Keith Olbermann have started to write blog post's at Daily Kos. See Olbermann
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Conversion Of Conveniences
Ask corporate lobbyists which presidential contender is most feared by their clients and the answer is almost always the same -- Democrat John Edwards.
The former North Carolina senator's chosen profession alone raises the hackles of business people. Before entering politics, he made a fortune as a trial lawyer.
In litigious America, trial lawyers bring lawsuits against companies on behalf of aggrieved individuals and sometimes win multimillion-dollar settlements. Edwards won several.
We hear how he helps the poor and wanted to stop big business, but did you know this?
Speaking of the poor and how he will try to fight the big business man, did you know that Edwards, working part-time as an academic focused on poverty, "worked part-time as a senior adviser," says AP. Since his job was to help Fortress Investment get richer, poverty would presumably not be his main concern. See Fortress
Four months later, he began working for the kind of firm that to many Wall Street critics embodies the economy of wealthy insiders -- a hedge fund. See Business
Edwards, however, was not known as an outspoken champion for the poor during his six years as a senator, and his campaign could point to no major bills in that regard that he authored and got passed into law. He did help push a patients' bill of rights and he joined other Democrats in Congress in backing proposed increases in the minimum wage.
In 2000, he voted for permanent, normalized trade relations with China, which gave American businesses access to China's huge market, but which labor and other opponents said would hurt domestic manufacturing. Edwards has called the vote a blunder. He also voted, in 2002, for a bill giving President Bush broad authority to negotiate trade agreements. Edwards says he regrets that vote, too.
Edwards has disavowed other major votes as well. In 2001, he joined 81 other senators in voting for bankruptcy legislation making it more difficult for consumers to clear debt. Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, who dropped out of the presidential race last week after a poor showing in Iowa, has attacked Edwards for his vote, saying it belied his stated commitment to fighting for the middle class.
Last month, Edwards told reporters that he was wrong to vote for the bill, but that it was an exception.
"I voted hundreds of times in the interests of poor people," he said, according to the Los Angeles Times. "If you look at anybody's record you'll be able to flyspeck one thing here or there. My life work makes absolutely clear what I'm committed to."
Edwards similarly expressed contrition for his 2002 vote authorizing the invasion of Iraq, saying he was "wrong to vote for this war." And he has apologized for his support in 2001 of No Child Left Behind, President Bush's controversial education initiative requiring public schools to meet certain benchmarks. Edwards has called it one of the worst mistakes of his Senate career.
Edwards's approach to policy-making has evolved as well, as he has grown far more confrontational than the candidate whose sunny disposition, both as a presidential contender and eventual running mate, was a hallmark of the 2004 race.
He often, for example, casts rival Barack Obama, the senator from Illinois, as hopelessly naive for being willing to let drug companies and insurance companies participate in negotiations over healthcare. "That is a complete fantasy," Edwards said last week in Iowa. "The only way we're going to get their power away is we're going to have to take their power away."
In February of last year, however, when Edwards was asked by a writer on the liberal blog MyDD.com about the role of business, labor, healthcare groups, and doctors in the healthcare debate, he said, "I think you try to bring everybody to the table. You want their participation. You want to make the system work for everybody."
Edwards's campaign insists that a focus on inconsistencies in his record misses the larger arc of a career spent representing plaintiffs in lawsuits against corporations, winning accolades from major labor groups even though he came from a right-to-work state, and, in the years between his presidential campaigns, creating an academic center to study ways to reverse poverty.
But compared with 2004, when he was the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, his rhetoric has escalated considerably. He now contrasts himself with Obama on the basis of his personal, lifelong commitment to fighting corporate greed.
His shift in tone may have helped him win over some Democrats this cycle. Indeed, his second-place finish in Iowa over Senator Hillary Clinton and his continued viability as a candidate bear that out.
But the more confrontational tone has also turned off some voters who preferred the John Edwards they knew in 2004.
Denise Hawks, a 49-year-old donor relations specialist from Des Moines, said she was with Edwards four years ago, but went with Obama this year, in part because of Edwards's transformation into an angrier, more strident candidate. If he was such a fighter, she asked, where was he when Republican operatives helped sink the Democrats' 2004 presidential hopes with their attack ads?
"Four years too late," Hawks said. "They were asleep at the wheel."
Edwards has said that he wanted to fight back against attacks on his running mate, John F. Kerry, but was overruled by the Kerry camp. Kerry and more than a half-dozen former high-ranking Kerry-Edwards campaign officials, however, have disputed his contention that he favored a tougher strategy, saying Edwards often refused their requests to go after Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney more forcefully. See Edwards
He talks about how he apologized for signing to go to war and jumps all over Hillary, but did you know this?
