Home » Blog » Press Clips: 8-7-07
Blog for America
Press Clips: 8-7-07
1) INDN's List Campaign Camp: Reshaping Our Political Landscape, tanasijournal.com
2) A 2008 Netroots Strategy: Ignore the Presidential Race, mydd.com
3) Finch: No Inde Run, fairfieldweekly.com
4) Tom Hughes: Democracy for America says Impeach Gonzales! Shopfortruth.com
Show: Expand All Reply
Harold Ford and Martin O'Malley have the nerve to say Bush is on the rocks....right after Bush put the fear of terror into Democratic hearts and they sold us out. They then say the word "center". I hate that word any more. I am the center. They need to appeal to people like me. They care about the Republican voters more than us.
Hi Folks,
We are waiting for the replay of the debates, so thought I'd post a quick hello.
Time Magazine had an article about the Democrats and religion in the July 23rd issue. I wrote a letter to the editor about the authors' depiction of Howard Dean. It keeps bouncing back as their mailbox is full, but since the last thread addressed this subject, I thought I'd share it.
Subject: "Leveling the Praying Field" July 23, 2007 article
Dear Editor: Generally the writing in Time Magazine is outstanding. Both Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy are fine writers, but I am dismayed at their snarky depiction of Howard Dean's responses with respect to religion. The authors describe Dean as "boasting that his religion doesn't inform his public policy" and arguing that "guns, God, and gays" shouldn't be the subjects of a presidential campaign as trivial and misinformed. Once again, comments are taken out of context, characterized disparagingly, depicting Howard Dean as someone not rational. Unfair, and isn't it about time writers stopped such dishonest and shallow tactics? When Dean made his comments during the presidential debates of 2004, the subjects were guns, God, and gays. Candidates were being characterized by simplistic and bigoted stances. Dean was right about this, that there were issues of momentous importance, and to focus on these inflammatory and inherently pointless subjects was to trivialize the campaign, the office, and the citizenry. The authors then add that Dean is ever his own worst enemy while talking to the 700 Club, saying that Democrats have much in common with the Christian community instead of recognizing that many Democrats are Christian. For Pete's sake, what kind of hostility allows writers to be so supercilious? Of course, Dean knows and knew that many Democrats were Christians. He was speaking of the larger issues of justice, fairness, help for those who need it, peace versus war, and all those principles we recognize as Christianity preached in the Sermon on the Mount. Shame on the authors for their cheap shots, demeaning a man of enormous leadership ability, integrity, perspicuity, and courage. That the media played " the scream" more than 700 times in several days without the honesty and accuracy to show that he was speaking to a crowd of at least 3000 and couldn't be heard over the noise, is certainly egregious and dishonest. The authors characterizing Howard Dean as a boaster and shallow is also dishonest. I am disappointed and skeptical of the integrity of such writers.
Harold Ford, shut your mouth. You're just jealous of Barack Obama.
Biden will never win, but I"m glad he's in the race to call the Republicans Irresponsible.
Minneapolis bridge collapse is an opening for Progressives, not in the opportunistic way that Bush kprayedk for a "trifecta."
This is the abused fighting back, not political opportunity.
Edwards sounds like he's trying to be Howard.
I beliveit, but i don't.
Billion-dollar-rich-people-stadiums vs. bridges for EVERYONE?
Great question, MSNBC. Great answer by Kucinich.
Yes, it's true that, "I have been on infrastructure for years" was mentioned as often as the repugs mentioned Reagan ReaganReaganReaganReaganReaganReagan.
But at least Democrats have a history in believing in something good and real.
Richardson......against Corporate welfare....yah!
My impression of this debate so far.....Dems wanna be FDR.....Repugs wanna be Reagan.
I would die to see someone do a poll: If the election were held today, who would you vote for.
Franklin Delano Roosvelt vs. Ronald Reagan.
I say FDR wins 60 to 40 over reagan.
