Sunday, March 30, 2008

TV: A very strange week

Gwen Ifill's off her meds again. We realized that was the message Friday's Washington Week on PBS was attempting to convey as host Gwen declared, "There are a lot of unanswered questions about that woman." She was referring to US Senator Hillary Clinton currently running for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination but the way she intoned, we were thinking back to That Hamilton Woman which starred Vivien Leigh and Laurence Olivier and was once seen as providing powerful performances from both actors, peformances worthy of study and praise. But things change and history has a way of ripping credit from women. So these days Vivien Leigh is mainly spoken of for her illnesses and all her many acting accomplishments are little noted. Olivier? Even all the rumors about Olivier didn't kill the excitement over his acting, but, then, he's a man.


tv7
We remembered Medium and that made us think of Agnes of God. In that film, method actors Jane Fonda and Anne Bancroft gave tremendous performances, not just individually; in fact, it was the matchup between the two actresses onscreen that was most riveting. And we thought about how two Method actress co-starring wasn't something that garnered endless exploration; however, let Lee Strasberg students Al Pacino and Robert De Niro appear in the same film and it's 'news!' The way the no-sparks-on-screen in Heat qualified as 'news' and something to still reference and the way advance publicity on Righteous Kill has done the same. Fonda and Bancroft, two Academy Award winning actresses team up and most of the gas bags on acting still act as if it never happened. Kind of the way they can never shut up about Rober De Niro's weight gain (so committed!) for Raging Bull while acting as if they're unaware that Fonda put on many pounds to play the lead in The Dollmaker.





This seaon, Medium's offered sparks between Patricia Arquette (who stars as Allison) and Academy Award winner Anjelica Huston. It's provided tension and levels that have taken the show in an entirely new direction and Huston's giving the best performance of any guest actor on a series this decade. That's a credit to both women but let's focus on Houston for a minute because her incredible performance has received very little attention.





Huston could be starring in Anjie! if she wanted. She's a big enough name that she could have her own sitcom. She could also plug herself easily into one of Dick Wolf's cookie-cutter roles by making one simple phone call. Instead, she's guest starring on Medium and playing a very complex role in terms of what we accept from TV dramas in that she's not going for likeable.





"Oh, she's the bitch," you say. No, she's not playing that role either. This isn't Huston does Joan Collins. She's playing a difficult, cantankerous person -- a role many men are allowed to essay on television but few women. And Cynthia, her character, is not suffering from a disorder which is the only way a female guest star gets offered the opportunity to show true range in most dramas. As if America needs that 'out' when a woman's not all smiles and sunshine.





Cynthia's a missing persons investigator and she's sought out Allison for help. Backstory, Medium wrapped up a multi-arc story last May which found Allison outed by the press (guest star Neve Campbell) as a pscyhic which led to her losing her job for the district attorney and district attorney Manuel Devalos (Miguel Sandoval) losing his job. That season also featured Allison's husband Joe as the victim of work place violence when a crazed former employee held employees hostage. Since the company was awarded government contracts and doing classified work, the fact that the work environment was not secured meant that Joe should be receiving much money in a lawsuit against his company. With the outing of his wife as a psychic, no one wanted to represent Joe after his attorney walked.





All of that's to explain that Allison and Joe, who have three daughters, need money. They are very much in debt with creditors hounding them constantly. So when Cynthia shows up with a job offer, it really didn't matter what she was like, Allison needed the money. That plot device has allowed Huston to really bring dark shades to Cynthia who frequently snaps at Allison, mocks Allison's abilities and provides new meaning to the term "prickly."





With Arquette, Huston has an actress every bit her equal and, as with Fonda and Bancroft, far less interesting are the numerous individual details they're bringing to the scenes. Those are important, no question. But what you watch instead is the powerful duo of actresses and how they mesh and how they clash. While Huston is easily giving the strongest guest performance of the decade, equally true is that the performances the two give as a duo should be legendary already.





And in a fair world, it would be. But we don't live in that world, do we? We were reminded of that on Friday when Bill Moyers Journal offered up yet another take on race in the United States -- a topic we would have assumed he'd exhausted already this year going as far as he wanted to in conversations with Dr. Kathy, interviews with Shelby Steele, etc. March is, after all, Women's History Month and it will apparently end without Moyers ever exploring it. Rather strange with it being Women's History Month and on the heels of CBS News poll which found:





Voters are slightly more likely to say that a woman candidate faces more obstacles than a black candidate when it comes to presidential politics even as they see racism as a more serious problem for the nation overall, according to a new CBS News poll. Thirty nine percent of registered voters said a woman running for president faces more obstacles while 33 percent said a black candidate does.





But TV's rather strange these days. Let's return to Washington Week for further evidence. If you visit the website of the program, you'll read: "New polls showing Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton in dead heat . . ." That wasn't a point the gas bags appeared to grasp.





Joining Gwen were James Barnes of National Journal, Doyle McManus of The Los Angeles Times, Jeanne Cumming of bad online media and AP's Charles Babington. (Babington, the hair was perfect, truly. No sarcasm.) And there was a great deal of 'churce' (as Spencer Tracy would pronounce it) morsels of what passed for 'revelations' but only revealed how shallow the discussion was. Doyle and James embarrassed themselves so frequently that it was difficult to tell them apart after a few minutes.





One offered, "She's thousands behind! If you don't count Florida and Michigan." Thanks for the add-on but shouldn't a press be aware that a presidential election in November will take place in all fifty states? Shouldn't a press not be concerned with the talking points of the Obama campaign and report the facts which is Hillary isn't behind due to Florida and Michigan?





If there's a re-vote, by all means, replace the votes. But there was a vote in both states and Hillary won both primaries. While it may not be in the Obama campaign's best interest to include those totals, the press is supposed to report what happened and what happened in those states' primaries was that Hillary won. "If you don't count"? Why wouldn't the press count them? They took place, millions voted. More people voted in the Florida primary, for example, than took part in all the primaries and caucuses before Florida combined. If you're the press, not the Obama campaign, and you're talking about the popular vote, there's no reason not to include Florida and Michigan. The press reports what happened. What happened is that Florida and Michigan voted. The delegates may be in dispute but there's no question that voters in both states showed up at the polls and no question about who won.





Another "churce" bit was this, "The voters seem to ask about healthcare so it's up to us to ask larger questions." This was in relation to the non-stop nonsense regarding Hillary's flight to Bosnia. The public cares about healthcare but the press focuses on "larger questions"?





We haven't seen that in the bulk of the coverage. What we have seen is tear down a candidate with a record to lift up one with no-record. Jeanne was her usual idiot self so we'll just ignore her the same way we ignore her 'news' 'outlet.' (We look forward to Gwen sitting down with Perez Hilton at the roundtable soon since he has more traffic than Jeanne's outlet and is, honestly, more photogenic than Jeanne.)





James made a point we applauded but Gwen stuck to the scripted narrative. On Jeremiah Wright, Barack's pastor, mentor and friend of over 20 years, James got in, "But I don't think it's passed." Gwen wasn't interested. The press had declared two weeks prior that it was over, so, in Gwen's mind, it's over. Someone forgot to pass that memo on to Andrea Mitchell. Thursday on NBC's Today, this was reported [you can hear or view a podcast at Today]:



Andrea Mitchell: And now even more controversy regarding Rev. Wright. An internet search reveals church bulletins over the past year with controversial pastor pages from the reverand. Some reprint anti-Israel writings from a range of people -- from Archbishop Desmond Tutu to an advisor to Elijah Muhammad and Louis Farkahn of the Nation of Islam and Hamas leader Musa Abu Marzook. One of Marzook's columns, reprinted by the church from the Los Angeles Times, says "Why should any Palestinian recognize the monstrous crimes carried out by Israel's founders and continued by its deformed modern apartheid state?" Obama told the Jerusalem Post the church was outrageously wrong to reprint the article and he denounced Hamas. And Trumpet, a magazine run by Wright's daughters quotes him as saying "White supremacy is clearly in charge" and slurring Italian's quote "garlic noses" and he also calls Jesus' crucifixion "a public lynching Italian style."





We've already had the damning of the United States from Wright, now we learned that he insulted Italians as well. For the record, we're aware of no connection to the African slave trade on Italy's part and wasn't that the reason Obama's nearly 5,000 word speech offered to excuse Wright's damning of America? Wasn't that the excuse hidden behind: "There was slavery!" And, of course, "There was Jim Crow!" As if either excused a pastor standing in front of a church and calling down damnation upon the United States in his role of person of God? It was a hateful thing to say and now we get even more evidence of the hate and Gwen doesn't want to explore the issue.





That's really amazing.





But it was a pretty amazing week. While the gasbags of Washington Week continued to offer their "It's over, Hillary, pack it in!" nonsense (despite Gwen's statement the week before that "If they want to have a fight all summer long, we'll cover it all summer long"), it was left to Joe Scarborough, of all people, to make some sense last week.





Appearing on MSNBC's Race for the White House (Taylor Marsh provides video here), he confronted a pompous Brit named Richard Wolf who insisted that the press ("we") decide.








Joe Scarborough: 'We'? You said that's how 'we' decided it? If that's the way the Democratic Party decided it then they wouldn't have super delegates! Let me tell you what 'we' love to do. 'We' in the media love to tell everybody, which 'we' have been telling everybody for months, that the numbers don't add for Hillary Clinton, she can't get enough delegates . . . Well guess what? The numbers don't add up for Barack Obama but 'we' don't tell that side of the story, do 'we'?" The super delegates are the rules of the Democratic Party and they can go any way they want.





It's a thought that's never occured to Gwen or multiple gasbags. They just keep working from the Obama talking points and calling what they do journalism.





As if Joe Scarborough as a voice of reason wasn't a big enough shock for the week, Friday we caught ABC's The View and saw Joy Behar proving to America that you really do get the face you deserve after forty. At this point, she's practically an overstuffed chair with a nozzle attachment. Behar used her time to ask 'pressing' questions to guest Barack Obama, such as how he was related to the actor Brad Pitt. We'll assume that was one of those "larger questions" that the 'infantile' public just doesn't think to probe the candidates about.





Barbara Walters was present. Despite offering that she found Obama "sexy," she then tried to summon up the authority she once held (and squandered) as a host of 20/20 asking, "When I just talked about you saying no member -- anybody doing that wouldn’t be working for me and you said its because the reverend has retired. Had the reverend not retired, were he still there, would you then have left the church or have said I just can't have anything to do with him?"





For those who've paid attention as the Wright scandal has unfolded, prepare to chuckle at Bambi's response: "Had the reverend not retired. Had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country, for all its flaws, then I wouldn't have felt comfortable staying at the church."





