Jerreigh@contemplayshuns.com

It's 3 a.m. | Where's Your Integrity?

NAFTA | Did The Canadian Government Lie About Obama?

Did Barack Obama lose the Texas and Ohio primaries because of a lie by the Canadian government?  Maybe.

Here's a Canadian Broadcasting Corp. news story on the political flap on the eve of the Texas and Ohio primaries about the "assurance" to Canada from an Obama representative that Obama really didn't mean his campaign promise to renegotiate NAFTA.

I think Canada is due some serious payback after the election.

That's my two cents' worth.  What's yours?  -- Jerreigh@contemplayshuns.com

Presidential Politics | Hillary Takes Us Into The Sewer

How did we get here?

Like a lot of Americans, I followed this year's presidential campaign with interest -- even enthusiasm -- for months.

Then it changed.  The politicians have taken us into the same sewer they always do.

To be more specific I think Hillary and her campaign have brought us here.

In fairness, John Edwards was my first choice when he was in the race.  I've been an Obama supporter ever since it became clear Edwards wasn't getting any traction.

Maybe I'm putting the blame on the Clintons because I'm pulling for the other candidate.  But I don't think so.

Like a lot of Democrats, I was overjoyed by the strong field of candidates we had this time around.  I could gladly have voted for a half dozen of them, including Hillary.

But, after watching the Clinton campaign for the past month or so, I have a dilemma.  I want a Democrat in the White House.  George W. Bush has done an unbelievable amount of damage during his time in office.  And while John McCain would be an improvement, we will get a third Bush term in many respects if he wins the election.

Discouraged and Saddened

But the more I see of the Clinton campaign, the more discouraged and saddened I become.  I'll probably vote for her if she gets the nomination.  But I won't take any joy in it.  And, if she wins, I think we'll be in for another four years of the shrill, partisan, gotcha politics that has poisoned our national debate and prevented us from solving the many serious problems we face for far too long.

Obama's not a magician.  He doesn't walk on water.  But one of the things he's brought to this year's campaign is a genuine aura of hope and reasonableness.  He can't restore decorum to our national politics by himself.  But a strong mandate for him in November might help the rest of the politicians in Washington begin getting the message that they need to turn down the rhetoric and start actually working together to find solutions that work for all of us.  Or at least most of us across the vast middle of the Blue-Red political divide.

The Clintons haven't gotten the message.  It's the same old do whatever it takes to "win" regardless of the cost to our country or our party.  This fall's campaign probably will be ugly no matter who the candidates are.  But a Clinton on the ballot will make it uglier.  And a Clinton in the White House will assure another ugly four years.

We Need To Get Smarter About How We Pick Our Candidates

The ugliness that has made its way into the Democratic race in the past month or so is only one of my concerns.  We Democrats need to get smarter about how we pick our candidates.

The purists won't agree with me, but we need to get rid of the proportional voting.  Life is not fair.  Sometimes trying to be too fair is counterproductive.  The complicated formula for allocating delegates for each state on a proportional basis is just plain silly.  And counterproductive.  Ditto for the decision to exclude the delegates from Florida and Michigan.   I found the way the states all kept trying to elbow their way to the front of the line disgusting.  And unnecessary, as it turns out.

New Hampshire has voted first for as long as I can remember.  The Iowa caucuses got added to the front of the line at some point.  I wasn't paying close enough attention at the time to remember exactly when.  But I'm not sure why the political parties should dictate to the states when they hold their elections.  The intervention by the national party was politically stupid.  Florida and Michigan were counting on that when decided to thumb their noses at the rules.

Excluding the delegates from Florida and Michigan and telling our candidates not to campaign there was a bad decision.  Moronic, in fact.  But Howard Dean's right.  To change the rules this late in the game will give an unfair advantage of one of the candidates -- and split our party so badly that John McCain would most likely become President McCain.  We can't let this happen again.  Ever.

That said, I'm thoroughly disgusted with Hillary's approach to this issue.  The fact is she has a very good shot at winning both of these states if there is some kind of "redo."  So, why couldn't her campaign take the high road and advocate a revote instead of the divisive tack of claiming she should win two contests where no one campaigned and her main opponent wasn't even on the ballot in one state.  Shame on you, Hillary Clinton.

