"When you think about what Ronald Reagan did to the American people, to the middle class to the working people," former Sen. John Edwards shot back at an event in Henderson, Nevada. "He was openly -- openly-- intolerant of unions and the right to organize. He openly fought against the union and the organized labor movement in this country...He openly did extraordinary damage to the middle class and working people, created a tax structure that favored the very wealthiest Americans and caused the middle class and working people to struggle every single day. The destruction of the environment, you know, eliminating regulation of companies that were polluting and doing extraordinary damage to the environment."
Edwards added, "I can promise you this: this president will never use Ronald Reagan as an example for change."
Carlton asked that we open with the above. It's from Shailagh Murray's "Obama's Reagan Comparison Sparks Debate" (Washington Post). He asked that his points be summarized. (They could be quoted, he's very clear in his statements.) Like Mike and Wally (and Cedric before Cedric decided to support Hillary Clinton -- I believe Cedric announced that decision two weeks ago), Carlton's just been waiting for Edwards to do or say anything that indicated he was running for president (and not vice president). He's waited for Edwards to stand up to Bambi the way he has to Hillary. He's waited repeatedly and seen nothing. He's very hopeful that the above represents a turning point for the Edwards' campaign. Carlton's a Democrat from a family of Democrats. He's voting in South Carolina's Democratic primary and the candidate he wants to support is John Edwards. He feels closest to Edwards in terms of economics and the illegal war when Edwards bothers to address the latter. (That's a summary, not my editorial point.) But he can't vote for Edwards if Edwards can't stand up to Obama. So he's really hopeful that this is a turning point for the Edwards campaign and asks that if anyone's considering voting in a Democratic primary, they please watch Edwards over the next few days to see if he continues to act like he's running for president. He says if Edwards keep it up, he'll vote for him but otherwise, Hillary's going to get his vote.
If a Mike Gravel supporter wants to be summarized, e-mail and let me know. (That only applies to community members.) Carlton was in a panic because it was too late to make the gina & krista round-robin and he really wanted the above noted.
A visitor wanted to know, "What does it matter if Obama praises Reagan?" Anyone running for the Republican nomination should probably give lip service to the myth of Great Reagan. In the Democratic Party?
Reagan's history (glossed over at obit time) is well known. Barack Obama is not twenty-years-old. He's allegedly mature. He's old enough to know better. This is one more time where he holds up the ideal to the nation and, to no surprise, his ideal turns out to be someone from the Republican Party. He has to search so far and wide for someone praise worthy that he rushes off to the Republican Party? It also needs to be noted that it's more than one video clip. Other clips have now been released and he's actually praising Reagan in more than just 'communication.' Was he 'communicating' well when he decided to 'honor' Bitzburg with a visit to a cementary where members of the Nazi's SS were buried? Is that the kind of 'communicating' Bambi is enthralled with? Was he 'communicating' well when he lied about Iran-Contra, when he fought to continue apartheid in South Africa?
There is nothing praise worthy in Reagan. Allowing that some feel they can't say anything bad at the time of a death is one thing. It's another thing all these years later to find Obama comparing Reagan to various presidents (including at least one Democrat) and feeling a closer affinity with Ronald Reagan.
Either Obama supports denying MLK recognition, apartheid, homophobia, death squads in Central America and 'honoring' the SS or else he really is just as stupid as so many fear. Or maybe he's such a supreme suck up to the right ("Be a Democrat for a Day" in Nevada and vote for Bambi!) that he'll say anything. What you're left with is someone with a lack of knowledge, a lack of skill (though I'm sure his remarks were pleasing to his intended audience) and who panders to the extreme. Unless, of course, he really does support what Reagan stood for. If so, he's in the wrong primary.
It's really amazing because the Democratic primary could have been about something. It could have been about the illegal war, it could have been the economy, any number of issues. But instead The Nation magazine, Democracy Now! and so many other allegedly 'left' and allegedly 'independent' outlets decided to make it about The Selling of Barack. They spent months and months doing "You can go to potty, Bambi. Come on little fellow, you can do it!" pieces instead of holding his feet to the fire. Of course, the reality is that they weren't just being nice to a newcomer. They were actively in his camp. That's obvious, in the case of Democracy Now!, by who was allowed to speak and who wasn't and by how.
Here's all The Selling of Barack did: Raise a spoiled child who took everything for granted. The Democratic Party isn't good enough for him and he knows he can insult Tom Hayden and assorted others and get away with it. He knows he can put homophobia on stage in South Carolina because he did that and the alleged 'left' and alleged 'independent' media gave him a pass. There were never any standards he had to meet. There was no 'curfew' imposed upon him. He was allowed to run free as he pleased with indulgent 'parents' applauding anything he did. And now they're stuck with the fact that they 'raised' a spoiled brat who thinks he's better than them and that the party he's running from is beneath him.
When you think about the hate (and it is hate) that they've hurled at Bill Clinton -- a former president -- they've made it clear that Bambi is their favorite and he can do no wrong. Which is how he thought he could get away with that telling facial expression and snide remark in the New Hampshire debate. It's how he's thought he could get away with trashing his own party and throwing people like Tom Hayden under the bus.
Tom Hayden's not perfect, Bill Clinton even less so. But Barack's like the spoiled brats in Mildred Pierce and Stella Dallas, embarrassed by the party he supposedly wants to represent, quick to ditch them and move to the 'other side.'
