What doesn't get covered

Friday, on CounterSpin, Peter Hart noted, "Also in the way of ink that might have been better spent, the post South Carolina debate rundown provided by The Washington Post's Dan Balz on January 22nd offered readers this insight "Democrats differ on whether Obama or Clinton emerged as the winner of the two hour session. Some said Obama came off as defensive and working too hard to explain his records and his positions, others said Clinton was so aggressive that it could cost her support. Edwards' backers think that he will benefit if voters are turned off by his rival's tone and temperament.' So some thought one person won and others disagreed while still others hoped their preferred candidate does well. Tell us more. The especially sad thing here is that the debate did actually contain substantive discussion about health care policy in particular that might have benefited from serious exploration. What readers likely didn't need was another story about whose barbs were more pointed and whose tone was more disgruntled."

Peter Hart, you said a mouthful.

Iraq was mentioned as well in the debate between John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. What happened there?

You have to ask that and you have to ask it because where was independent media?

Hillary Clinton: We don't know what we're going to inherent from President Bush, but there is a big problem looming on the horizon that we had better pay attention to, and that is President Bush is intent upon negotiating a long-term agreement with Iraq which would have permanent bases, permanent troop presence. And he claims he does not need to come to the United States Congress to get permission, he only needs to go to the Iraqi parliament. That is his stated public position. He was recently in the region, and it is clear that he intends to push forward on this to try to bind the United States government and his successor to his failed policy. I have been strongly opposed to that. We should not be planning permanent bases and long-term troop commitments. Obvioulsy, we've got to rein in President Bush. And I've proposed legislation and I know that members of the Congressional Black Caucus are looking at this, as well. We need legislation in a hurry which says, "No, Mr. Bush, you are the president of the United States of America. You cannot bind our country without coming to the United States Congress." This is a treaty that would have to be presented and approved, and it will not be.

That was said in the debate and, maybe if Bambi had said it, independent media could have pretended to give a damn?

Take heart Bambi groupies, Friday, Charlie Savage (Boston Globe) noted, "The New York senator has filed legislation that would block the expenditure of funds to implement any agreement with Iraq that was not submitted to Congress for approval. Her rival, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, became a cosponsor to the bill on Tuesday."

What's it all about, Indy?





Here's Senator Joe Biden's letter which he made public in a press conference Thursday:

December 19, 2007
The President
The White House
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:
I write regarding the Declaration of Principles signed by you and the Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on November 26, 2007, in which you committed the United States to negotiate a long-term security relationship with the Republic of Iraq.
The Declaration of Principles contains language suggesting that the agreement you intend to negotiate with Iraq may oblige U.S. Armed Forces to support Iraq in combating “Saddamists, and all other outlaw groups regardless of affiliation.” I am concerned about the implications of such a commitment, as it could mire us in an Iraqi civil war indefinitely, especially if a sectarian Iraqi government determines who qualifies as a “Saddamist” or “other outlaw group.”
Equally troubling is the suggestion by General Lute, your Assistant for Iraq and Afghanistan, that, in negotiating the agreement anticipated by the Declaration, your Administration does not expect to seek “formal inputs from Congress” or even engage in formal consultations with Congress. Yet, the Declaration anticipates that the agreement would include “security commitments” to Iraq in order to “deter foreign aggression against Iraq.” As a matter of Constitutional law, and based on over 200 years of practice, I believe that such an agreement would require Congressional authorization.
In 1969, the Senate adopted the National Commitments Resolution, which expressed the sense of the Senate that “a national commitment by the United States results only from affirmative action taken by the executive and legislative branches of the United States Government by means of a treaty, statute, or concurrent resolution of both Houses of Congress specifically providing for such commitment.” The National Commitments Resolution defined a security commitment quite broadly, stating that, among other things, it includes any “promise to assist a foreign country, government, or people by the use of the Armed Forces . . . either immediately or upon the happening of certain events.”
While the Executive Branch has never accepted the definition of national commitments reflected in the National Commitments Resolution, there has been general agreement that security commitments require Congressional authorization. The disagreement has focused on what constitutes a “security commitment.” In a 1992 report submitted to Congress by President George H.W. Bush, the Executive Branch defined a security commitment as “an obligation, binding under international law, of the United States to act in the common defense in the event of an armed attack on that country.” The report provided a list of U.S. security commitments, all of which were either undertaken as advice and consent treaties, or as congressional-executive agreements, and thus were concluded with Congressional authorization.
I expect that your Administration is using the same Executive Branch definition of “security commitments” in the Declaration of Principles with Iraq as was used in the aforementioned 1992 report. Yet, General Lute’s comments suggest that the Administration will not seek Congressional authorization or even Congressional consultations in negotiating such a commitment. The Constitution and our past practice clearly require that the executive and legislative branches act together in order to provide a legitimate security commitment to another country.
At the core of this issue is, of course, the war power of Congress. A careful study of the Constitution and the intent of the framers as reflected, for example, in statements made at the Constitutional Convention, leave no doubt that, except for repelling sudden attacks on the United States, the Founding Fathers intended decisions to initiate either general or limited hostilities against foreign countries to be made by the Congress and not the Executive. The President is to direct and lead the Armed Forces and put them to any use specified by Congress.
Over the years Administrations that have taken a particularly expansive view of the presidential power to repel sudden attacks have encroached on this original understanding of the war power of Congress. This theory of executive power has frequently been justified on the basis of expediency and practical necessity in view of the nature of modern conflict. But no prior Administration has suggested that the Executive’s power in this area is unlimited or that it applies to ex ante agreements where there is ample time for Congress to participate. Moreover, in my view, the division of war powers specified in the Constitution is both compatible with modern warfare and essential to constitutional government.
A commitment that the United States will act to assist Iraq, potentially through the use of our Armed Forces in the event of an attack on Iraq, could effectively commit the nation to engage in hostilities. Such a commitment cannot be made by the Executive Branch on its own under our Constitution. Congress must participate in formulating, and ultimately authorizing, such a commitment. As stated in the report of the Committee on Foreign Relations that accompanied the National Commitments Resolution in 1969, “[t]he means of a democracy are its ends; when we set aside democratic procedures in making our foreign policy, we are undermining the purpose of that policy.”
I expect that the Committee will review this issue in hearings next year, and look forward to close consultation with your Administration. In advance of such hearings, I would welcome a clarification from you on the scope of the agreement you are considering, and the specific security assurances and commitments that it might entail. I would also appreciate a definitive statement from you affirming that Congress must authorize or approve any “security commitments” the United States negotiates with Iraq.
Sincerely,
Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
Chairman [Senate Foreign Relations Committee]


Clinton's comments came on a Monday (ooh-wah, ooh-way). On Wednesday a subcommitte on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight Subcommitte on the Middle East and Asia held a hearing -- it's a subcommittee of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. NPR, not independent media, covered it. Rep. William Delahunt disputed the spin the White House has put out, the claim that it was not a treaty -- "If this doesn't rise to the level of a treaty, I don't know what does." In fact, let's note a bit more of Delahunt's remarks:





Many of us are aware of the propensity of this administration to interpret and expand executive power to a point never contemplated by the Founding Fathers. The voluminous so-called "signing statements" issued by the White House are testimony to that attitude.
Senator Chuck Hagel, our Republican colleague in the other body, has said that during the run-up to vote to invade Iraq, the Bush administration considered Congress to be "an enemy and a constitutional nuisance."
Well, this is a different Congress.
I find it particularly disturbing that the Bush Administration has even ignored State Department regulations requiring that:

The appropriate congressional leaders and committees are advised of the intention to negotiate significant new international agreements, consulted concerning such agreements, and kept informed of developments affecting them, including especially whether any legislation is considered necessary or desirable for the implementation of the new treaty or agreement.