Just as Hillary he never read the NIE report but claimed he did and later retracted. Yet as John Kerry's 2004 ticketmate, the former North Carolina senator was anything but eager to acknowledge error on Iraq. Instead, according to several Kerry-Edwards campaign aides, Edwards argued repeatedly that the two should stand by their votes, even after it had become apparent that Iraq had neither weapons of mass destruction nor collaborative ties with Al Qaeda. See Kerry
He has been mean and wrong about a lot of things and I feel he was wrong to Hillary Clinton when this occured: Her voice breaking and tears in her eyes, she said, "You know, this is very personal for me. It's not just political it's not just public. I see what's happening, and we have to reverse it."
Edwards jumped on the chance to express his readiness to face the strenuous demands of the presidency: "What I know is I'm prepared for that and I'm in this fight for the middle class and the future of this country for the long haul, through the conventions, straight to the White House."
However, in an interview with ABC News' David Muir, Elizabeth Edwards offered more compassion than her husband. She noted that everyone on the campaign trail can relate to how grueling the task can be. In the end, Elizabeth Edwards did not pass on the political opportunity and added that voters will decide whether or not they want to see watery eyes.
Later, at another campaign stop, Edwards appeared to adopt his wife's more sympathetic tone.
"These campaigns are very grueling," he said, "they're tough and difficult affairs, running for president is a tough process."
During a campaign stop at Jake's Coffee in New London, New Hampshire, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was also asked to comment about Clinton's teary moment.
"I didn't see what happened," he said, but added, "I know this process is a grind. So that's not something I care to comment on."See Hillary
John Edwards has been wrong about a lot of things and he sure was wrong to Hillary Clinton. Have you heard an apology as of yet?
The former North Carolina senator's chosen profession alone raises the hackles of business people. Before entering politics, he made a fortune as a trial lawyer.
In litigious America, trial lawyers bring lawsuits against companies on behalf of aggrieved individuals and sometimes win multimillion-dollar settlements. Edwards won several.
We hear how he helps the poor and wanted to stop big business, but did you know this?
Speaking of the poor and how he will try to fight the big business man, did you know that Edwards, working part-time as an academic focused on poverty, "worked part-time as a senior adviser," says AP. Since his job was to help Fortress Investment get richer, poverty would presumably not be his main concern. See Fortress
Four months later, he began working for the kind of firm that to many Wall Street critics embodies the economy of wealthy insiders -- a hedge fund. See Business
Edwards, however, was not known as an outspoken champion for the poor during his six years as a senator, and his campaign could point to no major bills in that regard that he authored and got passed into law. He did help push a patients' bill of rights and he joined other Democrats in Congress in backing proposed increases in the minimum wage.
In 2000, he voted for permanent, normalized trade relations with China, which gave American businesses access to China's huge market, but which labor and other opponents said would hurt domestic manufacturing. Edwards has called the vote a blunder. He also voted, in 2002, for a bill giving President Bush broad authority to negotiate trade agreements. Edwards says he regrets that vote, too.
Edwards has disavowed other major votes as well. In 2001, he joined 81 other senators in voting for bankruptcy legislation making it more difficult for consumers to clear debt. Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, who dropped out of the presidential race last week after a poor showing in Iowa, has attacked Edwards for his vote, saying it belied his stated commitment to fighting for the middle class.
Last month, Edwards told reporters that he was wrong to vote for the bill, but that it was an exception.
"I voted hundreds of times in the interests of poor people," he said, according to the Los Angeles Times. "If you look at anybody's record you'll be able to flyspeck one thing here or there. My life work makes absolutely clear what I'm committed to."
Edwards similarly expressed contrition for his 2002 vote authorizing the invasion of Iraq, saying he was "wrong to vote for this war." And he has apologized for his support in 2001 of No Child Left Behind, President Bush's controversial education initiative requiring public schools to meet certain benchmarks. Edwards has called it one of the worst mistakes of his Senate career.
Edwards's approach to policy-making has evolved as well, as he has grown far more confrontational than the candidate whose sunny disposition, both as a presidential contender and eventual running mate, was a hallmark of the 2004 race.
He often, for example, casts rival Barack Obama, the senator from Illinois, as hopelessly naive for being willing to let drug companies and insurance companies participate in negotiations over healthcare. "That is a complete fantasy," Edwards said last week in Iowa. "The only way we're going to get their power away is we're going to have to take their power away."
In February of last year, however, when Edwards was asked by a writer on the liberal blog MyDD.com about the role of business, labor, healthcare groups, and doctors in the healthcare debate, he said, "I think you try to bring everybody to the table. You want their participation. You want to make the system work for everybody."