Wright spewed hatred for 20 years.





Which part was offensive to Bambi?





Wright's never apologized so what's this nonsense about him having "acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate"? Wright retired in January. Bambi was a member for 20 years. The excerpts getting media coverage from his sermons, the chuch bulletin notes Andrea Mitchell highlighted, did not take place this year or last. He has a long body of work but we're supposed to believe Bambi that he would have stepped down when, in fact, for 20 years he was just fine with it, just fine attending the church, being a member, soaking up the hate Wright rained down.





It was a very strange week and reminded us of a recent episode of Medium where Allison learned that a state senator supporting Manuel's campaign (for his old job as district attorney) was actually a canibal; Allison repeatedly explained what she was seeing and repeatedly was ignored, dismissed or just not believed. The man was 'charming' so the truth didn't matter and, in that storyline of Medium, we felt as if we were seeing the press coverage of the Democratic Party primary critiqued.





Allison's a mortal. That may be confusing to some. It confused The New York Times last year when a columnist felt the need to decry the show and others as a sign of our societal decay. Apparently someone's parents didn't let her watch Bewitched, The Girl With Something Extra, The Flying Nun, Wonder Woman, Superman, Batman or The Ghost and Mrs. Muir. The New York Times saw in Medium evidence of a society trying to escape. As if 'reality' programming doesn't already provide that?





Actually what Patricia Arquette so strongly conveys is a woman who cannot escape. Not only does she have a gift/power that brings her problems, it's been passed on to at least two of her three daughters. Allison's a fighter and Arquette captures that as well as the price she sometimes pay for being that. It's a very complex performance (and an Emmy award winning one) that Arquette continues to provide but it is also a story of one woman trying to make a difference. It's amazing how quickly a show revolving around such a storyline, a program revolving around a woman, is reduced to societal decay by The New York Times.





But hasn't it also been amazing to watch the coverage of Hillary Clinton and the fawning over Barack Obama; That was captured perfectly on Friday's Washington Week. Remember that we told you Gwen passed over exploring whether Jeremiah Wright was having any impact on the Obama campaign even when James Barnes was attempting to interject that he didn't think it has passed? What you may not have caught is that Doyle McManus offered nothing of value. Is it having an effect? Doyle could have spoken to that but elected not to leaving us, again, surprised.





See, we caught Doyle's act Friday morning on the first hour of NPR's The Diane Rehm Show. Doyle was dismissive of any fallout over Jeremiah Wright then as well. But, funny thing, actual news happened during that broadcast. A caller from Dallas, Texas, named John, phoned in to explain that he voted and caucused for Barack Obama and had been selected as a delegate. The process now is for the state to determine which ones selected got o Colorado in August. But John was explaining that he could no longer support Barack Obama; Why? Because of the revealations about Jeremiah Wright's hate speech. Doyle, on Rehm's program, declared it was "buyer's remorse." Somehow, on PBS' Washington Week, when the issue of Wright was brought up, Doyle didn't think John was worth mentioning, didn't think a pledged delegate announcing he could no longer support Barack Obama due to Wright was anything worth sharing.





It was a very strange week and the thing we had to keep reminding ourselves is that Medium is scripted but our 'news' and 'public' affairs programs aren't supposed to be. NBC is airing Medium now on Monday's in prime time's final hours. The program also streams episodes online. In the latest storyline, viewers learned that, last decade, Cynthia's daughter was kidnapped. Allison had clues but Cynthia didn't want to believe her. Allison's one fictional woman fighting for her truth. In the real world, Hillary Clinton is among the many doing so.

Quick Talk

Jim: This isn't a roundtable. We're calling it "Quick Talk" and using it to cover a few topics we didn't get to in this edition. Participating are The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and me, 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, Ruth of Ruth's Report, Wally of The Daily Jot, and Marcia SICKOFITRDLZ. If there's an illustration when you read this, Betty's oldest son did it. If there's not, no one had the time to mess with Flickr. As Mike, Betty, Elaine, Rebecca, Wally, Cedric, Marcia and Kat note in "Highlights," I place holds on a number of topics. We'll start with Betty on a topic we never got to here this week.


roundtable
Betty: Thursday Marcia posted "Jeremiah Wright's words are offensive!" and it needs to be noted. As someone who also belongs to a Black church, it needs to be stressed that, no, all Black churches do not damn the United States and that, yes, it offensive that the media narrative has been this is just something that "those people" do. Repeating, we do not do that. I checked with everyone at work Friday and no one goes to a Black church that damns the United States. I asked, "Would you stay with a church that did?" The response was a universal "no." White media needs to stop acting like this is a "Black thang." It's not our thing. It was one church's offensive way of 'knowing God,' but it is not reflective of the Black culture and I will not be silent while the media tries to imply that it is thereby questioning the patriotism of every Black American. It's insulting and it's offensive. Good for Marcia for blogging on it.



Jim: And Betty planned to guest blog on it at Rebeca's site Friday until she found out I had placed a hold on the topic hoping we'd get to it this week, which we did not do. My apologies. Ty and Cedric are also members of Black churches. Do either of you, or Marcia, have anything you want to add on the topic?



Cedric: If I see one more African-American minister, pastor, preacher, what have you get on TV or tell a reporter for a newspaper that it's not a big deal, I'm going to scream. The immediate follow up is, "Do you damn the United States in your church?" If the answer is no -- and the answer will be no -- the next question is, "Why not?" Because it's not appropriate for a church leader to call down damnation upon the country we live in. This is just like O.J. or when Michael Jackson gets into another scandal. Suddenly, all the useless people go rushing to the microphones to defend them. Jeremiah Wright's words are not defensible. It is not a Black thing. It is an appalling thing. And usually with this, we get to be appalled as alleged Black leaders defend child molestation or a man killing his wife. Today we're getting defense of calling on God to damn the United States. It's disgusting. African-American voices need to leave the knee-jerk reaction to defend any African-American at the door. It's not helpful and, like Betty just said and Marcia wrote, the message coming out is "That's what those people do in their churches." No, it's not. It needs to stop because the message being sent out is that to be Black is to be less patriotic than White people. It needs to stop.



Ty: I'll just back up the others. It's not how it is in my current church, it's not how it was in the church I was raised in. If it had happened, as Marcia wrote, the congregation would have fired the pastor. It's unacceptable.



Jim: Marcia?



Marcia: Like Ty just said, I agree with everyone. I'm appalled that so many Black 'leaders' are so eager to prop up one man who doesn't deserve it that they've yet to realize the message their lies are conveying to America. It is saying very loudly and very clearly that African-Americans are okay with the damning of the United States. We're all being tarred and feathered as unpatriotic as a result. Black 'leaders' need to get their s**t together because I'm not about to stand for that.



Jim: Okay we'll go on to the next topic. This is Kat or Rebecca and I'm not sure which one of you wants to grab it.



Kat: Go to Rebecca.



Rebecca: Okay, well this was Women's History Month. It's about to be April. We saw nothing noting Women's History Month for the most part. We did see Hillary Clinton's website celebrate it regularly. Otherwise, nothing. C.I.'s laughing. Let me stop.



C.I.: I'm sorry. You know it wasn't at you. When you mentioned Obama, I nodded to Ava to grab the notes solo so I could pull up Obama's site. He does note Women's History Month in some form. But Obama 'o8, his official site, has a new name. Want to guess what it is? "Obama for America."



Jim: Everyone is laughing. For those not getting it, Wright damned the US and Obama's been unable to contain the fallout from that. So now he's changed the name of his campaign site to "Obama for America." That's hilarious. Okay, Rebecca.



Rebecca: Let me stop laughing. Or let me explain, I did p.r. for years and ran my own p.r. firm. That's just hilarious and such a bungle you'd assume the 'geniuses' behind Rudy G's campaign were now working for him. But, as Ava and C.I. point out, where was Bill Moyers during Women's History Month. And the feature we were going to write on this was going to open by noting Elaine so let me ask her to talk about what never got mentiomed outside of her own site.



Elaine: Hillary won in Texas and Ohio at the start of this month. While many predicted her losing, she won. And all Panhandle Media could offer was their usual Hillary Hatred. Which was a real shame because Hillary's victory came on a significant date in Women's History. On March 4th, Hillary won the primaries in Texas and Ohio and it could have been, and should have been, mentioned that this was a historically significant day. 91 years before -- March 4, 1917 -- Jeannette Rankin was sworn in as the first female member of the US Congress. Other than Ava and C.I., I believe we were all glued to the TV or radio on March 4th of this year and I did make a point to watch three cable shows the next day. I never, in all the gas baggery on TV or in any I read, saw anyone make that point. If Women's History truly mattered, at least one person in Panhandle Media would've noted Hillary's two big wins, in big states, came on the day that, 91 years before, a woman finally got into the US Congress. That was historic, in 1917 and this month.



Rebecca: I would agree with that. And I'm going to toss to Kat who wrote the wonderful "Not that into Ms. these days" on Friday.



Kat: Well it's shameful. Hillary Clinton is in a dead heat with Barack Obama for the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party. Cynthia McKinney seems very likely the choice for the Green Party. Where is Ms. magazine? I'm sick of it. I'm sick of their bulls**t. I'm sick of their, "We can't offend the push-up bra set." The push-up bra set already slams you. You didn't have to endorse Hillary or Cynthia to cover them. You only had to appreciate that they were history makers. The contests continue and Ms. has done nothing on them when they should have had, at the very least, a blogger covering it for their site -- which posts no new content, only reposts some of the articles from the magazine. That's a magazine that comes out four times a year and they want to be an online presence? Get real.



Jim: That came up in the roundtable for the gina & krista round-robin and I placed a hold on it as well. Kat ignored it, as anyone can, and wrote about it on Friday/Saturday. I'm not sure when it went up. But it's a great post and what I wanted to note was regardless of how feminist you feel Ms. is, it's supposed to be a magazine covering women. As Kat notes, there are two women who could get their party's presidential nomination. Why isn't their a blog covering that at Ms.? It's embarrassing. They, of all outlets, should be covering it. And Kat's exactly right that after the election, if they had done a daily blog, they'd have the material to issue a book all ready, it could be the equivalent of The Boys On The Bus. Instead, they've done nothing and there's no excuse for that because you don't have to be on the bus to cover it. As The New York Times noted last week in a front page story, most newspapers do not have anyone on the bus or plane. The Obama campaign was their example and they noted that reporters are charged $2,000 a day to travel with the campaign on their plane. Due to that, most are filing by catching videos online and other things. Most outlets are filing that way. I think that's pretty sorry, and credit to The Times for actually having reporters with the campaigns, but there was nothing preventing Ms. from blogging on Hillary and Cynthia.



