Author: Reading on Walden Bookstore

Hillary Clinton compared herself to the movie character played by Sylvester Stallone, Rocky Balboa. And Senator Barack Obama ridiculed Clinton about her wanting to be Rocky Balboa.

“You know, we all love Rocky,” Obama responded. “But we’ve got to remember, Rocky was a movie.”

I am loyal to fault when it comes to Barack Obama. In my eyes, he can do no wrong. So I am pleading with Obama, “Please let Hillary play Rocky.”

She seems to want it so much. I mean let’s review the first Rocky movie.

Sylvester Stallone, was an unbankable unknown at the time – an underdog actor/writer in the film industry (with 32 previously-rejected scripts) similar to the boxing ‘bum’ in the film.

Ok. So she wants to be a boxing “bum.” Let her.

The main poster’s tagline emphasized the lowly, simple-minded status of the working-class, Italian hero, who was a good-natured individual that lacked basic intelligence, but displayed gutsy, optimistic perseverance while fighting for his dignity:

So he was a simple-minded but good-natured person. In other words, not real bright but a nice guy. I’m seeing a pattern develop here.

“His whole life was a million-to-one shot.”

I thought her odds of getting the Democratic nomination were a little better than that. But, if that’s what you want.

The action-packed, ‘feel-good’ crowd-pleasing story, shot mostly on location, tells of the rise of a small-time, has-been, underdog Philadelphia boxer against insurmountable odds in a big-time bout, with the emotional support of a shy, hesitant, loving girlfriend.

Yes, Yes. The rise of a “has-been.” The plot thickens.

And I remember that Rocky Balboa becomes heavyweight champ of the world. He was beaten and bloodied and bruised and broken-boned all over his body, but he eventually won. He also did the same to his opponent. But Rocky loves to win no matter what the price or who he hurts.

My God, maybe she is Rocky.

Although now I wonder if she should be the Marlon Brando (Terry Malloy) character in “The Waterfront.” You know which one I’m referring. He said something to the effect, “Oh Charlie, I could have been somebody. I could have been a contender.”Reading on Walden Bookstore.

As Sean Hannity continues his relentless bashing of everything honest and decent, his own past has been called into question. News Hounds reports this.

Another night, another high tech lynching of Barack Obama on Hannity & Colmes. It was the usual attacks on Obama over those with whom he associates. But last night (3/19/08), Sean Hannity was confronted about his own past association with white supremacist Hal Turner. First Hannity denied knowing Turner, then he said he had long ago banned Turner from his show. While it’s probably true that Hannity banned Turner, what Hannity didn’t mention is that before Turner got banned, he was regularly welcomed on Hannity’s show, even after saying on the air that if it weren’t for the graciousness of white people, “black people would still be swinging on trees in Africa.”

“Still swinging on trees in Africa.” And Sean Hannity and his Fox friends (some friends) continue to welcome these type of guests. It frankly didn’t bother me what they did over at Fox, because I totally ignored them. But when they go out of their way to attack good, decent and honest people, it’s time to draw the battle lines.

And he has lied about banning Mr. Turner when it was uncovered he still has a relationship with this man. He can have all the relationships he wants with whomever he wants, but stop lying. At least he should pretend to be a journalist. This piece in the Huffington Post was quite interesting.

Well, there’s plenty of evidence to the contrary (Max Blumenthal’s piece in Nation is good for a start), but it hardly matters, because don’t you know, days later, Turner himself was doing his pal a total solid by coming out and stating, “Oh, yeah! We’re best of buds!”

And speaking of the Nation article, here is what Max Blumenthal uncovered there.

This year a man named Hal Turner sat before his computer at his suburban home in North Bergen, New Jersey, posting bomb-making tips on his website, hailing the firebombing of an apartment containing “Savage Negroes” and calling for the murder of immigrants. “When enough illegal aliens get killed they will stop coming to the country!” Turner wrote.