Edwards's campaign insists that a focus on inconsistencies in his record misses the larger arc of a career spent representing plaintiffs in lawsuits against corporations, winning accolades from major labor groups even though he came from a right-to-work state, and, in the years between his presidential campaigns, creating an academic center to study ways to reverse poverty.
But compared with 2004, when he was the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, his rhetoric has escalated considerably. He now contrasts himself with Obama on the basis of his personal, lifelong commitment to fighting corporate greed.
His shift in tone may have helped him win over some Democrats this cycle. Indeed, his second-place finish in Iowa over Senator Hillary Clinton and his continued viability as a candidate bear that out.
But the more confrontational tone has also turned off some voters who preferred the John Edwards they knew in 2004.
Denise Hawks, a 49-year-old donor relations specialist from Des Moines, said she was with Edwards four years ago, but went with Obama this year, in part because of Edwards's transformation into an angrier, more strident candidate. If he was such a fighter, she asked, where was he when Republican operatives helped sink the Democrats' 2004 presidential hopes with their attack ads?
"Four years too late," Hawks said. "They were asleep at the wheel."
Edwards has said that he wanted to fight back against attacks on his running mate, John F. Kerry, but was overruled by the Kerry camp. Kerry and more than a half-dozen former high-ranking Kerry-Edwards campaign officials, however, have disputed his contention that he favored a tougher strategy, saying Edwards often refused their requests to go after Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney more forcefully. See Edwards
He talks about how he apologized for signing to go to war and jumps all over Hillary, but did you know this?
Just as Hillary he never read the NIE report but claimed he did and later retracted. Yet as John Kerry's 2004 ticketmate, the former North Carolina senator was anything but eager to acknowledge error on Iraq. Instead, according to several Kerry-Edwards campaign aides, Edwards argued repeatedly that the two should stand by their votes, even after it had become apparent that Iraq had neither weapons of mass destruction nor collaborative ties with Al Qaeda. See Kerry
He has been mean and wrong about a lot of things and I feel he was wrong to Hillary Clinton when this occured: Her voice breaking and tears in her eyes, she said, "You know, this is very personal for me. It's not just political it's not just public. I see what's happening, and we have to reverse it."
Edwards jumped on the chance to express his readiness to face the strenuous demands of the presidency: "What I know is I'm prepared for that and I'm in this fight for the middle class and the future of this country for the long haul, through the conventions, straight to the White House."
However, in an interview with ABC News' David Muir, Elizabeth Edwards offered more compassion than her husband. She noted that everyone on the campaign trail can relate to how grueling the task can be. In the end, Elizabeth Edwards did not pass on the political opportunity and added that voters will decide whether or not they want to see watery eyes.
Later, at another campaign stop, Edwards appeared to adopt his wife's more sympathetic tone.
"These campaigns are very grueling," he said, "they're tough and difficult affairs, running for president is a tough process."
During a campaign stop at Jake's Coffee in New London, New Hampshire, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was also asked to comment about Clinton's teary moment.
"I didn't see what happened," he said, but added, "I know this process is a grind. So that's not something I care to comment on."See Hillary
John Edwards has been wrong about a lot of things and he sure was wrong to Hillary Clinton. Have you heard an apology as of yet?
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Has Beck And His Guest Lost it?
Has Beck and his guest lost it? Did I really hear Peter Fenn the Democratic Strategist says that Edward criticized Clinton for crying?
J. Marquis has a great find that puts things into prospective. I suggest you pay him a visit at Major Conflict. The Title is, The Meltdown Candidate and the One-Trick Pony.
KUCINICH CALLS FOR 'RECOUNT' OF NEW HAMPSHIRE BALLOTS
Analysts at the Election Defense Alliance (EDA) have confirmed that based on the official results on the New Hampshire Secretary of state web site, there is a remarkable relationship between Obama and Clinton votes, when you look at votes tabulated by op-scan v. votes tabulated by hand:
Clinton Optical scan 91,717 52.95%
Obama Optical scan 81,495 47.05%
Clinton Hand-counted 20,889 47.05%
Obama Hand-counted 23,509 52.95%
The percentages appear to be swapped. That seems highly unusual, to say the least. There is a possibility that Obama won the New Hampshire elections after all. See Kucinich asks for New Hampshire recount
J. Marquis has a great find that puts things into prospective. I suggest you pay him a visit at Major Conflict. The Title is, The Meltdown Candidate and the One-Trick Pony.
