Author: Archangel M

Matt Gonzalez over at BeyondChron.org wrote a brilliant exposé on Barack Obama that must be shared.  The hardest part of trying to get Democrats elected to power is vetting them, especially during election years in which people are so desperate for someone who can deliver on a promise of change that they fail to look past the campaign rhetoric to see the truth.  I’ve explained on other blog sites that Barack Obama is a DLCer in progressive’s clothing.  Mr. Gonzalez hammers the point home.
It has been claimed by uncritical supporters that Obama’s record in the U.S. Senate is progressive, but this is far from the truth (a fact easily verified by going to GovTrack.us and doing some homework).  It is undeniable that the senator from Illinois has consistently voted to fund the Iraq war, with the sole exception being that he was shamed by Christopher Dodd of Connecticut into voting against last Summer’s appropriations bill.  Matt Gonzalez writes:

Since taking office in January 2005 he has voted to approve every war appropriation the Republicans have put forward, totaling over $300 billion. He also voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State despite her complicity in the Bush Administration’s various false justifications for going to war in Iraq. Why would he vote to make one of the architects of “Operation Iraqi Liberation” the head of US foreign policy? Curiously, he lacked the courage of 13 of his colleagues who voted against her confirmation.

The senator from Illinois has been less than enthusiastic in advocating for a full withdrawal from Iraq.  Obama has also, as Gonzalez points out, voted to re-authorize the USA PATRIOT Act — one of the more heinous attacks on civil liberties in this decade — in stark contrast to his prior work as a civil rights attorney.  Somewhere along the way, Obama was either corrupted on the issue of civil liberties, or else he has been fooling people on where he actually stands from the beginning.  Either way, his record on the occupation of Iraq and on civil liberties are not consistent with his rhetoric on the campaign trail.

On class action lawsuits, Gonzalez writes:

In 2005, Obama joined Republicans in passing a law dubiously called the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) that would shut down state courts as a venue to hear many class action lawsuits. Long a desired objective of large corporations and President George Bush, Obama in effect voted to deny redress in many of the courts where these kinds of cases have the best chance of surviving corporate legal challenges. Instead, it forces them into the backlogged Republican-judge dominated federal courts.

And on credit interest rates:

Obama has a way of ducking hard votes or explaining away his bad votes by trying to blame poorly-written statutes. Case in point: an amendment he voted on as part of a recent bankruptcy bill before the US Senate would have capped credit card interest rates at 30 percent. Inexplicably, Obama voted against it, although it would have been the beginning of setting these predatory lending rates under federal control. Even Senator Hillary Clinton supported it.

Are you seeing anything to suggest that Obama is a progressive, yet?  I’m not.  I’ve written about this before, but it’s worth repeating: health care “reform”.  Given Obama’s record of gutting actual health care reform in the Illinois state senate, one can’t help but nod in agreement when Matt Gonzalez explains:

Obama opposed single-payer bill HR676, sponsored by Congressmen Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers in 2006, although at least 75 members of Congress supported it. Single-payer works by trying to diminish the administrative costs that comprise somewhere around one-third of every health care dollar spent, by eliminating the duplicative nature of these services. The expected $300 billion in annual savings such a system would produce would go directly to cover the uninsured and expand coverage to those who already have insurance, according to Dr. Stephanie Woolhandler, an Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School and co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program.

Obama’s own plan has been widely criticized for leaving health care industry administrative costs in place and for allowing millions of people to remain uninsured. “Sicko” filmmaker Michael Moore ridiculed it saying, “Obama wants the insurance companies to help us develop a new health care plan-the same companies who have created the mess in the first place.”

And as Gonzalez points out, Obama went to bat for Joe LIEberman for re-election in 2006 against challenger Ned Lamont (whom blog web sites such as Daily Kos supported) and referred to the turncoat as his mentor.  Yeah, real “progressive” of Obama to try to prop up a party traitor who has consistently enabled the Bush-Cheney regime at every opportunity, and who endorses Republican John McCain for president.

I realize Obama supporters don’t like to read the truth about their candidate, and who can blame them?  After eight years of destructive Republican policies, the desperation for some actual change — even if it is only an illusion — is certainly understandable.  But it is because desperation can lead to making serious mistakes in an election year critical to America’s future that it is important for Democrats to know exactly who it is we’re prepared to hand the nomination to.  Barack Obama simply is not a progressive, he’s just another DINO who has somehow managed to fool a lot of people.

Hope is not lost, however.  We can and should focus our efforts to get true Progressives elected to Congress, so that a (we hope) Democratic president may be pushed in the correct direction on issues such as getting out of Iraq and passing true health care reform.  It’s still early in the year, and we still have a chance to be the change we want to see in this country.  It’s not enough to simply get Democrats elected to power; the failures of the last year have proven that.  We must work to get the right Democrats — Progressive ones — seats in the Legislature and in state offices across the country.

Only then can we expect to succeed in pushing Barack Obama, should he win the nomination and become president, to achieve actual change.

In the interests of full disclosure, BeyondChron.org reports that Gonzalez has been chosen as Ralph Nader’s running mate.  Which means the Nader-haters shall dismiss anything and everything he has to say, no matter that it’s true.  But I thought it only fair, in the interest of telling the whole truth, to let you know about this.

In my previous entry I posted the Do’s and Don’ts of campaigning against Ralph Nader, because it is quite obvious that as in 2004, far too many Democrats are going to waste badly needed time and energy trying to eliminate him from the ballot — time and energy that can and should be spent selling the Democratic nominee.  But let it not be said that the Nader-haters are so rational as to take even words of advice on how to go about this without alienating too many voters as anything but a shill diary for the former Green Party candidate.
So in this entry I’m going to instruct you on the Do’s and Don’ts of selling your candidate when on the campaign trail.  Take this advice or leave it, that’s your decision to make.  For those of you willing to take this election year seriously, however, I offer the following.

1. For Clinton: DO try to focus your remaining primary efforts on using Howard Dean’s fifty-state strategy.

I had hoped, at this point, that she would have learned by now what a losing strategy the DLC campaign method is.  Focusing the bulk of one’s efforts on the “big” electoral states while ignoring the rest is flawed for two reasons: it assumes that Mrs. Clinton shall win each of those states, which has turned out to be disastrously wrong for her; and it assumes that her opponent isn’t winning because, unlike her, he has in fact been smart in embracing the fifty-state method.

It may be too late for Hillary Clinton to shift her strategy and tactics at this late date.  While next Tuesday’s primaries may yet keep her in the race until convention, that looks increasingly unlikely.  But it’s not too late for her to show that she is capable of learning from her mistakes.

