John Edwards campaign

John Edwards withdrew from the race for the Democratic nomination for president. In "normal" times, he would have been a strong candidate. He's intelligent, passionate, attractive, energetic, and doesn't seem to have any huge blemishes on his record. But he ran straight into the headwind of two historical campaigns, and although he obviously gave it all he could, he finally ran out of steam, so to speak.

There was some question early in the campaign if his populism on behalf of the working class people was sincere, when he got caught being billed for $400 for a haircut, and when aerial shots of his mansion were shown in the mass media. But he convinced me as the campaign went on that it was. I say bravo to John Edwards for the positions he took, and how he handled himself in this campaign. He moved the discussion of the issues, especially in regard to focusing on poverty and the disparity between the few haves and many have nots in our country. I already stated a couple weeks ago in an entry that I thought he was positioning himself for attorney general in an Obama presidency. I do think he could get confirmed, although it would be contentious. But, hold your head high, John Edwards, you did yourself proud. And, if you do get to be attorney general, fight those bad corporations with all your heart!

Kenya violence and the importance of honest elections

It is very sad what is happening in Kenya. People that have lived together in relative "peace" are now facing each other with violence. The reason? Because a large segment of the population thinks that their votes for President were manipulated. A lot of people apparently don't believe the results of the election, and they are fed up with this kind of "keep power at all cost" type of attitude. And, it appears that it is more or less a candidate representing the lower income and less privledged classes that lost the leadership through the contested election. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Remember Florida in 2000? Who doesn't?

But Kenya isn't the only place since Florida 2000 where a presidential election was disputed in a similar way. Remember the Mexican presidential election not too long ago? Same situ.ation. Candidate representing the lower classes of Mexican society loses in an election that many feel was manipulated and stolen.

I firmly believe that when the U.S. Supreme Court chose convenience and politics over insuring that we had an election in which everyone that wanted to vote and was eligible got to vote, and their votes were counted accurately, and put Bush in as president although for one thing, he didn't even receive the majority of the popular vote, and secondly, that no one will ever know whether or not he fairly won Florida. In fact, it's pretty clear he didn't. When one adds up the illegal scrubbing of tens of thousands of black voters by putting them falsely on the "felon" list which disallowed them to vote even though they were eligible, plus the so called "hanging chads," plus the "butterfly ballots," in which a number of voters ended up voting for Pat Buchanan that even Buchanan admitted never intended to, there is no way that Bush got a majority of the votes really.

But, as is true in so many ways, what happens in the U.S. provides a green light to other less affluent governments as far as what is acceptable for a government to do, and what will not bring the wrath of the U.S. down on them. When governments in Mexico and Kenya, not wanting to surrender power, saw that the corporate powers, including the Supreme Court, allowed an election get stolen, that sent the message that this is an OK way to stay in power. This is a huge problem with what the U.S. Supreme Court did, and it has beared the fruit of violence around the world.

Had the Supreme Court required a new election, and insured that it was done fairly, that would have sent the message to the rest of the world that what matters most in our country is democracy - the voice of the people. Instead, the message was sent that what is important is power and keeping it is a game that can be won regardless of the people's desire. It's really shameful. Hopefully our nation will look back on this, like we do on slavery and not allowing women to vote, and realize that this was a horrible decision, and fix it. If we don't, we can expect to see other governments around the world use any tactic they have to stay in power, regardless of whether the people really want it or not.

Tidbits of the Day: Interest Rates, Presidential Race, Maiden Alley and Heather Ryan

The Federal Reserve cheapened our money again today. Why are they doing this? We want our money more valuable, not less. How about a law that says that at least one out of every three devaluations of our currency has to be subject to a vote of the people? Is that so radical? After all, devaluing our currency without a vote is, for all practical purposes, "taxation without representation." Our forefathers taught us well about that! I'd just like someone to answer me how, if too much debt is the problem, the answer is to make it easier to go in debt?
_______________________

John Edwards dropped out of the race for the nomination of the Democratic party for presidential candidate. It was becoming clearer that he could not compete against the combined momentum of either the first woman or first African American presidential candidate. But John Edwards ran a great campaign, and he has convinced me that he truly cares about the plight of the workers and poor in the U.S.

He did not endorse Obama or Clinton, but I think he should endorse Obama. If he really thinks we need more change, Obama will deliver it more than Clinton, I think. If he does not endorse Obama, I hope he will stay neutral. As I wrote many weeks ago, he is a great candidate for Attorney General, and, with a Senate bolstered by some Democratic pickups, he could get confirmed. But, and I don't know about anyone else, but a Hillary - McCain election for president seems pretty depressing to me.