KUCINICH CALLS FOR 'RECOUNT' OF NEW HAMPSHIRE BALLOTS
Analysts at the Election Defense Alliance (EDA) have confirmed that based on the official results on the New Hampshire Secretary of state web site, there is a remarkable relationship between Obama and Clinton votes, when you look at votes tabulated by op-scan v. votes tabulated by hand:
Clinton Optical scan 91,717 52.95%
Obama Optical scan 81,495 47.05%
Clinton Hand-counted 20,889 47.05%
Obama Hand-counted 23,509 52.95%
The percentages appear to be swapped. That seems highly unusual, to say the least. There is a possibility that Obama won the New Hampshire elections after all. See Kucinich asks for New Hampshire recount
Monday, January 07, 2008
Bush And The Threats that Are In His Mind!
From UK Times On Line
While most Americans are watching the different Presidential nominees and trying to make a decision on which one to support. Our President George W Bush will be brief ISRAELI security officials on their latest intelligence about Iran’s nuclear programme - and how it could be destroyed - when he begins a tour of the Middle East in Jerusalem this week.
Last month it was revealed that the US National Intelligence Estimate report, drawing together information from 16 agencies, had concluded that Iran stopped a secret nuclear weapon programme in 2003.
Israeli intelligence is understood to agree that the project was halted around the time of America’s invasion of Iraq, but has “rock solid” information that it has since started up again.
While security officials are reluctant to reveal all their intelligence, fearing that leaks could jeopardise the element of surprise in any future attack, they are expected to present the president with fresh details of Iran’s enrichment of uranium - which could be used for civil or military purposes - and the development of missiles that could carry nuclear warheads.
In an interview with the Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot this weekend, Bush argued that in spite of the US intelligence assessment, Iran still posed a threat.
“I read the intelligence report carefully,” Bush said. “In essence, what the report said was that Iran had a secret plan to develop nuclear weapons.
“I’m saying that a state which adopted a nontransparent policy and had a secret plan for developing nuclear weapons could easily develop an alternative plan for the same purpose. So to conclude from the intelligence report that there is no Iranian plan to develop nuclear weapons will be only a partial truth.”
Israeli security officials believe the only way to prevent uranium enrichment to military grade is to destroy Iranian installations. Many Israelis are eager to know whether America would give their country the green light to attack, as it did last September when Israel struck a mysterious nuclear site in Syria.
Bush refused to be drawn when asked whether he would support an Israeli attack. “My message to all countries in the region is that we are able to solve the problem in a diplomatic way,” he said, “but all options are on the table.”
We should try to watch what this President has planned for America before his time is over next year. He is still making decisions and they are all ways the wrong decision that cost American lives.
While most Americans are watching the different Presidential nominees and trying to make a decision on which one to support. Our President George W Bush will be brief ISRAELI security officials on their latest intelligence about Iran’s nuclear programme - and how it could be destroyed - when he begins a tour of the Middle East in Jerusalem this week.
Last month it was revealed that the US National Intelligence Estimate report, drawing together information from 16 agencies, had concluded that Iran stopped a secret nuclear weapon programme in 2003.
Israeli intelligence is understood to agree that the project was halted around the time of America’s invasion of Iraq, but has “rock solid” information that it has since started up again.
While security officials are reluctant to reveal all their intelligence, fearing that leaks could jeopardise the element of surprise in any future attack, they are expected to present the president with fresh details of Iran’s enrichment of uranium - which could be used for civil or military purposes - and the development of missiles that could carry nuclear warheads.
In an interview with the Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot this weekend, Bush argued that in spite of the US intelligence assessment, Iran still posed a threat.
“I read the intelligence report carefully,” Bush said. “In essence, what the report said was that Iran had a secret plan to develop nuclear weapons.
“I’m saying that a state which adopted a nontransparent policy and had a secret plan for developing nuclear weapons could easily develop an alternative plan for the same purpose. So to conclude from the intelligence report that there is no Iranian plan to develop nuclear weapons will be only a partial truth.”
Israeli security officials believe the only way to prevent uranium enrichment to military grade is to destroy Iranian installations. Many Israelis are eager to know whether America would give their country the green light to attack, as it did last September when Israel struck a mysterious nuclear site in Syria.
Bush refused to be drawn when asked whether he would support an Israeli attack. “My message to all countries in the region is that we are able to solve the problem in a diplomatic way,” he said, “but all options are on the table.”
We should try to watch what this President has planned for America before his time is over next year. He is still making decisions and they are all ways the wrong decision that cost American lives.
Friday, January 04, 2008
Obama Takes Iowa
Following CNN's projection that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) would win the Iowa Democratic caucus." Bennett added: "[Obama] never brings race into it. He never plays the race card. Talk about the black community -- he has taught the black community you don't have to act like Jesse Jackson; you don't have to act like Al Sharpton. You can talk about the issues."
Now the stage is set for the next polls to see if what Bennett said will be just rhetoric or truth.
Now the stage is set for the next polls to see if what Bennett said will be just rhetoric or truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)