Change is Only a Word

Barack Obama, responding to a charge by Hillary Clinton that it takes more than words to make real change, cited speeches by some of the great leaders of the past to make that point that sometimes words are indeed powerful and capable of producing change. His entire campaign has been based on bringing change to the political system and to the insider culture of Washington. He now has a chance to demonstrate what kind of change he intends to bring to the White House.

A vote in the senate on the "compromise" FISA bill is scheduled for sometime this week and it is the first opportunities for presumptive nominee Barack Obama to demonstrate that his words are actually more than just empty promises. Since he is now the de facto leader of the Democratic party, his voice carries a lot more weight on this matter than any other elected Democratic official. Nancy Pelosi has already stated her approval of the bill, and as I have said in previous posts, the current Democratic leadership does not seem to have the backbone to stand up to the Bush administration. In trying to appear tough on terrorism, they have capitulated to the demands of an administration that apparently holds the Constitution in contempt. While I don't believe that there are enough votes in the Senate to defeat the bill, Barack Obama, by taking a stand against the systematic destruction of the Bill of Rights, can make a powerful statement to the American people. Senators Dodd and Feingold have said that they will filibuster the bill if it contains language that protects the telecoms from prosecution.

I don't believe that the filibuster over the telecoms goes far enough. This bill on it's face, which allows the government to spy on whomever it pleases as long as the President deems it necessary, is clearly, at least to me, unconstitutional. Where is the voice in the senate arguing for that? Who, if anyone, is going to have the nerve to stand up for the American people? Who is going to be willing to explain to the American people that being against this bill doesn't mean that you are soft on terrorism, it means that you are simply committed to protecting the Constitution. I personally don't think that the people of this country are too dense to understand the difference (well, the LIV's probably are), but apparently it will take a leader with extraordinary strength to stand up and do what's right.

I am hoping that Barack Obama is that kind of leader, but he certainly hasn't given any signals that he is willing to take that kind of stand. He is currently trying to play both ends of the scale. He is for the FISA legislation (to show that he's tough on terrorism), but he's against telecom immunity (to show that he's not a lapdog of the Bush administration). I find this to be a purely political argument. The FISA legislation, as currently written, encroaches on rights that are guaranteed in the Constitution. It really is as simple as that. It doesn't require a technicality (like telecom immunity) to be against the bill. I don't understand the reticence of politicians to stand up for the rights of the American people. I still hope that Barack Obama will be that kind of leader and this one vote will not change my choice in November. However it is disappointing to realize that promising change and actually delivering it are two separate things. Dreams die hard though.

See No Evil

The Democratic led Congress has decided to bring a so called "compromise" bill on the FISA law. I have previously called the Democrats to task for their capitulation to the Bush administration's continuing attack on the Constitution, but by proposing this compromise (which is not really a compromise since it gives the administration everything they want), they have sent a clear signal that they have officially crossed over to the dark side.

The fourth amendment of the Constitution guarantees that American citizens are protected against illegal search and seizure. If the government wants to spy on a citizen, it is supposed to prove probable cause and get a warrant. In a nutshell, FISA(Foreign Intelligence Security Act) set up a separate court to review evidence and grant warrants for electronic surveillance. FISA expired in February with much gnashing of teeth from the administration, along with claims that if the act lapsed, we would be in imminent danger of terrorist attack. There are a couple of problems with that claim. First, the US Government doesn't need a warrant to bug any calls that originate outside of the United States. And secondly the Bush administration has been engaged in a program of warrantless surveillance headed by the NSA for years ( the interesting fact about that is the FISA court basically rubber stamped every request for surveillance. The NSA initiative was put in place to get around any oversight regardless of how perfunctory it may have been). An amendment to FISA made those warrentless searches "legal" in August of 2007, but as I said earlier, FISA expired in February of this year.

This "compromise" bill that the Congress is going to introduce not only revives FISA as amended, but would essentially protect the telecoms from prosecution for their role in any illegal wire tapping that took place under the NSA initiative before the passage of the amendment in August of last year. The Bush administration has been pushing hard for this immunity because along with shielding the telecoms from prosecution, they believe that it would also shield them from any prosecution over illegal wiretaps. So what Congress would be doing, in fact, is forgiving the Bush administration and any who aided them, for trampling all over the 4th amendment.

The Democrats in the House and Senate are not only willing to give the Bush administration practically unlimited power to eavesdrop on whoever the hell they please, but they are also willing to turn a blind eye to any wrong doing that may have occurred in the past. This is what Nancy Pelosi meant when she said that "impeachment is off the table". We have documented some of the failings of the Bush administration in this blog, but clearly we have let the now Democratic party controlled Congress off far too easily. I am literally amazed every day by the balls of this administration and it's utter lack of respect for the rule of law, but now the Congress is about to become more than just a silent partner in this disaster. Up until now, the Congress has just held it's nose at the multitude of Constitutional trangressions of this administration, but if they take this step, they will become a willing participant in the soiling of the Constitution.

I can only imagine what the founding fathers would think of the current state of politics. While they were no strangers to personal attacks and backstabing in politics, they would no doubt be appalled by the absolute disregard for the system of checks and balances that they worked so hard to perfect. The problem that we face is that most people in this country aren't aware that the rights which are guaranteed in the Constitution have been severely restricted. As with the Iraq War, most people are willing to view it as "someone else's problem". The "Low information voter" (a term which provided me and Sandy with a lot of laughs last night), has no idea what this administration has taken away from them. Hell, they don't have any idea what's even in the Bill of Rights.

Currently Congress is not acting in the best interest of the people (even low information voters deserve protection). They are acting on behalf of other politicians. I know that there won't be a great national outrage at what is about to happen, but I for one can't remain silent. I never thought that I would ever be a witness to the wholesale disregard and destruction of the most sacred document that this country has ever produced. Democrat and Republican politicians have very little that they can agree on, but in their mutual disregard of the Bill of Rights they seem to have found fertile ground for a new alliance.

All Points North

I'm printing a second guest commentary from one of my friends who happens to live north of the border. I sure the readers of this blog will find it interesting to find out what at least one of our neighbors from the north is thinking. Enjoy and Donald, thanks for allowing me to reprint this.

An area politician recently told me, “You’re for Barack Obama. I know someone who has an Obama sign on their lawn. Let’s go and swipe it.” Now if I were visiting the States and viewed a field of Yes We Can signs, I know I’d have the audacity to consider taking one, but I hope I wouldn’t. I replied, “No, a friend who’s an Obama supporter in New York ordered one for me.” It’s not like I need another reason not to trust politicians, but they just never disappoint, do they?

