It's time to let the "superdelegates" know that we will not be disenfranchised by them. The Respect Our Vote Petition is an incredibly important step for pro-democracy activists to take.

Dear Superdelegate to the 2008 Democratic Convention:

I am calling on you to ensure that our votes count.

Presented with two strong candidates, millions of voters have cast their ballots with a passion and enthusiasm not seen in decades. Yet we now face the possibility that 796 party insiders will decide the Democratic presidential nomination.

We must have a fair nominating process where the voters choose the candidate. The unity of our party and the strength of our candidate depend on it.

Respect our collective choice by casting your vote for the candidate who has won the most pledged voter delegates.

Sincerely,
[your name here]

I couldn't have said it better myself. We the people need to make a stand against this kind of blatant political corruption.

Sign the Petition!

 

Given that NBC is owned by General Electric (GE), a major defense contractor, it is no huge surprise that the network has a strong pro-war bias. But, sometimes it gets downright unprofessional.

Fairness and Accuracy in Media's (FAIR) Action Alert

On NBC, 'Expertise' Means Getting Iraq Wrong

2/28/08

In the February 26 Democratic primary debate, sponsored by MSNBC, NBC anchor Brian Williams questioned Democratic hopeful Barack Obama about his fitness to compete in a presidential race with the "vast foreign policy expertise and credibility on national security" of Sen. John McCain.

Obama's rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, "has compared your foreign policy expertise to that of George W. Bush at the same period," Williams said. "Provided you could be going into a general election against a Republican with vast foreign policy expertise and credibility on national security, how were her comments about you unfair?"

Yet on what most would call the most important recent issue of "national security"--Iraq--McCain was stupendously wrong.

In a pre-invasion interview on CNN (Late Edition, 11/29/02), McCain stated:

We're not going to get into house-to-house fighting in Baghdad. We may have to take out buildings, but we're not going to have a bloodletting of trading American bodies for Iraqi bodies.

He added, "I don't think it's, quote, 'easy,' but I believe that we can win an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time." On MSNBC (Hardball, 3/24/03), he stated that "we will be welcomed as liberators."

In contrast, Obama made a prominent speech around the same time (10/2/02) that now seems strikingly prescient:

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al-Qaeda.

The assumption of Williams' question is that the candidate who was completely wrong about the Iraq invasion has "vast expertise" and "credibility" on national security, while the candidate who correctly foresaw the consequences needs to prove his foreign policy qualifications. One wonders whether Williams is using "expertise" as a synonym for "hawkishness."

ACTION:
Please write to Brian Williams and remind him that expertise and hawkishness aren't the same thing.

CONTACT:
NBC Anchor Brian Williams
Phone: 212-664-4971
Email: nightly@nbc.com

NBC's pro-war propaganda is one of many examples of how media ownership is an important issue. Americans need to become more savvy consumers of media, rather than accepting any product on face value.

The Clinton campaign keeps sinking to new lows. Now, Geradline Ferraro has endorsed the ability of "superdelegates" to steal nominations in an infamous New York Times Op-Ed.

The very idea that "superdelegates" have any right to have any more say than you or I is a repugnant and reactionary to the core. Ferraro (like Clinton, Bush, and Karl Rove) thinks that the rest of us are unworthy of electing our president and that democracy is only OK if they get the result they have decided is best for us.

This isn't just an insult to Obama voters. It really is a personal attack against all voters, including people who voted for Clinton. How long are we going to go along with corrupt politicians treating us all like garbage?

If the Democratic nomination is stolen, I will be voting for and giving money to Nader. I may even volunteer for that campaign. Americans should not put up with being treated this way. An illegitimate nominee can expect to lose at least 40 states.

The is something bizarrely ironic about one passage of Ferraro's spin piece.

These superdelegates, we reasoned, are the party’s leaders. They are the ones who can bring together the most liberal members of our party with the most conservative and reach accommodation. They would help write the platform. They would determine if a delegate should be seated. They would help determine the rules. And having done so, they would have no excuse to walk away from the party or its presidential nominee.