Turner was once a prominent activist in New Jersey’s Republican Party. To area conservatives, he was best known by his moniker for call-ins to the Sean Hannity Show, “Hal from North Bergen.” For years, Hannity offered his top-rated radio show as a regular forum for Turner’s occasionally racist, always over-the-top rants. Hannity also chatted with him off-air, allegedly offering encouragement to Turner as he struggled to overcome a cocaine habit and homosexual leanings. Turner has boasted that Hannity once invited Turner and his son on to the set of Fox News’s Hannity and Colmes. Today, Turner lurks on the fringes of the far right, spouting hate-laced tirades on his webcast radio show. Hannity, meanwhile, remains mum about his former alliance with the neo-Nazi, homing in instead on the supposed racism of black and Latino Democrats.

Sean Hannity and your Fox friends (some friends). Grow up. These stories all speak for themselves. Reading on Walden Bookstore.

Senator Barack Obama is making it clear he is running for President of the United States and not Vice President. In a highly unusual move, Bill and Hillary Clinton are encouraging talk of a Clinton/Obama team, while in the same breath attack Obama’s readiness to be Commander-in-Chief.

So is Obama ready to be Commander-in-Chief or is he only ready to be Vice-President. One of the most important choices a presidential nominee makes is choosing a Vice-Presidential running mate. Someone that can step in and immediately become “Commander-in-Chief.” Presumably, a Vice-President takes over during a crisis of some sort. The death of a President or an illness. And he (or she) must be ready to step right into to some big shoes.

Pennsylvania Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell spoke to Tim Russert on “Meet the Press” Sunday morning and addressed the subject.

Does Hillary Clinton believe Barack Obama is good enough to be a heartbeat away from the presidency but still a second-rate choice for commander-in-chief?

As Clinton’s campaign simultaneously questions Obama’s readiness to be commander-in-chief and enthusiastically promotes him as a vice-presidential choice should she win the nomination, a Clinton surrogate this morning made the unusual argument that Obama is “qualified” to be a heartbeat away from the presidency but still falls far short of Clinton’s readiness for the job.

Tim Russert, moderator for “Meet the Press,” bored in on the seeming inconsistency in questioning Pennsylvania Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell, a surrogate who appeared on behalf of the Clinton campaign.

But Obama isn’t nibbling on the Clinton bait.

Meanwhile Senator Obama has ruled out the possibility of running on a joint ticket with Senator Clinton.

“You won’t see me as a vice-presidential candidate – you know, I’m running for president,” he told a TV interviewer ahead of today’s votes.

“We have won twice as many states as Senator Clinton and have a higher popular vote and I think we can maintain our delegate count.”

The Clintons have been unable to knock Obama off of his perch and now they are approaching Obama with a weak combination of vinegar and honey. They have underestimated Obama for over a year now and still don’t get it. Obama is strong and tough and possesses all the qualities necessary in a great Commander-in-Chief. If Obama can tolerate all that the Clintons dish out, then he is tough enough and strong enough to lead this nation in a time of crisis.

The Clintons are playing a high risk game of politics that could result in the unraveling of not only Hillary Clinton’s national ambitions, but also of the Bill Clinton legacy. Bill Clinton has spent the last seven years touting the great “Clinton years” and successfully establishing a great legacy. But the resulting backlash from the “We’ll do anything and say anything to get back in the White House attitude,” will call into question the Clinton years. Reading on Walden Bookstore.

If you would have asked me a year ago, I would have taken any bet that Barack Obama would be on the 2008 Democratic ticket, either as President or Vice-President.

I was right.

There was such a consensus, however, that Hillary Clinton was the prohibitive favorite to win the nomination.

How quickly events have change. The question being whispered here and there is will Barack Obama ask Hillary Clinton to join the ticket and will she accept.

I now believe the answer to both questions is yes. I believe he will ask and that she will accept.

What an exciting prospect. Reading on Walden Bookstore.

I want to thank lapis who posted on the Daily Kos and alerted me to this Frank Rich piece in the NYT called “The Audacity of Hopelessness.” Rich blames much of the campaign failures on chief strategist, Mark Penn.