My friends wonder why I am finally getting politically motivated, and obsessing about an election south of the border, no less, but I know I’m not alone. A recent poll by the Canadian polling company Environic and co-sponsored by the CBC found fifteen per cent of Canadians would give up their ballot in Canada's next federal election to vote in the U.S. election. And forty-six per cent of those surveyed said it matters a great deal to Canada who wins the November 2008 U.S. presidential election. I second that motion. This is the first time I've truly been inspired politically. Wanted to vote. Wanted to volunteer. Wanted to get a US work visa and do anything I could for the cause.

Why? Some people think it’s three measly words: Yes We Can. One Presidential candidate thought it was due to one speech Obama gave at the 2004 Democratic convention. I'm insulted by those who think I would be inspired by someone without maintaining objectivity and sound judgement. At my age, it takes more than a speech, Hillary. The fact that her campaign just didn't get that is part of the reason I believe, that she lost the nomination. Some of my female friends wonder why this Feminist wasn’t rooting for Hillary Clinton. I’d rather focus on why I am for Obama, but my partner supported Hillary. That is until she was interviewed on 60 Minutes and responded to interviewer Steve Kroft’s, "You said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not...a Muslim. You don't believe that he's...," with, "No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know.” We gays know all too well that parsing words and innuendo lead to uncharitable interpretations.

I’m for Obama because his clear language speaks to me. In his second book, The Audacity of Hope, Obama wrote, “I am not willing to have the state deny American citizens a civil union that confers ... no such basic matters as hospital visitation or health insurance coverage simply because the people they love are of the same sex – nor am I willing to accept a reading of the Bible that considers an obscure line in Romans to be more defining of Christianity than the Sermon on the Mount.”

While I completely understand why so many women supported Hillary – her language spoke to them – I am dismayed at the women in my life who feel I should have supported Hillary "no matter what" because she is a woman. I tell them Barack Obama's colour has nothing to do with my support of him, just like years ago my choice to or not to support our very own Canadian MP Svend Robinson had nothing to do with his being gay. With Obama I hear a new language in politics. Or at the very least words we don’t hear enough.

Again from The Audacity of Hope:
“I am convinced that whenever we exaggerate or demonize, oversimplify or overstate our case, we lose. For it is the predictability of our current political debate, that keeps us from finding new ways to meet the challenges we face... locked in "either/or" thinking...What is needed is a broad majority who are re-engaged and who see their own self-interest as inextricably linked to the interest of others.” I am engaged and have linked myself with Obamakins worldwide. YouTube and Facebook have played their part but for me it is so much more. The sex, religion, colour or orientation of an individual has nothing to do with why he or she inspires me. What they say, how they live, do they practice what they preach? – those are the choices that define a human being.

Oh, by the way, my Obama sign arrived. It’s taped inside our front window. You just never know when a very different kind of politician might drive by.

Red, White and Blue

Patriotism is defined by Websters as "love for or devotion to one's country". A patriot is defined as "one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests". I could not find a definition of patriot that says, "one who tries to foist his her views of what constitutes patriotism onto others". However it appears that a loud and significant portion of Americans who view themselves as patriots feel it is their right and duty to tell the rest of us how we are supposed to show our support for country.

What ever happened to the thought of "I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"? Did America lose the idea of what patriotism is during the Reagan era when some in Congress wanted to enact a flag burning amendment? Or perhaps it was in the aftermath of 9/11 when we collectively decided to ignore real facts and strike out against another country in the name of patriotism. Perhaps it was during the Vietnam ear when the war was fought at home as well. Perhaps it was during the cold war when being a communist was deemed a threat to the American way of life. Whenever it happened, the idea of free speech in this country has been replaced by jingoistic phrases like "America, love it or leave it" and telling anyone you don't agree with to "move back to the Middle East".

If you profess to love America, then you should love the foundation upon which the country was built. The definition of liberty are, "1: the quality or state of being free: a: the power to do as one pleases b: freedom from physical restraint c: freedom from arbitrary or despotic control". The truth of the matter is that the people who often yell the loudest about being patriots are often the first to try and control the actions of those that they don't agree with. There have been sports figures who for various reasons didn't want to stand for the Star Spangled Banner. The outrage across this country was intense. How dare they. They shouldn't be allowed to play. They should be deported. They should move to the middle east. Since when is professing an opposing political belief a crime?

It isn't a crime to hold an unpopular belief, but given the abuse that is hurled at dissenters in current climate, it becomes an almost Herculean display of courage to espouse that belief in public. It was just a couple of years ago when public opposition to the Iraq war would have labeled you as a radical or unpatriotic or a terrorist sympathizer. It is important to remember that this country was founded by brave "Patriots" who believed that citizens should have the right to disagree with their own government. Based on their example, political dissent is not only needed but is indeed the highest form of patriotism that we as Americans can practice. So who is a true "Patriot"? I guess at the end of the day it depends on what your definition of "is" is.

Big Russ

Tim Russert, the long time host of Meet the Press and the NBC Washington Bureau chief, died yesterday of a heart attack. I wanted to write something yesterday, but I couldn't quite find a coherent train of thought. Tim Russert had been the host of Meet the Press for nine years when he became known to a much larger audience on election night 2000. With his constant and prophetic refrain of "Florida, Florida, Florida" and his little white chalkboard, he became one the most recognizable faces in news. His opinion became so respected that when he called the Democratic race for Obama after the North Carolina and Indiana primaries, that in itself was treated as a news story.

I think, as we enter what may very well be one of the most important elections in American history, we will enter it without one of our most important tools. I don't mean to minimize Russert by equating him to a mere implement, however making an informed decision in the voting booth requires only one thing, information. And that was the tool that Russert helped to provide us with every Sunday morning. My Co-contributor, Sandy Jimenez, said that there are other people in journalism who are as smart as Russert, but there may not be another one who can make the topic of politics as interesting as Russert did. He was able to give his viewers not only knowledge, but also he was able to pass along his genuine enthusiasm for politics. He loved the game of politics as much as any movie, sports or trivia buff loves their interests and his gift was in being able to get his audience to share in his excitement.

In watching Russert on Sunday mornings, the thing that stood out for me was his amazing preparation for every interview. His style was simple and straight forward, be prepared and never be afraid to ask the tough question. I have no idea who is going to fill his shoes on Sunday, but I would be amazed if they are able to find someone as competent and frankly as entertaining as he was. So as we enter this last phase of this election cycle, I think that we are going miss Tim Russert more than we realize. We the people, who knew him only through the image that was projected on our TV's and the information he provided us through his commentary and on Meet the Press every Sunday morning, move forward without perhaps the last truly impartial voice in media . For those who knew him, I know the wound is much deeper and much more personal and I can only pass along my deepest condolences to his friends and family. We the people will grieve as well for what we have lost. Rest in peace, Tim and thanks for everything.