The "superdelegates" are in incredibly divisive force in the Democratic Party. If they pull a scam to steal the nomination, they will tear the party apart. If they are allowed to do this, then it may well be time to give up on the Democratic Party for good. If I'm not good enough for my vote to be counted in the Democratic Party, I have every right to go elsewhere.

Taking a break from the serious side of the world, I'm finally getting around to pointing out something funny I noticed after watching John McCain give his post Potomac primaries victory speech at a small rally of supporters.

"Keating Five" McCain reminds me of Oscar the Grouch (from Sesame Street).





If you aren't American, you are excused for scratching your head.

John Nichols has an excellent commentary on Obama and Nader. Nader Runs, Obama Responds Wisely. A particularly interesting passage follows:

Nader's greatest value in any race is -- like Socialist Norman Thomas in his races against Democratic Franklin Roosevelt -- as a source of pressure on the Democratic nominee to address fundamental questions and perhaps to take more progressive stands on a few issues. As in 2000 and 2004, Nader's appeal will be determined in large part by the extent to which the Democratic candidate is willing to be bold.

Obama seems to understands this. Unlike Gore or Kerry, who never quite "got" the point of Nader's runs in 2000 and 2004, the Illinois senator appears to recognize that it is pointless to grumble about Ralph Nader as a "spoiler." Rather, the point is to be more appealing to progressive voters who might consider voting Green or independent.

"I think the job of the Democratic Party is to be so compelling that a few percentage [points] of the vote going to another candidate is not going to make any difference," says Obama.

I seriously doubt that any Nader supporters are going to vote for Obama because Democrats have vilified them or Nader. A more productive approach is to emphasize the positive differences between Obama and McCain. Hillary Clinton proved that venom is poisoning the person spewing it in this election cycle.

I have decided to vote for Obama, but I want liberals to have a choice in November so we cannot be taken for granted.

 

Hat tip to Bloodless Coup for pointing out this one.

Members of Congress take an oath of office to "uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States" in solemn looking ceremonies, yet most of them are voting for blatantly unconstitutional spying programs. And, the illegal spying is creating an information overload that makes it more difficult for real intelligence to be seen in an ever-increasing fog of the irrelevant.

Learning about what really happened in the Vietnam War and what is going on in Iraq is an unsettling experience, though a valuable one. This Thursday, I attended an IAVW fundraiser for their Winter Soldier project. The project is summarized as follows:

Winter Soldier: Iraq and Afghanistan will feature testimony from U.S. veterans who served in those occupations, giving an accurate account of what is really happening day in and day out, on the ground.

The four-day event will bring together veterans from across the country to testify about their experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan - and present video and photographic evidence. In addition, there will be panels of scholars, veterans, journalists, and other specialists to give context to the testimony. These panels will cover everything from the history of the GI resistance movement to the fight for veterans' health benefits and support.

When: Thursday March 13 to Sunday March 16

The amount of education provided at the fundraiser was worth far more than the suggested donation of $20 (less for vets and military families). Some of the things I learned were:

- The US has 731 military bases throughout the world.

- In the attacks on Fallujah in 2004, over 12,000 Iraqis were killed and ID'd as “insurgents.”

- Although we usually hear the term “enemy combatant” in the context of the Gulag at Guantanamo, the phrase is commonly used by the military in Iraq to describe insurgents and people who get killed who may not be insurgents.

- Returning veterans from the Iraq War reported seeing no rebuilding of the country and that construction by contractors was limited to US military installations.

- National Guard members at Fort Dix in New Jersey have been trained to run over little children in the middle of the road on the grounds that they may have explosives strapped to their bodies.

- Soldiers in Vietnam were given no training regarding the treatments of civilians and prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions.

- Throwing Vietnamese people out of helicopters was so common that soldiers were ordered to do prisoner counts after the helicopters had landed, not before.