________________________

Well, I emailed the Secretary of the board of the Maiden Alley Cinema and asked him some questions about what McConnell was doing at the Maiden Alley. I sent him the link to my previous column. I haven't heard anything back. Heather Ryan, in the meantime, has filed to run for Congress as a Democrat against Ed Whitfield. I heard a statement from her this morning on WKMS-FM, the NPR affiliate for West Kentucky about the issues in the campaign. She spoke very well. She was articulate, knowledgable, and as far as I'm concerned, right on concerning the issues. In the wake of Ryan's announcement, and meeting the end of the filing period, Greg Pruitt, Judge Executive of Hickman County was being talked about as entering the race. Pruitt, who has some political experience in the region, might actually have a chance to take on Whitfield. Whitfield has too much to bury Ryan, although I hope she stays in as long as she can. We need her voice in West Kentucky politics. But if Ryan moves the party to run a viable candidate, she has done the region a favor.

Sunday News Shows

Of course the big news today was the strong Obama victory in the South Carolina primary. A couple of things were consistently mentioned across shows. One was that Obama got more white votes than "expected." The other was that Bill Clinton had hurt Hillary by his over aggressive campaigning. Apparently the "mainstream" media is convinced that the Clinton strategy is to "make Obama the black candidate" like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton were. That way, it would drive a wedge between white voters and Obama, especially in the south. That's how the strategy goes, I guess, according to the talking heads.

And, amazingly enough, after the strategy failed miserably, they accused Bill of doing it again this morning when he told a reporter on camera, after being asked about Hillary's drubbing, that "Jesse Jackson had won the South Carolina primary" twice. This was clearly an attempt to downplay the results as just a "race based" outcome.

So now we come to "super dooper Tuesday." Could it really be that Hillary's strategy is to try and garner all the white votes, with a few of the minority female votes, hoping to eke out victories in a few white majority northern or eastern states? That would be a cynical strategy, and one likely to fail. But Hillary is an intelligent woman, and let's hope that she doesn't get that desperate. But the old time political hacks around her, I'm afraid, whose reputations as political geniuses are going to be damaged by her fall from political grace, are that desperate.

But let's hope that the message sent yesterday was that people are truly tired of that kind of politics. The problem that Hillary faces, and she is trying to overcome with all kinds of political gimmickry, including hard nosed poison politics is that Obama is simply more charismatic than she is. She might be, and probably is, every bit as intelligent as Obama. She might be and probably is, as experienced or even more in some ways than Obama - after all she is older than he is, and she's lived longer. But, unfortunately for Hillary, Obama is just better to listen to speaking than she is. He's warm, hopeful, engaging. She is much colder, more formal, more structured. People are more in the mood for the former and not the latter, and there's little the Clinton camp can do to change that, except to try to find ways to tear him down. The problem is that they have to do so that no one notices they are doing it, because if they think that's what is going on, they're going to get mad at Hillary for tearing down their warm, hopeful, engaging leader.

Unfortunately for Hillary, her team did not pull of tearing down Obama with no one noticing. Everyone noticed. I noticed, the press noticed, and the voters noticed. So now Hillary has to try another strategy, but there aren't too many good alternatives left. I don't blame her for going through super dooper Tuesday, but if she loses a majority of the vote on super dooper Tuesday, she needs to bow out gracefully for the sake of the party.

Reprise: Mitch McConnell

Since I wrote about Mitch McConnell in the last entry, I'm going to stay on the subject. I just have to comment about the TV campaign ad he is running ad naseum on WPSD, the NBC affiliate out of Paducah, and a part of Paxton Media Group.

McConnell begins the ad by using the image of the late Alben Barkley, (the Veep) former DEMOCRATIC U.S. Senator and Vice-President under Truman. McConnell says that he and Barkley are the only two Senators from Kentucky to rise to leadership. I'm sure he would say if asked that he only is stating a fact about he and Barkley, and not to take anything more from the ad. But that is a bunch of BS. He is trying to piggyback on the reputation of Barkley, a staunch Democrat who is held in high esteem in the state.

It's clear from watching the ad a number of times, too many times, actually, that McConnell is trying to gain credibility by using Barkley's name and picture in the ad. The idea that the Veep would have supported McConnell's failed right wing republican policies is beyond the pale. I'm sure that the late "Veep" rolls over in his grave everytime that ad is played.