Freedom Fries

I'm going to keep this post short but today the Supreme Court ruled today that the detainees at Guantanamo Bay have the right to legal representation and a hearing to determine whether they are being held for just cause. Justice Kennedy,writing for the majority said, "“To hold that the political branches may switch the Constitution on or off at will would lead to a regime in which they, not this court, say ‘what the law is,’ ” and Senator Kerry commenting on the decision said, "“The Constitution and the rule of law bind all of us even in extraordinary times of war. No one is above the Constitution.”

My only comment is that IT'S ABOUT F-ING TIME! Now can someone please explain to the Bush administration that the Bill of Rights are not suggestions.

A Tree Falls in the Woods

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

I Dream of Things...

Robert Kennedy was the never supposed to be President. At least he never had that lofty a goal in mind growing up. His big brother Joe was supposed to be the one who carried the Kennedy name into the national consciousness. Joe however never made it out of WWII. His big brother John was then trust into that position and as a war hero and Pulitzer prize winner he carried the mantle well. John became a Senator in a race in which Bobby was his campaign manager. When John became President (in another campaign which was run by Bobby), he named his 34 year old brother as his Attorney General.

The RFK that is remembered today is not the RFK who played such a crucial role in the Kennedy administration. The RFK that people remember is the one who became a different man once his brother was assassinated. He was viewed as ruthless and his brother's attack dog during those Camelot years. He authorized wiretaps on Martin Luther King, Jr., he and his brother were slow to the cause of civil rights and basically had to be cornered before they took appropriate action. He fought against appointing Thurgood Marshall to a Circuit Judge position because of fear of political reprisals from southerners.

It is only after he leaves the White House and becomes a Senator from New York that he transforms into the figure that most people are familiar with today. The compassionate Bobby, the unifying Bobby, the underdog's champion Bobby. His commitment to public service had been instilled in him by his father, but it never had the purpose that it did after he was allowed to become his own man. His trips to the poorest parts of the country changed him. It gave his sense of public service a direction.

It has been 40 years since that awful night in Los Angeles. We can only imagine how different this country might have been if RFK had not been killed that night. There is still a question as to whether he would have even gotten the nomination of the Democratic Party (since he lagged far behind Hubert Humphrey in delegates), but it is easy to imagine that he would have been a very important figure even without the presidency. Many in the press have attempted to make a link between Barack Obama and John Kennedy, but I believe the more accurate comparison would be between Obama and the Bobby Kennedy who ran for President in 1968. I'll leave you with a quote from that fateful night in '68 that reminds us of what we lost and hopefully what we have to look forward to.

"I think we can end the divisions within the United States. What I think is quite clear is that we can work together in the last analysis. And that what has been going on with the United States over the period of that last three years, the violence, the disenchantment with our society, the divisions- whether it's between blacks and whites, between the poor and the more affluent, or between age groups, or in the war in Vietnam - that we can work together. We are a great country, and unselfish country and a compassionate country. And I intend to make that my basis for running."

Sweet Dreams

I've been anticipating this day for a long time, but it's hard to actually come to grips with the reality of the event. Barack Obama, an African-American is going to be the nominee of the Democratic party for President. It has been a forgone conclusion since his winning streak post Super Tuesday, but anticipating something and it actually happening are two separate things. To say this is a historic occasion is an understatement. When Barack Obama gave his inspiring Keynote address at the 2004 Democratic convention, I had hoped that he would eventually run for President. In fact, I was hoping that he would run in this campaign. However, I never anticipated that he would actually win. I saw him as the first serious Black candidate to run for the Presidency (with respect to Jesse Jackson), but I saw his candidacy as a step along the way.

I have had many conversations with my co-contributor to Random Thoughts, and he will certainly confirm that I am certainly not under the illusion that Obama will actually win the Presidency. I have friends, who despite holding me (I am Black, by the way) in the highest regard, would never vote for Barack Obama for the single reason of the color of his skin. I won't name any names here because I don't want to embarrass my friends, but I can only imagine how many people around the country hold the exact same view.

Regardless of my thoughts about the ultimate disposition of the General Election, I am still thrilled with the outcome of the race for the Democratic nomination. I am still of the mind that Obama's anticipated loss in the General Election will sound the death knell for another African-American candidate for at least the next couple of decades, however I do think that this is a step that needs to be taken. America is not quite at the "post racial" state that some in the press would like to think. I believe that we are still perhaps about 40 years away from that glorious day when America is able to evaluate a candidate without taking race in to account. Along with the people who will vote along racist lines and the disgruntled Clinton supporters, I think that Obama's fate is sealed. The radical Clinton supporters who have been espousing the view that Obama will lose to McCain in November (and are willing to do everything to make sure that prediction comes true) may ultimately be proven right. But they will be proven right not for the reason that they would like to claim (that Obama is unqualified for the job, because unless you've been the President, there is no job that adequately prepares you for being the leader of the free world), but because America is not quite ready to elect an African-American to the highest office in the land.

I will appreciate tonight's Obama victory as the historic step that it represents. It is, however, just a step along the way (it is a big step). I don't think that we (as a nation) have reached the proverbial mountain top quite yet. Martin Luther King's dream has not been fulfilled quite yet (especially when we can look to states like West Virginia and Kentucky where over 20% of the voters were willing to admit that race played a major role in their decision), but we as a nation are on the way to judging people by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. We just need a couple of more generations to pass before we actually get a chance to see the promised land of a true "post racial" society. So I won't look upon the General Election as an opportunity lost, I will see it as a positive step where as President Kennedy so eloquently stated, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans. It will just take a little longer until we can truly be ruled by the "better angels of our nature". So if you are so inclined, revel in Obama's victory tonight. And regardless of the outcome in November, remember how far we have come, and how close we are to fulfilling our destiny as a nation.

Bought and Paid For

I have been rather hard on the press because of their seemingly passive role in the lead up to and the conduct of the Iraq war. I never had any independent confirmation of the fact that the press basically rolled over for the Bush administration until now. Jessica Yellin on CNN admitted that her bosses at MSNBC told her how she should cover the war. Here are some of her comments:

"I think the press corps dropped the ball at the beginning. When the lead-up to the war began, the press corps was under enormous pressure from corporate executives, frankly, to make sure that this was a war that was presented in a way that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the nation and the president’s high approval ratings. And my own experience at the White House was that, the higher the president’s approval ratings, the more pressure I had from news executives — and I was not at this network at the time — but the more pressure I had from news executives to put on positive stories about the president...they wouldn’t say it in that way, but they would edit my pieces. They would push me in different directions. They would turn down stories that were more critical and try to put on pieces that were more positive, yes. That was my experience."