They refused to hold him accountable for anything. Now you've got an out of control child who thinks he can spit on his 'parents' and they're the ones who should be handling his latest public tantrum. But, if you check, they're all missing in action.
The Nation's off on Bill Clinton again tonight. Amy Goodman minimized the statement this morning. (And anyone who wants to argue that should research her guests list today.) Where's Robert Parry? Robert Parry's written how many books about the Reagan era, how many columns? Now his little prince is praising Reagan. Where's Parry?
Like Mildred, they'll probably attempt to take the fall for their spoiled brat. Right now, however, they're letting him hurl himself to the floor at the checkout lane and throw an embarrassing tantrum. There are, apparently, no grown ups in independent media (or 'independent' media).
Bambi got a pass from Big Media throughout, no question. And check Ava and my TV pieces during the writers' strike and you'll come across one MSM journalist after another going on a chat and chew and admitting that's the case. But independent media was supposed to be independent. That means they weren't supposed to enlist in a campaign.
That means they weren't supposed to sign up with one party. But who's profiled Cynthia McKinney? Has Amy Goodman bothered to interview her since McKinney declared she was running for the Green Party nomination? No. But isn't that an interesting story. McKinney leaves the Democratic Party and is running for the Green Party nomination for president.
At least Goodman covered, recently, the Ralph Nader ballot issue. It's cute to watch supposed 'left' supposed 'journalists' talk about Nevada and 'ballot access' and all that other nonsense while they go to town on Bill Clinton after they stayed silent on Nader (in 2004 and now).
Little Media should have been raising the issue of the illegal war but didn't they all avoid that. They should have been doing their part -- especially since they all can't stop taking bows for 2003. Maybe what they really love about Bambi is that he made a statement in 2002 and then ran away from the illegal war -- not unlike 'independent' media. Maybe that's what they really identified with?
Here's some reality for the print division, their attacks on the Clintons aren't playing well. Here's some reality for the broadcast division, they have standards they are supposed to follow and one of them is telling you when a guest is supporting a candidate. They haven't bothered to do that. And there's actually another aspect to that which will be saved for Sunday. They've rigged the system. They're not allowed to do that.
They embedded into one campaign while claiming to be 'independent.' The reality is that they are no better than the MSM and their critiques of Judith Miller (they never really got around to Dexy Filkins, did they?) can be turned right back on them.
There was never any reason to make the 2008 elections the biggest story of 2007 but if they were going to waste all of our time, they could have used their 'power' to push. Instead, the best we got was a plea to dump Richard Dailey. Yeah, that'll happen.
They disgaraced themselves repeatedly and relegated the Iraq War to a footnote.
The same little media that never bothered to tell the story of Abeer suddenly ran as fast as they could from war resisters and all topics war related. It would be poetic justice if their pet project, buidling up one candidate, exploded in their faces as he revealed just how petulant, empty and bratty he was. But even then, they'd try to ignore it and, after, make a few excuses.
He is the candidate they 'raised' him to be.
And by ignoring the illegal war, they've allowed it to continue. But what's a few more dead Iraqis or US service members? Isn't it more important to run a fan club? Especially a fan club that might get someone in the White House! They were drunk with the hope that if they all worked hard and coordinated their efforts, they could 'make' a president. The Selling of Barack is the untold story of 2007 and may continue to be that of 2008.
They have repeatedly embarrassed themselves. Hillary wins New Hampshire and they rush out their dopey, embarrassing columns: "Hillary didn't win. If you add John Edwards and Bambi together, they won!" If you add Hillary and John Edwards together, they 'won' Iowa. Common sense and journalism met the axe as they went out of their way to distort reality over and over. Including claiming that Hillary's Michigan win wasn't a 'win' because "uncommitted" got X%. Hillary won it and won it despite the fact that Edwards and Obama told their supporters to vote "uncommitted." It's not like Hillary toured the state. She won. You can lie as much as you want, but she won.
Now Bambi might have 'grown up' to be all that they hoped, if they'd called him out along the way. If they'd held him accountable.
But maybe the illegal war would be over now if they hadn't decided The Selling of Barack was more important than any other issue?
Kat notes a really bad article tonight (she's not praising it) and the faux peace groups are yet again compromising on their demands regarding the illegal war -- compromising with the Democratic Party. That's what happens when you're more vested in elections than in ending the illegal war. That's what happens when the peace movement, or 'peace movement,' confuses itself with the Democratic Party.
It's over, I'm done writing songs about love
There's a war going on
So I'm holding my gun with a strap and a glove
And I'm writing a song about war
And it goes
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Na na na na na na na
I hate the war
Oh oh oh oh
-- "I Hate The War" (written by Greg Goldberg, on The Ballet's Mattachine!)
Last Thursday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 3921. Tonight? 3926. Just Foreign Policy's total for the number of Iraqis killed since the start of the illegal war was 1,165,204 and now stands at 1,168,058.
Last year, Howard Zinn asked "Are We Politicians or Citizens?" and it struck a huge chord with readers. Apparently none of those readers were in independent media since he provided the framework independent media should have been operating under. How different things might be today if they'd applied it.
The e-mail address for this site is firstname.lastname@example.org.
i hate the war
the washington post
the daily jot
cedrics big mix
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
mikey likes it