These regulations specifically state that when it comes to questions about whether or not an agreement is to be considered a treaty, consultations are to held with Congress in which:

Every practicable effort will be made to identify such questions at the earliest possible date so that consultations may be completed in sufficient time to avoid last minute considerations.

I have inquired of our leadership on this Committee and in this House, and I can find no evidence that any of this has happened.
This is disturbing. For considerable American blood and treasure have been invested in this war launched by the Bush-Cheney Administration, a war that has devastated Iraq, divided America, diminished how we are viewed by the rest of the world, as well as jeopardized our reputation for decency and the rule of law that is a valuable component of our national security. And if you have any doubts about the war's impact on our economy, check your stock portfolio.
As I said before, this is a different Congress. Not just the Bush Administration, but the Maliki Government must understand that reality, and that Congress has a constitutional role to play in international agreements. And that we shall ensure that our constitutional prerogatives are fully respected.
Furthermore, we are not unaware that many respected experts on Iraq have characterized the Maliki Government as dysfunctional, and beset by corruption and factionalism. Our hearing in December elicited testimony that the Maliki Government secured the extension of the UN Mandate, which serves as the legal basis for U.S. troops to occupy and engage in combat in Iraq, without receiving the consent of the Iraqi Parliament, despite its own assurances to the contrary.

A different Congress? We really haven't seen that but what about a different independent media?





On Thursday, Joe Biden held his press conference and the State Department's Tom Casey was caught off guard in his press briefing by the reporter's interest in the issue and their insistence upon pursuing the line of the questioning. It was not a topic Casey had scheduled to be addressed. (See Thursday's "Iraq snapshot" for more details on that press conference.)





It's not that big media couldn't cover it. Among last week's reports and columns were Michael Abramowitz' "Democrats Attack Iraq Security Proposal" (Washington Post), Guy Raz' "Long-Term Pact with Iraq Raises Questions" (NPR), Peter Spiegel and Julian E. Barnes' "U.S. defends proposed Iraq accord" (Los Angeles Times) Charlie Savage's amazing "Bush plan for Iraq would be a first: No OK from Congress seen; Constitutional issues raised" (Boston Globe) and Helen Thomas' "What Will Next President Do About Iraq?" -- the last of which we'll quote from:

Congress should keep Bush from making commitments concerning Iraq that could tie the hands of his successor and trap the next president in his pointless war. In responde to my question, deputy White House press secreatry Tony Fratto said Bush had not signed any documents to keep the war going, but he added that work is under way on an agreement to cement the U.S. relationship with Iraq.

Yeah, it's a big issue. But you didn't really hear about it from independent media last week. And, worse, when some tried to play catch up on Friday, they used Thom Shanker and Steven Lee Myers' "U.S. Asking Iraq for Wide Rights on War" (New York Times) as their primer. Does anyone in the world not grasp that the paper has been a megaphone for the US State Department decade after decade? The State Department wants this treaty and The Times shows up to steer everyone to a point of the treaty (that some foolishly seized on) when the larger point is that the treaty cannot be made without Congress -- which is not rushing to make it due to the fact that it will tie the next president into Bully Boy's illegal war.

Peter Hart said a mouthful and, if you followed indymedia last week, you saw that they ignored this repeatedly. Instead, they were bringing up such 'pressing' topics as Monica Lewinsky. Yeah, the left really was that pathetic last week.

Smut Merchant of the Week: Matthew Rothschild

Links matter.



They increase online rankings and steer traffic, true.



But they also say a great deal about what you believe in.



The Nation thought they could get away with keeping their supposed rival The New Republic(an) on "Sites We Like" until enough visitors to their website began complaining loudly and noting that the two opinion journals were supposed to be in opposition. (Not really though. Pig Bergen published in The Nation in January 2007 and now he's spreading his bad seed this month in The New Republic.]



Our general policy is "We don't link to trash." When Ava and C.I. did "TV: 24 -- like 60 Minutes with less action" they went back and forth over whether to link to trash (Rush Limbaugh). They didn't want to link to him but were aware Ty gets stuck with reading the bulk of the e-mails and there would surely be some of the usual crackpots disputing what they were saying so if they didn't provide a link to trash's comments, Ty would be stuck the loonies. They made an exception and noted how trashy Rush was and how trashy the show was. (Rush was endorsing the show, raving over it, in fact.) That was one of the few times trash has been linked to. And Ava and C.I. went back and forth over that (and even sought input from the rest of us which was no help).



But week in and week out, we avoid linking to trash. There are ways around it, you can simply site an issue or date. You can do a Google cache (which wasn't possible with Rush). But if you link to trash, you need to call it out.



If you're the left, you really need to call it out if you feel you have to link to trash.



Hillary Hatred is so intense in our 'independent' media that we saw a lot of smut last week. We saw an idiot woman argue (at CounterPunch -- note how we don't provide a link) that Hillary Clinton owed Paula Jones. We saw William Greider demonstrate that his talent and common sense got left behind at Rolling Stone when he went deep in the gutter of the tabloid nineties to trash Hillary. We saw hatred, we saw slime, we saw 'independent' media waste everyone's time.



But the hands down (or maybe just hands down the front of his pants) winner was Matthew Rothschild who sometimes likes to be billed as "Matt" and who is the chair of the board of directors of The Progressive.



He'd already embarrassed himself last week in one of his "I'm Matt Rothschild and that's how I see it" radio spots. In that, he'd claimed, "Finally, Obama took the gloves off after lackluster performances in almost all the previous debates which sewed doubts about his ability to not only take on Hillary Clinton but also to duke it out with whoever is his Republican challenger, Obama came to Myrtle Beach to fight and fight he did."



Insert eye roll here. Last week, he was on the airwaves maintaining Bambi gave "lackluster performances in almost all the previous debates" and of course mere weeks ago he was praising Bambi's debate performance through the roof. (Only to turn around and act like he hadn't days after.) He's become the Jimmy & Paul CrossFire act rolled up into one person. You never know what he will say but you can't bet it won't be honest and it will support his candidate of choice.



He's far from alone in that since he got bitten by the Bambi bug but no one reached lower, no one rolled in the gutter as gleefully as Matthew Rothschild last week. And remember, Alexander Cockburn hates Hillary Clinton, he loathes her. He's openly loathed her (and Bill) for years. And Cockburn filed multiple columns last week. But he couldn't hold a candle to Matt.



What does The Progressive stand for?



Rothschild informed readers last week: Nothing.



There is no sewer too dirty for the magazine to roll around in.



Which is how Thursday, this came to be up at The Progressive:



RECOMMENDED BY THE EDITORS
Stories and links of interest chosen by the editors of The Progressive magazine.
Weekly Standard: "If you thought the late '90s were ugly, just wait."
The Clinton-Obama battle reveals two very different ideas of the Presidency.
Bush Officials Lied 935 times
Retired Pakistani generals tell Musharraf to leave
West's military leaders cling to nuclear first strike



We've removed the links. Check out the top one: The Weekly Standard.



