Posts with the tag obama

Obama's Golf Nowhere Near W's Vacation Time

C_Jefferson — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:16:19 EDT

Catty Tweet of the Week award goes to CBS' Mark Knoller, who yesterday proclaimed, "Today - Obama ties Pres. Bush in the number of rounds of golf played in office: 24. Took Bush 2 yrs & 10 months."

Call me crazy, but it sounds like Knoller is attempting to paint President Obama as a flippant layabout, worse even than his notoriously sluggish predecessor, Dubya. Funny, the veteran reporter must be forgetting his January 19, 2009, piece, "President Bush by the Numbers," in which he wrote, "It’s difficult for any of us to convey an objective assessment of the Bush presidency - but numbers come close to offering a bit of unbiased insight." He then went on to detail Bush's vacation days, all 1,020 of them (that's more than two years worth).

By contrast, 10 months into his tenure, Obama has taken one vacation, for a week.

Either Knoller needs to get off the presidential leisure time beat, or he needs to check his selective memory at the newsroom door.

A Frusterated Left

Jake Blumgart — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:48:54 EDT

Good New York Times piece on liberal frustrations “despite being in what, on the surface, is a commanding political position.”

“On the surface” are the key words there. There is a well-documented tendency in the lefty blog-o-sphere, among political radicals, true blue progressives etc. to blame the Democrats, and specifically Obama, for squandering their “commanding political position” on moderate and incremental reforms. There certainly are some Democrats who hinder the process, Blue Dogs and Senate moderates mostly. They aren’t left-wing, and most have never claimed to be. But without them there would be no commanding majority. Without them we wouldn’t even be able to make incremental reforms.

And that is the chief reason our political system is so broken.

"Deficit Neutral" Health Care Reform

MichaelCollins — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 00:13:03 EDT

Absurdity upon Absurdity

Michael Collins

The health care debate and general political climate compound absurdity upon absurdity.

First we're told that our health care is only worth the time and effort if the remedy has no negative impact on the budget. No deficits allowed. The deficit risk defines your chances for health and longevity.

EPA starts clamping down on carbon criminals

Tommaso — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 04:43:48 EDT

After years of neglect, suppressed reports, silenced scientists, and lack of resources, the Environmental Protection Agency is back to doing it's job.

Two years ago the Supreme Court ruled that CO2 was a pollutant and gave the EPA a mandate to establish a system to abate carbon emissions through the Clean Air Act. The Bush administration's EPA dragged its feet and it took an overwhelming progressive electoral victory for the agency to finally comply with the ruling.

Administrator Lisa Jackson announced last week that the Obama Administration will start cracking down on the largest CO2 emitters in the nation and demand that new coal power plants use the best available technology to reduce emissions.

"This rule allows us to do what the Clean Air Act does best – reduce emissions for better health, drive technology innovation for a better economy, and protect the environment for a better future – all without placing an undue burden on the businesses that make up the better part of our economy.” Said Administrator Jackson at the Governors' Global Climate Summit in Los Angeles.

This is a tremendous victory and we commend the EPA, Administrator Jackson, and President Obama for taking this important step towards protecting public health and reducing global carbon pollution.

Obama's speech to the AFL-CIO

Jake Blumgart — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 19:02:05 EDT

For anyone curious about President Obama's address to the AFL-CIO yesterday in Pittsburg, here it is in full from 2 Political Junkies. I’m not going to directly link to it, as there are four segments and our video posting abilities are…imperfect. Link to text is here.

The speech itself is pretty stirring stuff, as I tweeted yesterday: “This is the guy I voted for”. It is reminiscent of Obama’s finer moments on the campaign trail, and opening with a cute pick me up: “You know, the White House is pretty nice, but there's nothing like being back in the House of Labor.” (Although he kind of spoils the moment by following it up with a nod to Arlen Specter.)

Obama included a lot of health care talk, naturally, a reaffirmation of his support for the Employee Free Choice Act, and a necessarily brief list of his labor victories (Ledbetter Act, rescinding Bush’s anti-worker executive policies). He tied the success of organized labor to the success of the middle class, and thus to the success of the U.S. as a whole and at the end he delves into the proud history of organized labor in Pennsylvania

There isn’t anything new or particularly revelatory here. But having spoken to a couple of my friends in organized labor, they seem pretty rejuvenated by the speech. These are people who have been flagging throughout the summer, getting more and more depressed by the imbecilic, yet effective, attacks on health care, the EFCA quagmire, and the general standoff that is the U.S. Senate. The fact that Obama was able to overcome their post-August cynicism shows that the president hasn’t completely alienated his left-wing supporters, contrary to recent sensational news coverage. Check out the labor blog Talking Union for more.