I am very sure that her experience was not unique. I have said this before but when the press is no longer free to present their own views, then we no longer have a free press.

The One and Only

The Clinton campaign and their supporters are now doing something that they accuse the Obama supporters of doing. They have "drank the kool-Aid" and are now willing to argue points that are completely without merit. From Hillary and Bill to the campaign staff to the Clinton supporters on the web, they are now willing to argue that not only do the rules simply do not apply to them, but that anything that does not favor their argument is some illegitimate.

In any contest, a set of rules are agreed to before the contest begins. If this were not the case, chaos would ensue. Before this campaign for the nomination began, each candidate (including Hillary Clinton) agreed that the Michigan and Florida primaries would not count because they had defied the DNC and moved their election dates. Harold Ickes, one of Clintons closest advisers was on the committee that approved the rules. Senator Clinton herself made statements in which she agreed that the votes in those states didn't count for anything. Therefore the number of delegates required to win the nomination was 2,024 (that number has since been increased because of the Democratic gains in the special Congressional elections). However, now that Senator Obama has that number well within his grasp, the Clinton campaign is arguing that the number to secure the nomination must include the delegates from Florida and Michigan. Is it just me, or is that an absolutely ridiculous point?

The fact that Hillary Clinton is now claiming that her fight to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates is somehow akin to the fight for women's suffrage or the battle for civil rights is absolutely preposterous. I can guarantee, without reservation, that if the positions were reversed, that Senator Clinton would not be "fighting" to have those delegates recognized. This is purely a politics play. The problem with this, outside of the obvious, is that it is attempting to de-legitimize the Obama victory. The Clinton supporters have somehow decided that this not only the DNC's fault, but also Obama's (as if he were part of the DNC rules committee). If this were about fairness then you would think that even Clinton's supporters could not argue that the Michigan result should stand as it is. Senator Clinton was the only candidate on the ballot and unless we have somehow been transferred to the old Soviet Union, that is not how a Democracy is run.

The next argument that the Clinton camp has put forward is that they are winning the popular vote and therefore have some claim to the nomination. Let's forget the fact that their total includes the illegitimate votes in Florida and Michigan (where Obama's name wasn't even on the the ballot) and revisit the words of the Clinton Campaign's chief advisor, Terry McAuliffe. After Hillary Clinton's loss in Iowa, he was quick to remind everyone that the race was about delegates and since Hillary had a solid lead in that category (at that point provided by the super delegates), the race was not about the popular vote. Now, the campaign is espousing the exact opposite viewpoint. First of all the popular vote is an inexact measure, because of the lack of votes counted in the caucus states. Secondly, if at the beginning of a baseball game, everyone agrees that it is the winner is the team with the most runs and then in the ninth inning tries to argue that it's the team with the most hits that actually wins, I think everyone would have to agree that their argument doesn't hold any water.

The Clinton camp makes another ridiculous argument by pointing out that her recent landslide victories in West Virginia and Kentucky are somehow indicative of Obama losing support as the race continues. This argument, of course, treats his victory in Oregon (with has less than a 5% African-American vote) as somehow less important because they say so. The elections have broken pretty much to form since Super Tuesday. I would bet that there is not one pundit worth his or her salt, who could not have predicted the outcome of every race since Super Tuesday. Hell, I did it and I'm pretty sure that I have spent a lot less time on the campaign than those on the Clinton staff. To base an argument on the variances in the primary schedule is just silly. Obama won Virgina and Maryland (200 total delegates) by overwhelming margins and he even won the White vote in Wisconsin. Did that mean that Hillary Clinton had a "problem" with Whites or did it just mean that those states were predisposed to vote for Obama? I would argue, and I think successfully, that the answer is the latter.

The Clinton camp has now become what it always accused the Obama campaign of being. They have been reduced to making emotional arguments as opposed to rational ones. I have always said that Senator Clinton has the right to continue her campaign for as long as she'd like. I don't believe that the length of the campaign itself has done any damage to the Democratic party. However, when the argument for your campaign no longer deals with the rational but with the emotional, it does start to do some damage to the party. Some of Clinton's supporters have now bought the argument that the Obama victory is not legitimate and regardless of what Hillary Clinton says at the end of the campaign, their emotional commitment is now too deep to allow them to see reason. For them, this campaign is no longer about beating the Republicans in November, the campaign and their involvement has become a personal battle about one thing and one thing only, making sure Hillary Clinton becomes the nominee of the Democratic party regardless of the cost.

King George, The Madness of

This article is entitled, "The rebirth of the Imperial Presidency or how to run an administration by employing the Hermann Goering approved tactics of lies, fear and intimidation".

The Republican party is supposed to be the inheritors of the legacy of the Anti-Federalists (I speak of the Anti-Federalism of Jefferson and not the various groups that opposed the Constitution on various grounds and came to be know collectively as anti-federalist). Meaning that they favor small government, states rights, low or no taxes and strict interpretation of the Constitution (Religion was not a part of the equation in those days as there are some who would argue that Jefferson himself was an atheist). Under the original purpose of what became the original opposition party (the Democratic-Republican party), was to oppose the over broad (in their minds) policies of Alexander Hamilton who was the first Treasury Secretary under George Washington. However when Jefferson became President he took full advantage of his "executive" powers when he negotiated and completed the Louisiana Purchase. There is nothing in the Constitution which grants the President the power to take such an action, but despite being a strict constructionist, he felt that it was in the best interest of the country to proceed with the purchase none the less. This is a very simplified version of the events that took place and the positions that were taken, but I think it actually serves as the first example of a the Imperial Presidency in action (Imperial Presidency meaning extending the powers of the office beyond those that are defined in the Constitution).

I won't bore you with all the examples during history but a couple of highlights include Lincoln suspending Habeus Corpus during the Civil War (which he had the right to do under the Constitution, but was supposed to wait for approval from the Congress before taking the action) and FDR threatening to pack the Supreme Court in order to get his New Deal legislation approved. All of these actions from the Louisiana Purchase through FDR are looked upon favorably by history because they all proved to be beneficial to the country. However, the extraordinary use of Presidential power can also lead to extraordinary abuses as well. In theory, the Congress of the United States has oversight of the Executive branch. The President is immune from lawsuits and prosecution while in office, but he is not immune to review and removal by the Congress. The President can be impeached for treason or high crimes or misdemeanors as defined by the Congress at the time to the incident.