Senator Clinton, everytime that you adjust your microphone, I think that you are trying to control a penis.
Body language analysis
Barack Obama swallowed hard after he said that he would take on special interest.
He is smart enough to you know, he that Nominee will have to walk a tight rope between the Establishment and real human beings with souls. (see the meek shall inherit............)
hillary ( who I don't support) Rocks on bad food from China and Fiscal Responsiblity.
I don't mind when Hill slams repugs.
I just think that Gore was right all along. It's is the people (the meek who still have souls) vs. "the powerful," who clearly have no souls left.
--see camel through the eye of a needle.
A man name Mcgovern, whose a union member, and an Iraqi veteran asked a question that Richardson answered. He answered well.
That's the extent of my ability, at this late hour, to comment. I now retire for the evening.
This debate rocks. It is FDR kicking Reagan's fake, two-faced ass.
"What's wrong with America and what will do to change it."
....from a real person questioner.....
the longest applause line of the night.
Edwards responds well.
It just reinforces the frame the conservatives only care about human life before it is born. After that, FFFF-UUUUU.
3680
Good morning, BFA!
Thanks for the debate commentary here, ProgA, and also to all those on the last thread. That was a fun, somewhat existential, lively thread, btw!
**************
Here's the WaPo's take, for whatever it's worth.
================
Obama and Clinton Take the Gloves Off In AFL-CIO Debate
Democratic Hopefuls Court Union Support
By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 8, 2007; A02
CHICAGO, Aug. 7 -- Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton came under sharp attack from their Democratic presidential rivals in a highly spirited debate here Tuesday night, with Obama rebuked as irresponsible on foreign policy and Clinton accused of being too cozy with corporate America and Washington lobbyists.
The debate, which was sponsored by the AFL-CIO, turned into the most animated encounter of the Democratic campaign, suggesting that the battle for the party's nomination may be entering a new phase, one that is likely to grow increasingly contentious after Labor Day.
The candidates appeared far more willing to challenge one another directly, and in more pointed language, than in previous debates. Elbows flew throughout the night, and the challengers appeared more eager to mix it up, stoked perhaps by the enthusiasm of a large and boisterous audience.
Obama (Ill.) and Clinton (N.Y.) held their respective ground when the criticism came their way. Clinton deflected it by arguing that she is the candidate best prepared to defeat the Republicans in 2008 and lead the Democrats back to the White House.
"For 15 years I have stood up against the right-wing machine, and I've come out stronger," she said. "So if you want a winner who knows how to take them on, I'm your girl."
Obama forcefully fired back at his rivals, who included Clinton, arguing that those who were now attacking him had helped authorize the Iraq war, which he called "the biggest foreign policy disaster in our generation."
An estimated 17,000 union workers and their families filled end-zone seats at Chicago's Soldier Field, home of the NFL Chicago Bears. They cheered and occasionally jeered the seven candidates who were on a stage constructed on the field.
[...]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...
It's so nice to hear that putzCo are keeping us safe from the REAL terrorists like Lily Allen, even though our bridges are falling down!
We can all rest more comfortably in the certainty that they are truly looking out for our well-being.
=============
Singer Lily Allen banned from US
By Peta Hellard in Los Angeles
August 08, 2007 12:00am
LILY Allen's bid to crack the US has been dealt a major blow, with the British chart star having her American working visa unexpectedly revoked after her March arrest for assaulting a photographer in London.
The Smile singer was searched and detained for five hours at Los Angeles airport on Monday after flying in from Australia.
Allen's publicist said her client was shocked to find the US government had banned her from working in the country - only four weeks ahead of her North American tour.
"Understandably she was upset," the spokeswoman said yesterday.
"She has no idea why she was singled out for such treatment and found the whole experience distressing."
[...]
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/st...
The Hollow Democrats in Congress ... craven and cowed
===============
Who's Afraid of George W. Bush?