Too Little Too Late? The Money Party at Work

MichaelCollins — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 08:24:23 EST

Too Little Too Late?

The Money Party at Work

By Michael Collins

Wash. DC, Feb. 19 -- President Obama announced a $75 billion assistance package to address home foreclosures yesterday. He also promised a $200 billion infusion into Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the nation's underlying lenders. That's exactly $275 billion more dollars than the previous administration committed to citizens to help ease their very human crises surrounding foreclosure.

Is this enough to stem the tide for those losing their homes? Will those "who have played by the rules," as Obama calls them, be salvaged the indignities and financial oblivion that begin in earnest if they're thrown onto the street? Or will those who broke all the rules profit immeasurably?

Fractured Priorities USA Gets a D in Infrastructure

MichaelCollins — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 13:40:49 EST

kodama cc

Civil Engineers Deliver the Bad News

Michael Collins

"The overall grade for the nation's infrastructure is again a D and the cost to bring it up to good condition has risen to $2.2 trillion. In more than a decade, the United States has made no measurable progress in improving either the condition or performance of our roads, bridges, water systems or other vital infrastructure when viewed in aggregate."

American Society of Civil Engineers, 2009 Report Card on U.S. Infrastructure

Read it and weep. This the nation's infrastructure report card from the American Society of Civil Engineers. We're not doing too well. Maybe our fearless leaders of the last 40 years forgot their glasses or got into some of that Indian Hemp that George Washington talked about. Without any doubt, they were not paying attention to the fundamentals.

Progressive change -- Obama, us, you

halperindavid — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:18:59 EST

As us older people say, OMG. In 76 days, after eight years of decaying, destructive conservatism in Washington, a fresh progressive President and Administration will take the reins.

Campus Progress is ready to work with you, starting right now, to turn this immense promise into lasting positive change. We can be your gateway to participating in critical efforts ahead. Read on to see how we can work together.

Today’s young people have lived much of their lives under the fiercely conservative, cynical, and incompetent regime of George W. Bush. The current administration has stomped on our values and done tremendous harm to our society.

But the thousands of young people who have worked to build a resurgent progressive youth movement never lost hope. You have organized effectively around the urgency of progressive change, on issues from economic opportunity to global warming. Now you have a chance to come to Washington, and to organize on your campuses and in your communities, to make that change a reality.

It will not be easy. Powerful interests will be working to block progress. The conservative movement may be intellectually bankrupt, but it still has plenty of cash at its disposal. Millions of dollars also will continue to flow from entrenched special interests to K Street to pay lobbyists and lawyers for efforts to halt reform.

That’s where you come in. If you are young and progressive, you now have a chance to take over the world. Join with Campus Progress and our partner organizations, and let’s see what we can accomplish.

Work with us and our partners on our national efforts to generate alternative energy and halt climate change; to make education affordable, health care accessible, and good jobs available; to strengthen civil rights and liberties; to bring our troops home from Iraq and advance a smarter foreign policy. Work with this Administration when it leads for progress, and hold its feet to the fire if and when it disappoints. Apply for a Campus Progress Action Grant, so we can help you win an issue campaign in your own community.

Express yourself and reach a national audience for your journalism and multimedia by contributing to our CampusProgress.org web magazine or Campus Progress Action’s Pushback blog. Apply for a Campus Progress Publication Grant to start or advance a progressive newspaper, magazine, or website on your campus.

Work with us to create events on your campuses and in your communities, with speakers, performers, and films that address the issues that matter most and inspire attendees to take action.

The Bush Administration has left a big mess to clean up. But few previous generations of young people have had such an opportunity to participate in the reinvention and reinvigoration of this country. You have done much to get us to this point. Here at Campus Progress, we can’t wait to be part of what you do next.