Apparently Judicial Watch was down that day?



The Weekly Standard. The Progressive was linking to The Weekly Standard. That should bother readers. Not only were they linking to it, they were doing so in a feature entitled "Recommended by the Editors. Stories and links of interest chosen by the editors of The Progressive magazine."



As Rickie Lee Jones once wondered, "What can make a boy behave that way?"



Well Matty's not in love, he's in hate, he's in hate . . . with Hillary.



So great is his hate that he'll link to one of the most discredited outlets of the right, the neocon bible, the magazine that sold the illegal war and is trying to sell the war on Iran. Didn't we all just see a mini-tsunami online about William Kristol being added as a columnist to The New York Times? Kristol runs what?



Yes, The Weekly Standard.



There is no reason any left magazine should be linking to The Weekly Standard with a "recommended" Crazy Ass Seal of Approval. But Matty did that.



If you clicked on the link, you were taken to a page of The Progressive that contained nothing but a link to The Weekly Standard. Clicking there took you to an article at The Weekly Standard.



"Wait," you say, "it had to be important. Maybe they were doing a mea culpa."



They were writing about a group of Hillary Haters whose name rhymes with "runt" but starts with a "c". Are you getting it?



Are you getting the picture of just how vile and disgusting Matthew Rothschild was last week.



It wasn't appalling enough that an outlet called "The Progressive" was linking to The Weekly Standard, they were linking to an article about a group that calls Hillary Clinton the "c" word. And, therefore, calls all women the "c" word.



That is beyond disgusting. That is sick and perverted.



In a recent note to readers of the magazine, "Matt" told the story of how his mother recently passed away. We'll assume if The Weekly Standard article had been about a group calling his mother the "c" word, he wouldn't have linked. (We could be wrong.) But, reality, when one woman's called that, all women are called it.



A "c" word's just a woman who didn't do what some man wanted her to do. It's meant as a vile insult. It can't be used on network television (thus far). It's not "bitch" or "whore" or any of the other words that have become common on network television. It's considered a vile and disgusting word and even with the destruction of Standards & Practices at the big three networks, it still can't make it onto air.



But Matty was happy to link to it. In fact, it was linked to and "recommended." By the editors, remember.



When your Hillary Hatred is so great that you, an allegedly left magazine, are linking to and recommending The Weekly Standard, you have serious problems. When the article you link to is about a group calling a woman the "c" word, you need to get help. Not tomorrow, not the day after, right away.



You have no standards and you have no taste.



You're nothing but a cheap little hustler on the make for your candidate (Bambi in Matt's case).



That was disgraceful and appalling. He can't weasel out of it with "well the writer was kind of on Hillary's side." Bull s**t. The writer was as delighted to churn that piece out as Matty was to link to it. There were already sites calling out the group (such as The Carpet Bagger or The Carpetbagger*, we're not familiar with the site but complaints on The Progressive noted that the blog had called it out and could have been linked to) that are left or left leaning. He could have linked to those. But it really wasn't about calling the group out, it was about smearing Hillary and, due to the insult, smearing all women.



In terms of demographics, the majority of the subscribers to The Progressive are women. Rothschild owes all subscribers an apology, but he especially owes it to women.



We had to wonder what he wouldn't link to if the shoe was on the other foot? If he had Bambi hatred, would he have linked to a right wing publication using the "n" word?



He is the smut merchant of the week.



And he more than earned the title.



We really don't come down hard on The Progressive here. Look at the coverage (or the read whiny e-mails from The Nation) and you'll quickly grasp that The Progressive gets a pass compared to other print magazines for the left. But Matthew Rothschild managed to do something so disgusting that even Katrina vanden Heuvel would never do it. That's right, he did more damage than vanden Heuvel could. That is disgusting, disappointing and it is not now or ever acceptable.

[Illustrations by Betty's oldest son. *Note, it's The Carpetbagger Report. Also, since this went up, Mia's e-mailed to note that PR Watch has a story on that group and manages not to link to The Weekly Standard or use the vile term.]

The Primary System

CounterSpin this week (program began airing Friday) featured an interview conducted by Janine Jackson in the last segment. Rob Richie of Fair Vote was the guest and the interview was about the primary process.



"Iowa and New Hampshire have the self-proclaimed right to be first," Richie stated explaining the modern day history of primaries, something no one ever talks about. The parties set February 5th as the date this year that states could hold primaries so you ended up with the bulk of the states not granted the 'right' of going first rushing in for what is essentially "a national primary."



Jackson pointed to an AP and Yahoo poll that found "80% of respondents said they would prefer states to take turns holding primaries and caucuses first."



We would agree with the 80% and Wally and Cedric have repeatedly as they've covered the way Florida and Michigan have been threatened with penalties (no delegates being seated at the Democratic National Convention this year is the threat). NPR's The Diane Rehm Show has tackled this issue, for which people are thankful. But independent media hasn't been there. So we were very pleased to hear this interview on CounterSpin. When we've tackled the issue here, we've gotten many grateful e-mails. We hope those of you who've written on this topic will check out CounterSpin's broadcast (if you missed it) and let them know that you're glad they covered the topic.



"Iowa" is the most recent thing we've run here on the topic and the point is best made, we think, by pointing out that every four years the Olympics are rotated. So why aren't the primaries and caucuses?



Jackson and Richie addressed how the current set-up means some votes have more weight, how some states are left out by the process, how some candidates drop out based on a very small pool of voters and how other candidates are badgered by the press to drop out based on the earliest of early results. It is not a fair process, it is not a democratic process.





Fix the primaries provides a variety of views on the subject.



Richie tied the primary process (and delegates) to the issue of the general election which is not a direct election. He shared his belief that states are moving to a direct election (where citizens would vote for presidential candidates directly and not for a set of delegates to the electoral college).



We plan to note Black Agenda Report's Glen Ford, who was the first interview in the program, in the "truest statement"s pieces, but we'll note hear that if you missed the program, it's a strong broadcast from start to finish.



Outside of the program, we'll note that Hillary Clinton's campaign has made the common sense call for delegates from Michigan and Florida to be seated at the DNC convention this week. As usual when common sense comes from the Clinton camp, the nasties boo and hiss. Guess what, that's not really the issue. Your hatred for Hillary Clinton isn't the issue. Yes, Hillary won Michigan. Florida hasn't held their primary election. Wally notes he sees Barack Obama on cable every time he turns around and none of the Democratic candidates are supposed to be advertising in Florida.



The real issue is whether or not the DNC is going to get away with denying two states their delegates? If you're for that, you're not really for democracy. You can hide behind "Hillary won Michigan!" all you want, but it's not about Hillary. It's about two states that are being bullied by the DNC. And that position was expressed by this community before any primary or caucus was held.

Ty's beef

You have a problem.



It's not the problem you think you have.



The problem you think you have is your alleged love life.



That's a problem you created yourself when you decided to pursue a married man.



Any sane person would have known the likely outcomes and grasped that the one favorable outcome was iffy at best.



But no one could tell you anything and you went for it.



What you got was the 'gift' of performing blow jobs on him when he was in the mood. He'd show up and expect one and you'd go down.



This has now been going on for sixteen months.



Believe it or not, he is not your problem.



You are now your problem.



You have exhausted everyone's patience.



On Friday, I walked in from work with my cell ringing. I saw it was you and made the mistake of picking up. I told you I really only had ten minutes.