By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Tuesday, August 7, 2007; 1:34 PM
We won't have President Bush to kick around anymore in about 18 months. But until then, Bush has someone he can still kick around: the Democratic Congress. At least when it comes to terror issues.
Despite his 65 percent job-disapproval rating, Bush was able to cow congressional Democrats over the weekend into granting him unprecedented authority to eavesdrop on the international telephone calls and e-mail messages of American citizens without warrants.
Now, having beaten the Democrats into submission with the threat of looking weak on terror, a re-emboldened White House is aiming at the media, hoping to bully journalists into making the new law sound innocuous.
The 'Protect America' Act
Here's the bill in question; a White House " fact sheet," and Bush's remarks upon signing it into law on Sunday. Here's are the roll call votes in the House and Senate.
Jim Rutenberg writes in the New York Times: "Until last weekend, President Bush had repeatedly fallen short in seven months of battles with a Democratic-led Congress that would not give him what he wanted on immigration or education, health care or energy policy.
"But the Congressional vote that authorized eavesdropping without warrants on international communications, including those involving Americans within the United States, has shown that there is at least one arena in which Mr. Bush can still hold the line: terrorism. . . .
"For a president who has played defense most of the year, relying on veto threats and, in terms of Iraq, almost plaintive pleas for time, it was a rare, winning use of offense. The victory points up an enduring challenge for Democrats, even as they have gained other advantages over Mr. Bush and his fellow Republicans. . .
[...]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...
There is a thoughtful series beginning in Asia Times about the ineffectiveness of the supposed European counterweight to US power.
So far, yes. But time is on the side of the Europeans and all of their economies ... and social safety nets ... are in much better shape. When you add that to the hearts and minds that we are ... almost deliberately ... losing daily, the counterweight will occur, IMO.
Al: we do so desperately need you and we also need for the American people NEVER to let themselves be lulled into complacency ever again.
===================
GERMANY, THE RE-ENGINEERED ALLY
PART 1: Readiness for endless war
By Axel Brot
Not so many years ago, many hoped Europe might step up as a counterweight to US imperial policies. Such hopes were focused in particular on Germany - not only as the leading European power, but as a known moderating, non-military force in international politics.
US vituperation of the reputed European preference for diplomacy and peaceful conflict resolution as well as official Britain, in the person of Richard Cooper, former prime minister Tony Blair's international-relations guru, deemed it necessary to lecture "post-industrial Europe" about the need for "double standards" and colonial ruthlessness to beat down benighted non-Westerners, seemed to give substance to these hopes.
Well, Germany and the European Union did step up - but rather differently than expected. And it was no electoral twitch that set the stage for "better be wrong with the United States than being right against it". Since Angela Merkel's visit to Washington (as the conservative opposition leader) on the eve of the US invasion of Iraq, to denounce then-chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's decision to oppose the war, the return to US good graces was not only the main conservative foreign-policy project; it turned rapidly into the supreme project of the German political class - including the Social Democrats.
Merkel became the chancellor-to-go-to, the most trusted European interlocutor for the US political class to work jointly and determinedly to harden US global hegemony against the consequences of America's Iraq-inflicted weakness - this not only in the wider Middle East but also, and especially, with regard to Russia and China, the Bush administration's original enemy of choice before the "birth pangs of a new Middle East" consumed so much of its political capital.
Overcoming the domestic constraints on its ability to use the German army more extensively for "humanitarian interventions", for the defense of "Western civilization" against Islamist terrorism, is an important, though not the most important, part of the Merkel government's "the West united behind the US" policy. Notwithstanding the absence of public debate on its strategic implications - eg, of the US (and Israeli) doctrine of preventive war, the abolition of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's geographical restrictions, the mission of "securing access to raw materials" - the rejection on general principles of a more activist military role by a majority of Germans has not (yet) been overcome.