2. For Obama: DON’T keep using right-wing attacks against your opponent.

Those ‘Harry and Louise’ ads he’s recycled from the 1990s may help him win the Democratic nomination, but they’re not going to help him unite the party going into the general election.  The thing about portraying one’s self as a uniter is that people tend to see it as hypocritical when one turns right around and resorts to divisive attacks during the primaries.  Obama, if he takes the nomination, needs to be aware that everything he says and does on the campaign trail is being scrutinized by Democrat and Republican alike.  The GOP nominee and the Republican Noise Machine are kicking back, taking notes, and biding their time for the general election.  And Democratic voters disenchanted by Obama’s attacks on Hillary Clinton are wondering if her opponent is worth rallying behind, if he insists on being such a hypocrite on his unity rhetoric.

3. For Clinton: DON’T respond to your opponent’s right-wing attacks with Rove-style attacks of your own.

Her mantra of “he’s not ready to go on Day One” rings kind of hollow, considering she’s been exposed for not being able to manage her campaign finances.  It doesn’t help that this brand of campaign rhetoric can be, and is being, taken as pulling pages from the Rove play book.  Democrats cannot win by trying to play the GOP’s games.  The party simply doesn’t have the talent for it, or the practice.

4. For Clinton and Obama: DO run campaigns that run to the left, especially going into the general election.

The candidates don’t appear to have noticed, but the political pendulum has been swinging back to the left for quite some time.  Voters have seen the destructive effects of conservative misrule, and they want a real change in direction.  Take the issue of health care, for example.  What good does it do to quibble over mandates, when doctors, union members, businesses — indeed, the general public, favor single-payer health care?

The problem Clinton and Obama have is that they’re so snugly in bed with the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries* that they cannot conceive of an environment in which the majority of Americans demand single-payer.  They figure it’s too difficult and undesirable to approach a health care battle from the perspective of bringing single-payer to the negotiating table as a starting point, so they don’t even try.  The problem with this reasoning is that the industries have no incentive to meet a Democratic president half way on health care reform — not when they’ve bought Congress, too.  So the end result is that health care reform in this country remains just another unattainable dream.

It doesn’t have to be this way.  As I pointed out, the majority of Americans, from lay voters to doctors to businesses, wants single-payer.  By openly standing in support of it, either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama could easily win a huge mandate from the electorate, such that the corporate industries now managing health care in this nation could not stand against the wave of true change.

Another issue to run to the political left upon is Iraq.  Most Americans want out, and as soon as possible.  Both candidates need to start campaigning on a promise to end the occupation of Iraq — completely — within the first year of the presidency.  This shall require going to the United Nations, hat off and tail tucked firmly between legs, to get help.  We broke that country quite thoroughly, and we must rebuild it as much as we can even as we draw down our occupation forces.  But since the U.S. treasury is empty, and we must rebuild our own degraded infrastructure, we cannot rebuild Iraq alone.  The main point, however, is to acknowledge that we cannot sustain the occupation of that country — especially since all excuses for remaining were exhausted long ago.

Campaigning to the right in a year in which the political pendulum has swung back to the left validates the perception of many who feel that there is no fundamental difference between the two major political parties.

5. For Clinton and Obama: DON’T divide the party.

Followers of both Clinton and Obama have demonstrated a level of nastiness that makes Democratic Underground look like a friendly tea party by comparison.  Remember, going into the general election requires uniting the party behind the eventual nominee.  That can’t happen as long as the two main candidates continue to play dirty against one another, and encourage with their silence the sort of attacks that take place in coffee shops and on web sites such as this.  The time to unite the party has been here for some time, but we’ve been stuck with two massive egos who’ve made this campaign personal.  That’s a truth that doesn’t go over well with the zealots who troll-rate anyone critical of their candidates, but it is what it is.  But both Obama and Clinton can begin to heal the rifts right now by calling upon their followers to stop with the hyper-partisanship, and start realizing that the party must put aside petty differences YESTERDAY.  This is the most important, because it is no secret that the eventual nominee shall need a united Democratic Party to beat John McCain in November.  Allowing the back-and-forth between the two camps, and discouraging zealotry from the more die hard supporters, can go a long way toward patching things up.

These aren’t all the things that Clinton and Obama can, and should, do from this point on.  But they are a good start.

*: Sources
OpenSecrets.org #1
OpenSecrets.org #2
OpenSecrets.org #3
OpenSecrets.org #4

Ralph Nader upsets a lot of Democrats.  So much so, in fact, that it seems to have created a whole brand of psychosis that I like to call Naderphobia.  An irrational fear, and hatred of, Ralph Nader.  Anyway, this year we’re bound to see Democrats try their best to waste precious time, energy and money in an effort to keep Ralph off the ballot.  So today I want to explain how Democrats can run their candidate (Clinton or Obama) against Ralph Nader’s candidacy.  There are right ways and wrong ways to do this, and for that reason I’m writing this “do and don’t” list so that success is achieved.

1. DO: Accentuate the differences between your candidate’s positions on the issues, and Nader’s.

This one’s pretty tough, because it may have the detrimental effect of turning off progressive voters from your candidate.  After all, you can’t expect most people to just vote against their beliefs — especially when the reasons you might give for doing so don’t stack up.  So you’ll need to know a bit about the people you’re talking to.  Since your candidate is a corporate Democrat, a “centrist”, you’ll want to target self-described “centrist” voters.  This can be difficult to do, since the political pendulum is swinging to the left, and has been for some years now.  But if you’re set on trying to convince people to go with your candidate instead of Ralph Nader, you’re going to have to find these voters.  They’re not many, and their numbers are becoming fewer, but they’re out there.  It’s just a matter of finding them.

Then again, if you insist on trying to falsely portray your candidate as a progressive, you might want to skip this first tactic altogether, since chances are no argument you can make is going to convince people your candidate is more progressive than Nader.

2. DO: Make sure to do everything in your power, big or small, to force your candidate to run on progressive policy positions.

There IS NO fixed political “center”.  It shifts as time passes and demographics change.  Likewise, extremes of both right and left in politics have a habit of altering the politics of lay voters.  Right now the electorate is moving to the political left, because twenty-eight years of Republican misrule in government have shown just how destructive it really is.  It serves your candidate no purpose to run to the political right, speaking in complimentary terms of Ronald Reagan or putting out a health care plan that benefits the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.  The American people are hungry for real change, and they demand it.  That means your candidate must run to the political left.  This shall not be an easy task; in fact, it may be an impossible one.  But you must try anyway.  Because if your candidate manages to squeak by this election and become president, the public absolutely will not abide being let down.  And they will punish the Democratic Party for failing to live up to its promise of change.