There have only been two impeachment trials in the history of the United States (Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton) and neither ended in the President being removed from office. In fact the most famous Impeachment actually never took place. Richard Nixon resigned under the threat of impeachment. The House Judiciary Committee had approved the articles of Impeachment, but those articles were never voted on by the House of Representatives. Nixon, who was pardoned by his replacement, engaged in any number of illegal acts while in the White House. These acts are minor compared to the previous invocation of the Imperial Presidency. Wiretapping, burglary, illegal campaign contributions, bribery and obstruction of justice seem fairly minor when compared to the acquisition of fully 1/3 of the land mass of the entire country. However, Nixon felt that as the President, he was above the Law. And while not as lofty a use of the Imperial Presidency, assuming that the laws of the country do not apply to you, certainly counts as trying to use the office in that manner.

The current administration has seen a return to the glory days of the Imperial Presidency (along with a healthy dose of the Nixon brand paranoia thrown in for good measure). The basic tenants of the Republican party's Anti-Federalist roots are now just given lip service (although the low taxes are still a major talking point). Smaller government (what a joke), states rights (yeah right), strict interpretation of the Constitution (as long as that interpretation means that affirmative action and abortion are limited or eliminated), are no longer goals of the administration. This administration has engaged in a systematic process of propaganda in order to further their agenda that would have made Goebbels blush. In an excellent article by my co-contributor on this blog, he recounts a conversation by Göring (the head of Hitler's Luftwaffe) in which he laid out the process by which any nation (including a supposedly Democratic one) can be led to war:

Göring:

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

This administration realized that easiest way to bring about an Imperial Presidency was to find or create a common enemy, rally the public to action through lies, eliminate dissension through intimidation and then maintain public support through fear. And amazingly it has worked. The President has practically limitless power and the people have (willingly, I might add) handed over all their rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution.

This administration has authorized the use of torture (the President has even had his legal staff write papers that rationalize the use of the torture against American citizens), engaged in massive campaign of propaganda in support of an unwarranted military action, hired and fired people based not on merit but on party allegiance, funneled untold billions of taxpayers money to their friends and allowed thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of foreign nationals to die BECAUSE THEY COULD. It only took about 230 years, but the United States has managed to put King George back in power. If Jefferson were around today he would be aghast at what is being done in the name of his party. Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus in order to save the Union, George Bush did it in order to save his ass. Lincoln, Jefferson and FDR are probably spinning in their graves (Nixon too, probably because he wishes that he would have thought of it himself) over the current state of the Bill of Rights brought about by this administration. They simply would not believe that the precedents that they set would lead to the current state of affairs.

Yesterday, King George showed that he does have some heart however. He is after all a "compassionate conservative". When asked about why he doesn't play golf anymore, he said that it just didn't seem like the right thing to do. He didn't want the mothers and relatives of dead soldiers to see him playing golf. Wow, That is quite a gesture from a monarch (of course he is too incompetent to rule alone so while he is the figurehead, we are clearly under the rule of an Oligarchy). American citizens lose their fathers, mothers, sons, daughters and friends and the President, who would be King, gives up his golf game. That sounds like a fair trade to NO ONE. But then monarchs don't have to justify themselves to their subjects, do they. He might as well have said, let them eat cake.

Tunnel Vision

Perspective at this point in the campaign seems as hard to come by as momentum. All sides in the current Democratic contest seem to have lost all perspective. I'm not necessarily talking about the campaigns themselves, because I'm pretty sure that they are aware of the realities of the situation, but the supporters of the candidates and the Press seem to lack a big picture view.

Today's primary in West Virginia will have little effect on the overall race for the Democratic nomination. Senator Clinton will win by something in the 34-40% range. It will probably net her about 10 delegates and upwards of 100,000 votes. Those are the facts. Now the press will once again bring up the point about Obama and his inability to attract white working class voters (West Virginia being the whitest and working classiest of all the states in the union). I would make the point that West Virginia and next week Kentucky represent states which are openly hostile to Barack Obama and that they should not be used to project any trend toward the rest of the country. If the "trend" in West Virginia were actually a trend, then Hillary Clinton would have wrapped up the nomination a long time ago. But Barack Obama victories in Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska, Idaho, Minnesota, Wyoming, Kansas, etc. were certainly not built on the strength of the black vote in those states.

Hillary Clinton's supporters are quick to point out Obama's perceived weakness without admitting that the numbers look even worse for Clinton among African Americans. If the Clinton supporters are to be believe their own argument that middle class whites will not vote for Obama, then they must be equally worried because the black vote has gone to Barack Obama at a much higher percentage. Barack Obama has actually won the white vote in a number of states, while Hillary Clinton has never come within 60% points of Obama among the black vote. In the Clinton supporters argument, African Americans are just taken for granted. "Of course they'll vote for Hillary, what reason would they have not to. They are Democrats and in the end they'll come home to the party." For some reason, they never apply that logic to the "White working class voter". They will point to states like West Virginia (which Huckabee won overwhelmingly against McCain, just to give you a measure of the indicative nature of the pre-November voting) and Kentucky and say that Obama is a flawed candidate. They will not, however, apply that same analysis to their own candidate.

The Obama true believers are in their glory at this point and are quick to try and kick a Clinton when they're down. This is incredibly short sighted, however, because the Democratic party cannot win in November without strong support from Hillary Clinton supporters. The candidate himself has tried to play above the question of when Senator Clinton should exit the race and has clearly turned his attention to the battle against McCain. While I understand the need to fully engage John McCain, I think this does a disservice to Senator Clinton. While it is a mathematical certainty that Obama will end up with the most delegates at the end of the primary season, the difference is not that great that he should be able to just ignore his main challenger. This is not analogous to the McCain-Huckabee battle, because McCain had a lead of over 500 delegates as he moved to toward securing the nomination. Obama is not in the same situation and while I find no problem with engaging the Republican challenger to a certain extent, I feel that it is somewhat disrespectful to Senator Clinton and her supporters to ignore her all together.

A broader view of what lies ahead and behind in this race for the nomination would probably be to every ones benefit. Unfortunately, I know the Press isn't about to change their micro-analyzing ways, and I don't think that the most fervent of Clinton or Obama supporters are going to be able to be reasoned with until this race is finally settled.

"Down Goes Frazier!"

Howard Cosell uttered those memorable words on the night that Joe Frazier lost his heavyweight belt to George Foreman. Foreman came into the fight as a prohibitive underdog, but proceeded to give Frazier the beating of his life, knocking him down six times in two rounds. Frazier never recovered from that first thunderous right hand that floored him. Frazier was looking ahead to a big money rematch with Muhammad Ali and probably took the Foreman bout lightly. Although Foreman was undefeated and had a string of knockouts to his credit, most boxing experts thought that Frazier would be able to handle him easily.