Dona: And Jim's point is not that it should be left up to Ms. His point is that we're all aware of how women are overlooked and due to that awareness and Ms.' natural scope, Ms. damn well should have been covering those two women's campaigns. As Kat notes, we don't need their crappy cover stories in their August issue about First Wives. We have two trail blazing women seeking their party's presidential nomination. How wonderful -- that's sarcasm -- of Ms. to sit this out. It's shameful. I want to get Ava and or C.I. to comment on this.



Ava: Kat, can you grab my remarks?



Kat: Yeah. Hold on. Okay, go.



Ava: You'll probably only get me because one of the computers C.I.'s been trying to upload Isaiah's comic for two hours and 15 minutes now just uploaded it and C.I.'s posting it. Okay, C.I. and I have raised this issue with friends at Ms. from the start when we weren't endorsing Hillary, when we were staying away from endorsements. We weren't even thinking about who we would vote for. And what we got back was that it might offend some women. As that continued, it became it might offend a legal 'expert' who often contributes and it might offend some readers. That's a load of crap. And I said so at the time. C.I. was a little bit nicer, as is to be expected, but the thrust of C.I.'s remarks was "that's a load of crap" as well. As Jim and Dona have pointed out, Ms. knows damn well, not should know, they know, that a woman candidate is always going to end up with less coverage than a male in the current press system. They also know that this is history in the making. For them to sit it out was offensive. And it was a total, my opinion, abdication of their responsiblities. My aunt, who has been published in Ms., is so appalled by this and she's far from the only one. You're done?



C.I.: I had already opened a window, hours ago, and done tags for the comic and written the description. I've just been waiting this entire time for the thing to upload to Flickr. Isaiah's comic is now up.



Dona: Your thoughts?



C.I.: Ava, were you finished?



Ava: Yes.



C.I.: Well, Ava basically outlined it. We did discuss this and started long before we were supporting Hillary in the Democratic primary. This was when there was a full field and Ava and I weren't discussing the primaries but I know I was seriously considering Bill Richards, John Edwards, Joe Biden and Hillary.



Ava: For me add Dennis Kucinich to that list, before he sold out and tried to give Bambi his supporters in Iowa.



C.I.: So this is when we started raising the issue. We weren't in Hillary's camp. She was a possiblity for us but on the same level as all we've named. And, as she pointed out, what we got was nonsense about possibly offending some women who might be supporting Bambi. Who the hell gives a damn? Seriously. Women's Media Center has not endorsed any candidate and they've managed to cover this historic race in the Democratic Party. So has Women's eNews.



Ty: We don't have a link on our permalinks to Womens Media Center. Mentioning that because five e-mails last week pointed it out.



C.I.: While Jim's doing the note, I'll add it. I wasn't aware they weren't already on the roster. But this is historic. And it was historic when Hillary was one of many choices. It's more historic as she's become the first woman to get this far and has a serious shot at being the nominee. I try not to slam Ms. Ava does as well. But I have no problem saying they have failed on in terms of the elections because both Hillary and Cynthia stand a good chance at winning their parties nominations and it should have been covered, it should have been covered regularly. Ava mentioned her aunt and that feeling is true of a lot of women who were there when Ms. started. They can't believe that the day has come when a woman can run for president and seriously have a shot at the nomination but Ms. isn't at all interested. This is an abdication, as Ava pointed out, of all Ms. is supposed to stand for, of all Ms. was created for. I mean, let's get serious, Wonder Woman on the cover was a nice throw back to their roots but Cynthia and Hillary are the roots sprouting and where is Ms.? It's really sad and it breaks my heart that a magazine so many of us have supported, donated money to, fought to keep alive would rather not risk offending someone than to cover history in the making. If we could go back in time right now and pop into the Ms. office the first year the magazine was up and running, if we could talk to the women busting their asses for the magazine and say, "In 2008, there are going to be two women with a good chance of winning their parties nomination. Would you cover it?" I think the reply would be yes, they would. I think the reply would be, "Not only will we cover it, we will do a special issue with both women on the cover." That cover can still come, of course. But not when it's documenting history in the making, only after it's been achieved.



Ava: And by "achieved," we mean the race itself. History has been made. Whatever else happens, whether the Greens go with someone other than Cynthia or the Democrats go with someone other than Hillary, or both parties go with someone else, two women have shown that women can run for president, that women can be electable, that women can garner huge support. At this point, a cover will only document that they won the nominations or that they lost. That's a little late to be noting history and, I agree with my aunt completely, it's, quoting, "f**king ridiculous that Ms. isn't covering this."



C.I.: And in those words or other words, that is the feeling of so many women who have read Ms. Again, there was nothing that required endorsing to cover history in the making.



Dona: I want it noted that any woman reading Ms., regardless of whom she supported, would immediately grasp that Hillary and Cynthia would be the focus of coverage due to the historic nature and the long struggle. You might have a few whiners, like the 'legal' expert who will never be highlighted at this or any other site again, but the bulk of the readers would be fine with it, regardless of whom they were supporting. And, Jim and Kat's point about online presence, it would have driven traffic to Ms. and that traffic would have included the MSM which would have felt required to occassionally cite Ms. because it was providing commentary Monday through Friday. They didn't do that. They have no blogs now and they have no way for readers to share their thoughts. As a young feminist, I find their non-action embarrassing. And, I'm with Kat, don't you dare do a cover on First Ladies again. I thought the 2004 cover story was crap-ass and that, in 2008, we have two women actually competing, still competing, and getting nothing from Ms., don't you dare file a First Lady this year or in the next election cycle. Do it this year and, I swear, I will do a solo piece crucifying Ms. I will nail the magazine to the wall and I know enough from Ava's aunt to make good on that promise. A First Lady piece would mean Hillary didn't get the nomination and possibly Cynthia as well. If that happens, feminist don't want anothe WEAK ASS cover story from Ms. on First Ladies. Leave that crap to Ladies' Home Journal.



Jim: Gee, honey, tell us how you really feel?



Dona: You think you're going to make me laugh right now, but you're not.



Jim: Okay. We're talking about endorsements and Ruth, Mike, Jess and Wally are down for this topic. Ruth, do you want to stay with this topic or do you want to grab Ms.?



Ruth: I am so torn. I'm going to go with Ms. Second wave feminism was my generation. And those who came after. But I started college when JFK was president and I wasn't a feminist then at least not labeled that way. I'd argue I wasn't when I started college but was leaning that way -- still with no label -- as I progressed through college. After college, I held down a job briefly while my husband finished medical school. Then I was children non-stop. And Ms. really made a difference in my life. My husband was not out of touch or someone who needed to be awakened. And I'm very lucky in that regard and should credit a female intern, when he was an intern, with making sure that was the case. Working side by side with her did have an impact as much as anything I did or said. But I could talk in the abstract and he could see it, while he was interning, right next to him. See that a woman could do anything she set her mind to. We only had boys. Every time I was pregant, we'd think, "This one will be a girl." All of our children were wanted but I won't pretend the last two pregnancies weren't planned with the hopes of a girl. I am probably babbling. But we would talk, before we found out it was another son, and my husband and I would both be excited that this child was going to be a girl who would not have the barriers that we saw for women when we were growing up. Tracey was our first granddaughter and everyone knows how much I love Tracey. We did not have a daughter that was able to run down the roads paved by so many others but we did have a granddaughter who was able to. And my husband was thrilled. If she ends up a doctor, it's as much because of him as it her father who is a doctor as well. He was teaching her the names for the bones before she was in first grade. And I think about that and I think about earlier when Ms. first emerged and how much hope and information it provided me, to me, and so many other women. Like C.I. said, it is really sad that they elected to sit this out. Like Ava, I see it as an abdication of their role, of their promised role. I know women who had daughters or, like me, got a granddaughter, and I now have three granddaughters which may seem like a lot until you add up all my grandchildren, and we really thought the future was going to be wide open for them. So it has been an intense shock to witness all the attacks on Senator Clinton and then to grasp that, as the attacks went on non-stop, Ms. magazine chose to sit it out.



Marcia: I'm a floater. I didn't sign up for any topic. But what Ruth said really moved me so I won't go to endorsements and will instead grab this topic unless anyone objects? Okay. No one objects. I'm listening to Ruth, a Jewish woman, and reminded of my mother, who is younger and African-American and she's made so many similar points to what Ruth just said. She's said it again and again throughout the election. There was a time, early on, when she was torn between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and then Barack used homophobia to campaign in South Carolina and that settled it. I'm her daughter and she's not going to condone homophobia. But so many women have come before. So many women have fought for this moment. And I really think Ms.' response has come off as "None of you mattered. None of the work you did matter." I don't think that was their intention but that is the message that was sent out by their being silent. If I can go on for just a moment more, I'm fully aware that the Bambi campaign has used the false charge of racism as a club to beat women down into silence. Hillary and Cynthia are women. If covering them means some idiot ended up screaming "racism" at Ms., so what? If Ms. can't stand up for women in real time, what's the point of the magazine even continuing?



Betty: I'm sorry, I've got to jump back in and I'll try to be brief. I know when we're done with this, we're done [with the edition]. But Marcia is so right that false charges of racism were used and are used repeatedly by the Bambi campaign and its surrogates. They have charged Gloria Steinem with it and Robin Morgan with it. Guess what Ms., this Black woman thinks you did an awful job. This Black woman is currently ashamed to be seen reading you because when women were falsely attacked, when they were attacked nationally, to silence them, you chose to be silent. You should be ashamed. You've dug yourself a big hole and I'm not sure you can get out of it. I have no interest in reading your magazine at present. Short of a lengthy mea culpa, I can't imagine ever plunking down a nickel for your magazine. Gloria Steinem and Robin Morgan have fought for all women and have been there for Ms. That Ms. couldn't return that favor, couldn't return for all women, many of whom are now scared to speak against Bambi for fear of being labeled racist, is appalling. Your silence is not just shameful, it encourages the attacks on other women. You should be embarrassed and you should be considering right now, seriously, whether you issue a mea culpa or just close shop because there really isn't much else you have to offer. Apologize or cease publication. It's gotten so bad that The Nation has posted that idiot Gary Younge's attack on women, on Robin Morgan and Gloria Steinem specifically. When a British transplant, who can't even vote in the election, feels he can tear into those two women, it happens for a reason and that reason is that feminist outlets allowed men to think there was a space created where it was safe to attack women. Shame on you, Ms. magazine, shame on you.



Jim: As usual, Betty will probably the biggest topic of praise in the e-mails on this roundtable. Betty, jump in anytime. And "Quick Talk," sorry, this isn't a roundtable proper. Okay, endorsement. We have three speakers left. Wally, Mike and Jess. I'm not sure how to go but think Jess should go last of the three and I may offer something after Jess.