3. DO: Everything in your power to help get real progressives elected to public office, especially Congress.

Not even Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton is going to veto a health care bill passed by a Democratic Congress, no matter how good or bad it may actually be.  So it is imperative that you do everything in your power to make sure enough progressive Democrats are elected to Congress, and that they sign on to efforts at passing HR 676.

4. DON’T: Argue that your candidate isn’t John McCain.

Yes, people are aware that your candidate isn’t a registered Republican.  They don’t care.  Trust me on this.  After all, Joe LIEberman is not a registered Republican, and we all know what he really is.  The same may be said of DINOs such as Iowa’s Leonard Boswell, Maryland’s Steny Hoyer, and Illinois’ Rahm Emanuel.  So trying to justify your candidate by saying he or she is not a Republican isn’t going to work.  It doesn’t mean anything to voters who’ve lost jobs to NAFTA because of your candidate’s continuing support of that trade deal, or to voters who cannot get decent health care because your candidate worked to gut it as a state senator.

I mean, what is the purpose of making this ridiculous argument, anyway?  It’s like asking people to pick diet soda over regular, “New” Coke over “Classic”.  More often than not, people shall choose the real deal over some pretender.  History bears this out.  Yes, Republican politicians are evil bastards.  Voters know this, and better than you care to think.  But those same voters also know that Republican politicians don’t try to hide where they stand.  DINOs do.  And your candidate is, whether you want to admit it or not, a DINO.  You’re better off not making the “he (or she) isn’t John McCain” argument.

5. DO: Point out Ralph Nader’s ethical lapses in campaigning.

This is very likely the best argument you can make when trying to convince voters not to support Ralph Nader.  Why?  Because there is pretty strong circumstantial evidence that, in spite of his claims that the two party system is corrupt, he is nevertheless willing to take money from one of the two political parties he regularly criticizes.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/07/09/MNGQQ7J31K1.DTL

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/30/bush.nader/index.html

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0625-09.htm

See, Democrats aren’t the only ones who lie to themselves about how big an impact Ralph Nader has on electoral outcomes.  Republicans appear to buy into it, too.  Or perhaps they don’t, and are simply exploiting this unreasonable and factually challenged notion in hopes that they can get Democrats to waste time, energy and money trying to keep Nader off the ballot (as opposed to campaigning for their candidate).  Either way, Ralph appears to be accepting assistance from Republicans.

Maybe he thinks, in a jaded and cynical sort of way, that if the Democratic Party insists on waging war against him he might as well fight back and stick it to them by taking Republican money and support.  I don’t know.  What I do know is that if you’re going to campaign on the argument that the two-party system is hopelessly corrupt, taking money and support from one political body does seem hypocritical.  So Nader does have a weakness, and this is it: the lapse in ethical judgment.

6. DON’T: Threaten voters with four more years of Republican misrule.

For one thing, most reasonable people don’t believe this; they see it for the hogwash it is.  For another thing, they wouldn’t care if they did believe it, because most people don’t like to be threatened and have a nasty tendency to respond negatively.  So whatever you do, don’t threaten voters with another Bush term if they cast their ballots for Ralph Nader.  It won’t work, and in fact is likely to have the opposite effect.  Remember, too, that people subscribed to this argument in 2004 and they plainly saw that it turned out to be a losing strategy — Nader received far fewer votes that year than he did in 2000.  So few, in fact, that any perceived impact upon it was negligible.  And John Kerry still lost, because he was a weak candidate who ran a weak campaign.  Threatening more Republican rule if voters don’t cast ballots for your candidate is a losing strategy.

7. DON’T: Waste time, effort, or money trying to keep Ralph Nader off state ballots.

This only serves to confirm to many voters that the Democratic Party really isn’t fundamentally different than the GOP.  It is a proven fact that the Republicans have cheated their way into the White House, and are likely to do so again this year, because they denied voters the right to cast ballots and because they removed (or tried to remove) candidates from state ballots.  In Ohio in 2006, the GOP tried unsuccessfully to remove Democrat Jennifer Brady from the state house district 16 race.  Why should Democrats emulate that sort of bullshit behavior?  The Texas party eliminated Dennis Kucinich from its primary ballot for refusing to sign a Republican-style loyalty oath, for crying out loud!  When you engage in that kind of behavior, you really are proving Nader’s point.  And you do NOT want to do that.

It is also time, energy, and money, that is far better spent simply trying to sell your candidate to the public.  If you choose to waste it trying to engage in GOP-style efforts to keep Nader off the ballot, you have less time to make convincing arguments for your candidate.

Okay then, those are some sage words of advice for those of you who insist on trying to run your candidate for president by going after Ralph Nader.  Later this week: “Do and Don’t” lists for Clinton and Obama.

“Follow the money,” Hal Holbrook said in the film, All the President’s Men.  That line was fictitious, of course; the real ‘Deepthroat’ never actually said it to Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein.  Nevertheless, this phrase has become ingrained in the American political psyche.  And so we must force ourselves, regarding Barack Obama, to follow the money.
Many of his followers deny this, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true.  It’s no secret that Barack Obama is one of the top recipients of corporate campaign contributions in this election — in fact, he’s number two in the U.S. Senate behind Hillary Clinton for payoff money from the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries (which explains his successful gutting of health care reform while “serving” in the Illinois state senate).

But the blatant dishonesty and hypocrisy go a bit deeper than that.  According to Corporate Crime Reporter, the senator has pulled a fast one.

Well, let’s take the law firm of Sidley & Austin.  Sidley & Austin is a registered federal lobbyist.  It cannot by law give money to federal candidates.  But the lawyers who control the firm and profit from the firm’s lobbying activities can give to Obama.  Some of those individual lawyers are registered lobbyists.  Some are not.  Guess who gives to Obama?  Right.  The ones who are not registered lobbyists.  But they still control and profit from the lobbying activities of the firm.  So, technically, Obama is not taking money from federal lobbyists.  But only in the narrowest sense.

Sidley Austin, Skadden, Arps, Jenner & Block, Kirkland & Ellis, and Wilmerhale are all registered lobbyists.  Lawyers at these registered lobbying firms have given Obama’s campaign $813,459 through February 1, 2008.

“Is it possible that Senator Obama does not know that corporate law firms are also frequently registered lobbyists?” asks Pam Martens, writing in the current print edition of Counterpunch. (“The Obama Money Cartel,” by Pam Martens, Counterpunch). “Or is he making a distinction that because these funds are coming from the employees of these firms he’s not really taking money directly from registered lobbyists? That thesis seems disingenuous when many of these individual donors own these law firms as equity partners or shareholders and share in the profits generated from lobbying.”