David Halperin

Director, Campus Progress

2008: The Difficulty Stealing it this Time

MichaelCollins — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 09:04:27 EDT

Election 2008: The Difficulty Stealing It This Time

Image cc

New 2008 Democratic Primary Voters Are The
Key to Election Protection

Michael Collins
"Scoop" Independent News

(Wash. DC) There's one major obstacle blocking a theft of the 2008 presidential election. It's highly significant and challenges even the most devious minds. That obstacle is "net new" Democratic primary voters in 2008. "Net new" Democratic primary voters represent the difference between primary turnout in 2004 and 2008. More on that in a moment.

Militarized Campuses: a Bipartisan Affair

Liberaltarian — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 11:48:43 EDT

Last week, Barack Obama confirmed what many had hoped was a misstatement made in the primaries. Washington Post:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) took the occasion to chide Columbia for its lack of on-campus ROTC. "I don't think that's right," Mr. McCain said. "Shouldn't the students here be exposed to the attractiveness of serving in the military, particularly as an officer?" Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) readily agreed, calling Columbia's anti-ROTC stance a "mistake."

Flash back several months (courtesy For Student Power):

From last night's Democratic debate, as reported by The Hill:

Obama and Edwards both said that they supported withholding funding from higher education institutions that do not provide ROTC programs to students. Clinton initially said she would enforce laws to stop funding but later said of prominent schools that do not have ROTC programs that "there are ways they can work out fulfilling that obligation."

What they were talking about is the Solomon Amendment — a law passed in 1996 (and upheld unanimously by the Supreme Court) that allows the Secretary of Defense to strip a college or university of all Federal funding if the school bans/prohibits ROTC or any other military recruitment on campus.

If you recall, the LGBT and anti-war communities flipped out at this, and rightfully so.

Having ROTC and military recruiters on campus violates many university non-discrimination regulations. To create sympathy for their argument, the Post casts it in classist terms of elite universities being the only ones without recruiters. But the long shadow of the Pentagon does reach these institutions, in the form of "defense" research into everything from smart bombs to spy satellites to bioweapons.

And the Post wraps it up with a bit of flag waving:

"Don't ask, don't tell" is a misguided policy. For the time being, though, it is the law of the land, and we see no sign that the Ivies' protest is having any impact on it. Meanwhile, the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines defend all Americans, gay or straight.

But it is having an impact, as all boycotts do (to a greater or lesser extent). They're also serving as an example to others. As more and more universities refuse to bow down and subsidize Empire, we'll see reduced capacity for another set of Middle East (or South American) adventures, which is, scarily, still a possibility nomatter who wins in November. I wonder what uber-nationalist campus clubs like Youth for Western Civilization think about it. Wait, no I don't wonder at all.

Venezuela's Popular Power

Liberaltarian — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 12:05:13 EDT

An interesting rundown of some of the fascinating on-the-ground changes happening in Venezuela at the moment.

The creation of communal councils, legally recognised in April 2006, served to bring together these different sectoral organisations around discussing and acting upon a local development plan.

The idea behind the councils is that it be the communities themselves that diagnose the local problems, democratically decide on the tasks to be solved and, with funding from the national, regional and municipal budgets, begin to tackle these basic problems.

According to Farias, there are currently 36,000 communal councils.

I'd love to see a documentary about these budding institutions. While Obama merely talks about "from the bottom up," average Venezuelans are actually living it.

EDIT: Wikipedia actually has a great systematic look at the structure/function of communal councils. Sweet! Participatory democracy = awesome. Capitalism, not so much.

This kind of innovation is just the kind of experimentation that cretins like Youth for Western Civilization would oppose.

Maybe Obama is a little arrogant... but shouldn't he be?

Allison B — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:04:21 EDT

The McCain camp has accused Obama of projecting a "holier than thou" attitude throughout his campaign for quite some time now. They started shouting even louder yesterday after the Washington Post printed this quote from Obama when addressing the House Democrats:

"This is the moment, as Nancy [Pelosi] noted, that the world is waiting for... I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions."

Too bad the Post didn't even check to see if they got the whole quote. This is closer to what Obama actually said:

"It has become increasingly clear in my travel, the campaign, that the crowds, the enthusiasm, 200,000 people in Berlin, is not about me at all. It's about America. I have just become a symbol..."

It seems hard to refute that Obama has become a symbol of what America can be, not what it has been for the past 8 years. We have never seen a candidate from either major party resemble anything close to Obama (and no, I'm not talking about his physical appearance). This is someone who has transformed himself from a no-name, one-term senator into the presumptive Democrat nominee. People are excited about what Obama could bring into the White House all around the world... and there's no denying that.