It really is only in hindsight that this seems a ridiculous thought. Frazier was 5 inches shorter and 20 lbs lighter than his opponent. His straight ahead fighting style set up perfectly for the heavy hitting Foreman. Frazier's style of absorbing his opponents blows in order to land his own may have worked with the less powerful Ali, but was a recipe for disaster against Foremen. He was knocked down three times in both the first and second round before the referee called a halt to the action. Veteran boxing observers were stunned by what had happened, but they were quick to hail the new champion and proclaim that he was all but unbeatable. Of course Muhammad Ali (in the role of wiley veteran) took the title away from Foreman a year later in the famous "Rumble in the Jungle".

I apologize for that somewhat lengthy lead in but I find a lot of similarities between that night in 1973 and the Democratic primary race. Hillary Clinton came into the race as the heavy betting favorite. Most pundits were already looking ahead to who she would face in the fall. The Clinton camp certainly was, since they had no real strategy in place for the campaign to continue past Super Tuesday. To their ultimate detriment, they overlooked the challenge that Barack Obama posed from the beginning. They assumed that Clinton's name recognition and years of experience would be enough to vanquish any opponent on the Democratic side. The Clinton's were looking ahead to a rematch with the Republicans. It was a fight that had won in the past and they looked forward to having another opportunity to take on the Hillary named "vast right wing conspiracy".

Barack Obama came into the campaign as a decided underdog. He burst upon the national stage and the 2004 Democratic convention with an inspiring keynote speech for John Kerry. At that point, he was an Illinois state Senator, but after the speech he became a national figure. He decided to run for the US Senate in 2006 and emerged victorious after his opponent became embroiled in a sex scandal and eventually was replaced near the end of the campaign. He started his campaign about a year ago trailing Hillary Clinton by as much as 30 points in the national polls. The press didn't give him much of a chance at the time, but in truth, they didn't give any of the Hillary's opponents much of a chance. Last year it was presumed that Hillary would be facing Rudy Giuliani in November. The primaries were supposed to be a mere formality before the main event. No could have foreseen the movement that Obama's campaign would spark. No one could have imagined that he would be able to get one million donors by the end of February. No one could imagine that he would build an organization that was not only equal to, but in almost all respects, better than the one that the Clinton campaign would put together. No one in the press predicted this would happen and the Clinton camp was very secure in the knowledge that their candidate was the inevitable Democratic nominee for the presidency.

A funny thing happened on the way to the nomination however. Barack Obama landed the first significant blow by winning Iowa and the Clinton campaign has never really recovered. The truth is that if he hadn't won that first caucus, his campaign would probably have run aground. That single stunning victory changed the mind of millions of people all over the country. That single vote turned Hillary Clinton supposed coronation from a backyard bbq into a dog fight and it was a fight she was unprepared for. It was as if she had brought a knife to a gun fight. Her victory in New Hampshire righted the ship temporarily, but it could not stem the growing tide of Obama support. She did manage to win Michigan (as the only candidate on the ballot) and Florida, but neither primary counted toward her delegate count because they had broken the DNC rules by moving up their primaries to before Super Tuesday. Her big state strategy allowed her to hold her own on Super Tuesday, but Obama actually came out ahead in pledged delegates and states won. February was a whitewash for Obama (due to the lack of a post super Tuesday strategy on the part of the Clinton team. If you look up the definition of "looking past your opponent", you will see a picture of the Clinton campaign team). Clinton proceeded to lose 11 straight races, while coming up with excuses for all of them (black population, she doesn't do well in caucuses, those states don't really count, etc.).

However, Hillary proved her championship mettle by pulling herself off the canvas on various occasions. After Obama's victory string (which basically assured him of the nomination), she scored victories in Ohio and a partial victory in Texas. Heading into Pennsylvania, with Obama stretching his lead out in the national polls to 10%, she scored a 9 point victory to prove that she wasn't quite done. Heading into yesterday's primaries, she seemed to have everything going her way. Obama had to face various questions about his patriotism and his association with his pastor and a former radical and the press was quick to point out that she had "found her voice" (which is funny, because I thought she had "found her voice" in New Hampshire). The polls were pointing toward a close race in North Carolina and an easy victory in Indiana. She had already said that North Carolina would be a "game changer" and was anticipating a full turnaround in her fortunes. She had found that big punch that was going to stagger and bloody her opponent. However it was not to be. Instead of landing a haymaker of her own, the former presumed champion was left bowed and bloodied on the canvas. The fight is not technically over (Obama does not have the required number of delegates for the nomination), but everyone has begun to look at the referee to call an end to the fight for the good of the vanquished opponent.

This campaign will be remembered as the one that provided the answer as to what happens when an immovable object (Clinton's inevitability) meets an irresistible force (Obama's movement). Perhaps looking back years from now, we will think that the press was naive to think that the outcome could have been any different. Perhaps people will say that it was easy to see that Obama would eventually emerge as the winner. Perhaps they will say that the press ignored all the signs that pointed to this day. Perhaps the stunned voice of the pundits will echo across time just as the the stunned voice of Howard Cosell has from that warm January night in Kingston, Jamaica in 1973.

Race To The Wire

Does race matter? That really is a silly question? If you're asking the question, then you already know the answer. All three campaigns and the press have been dancing around this question, even after Obama's speech in Philly last month, because it is still a hot button topic in America. But even the most optimistic of observers would have to agree that not only does race matter, but it is perhaps the single issue that is going to decide this election.

I had a conversation recently with a friend of mine and we were discussing the Democratic primary and I said that I thought Obama would have the hard convincing some of Hillary's supporters to vote for him, especially older white women. Her exact remark was, "I really resent that". I wasn't making that statement based on anything other than what the numbers have shown. Hillary's support is the greatest among older white women and therefore they would be the hardest to convert into Obama voters. However it was interpreted as a racial statement and therefore the reaction was based on that.

Race (pardon the pun) colors everything in political life. Up until now, Blacks and Women had no choice (for the most part) but to vote for a white male when it came to presidential preferences. Now that there is some variety among the candidates, people have begun to line up behind the person who looks most like them. Blacks now vote at a nearly 9-1 clip for Obama, while older white women vote for Hillary by a 7-3 margin. The bottom line here is that voters are most likely to vote for someone who looks like them. Older Black women are voting overwhelmingly for Obama, so clearly they are not influenced by being in the same age bracket as Hillary Clinton. There has to be something else in the equation and that something is clearly race.