I seriously doubt Obama is unaware that he’s taking money from lobbying firms.  A politician smart enough and slick enough to beat Hillary and Bill Clinton at their own game is smart enough to know where his campaign contributions are coming from.  Let’s take a look at how the bribe money (oops, I forget we’re not supposed to actually call it that, even though that’s exactly what it is) is broken down.  From the link to OpenSecrets.org:

BARACK OBAMA (D)
Top Contributors

Goldman Sachs — $421,763
Ubs Ag — $296,670
Lehman Brothers — $250,630
National Amusements Inc — $245,843
JP Morgan Chase & Co — $243,848
Sidley Austin LLP — 226,491
Citigroup Inc — 221,578
Exelon Corp — 221,517
Skadden, Arps Et Al — $196,420
Jones Day — $181,996
Harvard University — $172,324
Citadel Investment Group — $171,798
Time Warner — $155,383
Morgan Stanley — $155,196
Google Inc — $152,802
University of California — $143,029
Jenner & Block — $136,565
Kirkland & Ellis — $134,738
Wilmerhale Llp — $119,245
Credit Suisse Group — $118,250

What Obama has done is pull a sleight-of-hand trick.  By avoiding direct contributions, he manages to appear as though he is keeping his promise not to accept money from federal lobbyists.  But in actuality, he is still taking it from the lobbying firms.  He gets away with it by claiming that he is taking individual contributions from those not registered as lobbyists.  Technically true, but it’s a cheat: the money is instead going through middle men, employees of lobbying firms who can operate under the proverbial radar.

My friends, we have been well and truly snookered.  The corporate media has successfully shut out the real Democrats running for president, so we are now stuck with two corporate-owned candidates who will not do anything to significantly change the status quo.  It is well known that Hillary Clinton is beholden to corporate interests.  And her efforts to omit her ties from her “thirty-five years of experience” spiel have largely failed.  Every time I do digging on Obama, who preaches about making a change from the usual business of Washington corruption, I find more and more evidence that he is just another fraud, lying to people so he can obtain political power.  He’s playing us all like a harp from hell.

It is now more imperative than ever that Progressives take the opportunity 2008 presents to expand our presence in Congress, and weaken the hold Big Business has on our legislature.  It’s not enough to just elect Democrats; we have to get the right ones elected.  Otherwise the lessons from 2006 shall all have been for nothing.

P.S.

LeftOfDayton at WordPress.com has posted his own take on this, helping to reveal that yes, Obama is just another DLC darling.

DINO incumbent Leonard Boswell sees the writing on the wall.  After seeing what happened to Al Wynn over in Maryland, he has reached the conclusion that it pays to be an actual Democrat instead of a pretend one.  So he has belatedly signed on to Dennis Kucinich’s articles of impeachment against Dick Cheney.

David Swanson writes at OpEdNews.com:

Boswell is being challenged by Ed Fallon, who – like Edwards – seems to inspire more courage in the incumbent than he himself actually exhibits. Fallon’s website says nothing about impeachment. Edwards said she was for it when asked, but never brought it up, and kept it off her website.

Swanson goes on to write:

The Iowa Independent quotes Fallon as responding to Boswell’s cosponsorship of H Res 333:

‘It’s a little late to start impeachment proceedings,’ said Fallon. ‘The time to impeach Cheney and/or Bush would have been when we first discovered the administration had misled us into the Iraq war. This current attempt by Kucinich was introduced in April of last year. If Rep. Boswell were serious about impeachment, why did it take him 10 months to sign on to the measure? It’s clear to me that Boswell is trying to act more like a Democrat now that he has an opponent.’

There are dozens of candidates for Congress this year who do make impeachment a prominent part of their campaigns, even though they won’t reach office until 2009 if they are elected. Perhaps supporting some of them would be the most effective way to win over some more incumbents, either to cosponsorship of H Res 333 or to signing onto Congressman Robert Wexler’s letter to Chairman John Conyers calling for impeachment hearings to begin.

54% of Americans want Cheney impeached, as do 64% of Vermonters.

Never mind the cowardice of wimps such as Anthony Wade, who only help stifle efforts to hold the shrub and his gargoyle accountable for their crimes — thus guaranteeing Democratic losses in November.  Make no mistake, the majority of Americans want Bush and Cheney impeached.  And history shows that impeachment is good for the political party that brings it against sitting executives.  The threat of it drove Richard Nixon from office, and Gerald Ford’s pardon of the criminal-in-chief resulted in a backlash that cost him the 1976 election.  Similarly, despite public opposition, Republicans kept control of Congress and successfully stole the White House following their impeachment of then-president Bill Clinton.

By contrast, voters tend to punish political parties that block impeachment when it is warranted.  After failing to impeach Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush for high crimes and treason for the Iran-Contra scandal, Democrats lost ground in 1988 and the elder Bush went on to become president.  No one likes a political party that won’t stand up for the Constitution and the rule of law.  Which is why the GOP lost working control of Congress in 2006, and why November shall see the legislature change hands again unless Democrats get their acts together and begin impeachment proceedings NOW.

As I pointed out in my previous entry, Kucinich acknowledges that there is a “throw the bums out” mentality.  Leonard Boswell knows this.  If you think otherwise, ask yourself why he’s making this desperate and obviously belated attempt to score points with his newfound support for impeachment.  He knows what’s coming, and he wants to salvage his political career while he still can.

Ed Fallon has done a good job so far of bringing home to roost all of Boswell’s chickenshit.  Let’s help him win Iowa’s 3rd Congressional District.

Please read this and pass it on.

From: Congressman Dennis Kucinich! UNOFFICIAL
Date: Feb 16, 2008 5:39 PM

Because of the abysmal approval ratings of Congress itself, there is a real groundswell of “throw the bums out” voting, as evidenced by the 24-point victory in the primary challenge this week by progressive Donna Edwards. But we need to very careful not to let the exceptionally good be swept out with the bad.

That is why we need everyone to see this new Dennis Kucinich ad, to protect his seat from a hostile primary challenge in his own district.

Thank You Dennis Video: http://www.usalone.com/thank_you_dennis.php

For weeks big money has been running terribly false attack ads against Dennis trying to smear him out of Congress. And Dennis needs your help to fight back by running the ad on the page above in his own district.  So if you can make any kind of donation, please use the
easy form on the same page above to do so.