However, I can still see how Republicans would think the quote has some sense of arrogance entwined within it. To say that you have become a symbol of American greatness is a little presumptious (even though a lot of Americans think he is!)

To be frank, Obama probably is arrogant.. and thank goodness he is! I'm not going to vote for some shlep plagued by self-esteem issues. I want my president to be confident and secure in the ideals they believe in and the decisions they make. Obama has shown this by voting against Iraq... he didn't let unmountable pressure take hold of him and vote for something he didn't believe in. He stuck to his guns and it ended up rewarding him in the end...

Also, there is no way that any individual who has run for president does not have any sense of arrogance within themselves. You have to be somewhat self-important in order to think that you're the best candidate to run the country.

McCain's camp is just trying ANYTHING to break down the Obama-hype (aka using Paris and Britney... pathetic much?) In fact, I almost feel sorry for them that they don't have any better material.

McCain Attacks

Ben Yelin — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 14:14:47 EDT

I've become increasingly dismayed and angry at John McCain's recent attacks on Barack Obama. I wanted to try to ignore them, because getting upset would be exactly what they want. But these attacks have either, a) been flat-out wrong or misleading, b) beyond the traditionally acceptable political criticism, c) surprising from a candidate who said he wants to run a clean campaign.

Knowing that he can't win a debate on policy, McCain has resorted to a line of attack that tries to appeal to American's fears about Obama. He wants to cast Obama as the "other" who is not patriotic and does not want to see his country succeed. If Obama said this stuff about McCain, he would be assailed by the media.

First, McCain charges that because Obama opposed the troop surge, he was more concerned about winning a political campaign than winning a war. This just reeks of cynicism and right-wing fear-mongering. Nevermind the fact that McCain talks about the vague concept of "victory," as if one day we'll waltz away from Iraq dancing on the S.S. McCain. Nevermind that Obama, like many other patriotic Americans, including Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, believed that the surge would mean more money spent, more American casualties and more distractions from the central-front in the War on Terror, Afghanistan. (I, for one, still believe he was right). The most important fact is that Obama took the extraordinarily unpopular position, risking political ruin, by opposing the war in the first place. McCain went along with it like a cog in a machine. (despite what he'll try and tell us about opposing a "failed" strategy, he was advocating "stay the course" as late as 2005).

Next was the absurd charge that Obama didn't make time to visit wounded troops in Germany. Obama says that the Pentagon was concerned that such a visit would be viewed as too political, since this portion of his overseas trip was paid for with campaign money. McCain accused Obama of taking time to go the gym, while ignoring our troops. Of course, Obama had already spent time with troops in Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan. Also, he REALLY supported the troops by supporting Jim Webb's GI Bill, which McCain opposed, and then tried to take credit for. McCain is doing the same thing that these viral emails are trying to do: use Obama's unfamiliarity (augmented by his skin color, name and background) to foment doubt in the minds of American voters about his patriotism. This is politics at its worst. These attacks are personal, not political, have nothing to do with policy, and are aimed at the appealing to the worst prejudices of the American people.

We would never question McCain's patriotism. Nor should we. We don't have to, because we can win the election on policy.

This Thursday'll make you explode

KDubz — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 18:38:27 EDT

This Thursday, it's going down like no other.

Moving Beyond Black and White...Biracialism in the 21st Century

Nicadulche — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 02:32:25 EDT

Will we ever live in an America that sees race as a continuum, instead of just black and white (or black and white and Asian and Latino)?

Gary Kamiya wrote an excellent article on Salon.com today that deals with race in America, especially as it pertains to Obama and his candidacy. Ironically, I was just having a conversation with a friend and I mentioned to her that I was a little disappointed in how Obama has self-identified as completely black in the public eye, instead of being proudly biracial. I understand, because I too am half-black and half-white just like Obama, but it upsets me that the Senator believes that America is too close minded to deal with biracialism. Is it? Here's an excellent quote from the article:

"Mixed-race people, particularly those of black and white ancestry, have long been forced to navigate this complicated terrain. Their experiences show just how inadequate our traditional ways of talking about race are. As their numbers grow and their perspectives become more familiar, they will inevitably erode the cornerstone of America's racial pathologies, the one-drop rule -- the idea, deeply rooted in white racism, that any amount of black blood defines you as black. And no one will do more to undercut that racist rule than Obama".