This has far-reaching consequences: it has, in a significant way, rebooted German elite attitudes and expectations toward the EU, and toward Germany's relationship with France.
[...]
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/...
I just watched the forum again. IMO Edwards won and did you all notice that Keith gave everyone equal time?
What I wanna know is how come Edwards had a nice lead in IA and now lost it to Obomba and KILLary? They are both effing corporatists and AIPAC a$$kissers which means endless wars. They lost me when they assured AIPAC that Israel will remain our *special* friend even if it costs the US every single soldier in the country. That's what cozying up to AIPAC entails....endless war and fascism.
Great letter, Pat!
Somehow, I believe Patrick Cockburn's take on the *success* of the surge more than I believe putzCo's version.
================
Published on Tuesday, August 7, 2007 by the Independent/UK
The Bloody Failure of ‘The Surge’: A Special Report
by Patrick Cockburn
It was supposed to mark a decisive new phase in America’s military campaign, but six months after George Bush sent in 20,000 extra troops, Iraq is more chaotic and dangerous than ever. In a special dispatch, Patrick Cockburn reports on the bloody failure of ‘the surge.’
The war in Iraq passed a significant but little remarked anniversary this summer. The conflict that President George Bush announced was in effect over on 1 May 2003 has now gone on longer than the First World War. Like that great conflict almost a century ago, the Iraqi war has been marked by repeated claims that progress is being made and that a final breakthrough is in the offing.
In 1917, the French commander General Robert Nivelle proudly announced that ” we have the formula for victory” before launching the French armies on a catastrophic offensive in which they were massacred. Units ordered to the front brayed like donkeys to show they saw themselves as being like animals led to the slaughter. Soon, the soldiers broke into open mutiny.
On 10 January this year, President Bush announced that he too now believed he had the formula for victory. In an address to the American nation, he announced a new strategy for Iraq that became known as “the surge” . He said he was sending a further 20,000 US troops to Iraq. With the same misguided enthusiasm as General Nivelle had expressed in his plan, President Bush explained why “our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed” and why the new American formula would succeed: in the past, US and Iraqi troops had cleared areas, but when they moved on guerrillas returned. In future, said Bush, American and allied troops would stay put.
As if the US was not facing enough enemies in Iraq, Bush pointed to Iran and Syria as the hidden hand sustaining the insurgency. “These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq,” he said. “Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops.”
He added in his State of the Union address on 23 January that “Shia extremists are just as hostile to America [as al-Qa’ida], and are also determined to dominate the Middle East”. The implication was that US troops were going to move into areas such as Sadr City, home to two million Shia Iraqis, in pursuit of the powerful Shia militia, the Mehdi Army of the nationalist cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
Six months after the surge was actually launched, in mid- February, it has failed as dismally as so many First World War offensives.
[...]
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007...
Hey, sea! IMO, Edwards is right where he wants to be right now.
Besides, the CMWs are herd animals who have, for the most part, lost the ability to inform or to analyze with any degree of objectivity.
Good for Keith, btw.
If the UK leaves, the cheese will be standing alone in Iraq. But Brown is very conscious of how poodle's daft decisions to be dominated by putz's ME *policy* led ultimately to his downfall and he already has an even surlier electorate on his hands with the floods that the UK has been experiencing and now a resurgence of the foot and mouth disease that so devastated the British lifestock industry a few years back.
Things will NOT improve in Iraq until ALL foreign forces are out.
Out. Now.
======================
US uneasy as Britain plans for early Iraq withdrawal
Americans would prefer UK troops to remain in position as long as they do
Ewen MacAskill in Washington, Julian Borger and Patrick Wintour
Wednesday August 8, 2007
Guardian
The Bush administration is becoming increasingly concerned about the impact of an imminent British withdrawal from southern Iraq and would prefer UK troops to remain for another year or two.