And to thank you for your valiant support, Dennis wants you to have as his gift to you a copy of his special Kucinich commemorative edition pocket constitution, with your donation of $100 or more. And if you are one of the few who have not be blindsided by Cheney’s
gut-the-economy agenda, Dennis Kucinich will personally autograph your copy with your donation of $1,000 or more.

Please note that even if you had already donated the full legal limit to his brave presidential run, which had a real impact in shifting the debate, you can donate another $2,300 for his congressional seat defense.

But even if you can’t make a donation right now, there is still something incredibly important you can do to help, and that is to send links to the video to anyone you can. So ask all your friends to visit the page below too.

Thank You Dennis Video: http://www.usalone.com/thank_you_dennis.php

So please do what you can to spread the word that this is a must win, must-keep situation. It is only because of the courage of Dennis Kucinich in standing strong to protect and defend the Constitution that we are where we are now, with more and more members of Congress clamoring for meaningful impeachment hearings, and the House still holding the line against that craven telecom immunity thing.

Let us not be complacent. Let us not take anything for granted just because Dennis is so amazing on every issue. We have to make sure that we empower Dennis to remind his constituents what a magnificent job he has been doing for them and for us all. And nothing would push impeachment forward more than the most clearcut victory for Dennis in his primary.

Please take action NOW, so we can win all victories that are supposed to be ours, and forward this alert as widely as possible.

No, this isn’t what you’re probably thinking. Yet. Whether it becomes that depends entirely on how things turn out by the end of the year. No, this is about nothing more than the Democratic Party’s animal mascot.

Nice, huh? Too bright for your eyes? Here’s one in a darker color scheme.

Join me below the fold for more.
I’ve given this a lot of thought, and I’ve decided that we need to retire the Democratic Donkey as our mascot. He’s a politically savvy beast, to be sure. But he’s been around since Andrew Jackson ran for the presidency, and frankly, he’s worn out.

A little bit of political history is in order, so you understand what I’m writing about.

The now-famous Democratic donkey was first associated with Democrat Andrew Jackson’s 1828 presidential campaign. His opponents called him a jackass (a donkey), and Jackson decided to use the image of the strong-willed animal on his campaign posters. Later, cartoonist Thomas Nast used the Democratic donkey in newspaper cartoons and made the symbol famous.

Nast invented another famous symbol—the Republican elephant. In a cartoon that appeared in Harper’s Weekly in 1874, Nast drew a donkey clothed in lion’s skin, scaring away all the animals at the zoo. One of those animals, the elephant, was labeled “The Republican Vote.” That’s all it took for the elephant to become associated with the Republican Party.

Democrats today say the donkey is smart and brave, while Republicans say the elephant is strong and dignified.

Now, given the history of the last thirty years or so, that last bit isn’t even close to being accurate anymore. The Republican Elephant may be strong, but it is hardly dignified. To illustrate this salient point, I offer the following:

And then, of course, there’s the Daily Kos front page entry from yesterday describing the hissy fit over contempt charges against Harriet Miers and Josh Bolton, led by House Republican leader John Boehner (he of the whiny tears and unintentionally pornographic-sounding surname).

So the Republican Elephant may be strong — certainly enough to continue bullying Democrats into craven submission in spite of no longer being the majority party in Congress. But the word ‘dignified’ isn’t a word that may be used to describe it.

And then, of course, there’s tired old Mr. Donkey. He who used to be smart, and who used to be brave, but whose age and senility began creeping up and finally hit it like a super case of Alzheimer’s about the time Reagan won the presidency. Sorry if the Alzheimer’s reference offends, but you have to understand what has become of the Democratic Party and why the Donkey no longer symbolizes intelligence or bravery.

Now, it should be noted that until very recently in American history the Donkey had certainly lived up to its reputation. But this wasn’t always so. A look at presidential history shows that before Franklin Delano Roosevelt swept to victory on a tide of anti-Republican outrage following the Great Depression, there were more Republican presidents than Democratic ones. Nineteen GOPers (eighteen if you discount the illegitimate dictatorship of George W. Bush) to the Democrats’ thirteen. Let’s take a look, however, at the post-American Civil War through the Gilded Age.

From 1861 to 1885, Lincoln to Arthur, there was an unbroken line of Republican presidents. Grover Cleveland won the 1884 presidential election, but was voted out after one term in favor of GOPer Benjamin Harrison, only to win re-election in 1892. After that, it was another unbroken line of Republican presidencies from 1897 to 1913. And following Democrat Woodrow Wilson’s two terms, Herbert Hoover presided over the collapse of the American economy.

I want you to think about that for a few minutes. From 1861 to 1933 — seventy-two years — only sixteen non-consecutive years saw Democratic presidencies. Needless to say, Donkey’s early decades were not exactly fruitful ones. But something odd happened in the early 20th Century that upset the balance of power for decades to come. And that something was Theodore Roosevelt.

The 26th president of the United States could, arguably, be considered the most Progressive Republican to win the presidency. He might, arguably, also be considered the only Progressive Republican to reside there. At any rate, having served in office for nearly eight years (his predecessor, William McKinley, was assassinated in September 1901) he thought he had earned a rest from politics. So he named his chosen successor, William Howard Taft, and went hunting. The next four years under the 27th president, however, did not go well for the Progressive movement. Taft undid or allowed to expire many of the Progressive reforms his predecessor had pushed through Congress.

Needless to say, Roosevelt was not pleased with what he saw when he got back from safari. Incensed at what his hand-picked successor had done to his legacy, Roosevelt determined that he would run again for the presidency. Although he came close to winning the Republican nomination, however, Taft managed to eke out the victory. Roosevelt wasn’t about to accept defeat, though. So, taking a good many of his fellow progressives with him, he formed the Progressive Party to continue running. In so doing, most Progressives left the GOP and the party would come to be dominated by conservatives until the present day.

Nicknamed the Bull Moose Party after a statement by Roosevelt on how he felt, in response to a reporter’s question (the former president had survived an assassination attempt, and his safari adventures had proven disastrous to his health), Theodore led a fierce campaign for the presidency. But the Progressive movement had split, with some going over to their namesake political party and others switching their affiliation to the Democrats. The final result of the 1916 race was that Democrat Woodrow Wilson won, with Taft becoming the first and only incumbent president to come in last in a three-way election.

Following Wilson’s victory, Democrats held the office of the presidency for eight years. But it didn’t last. It wouldn’t be until the markets collapsed in 1929 that voter outrage coalesced into a stronger Progressive movement led by unions and another Roosevelt — Franklin, a cousin of Theodore. FDR was able to put together a coalition that for the first time in the nation’s history was powerful enough to transform politics for generations. Democrats not only won the presidency, but Congress as well. And they kept the Legislature for over forty years.