Wally: Well I think Mike and my points would be the same and I'll yield to Mike for first dibs.



Mike: Some whiney non-regular readers have taken to e-mailing this site and Ty's passed that on to all of us. "Oh my goodness! You've endorsed Hillary!" Hillary's been endorsed for the Democratic Party. She is the best candidate. We did not endorse until there were two and not until the non-stop attacks on Hillary were ongoing. Wally and I were hoping to see John Edwards in the race, were hoping each week would be the week when he would fight back against Bambi's slanders. Now he may end up endorsing Bambi but I think a lot of people are deluding themselves arguing that he has to. Bambi attacked him in the debates over Iraq. He distorted John Edwards. He also whined about 527s and yet when his 527s turned around and did the same, he didn't call for them to stop. He ran a dirty campaign and John Edwards is among the many victims. Edwards may end up endorsing him but I'll lose all respect for him if he does. We have endorsed Hillary in the Democratic primary. C.I.'s endorsed her in the post-primary, you might argue, C.I. and Ava because their focus is the super delegates. But Bambi is bad for America, is bad for Venezuela, is a danger to Africa and we don't drink the Kool-Aid.



Wally: I think Mike outlined it well. If we had come out sooner for Hillary, no one would have been happier than my mother and grandfather who were both supporting her when there was a wide open field. We didn't intend to. We didn't plan on it. We did so only after others dropped out and only after we noticed how Panhandle Media was playing it. It's been disgusting. And when books are written on this election, they damn well better note the LIARS like Amy Goodman who played like they were ethical and balanced but actually slanted all their coverage to slam Hillary. Go back through the archives, you'll see more coverage of Dennis Kuccinich than any other Democratic candidate. You'll also find coverage of all, equally, when the playing field consisted of more than two. It came down to two. Somewhere, at The Common Ills, C.I. notes that friends are pointing out that Amy Goodman was slanting her coverage and C.I. says something like "I don't want to believe it and they'll have to drive me away from the show," meaning Goodman. They did. They drove us all away from their programs and their sites. Even something like Law and Disorder isn't anything we listen to currently. That's community wide, by the way. Gina and Krista surveyed on that two weeks ago. No one could believe that in their fundraising live special, Michael Smith, showing up late, makes one of his first remarks a stab at Hillary. She wasn't even the topic. But that's how he has to open. When Betty was for Hillary, she noted it here. When Cedric was, he noted it here. When we were all on board for Hillary, it got noted. We didn't hide anything. If you're e-mailing that you're offended, take it up with the likes of The Nation, The Progressive and Amy Goodman who all slanted their coverage from the start -- and we now know that Goody did indeed slant her coverage from the start due to one person bragging about it. We have been very open all along. Talk to the liars about why they launched a two-year war on Hillary and never told you it was to create Obama-mania. Talk to the liars.



Jim: Okay, good points all. And Ava and C.I. will be revewing the LIAR Amy Goodman's book. We're not sure if they'll do that the week before it's released or the week after, they've already read it, but they will be reviewing it and the first two sentences are already classics. Jess has waited for his announcement.



Jess: Okay, I'm speaking on behalf of the site. Should Barack Obama steal the nomination, this site will not only not endorse him, this site will endorse either Ralph Nader or the Green Party nominee, whom we expect to be Cynthia McKinney. Barack Obama is a liar who has been given a non-stop pass from the media and who is tearing apart the Democratic Party. That he wants to be their nominee and at the same time thinks he and his surrogates can launch attacks on the party's last president, Bill Clinton, is disgusting. Howard Dean is a LOSER for not calling that out. I'm a Green. I'm not a fan of Bill Clinton's. But even I'm shocked that a candidate for the party's nomination could get away with smearing and trashing the last Democrat to hold the office of president. That campaign has no manners, to say the least. They are trashy, they act is if they're entitled to the nomination despite the fact that they are in a dead heat. I saw this campaign before, in 2000 and Karl Rove masterminded it. That Democrats can't grasp that is hilarious but, as a Green, I've never thought the Democratic Party was all that smart to begin with. Here's how offended I am by what has gone down. If Hillary gets the Democratic Party nomination, this Green will be voting for her in the general election. I voted for Nader in 2004. I'm proud of that vote. But as an outsider watching the Democratic race, I have to say I have seen attacks launched by Bambi and his surrogates that have disgusted me. I have seen them repeatedly hide behind the false charge of racism whenever any issue was raised. I have seen glee in the beating up of a woman in public. And through it all, Hillary Clinton's kept on going. She's won my admiration for that. The woman's stronger than any other politician I can think of. She's earned the nomination. As an outsider, a Green Party member, I should be amused by the crap Bambi's pulled and laughing at the Democrats. Instead, I'm embarrassed for my country, I'm saddened for my country that someone who is not qualified has gotten away with repeatedly trying to tear down this woman. She's withstood it all and she has my vote. I called my father Saturday morning to tell him about this because my parents are both Greens and I didn't want them to be shocked when they saw this. Dad said, "Actually, your mother and I feel the same way." That's because if you leave the field of Bambi groupies, if you go to people who had nothing vested in this race and ask them their for their objective thoughts, you quickly hear how ugly of a campaign Bambi's run and shock and dismay over the fact that he hasn't been called on it, that he's been rewarded for it. If Hillary gets the nomination, our endorsement of her at this site stands and there will be no other endorsement. If Bambi steals it, we will be endorsing either Ralph or the Green Party candidate.



Jim: And I actually have nothing to add to that. Jess said it very well.

Our problem with Jeremy Scahill

That's why it's time for the anti-war movement to change tactics. We should direct our energy where it can still have an impact: the leading Democratic contenders.
Many argue otherwise. They say that if we want to end the war, we should simply pick a candidate who is not John McCain and help them win: we'll sort out the details after the Republicans are evicted from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Some of the most prominent anti-war voices -- from MoveOn.org to the Nation, the magazine we both write for -- have gone down this route, throwing their weight behind the Obama campaign.
This is a serious strategic mistake. It is during a hotly contested campaign that anti-war forces have the power to actually sway US policy. As soon as we pick sides, we relegate ourselves to mere cheerleaders.
And when it comes to Iraq, there is little to cheer. Look past the rhetoric and it becomes clear that neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton has a real plan to end the occupation. They could, however, be forced to change their positions, thanks to the unique dynamics of the prolonged primary battle.




The above should strike many of our regular readers as both reasoned and a tactic to pursue. None of the community sites highlighted and not because they somehow missed the article but because we have a policy of not promoting garbage. When absolutely required to, something will get a link that is trash. That's generally because it's so unbelievable, no one will believe it happened without a link. But this article appeared everywhere and it could have been highlighted without a link but was avoided.



The article's entitled "Anti-war Campaigners Have To Change Electoral Tactics" and one of the writers is Naomi Klein. You'll find no author more praised here or at any community sites than Klein. To focus on The Common Ills, because ombudsperson Beth tracks it, the most cited (and linked to) article in 2004 was "Baghdad Year Zero" (Harper's magazine). That was also the most cited (and linked to) article by C.I. in 2005, 2006, 2007 and, Beth guesses based on the year so far and the pattern, will be the most linked article in 2008. The author of that important article is Klein. That's just at The Common Ills (Beth is only the ombudsperson for The Common Ills, not for any other community site, and only tracks that site). But all praise Naomi and when she writes about Iraq and it doesn't get a link, when it's flat-out ignored, you can guess that the reason has nothing to do with Klein.



That is the case with the above article (hence, no link). Klein's co-author is Jeremy Scahill. Scahill is mainly known for his work on Blackwater and he's earned much applause for his work at community sites. He was also called out for an era that seems forgotten now but offended many (including Wally and Cedric who lost their fathers at young ages) when he took to Democracy Now!, Law and Disorder and other programs to argue sympathy for the poor mercenary workers. Specifically the ones slaughtered in Falluja. They didn't have this, they didn't have that blah, blah, blah and more blah. Guess who else didn't have armor (a point Klein was making in 2004)? Iraqi citizens. And, unlike the 'poor' workers for Blackwater, Iraqi citizens didn't go to Iraq in the hopes of milking the Cash Cow that the White House created over there. Wally and Cedric repeatedly noted in real time (to many times for individual links) that a parent who puts greed above parenting, isn't much of a parent and they had and have no sympathy for the tales of "he had a child and was trying to make money." As Cedric famously noted, get a job at McDonalds because it's more important that you're around to raise your child than that they get every hot fad that can be mass marketed. (A point later echoed very strongly by Three Old Guys in their gina & krista round-robin column.)



Rosa Brooks, apparently heeding the questionable heart strings, would go on to argue last year that the mercenaries should be included in the 'fallen' as 'heroes.' Setting aside the issue of heroics, mercentaries choosing to go to Iraq to make a quick, big buck are not the same as service members. Service members are ordered to go to Iraq. Some refuse to and good for them. Some don't refuse for a number of reasons including (but not limited to) the fact that they are unaware of how much of a difference their resistance would make, that they are unaware others are resisting, that they do not believe any have the right to resist or refuse, that they support the continued war in Iraq. Regardless of their reasons, they were ordered to go and they went and there's a huge difference between that and choosing to go to Iraq to make some quick, big bucks. A big difference between those taking part in military service and those attempting to profit from a war (illegal or legal). Regardless of what they think of the illegal war, our sympathies lie with those serving in the military and not with those enlisting as mercenaries for their own profit.



The reality is that if all civilians working as contractors (mercenaries or non-security) didn't go over to Iraq, if everyone grasped how offensive it was for American civilians to take part in that slaughter, the illegal war would stop immediately. The way Bully Boy's structured it, the war can't continue without the American civilians.



Some try to argue that's because Bully Boy was attempting to avoid the draft. That's a complete lie and misreading of everything we know about the illegal war (due to Klein and Antonia Juhasz' work largely). The Iraq War was about gain and profit. That was the plan, the one liars like Charlie Ferguson try to ignore and claim "There was no plan!" There was a plan. Mercenaries were yet another 'thriving' business to be rewarded in the outsourcing that passes for modern day government. (Or modern day delivery of The New York Times, which we may get to another article this edition.) The American mercenaries in Iraq, in fact all American contractors, not only chose to go there, they made more money than the enlisted and yet the enlisted was supposed to bail them out and protect them everytime they got into the least bit of a trouble including a flat tire, as Kelly Dougherty pointed out earlier this month at Winter Soldier. So we don't have a lot of sympathy for them, in fact we have none. When Scahill's book came out on Blackwater, it may have seemed a natural for a book review here. It wasn't. Wally and Cedric were adament about not wanting to read it after the 'poor fathers trying to support their children' line trotted out by Scahill in that not forgotten period (or the 'wowing' nature of 'One of them was a trainer on Demi Moore's G.I. Jane!'). So the book only got mentioned here once, by Ava and C.I. naturally. It was an offensive period and no one else wanted to risk revisiting it.