So if that isn't bad enough, McConnell then brags about the billion (yes, with a "b", but it's actually more like a billion and a half or more at this point) dollars he has brought to the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion plant for cleanup. What a joke that is! Truth is that McConnell was so caught with his pants down in August of 1998 when Joby Warrick of the Washington Post broke a series of stories which went national immediately, about how workers and the public had been lied to repeatedly about the extent of contamination by Plutonium at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion plant, something always denied by plant officials. Of course, it wasn't just McConnell caught with his pants down. But he for sure was. He was oblivious to how bad the situation was out there. So any kind of notion that he was right on top of the situation out at the plant is beyond absurd - an out and out lie. I know, because I was chair of the Citizen's Advisory Board at the plant at the time.

But even worse yet is that the money that McConnell has purportedly gotten, the billion dollars that he brags about on the ad, has been squandered and very little cleanup has occured. For a billion and a half dollars, the public has gotten a pile of crushed barrels and some radioactive scrap metal loaded on to train cars and taken out to Utah and dumped in the desert, some barrels of radioactive PCB sludge put on trucks and hauled to Oak Ridge to be burned in their incinerator, a bunch of uncontaminated soil dug up and put into a sanitary landfill on site, and a bunch of "pilot" projects, most of which haven't worked. Almost all of the major problems at the site remain with no easy answers, and little money to deal with them. Mitch won't tell you that in his ad, that's for sure. There are a number of old landfills, old dumps, old spill sites, and old buildings that are all highly contaminated for which real cleanup hasn't even begun. The cleanup of the groundwater plume, one if not the worst in the country, has been abandoned. Radioactive, chemically, and heavy metal contaminated groundwater seeps 24 hours a day into the Ohio River.

But Bechtel Jacobs, the main clean up contractor for many years, made a lot of money. Yes, a lot of corporations have made lots of money. But have they gotten a lot of the site cleaned up? Uh, plain and simple, the answer is NO. But McConnell won't tell you that. The rest of the ad is about as accurate.

It's time for a Democrat to get the hounds out and track down McConnell's record. Fans of Kentucky politics know exactly what I'm talking about. Unfortunately, I'm not sure if the Dems have any good dog handlers. We'll see. But I'm not sure that political newcomers, even well financed, can mount a successful challenge to the well entrenched McConnell. So far, the Democratic candidates who are in the race don't seem to have the statewide name recognition or money necessary to take on McConnell. But, if the economy continues to tank, the situation in Iraq doesn't improve substantially, prices continue to rise, and unemployment continues to rise, there could be a Democratic sweep across the country that could take McConnell out of office, but it's unlikely - unfortunately.

 

Mitch McConnell, Maiden Alley Cinema, and the Heather Ryan incident

As I begin this blog entry, I want to state that I have been a fan and supporter of the Maiden Alley Cinema in Paducah since it's beginning. I have some very close friends that are on the Maiden Alley board, although some of the members I do not know at all or very well.

However, I do not know Ms. Ryan, the former Executive Director, and have never met her to the best of my knowledge. I have never served (never been asked to serve) on the board of Maiden Alley although I have been very involved in the arts in Paducah for over 25 years. Kristi and I also have been subject to prejudice and retaliation by a few powerful people who are influential in the "arts" community in Paducah over the years because of our outspoken positions on political issues, mostly environmental. But we have survived in the community for 28 years and are now a stable part of the Paducah community fabric.

In that context I have thought about now for a week and feel the need to write about the incident in Paducah recently in which Ms. Heather Ryan, at the time Executive Director of the Maiden Alley Cinema, the "independent" theatre in downtown Paducah, was fired because of an encounter that she had with U.S. Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, who was in Paducah last week.

There is a detailed explanation written by Ms. Ryan and the video of the incident she shot on www.DitchMitchky.com. Basically, Ryan went to the theatre when McConnell was there filming an ad, I suspect a campaign ad, because he is in the middle of a re-election campaign, in the theatre. She and her 12 year old daughter were attempting to get a face to face with McConnell so that they could question him about the Iraq war. There finally was some kind of encounter inside the theatre in which McConnell left, surrounded by his bodyguards, without directly addressing Ms. Ryan. The story goes around town that McConnell, that evening at a fundraiser, said that unless Ryan was fired, he was going to de-prioritize funding requests for some projects in Paducah. The Maiden Alley board met a couple days later and fired Ryan, after viewing the video and reading Ryan's written explanations, which had been posted on the Ditch Mitch blog. (although she claims she never authorized the posting which was lifted from a personal email.)