Two and a half-hours later, I finally got you off the phone.



What does it mean?



He's cold to me when others are around. What does it mean?



He said this and he said that. What does it mean?



Here's what it means, what it's always meant: Not only is he not leaving his wife for you, he's not dropping your former friend that he screws on the side.



Here's what it means: If he only wants you for blow jobs, you either have a talented mouth or you're not his type.



Here's what it means: Sixteen months later, he's not anymore interested in you than he was when he found out you'd go down on him and not expect anything in return -- not even a kiss.



Here's what it really means: People are sick of hearing your drama.



You're mad at me because I didn't make time for you on Saturday.



I was apparently supposed to block out four hours to listen to everything that didn't happen between Friday evening and Saturday morning and listen to you ask for advice, listen to you dismiss advice, and I was supposed to waste my entire day on you, someone who really isn't that close of a friend to begin with but someone whom I've wasted untold hours each week listening to the Does-he-love-me-or-not endless rounds of 'analysis.'



I am really at the end of my rope and do not have time to waste.



I stated for 2 months, before you went for it, it was a mistake. I pointed out that a man with a wife and at least one known 'girlfriend' on the side wasn't really someone to set your heart on.



When you finally 'landed' him via blow job number one and he didn't even kiss you, he pushed you away and left, I told you, "I don't think he's the one."



Sixteen months later, numerous blow jobs later, no kisses later, you should grasp that he truly is not the one.



Instead of attempting to decipher him and what "I'm busy" means, you should be in analysis trying to decipher why you'd rush home from work every day and stay at your apartment all weekend as well because he said he "might" drop by. "Might" appears to mean that when his wife and his girlfriend won't give him a blow job or any sex, he'll stop by and see you. By my count, that's eight times in sixteen months.



This isn't a relationship.



It is pathetic.



And it's a chore to hear about it.



Friday, for two and a half hours, you went over every word he'd ever said to you.



But you were keyed up that he "might" be coming over.



As a general rule, no one wants to spend hours discussing your 'relationship' that stands in line behind the relationship he has with his girlfriend and then his wife. No one needs to hear it. No one wants to hear it. Over sixteen months, you've made me cringe every time I see your number on my cell phone.



You know for a fact that Saturday night and Sunday morning I'm working with everyone on the latest edition. But at three in the morning, you start calling every ten minutes. You then start texting, "Call me. I need to talk."



Your needs were two and a half hours on Friday.



When I told everyone why I wasn't picking up and why I was irritated, they assumed you were my age. They said it's always hard when you're first falling in love. They were shocked to learn that you're over forty. They were shocked to learn that you were over forty and so obsessed with yourself that even though I was sick on Friday and told you when I picked up, "I only have ten minutes and then I'm going to sleep," that you kept on talking. "I've got to go" never made you say, "Oh, sure, I'm sorry, you're sick." "I've got to go" was instead greeted with "One more thing . . ." At one point, I fell asleep for several minutes and when I woke up you were still yammering away.



Your life is not all that interesting to begin with. Your 'love' life even less so. Two and a half hours on the man you perform oral sex on -- eight times in sixteen months -- should have been enough to last you for the month. Instead it has become your only topic.



Saturday, you called on the main line repeatedly and I asked C.I. if we could turn off the ringer and just let the service pick up. You left 28 messages.



I was asked, "Are you her only friend?"



No. And everyone is sick of it.



As SD said Thursday, "I don't have the time for this. I know she keeps you on the phone for at least an hour, she's then on the phone to me and then she's calling ___. How self-obsessed can one person be?"



Good question.



And how stupid can one person be?



A relationship is not eight blow jobs in sixteen months. You've never been kissed, he's never taken you out, he tells you not to say "love," he says he "might" be over but more often isn't.



You don't have a relationship.



And everyone's sick of hearing about it.

Laura Flanders' Blue Grit reissued in new format

In April's "1 Book, 5 Minutes," we discussed Laura Flanders' book Blue Grit. This just in, as Wally and Cedric would say, it's in paperback or softcover:

Updated, in paperback, with a new introduction by NAOMI KLEIN (Shock Doctrine.)

EVENT: Tuesday, February 5th in New York City

What's a Progressive to Do? Pondering Super Tuesday
with LAURA FLANDERS & MARK CRISPIN MILLER
At McNally Robinson Bookstore
52 Prince St, (between Lafayette & Mulberry) New York, 10012
212 274 1160
7 pm. Book-signing to follow.

We haven't done a book discussion yet this year, we are aware. We'll be discussing Naomi Wolf's book next Sunday.

Also Doug Henwood is a guest of Flanders on today's RadioNation with Laura Flanders broadcast. And:

"Progressives Ponder Super Tuesday" with LAURA FLANDERS, GEORGE CURRY (EMERGE) and KATHY SPILLAR (MS)
Thursday, January 31
Room 1314, UCLA Law School Building, 405 Hilgard Avenue, Westwood Village, CA 90024.
12.30-2.00: Refreshments and book signing to follow
For more information contact camilamorsch@hotmail.com, 310 795 1736.

And we'll also note two other things. David Bacon has an article in The Nation, for Bacon, we'll link to the magazine: "Right to Strike Imperiled in Cananea." Excerpt:

The Mexican city of Cananea, site of one of the world's largest copper mines, is moving toward a virtual state of siege after fighting swept through the streets between police and strikers more than a week ago. The attack on the Mexican miners' union, followed by a massive police occupation of the mine and surrounding town, has sparked a growing uproar among the country's workers and unions. More than 25,000 miners across Mexico walked off the job for a day on January 16 in protest. Six days later, 1,500 teachers, electrical and telephone workers, and farmers marched on the Mexico City office of Labor Secretary Javier Lozano Alarcon to demand that the government withdraw police from the struck mine.
Francisco Hernandez Juarez, head of the National Union of Workers (UNT), Mexico's independent union federation, not only condemned government moves to break the miners' strike but accused the administration of President Felipe Calderón of unilaterally implementing its proposals for labor law reform, which would effectively eliminate the right to strike. A statement by the Authentic Labor Front, which belongs to the UNT, said, "The government is trying to intimidate us into accepting its labor law reform." Deputies from the left-wing Democratic Revolutionary Party also denounced the government plan.

And from ETAN:

East Timor and Indonesia Action Network (ETAN) on the Death of Suharto
Contact: John M. Miller +1/718-596-7668

Accountability for Suharto's Crimes Must Not Die With Him

Indonesia's former dictator General Suharto has died in bed and not
in jail, escaping justice for his numerous crimes in East Timor and
throughout the Indonesian archipelago. One of the worst mass
murderers of the 20th century, his death tolls still shock:
* 500,000 to one million Indonesians in the aftermath of his 1965
seizure of power;
* 100,000 in West Papua;
* 100,000 to 200,000 in East Timor, which his troops illegally
invaded in 1975;
* tens of thousands more in Aceh and elsewhere.

Suharto also accumulated an appalling legacy of corruption - 15 to 35
billion dollars stolen by him and his family.

Suharto has avoided personal accountability for the genocide,
destruction and corruption he inflicted upon those he presumed to
rule. However, the generals, cronies and family members who carried
out his orders via massacre, torture and theft must not get off so
easily. Those who murdered and pillaged on behalf of Suharto and his
"New Order" regime must be brought to justice.

