information, the campaign of Senator Barack Obama, the Illinois Democrat, circulated to new organizations -- on what it demanded be a not-for-attribution-basis -- a scathing analysis. It called Mrs. Clinton "Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab)" in its headline, referring to the investments in India and Mrs. Clinton's fund-raising efforts among Indian-Americans. The analysis also highlighted the acceptance by Mr. Clinton of $300,00 in in speech fees from Cisco, a company the Obama campaign said has moved American jobs to India.
A copy of the document was obtained by Mrs. Clinton's campaign, which provided it to The New York Times. The Clinton campaign has long been frustrated by the effort by Mr. Obama to present his campaign as above the kind of attack politics that Mr. Obama and his aides say has led to widespread disillusionment with politics by many Americans.
Asked about the document, Bill Burton, a spokesman for Mr. Obama, said: "We did give reporters a series of comments she made on the record and other things that are publicly available to anyone who has access to the Internet. I don't see why anyone would take umbrage with that." Asked why the Obama campaign had initially insisted that it not be connected to the document, Mr. Burton replied, "I'm going to leave my comment at that."



Of course he is. We haven't. We've long noted that boy wonder, Mr. Clean Politics, ran a campaign that did in a Democratic opponent in the 2004 primary by floating rumors that the man beat his wife. We've long noted that he did away with his only serious Republican candidate when the press suddenly discovered sealed court records from a divorce. Those are only two incidents in one campaign and Obama's actual history of campaigns reveals many other dirty tricks, many other attempts to destroy opponents with the sort of attacks that, prior to the emergence of Lee Attwater, even Republicans would have considered out of bounds. (Generally speaking, you do not go after a candidate's family or his ex-wives in order to advance your own.)



"Dear Barack, I believe in the politics of hope." The honest reply would be, "I, Barack, don't and that's why I'm in office." But the press isn't interested in that story. Sure enough, on Saturday, Jeff Zeleny showed up on A10 of The New York Times with "Foul Is Called, Loudly, as Obama Camp Plays Politics." In the "Political Memo," Zeleny shows up with no history and accepts on faith that this is the first time Obama's campaign has engaged in such practices. Even Healy didn't play it that dumb, noting that Clinton's camp has (rightly in our opinion) long accused Obama's campaign of playing dirty. It takes Zeleny 15 paragraphs to get to the most offensive part of Obama's attack:



"As representatives of the Indian American community, we have been encouraged by your message of inclusion and your promise to bring a new kind of politics to our country," Snjay Puri, chairman of the US India Political Action Committee, said in a letter to Mr. Obama. "This is why we are so concerned about media reports indicating your staff may be engaging in the worst kind of anti-Indian-American stereotyping."



It's always the innocents who get hurt by Obama's dirty campaigning -- a wife, an ex-wife, Indian-Americans. "Punjab." That racist remark was okayed by the campaign -- as long as it couldn't be traced back to them. Now Obama's issued a mealy mouthed statement that never apologizes but attempts to 'clarify' no harm intended. Harm was intended because that is how he has consistently run his campaigns. Called out on racism, biracial Obama can't even have his spokesperson (David Plouffe, in this case) use the words, "We are sorry." Instead, it's all about how Barack Obama has supported Indian-Americans and "we regret the tone that parts of the document took." Regret?



They should really regret it. But Clinton can't point that out because Obama's 'squeaky clean' to those who believe the press. And his offensive and racist press package didn't get the kind of attention it warranted. The same websites that rightly called out George Allen's use of a racist phrase in August of 2006 has been strangely silent on Obama's racism. Again, The New York Times buried the lede on Friday. On Saturday, Zeleny took 15 paragraphs to get to the point.



Racism must be like Cindy Sheehan learned cowardice was, okay to be called out in Republicans but do the same with Democrats and watch the torches get lit and the bonfires built. Obama is responsible for his campaign and he is responsible for his past campaigns. That press package, shopped around with no attribution, was racist.