After Kristi and I read the written explanations from Ms. Ryan and viewing the video, we do not feel as we can give a blanket support to Ms. Ryan. We have some very serious concerns about how Ms. Ryan and her daughter handled themselves during the end of the encounter with McConnell. Because of those concerns, I am not going to substitute my judgment for the board of Maiden Alley in their decision to fire her. Personally, I think the decision was a little hasty, and that other, less severe sanctions may have been a more cautious route, but that is their decision. It was a lose/lose situation.

But I don't want to focus my thoughts on Ryan's behavior. It was what it was, and she has paid the price for it. What I want to focus on is two things: (1) McConnell's failure to ever meet with the public in town meetings, and (2) Maiden Alley's contradiction of allowing McConnell to use the theater facility for filming an ad while publicly stating that Maiden Alley is "apolitical."

When McConnell came to Paducah last week, he did not hold any kind of town meeting or have any kind of event where the general public was free to come hear him talk or even question him. When U.S. Senators Durbin and Obama, from my home state of Illinois, come to Metropolis, which they do at least once a year, they hold open, public town meetings, and publicize it. They make a short statement to the public and press, and then take questions. This gives everyone in the public, rich, poor, or otherwise, equal access and a chance to see and hear their elected officials. This should be doubly true for McConnell, because he, as one of the Senate leadership and main supporters of the Bush agenda, bears a lion's share of the responsibility for the failed policies that almost everyone in the country believes is taking us in the wrong direction. Why shouldn't he have to explain his policies and answer questions from the public that elected him?

McConnell never does. On his last Paducah trip, he slinked around town surrounded by 4 burly bodyguards, slipping into the Irvin Cobb hotel (met by protesters) to speak to the Lion's club, then slinking out surrounded by his body guards shielding him. He then reportedly went to a series of fundraisers with a bunch of the rich Republicans in town - events not open to the public. He also filmed his ad. I believe that an elected official, especially one with the power of McConnell, should have an event open to the public at least once a year in the major towns in his state - Paducah being one of them.

If McConnell is afraid of the public, which he must be the way he slinks around surrounded by bodyguards, how is he going to stand up to the terrorists? Yet, McConnell and the Republicans are always touting how strong they are in standing up to our enemies. He can't even face his own citizens that elected him!

McConnell also has no business using his power of appropriations to garner political retaliation. Either a project is worth funding or it isn't. If it is, then it should be funded on its merits. And, McConnell should not be put on any kind of pedestal just because he obtained funds for projects in his state. That is his job! If he didn't do it, that would be a issue. But if you are going to give him special credit for doing his job, then what about everyone else in our community that does their job? Do we all get special treatment, acclimation, statues, etc. just because we do our job?

Another disappointment is that the Maiden Alley was allowing Mitch McConnell to use their facility in the middle of a campaign. The Maiden Alley, and their associated organization, River Heritage museum and Seaman's Institute, are, to the best of my knowledge, either 501(c)3 or 501(c)4 tax exempt organizations. After having been employed by a 501(c)3 organization for well over a decade, I know about the rules that non-profits are under. The one big "no-no" for a 501(c)3 or 4 is to stay out of electoral politics. In my opinion, allowing McConnell to use the facility for political activities of any support, fundraiser to ad making, is very very questionable, and needlessly threatens these organizations non profit status.

But what adds insult to that injury, is that the president of the board of Maiden Alley, Jay Siska, who I know but not closely, was quoted in the Paducah Sun as having written an email to Ms. Ryan in which he tells her that they don't want her engaging in political activities while she is Director of the Maiden Alley, at the very same time that he, as chair of the board, is allowing McConnell to use the facility for what appears to be political purposes. This contradiction is deeply troubling to me.

An arts organization should take a very broad view toward freedom of speech. Ironically, McConnell's most admirable positions over the years have been regarding freedom of speech, once casting the deciding vote to defeat a flag burning ban on free speech grounds. McConnell should have been reminded of this, and the Maiden Alley board should have taken a deep breath, possibly suspended Ms. Ryan temporarily while they give this more thought, let things cool down, and make a decision under less pressure. Perhaps the same decision would have been made. But it wouldn't have given the impression that Maiden Alley cinema, which should be a center of freedom of thought and expression in Paducah, is under the influence and guidance of repressive political retaliation. This is going to hurt the organization in the long run. I'm not sure that the board's decision is based on a broad view of freedom of speech. It appears to be more a decision made under political pressure. I also believe that they are now vulnerable to a lawsuit by Ms. Ryan on a couple of counts. A lawsuit, even one defended successfully, would be very damaging to the organization.