Win or lose in November, we Democrats need to take a long, hard look at how choose our candidates once the campaign dust settles.  The proportional delegate system is so complicated that only a few wonky math wizards understand it.  The networks all have different delegates totals for the candidates.  That alone says the system is too complex to work.  That's just stupid.  And we should be collectively ashamed that the mess in Florida and Michigan was allowed to get this far.  We seem to be trying to do everything we can to lose an election in a year when I should have been able to win the White House if I were the Democratic nominee.

We need to find a way out of the sewer.  Quickly.

That's my two cents' worth.  What's yours?  -- Jerreigh@contemplayshuns.com

Don't Tell Teenagers About Sex | Maybe They Won't Notice

Bush Vetoes Waterboarding Bill | 313 Days Left

Who would Jesus torture?

Impeaching Eliot Spitzer | Thank God For Vigilant Republicans

My friend Dan Danbom likes to send letters to the editors of our local papers from time to time.

Here's his latest offering:

"To the Editor:

"Republicans are calling for the impeachment of New York Governor Eliot Spitzer.  Good for them.

"Unless a vigilant public punishes elected officials for transgressions of a personal nature, such as frequenting prostitutes, those officials will be emboldened to undertake more egregious actions even more harmful to the republic, such as lying to shove the country into war, violating our civil liberties, ignoring the Geneva Convention, leaking the names of CIA operatives or who knows what else.

"Thank God for alert Republicans."

-- Dan Danbom

-------

We had a Democratic president impeached by a Republican Congress for getting a few blow jobs.  We have a Democratic governor being threatened with impeachment by Republican legislators in Albany for being Client 9.

But we can't even get a debate in a Democratic Congress about impeaching a Republican president and vice president who daily ignore our Constitution.  Why is that?

That's my two cents' worth.  What's yours?  -- Jerriegh@contemplayshuns.com

Calling It Right | Obama's 2002 Speech On Iraq

I found this this on The Huffington Post, in an item posted by Brent Budowsky.   It's Barack Obama's  2002 speech opposing the Iraq war

I agree with Budowsky that it shows "a sophisticated understanding of world affairs, a deep knowledge about military consequences of going to war, a cool ability to make the right commender in chief decision in times of great pressure and a flawless, item by item, forecast of what would go wrong if the war was initiated."

But, as Budowsky also says, judge for yourself.

Here's what Barack Obama said in 2002:

"Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

"The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.

"My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

"I don't oppose all wars.

"After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

"I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

"What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

"That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

"Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

"He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. 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 US 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.

"I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

"So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

"You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

"You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

"You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

"Those are the battles that we need to fight.

"Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

"The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not - we will not - travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain."

Is Barack Obama Black Enough? | Hillary Gives Him A Makeover

Is Obama "black" enough?

There seemed to be some question about that among African Americans earlier in the campaign season, although not so much lately based on the percentage of blacks voting for him.

Still, Hillary Clinton's campaign has decided to lend him a helping hand in this regard.  A purely humanitarian gesture on her part, I'm sure.

Earlier this week, the  Daily Kos ran an item about a Clinton ad that turns Obama's skin darker and widens his features to give him a wider nose.The Clinton camp professes innocence.  But the evidence says otherwise.

Here's what a Daily Kos reader says:

"I just wanted to leave a remark about this 'blacker' issue, and comments that it is somehow something that just happened in the video editing process. I work in advertising (copywriter, [Big national advertising firm]). I sit in the rooms where the post production occurs, and this includes color correction. While things look different on many TVs, they don't look this dramatically different. Nothing that you see in a final advertisement is accidental. These things are looked at (or should be looked at if they are doing their jobs) second by second. Even more unforgiving is the stretching of the footage. It is possibly the result of laziness on the part of the editor, but it would have been easier to actually not stretch it, and just crop it.

"Nothing in advertising is accidental. It is over-thought and then subjected to second thoughts and second guessing then over-thought and re-looked at again. I've been doing this ten years. It is my professional opinion that the film was made darker, and it has obviously been stretched. I will not comment on their reasons, as I can't offer an informed case for that."