But with that single exception, Scahill's been noted plenty of times positively. And the sentiments he expresses with Klein in their joint-piece are sentiments we were in fact operating upon until we grasped that Hillary wasn't getting a fair shake. Neither candidate was promising to end the illegal war yet, as Klein and Scahill note in the excerpt at the top, Barack Obama was getting a pass. Not noted is that Hillary Clinton was getting crucified.



Ava, Kat and C.I. attended the first day of Iraq Veterans Against the War's Winter Soldier. We had all early on hoped to attend (and, in fact, Trina was invited by an organizer to attend) but then came the decision to limit public access and it became just the press and members of IVAW largely. As all community sites picked who to note and who not to note, we did seek input from the three of them (especially after it turned out everyone was planning to write about the first panel, Rules of Engagement). Ava and C.I. were very adament that Jeremy Scahill should NOT be noted. Nobody questioned that. They were there. If they say "don't," we listen. Most of us assumed it was because he was a civilian and one whose work has already received ample attention. There were many other stories to get out and, honestly, those of us listening weren't all that impressed with what seemed a weak rehash of the interviews he already gave to Amy Goodman, Bill Moyers, et al. The only point he made -- to large applause -- was that neither Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama were going to end the illegal war, that people end the illegal war and that both candidates need to be pressed. Again, we did just that for month after month here until it finally became obvious that the press -- Real Media or Panhandle -- was never going to vet or press Bambi while any lie, smear or distortion was a-okay about Hillary and became aware that many in Panhandle Media enlisted in the Bambi campaign without informing their audiences of that.



But that applause line by Scahill might have gotten noted by at least one site were it not for Ava and C.I. saying "don't." It was only later that we learned why.



See Scahill makes pretty words. He says them at Winter Soldier to mass applause and cheers. He repeats them in his joint-piece with Naomi Klein. But Scahill did something else at Winter Soldier, off the stage, he gave an interview to The Real News network that Ava and C.I. watched happen in open-mouth surprise.



Scahill argues in the joint-piece and onstage at Winter Soldier that the peace movement needs to pressure both candidates on Iraq. So if you're pressuring them both and one makes any overture, you would logically support that overture and press for even more. For the argument Klein and Scahill present in their article to work, when one of the candidate responds to pressure, the peace movement's response is praise for that overture and pressure on other Iraq issues.



If you're not offering that praise, then the message the two candidates take away is not the one you want to send. The message to Hillary is, "I can't win for losing. They raise an issue, I incorporate it into my plan for Iraq and I'm still slammed. And slammed for incorporating something they asked for." The message to Barack is, "Don't worry. We'll keep attacking Hillary and giving you a pass."



That message was sent loud and clear by Scahill in his Real News interview. It was so appalling that it quickly became a big topic at Winter Soldier.



You can watch, read or listen to Scahill make an ass out of himself here. You can see that while Scahill sometimes wants to maintain that both need to be pressured and that is the only way to get results, when Hillary responds to pressure, the reality is she still gets slammed and Barack (who didn't respond) gets excuses.



Jeremey Scahill made an ASS out of himself. Made a FOOL out of himself. And it's public record now and there's no taking it back.



What follows, in bold, is Scahill speaking to The Real News. Our comments are not in bold.



I mean, for most of the election campaign, private contractors, whether they be armed security contractors like Blackwater or the larger army of 180,000 contractors hasn't been an issue at all. None of the candidates have really been asked about it in the debates. Occasionally they've been asked about it by voters, but it really hasn't become a premiere issue.



So far, so good.



About two weeks ago I did a story about Barack Obama's position on contractors called "Obama's Mercenary Position" for The Nation magazine.



Yes, he did do an article. And he offered a minsicule update to the interview which was also insulting to the one candidate that bothered to respond.



And basically what I did was I interviewed senior foreign policy advisors to Barack Obama and said to them, "What are you guys going to do about the contractors?"



Notice who Scahill ran to: Bambi. He mainly spoke to Samantha Power, whom he cornered when other advisors blew him off. Power was with the campaign when he interviewed her.



And what I found out is that Barack Obama's people are saying that they will not rule out the use of private security contractors like Blackwater in Iraq, and that Barack Obama will not sign on to legislation seeking to ban them or to force them out of Iraq.



He found that out? When's Scahill going to find out that any withdrawal Obama makes, he's comfortable rescinding to send the same troops back into Iraq? A transcript of interview with The New York Times in 2007 bore that out. But Scahill, like Tom Hayden, apparently missed that. Reading is hard. But fundamental. And C.I. was commenting on the transcript, on what Bambi actually said, the day the carefully culled article ran on the front page of the paper.



And the reason is actually kind of complicated.



Woah. Sounds like we're about to get a defense of one candidate which IS NOT holding both accountable.



Barack Obama has been, actually, a leader on the issue of contractor reform in the Senate: he introduced legislation to try to regulate and oversee them months before the Nisour Square massacre happened in Baghdad in September of 2007. But his people realized that because they have an Iraq plan that requires keeping 40,000 to 80,000 US troops in Iraq and a massive diplomatic force, they're going to need these forces. So they don't want to be nailed on this later. So they were quite honest about their intent to use it.



Yeah, the candidate himself was "honest about" his intent to use mercenaries when he spoke with The New York Times. Read Jeremy Scahill (above) offer defenses and excuses for the use of contractors. And wonder how the hell he thinks he's holding Barack Obama accountable? He's not. But he did have time for some harsh words. You know he did. And he saved them for Hillary Clinton -- the one candidate who did respond to his article.





Hillary Clinton has been eight years on the Armed Services Committee. She's never done anything to try to crack down on contractors, never made any statements, except condemning Blackwater after Nisour Square, which everyone and their grandmother did.



No, Jeremy Scahill, "everyone and their grandmother did" not condemn Blackwater. The New York Times offered excuse in real time (and undercounted the dead) Washington Week went so far as to justify it. Republicans and some Democrats in Congress offered excuses. When Congress had Erik Prince, the head of Blackwater, before them to testify about Nisour Square, they agreed ahead of time not to ask about that incident. So get your facts right. But he needs to push the LIE that "everyone and their grandmother" condemned Blackwater at that time to undercut that Hillary called them out. It's not fair, it's not holding both to the fire. But he wasn't done pimping for Bambi.



The day after my story comes out, which hit Obama pretty hard, Hillary Clinton released a statement saying that she's going to cosponsor legislation that Bernie Sanders had introduced last November that would seek to ban Blackwater and force them all out of Iraq within six months. So she now becomes the most significant political figure in the US to call for a ban on Blackwater, and she did it after Barack Obama's people came out and said, "Yeah, we're probably going to be forced to use them."



His story did not hit Bambi "pretty hard" and it's only an indication of how PATHETIC Panhandle Media is that Scahill thinks his scribble (which none of us linked to because it was so damn pathetic) was "hard" on Bambi. (Maybe Scahill was packing a hard on for Bambi and that confused him?)



"She did it after Barack Obama's people came out"? What? You wrote an article and you only went to Bambi's people (and really only two advisors spoke to you at any length, if you want to get honest, which we know you don't). Since you never went to the Clinton campaign, it's kind of hard for you to ascribe the motive to Clinton of only doing it because Barack wouldn't. Since you never spoke to them, you don't know what their answer would have been. What did happen was that you wrote an article and one candidate responded. There was nothing to prevent Bambi from agreeing after your article was published (online). Only one candidate stood up.



Naomi Klein and Jeremy Scahill argue that pressure needs to be applied to both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on Iraq. Why? We believe Naomi Klein but Scahill's actions beg any one with a brain to question his motives.



So why should we pressure the candiates on Iraq, Jeremy Scahill? According to you, they both need to be pressured and we need to make them move closer to our positions on ending the illegal war. But how do we accomplish that when Hillary Clinton moves on one issue and the response from YOU is to discredit her and to offer excuses for Bambi not making a move?



That's not holding both feet to the fire. It's the same CRAP Panhandle Media has offered all along. It's excuses for Bambi and hisses for Hillary. Even when she does what Scahill claims to want, she's still attacked and smeared and libeled by Scahill -- who is not an accredited psychic and has no way of knowing why she decided to come out against Blackwater.



No offense to Naomi Klein, who we'll assume was sincere in the column everyone ignored, but it's BULLS**T. As a solo column from Klein, it would have had meaning. But the co-author's own actions have demonstrated that, for him, it's nothing but another LIE.



For Klein's column to work, we have to pressure both candidates. For Klein's column to work, when one responds to pressure, we hail that victory (that's what it is) and move on to another aspect of the illegal war. For Klein's column to work, we do not attack the only candidate who responded, we do not question her motives.



Most importantly, we don't care why the illegal war ends at this point. We just want it to end. If Hillary was as calculating as the stereotypical comments Scahill asserts on her were true, who gives a damn? Do you want purity or do you want the war over? The peace movement is in shambles and it's largely because they're becoming SO DAMN PATHETIC.



The bulk of politicians are not going to call the war illegal while it's going on. That's for the people to do. And that's for them to continue to do when the illegal war ends. That point doesn't need to be dropped by the left as it was post-Vietnam. We need to end the illegal war NOW. Where John Murtha was when it started is no concern for us. Where he is now, is. We may not agree with everything he says or does, but he wants to end the illegal war and we support that. (Unlike The Nation magazine which ripped him apart when he -- and not Steny Hoyer -- could have been the second in charge of the House. Why is Nancy Pelosi unable to do anything on Iraq? Pelosi bears some fault, no question. But she is daily undercut by Hoyer and you can thank The Nation magazine and there little smears on Murtha for that. Strangely, War Hawk Hoyer has not been the focus of The Nation.)



You want purity, have at it. Seal yourself in an envelope and mail yourself to nowhere. But in the real world, the illegal war is not going to end because every member of Congress starts calling it "illegal." They are going to shape their messages. The bulk of the American people do not grasp that the Iraq War was illegal. (You can thank Panhandle Media for that because they soft-pedal that point.) The bulk of the people against the Iraq War today do not grasp that is illegal. Politicians are NEVER going to make points that are that far ahead of the public's recognition. The people have turned against the war, no question. But the words they use are "wrong." So when an idiot (and that's the only word for her) attempts to rip apart Hillary's call for the troops to come home, she's playing purity police and ignoring reality. But that's another feature. Scahill, if you want people to take your suggestion seriously, you need to take it seriously and thus far you've provided no indication that you do.