We cannot forget that the United States government consistently
supported Suharto and his regime. As the corpses piled up after his
coup and darkness descended on Indonesia, his cheerleaders in the
U.S. welcomed the "gleam of light in Asia." In the pursuit of
realpolitik, U.S. administration after administration, fully aware of
his many crimes, provided military assistance and hardware, training
and equipping Suharto's killers. The Indonesian dictator sought and
received U.S. approval before he launched his invasion of East Timor;
ninety percent of the weapons used in this illegal attack came from the
U.S.

In the face of broad domestic opposition as his "economic miracle"
had collapsed in 1998, he finally stepped down. But only after U.S.
Secretary of State Albright hinted he should do so, even as the White
House insisted she was not calling on the U.S.-backed dictator to
"step down now."

Persistent advocacy by concerned activists from East Timor,
Indonesia, the U.S. and within Congress finally succeeded in
curtailing U.S. military assistance to the Suharto regime in the
1990s. After Suharto was ousted, East Timor broke free and the
Indonesian military lost some perks. Since then, military reform
efforts have stalled or been reversed. Suharto's favored military
still maintains substantial power. Its higher-ranking officers, and
powerful retired military, like President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono,
built their careers during his reign. The military continues to
violate human rights with impunity and in West Papua and some areas
operates by Suharto-era rules, restricting outside access and
employing terror in service of its commercial interests.

Limited investigations dealing with Suharto-era crimes have added
some information to the public record, but the few trials that have
occurred have largely failed, as defendants have lied, intimidated or
bribed their way to acquittals, crushing the hopes of the victims and
their families for justice or even an apology.

To overcome Suharto's legacy and to uphold basic international human
rights and legal principles, those who executed, aided and abetted,
and benefited from his criminal orders must be held accountable. The
U.S. must undergo a complete accounting for its role in backing the
dictator. As a start, the U.S. government must support for an
international tribunal to prosecute human rights and war crimes
committed in East Timor from 1975 to 1999, and Washington should
condition military assistance to Indonesia "on progress towards full
democratisation, the subordination of the military to the rule of law
and civilian government, and strict adherence with international
human rights" as recommended by East Timor's Commission for
Reception, Truth and Reconciliation.

A brief ETAN backgrounder on Suharto's life is at
http://www.etan.org/news/2008/01suhartobio.htm.

This statement is also available in Tetum and Bahasa Indonesia. See
http://www.etan.org/

Highlights

This piece is written by Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Kat of Kat's Korner, Betty of Thomas Friedman is a Great Man, Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz and Wally of The Daily Jot. Unless otherwise noted, we picked all highlights.



"Steamed fish and tomatoes" -- Trina offers reader Pam's recipe (which Elaine, Rebecca and Mike had on Saturday and gives thumbs up too) and addresses the illegal war.


"Hanging with the 'girls' of The Nation" -- Betinna's hanging with the 'girls' and, poor Betinna, it's frightening. But for readers, it's enlightening and humorous. Read and enjoy.



"Joni (Elaine filling in for Kat)" -- Kat was at Mike's Friday (along with Ava and C.I.) and, due to the Iraq study group and the discussions that follow, that can be an all nighter. She never grabbed time to blog and they had to leave early Saturday morning to get back west (home). She left a note for Elaine on Trina's fridge and Elaine missed it completely. When she did see it (asking if she could do a quick post for Kat), she immediately logged on and "threw something together." Community member Susan asked that we be sure not to forget this in the highlights and Kat says she wouldn't have let it be forgotten. Elaine's discussing music and you'll want to read it all.



"Hans Bennet, writers strike, more" -- reader Tim asked that this be noted. Mike is addressing entertainment and the writers strike. Tim says he is waiting for Ava and C.I.'s review of Chuck "as patiently as I can" but he enjoys Mike's discussions of it as well. It's his favorite show of the year (airs on NBC). It's Mike's favorite as well. He says he made sure to write about the writers strike in that post because he was writing about Chuck "and I didn't want to worry that Ava and C.I. would hear complaints from their friends about that. But it really is a great show and, as I've said over and over at my site, before the fall season started airing, Ava and C.I. told me I'd love the show and it was the year's best. Even with that, I kept making excuses not to watch. When they were saying there was a must-watch episode, I watched that and I've been hooked ever since."



"Joy of Resistance (WBAI)" -- We love Ruth's blog. We're glad she started it. We apologize for monopolizing her on the weekend (leading to no "Ruth's Report" at The Common Ills). But she's listening to hours and hours of public radio and she's able to direct you to what you should have caught over and over. This was an especially call and we also agree with her sidebar in the post, no radio show should waste (as Fresh Voices did) ten minutes of air time on a theme song-mix.



"Love birds? Maybe but not real press" & "THIS JUST IN! AP & NPR GET LOOSE AND FRISKY!" -- Cedric and Wally on how two press outlets work overtime to distort reality. On another note, we hope AP and NPR at least made it to second base.



"Over in England" -- Kat scored a massive hit with community members in England over this point. It was big news. But US media didn't seem too interested did they? If you haven't read it, you can probably figure out already this must have to do with Iraq.



"NOW on PBS looks at Moore's Sicko" -- Elaine's take on the 'documentary' of Charlie Ferguson. It's not an anti-war movie and we love this post.



"We don't need your 'side boob'" -- Elaine's having a fit because we're noting three of her posts this week. (She doesn't even like for one to be noted.) Wonder why Bambi backed off on Bill Clinton near the end of the week? Maybe it was grasping the threat of side-boob. Read it and weep.



"primaries & more" & "Edwards wins" -- Rebecca and Mike share their thoughts on who won the debate -- Rebecca goes with Hillary, Mike goes with Edwards.



"monday thoughts" -- Rebecca's regular readers loved this. Others? Like Kat, a lot of people missed this. It was MLK Day (observed) which means the community was basically on holiday. Generally, that means The Common Ills is the only one posting. Rebecca took the time to do a talking entry and, once Kat pointed it out later in the week, it was very popular community wide. (But again, her regular readers caught it in real time.)



Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "The Mystique Candidate" -- Isaiah tackles the ever changing candidate with the mysterious powers to morph into anything.



"The Old & The Tired" & "THIS JUST IN! CHECKING IN WITH ACTORS THOMPSON & GOODMAN!" -- Ty counted 15 e-mails requesting this joint-post by Cedric and Wally be included in the week's best. They're tackling Fred Thompson dropping out and Amy Goodman, we guess, being dropped on her head.



"Glen Ford" -- Elaine highlights Glen Ford, yes, but she also lets it rip about a woman who's whined (via e-mail) to both Mike and Rebecca. Rebecca blew her off and didn't reply. Mike did and notes it did no good. In both cases, she was 'thanking' 'them' for linking to her -- they hadn't. C.I. linked to her in the snapshot (a point Mike made in his e-mail) and they just reposted the snapshot. Then she wanted to whine about Mike and Rebecca's posts. She went on, last week, to comment on her own article (repeatedly) that was posted online and apparently insist that it didn't matter whether war resisters were covered by independent media. "Idiot," says Rebecca.



"I Hate The War" -- Betty says, "I love C.I.'s Thursday night entries. They go up too late for me to read Thursday night. But Friday morning, at work, it's the first thing I read and I've generally had at least two people stop me on my way to my desk to praise them. This really was the best change in the world C.I. could have made." We agree. In this one, C.I.'s tackling the silences independent media creates.