Maiden Alley cinema has become too important to the Paducah area to risk losing. It is too important to Paducah area to allow it to be controlled in any way by politics. It is too important to the Paducah area to have its reputation seriously damaged. What's done is done. But I and many others that I know are very unhappy with the overall outcome of this. Hopefully this incident, like the incident 25 years ago when one of my paintings was taken down during a show at the Paducah Art Guild, by a couple influential females in Paducah, without any permission of the Art Guild board simply because it showed a folk painting of a nude male, will help to spur an honest airing of this whole incident. Hopefully this will bring the needed change to the situation. It will hurt Paducah's efforts to establish itself as a true arts community if it is seen as being a repressive environment in any way. True creative expression and repression are oxymorons, and the Paducah so-called "community leaders" best recognize this or their attempts to establish Paducah as an arts based community will fail.

Ryan didn't handle everything perfectly. The excitement of the moment got away from her - at least that what it seems to me. But, her mistakes, while unseemly, caused little harm in actuality. She, though, has paid the price by losing her job.

On the other hand, McConnell's behavior in this deserves very close scrutiny and discussion. His actions contributed in a very strong way to this whole incident, and he shouldn't get off scott free. Hopefully the mainstream media, like the Courier Journal or Herald will look at this closely. The citizens of Kentucky and the nation need to know exactly what happened.

Sunday News Shows

We watched Chris Matthews, Meet the Press, Stephanopolous, and Face the Nation. One thing that was mentioned on all the shows was Bill Clinton's behavior on the campaign, and how he might conflict with and/or work with a Hillary administration. One of the interesting comments was how Hillary might try to explain to a potential running mate what his or her authority might be when Bill will be running all over the world doing his thing. I thought it was an interesting question, and I hadn't really thought about it. Of course, hopefully it won't come to Hillary having to pick a running mate.

Another thing that all of the shows mentioned was that apparently Hispanic voters in Nevada supported Hillary and not Obama. This makes little rational sense, but I don't doubt it. One would think that people of color would realize what they all have gone thru, and think that someone who has gone through some race based prejudice would be best able to understand what that is like, and work to stop it. But many things in life defy rationale.

It would be a depressing thing to end up with a ticket something like McCain and Clinton. While I can't say that there wouldn't be a difference, it would be such a status quo election that it would be totally uninspiring. But if Obama loses South Carolina, there's probably no stopping Hillary. Although I would love to see a Green Party president, which is not going to happen this time, a McCain/Hillary election would add insult to injury.

Hillary and Obama

I can't let this pass by without commenting on it. I do think the media is somewhat overblowing the issue of most of Hillary and Bill's comments about Martin Luther King, LBJ, and Obama. But let's not kid ourselves. The Clintons boast of their experience. And they have it! So they know all the "codes," especially in the South. The LBJ and "fantasy" quotes were pretty tame. It was the "kid" comment, when Bill called Obama a "kid" that I thought really crossed the line.http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/01/the-bill-factor.html

Let's be honest here - that is just a a hop, step and a jump - no, I'm wrong about that - it's just a hop from calling him a "boy."

But, when the network TV media has been covering the issue, the Clip of Bill that plays most of the time is the "fantasy" clip - where Bill said that Obama's campaign of Hope was a fantasy. That's almost within the bounds of an acceptable presidential campaign. But calling Obama a "kid" is way out of bounds. So why isn't the mainstream media airing that clip repeatedly? That clip played repeatedly on the mainstream media would sink Hillary with the African American community. Do they not deserve to know what is being said to and about them?

No doubt Bill and Hillary have a lot of political capital built up in the African-American community. Afterall, wasn't Bill the "first Black President?" I never knew exactly what was meant by that, but I heard it a bunch. Toni Morrison is quoted as saying it. So, with all that political capital saved up, could Bill have known that if he spoke in code, and didn't go too far, that he could avoid a complete alienation of a certain percent of the African American vote while insuring a certain percent of the right hand side of the southern democrats - the so-called "Reagan Democrats" - would move their way?

I think, looking at some of the other compromising that Bill made in his political life, that he could do it. The other explanation is that he didn't realize what he was saying by using the term "kid" to describe Obama, and that he "just blurted it out." Oh yeah? The acclaimed number one political mind of modern America?