Over 150 people attended the event in Manhattan and saw a truly disturbing video from the Winter Soldier project. It started with horrific house and business destruction in Iraq by the US military, and then went on to the horribly mutilated bodies of people killed in bombing attacks ordered by the Bush regime. The video footage was shot by veterans when they were in Iraq.

One of the speakers at the event said, “We went easy with the video.” Yet, the images in the video were so repulsive and frightening that I had to keep forcing my eyes open. Psychological services were offered for veterans who might be traumatized by reliving what they saw in Iraq. I just don't know how our troops cope with the terrible things they see and are ordered to do in Iraq.

There was a group of chickenhawks protesting outside, misappropriating American flags for their pandering to Big Oil, corrupt mercenary companies, and defense contractors. They attempted to look intimidating, but they didn't harass me as I went in. (Being male and over 6 feet tall does have its advantages.) However, they did harass and try to intimidate an Iraqi woman who went in anyway. The vets running the fundraiser pointed out that none of the people outside were veterans.

In an excellent indication that the March 19 Blogswarm Against the Iraq War is becoming important, the extreme right already is attacking it.

- A Very British Dude not only had a temper tantrum about the blogswarm, he also showed his mentality by using the misogynist slur "lefty twats" to describe the people involved in it.

- Dizzy Things joined the right-wing War on Science by ranting against the peer-reviewed Lancet article which demonstrated that as of the fall of 2006, over 650,000 Iraqis died in the war. His argumentation reminds one of that which comes from the "Creation Science" people.

Bush's Job Approval Down to 19%

This headline shows how unpopular Shrub is. So, why do so many politicians in Congress kiss up to him? Why do Pelosi and Reid act as if he is a beloved president whose approval is needed for anyone's political survival? Why do so many other Democrats go along with this?

Why do so many Republicans pander to him and his unpopular policies?

It's as if our votes don't matter. The politicians have become so beholden to big money donors it is sickening.

Signups for the March 19 Blogswarm Against the Iraq War have broken the century mark, as more blog writers see the need to take a strong stand against a war that never should have been started and has lasted far too long.

The death and destruction in Iraq continue with an increasing level of bombing by the Bush regime. Yet, the corporate media keep avoiding the subject of the war and lying to us about what is really happening in Iraq.

We need to be our own media.

This is truly disturbing.

Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign failed to file a full slate of convention delegate candidates for Pennsylvania's April 22 primary.

This despite the possibility the primary proves critical and despite Clinton owning the full-throated support of Gov. Rendell, state Democratic Party leadership, Mayor Nutter and, presumably, the organizational skill all that entails.

And despite a Rendell-ordered extension of the filing deadline that could be viewed as more than just coincidental.

I've pretty much lost the respect I used to have for PA Governor Rendell. Governors should not use the powers of their offices to favor political candidates.

This problem also raises questions about the competency of the Clinton campaign.

It appears Clinton came up 10 or 11 candidates short across a number of congressional districts, including two in Philadelphia.

That's close to 10 percent of the 103 delegates to be decided by voters.

It appears the shortage would've been double that if Rendell hadn't extended last week's candidate filing deadline by a day and a half, ostensibly due to bad weather.

This at a time when Clinton's campaign, like Barack Obama's - which did file a full slate in the state - hoards delegates like diamonds.

Let's see. Hillary Clinton, who supposedly is more ready to be in the White House than Barack Obama, is having trouble running her campaign.

In the real world, as opposed to Clinton spinland, Obama has more experience in public office than Ms. Clinton does. Yet, we are expected to believe that he lacks experience and "isn't ready."

The corporate media share lot of blame for this by not reporting the facts when Ms. Clinton claims that she is more experienced. This is typical of the media favoring the more conservative of two candidates. Another example of the pro-Clinton bias is that incidents like the Rendell favoritism don't get the national coverage they deserve. When it comes to political corruption, the Clintons get the same free pass that the Bushes do.