Idiots

You want purity, have at it. Seal yourself in an envelope and mail yourself to nowhere. But in the real world, the illegal war is not going to end because every member of Congress starts calling it "illegal." They are going to shape their messages. The bulk of the American people do not grasp that the Iraq War was illegal. (You can thank Panhandle Media for that because they soft-pedal that point.) The bulk of the people against the Iraq War today do not grasp that is illegal. Politicians are NEVER going to make points that are that far ahead of the public's recognition. The people have turned against the war, no question. But the words they use are "wrong." So when an idiot (and that's the only word for her) attempts to rip apart Hillary's call for the troops to come home, she's playing purity police and ignoring reality. But that's another feature. Scahill, if you want people to take your suggestion seriously, you need to take it seriously and thus far you've provided no indication that you do.



The idiot's Cindy Sheehan. That would be the alleged Peace Mom who has never called out Barack Obama but showed up last week for another Bash Hillary article. How dare, Cindy hissed, Hillary say that US troops had done everything asked of them! Well, idiot, the reality is that US troops did do everything asked of them. The reality is that the American public is agreed on that point. 'Peace' Mom wants to tear apart what was a call to end the war.



She showed up with "Political Expediency" (we'd recommend Dissident Voice to read the column; however, we won't link to the column because we don't link to trash). Cindy's attacking/whining about Rob Reiner and Steve Bing in the column and, disclosure, C.I. knows both and Ava knows Bing. Cindy wants the 'politically correct' thing done, not the expedient one.



How's that working out for you, Cindy?



Last time we checked, your campaign had turned into a joke. Last time we checked, you were only discussed in terms of what many saw as your hurt feelings that Iraq Veterans Against the War didn't want you to stage a demonstration the weekend before the fifth anniversary of the Iraq War when Winter Soldier had long ago been announced.



Last time we checked, you were haunting Common Dreams leaving mash notes to Bambi and hisses for Hillary on all those "Saint Barack" pieces Common Dreams reposts (while begging for money, they actually originate no original content). Last time we checked, despite publicly endorsing Cynthia McKinney, you'd written nothing about her in the last months but had rushed to prop up Bambi. Want to talk about "political expediency"? Look in the mirror.



As e-mail after e-mail to all sites noted last week when Cindy Sheehan's latest ditherings went up all over the place online, Barack Obama voted to fund the illegal war repeatedly and did so after Casey Sheehan died and Cindy's column appears either eager to ignore that fact or operating under the principal that only one death mattered. That may seem harsh but it's a common perception in the e-mails we have all received.



So if she just wanted to rage, she should be raging against both. If she wanted to be helpful, the thing to do is not pick apart Hillary's statements but buy a clue and grasp that they are representative of the bulk of Americans wanting to end the illegal war.



Here is the statement by Hillary that so enraged Cindy Sheehan (C.I. noted Clinton's statement in last Monday's "Iraq snapshot" which was reposted at all comunity sites posting that day) that she excerpts it at the top of her attack:



I want to take a moment to note yesterday's heartbreaking news that, five years after the start of this war, there have been 4,000 U.S. military deaths in Iraq. Tens of thousands of our brave men and women have also suffered serious wounds, both visible and invisible, to their bodies, their minds and their hearts. As president, I intend to honor their extraordinary service and the sacrifices of them and their families by ending this war and bringing them home as quickly and responsibly as possible.



We all believe that every death and every wound was in vain. We're not running for political office and (obviously by this article alone) not trying to win friends. Our job is to be independent. Our job is to hit hard. Our job is to pressure. Our job is to tell our truths. We're not really sure how Cindy defines her job these days but Hillary's statement isn't "objectionable."



We think Sheehan's useless at this point and has made herself so.



She could have been Peace Mom by holding both candidates accountable. But she doesn't do that. She never decries Barack Obama's non-action. In her column, she attacks Hillary for Bill Clinton's use of sanctions and we're no fans of sanctions but are aware that Bambi's 'anti-war' speech in 2002 called for 'containment' which is the continuation of sanctions. Maybe big words confuse Cindy? We're equally aware that Bambi accepted the myth of WMDs and, in that 2002 speech, presents them as factual and existing.



We supported Cindy's right to run for Congress from the eighth district and, unlike Hillary Haters, haven't taken to calling her out for the fact that it's not been her home district. Nor have we made like the Hillary Haters and told Cindy to drop out of the race. But if she wants to run a real campaign, she's going to have to start buying a few clues. We withdrew our endosement of Cindy sometime ago. We did so exactly for the kind of nonsense she offered last week.



Barack Obama was not 'right' about the illegal war. He was wrong about WMDs and we don't support sanctions. But, like Cindy, Barack plays the I-was-right card over and over (see Ava and C.I.'s commentary last week for how that card actually plays out in Congress). We don't care who's right or wrong at this point, we care about ending the illegal war.



The peace movement in the US has largely been a joke, a non-stop joke. Students and veterans have formed new organizations because they existing ones were nothing but vanity clubs and that's the ugly reality no one in the peace movement wants to admit. Ending the illegal war requires bringing in as many Americans as possible and those who once supported the illegal war and now see it as a disaster for whatever reason, aren't hopping on board with a crowd that can't shut up about "I was right all along!" They turn off more people than they ever realize as they assume that bragging is more important than ending the illegal war.



This community has repeatedly defended Cindy Sheehan over the years. When Pig took to an alternative weekly to make fun of her, we called it out. When others trashed her, we called it out. When she angered The Daily Toilet Scrubbers, we called it out. When she decided to run, we not only endorsed her, we made a point to call out the ones offering "Cindy, Don't Run!" columns.



We do not believe, even now, that Cindy is an attention seeker of any kind. We believe she honestly wants to end the illegal war. But we do not support her non-stop slamming of Hillary Clinton at every chance she gets while she (a) ignores Bambi's own War Hawk nature (Cindy met with Hugo Chavez and praised him, why isn't she calling Bambi out on his comments about Hugo Chavez and his desire to send US forces into Venezuela?) and (b) refuses to use any of her column time to promote the candidate she supposedly supports (Cynthia McKinney).



Cindy's had several awakenings along the way and they've all been painful. Last May, her awakening was realizing that many 'peace organizations' only existed to elect Democrats. She left the Democratic Party and was villified for it. She also announced she was leaving the peace movement but then backtracked on that.



The realities are that Camp Casey is not now, as she stated publicly it would be, a haven for those who resist. The reality is that Gold Star Families For Peace, her organization, hasn't posted anything new to their website in over a year. The reality is that Cindy's doing nothing to end the war.



Her columns do promote Hillary Hatred and if she's now supporting Barack Obama, she needs to get honest about it. However, should she do so, she better be prepared for questions because the Democrats largely kicked her to the curb and the left not affiliated with the Democratic Party is fully aware that Bambi has stated that Venezuela and, specifically, Hugo Chavez are two things a Barack Obama presidency will 'address.'



As we've long noted, Barack also promotes war in Africa and, as others seem to forget, the whole point of abandoning Europe and setting up bases in Africa was that the US wants to stage new wars in that region. Bully Boy, attempting to secure land for bases, was rebuffed by African leaders. Do you really think "Son of Kenya" is going to be rebuffed? Do you really think some of the hype about Barack on the part of the same media that sold you the illegal war isn't over the fact that US imperialism can expand?



Hillary trying to get US bases is just another White impearilist to rebuff. (She's made no statements indicating she wants the US to take part in wars in Africa. By contrast, Samantha Power got on board Bambi's Senate work to sell him war on Darfur and he still echoes Power's opinion.) "Son of Kenya" could get those bases. And it's amazing that so many allegedly 'anti-war' types are silent on that fact.



The Iraq War has taken place. It is ongoing. It's laughable to see 'peace' 'leaders' refuse to call out what's set to come in Africa. It's laughable to watch them avoid using the term "AFRICOM."

AFRICOM was supposed to be up and running by now. It is up and running . . . in Germany but the failure to secure land deals for bases has stymied it somewhat.



May 23, 2002, Mike Crawley's article in The Christian Science Monitor opened with the following:



In the search for alternative sources of oil outside the politically volatile Middle East, the US is increasingly turning toward a place not normally seen as a major energy producer: sub-Saharan Africa.
The region's crude oil production surpassed 4 million barrels a day in 2000 – more than Iran, Venezuela, or Mexico. The US currently gets 16 percent of its oil imports from sub-Saharan Africa -- almost as much as from Saudi Arabia. And, according to projections by the National Intelligence Council, that proportion will reach 25 percent by 2015, surpassing the entire Persian Gulf. The vast majority of it will come from a stretch of coastline between Nigeria and Angola called the Gulf of Guinea.


Today, the African Oil Policy Initiative Group, a lobby group with members from the oil industry and various arms of government, will present a white paper in Washington. The document urges Congress and the Bush administration to encourage greater extraction of oil across Africa, and to declare the Gulf of Guinea "an area of vital interest" to the US.
There is some indication that the Bush administration already feels that way. Walter Kansteiner, the assistant secretary of State for Africa said earlier this year: "African oil is of national strategic interest to us, and it will increase and become more important as we go forward."




"African Oil Policy Initiative Group, a lobby group with members from the oil industry and various arms of government" wants Africa declared "'an area of vital interest' to the US" and you're not bothered? "African oil is of national strategic interest to us," declares Assistant Secretery of US State for Africa Walter Kansteiner, and you can't connect the dots?



While US imperialism plays chess, the 'peace' movement plays checkers. You saw the usual idiots like BuzzFlash mourn Samantha Power's downfall. (Davy D did as well on KPFA in an idiotic report that Aileen Alfandary thought was special it was worthy of re-broadcast in the next day's headlines segments -- despite the fact that even the basics, such as Samantha Power's name, were bungled by Davy D. You're really bagging your credibility when you're mourning, on air, the kicked to the curb nature of Power and you can't even get her name correct. "Power," "Samantha Power," not "Powers.")



Samantha Power isn't just a War Hawk, she's one published by The Nation. The Nation's yet to seriously address the planned coming wars in Africa and maybe they're not overly concerned about 'those people.' Samantha Power isn't just a War Hawk, she was one of the key leaders in Our Modern Day Carrie Nations calling for 'action' on Darfur. Their slogan was, for those missed it, "Bring the troops home and send them to Darfur!" And no one in the peace movement can support that unless they've bought into the non-stop lies about Darfur where fighting did occur (and continues at much lower levels) but was not genocide (and, in fact, the 'numbers' cited included deaths that had nothing to do with the 'battle').