British officials believe that Washington will signal its intention to reduce US troop numbers after a much-anticipated report next month by its top commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, clearing the way for Gordon Brown to announce a British withdrawal in parliament the following month. An official said: "We do believe we are nearly there."
It is not known whether George Bush expressed concern about the withdrawal of the remaining 5,000 British troops when he met Mr Brown in Washington last week. But sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the administration was worried about the political consequences of losing British troops.
One source said: "If the difference is between the British leaving at the end of the year or staying through to next year or the year after, it is a safe assumption that President Bush would prefer them to stay as long as the Americans are there."
The Bush administration - focused on the north, west and central Iraq and the "surge" strategy that has seen 30,000 extra US troops deployed - has until recently ignored the south, content to leave it to the British. Now, however, it is beginning to pay attention to the region, amid the realisation that what has been portrayed as a success story is turning sour.
[...]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,33034...
This is from Judy's article above, part one.
"They are well acquainted with the new crop of their American counterparts who prepare, control or execute American policies with brittle arrogance and with the crisis- and confrontation-prone default setting of American foreign policy formation.
For quite a few of them, however, the most worrying indication that the United States is irrevocably set on dragging the world into a nightmare of continuous and chaotic violence, is twofold: the flight or dismissal of senior, conservative professionals from the executive branch of the government and the unrestrained, strangely exhibitionist glorying of many American politicians at the ability to inflict unrestrained violence.
One might add a third one, relevant especially to diplomats who had been posted in the Middle East, or to the classicists: the wholesale looting and the destruction of 5,000 years of Mesopotamian antiquities, judged on par with the Spanish eradication of the complete written record of the Mesoamerican civilizations as well as the cultural heritage of all Indian cultures that they could lay their hands on; and one that also ranks with the British burning of 3,000 years' worth of Chinese books, historical records, and documents during the Second Opium War. This barbaric lack of respect for one of the most important heritages of mankind speaks volumes about the mindset this war has exposed. "
Hmmm ... I'll have to think about this one a bit. LOL
I'm not sure whether there is *femininity* in his looks or not, but I do know that my spouse/partner in life is so secure in his own masculinity that he doesn't need to act out in any way and his general courtesy and thoughtfulness have always been his biggest attractions for me. So far as healthy goes, he is ... and has always been ... in fabulous shape.
Thank God!
But yes, I'll have to think about this.
=============
Move over Vin, women prefer feminine men
James Randerson, science correspondent
The Guardian
Wednesday August 8 2007
It is bad news for the likes of Bruce Willis, Vin Diesel and Clint Eastwood - but for less macho men, there is hope. Psychologists have shown that women perceive men with more masculine faces as poor potential long-term partners.
Women see macho-looking men as less faithful, less warm and potentially poorer fathers. Men with more feminine features and a more healthy visage are judged as being a better bet for a long-term relationship.
"Women prefer great degrees of masculinity for short-term partners, but for long-term relationships what we are finding is that they prefer more feminine and definitely more healthy men," said David Perrett at the University of St Andrews, who led the research.
The team asked nearly 100 women to view images of faces that had been digitally enhanced to emphasise masculine or feminine features. For example, feminine faces had raised eyebrows, a smaller chin and nose and larger eyes. In separate tests they manipulated the faces' perceived healthiness. The viewers made snap judgments on a variety of factors including the man's social dominance, parenting skills and desirability. Women also showed a strong preference for healthy-looking men. According to Professor Perrett this is because a woman is subconsciously asking: "How long is an unhealthy person going to be around? How likely is it they are going to infect you?"
[...]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/a...
I found Biden's remark stunning about the law already 4 years on the books which says we could/should go into Pakistan even if not invited.
How come all of a sudden, OBL is again so dangerous and we have to get him?
"You don't know the half of it."
Pelosi
So Iraq is not the problem anymore and Iran will be bombed in time; but it's now Pakistan, with its nukes, that we'll have to invade or bomb ....