I'm not saying that people who vote for Obama and Clinton are racists, but they certainly take race into account and it is a lot bigger part of the equation than people are willing to admit to. The fact that only 16% of polled voters in Pennsylvania were willing to admit that race played a factor in their decision proves the general delusion that most of America is living under (or proves that most Americans lie to pollsters). Chris Rock once said that the most racist people in America are old Black men because of what they've had to live through. Now what do you think older Black people are considering when they go the voting booth and see the first viable Black candidate for the nation's highest position on the ballot? Are they considering his experience? Sure. Are they considering his policies? Of course. Are they comparing him to the competition? Without a doubt. Are they considering his race? ABSOLUTELY, UNEQUIVOCALLY, YES, YES, YES. The same can be said of older white women who enter the voting booth only they have the added bonus of gender as well (lest you think that only Blacks would vote on such a issue).

The issue, as I've said before, is not whether race plays a major part in the decision making of most voters, it's whether either candidate will be able to overcome this obstacle in the fall. Obama has the bigger problem here and I'll tell you why. Black voters (who are the most reliable voting block in the country) are not only used to voting Democrat, they realize that there is no real option for them. Republicans turned their backs on the issues of the Black community a long time ago. Voting Republican just wouldn't' make any sense to them. Some may stay home, but the truth is that the vast majority of them would return to the fold and vote Democratic even if they feel ambivalent about the party's candidate. However, Hillary's most fervent supporters would have an option. I've written before that I feel this group will split into three equal parts, those who vote Democratic, those that vote Republican and those that stay home. As long as the press continues to give John McCain a free ride, he will certainly appear more attractive to some of Hillary's core supporters. He's in their age range, he's a moderate (an absolute lie, but one the press seems unwilling to challenge), he tells it like it is and he sticks to his guns (more lies) and let's not forget, most importantly, he's White which provides a natural level of comfort and is his biggest selling point to some Democrats.

I'm using the most polarized groups of supporters in order to illustrate the point, but this will play itself, to lesser degrees among almost all Democratic voters. The Bradley effect (vote totals being lower for Black candidates than what the polls suggest) is real. There are people who will simply be unable to pull the lever to vote for a Black President regardless of what they say in public or to pollsters. The famed melting pot that comprises the population of the country does not always breed a greater understanding of other cultures. It can and does, in some, breed animosity and fear. It is that fear, which is expressed in various ways, which leads to voting patterns along racial, religious and ethnic grounds. At the end of the day, regardless of what you label it, it all adds up to the same thing. And to those who think that I'm a racist for pointing this out, I would wholeheartedly disagree and ask you to really try and take an honest look at the country we live in. We are supposed to believe that all men are created equal, but do we? Given our checkered past, I believe the answer to be fairly self evident.

Let Them Eat Cake

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was questioned on 60 Minutes about the decision of the court that awarded George W. Bush the 2000 election. When asked about the fact that there are those who believe that the decision was politically motivated, the distinguished legal scholar had this to say:

"I say nonsense. Get over it. It's so old by now."

Get over it? Get over it? I'm sure those words bring great comfort to the parents and families of the over 4,000 Americans who have died in Iraq. I'm sure the families of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead will feel much better if we just tell them to get over it. I'm sure that the American people are thrilled with the fact that this Supreme Court Justice thinks so little of the most momentous decision made by the courts since Roe V. Wade. According him it's such old news that we should just forget about it. I'm sure most of us would like to forget about it, but unfortunately the repercussions of that decision will be felt by the entire world for a long time to come. The decision, which was undoubtedly politically motivated (Scalia had two sons who worked for law firms that represented Bush, Clarence Thomas' wife worked on the Bush transition team and Sandra Day O'Conner had already stated her goal to retire under a Republican administration), will one day be looked upon in the same light as the Dread Scott decision (it it isn't already).

Justice (and I use that word in only it's most ironic meaning) Scalia, how can you sir, see what your decision has wrought and express nothing but apathy and disdain for those who have been affected by it? I guess Dick Cheney isn't the only practitioner of the dark arts on Capitol Hill. Hopefully one day you'll get to see your master up close.

T-O-R-T-U-R-E!!

In the spirit of the Third Reich and their infamous Wannsee Conference (the Nazi conference where the "final solution" was agreed upon, which the rest of the world came to know as the Holocaust), the Bush administration held their own little conference (where they decided to engage in "enhanced interrogation" techniques, which the rest of the world calls torture). Just to illustrate the effectiveness of the techniques they agreed upon, I wanted to make a list the things that I would admit to being responsible for just under the threat of torture:

1. I killed JFK (I know I wasn't born yet, but I'm pretty sure I influenced the guy who did the actual shooting). Lincoln, Garfield and McKinley as well.
2. I killed MLK. Malcolm X too.
3. I killed RFK.
4. Shot the Pope, Killed Ghandi.
5. I was the mastermind of the Lindbergh baby kidnapping.
6. Keeping Monica's blue dress was my idea.
7. New Coke.
8. S&L scandal.
9. I shot Archduke Ferndinand (thereby igniting WWI).
10. I introduced Cocaine to America and am currently funding all the underground meth labs in the US.
11. Breaking into DNC headquarters at the Waterage hotel, my idea.
12. Enron, all me.
13. Iran-Contra.
14. I outed Valerie Plame.
15. I was the behind the failed attempt to get the US to convert to the Metric system.
16. The USFL.
17. Calculus (I'm particularly sorry about that one).
18. The vast right wing conspiracy.
19. George W. Bush (Don't tell his Dad, I promised Barbara that I keep this one secret).

The fact that the administration decided to start a pre emptive war against a sovereign nation that had not taken a single aggressive step toward us was not bad enough. They then decided to turn themselves into international criminals by ignoring the UN treaty which the United States signed, which strictly forbids torture of prisoners. In fact the treaty makes it clear that anyone who sanctions torture or commits torture is guilty of a criminal act. Trying to change the definition of what torture is, does not change the reality of what you are doing. To have our government sanction the inhumane and barbaric treatment of human beings is a crime. The words of the then Attorney General, John Ashcroft will echo through time, "History will not judge this kindly". No shit Sherlock.

Say It Loud!

I think it's time to say what the mainstream press seems unwilling to say. The Democratic primary is over. There are still 9 more contests to go, but it is a mathematical certainty that Barack Obama will end up with a significant lead in the delegate count and will need less than 30% of the remaining super delegates to put him over the top. Hillary Clinton has no chance to overtake Obama. Watching the press try and drag this out to maintain their ratings would be amusing if it weren't so blatant a misstatement of the truth. Now I have no problem with Clinton continuing her campaign through June 3rd, but at that point even she would have to face the reality that she has lost.