Bambi & the Kingpin

Cedric and Wally's joint-post -- "Bambi & the Kingpin (Obama and Rezko in song)" and "THIS JUST IN! BAMBI & THE KINGPIN " -- was so popular in e-mails and with us that we're re-posting it in full.



BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- NYC.

THE BIG MAN ARRIVES
SYCOPHANTS GREET HIM
PLAINCLOTHES COPS GREET HIM
CHICAGO BIG MAN FRESH LIPSTICK GLISTENING
FRESHMAN SENATOR JIVE
FROM WHORES OF TYPEWRITERS
THE PRESS SOUNDS LIKE TYPEWRITERS
THE BIG MAN HE'S NOT LISTENING
HIS EYES HOLD BAMBI
HIS LEFT HAND HOLDS HIS RIGHT
WHAT DOES THAT HAND DESIRE
THAT HE GRIPS IT SO TIGHT

BAMBI IN THE RING
THE PASSED OVER POLITICIANS ARE CONFERRING
THE MAN WITH THE FEDERAL INDICTMENT IS PURRING
ALL CLAWS FOR NOW WITHDRAWN
ONE BY ONE THEY BRING
HIS RENEGADE STORIES TO BAMBI
HIS CRIMES AND HIS GLORIES TO BAMBI
IN CHALLENGE THEY LOOK ON
POLITICIANS HE HAS TAKEN GROW OLD TOO SOON
HE TILTS THEIR TIRED FACES
GENTLY TO THE SPOON.

BAMBI IN HIS BED
THE COPS IN THE RAIN ARE HUMMING
THE WIRES IN THE WALLS ARE HUMMING
SOME SONG SOME CRIMINAL SONG
BARS IN HER HEAD
BEATEN FRANTIC AND WHITE WASHED
ROMANTIC AND WHITE WASHED
BAMBI SAYS REZKO'S CRIME BELONGS
BAMBI AND THE KINGPIN
EACH WITH CHARM TO SWAY
ARE STARING EYE TO EYE
THEY DARE NOT LOOK AWAY
YOU KNOW THEY DARE NOT LOOK AWAY.

[ADAPTED FROM JONI MITCHELL'S "EDITH AND THE KINGPIN" OFF HER THE HISSING OF SUMMER LAWNS.]

FROM THE TCI WIRE:


Starting with war resistance. Candace Hechman (Seattle Post Intelligencer) notes that Project Safe Haven is staging a "vigil in front of the Canadian consulate in downtown Seattle to plead that AWOL Iraq veterans be allowed to remain in sanctuary in the Great White North" and quotes Gerry Condon explaining, "Canada has a rich tradition of providing sanctuary to those who conscientiously refused to fight in war. Now it is time for the Canadian government to do the right thing, before it's too late."

What's Condon referring to? On November 15th, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear the appeals of war resisters Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey. Parliament is the solution. Three e-mails addresses to focus on are: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. A few more can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use. Both War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist are calling for actions. The War Resisters Support Campaign has more on the action in Canada:

The War Resisters Support Campaign has called a pan-Canadian mobilization on Saturday, January 26th, 2008 to ensure : 1) that deportation proceedings against U.S. war resisters currently in Canada cease immediately; and 2) that a provision be enacted by Parliament ensuring that U.S. war resisters refusing to fight in Iraq have a means to gain status in Canada. For listings of local actions, see our Events page. If you are able to organize a rally in your community, contact the Campaign -- we will list events as details come in.

Courage to Resist notes:

Join and support January 25 vigils and delegations in support of U.S. war resisters currently seeking sanctuary Canada. Actions are being planned in Washington D.C., New York, Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles. Supporters will meet with officials at Canadian Consulates across the United States in order underscore that many Americans hope that the Canadian Parliament votes (possible as early as February) in favor of a provision to allow war resisters to remain. Download and distribute Jan. 25-26 action leaflet (PDF).Supporting the war resisters in Canada is a concrete way to demonstrate your support of the troops who refuse to fight. Help end the war by supporting the growing GI resistance movement today!
Details January 25-26 actions/events in support of U.S. war resisters.
Sign the letter "Dear Canada: Let U.S. War Resisters Stay!" and encourage others to sign.
Organize a delegation to a Canadian Consulate near you .
Host an event or house-party in support of war resisters.

War resister Patrick Hart states, "It's great that people all across Canada and the US are coming out to show support for the war resisters. My family could be told we have to go back to the States anytime now. We just want to be able to live here in peace and raise our son, Rian. We hope that the politicians will let us do that." Among the actions taking place in Canada on Saturday the 26th:

* Toronto at the Bloor Street United Church, 300 Bloor St. West, beginning at 1:00 p.m. and will feature, among others, activist and actress Shirley Douglas, Lawrence Hill (co-author of The Deserter's Tale with Joshua Key) and Member of Parliament Olivia Chow who has led on the issue of war resisters from early on.

*Saskaton at Frances Morrison Library Theatre, 311 23rd Street East, from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. in which Joshua Key will be the featured speaker, Navdeep Sidhu and Friends will provide music and Michelle Mason's documentary on war resisters () will be shown.

*Vancouver at the main branch of Vancouver Public Library (Georgia and Homer), starting at 1:00 p.m., and featuring IVAW's Ash Woolson and Canadian MP Bill Siksay.

A full list of Canadian actions can be found here.

War resister Brad McCall will speak in Saturday at Fairfield United Church Hall in Victoria (1303 Fairfield Road) starting at 10:00 am, along with MP Denise Savoie. McCall explains his story in "From the U.S. Army to Canada: a resister's journey" (The Rabble) "One Sergeant explained how he shot a man in an alleyway just for being out after dark. He expressed how easy it was to kill "hajjis" once you did it for the first time. I listened as one soldier told how a specialist in my unit kept a human finger in his wall locker during his entire tour of duty. The laughing ensued as I heard the story of a soldier in another company eating the charred flesh of an Iraqi civilian, the unfortunate victim of an IED attack aimed at American forces. I thought about how callous these men had become, and how horrified I was at the idea of disrespecting human life in such a manner. This is when doubt began to flood my mind."

Laura Kaminker (writing at Common Dreams) observes, "In discussing this issue with supposedly progressive Americans, I was shocked - and frankly disgusted - to learn that some people who oppose the war in Iraq do not support the war resisters' cause. Their argument: 'If they didn't join in the first place, there wouldn't be a war!' This strikes me as both extremely naive and horribly selfish. Many of us were fortunate to grow up in homes where questioning authority was encouraged, where dissent and protest were a way of life - not to mention in families that could afford higher education and health care. If you cannot imagine what kind of background might lead someone to enlist in the US military, I again recommend The Deserter's Tale. But even if we never would have made such a choice, do we want to see people who have experienced such a radical change of mind punished for their beliefs? Isn't this the very change of heart that we wish to instill in others? And most importantly, should a person be imprisoned for refusing to kill?"

There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.


Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).