Paul Krugman, he who wrote The Conscience of A Liberal (which really should be required reading for all Progressives), laid out the case for why this Democratic reign lasted as long as it did — as well as why it eventually collapsed. But the point is, the Donkey had finally proven itself the victor and lived up to the reputation of its political party. Even when GOPers held the presidency, during the terms of Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon, the party remained quite strong.

But, as with all good things, the Great Compression came to an end. As Krugman explains in his book, the New Deal coalition was a shaky one from the start: a marriage of convenience between Northern liberals and Southern Dixiecrats. When the party leaders began trying to expand the New Deal to health care reform, and especially when they began standing up for the Civil Rights movement, the Dixiecrats balked and went over to the GOP. In droves. This coincided with the rise of movement conservatism within the Republican Party, and the New Deal coalition fell apart. By the time Nixon resigned from the presidency in disgrace, the Democratic Party had become a shell of its former self. And things became worse when the GOP was able to exploit racism and a hostage crisis in Iran to defeat Jimmy carter in 1980.

The rest, as they say, is history. The rise of the conservative Democratic Leadership Council and the capitulation of Democrats during Iran-Contra helped weaken the party further. Bill Clinton, the only Democrat to win and hold the presidency during the last twenty-eight years, was a weak and ineffectual president who caved to the GOP on virtually every front. The truth is, the Clinton dynasty has ever been about one thing: the Clintons. It was never about trying to work on behalf of the American people; it’s always been about them, and only them. And they don’t care that it has destroyed the Democratic Party.

Which is why it is so frustrating to see the once-mighty Democrats brought so low despite having been voted back into power in 2006. Even though we have control of Congress, the party leaders are so whipped that to even suggest impeachment of the criminal Bush-Cheney regime is to invite scorn and punishment. Just ask Dennis Kucinich, he who managed to force a debate on impeachment last year and whose efforts are being assisted by Robert Wexler. He now faces a stiff primary battle for his Ohio-10th House seat.

The lesson to be learned from the past thirty years is that time has not been kind to the Democratic Donkey. Yes, he’s smart. But age and the burden of holding up the Progressive Reforms of the 20th Century have worn him out. He is, to put it bluntly, ruined. Tired. Weak. No longer brave. And not as quick with his wits as he used to be. It’s time for him to take a badly needed rest. The Democratic Donkey needs, desperately, to retire.

Something needs to be done to help reinvigorate the Progressive Movement. And I can’t think of a better symbol with which to replace the Democratic Donkey than the animal mascot that made a sitting president come in last. I’m writing, dear readers, about the Progressive Bull Moose. He has spent nearly a century sitting idle, and he is chomping at the proverbial bit to take his rightful place as a national Party Mascot. Take a gander at this:

And tell me that isn’t a strong, proud, fine animal to rally ourselves around. Look at that majestic beast and tell me it can’t spark a renewed sense of pride and energy in the Progressive Movement. You can’t, not with a straight face, anyway.

Think what such a mascot would look like up against the GOP symbol. The Republican Pachyderm may be strong, but that is now its only virtue. And that “virtue” is highly dubious, because it is just as old and senile as the Donkey. It remains on top of the mascot heap solely through the use of brute force. It has become greedy, slothful, and stupid. Which is why adopting the Bull Moose as our new national party symbol has such potential to reinvigorate us.

So what do you say? Shall we retire the Donkey?

As you’re probably aware, Ohio’s 10th Congressional is in the midst of a fierce primary battle.  Motivated to seize the House seat for its preferred corporate candidate, and driven by hatred stretching back to Muny Light, the Cleveland Plain Dealer — a very conservative newspaper and the town’s only daily — is trying to push Dennis Kucinich out after more than ten years of loyal and able service to his constituency.

Follow me below the fold for more.
Cleveland’s movers and shakers have thrown their support by sitting Ward 13 councilman Joe Cimperman, a corporate-owned politician.  His argument for running is based in part on the most ludicrous of claims: that a sitting elected official ought not to spend taxpayer time and money running for another elected office.  But that is precisely what Cimperman is doing.  Furthermore, he is running on a patently false claim that Kucinich has missed more votes than almost any other member of Congress.

The truth, however, is not on Cimperman’s side.  According to GovTrack.us:

Dennis Kucinich missed 346 of 7054 votes (5%) since Jan 7, 1997.

Compare this to campaigning Republican Ron Paul, who according to GovTrack.us has missed twice as many votes as Kucinich.

Ronald Paul missed 687 of 7054 votes (10%) since Jan 7, 1997.

And what of the sitting U.S. senators running for president?

John McCain has missed sixteen percent of his votes.

John McCain missed 592 of 3720 votes (16%) since Jan 22, 1997.

Barack Obama has missed seventeen percent.

Barack Obama missed 185 of 1098 votes (17%) since Jan 6, 2005.

And Hillary Clinton has missed six percent of votes, just one percent below Kucinich’s attendance record.

Hillary Clinton missed 152 of 2406 votes (6%) since Jan 23, 2001.

So what may we conclude from this?  That Cimperman is either lying his fool ass off, or else he is too lazy or too stupid to get his facts straight — or a combination thereof.  My money, if I had any, would be on the combo theory.  And whatever the case may be, is this really the kind of person Ohio’s 10th Congressional District really wants or needs representing it?

Here’s another case against Cimperman and his backers at the Plain Dealer.

The Pee Dee used the entire space of the Sunday editorial slot to bless Cimperman. Actually, it was not so much to anoint Cimperman as to throw slaps at his opponent, Dennis Kucinich.

And…

What struck me as really odd was how little space the paper spent on telling us of any accomplishments of Cimperman. His major accomplishment, as I can see, is giving away city money to developers.

While we’re on that note, let’s ask ourselves, of the two main candidates for Ohio-10, who has accomplished more?  Kucinich, hands down.

Kucinich –

Cosponsored HR 676, which is Medicare for all Americans.

H.R. 4060: Universal Prekindergarten Act

H.R. 3400: Rebuilding America’s Infrastructure

H.R. 1234: To end the United States occupation of Iraq immediately

H. Con. Res. 23: Expressing the sense of Congress that the President should not order an escalation in the total number of members of the United States Armed Forces serving in Iraq.

H.R. 2707: To reauthorize the Underground Railroad Educational and Cultural Program

H.R. 3875: To permit the Secretary of Labor to make an administrative determination of the amount of unpaid wages owed for certain violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act in the New Orleans region after Hurricane Katrina.