I'm sure that her campaign already realizes that the race is over, but they are now in the "let's damage Obama as much as possible so that he can't possibly win against McCain and we get another chance in four years". The press is acting as if her win in Pennsylvania has somehow changed the dynamic of the race. It hasn't. The press is once again committing the mortal sin of analyzing one primary result in a vacuum. They celebrate her victory as if the entire race was played out on Tuesday. They act as if Obama is the one who is behind and doesn't have a chance to win. The group delusion will continue as long as the press can drag it out.

They accuse Obama of not being a tough candidate because he refuses to engage in the type of tactics that Clinton has. But for some reason they fail to realize the fine line that he is walking. If for instance he were to mock all of her supporters as she has his, the press would say that he was picking on her. If he were to engage in the type of politics that she has, they would say that he no longer has the moral higher ground that he has become just another politician.

None of this matters however because there is no question about who is going to end the primary season with the lead in delegates and votes. It's not important which states were won, unless you believe the bizarre and disproven theory that a win in the primary somehow translates to the general election. The super delegates will no doubt affirm the will of the voters. There has been a lot of talk from the Clinton campaign and from the press about how the super delegates will vote, but they are simply not going to pick the second place finisher as the Democratic Presidential candidate.

I understand that Clinton has to continue with the thought that she can somehow win, but there is no reason why the press has to play along. If, for instance, the situations were reversed, there is no way that he would be treated with the same seriousness that Clinton is. A win by a trailing Obama in say North Carolina would be explained away because of the demographics of the state. However since Clinton is in the trailing position, a 9 point win by her in Pennsylvania, a state in which she held a 20+ point lead a few weeks ago and has a demographic which is perfectly suited to her message, is hailed as a master stroke of political genius and a sign that Obama is somehow in real trouble.

I have no hope that I will be looked upon as the voice of reason here, but I just felt like it was time that someone stated the obvious. I am not trying to belittle Senator Clinton or her many supporters, but even they must realize that there is no way for her to win outside of pulling off something that would cause a full scale riot within the Democratic party. I have tried to stay pretty neutral in my coverage of the race, but I think we've passed the point of no return. Whether anyone likes it or not Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee for President of the United States. So for better or for worse, the new creed of the Democratic party will be based on an old James Brown classic. So all you Democrats join in and say it once, say it loud, WE'RE BLACK AND WE'RE PROUD!

De-Pressed

We have been on an anti-press jag for a few days here at "Random Thoughts" and I figured, If ain't broke... Anyway, the New York Times published a story earlier this week, which basically said that the administration was telling the so called "military experts" employed by the networks to discuss the Iraq war. All the retired military figures were actually still on the Pentagon payroll and were told what line of bullsh$t to spew to the press. This story hasn't gotten much play in the msm (mainstream media) because it makes them look like a bunch of idiots, but it is a clear example of how the media is no longer looking to report the news. They have basically become an arena for the talking points of the administration and the p0litical parties.

Headlines and lead stories in the press are all generated by the talking points that are force fed by politicians and staffers. Yesterday the press started reported on an ad that was supposed to start running in North Carolina which bashes two politicians who have endorsed Barack Obama. The Ad shows a picture of Obama and Wright together and includes the famous speech of Wright denouncing America. Now this ad hasn't actually run anywhere, in fact it may never run anywhere because both the RNC and John McCain have denounced it. However, because the MSM decided this was an issue, they have given the ad more air time than it ever would have gotten otherwise. Now instead of this ad just being run in parts of North Carolina, it's been seen all over the country. Could the Republican group in North Carolina have asked for anything more? All they did was release the ad to the press and then sit back and collect hundreds of thousands of dollars in free national air time.

I'm not sure if the press is even trying anymore. The Clinton campaign issued a press release yesterday which claimed that they are now ahead in the popular vote. Now anyone who has been paying attention to the election knows that the only way that Clinton is ahead in the popular vote is if you count the Florida and Michigan totals which everyone already knows DO NOT COUNT! So since this story is ridiculous on its face, why then would there be articles today discussing it? Why would the pundits have a discussion about whether Hillary does actually lead in the vote count? Why? Because they can't come up with their own stories. They just repeat what the campaigns send out every day.

From providing a forum for Bush administration propaganda to publicizing attack ads to reporting on nonsensical topics is about the breadth of "news coverage" these days. And with Rupert Murdoch moving closer to owning yet another NY news outlet (Newsday), this brand of so called "journalism" isn't likely to get better any time soon.

Helen of Troy

A member of the press was finally brave enough to call the administration on the issue of torture. That person is Helen Thomas. Ms. Thomas has covered every President since Kennedy and used to have a coveted first row seat for press conferences. She has since been relegated to the back row(officially reason is because she no longer works for a wire service) , although she does sit up front for press briefings. She has been an outspoken critic of the Bush administration and therefore is no longer regularly called upon by the President. As I have stated here before, the press has seemingly been unable or unwilling to follow up on the report that Bush administration not only condoned torture at the highest levels, but planned it out as well. The silence from the "Fourth Estate" has been all but deafening. Thankfully, Helen is still out there asking the questions that need to be asked. She got into a discussion with Dana Petrino (who recently admitted that the she didn't know what the Cuban Missile Crisis was) about "torturegate". Here is part of her exchange with the White House press secretary yesterday:

"THOMAS: The President has said publicly several times, in two consecutive news conferences a few months ago, and you have said over and over again, we do not torture. Now he has admitted that he did sign off on torture, he did know about it. So how do you reconcile this credibility gap?

MS. PERINO: Helen, you’re taking liberties with the what the President said. The United States has not, is not torturing any detainees in the global war on terror. And General Hayden, amongst others, have spoken on Capitol Hill fully in this regard, and it is — I’ll leave it where it is. The President is accurate in saying what he said.

THOMAS: That’s not my question. My question is, why did he state publicly, we do not torture —

MS. PERINO: Because we do not.

THOMAS: — when he really did know that we do?

MS. PERINO: No, that’s what I mean, Helen. We’ve talked about the legal authorities —

THOMAS: Are you saying that we did not?

MS. PERINO: I am saying we did not, yes.

THOMAS: How can you when you have photographs and everything else? I mean, how can you say that when he admits that he knew about it?

MS. PERINO: Helen, I think that you’re — again, I think you’re conflating some issues and you’re misconstruing what the President said.

THOMAS: I’m asking for the credibility of this country, not just this administration.

MS. PERINO: And what I’m telling you is we have — torture has not occurred. And you can go back through all the public record. Just make sure — I would just respectfully ask you not to misconstrue what the President said.

THOMAS: You’re denying, in this room, that we torture and we have tortured?

MS. PERINO: Yes, I am denying that.

THOMAS: Where is everybody? "

Where is everybody, indeed. Thank you, Helen. At least we know one reporter in Washington is still paying attention.