Who's really running our foreign policy? Perhaps the better question is, who is really running our country? It doesn't seem like American patriots are..............
Yes, sea, it's a very interesting article ... also terribly sad to see that we can be every bit as barbaric today as others were in earlier centuries. The loss of the moral high ground is no small thing.
It was bad enough when we used the first nukes, but there was at least a smidgen of justifiable reasoning (one I shudder at, but which is still admittedly there). But for us deliberately to invade a country that posed no imminent threat and then to allow the literal raping and pillaging of the history of human civilization (together with the continuously unforlding contemporary human tragedy on a daily basis) is unforgivable.
Germany is still paying damages for its 20th-century forays into absolute savagery.
We will be paying for our illegal and immoral invasion and occupation of Iraq forever.
Several of my favorite men are gay. I love their sensitivity, their true ability to be friends w/o the games that people play. I have close straight guy friends as well and I treasure them also.
Macho, muscles, facial hair have always been turn-offs. Repugs don't even get to be on the bottom of the list!
I cringe at the moral talk. I would prefer the words *humane high ground.*
"The Humanistic Party?"
It appears that the best way to lose an election in the ME is to be seen as backed by the US.
V. sad commentary on the state of things.
====================
Robert Fisk: Lebanese strike a blow at US-backed government
Published: 07 August 2007
They've done it again. The Arabs have, once more, followed democracy and voted for the wrong man.
Just as the Palestinians voted for Hamas when they were supposed to vote for the Palestinian Authority of Mahmoud Abbas, so the Christian Maronites of Lebanon appear to have voted for a man opposed to the majority government of Fouad Siniora in Beirut. Camille Khoury - with a strong vote from the Armenian Tashnak party - won by 418 votes the seat that belonged to Pierre Gemayel, murdered last November by gunmen supposedly working for the Syrian security services.
While the Maronite vote had increased against Gemayel's showing in 2005 elections, the result was a stunning blow to the American-backed government - how devastating that phrase "American-backed" has now become in the Middle East - in Lebanon and allowed Hizbollah's ally, ex-General Michel Aoun to claim that "they cannot beat me". Mr Aoun is a candidate in presidential elections later this year.
True, the voting figures showed huge support for Pierre Gemayel's father Amin - himself an ex-president- who was standing for the parliamentary seat of his murdered son. Although he was a weak and fractious leader - Amin paid a state visit to Damascus to re-cement "fraternal" ties after the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon - he proved himself a brave man in the aftermath of his son's murder, calling upon Lebanese to support the government rather than submit once more to the domination of Syria.
Khoury's score in the Metn hills above Beirut - and a 418 conquest out of 79,000 votes is hardly a crushing political victory - yet again emphasises the divisions among the Christians of Lebanon who have traditionally fought each other - rather than their more obvious enemies - throughout Lebanese history. The Crusaders fought each other in Tyre when Saladin was at the gates of the city; in 1990, Mr Aoun's own Lebanese army fought the Christian Phalangist militia while still trying to defend themselves from the Syrians. They lost both battles.
[...]
http://news.independent.co.uk/fisk/artic...
What I want to know is why a museum in Texas ... of all places ... is getting these bones. I thought a lot of Texans were *creationists.*
????
The museums with a true sense of history took a pass for the right reasons.
===============
Scientists warn that hominid 'Lucy' is too fragile for six-year US tour
By David Usborne
Published: 08 August 2007
Palaeontologists in Ethiopia and in the United States were expressing alarm yesterday following confirmation that the fossilised bones of the world's famous hominid, "Lucy", were on their way from Addis Ababa to a museum in Texas for a six-year tour of American cities.
The remains are thought to be between three and four million years old and are considered the most important link ever discovered between modern man and its antecedents. They were discovered in the remote Afar region of Ethiopia by the US scientist Donald Johanson in 1974. Since then they have remained in secure storage in the Natural History Museum in Addis Ababa.
[...]
http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/a...