And then, of course, there are his articles of impeachment against Dick Cheney.  Pretty busy for a “part-time” member of the House of Representatives, huh?  And what, by the way, has Cimperman done for his constituents?  According to ClevelandLeader.com (bear with me, this one’s a long quote but it is absolutely necessary):

Just to remind people of what the donation-gobbling Cimperman has become as the downtown councilman, I’ve listed below what the city and others, with Cimperman’s strong backing, gave to the Wolstein project in the Flats. The project is in Cimperman’s ward.

Of course, the city also helped with eminent domain to shift properties to Wolstein from others.

There’s an interesting battle now going on for downtown real estate development with several major corporations and law firms reportedly interested in new office space. Looking for new digs: Baker & Hostetler, Eaton Corp., Ernst & Young, Huntington Bank and Squire, Sanders & Dempsey. So there’s demand.

It will be interesting in the climate of demand to observe how city officials – Mayor Frank Jackson and City Council – react to this renewed interest in new office space.

Since there’s high demand should the city avoid offering all kinds of subsidy incentives to developers to do what they must do – meet the demand by building? (It’s also unclear whether the new space will be added space or simply newer space to shift tenants from older buildings, in other words, rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic/Cleveland.)

The Pee Dee could do a service to the citizens by researching and telling us which downtown property owners got what part of the $100 million in taxable property that came off the tax rolls in recent years. Likely suspects: Forest City Enterprises, Dick Jacobs and John Carney interests.

The market is supposed to rule. And, to some degree, it does. The best example is the empty space on the west side of Public Square. The city in 1989 awarded Dick Jacobs the same sweet subsidy deal to build on that site as the developer received for the north side of Public Square (Key Center & Marriott Hotel).

Yet, 19 years later, the site remains fallow, a parking lot.

That’s because there has been no market for new office space and thus no development.

Now, since there is said to be demand, why don’t the developers meet the demand – but without seeking to wring out abatements and other subsidies from the depressed City of Cleveland? The answer is simple: greed.

They don’t because our political leaders are too eager (Cimperman) to serve their benefactors at the expense of their constituents.

Below are the incredible “incentives” given to the Wolstein partnership for the Flats East Side project. Here is the list:

• BDOHS (port authority) will provide $11 million in loans.
• City of Cleveland will provide $6 million in Core City loans.
• Cleveland Public Power will provide $3.4 million in services.
• Cleveland Water Division will provide $740,000 in infrastructure costs.
• Cleveland will provide another $1 million from its general obligation bonds.
• The County, City and Cleveland schools will forgo $11,140,000 in property taxes under a TIF (tax abatement) program to help the project.
• Cuyahoga County will provide $1 million in subsidies.
• The State of Ohio will provide a grant of $3 million for “environmental remediation,” matched by a loan from Cuyahoga County of $1 million, both committed from the 2005 Clean Ohio program.
• Tax exempt Parking Revenue Bonds estimated at $8,540,000 will be repaid from Public parking facility revenues.
• Tax-exempt infrastructure bonds estimated to be $9 million are secured by annual payments by the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District.
• The sum of approximately $4,550,000 will be made available through the Federal Highway Administration.
• The federal government has appropriated and the city shall obtain and make available when required for eligible project costs a grant of $1,464,735 from the U. S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic Atmosphere Administration (NOAA grant).
• All rental and condominium units (some 300 units) will be tax abated at 100% for 15 years. No cost estimate given by the city, port authority or county.
• The city agrees to enact legislation as necessary to amend and extend the CRA residential tax abatement program to assure that all residential improvements are eligible for the full 15-year, 100% abatement of real estate taxes. No cost given.
• The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (RTA) will construct a transit station on the RTA Waterfront Rail Line for the project “…all at no cost or expense” to the developer. No total or estimated cost mentioned.
• The City of Cleveland “shall take all necessary action to vacate all existing streets within the project site to the extent no longer require as public improvements for the project, and any easements which impair or adversely affect the development, construction or occupancy of the project, or which lie within the project site and are no longer required for use as public improvements for the Project.” No cost estimate given.
• The City of Cleveland “shall convey to the developer all the land owned by it (the city) within the residential site not necessary for public improvements by official quit-claim deed…” No cost estimate given.
• Under a section called “public improvements”, it states: “Public improvements necessary to support the Residential project will include but may not be limited to the following….
• Abatement, demolition and environmental remediation (including all necessary earthwork and soil clean-up) of the Project properties as they exist as of the execution date of this Agreement so as to allow for construction of the Residential Project.
• On-site paving and landscaping for all areas from the building lines of the Residential Project to the street curb as well as the public spaces of the Riverfront Park described below.
• A Riverfront Park extending from the southern boundary of the Project along the Cuyahoga River ‘s edge north to the Norfolk & Southern rail line with an eastern edge defined by a realigned Old River Road and a new street network described below. The Park may include but not be limited to the following elements: a riverfront boardwalk, gather places; pavilions; project signage, retail kiosks; and a marina for transient boater use. The Riverfront Park shall be planned in such a manner so as to receive the proposed extension of the Towpath Trail…
• Utility improvements, replacements and/or upgrades sufficient to provide necessary storm and sanitary sewer, water, electrical, gas and thermal heating and cooling services for the Residential Project and the permanent improvements in the public right of way (e. g. street lighting) and property (e.g. Riverfront Park fixtures and appurtenances) for ongoing and seasonal needs.
• Street improvements, realignments and additions to serve the Residential Project and its associated parking facilities, including all necessary traffic control equipment and signage…
• Bulkhead repair, replacement and improvements sufficient to maintain the long-term integrity of the eastern edge of the Project site bordered by the Cuyahoga River.
• The Public Parking Facilities and Private Parking Facilities estimated to consist of a minimum of 1,600 spaces in total and sufficient to serve the retail and residential uses of the Project by way of four structured facilities and no fewer than two surface lots, including all necessary equipment, landscaping and appurtenances.
• An allocable share of land acquisition costs associated with the square footage occupied by the Public Improvement as a percentage of the entire Project square footage (Residential Project plus Public Improvements.)
• Any and all soft costs which may be attributable to construction of the Public improvements including but not limited to architectural and engineering services, lighting, traffic and parking consultants, permits/fees, testing and inspection, temporary utilities, financing fees and costs and capitalized interest on bonds or loans.

With Joe in Congress just think of how much booty can be delivered to our developers.