Still not convinced?  Go here to view the Clinton ad and the Obama-Clinton debate sequence from which it was lifted.

Is Obama black enough?  Apparently not black enough for Hillary. Why does her campaign keep playing the race card?  Why are Democrats putting up with it? That's my two cent's worth.  What's yours?

-- Jerreigh@contemplayshuns.com

 

O Damn-uh | Getting Down And Dirty

America lost something this week.

We took a detour, temporary I hope, from the chance we have to  take our government back and change things in Washington for the better.

Hillary & Co. have been trying for weeks to turn the campaign against Obama into a mud wrestling contest.

And Hillary's proving the adage that you shouldn't get into a mud wrestling contest with a pig because you can't win and the pig enjoys it.  Hillary clearly enjoys it.  And she thinks Obama can't win if she can force him into the mud pit with her.

Until this week, her efforts to take the the campaign into the mud had backfired -- as they should have.

But she finally managed to get some of the mud she's slinging to stick.  Obama's worse off as a result, of course.  But so is America.

Obama's preached a message of hope and conciliation.  Hillary's bragged about her ability to "fight" for us.  We've had too much of the kind of fighting she advocates.  It's time to find a way to begin talking to one another and developing real solutions to the many huge problems we face as a nation -- health care, the economy, Iraq, education, food safety, American companies moving American jobs overseas and more.

Hillary may be able to play dirty enough to win the Democratic nomination, although I hope not.  And she's right, she'll be able to yell as loud as the other side if she's elected.  The question is:  Can she govern from a place in the middle with a mandate for cooperation that will give us a chance to quit bickering and starting fixing.  I haven't seen anything yet to suggest she can.

Another ugly piece of political hypocrisy finally bubbled to the surface this week -- the Florida and Michigan mess.  Once again, Hillary has decided to take the low road because it serves her short-term selfish need for convention delegates.

All 50 states agreed well over a year ago that all states except four -- Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada -- would wait until Feb. 5 or later to hold their presidential primaries or caucuses.  Long after those rules were agreed to by all the states and all the candidates, Florida and Michigan decided to change the rules on their own and cut in line.

Hillary went on the record agreeing with her fellow Democratic candidates that delegates elected in these two outlaw primaries shouldn't be seated if these two states persisted in thumbing their noses at the rules.

Unlike, John Edwards and Barack Obama, though, Hillary left her name on the ballot in Michigan.  And she "won" the Democratic primary in Florida where none of the Democratic candidates campaigned.

If Hillary had been willing to take the high road and insist on sticking by the rules, finding a reasonable solution to this mess would be much easier.  Instead, she's taking the low road because she would be the "winner" if the rules are changed to her advantage by seating the delegates from these two states.

If Hillary gets her way on seating the illegally chosen Florida and Michigan delegates, she'll destroy -- or seriously damage -- the chances of a Democrat being  elected president this year because what she's advocating will split the party.  If she wins the nomination by winning this fight, she may cost herself -- and the Democratic party -- the election.  And the irony is she might well be able to win both states fair and square if she were willing to take the high road and join a united effort to force "do overs" in both states.  That's not the Clinton way, unfortunately.

Democrats in Ohio and Texas bought the crap from Hillary's "kitchen sink" and put our party into the ditch this week.  I hope the Democrats in the states that haven't voted yet find a way to pull us out of it.  Unfortunately, they won't get any help from Hillary.  Her self-serving efforts to turn the contest with Obama into a mud wrestling contest and to change the rules in Florida and Michigan to gain an unfair advantage this late in the contest will only help the Republicans, no matter how it plays out.

To paraphrase the senator from New York:  Shame on you, Hillary Clinton.

I'm sending a check to the Obama campaign.

That's my two cents' worth.  What's yours?  -- Jerreigh@contemplayshuns.com

George Bush Countdown | 321 Days Left

"In this job you've got a lot on your plate on a regular basis.  You don't have much time to sit around and wander, lonely, in the Oval Office, kind of asking different portraits, 'How do you think my standing will be?'"

-- George Bush, March 2005