McCain has won praise from the media for all of his bluster and tough talk on Russia. These are the folks he refers to as "my base" and that have cozied up with the Senator for bbq at his private residence, so it's not surprising that they're eating up neocon John's act.
http://www.cnn.com/...
However, people that are looking objectively at the Georgia conflict are reaching a different conclusion. Had we pursued the policies recommended by McCain in the past years regarding Russia, we would have forfeited most of the means we currently have at our disposal to put pressure on them.
Some of the wingnut persuasion have called us "The People's Republic of Iowa City". To other haters it's "San Fransisco on the Iowa River". Fortunately, wingnuts and haters aren't too powerful around here. This is the sort of place where the mayor shows up riding a bicycle at the farmer's market to speak about the need to address climate change. We're rooted in rural values, like working hard and caring for the land. We're highly educated and pragmatic thinkers, the kind the wingnuts and haters call "elitist". We've got a lot of energetic and organized young people. This is the sort of place that had a lot to do with electing Barack Obama.
We had more rain today and more is expected tomorrow but after that it's supposed to be dry for at least 4 or 5 days straight. That's especially good news for our neighbors on the Cedar River in Cedar Rapids about 30 minutes north on I-380. The flood is beginning to recede there and thankfully people will have dry and not-too-hot weather as the long clean-up effort begins.
There's a kind of intellectual trap that is very easy to fall into. Humans, for reasons of cognitive economy I believe, tend to think about each other in terms of types. This is useful but dangerous. You hear the phrases "Clinton supporters" and "Obama supporters" bandied about, for example, in diaries making sweeping generalizations about the people supporting each candidate. Spinoza called the caricatures of one another that we invent in our minds "beings of reason": entia rationis. The caricature is a creation of your mind and if you're not careful you can wind up mentally inhabiting an almost matrix-like world of only beings of reason, failing to be receptive to others as they are in reality.
With that in mind, may I suggest the following useful corrective of this tendency. Rethink your "typical ______ supporter". Block out that nasty person online that has informed your type and the generalizations you tend to make. Below the fold, I share with you the person I think of as a sort of therapy against beings of reason. I'm not saying I'm a Spinozistic Saint; I can be nasty, make assumptions, and overgeneralize with the best of them. But this helps.
A lot can hinge on the meaning of 'is'. I think it was Bertrand Russell who said that most philosophical problems are confusions of the 'is' of predication, the 'is' of identity, and the 'is' of existential quantification. The mining of such careful logical and grammatical distinctions that began with Frege and matured with Russell flourished in Wittgenstein's thinking with the idea that there are no real philosophical problems, only logico-grammatical confusion.
Here we go. In remarks on Memorial Day, Obama related a story about an uncle who returned from WW2 with PTSD. Obama said that the uncle was one of the soldiers who first entered Auschwitz. This is likely incorrect. Auschwitz was liberated by the Soviets. Conservatives are all over this "gaffe". Rather than link to conservative blogs, I'll let you folks google for yourselves.
A new report from Taxpayers for Common Sense places Hillary Clinton in the top 10% in the Senate in pork, while Barack Obama places in the bottom 25%.
In terms of securing earmarks, Hillary Clinton (D-NY) ranks among the top ten in the Senate ($340 million) while Barack Obama (D-IL) ranks in the bottom 25% of the Senate ($91 million). John McCain (R-AZ) has rejected earmarks entirely. Since becoming the majority party, Democrats are responsible for 57% of the $18.3 billion spent on earmarks. (Washington Post)
The Clintons have so far refused to call off their surrogates that have pushed forward this suit to take away caucus sites from workers because their union endorsed Obama. In fact, Bill Clinton is actively supporting the effort to strip these workers of their voice:
http://www.dailykos.com/...
"To say that there is a pattern of racist comments coming out of the Hillary campaign is ridiculous," said Ohio Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones. "All of the world knows the commitment of President Clinton and Sen. Clinton to civil rights issues — and not only the commitment in terms of words but in terms of deeds."
For a moment, before launching into some of her stock talking point attacks on Obama, Hillary showed a side that we have not seen and it seems to have helped her win a narrow victory in New Hampshire. After 35 years of public life, she said in she's just now "found [her] own voice." She also claimed that in the closing days of the New Hampshire primary she finally started taking the "tough questions" of younger voters. In that spirit, here is my tough question for Senator Clinton.