Rosemary Palmer and Barbara Anne Ferris, the latter of whom comes from a family-owned steakhouse and was endorsed by the Plain Dealer in 2006, are also on the ballot for Ohio-10.  But with Cimperman getting corporate money thrown at him like water splashed on a kid at the local pool, neither of them stands as big a chance against the far worthier incumbent.  Furthermore, Ferris has received help from Cleveland-area Republicans[1] in order to seize the seat the only way it can — through a bought off “Democrat”.  In 2004 she ran against Dennis Kucinich as an independent before switching her party affiliation over to Democrat so she would fare better in the heavily-Democratic town.

You really have to wonder if The Plain Dealer thinks it can fool all the people all the time.

That’s my thought when I see a rather long editorial “un-endorsing” Congressman Dennis Kucinich and telling readers to vote for a woman who ran as an independent in 2004 and who appears to be a Republican now.

No matter to the Plain Dealer. She is not Kucinich. That is what seems to matter to this Republican newspaper. On the other hand, maybe they believe by electing Ferris, the Republican candidate will win District 10 in November.

I gather her Republican leanings from a ringing endorsement on her website from Republican Robert Brown. He heads up “Republicans for Ferris” though she’s running in a Democratic primary.

Ohio-10 voters weren’t fooled by Ferris in 2004 or 2006, and they certainly shan’t be fooled by her again.  And while her financial resources aren’t bad, they’re not enough to compete with the million or so dollars Cimperman has been handed for his run.  So she’s a non-entity in a race the Plain Dealer wants won by a moneyed candidate with an actual chance against their hated nemesis.

The bottom line is this: Progressives must keep Ohio-10 safe.  If Cimperman manages to buy his way into Congress, with help from Cleveland’s conservative movers and shakers, we can say goodbye to that seat for years to come.  Because once Dennis is out, and a weak, corporate Democrat is in, you can be damned sure that the Ohio Republican Party will be emboldened to make a serious grab for that seat.  Please go to www.kucinich.us and donate your money, time, and energy to helping keep this vital Congressional seat solidly in Progressive hands.

Check out Paul Krugman’s blog entry and column from today.

Now lest you think he is defending Hillary Clinton, bear in mind that his criticisms have focused exclusively on policy and on the actions of the candidates on the campaign trail — he has not made personal attacks.  The blog entry deals with false accusations of race-baiting by the Clintons.  And it is tied in with today’s column, which has to do with a new book by Rick Perlstein called Nixonland.
From the blog entry:

I’m starting to get emails from angry people who tell me that I’m ignoring all the terrible race-baiting the Clintons have done. I think I’ll just outsource my response to Clive Crook — who is, by the way, an Obama supporter.

Some commentators accused Bill of playing the race card when he called Obama’s account of his position on the Iraq war a “fairy tale”. How so? What did that have to do with race? And does Hillary’s comment about King, the only instance Morris bothers to offer, even qualify? She merely said that getting the job done required a can-do president as well as an inspiring and visionary champion. And so it did. I cannot see that this subtracts anything from King’s stature, or that it was intended to. Whatever its merits, this is the Clintons’ old theme, not a sinister new one: if elected, she would hit the ground running, whereas the inexperienced Obama would be out of his depth. It took a hyper-sensitive press to turn that comment into a racial slur.

I think the press played the race card, not the Clintons.

And he’s right.  Make no mistake, the Clintons are playing dirty politics — the same kind they’ve always played, the kind that has divided the Democratic Party and brought it to its currently weakened and fractious state.  Because in the end, it’s never about country or party, it’s all about the Clintons.  But they’re not playing the race card; Obama is.  If you think he is any different than the Clintons, and that he isn’t the one exploiting race in this campaign, think again.  Obama’s own actions on the campaign trail — and those of his followers — have been equally as divisive and based on the man himself instead of what’s good for the country or the Democratic Party.  As Krugman writes in his column:

I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We’ve already had that from the Bush administration — remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don’t want to go there again.

What’s particularly saddening is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the application of “Clinton rules” — the term a number of observers use for the way pundits and some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent.

The prime example of Clinton rules in the 1990s was the way the press covered Whitewater. A small, failed land deal became the basis of a multiyear, multimillion-dollar investigation, which never found any evidence of wrongdoing on the Clintons’ part, yet the “scandal” became a symbol of the Clinton administration’s alleged corruption.

During the current campaign, Mrs. Clinton’s entirely reasonable remark that it took L.B.J.’s political courage and skills to bring Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream to fruition was cast as some kind of outrageous denigration of Dr. King.

And the latest prominent example came when David Shuster of MSNBC, after pointing out that Chelsea Clinton was working for her mother’s campaign — as adult children of presidential aspirants often do — asked, “doesn’t it seem like Chelsea’s sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?” Mr. Shuster has been suspended, but as the Clinton campaign rightly points out, his remark was part of a broader pattern at the network.

I call it Clinton rules, but it’s a pattern that goes well beyond the Clintons. For example, Al Gore was subjected to Clinton rules during the 2000 campaign: anything he said, and some things he didn’t say (no, he never claimed to have invented the Internet), was held up as proof of his alleged character flaws.

Sorry for the long quote, but it was necessary.  Not everyone is able to read NYT content online.  Krugman also warns that if Obama is the nominee, he shall most certainly be subjected to the same rules of mistreatment set down by Republicans and the corporate-owned media.  As he points out, “progressives should realize that Nixonland is not the country we want to be. Racism, misogyny and character assassination are all ways of distracting voters from the issues, and people who care about the issues have a shared interest in making the politics of hatred unacceptable.”

That’s a lesson we all should have learned by now.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_david_sw_080210_call_conyers_monday_.htm

Here’s the relevant portion, but PLEASE read the whole column.

On Thursday, Chairman John Conyers’ House Judiciary Committee held a hearing at which Attorney General Michael Mukasey said that he would not investigate torture or warrantless spying, he would not enforce contempt citations, and he would treat Justice Department opinions as providing immunity for crimes.

None of this was new, but perhaps it touched something in Conyers that had not been touched before. Following the hearing, he and two staffers met for over an hour with two members of Code Pink and discussed activism and impeachment, including Congressman Robert Wexler’s proposal to begin impeachment hearings on Cheney.

And here’s how you can reach him:

Lend your voices to the conversation and make phone calls, send faxes and Email Congressman Conyers on Monday and Tuesday. Let the Chairman know that only impeachment hearings:

1-will reach a broad TV audience
2-will force compliance with subpoenas by eliminating “executive privilege”
3-will hold brazen criminals accountable
4-will convince citizens that Congress cares about upholding the Constitution.

Call: 202-225-5126
Fax: 202-225-0072
Email: john.conyers@mail.house.gov