On Friday, Obama was on the campaign trail serving up more Chicken Sop for the Soul and this time targeting African-American fathers. [Cedric addressed it in "You go, girl!" and Wally in "THIS JUST IN! BARACK LOST HIS GROOVE!" -- joint-post; Cedric also noted Obama in
"Glen Ford, Dem nominees (Cedric)" while filling in for Elaine Friday.] Mike Dorning (Chicago Tribune) gushed for the White Establishment Media, "few white presidential candidates would present such blunt criticism, particularly in a Democratic primary." Nor should they unless they're wearing white sheets.



In a supposed address on poverty, Obama elected to castigate African-American fathers for society's ills. He said nothing about a law enforcement that regularly targets young, African-American males, a judicial system that sentences them more harshly or the for-profit prison-industrial-complex that has sprung up. He treated the loss of the manufacturing sector in urban areas as a recent development that only began this century when it goes back many decades. He was quick and eager to call out African-Americans but this, after all, is the bi-racial candidate who infamously insisted at the 2004 DNC that there was no Black America.



He certainly operates as if he believes that. If you're paying even semi-attention, you should understand why Glen Ford offers "Why Barack Obama Needs a Whuppin'" (Black Agenda Report).

Precedent is again tossed out the window

Last week, something happened that should have been HUGE NEWS. Instead, it just seemed to waft through the country with little attention.



Since the start, we've regularly noted the Supreme Court and, with Alito and Roberts ruling, the dangers to the American justice system. In April, "Precedent and privacy go out the window" addressed how the new majority on the Court was ignoring precedent. Stare decisis is the term. Websters defines it as "a doctrine or policy of following rules or principles laid down in previous judicial decisions unless they contravene the ordinary principles of justice." What that means in terms of the Supreme Court is that if the Court's rendered a verdict, it's respected and followed unless there is a huge reason for it not to be.



Stare decisis provides consistinency and allows people to speak of the law. Without it, you really can't speak of the law. If the Supreme Court decided in 1971 that oranges cannot be banned, in 2007, lawyers can advise that oranges are un-bannable. Provided, of course, that stare decisis is followed. When it's not, the whole thing becomes a crap shoot and you never know how the dice will land.



The current five member majority on the Court has shown a disregard for precedent and maybe, in the case of late term abortion, you thought, "Oh, that doesn't effect me."?



Or maybe you thought, "Well, yes, they'll do that on abortion. I mean look at them. But with other issues, they will respect the principles by which this country is governed."



If you still think that, you missed Linda Greenhouse's "Justices, 5-4, Accept No Excuses From Inmate for Mistaken Late Filing." It was easy to miss. Below the fold, on A18, of Friday's New York Times. Possibly that's why it got so little attention.



Forget the case for a moment and zoom in on this:



The court, however, used the case to announce it was overruling the two precedents the Supreme Court had used when it established the 'unique circumstances' doctrine in the 1960s. Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas said the court now regarded the doctrine as illegitimate.



Take a moment to absorb that. Two Supreme Court verdicts, over forty years old, just got wiped away in one Court decision.



Forget the case itself and just grasp that. That is a runaway court. A court that refuses to accept established verdicts and just tosses them aside to bend the Court to its own will is not a legitimate court and it all calls all past decisions into question meaning the law pretty much changes from case to case as the five member majority sees fit.



The case itself? Keith Bowles attempted to file an appeal. The Court decided he was too late in filing the appeal. Bowles, a prisoner serving time for murder, was given 18 days to file an appeal by the federal judge of his case. Bowles filed on the 18th day. What was the problem? The rule, as opposed to the judge's instruction, was that the appeal had to be filed in 14 days. Despite that fact, despite two past Supreme Court decisions, the five member majority said, "Tough luck." After they spit on the legal system, they said, "Tough luck."



It is tough luck for all Americans. This is the second time the five majority has tossed precedents out the window. First they did it on abortion and many didn't seem too concerned. Now they've done with regards to prisoners' rights to an appeal that some reading this will argue that "prisoners get what's coming to." At what point do people wake up and grasp that a Supreme Court that does not feel it is bound by precedent is a very dangerous thing to the country?