Meanwhile IVAW is organizing a March 2008 DC event:

In 1971, over one hundred members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War gathered in Detroit to share their stories with America. Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions. The members of VVAW knew differently.
Over three days in January, these soldiers testified on the systematic brutality they had seen visited upon the people of Vietnam. They called it the Winter Soldier investigation, after Thomas Paine's famous admonishing of the "summer soldier" who shirks his duty during difficult times. In a time of war and lies, the veterans who gathered in Detroit knew it was their duty to tell the truth.
Over thirty years later, we find ourselves faced with a new war. But the lies are the same. Once again, American troops are sinking into increasingly bloody occupations. Once again, war crimes in places like Haditha, Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib have turned the public against the war. Once again, politicians and generals are blaming "a few bad apples" instead of examining the military policies that have destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan.
Once again, our country needs Winter Soldiers.
In March of 2008, Iraq Veterans Against the War will gather in our nation's capital to break the silence and hold our leaders accountable for these wars. We hope you'll join us, because yours is a story that every American needs to hear.
Click here to sign a statement of support for Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan

March 13th through 16th are the dates for the Winter Soldier Iraq & Afghanistan Investigation. Dee Knight (Workers World) notes, "IVAW wants as many people as possible to attend the event. It is planning to provide live broadcasting of the sessions for those who cannot hear the testimony firsthand. 'We have been inspired by the tremendous support the movement has shown us,' IVAW says. 'We believe the success of Winter Soldier will ultimately depend on the support of our allies and the hard work of our members'."


RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"

"Other Items"

"The White House shreds the Constitution again"
"I Hate The War"

"Steamed fish and tomatoes"
"Hanging with the 'girls' of The Nation"

"robert fisk, joan walsh, etc."

"john pilger - last independent voice"

"Bill Moyers Journal"

"Joy of Resistance (WBAI)""Joni (Elaine filling in for Kat)"

"Talking entry"

"Margaret Kimberley, Marjorie Cohn"

"Hans Bennet, writers strike, more"

"Glen Ford"

"THIS JUST IN! ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS ARIANNA!"

"THIS JUST IN! ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS ARIANNA!"

"Democracy For Who!"

We read the e-mails, we really do. Even when we can't respond to all of them, we read them. There was one huge complaint last week. While last week saw a record number of e-mails for one feature, Ava and C.I.'s "TV: Democracy Sometimes?," it also saw a record number of complaints. We're still reading the e-mails but readers are complaining that we did not repost Ava and C.I.'s humorous feature that ran at The Common Ills. We were pressed for time, Ava and C.I. had mentioned it (with a link) in their TV commentary, we assumed it was covered. We assumed wrongly. Our apologies. Here it is, re-posted.



"Democracy For Who! with your hosts Ava and C.I."
Welcome to the "Where is peace?" report, not here, we are Ava and C.I. and we'll turn to headlines.



In news of Iraq we'll note one quick item and then quickly move on.



Now it's time to play our pre-selected unflattering clip of Hillary Clinton. We'll work that clip into a segment later in the show because why play it once when we can offer it twice.



Now we're going to pretend that a US government propaganda institution can testify to the 'fairness' of an election in Kenya.



We go to break with Nina Simone over images because it's MLK Day.



And why doesn't everyone snooze for a bit until we do our required Obama segment.



Wake up, we've got Kevin Alexander Gray.We'll play dumb while Kevin Alexander Gray (who does not support Obama) says that the Clintons raised the issue of "drugs" and won't point out that Obama wrote about his drug use in two bestselling books and talked about it on Jay Leno's program which we assume someone watches. Gray co-wrote an article that popped up online, far too many places to mention, and made it into print in The Progressive.



We won't ask about that.



We'll continue Little Media's silence on that moment unless and until the Clinton campaign makes a statement -- at which point we'll talk about their "attacks" on Obama.



You know what, it's not worth it to sell our self-respect, so Americans we'll be signing off of Democracy For Who! at the end of this broadcast.



Having just finished a segment where we never asked Gray, while supposedly addressing the South Carolina primary, about his article, about the topic of it, we're ashamed and embarrassed and realize that we've allowed Exception For The Candidate to damage our credibility.



With Marshall Derks, Gray authored "Obama's Big Gay and Black Problem." We apologize to our listeners and viewers for not raising that article with him. From the article:



If Obama doesn't win South Carolina with its large African American voter base the race may be over for him. His poll numbers in South Carolina have been up and down. Right now Clinton appears to have the overall lead in the state as well as with black voters. Clinton also has the edge with black women who regularly vote at a higher rate than black men. Oddly, Obama threw a premature haymaker but it wasn't aimed at Clinton. The target was the GLBT community. Obama's wild swing involved having four of the most abrasively anti-gay gospel singers represent his campaign on his "Embrace the Courage" gospel music tour in South Carolina. The gay bashing headliners included Reverends Donnie McClurkin and Hezekiah Walker, Pentecostal pastor of Brooklyn mega-church, the Love Fellowship Tabernacle and Mary Mary (a sister act duo).

The Mary Mary sisters compare gays to murderers and prostitutes. In an interview with Vibe magazine, one of the singers said, "They [gays] have issues and need somebody to encourage them like everybody else -- just like the murderer, just like the one full of pride, just like the prostitute."

McClurkin's previous political involvement was performing for George Bush at the Republican National Convention in 2004. Now he's singing for Obama. And, while stumping for the candidate McClurkin didn't just "get on stage, sing, and shut up" as some in the Obama campaign hoped he would do. He sermonized:

"God delivered me from homosexuality" - as though one could simply "pray the gay away." The predominately black crowd inside the Township Auditorium in Columbia clapped their approval of McClurkin's message. Meanwhile a small, predominately white group of gay rights supporters picketed outside the venue.



Yeah, that is kind of big news and we never explored it on Democracy For Who! before. We didn't even note the campaign's statement of "We got what we wanted" out of parading homophobia. To do so would mean to indicate that Bambi was anything less than the most innocent and long-lashed candidate ever.



That's why we ignore his runs for the Illinois legislature, that's why we ignore how his campaigns spread rumors about others (most famously to knock out a Democratic rival for the US Senate nomination and then to knock out the only GOP contender he had). Having used personal dirt to his own gain, it's no surprise that he shows no respect, as a law maker, for the victims of sexual assault, is it? Oh, that is a surprise. We forgot to inform our listeners and viewers about that too.



Well, obviously, we threw the LBGT community under the bus. For which we will now ask forgiveness but grasp fully that having repeatedly called out homophobes in the GOP and made jokes, at many public appearances for our book Exception for the Candidate: Why We Want Bambi in the White House, about Jeff Guckertt that possibly the LBGT community will not be quick to forgive us since our lip service has raised the belief that we actually give a damn.



We have no Harvey Milk Day. Outside of AIDs, we really don't focus on LBGT issues on any programs during the year. We do no day, each year, honoring Stonewall. When we report on gays and the military by including the topic in a brief headline sentence or two, we avoid noting Perry Watkins. Telling the people of America about Watkins, and that he served in the US military as an openly gay man for 14 years, that the US courts sided with him, would add another context to the debate ongoing today. But maybe our listeners and viewers would find the topic 'icky' and, besides, how important is the LBGT community any way? We are community radio, just not that community.



That's why we ignored the article Gray had co-written when we had him on our program today. It's not that we support homophobia, it's just we're really not interested in talking about that. Unless it's the GOP. If it's the GOP we can go to town and talk about "those people in the GOP." But the reality of Democratic Bambi using homophobia as a campaign tactic?