Oops ... if true, this could be the economic coup de grace!
And this is the last for now.
Have good ones.
====================
China threatens 'nuclear option' of dollar sales
Source: Telegraph
The Chinese government has begun a concerted campaign of economic threats against the United States, hinting that it may liquidate its vast holding of US treasuries if Washington imposes trade sanctions to force a yuan revaluation.
Two officials at leading Communist Party bodies have given interviews in recent days warning - for the first time - that Beijing may use its $1.33 trillion (£658bn) of foreign reserves as a political weapon to counter pressure from the US Congress. Shifts in Chinese policy are often announced through key think tanks and academies.
Described as China's "nuclear option" in the state media, such action could trigger a dollar crash at a time when the US currency is already breaking down through historic support levels.
[...]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jh...
******************
Here's the link to the DU discussion.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/dis...
Good morning, everybody
We are home alone again. The last clutch of chicks departed at 5:30 for a 7:30 flight to Buffalo, where it is likely to be hotter than here. Gentle rain falling which visitors from New Mexico consider a good omen.
Hillary is slated to be in NH today, giving a "major policy address." I'm of two minds.
Dodd will be here on the weekend and is looking for good attendance at house parties.
I've still got to write up my critique of Edwards' health plan.
The loss of the moral high ground is no small thing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
and despite occasional lapses we did once have it
no that isn't quire right, more like, every once in a while we stood there
we stilled the ovens, opened the gulag, made Japan pay for the savage occupation of Manchuria and pre-emptive attack on us that followed
ran Nixon out of town
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Beijing may use its $1.33 trillion (£658bn) of foreign reserves as a political weapon to counter pressure from the US Congress. Shifts in Chinese policy are often announced through key think tanks and academies.
Described as China's "nuclear option" in the state media, such action could trigger a dollar crash at a time when the US currency is already breaking down through historic support levels.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Fed could raise interest rates and stop the slide.
I'm going to make the rounds of the political sites and find out how the candidates spun the debate
bbl
Hillary is slated to be in NH today, giving a "major policy address." I'm of two minds.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
it is hard to beat seeing a candidate in person
Edwards and Kucinich are the only two plans that are truly universal
62.
JudyforDean
Tue, 08/07/07
7:25 am
Reply to this
Look, Fred, you can have your point of view ... which I ... and those who are now in and know most about Iraq (not generally among putzCo advisors or among our current crop of politicians) ... do not share.
I have been *on the ground* in more ways than one for the past 43 years. I don't need someone who never has been to tell me that I am wrong simply because they do not agree with the results of my long-term observations, which do not come from my admittedly comfy current personal situation, but from my own experiences, studies, and profession.
Please do NOT use my name or respond to me in any way ever again.
==========================
You continually use your "remarkable expertise" of the region and your alleged knowledge of Arabic to push ideas that are not only false, but could result in massive slaughter. I don't know who you speak for, but the lives moslems of the Iraq region must have little value for you, as you speak so lightly about the impending feasibility of massive deaths far beyond the present, if we don't take leadership on a political solution - just because you don't have one.
As for my responding to your posts. I have no personal animosity but responding in disagreement to your off-the-wall insinuations is what this blog is about. If you cannot take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Besides, you really have little to say, personally that is. Most of your "expertise" comes from cut-and-paste of others.
40.
Phil Specht
Wed, 08/08/07
6:25 am
Reply to this
Edwards and Kucinich are the only two plans that are truly universal
=============
We need universal coverage, copaid on a sliding scale, but we also need a formula that includes take credits, or deductions on policies for those can afford them. The insurance companies will not let congress pass a bill that puts them out of business.
However, a competing plan by the government that can offer unlimited coverage for everyone, may be the competition the health sector needs for reform itself.
As the sliding scale paycheck deduction begin to reach parity with premiums for the wealthy, or those who think they have a better deal for the money. They can opt out for the tax credits/deductions.