That’s why she has been losing battle after battle by double digits in every corner of the country ever since. And no matter how much bad stuff happened, she kept to the Bush playbook, stubbornly clinging to her own Rumsfeld, her chief strategist, Mark Penn. Like his prototype, Mr. Penn is bigger on loyalty and arrogance than strategic brilliance. But he’s actually not even all that loyal. Mr. Penn, whose operation has billed several million dollars in fees to the Clinton campaign so far, has never given up his day job as chief executive of the public relations behemoth Burson-Marsteller. His top client there, Microsoft, is simultaneously engaged in a demanding campaign of its own to acquire Yahoo.

There was a huge gap between the campaigns, explains Rich, in their work ethic.

The gap in hard work between the two campaigns was clear well before Feb. 5. Mrs. Clinton threw as much as $25 million at the Iowa caucuses without ever matching Mr. Obama’s organizational strength. In South Carolina, where last fall she was up 20 percentage points in the polls, she relied on top-down endorsements and the patina of inevitability, while the Obama campaign built a landslide-winning organization from scratch at the grass roots. In Kansas, three paid Obama organizers had the field to themselves for three months; ultimately Obama staff members outnumbered Clinton staff members there 18 to 3.

He even questions Clinton’s competency as a leader, citing a “disheveled campaign” and comparing it to her “botched” healthcare task force.

This is the candidate who keeps telling us she’s so competent that she’ll be ready to govern from Day 1. Mrs. Clinton may be right that Mr. Obama has a thin résumé, but her disheveled campaign keeps reminding us that the biggest item on her thicker résumé is the health care task force that was as botched as her presidential bid.

In summary, Frank Rich’s piece simply states in graphic fashion that Barack Obama ran a better campaign than Hillary Clinton.

Barack Obama’s remarkable rise comes as no surprise to me, having watched this brilliant politician rise from the ashes of a crushing defeat in a Congressional race in 2000, where he couldn’t do anything right. Since that time, has done nothing wrong. And that success is not accidental. Reading on Walden Bookstore.

I have never been prouder of Barack Obama than today when Barack Obama defended being a “liberal.” In Texas of all places. You go Barack.

AUSTIN, Texas — In the shadow of the state capitol that provided the United States with one of the most conservative presidents in recent history, Obama last night railed against the charge that being “liberal” was a bad thing.

“Oh, he’s liberal,” he said. “He’s liberal. Let me tell you something. There’s nothing liberal about wanting to reduce money in politics that is common sense. There’s nothing liberal about wanting to make sure [our soldiers] are treated properly when they come home.”

Continuing on his riff: “There’s nothing liberal about wanting to make sure that everybody has healthcare, but we are spending more on healthcare in this country than any other advanced country. We got more uninsured. There’s nothing liberal about saying that doesn’t make sense, and we should so something smarter with our health care system. Don’t let them run that okie doke on you!”

It is time the word “liberal” became a positive force in politics. Reading on Walden Bookstore.

I posted last week about “Single-Payer Health Insurance.” One of the leading groups supporting “single-payer” is the PNHP, which is a group of doctors and health advocates. The website message is:

Physicians for a National Health Program is a non-profit research and education organization of 15,000 physicians, medical students and health professionals who support single-payer national health insurance.

Another important group is called the California Nurses Association. This dedicated group of nurses is circulating a petition they call “Cheney Care.” The motto is “If he were anyone else, he’d probably be dead by now.”

The petition they are circulating reads simply:

Full Petition Text:

I want genuine healthcare reform that guarantees everyone has healthcare coverage, without prohibitive costs , and an end to insurance company denials of needed medical care.

I support HR 676, an expanded and improved Medicare for All. I want the same access to healthcare that Vice President Cheney and all members of Congress now receive.

Thank you,
Signed by:
[Your name]
[Your address]

“Single-payer” health coverage is important to me, because, I like Vice President Cheney, would be dead now were it not for that fact that I am fortunate enough to have great medical coverage. I have a UFCW-union health insurance policy and am eternally grateful for the coverage. In May of 2003, I had a heart attack. And I not only survived, but I have thrived since that time. Today, I live a normal, healthy life because of my great coverage.