Those late to the party can refer to Julie Hollar's "The Humanitarian Tempatation" (Extra!). [You can also see Elaine's "My pacificism isn't a cloak I wear some days and others put on war drag" from 2006.] Illegal wars, unneccessary wars, are sold to a country's people via lies and Our Modern Day Carrie Nations spent $15 million in 2006 alone trying to sell war on Darfur. We pointed it out, we highlighted Stephanie Strom and Lydia Polgreen's "Advocacy Group's Publicity Campaign on Darfur Angers Relief Organizations" (New York Times), where was the peace movement? Then or now?



Largely silent as they remain today. We can get article after article about "the coming war on Iran!" (and have gotten those articles for four years now) but there is a huge silence on Africa. There is a huge silence on the US imperalistic designs for Africa and there is a huge silence on the realities of the "Save Darfur" crazies. Last week saw the American Idiot who moved to Canada because Bully Boy made it into the White House (too useless to fight for her country and Constitution, but happy to pack up her bags and head for the border) demand a viewing boycott of the Olympics over China. Over their attacks on Tibet? No, over Darfur.

She's one more Useless Idiot making up Panhandle Media and one that Americans in this country, battling the abuses of the Bully Boy, really don't need to hear from. You took your cowardly ass to Canada, no Americans needs to your letters-in-exile advice. [War resisters are not cowards. They make decisions not to participate in the illegal war. We applaud them. There is a world of difference between someone ordered to fight an illegal war seeking refugee status in Canada and someone who is miffed that the Bully Boy made it into the White House deciding to 'protest' by moving to Canada.] From the safety of Canada, the Useless Idiot now wants to advise Americans. Why the hell any American should listen to an Exile in Cowardville is beyond us but what we do know is that, as usual, the idiot misses the point.



There's a reason that while Cindy Sheehan and other protesters in 2005 couldn't meet with the Bully Boy that he gladly invited Our Modern Day Carrie Nations into the White House to meet with them. The reason is that their actions, knowingly or unknowingly, serve the goals fo US imperialism.



That's something Cindy Sheehan once decried and often cited Smedley Butler's War Is A Racket but these days refuses to call out the candidate with the best chance of securing military bases in Africa and continuing the goals of US imperialism.



It gives us no pleasure to call out Cindy Sheehan but her actions make it necessary. In fairness to her, outside of Bonnie Faulkner and Keith Harmon Snow, it's not as if most have bothered to even warn you about what's coming, let alone call out Our Modern Day Carrie Nations.



For the record, Davy D, Samantha Power blurbed the US military's counter-insurgency manual. Instead of whining about poor Samantha Power, we should all be grateful that, for now, a War Hawk was brought down. For the record, Davy D, "monster" was the least of Power's remarks. For the record, she told the BBC that Obama would not stick to any pledge about withdrawing US combat troops in 16 months of landing in the White House. For the record, Davy D, she publicly insulted England's prime minister Gordon Brown. All of those things led to her stepping down. But waste everyone's time with another bad report about 'evil' Hillary, one in which you don't even get right the name of the War Hawk you're trying to defend: Samantha Power.



Hillary Clinton's statement in full about the 2004 mark was:



Five years after the start of the war in Iraq, there have now been 4,000 U.S. military deaths in Iraq. On this solemn day, we remember the sacrifice of our brave men and women in uniform. We honor the tens of thousands more who have suffered wounds both visible and invisible, wounds that scare bodies and minds, and hearts as well. We honor the sacrifices of their families, a price paid in empty places at the dinner table, in the struggle to raise children alone, in the wrenching reversal of parents burying children.

In the last five years, our soldiers have done everything we asked of them and more. They were asked to remove Saddam Hussein from power and bring him to justice and they did. They were asked to give the Iraqi people the opportunity for free and fair elections and they did. They were asked to give the Iraqi government the space and time for political reconciliation, and they did.

So for every American soldier who has made the ultimate sacrifice for this mission, we should imagine carved in stone: 'They gave their life for the greatest gift one can give to a fellow human being, the gift of freedom.'

I recall the great honor of meeting many of our brave men and women who have served our country. In meeting them, I am always struck by how, no matter how great their suffering, no matter how grave their own injuries, they always say the same thing to me: 'Promise that you'll take care of my buddies. They're still over there. Promise you'll keep them safe.' I have looked those men and women in the eye. I have made that promise. And I intend to honor it by bringing a responsible end to this war, and bringing our troops home safely.



We don't agree that the US was in Iraq for freedom. We are aware that many Americans buy that in one way or another. Some buy that was the aim (it was never the aim) and that the aim went wrong and argue that, therefore, the Iraq War should end.



Hillary was quoted in the snapshot and here's how that came about, pay attention, Cindy, C.I. called around Monday afternoon to find out who was making a statement or had made a statement about the 4,000 mark that was reached on Sunday. The first person called was a friend in Russ Feingold's office who said, "He's not made a statement." Russ Feingold is firmly against the illegal war. But Senator Feingold made no statement on Monday. The 4,000 mark was a milestone and needed to be noted. Many, in press and in politics, chose to sit it out. If Cindy felt Hillary was offering crumbs, she might need to take a look at others who didn't even offer that. That's not a slam at Feingold but, note, he was far from the only politician (for the war or against it) who elected to be silent when the 4,000 mark was reached. (For the record, Ava called a friend at the Hillary campaign to find out if she had issued a statement and then passed the phone to C.I.) The bulk of our members of Congress had said nothing about the milestone.

Crackpot Stephen Zunes expressing Hillary Hatred

Iraq. Forget the Shias and the Sunnis, what's America going to do about the loonies?



See Iraqi Shias and Sunnis, Christians, Palestinians, Assyrians, Yezidis, et al should determine what their country will do, not the US. But what America can do is determine what to do about American loonies.



Take university professor Stephen Zunes, the loon whom Mike awarded Dumb Ass of the Week to and who, as C.I. outlines, more than earned it. Zunes has become a crackpot and you can see how pathetic Panhandle Media truly is as they waive him on through without correction.



Zunes wrote "Hillary Clinton's Iraq Speech at GWU: An Annotated Critique" (Foreign Policy in Focus, March 25, 2008) which itself requires an annotated critique because it's full of half-truths and outright lies. The piece had an 'editor,' Emily Schwartz Greco, who apparently wasn't overly concerned with either truth or the chore of editing. Foreign Policy in Focus bills itself as a "think tank without walls" but, as C.I. pointed out, it reveals itself as a "think tank without thought." Common Dreams, which never misses a chance to attack Hillary Clinton, was so taken with the piece that they didn't think facts mattered either.



In one of his BIGGEST LIES in the scribble, Loony Zuny hops on his soap box to begin a sentence with, "During her one trip to Iraq, in February 2005, . . ."



Her one trip to Iraq?



We haven't laughed so hard since another 'professor,' Patricia J. Williams of The Nation, declared on KPFA to Andrea Lewis that Barack Obama voted against the 2002 Iraq resolution. When a caller rightly pointed out to Columbia's 'professor' Patti that Bambi wasn't in the US Senate in 2002, Patti lost it on air and began snarling.



See that's how our 'great' 'minds' on the left work. They LIE and then they LIE some more. And when they get called on it, they ATTACK. And then they go on to repeat the LIE in other outlets.



Loony Zunes is semi-regular on KPFA so you can be pretty sure he's showed up as an 'expert' on various programs to promote his latest lie that Hillary only visited Iraq once and, chances are, unless it was a call-in segment, no one corrected his LIE. Going to believe Liar Zunes or your own eyes?



hrc_82airborne3



Thanksgiving 2003, Hillary Clinton visited Iraq in a heavily covered trip. She distributed toothpaste and toothbrushes to the troops in one of the more heavily reported segments. At the time, the right-wing went into overtime with lies about how the troops hate Hillary and how they refused to meet with her, how they refused to eat with her, how . . . All lies and, here's the thing, Panhandle Media back then could call those lies out. Today, they just want the unqualified Barack Obama installed into the White House, so they ignore not only factual events, but ones they once stressed and corrected.



It's these kind of LIES that has led many to begin arguing it's time to pull Panhandle Media's funding. You're seeing them self-destruct before your own eyes. Pop some popcorn and enjoy the fireworks and implosions because, as they've demonstrated through their actions, truth has never been a priority for them. They've discredited their own reputations (such as they were) to pimp a candidate. Since the candidate was unqualified, they had to LIE and they've demonstrated over and over, that's the only thing they have to offer these days.

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, Marcia of SICKOFITRADLZ and Wally of The Daily Jot. Unless otherwise noted, we picked all highlights.

"How 'we' lose" -- Betty's latest chapter which is both (a) a classic and (b) a source of tension for some readers. On the latter, Wally and Cedric did not include this Saturday chapter under "Recommended" in their Saturday post and some are offended. It was an oversight and an accident and if you read their Saturday post, you will see "" and that's where Betty's chapter was supposed to go. They will recommend it on Monday. They were waiting Saturday to highlight it and had Mike on the phone asking, "Are you up yet?" (Meaning was their joint-post up yet.) That's due to the fact that Mike posts C.I.'s entries at The Common Ills on Saturday. C.I. does the entries early in the morning, saves to draft, Ava, Kat and C.I. fly home and, after Mike gets back from dropping them off at the airport, he waits for Wally and Cedric who are the last to post on Saturday. With Mike calling them over and over (C.I.'s last post on Saturday includes "The following community sites have updated since Friday morning" which is C.I.'s way of making sure every community site gets at least one link), they get rushed. They thought they were done and e-mailed the posts to their sites only to find out later that day that they forgot Betty. It was an oversight. Yes, this is the second time that happened and when it happened last time, they picked it up on Monday. They will this week as well. Betty says, "I never knew so many people read my site!" :D They do. And they love Betty and her character Betinna. But, honest folks, it was an oversight on Wally and Cedric's part, not intentional.

"Dried Tomatoes with Pasta in the Kitchen" -- Trina's latest and she explains how, around the country, Jeremiah Wright's damning of the United States is not being as easily dismissed as the groupies (in and out of the media) hoped.