I am reminded that we once had a worker who could not learn how to shovel sand. Paying people to do things which they are not mentally or physically equipped to handle doesn't make them suddenly able. It does seem to raise the expectations of those who pay them, making their failure that much more shocking.
Ignoring their failure is a kindness.
Some things should not be ignored. Lindsey Graham sporting the same nasty sign as Mitt should not be overlooked. This is not an accident.
See, the importance of three is affirmed.
I got an email.
I got a phone call.
I got a nudge from Phil.
If I get my write-up done, I'll go hear Hill.
Monica Smith
Wed, 08/08/07
7:13 am
Reply to this
Some things should not be ignored. Lindsey Graham sporting the same nasty sign as Mitt should not be overlooked. This is not an accident.
+++
Agreed.
It isn't an accident.
Good morning folks -- CSPAN is going to run the MSNBC debate from last night at 10 AM Eastern.
---------------
34.
JudyforDean
Wed, 08/08/07
3:02 am
China threatens 'nuclear option' of dollar sales
Source: Telegraph
This sure scares the h*ll out of me. Actually with the housing market tanking, we may not need the Chinese to take us down economically.
bbl
Last night's AFL-CIO dem presidential debate wasn't the only debate --
-- Sierra Leone debate before this Sat 8/11's presidential and parliamentary elections:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070808/wl_africa_afp/sierraleonevotedebate_070808010037
Sierra Leone presidential aspirants in historic debate
Tue Aug 7, 9:00 PM ET
FREETOWN (AFP) - Six of the seven presidential candidates in Sierra Leone weekend elections took part in the first ever debate in the country on Tuesday night.
The country's vice president and ruling Sierra Leone People's Party (SLPP) candidate Solomon Berewa stayed away from the debate.
Local dailies had earlier speculated his absence citing him as saying that unless the various opposition leaders publicly denounced electoral violence, he would not show up.
All six called for peaceful and democratic elections with the leader of the main opposition Ernest Koroma of the All People's Congress (APC) stressing that "the polls will put Sierra Leone in a position to advance or retrogress".
"We don't want an election which puts one Sierra Leonean on the throat of the other," said Koroma.
Charles Margai, another opposition leader who broke away from the ruling party to create the People's Movement for Democratic Change (PMDC), said his was an untainted party that would give the country "a new beginning and new image".
They all laid out variously shaped plans to generate jobs in a country where unemployment levels rate around 70 percent according to unofficial estimates.
Ibn Chambas, head of the regional bloc, the Economic Community of West African States, warned in a statement read before the debate opened that ECOWAS "will apply zero tolerance to any act of violence".
The elections represent a "critical benchmark for the advancement of Sierra Leone", he said.
Earlier the UN envoy to Sierra Leone warned that the country, which Saturday holds its second elections after the war which claimed some 120,000 lives, could not afford failed elections.
...
by Ana Maria [Subscribe] Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 04:58:09 AM PDTIn a gloriously magnificent upset electoral victory, Democratic candidate Gary Anderson defeated George Dale 51-49% to become Mississippi’s first African American Democratic nominee for Insurance Commissioner. Anderson’s pro-consumer position resonated throughout the state sending George Dale packing after 32 years in office.
Huron,
You might have picked up on Kucinich completely dodged th question about what if we withdraw fro Iraq and al qaeda takes over would we go back in..........he should have amswered either yes or no and skirted it...........
FRED from OR
Wed, 08/08/07
6:30 am
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Gee, I dunno Fred......I think this lady has had a number of years in the foreign service or her husband has and they seem to have a wide appreciation for the European way of looking at things...............Ive studied her posts for a couple of years now and she is correct especially with regards to the ME.............your Biden was rather umimpressive last night as you may have gathered................
-
By mary vb on Aug 7, 2007 11:09 PM EDTDeans are first as always!
What gives with these Republicans and their sex lives?
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/8...