I want others to have the kind of coverage I have, but I know there are millions of Americans with low-coverage or no-coverage. This situation is intolerable. Far too many have inadequate coverage. We need to get involved, whether on the national level with these two fine groups or on the local level supporting the right local candidates. The time for “single-payer” is now. Reading on Walden Bookstore.

It is obvious what is going on in the Clinton campaign. First it was James Carville, saying Hillary must win Ohio or Texas. And now Bill Clinton saying that a Texas loss would end the campaign.

Et tu, Bill.

I have heard the comment that this is some deep psychological game being played by the Clinton campaign to gather sympathy and votes for Hillary Clinton. I don’t believe that is the case. There was such a feeling of inevitability inside the Clinton campaign about Hillary Clinton becoming the next President of the United States, it meant that they were totally unprepared for this Barack Obama fellow. They clearly thought the competition would be John Edwards and totally ignored Obama as a serious challenger.

Carville and Clinton are probably the two most astute political strategists and observers anywhere. These statements that are clearly designed to prepare Hillary Clinton for the inevitable: she will not be the Democratic party’s nominee. Reading on Walden Bookstore.

My name John and I am a liberal.

I refuse to submit a 12-step program, such as a fictitious program like “Liberals Anonymous.” I am not an addict, although I admit to being addicted to “liberalism.” Too often, politicians like to say, “I don’t want to be labeled.”

Several years ago, December of 2002, George McGovern wrote a piece in Harper’s Magazine called “The case for liberalism: A defense of the future against the past.” Here’s a quote from the McGovern Harper’s article article.

Virtually every step forward in our history has been a liberal initiative taken over conservative opposition: civil rights, Social Security, Medicare, rural electrification, the establishment of a minimum wage, collective bargaining, the Pure Food and Drug Act, and federal aid to education, including the land-grant colleges, to name just a few.*

And here are a few more liberal initiatives that are now Standard Operating Procedure.

*Here are a few more: guaranteed bank deposits, the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Park Service, the National School Lunch Program, the Voting Rights Act, and the graduated income tax.

McGovern further declares himself a liberal in the tradition of:

I am an American patriot and a liberal in the tradition of Jefferson, Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt.

That is a nice group of people to be associated with. So to all you liberals: proudly proclaim yourself and make no apology. It is a badge of honor. Reading on Walden Bookstore.

John McCain’s “Straight Talk Express” continues to swerve on the road to the White House. In another flip-flop, he told ABC News that he will not propose any new taxes.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican John McCain says there will be no new taxes during his administration if he is elected president.

“No new taxes,” the likely GOP presidential nominee said during a taped interview broadcast Sunday.

This is the same John McCain that voted passionately against the 2001 Bush tax cuts.

I regret having to vote against this Conference Report. We had an opportunity to provide much more tax relief to millions of hard-working Americans. I supported a $1.35 trillion tax cut despite my concern that a tax cut of that size would restrict our ability to fund necessary increases in defense spending. But I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle class Americans who most need tax relief.

Although he also voted against the 2003 Bush tax cuts,
it doesn’t end with the tax cut issue.

Immigration too. Another flip-flop.

He introduced the “The Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act” in 2005, with Senator Ted Kennedy in 2005. The bill didn’t pass. During his debate in Simi Valley at the Ronald Reagan Library, McCain said he would vote against his own bill.

What I’m wondering is, and you seem to be downplaying that part, at this point, if your original proposal came to a vote in the Senate floor, would you vote for it?

SEN. MCCAIN: It won’t. It won’t. That’s why we went through the debate.

MS. HOOK: I know, but what if it did?

SEN. MCCAIN: No, I would not, because we know what the situation is today. The people want the border secured first. And so to say that that would come to the floor of the Senate, it won’t. We went through various amendments which prevented that ever, that proposal.

It is tough arguing with a flip-flopper. One never knows which side to argue with. Reading on Walden Bookstore.