"I Hate The War" -- Jim asked us to highlight this prominently. It was the most requested highlight request to Third. But Jim wanted it highlighted so Kat should share her story. C.I. wrote it and for those who don't know, in addition to what goes up at The Common Ills and writing here, C.I. also writes a column for all the community newsletters except the UK Computer Gurus' newsletter. So Thursday, three entries at The Common Ills during the day and one topic declared on hold by Jim (covered in Wednesday's snapshot and the editorial here this week). Then Thursday evening, participating in the roundtable for the gina & krista round-robin, Ava and C.I. speaking to another group right after (Kat skipped it because she was tired). Coming back to the hotel, writing the column for the gina & krista round-robin and the column for Polly's Brew. And then doing this Thursday night entry for The Common Ills. Kat picks up here. "I always say, if there's a problem, wake me. If we're not in a suite, call me, I'll come over right away. So C.I. calls and asks me to come over and read this. I do and don't see any problem with it. I loved it. I thought it was great. But C.I. really felt like it wasn't up to standard and one of the reasons was that Jim had already placed a hold on one topic and another topic got placed on hold Thursday evening. So two of the biggest topics were off limits and C.I. had covered just about everything else except for a magazine article that will be worked into the snapshots next week. Jim wanted me to tell that story because he agrees placing a hold on things so that Third can grab them can leave people without anything to write."


"Not that into Ms. these days" -- Jim placed a hold on this topic as well. It was Kat's topic and she brought it up in the roundtable for the gina & krista round-robin. Kat had to blog early Saturday morning and "I didn't have anything else to write about it. Jim asked for a hold. Is Jim going to blog for me? No. Okay, then I have to write about what ever comes to mind. And, as Jim will tell you, we've got one more piece to do here and then we're done. And this placed on hold topic won't even come up unless I mention it in our quick piece we're about to do. So if I had held this, it wouldn't have been covered." None of that is said to slam or pick on Jim and, again, Jim wanted it noted and noted prominently.

"Quiz " -- Ruth's blogging about a topic that two members participating in the roundtable brought up. After the roundtable, Ruth called Mike who could grab the topic and blog about it with no fallout. Ruth said she'd grab it. (Fallout from C.I. Mike's like "a puppy" and C.I. holds nothing against him; however, C.I. wouldn't hold anything against any of us. As Ruth noted, there was nothing said about the post but Elaine says her guess is that "you" in critics referred not just to C.I. but to this site.) Bambi stole. Last week Jim included it in an article he wrote for this site ("Theft, C.I.'s not Bambi's speechwriter"). C.I. didn't want the article written and when Jim read his piece to all of us, C.I. asked that the section on a friend with the Bambi campaign confirming/acknowledging be pulled. Jim pulled it because we were all tired and it was going to be a long back and forth. The theft was such an issue that C.I. tried to calm the community on Wednesday by noting it in the snapshot in passing. It flared up in the roundtable for the roundrobin. Ruth grabbed it here. She included what Jim had been told (with Jim's permission.) It figures that the best section of Bambi's lousy speech was ripped off from someone else.

"Jeremiah Wright's words are offensive!" -- Marcia's wonderful post which led Jim requesting (after it was up) that we hold off on this as well. We would do a roundtable. It didn't happen. (We have a quickie roundtable of some sort to do and then the edition is over. It may get noted there.) Betty was going to guest blog for Rebecca and address this topic on Friday but Jim had placed a hold on it. For those wondering about Jim's hold, Rebecca points out that one week -- only one -- we had nothing. Ava and C.I. went off to write their TV commentary. Came back and we ended up inspired by their topic and doing features that basically raided Ava and C.I.'s commentary. Due to that happening, Jim has been in panic mode and afraid that we might hit a wall one week and have nothing. That edition lasted until four p.m. Sunday our time (for those who continued participating -- Mike and Wally plus the core six of Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and C.I.) and had started at ten p.m. on Saturday (EST on all times). It was a nightmare. After that, Jim began saying "let's put a hold on" this or that to make sure some topics would be in the ready should we end up hitting a wall again. Kat says, "As Maria McKee sings, 'Only once, only once'." So we do understand Jim's holds (although Elaine points out that for C.I. they pile up more than the rest of us and it's not uncommon for Jim to have placed a hold on six different topics that C.I.'s started covering at The Common Ills). But the other side of the holds is that those of us with other websites end up wondering what to write about. On Wednesday, Mike really wanted to write about Jeremiah Wright and follow up on C.I.'s "Damn or defend" issue but that was claimed already by Jim for this week's editorial (already written and it's the title). So it does have an impact and Dona's imposed a new rule this writing edition which is Jim can hold only five topics per week "and anyone can do like Kat and just ignore him. It's not the end of the world."

"Barack Obama loses a delegate" & "Super! Barack Obama loses a delegate!" -- which is exactly what Elaine and Mike did here. This was going to be a big feature. It's still not written and won't be. C.I. caught it and included it in the snapshot. Mike and Elaine avoided writing about it but they pulled it from the snapshot and led their Friday posts with it and then followed up with a single paragraph of their own. If you missed it, a delegate in Texas for Obama called in to The Diane Rehm Show Friday morning and announced that, due to Jeremiah Wright, he was not going to be a delegate for Obama.

"no, it's not over" -- Ava and C.I. have been very upfront about the fact that they are lobbying super delegates (that they know) for Hillary. Last week, Elaine joined them in that action. There are many big donors doing that. Rebecca wrote about it here and noted one of the actions the "brain trust" was doing (Rebecca's term for big DNC donors supporting Hillary and thinking outside the box). It's the action that had MoveOn in an uproar. Grow up, WalkOn, you useless piece of crap.

"This is how Pretty Boys 'work'" & "THIS JUST IN! BAMBI WORKING FOR HIMSELF!" --
Bambi went to vacation in the Virign Islands and Bully Boy Press and Cedric's Big Mix were there! In this installment, Bambi's getting 'drunk' on Shirley Temples. By the way, there was a joint-post they did with C.I. this week that never went up because Cedric made the mistake of mentioning it to Jim who said, "No, no, no! Ava and C.I. are tackling that in their upcoming book review!" :D Dictating Thursday's snapshot, C.I. mentioned the book review as an aside. It wasn't supposed to make it into the snapshot but the friend taking the dictation misunderstood and it did. Since then, it's a huge topic in e-mails to this site. They may or may not break street date on the review. They aren't writing it yet. They've read the 'book.' Sometime ago, in fact. They're tossing lines back and forth. This week, they ended up with two paragraphs which they've condensed to the two opening lines. It will be something to read.

"A really bad restaurant" -- Kat is on the road with Ava and C.I. speaking out against the war almost every week and it can be very hard to do that all day and then try to find a topic to write about. Kat also says she's the laziest of all of us (we disagree). This post had nothing to do with the illegal war or with politics. We all enjoyed it (especially Trina who asked that we note her enjoyment). Kat wrote about a food establishment she'd visited that night and how disappointing it was.

"Hillary and Ireland" -- Kat flies her Irish-American flag and says back off with your crap about Hillary not doing anything on Ireland. Kat visits her relatives there very often and spent at least five weeks in a row there in 2006 when a sick relative was dying. Don't tell Kat about Ireland, she knows all about it.

"The race continues" -- Elaine is a longtime and big donor to the DNC. She wasn't lobbying on behalf of Hillary. Then CounterPunch published their latest attack and smear job on Hillary. Elaine had enough. She explains in this post. You'll notice that CounterPunch has been delinked by all community sites. Bye-bye, losers. Note, Kat just went to check on the others. She's there, the rest of us are participating by phone. Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess and Ava are editing features and proofing them. Ava and C.I. apologize to Rebecca because they included her in the TV commentary and then used spell check. Spell check destroyed the last half of their TV commentary. "Obama" became "Obama.ns.amp" and there were other problems. They can't link to Rebecca but will do so next week. (They just wanted to fix the entry.) But an Isaiah update. Isaiah did a comic for this Sunday morning. C.I.'s been uploading it over and over at Flickr with no luck for one hour and twenty-three minutes and is now trying again. It's called "Struggling for Maturity." It will go up if there's any way at all and C.I. was using this period of time to focus on that and proofing the commentary with Ava. Kat notes, no spell check on any feature due to the problem Ava and C.I. had. No one has time to go through and fix a third of the article if spell check messes up so just live with typos.

"4,000 dead and the war drags on . . .," "u.s. death toll in iraq reaches 4,000," "4,000 US service members dead from an illegal war," "The 4,000 mark," "Recipe for disaster," "4,000 is the US death toll in Iraq," "Wake up, 4,000 are dead," "4,000 dead," "4,000 US service members dead in a never-ending, illegal war," "The 4,000 mark," "THIS JUST IN! 'COOKIES' SAYS RUMSFLED!" and "Still a cakewalk?" -- every community site (including this one) got back online Sunday night to note that the 4,000 mark had been reached. It was important, it was news. Even if others didn't treat it as such.

"Delegates and letting the race continue" -- we all take the issue of the delegates from Florida and Michigan being seated at the DNC convention very seriously (and seated for Hillary in Michigan because Barack Obama wasn't on the ballot by his own choice and seated with more for Hillary in Florida because she won that primary) but Wally especially takes it seriously. He was born in Florida, he was raised in Florida, he lives in Florida and he voted in that primary. Only one show has shown concern about the two states primaries before they took place, when they took place and after they took place. Ruth's writing about Diane Rehm here and Wally notes that there's not an NPR listener in his region of Florida that's not aware Diane Rehm has repeatedly covered this issue while the bulk of the media has repeatedly ignored it. And, of course, LIAR Amy Goodman tried to show up this month and act all concerned after ridiculing Florida's primary in her only 'coverage' of it previously. Amy Goodman, don't go to Florida. It's not just the gators you have to fear there now.

"Why the general smeared Bill Clinton" -- The Bambi campaign decided to smear Bill Clinton. He wasn't their target. Just like they used racism as a club to try to silence everyone, they went after Bill last weekend to try to silence everyone. Thing is, without the support of a lot of closeted Communists in Panhandle Media, Bambi wouldn't have a lot of praise. As Big Media catches onto that and starts asking questions, the Bambi campaign gets real nervous. Repeating, there's nothing wrong with being a Communist. But there is something wrong about being a Communist and trying to pass yourself off as a Democrat. C.I. explains the attack on Bill and how they went after the Big Dog only to attempt to fend off questions from the press. (Bill Clinton did not raise the issue of communism or refer to it. Bambi's spokesperson raised the issue to try to defuse it.) If Bambi doesn't want the support of closeted Communists, he could certainly tell them to shut up. It would probably silence half the web reposting Panhandle Media, but he could do so if he wanted to. Until then, don't blame others for the fact that closeted Communists continue pimping you and are your biggest supporters in Panhandle Media. Update from Kat re: Isaiah's latest comic. C.I. says it's stuck uploading at Flickr at "99% complete" -- where it's gone to every other time and then frozen. C.I.'s going to continue trying. We're posting this and all regrouping for the final piece (other than Jim's note and selecting truest which will probably be -- hold your astonishment -- Joe Scarborough).
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
 
Poll1 { display:none; }