I hate that I live in a country where, when people see me, all they see is black, and I would hate it equally if all they saw was white. I believe that being multiracial is a huge blessing, and I try to identify equally with both sides of my family, but I definitely feel like it's a complicated societal balancing act. People seem to always expect me to "act black" or "act white". Admittedly, because of how and where I grew up (suburban white America, with my white mother), most people say that I "act white". This hurts me deeply, because I feel like sometimes people think that I think I'm "too good" for them. In reality, for social reasons, it's just been harder for me to meet as many black friends. However, according to Kamiya, the opposite is true for most mixed-race people. As a result of the fact that society defines them by their "non-whiteness", many seem to find it easier to identify with their minority ancestry. This is the case with Obama, and I completely undestand. He grew up in a predominately white community in the 1970's so he didn't really have the option to identify as white or even biracial, because of the historical "one-drop" rule (whose remnants still haunt us today) that states that if you're "one drop black", you're black. I know that I've had a much easier time with race issues in my life than he must have had in his, and I pray that my future children (who, mathematically, would have to be multiracial, simply because I am) will have an easier time than I've had. I hate the fact that in the 21st century we still have to fit neatly into racial and cultural boxes, and perhaps Obama's candidacy will start to bring some of these issues into the national dialogue, and break down some of our antiquated ideas about race.

If anyone has any insight or wants to share his/her own experiences (especially if you have some insight about being mixed-other than black and white), please reply. I'd love to hear what you think.

Obama Pound: In Historic Moment, White People Exposed To “Fist Bump” For First Time

Katie Halper — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 00:05:53 EDT

The Obama pound, exchanged between Michelle and Barack on Tuesday night, marked a historic moment. Yeah, there's that whole first black nominee for president thing. But more significant, is the fact that the greeting which has been described by confused white journalists as a "fist bump," "closed-fist high-five," "a frat-tastic fist bump" and a "'Hezbollah' style fist-jabbing" is finally being introduced to mainstream culture.

DNC Makes Their Decision

sekai.no.kakumei — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 15:05:52 EDT

After a lot of debate and controversy about Florida and Michigan’s delegates, the DNC decided to reinstate the delegates to the party convention, but at half-vote as penalty for moving their primaries. Here’s the breakdown:

→ Clinton receives 105 pledged delegates from Florida and 69 pledged delegates from Michigan, giving her 87 votes.

→ Obama receives 67 pledged delegates from Florida and 59 pledged delegates from Michigan, giving him 63. This lessens his lead over Clinton from 202 to 174.

Anti-Immigrant Sentiments are Alive and Well...if not logical.

Nicadulche — Sun, 18 May 2008 13:26:45 EDT

http://jewishworldreview.com/kathleen/parker051408.php3

Kathleen Parker, who was featured in the Washington Post yesterday, calling Obama and Edwards "girly boys", also wrote the appalling article above (alliteration!!!) apparently in defense of those who think that being a "real American" means having WHITE ancestors who arrived in the U.S. before some arbitrary date, 1800 perhaps? Seriously? She begins with a quote from a young West-Virginian who says that he dislikes Obama becasue he's not a "full blooded American". As some other bloggers out there have pointed out, Obama's grandfather fought in WWII. What about that is not American? What exactly is the qualification for being a "real American"? Is she proposing, by defending this opinion, that anyone that came to the U.S. after a certain date is a doesn't belong here?

In addition to that revelation, Ms. Parker points out that understanding America is "about blood equity, heritage and commitment to hard-won American values. And roots". I'd venture to say that the millions of people from around the world who apply for U.S. Visas every year, who have worked and saved for years to have enough money in their accounts to even apply to enter our country, understand commitment and the value of hard work. It is unacceptable to defend those who believe that the only true Americans are white people whose family came over on the Mayflower.

Ms. Parker also indicates that multiculturalism is evidently cause for concern for many "real Americans": "What they know is that their forefathers fought and died for an America that has worked pretty well for more than 200 years. What they sense is that their heritage is being swept under the carpet while multiculturalism becomes the new national narrative". I'm sorry, but I didn't realize that multiculturalism was the new damaging trend. The U.S. has always relied on "multiculturalism" for its success: it was immigrants who created some of the most important technological advances in American history. Also, our country was literally built on the backs of slaves who were stolen from Africa. Without that "free" labor, we would not have experienced the type of rapid economic growth that occurred in the 19th century. My black and white (I'm mixed) forefathers fought and died for the values of an America that still treats me like a second class citizen because I, like Obama, don't "look" American. Ms. Parker's post proves that racism is still alive and well. It is clear that even if Obama wins the presidency, we still have a lot of work to do to become united states, instead of the ones divided, along racial/social/cultural lines, that we have been for hundreds of years.