A new memo from the Obama campaign discusses the way the Edwards and Clinton campaigns are being run. In this diary I will focus on the points made regarding Edwards. The memo strongly suggests that the Edwards campaign is exploiting loopholes and/or outright breaking campaign finance law. Here is the memo.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/...
After the break I will list the specific points made by the Obama campaign. Before that, I would like to preempt one likely response. Edwards partisans are going to cry foul over this diary. We are likely to hear things like: "This is just because Edwards is 'surging' in the polls" and "Obama is going negative". These responses are specious. It's also specious to claim that I or Obama have any problem with SEIU locals participating in the election. I think that they should absolutely be participating and that they should have given directly to Edwards' campaign. Anyone who gives these specious responses is not interested in honestly debating the validity of the points made. The best of Edwards' supporters will avoid the histrionics and address the specific points.
This year, parents are a little nervous about what they're putting under the Christmas tree. Campaigning in Iowa, Obama discussed what he would do as president to ensure that toys are safe for kids:
"Now don't get me wrong, as president I will work with China to keep harmful toys off our shelves. But I'll also immediately take steps to ensure that all toys are independently tested before they reach our shores and I'll significantly increase penalties on companies that break the rules. The more toys we import from China, the more risk to our children. As president I will act with urgency to protect our children from being harmed by unsafe toys."
Speaking today about why she thinks she's more qualified to be president, Hillary Clinton alleged that Edwards and Obama would need to get "up to speed" on foreign policy and that she would not. She compared supporting her challengers with supporting Bush.
"It is tempting any time things seem quieter for a minute on the international front to think that we don't need a president who is up to speed on foreign affairs and military matters," Clinton said.
"Well, that's the kind of logic that got us George Bush in the first place," she said to laughter from her friendly audience at a high school auditorium. "Experience in foreign affairs is critical for ending the war in Iraq, averting war in Iran, negotiating a Middle East peace and dealing with North Korea."
Hillary Clinton has said that she has been fully vetted and there will be no surprises if she emerges from her struggling campaign to win the nomination. However, whether through their own fault or not, the Clinton's do indeed have many potential surprises. Today's Washington Post carries an article showing what we might expect in the general election. I raise this only as a counter-argument to the claims being put forward by the Clinton campaign, not to endorse any criticisms of the Clintons. I feel this is an issue they brought up and that it is only right to provide a counter-argument.
Hillary Clinton's campaign surrogate is continuing her Kindergarten theme claiming that Hillary's recent backfiring attacks on Obama are ok because Obama allegedly started it. Clark's assertion is silly as Obama's been focussed on track record and policy but besides that, as my mother always said, two wrongs don't make a right.
In an interview with The Advocate, Barack Obama is defending his track record of standing up for LGBT rights. I think that many of the things that McClurkin has said are reprehensible. Kredwyn's currently rec'd diary is hard to argue with and vividly shows what's at stake in our current cultural struggle. Kredwyn is right about what is at stake. I also think that Obama is right to point to his track record to put this scandal in context.
Sparks are flying over the revelation that Hillary's pollster and spokesman Mark Penn's PR firm has been advising Blackwater on how to deal with Congressional inquiries. With Blackwater making headlines over the activities of its unaccountable security forces, the issue has become an annoying focus of attention for the Clinton camp.
Before this scandal broke and before there was points to be scored in the media, however, Barack Obama had the foresight and judgment to begin to move forward legislation to create transparency and accountability for contractors.
I want to preface this diary by stating that I understand I'm making a tough point on a tough issue and that many Edwards supporters are not going to like what I have to say. Nevertheless, I think that the point I'm going to raise is an important one for us to discuss in this primary. I'm going to be connecting the issue of good judgment with some criticisms Edwards has received for his investments in and consulting with a firm called Fortress Investments. My hope is that I can do this in a way that invites a constructive dialogue. However, I am sure that many will call this a "hit diary". So be it. I have become convinced that we're too often avoiding tough questions about our favored candidates by tossing around that label, and I won't be intimidated. The best of Edwards' supporters ought to see this diary as an opportunity to answer concerns that many have about their candidate.