If you read our book, Exception For the Candidate, on page 133, you'll see that we clearly outline that a bi-racial man making it into the White House is our goal. Yes, we have also joined the chorus in erasing the strides that the multi-racial movement had made, we've have rendered them invisible and that's outlined in Exception For the Candidate as well, in the introduction, where we declare, "A bi-racial male will be promoted as Black and/or African-American. He and he alone matters more than the 2% of the population that self-identifies as either bi-racial or multi-racial. He matters more than the LGBT community. He matters more than women of all races. He can and must be installed into the White House. It is his due. Or, at least, it is half his due. On the side of his father who willing came to the United States and went to Harvard where he received a doctorate."



Following that guideline outlined in our introduction of Exception For the Candidate, which is out in paperback (we mean "soft cover," but we always say paperback, we don't know why), we also noted our mission as, "Creating silences, where the oppressed voices are, to honor one man's bid for the presidency because, in the end, one man is more important than millions of Americans." We have lived up to that.



We have regularly booked Bambi supporters who denied their support on air. Yesterday, we got into a little bit of trouble with our guest Melissa Harris-Lacewell. We had her on the week prior. On that show she was just a professor helping students get involved in all campaigns. Yesterday, she was a fierce Bambi groupie. And we knew that last week.



Our apologies to our viewers and listeners for not informing them of that fact.



It probably was not fair to allow Harris-Lacewell to plug candidates except Bambi's perceived opponent, Hillary Clinton. And it probably wasn't fair, last week, to allow her to plug Bambi and act like she was just a disinterested professor and he was just one of the many candidates (John Edwards and, to make sure we don't lose our tax free status or being broadcast on NPR and PBS stations, Ron Paul) she happened to catch. Since the press had called the race between Hillary and Bambi, we probably should have at least asked Harris-Lacewell, "Did you catch Senator Clinton speaking at any event?"



We probably should have done that.



Just as, yesterday, we probably should have said, "Wait, hold on, Bambi's getting lynching threats?"



When she paraded that absurd claim, it was probably incumbent on our part to note the parallels to her statement with those who supported Clarence Thomas claiming he was "lynched" in the Senate to shut down his critics. We probably should have pointed out that we seriously doubt anyone's planning to lynch Bambi. But we realize that inflated talk actually serves to stir up anger and stop discussion. We're not really interested in discussion and are fond of starting segments with, "We only have one minute!" But, again, we should have identified her as a strong supporter of Bambi and we failed to do that.



It fits with pattern of allowing Bambi supporters on the program to praise Bambi (sometimes letting them not note that they are indeed already supporting his campaign). It fits with bringing on journalist Glen Ford (Black Agenda Report) who, as far as we actually know, is not supporting any candidate, and -- despite hours of broadcasts featuring Bambi-love -- feeling the need to pit him against a Bambi supporter.



Now we haven't done that when we've acted as a direct echo chamber for The Nation magazine and brought a reporter from there on to discuss their latest slam of Hillary. We haven't felt the need to "host a debate." We've let them launch their attacks and we've grinned and maybe we've giggled a little.



But we couldn't even have Glen Ford on by himself. Glen Ford is an investigative reporter and much more so than either of the Aris at The Nation. He and Bruce Dixon have been covering Barack Obama for years. But we needed a 'debate' with Ford because that's only fair, right?



Hillary gets attacked daily on our show and we bring on journalists to attack her and we feel no need to offer a debate. But when we have Glen Ford on our program, we feel the need to clamp down on his own investigative research by pairing him with a Bambi groupie.



We called it 'balance.' Or maybe we just think the White (and often, yes, Jewish) journalists at The Nation are fair by their very race and the African-American Ford suspect due to his. He must be balanced but the Bermans, et al can drop by any time and we will treat them as if they just won the Pulitzer.



We told Lou Dobbs that we do correct ourselves when a mistake is pointed out to us.



But we've been repeatedly told that Bambi has a post-2002 speech record on Iraq and we pointedly ignore that.



Yesterday, our Bambi-love was so great that we put a woman, a lifelong feminist, into a situation she had spent the bulk of her life avoiding because she knows how that plays outside the feminist community. We truly did ambush journalism yesterday. We threw a woman under the bus and the feminist movement itself and, again, the reasons for that are in our book Exception for the Candidate.



Having gone out of our way to alienate all women, the multi-racial community, the LBGT community and so many more we are left with the fact that the pool of independent media viewers or listeners is now so tiny that there's not much point in going on (although Katrina vanden Heuvel assures us we're a shoe-in for next year's Puffin grant).



Looking at our broadcast history, we grasp our motto should have been: "Creating new silences." We have certainly done that with Bambi. As with the bulk of 'independent media,' we've hated the Clintons for the years. That may confuse some of our most recent viewers and listeners since we went goo-goo over Wesley Clark in a broadcast last year. Early on in our program's history, we called him out regularly but there we were grinning and letting him sidestep questions because, as Cokie Roberts so aptly put it, "I'm a sucker for a man in a uniform."



But we are Clinton haters and we did spend hours on Monica Lewinsky in our program's early history. We invited on the worst of the worst including Mikey Cough-Cough-Turn-Your Head. Clinton and Bambi have no differences on the illegal war. So we have had to work overtime to create differences for them in our "Where is the peace?" report.



We have done that at the expense of the multi-racial community. We have done that at the expense of the LBGT community. We have done that, really, at the expense of all but one community: the community of Barack Obama.



One person matters more than the millions and millions of Americans.



Which is why we repeatedly, including yesterday, press supporters of candidates Edwards and Clinton about their candidates positions on the illegal war -- all three front runners have "positions" and not one steadfast, single position -- and why we avoid ever doing that with Bambi supporters.



Yesterday, we trotted out Hillary on Meet the Press but we never confront Bambi supporters with his quotes. We just grin and nod. And when a student, on the show to explain why her support is so intense for Bambi that she traveled out of state for the New Hampshire primaries, makes a fool of herself by not being able to name even one issue that Bambi connects with her on, we pretend not to notice and move on quickly. We understand the wet panty issue having attended Professor Patti Williams' symposium on "Dampness As The Electoral Pulse."



Creating new silences has been our hallmark and we hoped to continue that. But now, as we grasp that Adam Kokesh was brought onto the program and had to stop us to correct our statements and semi-nicely explain that we didn't know what we're talking about; as we grasp that we didn't, in fact, since we didn't grasp that the military's case against him had already been resolved in a Supreme Court decision during Vietnam; as we grasp that we missed the story of kill-teams in Iraq because we refused to cover the emerging war resisters of 2007; as we grasp that a real left wouldn't have created a "rock star" but should have held all candidates to the fire; as we grasp that the Green Party single debate being reduced to a headline as opposed to an entire show is one more way we have excluded voices; as we grasp that our work in the summer of 2006 did not include coverage of Camp Casey, Abeer or Ehren Watada's Article 32 August hearing; even we are a little disappointed and doubt we can grab the pom-poms tomorrow for another day of "Cheerleading Obama Into The White House."



And so we end Democracy For Who! by answering: Democracy For The Coronation of Barack Obama. He is more important than anything else. He matters more than anything else, more than the millions of people who are distorted and go uncovered. He matters not because he'll end the war (he's refused to pledge that US forces come home by 2013, forget the first year of his term). But who cares about Iraqis anyway?



Usually, on this program, we note Juan Gonzalez columns in The New York Daily News regularly. For some strange reason, despite making Obama a daily topic this week (as with every week), we forgot to note his column from last week: "I smell Barack Obama baloney."



For Democracy For Who!, this has been Ava and C.I.