Anti-American Sentiments

Nick — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:51:18 EDT

Anti-American Sentiments

The phrase "anti-American sentiments" is and has been ubiquitous in the mainstream media ever since clips of Barack Obama's former pastor Jeremiah Wright have surfaced and been circulated on cable news and the internet. His statements have been branded as anti-American. It seems to me that the phrase is very loaded and complex, but not entirely clear. It deserves dissection and reflection.

What does it mean exactly? Is it an objective or a subjective idea? America is not only a place, but a conceptual being, ever-changing and dynamic. It represents many ideas and people. It would be nice if the media discussed its meaning, but that may be too much to ask of them. Think about what it means to you. For the purposes of this article, it means simply what the words say (and the negative connotations inherent in them): opposed or against America.

Is that what the Rev. Jeremiah Wright is? Opposed to America? Why doesn't he get the hell out of here then? Maybe, he is not actually "anti-American." Who can be sure? However, he is certainly critical of the American government's actions and has made it known in a very inflammatory way that has made it very easy to make the leap to the label anti-American. In spite of this swift mental transition, if one considers the greatness of our constitution, they will remember that it is the right to denounce and disagree with the actions carried out by our government that helps form the foundation of our democracy. If we could not or did not, then we would probably have a monarchy. Yet, thankfully we get to recognize, speak about, and attempt to fix past mistakes and injustices.

Despite the fact Wright has the right to voice criticisms of former and present U.S. actions--no matter how rabble-rousing they may seem--we should also discuss the huge response that he has elicited. It seems that people are afraid of him and feel a strong responsibility to denounce his words. What is behind this fear?

Could it be that people fear a revolution in America's African-American community? Are people afraid that Wright, an influential pastor in the United Church of Christ, is spewing anti-American sermons to countless congregations, inciting impassioned rhetoric that eventually will rally the masses of African-American parishioners to fight against America?

Could it be? Does he have such power? Is he dangerous? The media, the GOP, and Hillary all have an interest in having you (or in Hillary's case, the superdelegates) consider the idea (tune in!), but this notion is completely ridiculous. All the same, he is anti-American so he is opposed to America.

However, fearing Wright is irrational. Alas, it is very easy and many people disturbed, angry, afraid, or outraged.

Be that as it may, we should not fear Wright, because, first of all, he is extreme and paranoid, stating that the U.S. government had a plan to spread HIV among African-Americans. Most people in America find this absurd and therefore he will discredit himself. Second of all, U.S. foreign policy should be criticized. If it weren't we'd be lacking a major characteristic of a free and open society and we wouldn't have constructive discussions about the decisions we make abroad (discussions that are sorely needed).

People might say that I am giving the incendiary pastor a free pass. Maybe I am. But in all fairness, we are paying increasingly more attention to what a Christian pastor is saying about America than what our lame duck president does with the remainder of his time in office, or perhaps more importantly, what our megalomaniacal vice president is doing.

Therefore, yes, I am saying that what Wright has said is not a relatively huge deal. We are still in Iraq and Afghanistan, still not getting anywhere with Iran, still in a recession, and we are in the midst of electing our next president. The words of one ex-Marine former pastor are not in the forefront of my mind.

Notwithstanding, if we are going to be preoccupied with Wright's angry oratory, then we may want to try to figure out why someone, who believed in America so much that they gave up their college deferment to serve in the marines and subsequently on Lyndon Johnson's medical team, has altered his beliefs and is now so passionately resentful of his country.

"The [Primary] System Doesn't Make Sense" - According to This Guy

Somerset Perry — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 09:43:47 EDT

A recent articled titled "If the system made sense, Clinton would be far ahead" from Salon.com is so biased and un-nuanced - to the point that the article is essentially worthless - that I’ve deciced write my first blog post here in over a year (and create a new username because I can't get into my old account) to point it out. As an Obama supporter, it kind of drove me up the wall, but hopefully I can turn that frustration into something more conciliating than the article itself.