Of course no one is ever going to admit to playing those kinds of political cards. But, then again, it depends what the meaning of the "is" "is," isn't it? The mainstream media is trying hard to suck Obama into this fray. He's trying to stay out of it. The mainstream media has a lot of power however, and they are huge corporations, and the corporations would prefer Hillary as the Democrat to emerge. I'm not sure Obama is ready to take on the corporations, but I think he has a fresher vision about the scene than the Clintons, and while I think there are better candidates out there in other parties, the way our system is set up, the high likelihood is that either a Democrat or Republican is going to win the presidency. If you narrow down the chase to that, I still think Obama is going to emerge. We'll see. I've definitely been wrong before.

Ongoing discussion about possible manipulation of NH primary results

Apparently Dennis Kucinich is now calling for a recount of votes in NH due to all the behind the scenes discussion about anomalies with the results. Good for him. There is nothing more important than restoring total faith in our election system.

As the Brad Blog stated, and I cited in a previous post, there are certain counties in NH where the votes were tallied by hand and some where they were tallied via the Diebold machines.

Below is an interesting page from the Ron Paul website which gives the information about the difference between the percentages in the hand counted counties and the machine counted. Gives one pause. There clearly appears to be something askew. Considering that it has been proved that these machines can be hacked into, shouldn't we have a full investigation into this?

http://ronrox.com/paulstats.php?party=DEMOCRATS

New Hampshire primary results and vote stealing

I've listened to a lot of pontificating last night and today about the "surprise" results from the New Hampshire primary last night, both on radio and TV. I kept wondering what kind of voting machines was used in New Hampshire. When I got to my computer this evening, I did some searches.

Apparently I'm not the only with these thoughts. Even the ABC News director of polling, Gary Langer, calls in his blog for an investigation into the discrepancies between the polls and the results. http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/2008/01/new-hampshires.html His blog has dozens of comments about this. The Brad Blog http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5530 gives a lot of thoughts about this.

Apparently significant parts of New Hampshire use bad Diebold voting machines run by a company with a questionable reputation. Credible university studies have found that these machines can be manipulated. Do I believe that some of the parties involved here might be so power desperate that they would resort to such things? Unfortunately, I do believe that it is possible.

So, my question is, why hasn't the mainstream media, i.e. CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox, NPR, etc even mentioned that this questioning of the results is going on? And, how ironic that on this very day, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case challenging an Indiana law which requires a photo ID for everyone who wants to vote? Several of the justices even seemed to think, by their questioning, that if some people that are eligible to vote don't get to vote, too bad - that's just how it is.

And our governmental officials travel around the world and even go to war to promote "democracy." If we are going to tout democracy, shouldn't we be sure that in our own nation, everyone who is eligible to vote and wants to vote, can vote easily, and that their vote will be counted fairly? At this point in our history, we are far from that, and yet the mainstream media, which pats itself on the back constantly for being free and independent, seems afraid to even bring up the subject.

We'll see what happens as this race progresses. Certainly will be interesting.

Hillary "wins" New Hampshire

Hillary wins a squeaker in the New Hampshire primary. In some ways, that isn't that surprising, but in the context of the mainstream media's coverage it is surprising. Less than a week ago, Hillary was way up in the polls in New Hampshire. Polls in the last couple days showing Obama surging apparently were wrong.

It was disappointing that Bill Clinton went so negative, calling Obama a "kid" and saying that Obama lies when he says that he was against the war from the beginning. The attack was so egregious that Donna Brazille said on TV that basically it was totally inappropriate for a former president to get into that kind of mud slinging, and that she was disgusted. It's really hard to know exactly what went on in the last few days in New Hampshire not being there. But obviously, people are very uncertain, and there may have been some race issues involved.

It may be that the economy is so bad that many people, remembering the good economy under the Clintons, think that they have the answers to recovering the economy. That may have trumped the newness of Obama. But nevertheless, Obama did receive a lot of votes and almost won. But, in the context of the moment, it is a huge victory for Hillary. Will it last?

Do we really want a McCain and Clinton choice for president? As Charlie Brown used to say...."Arrrggghhhhhh!"

Hillary Day Before New Hampshire Blues

Amazingly, or, well, maybe not amazingly enough, Hillary was on the news today. She got “emotional” during a campaign event in NH after a woman asked her how she did it (“it” referring to keeping up all of the female responsibilities plus be a high profile politician.) I saw and heard several news media accounts of it. Basically, after this woman asked Hillary the question, Hillary started off by getting kind of quiet, and then saying softly and with some sincerity, that it was difficult.

But it was after that when she had her emotional hill spell. She got almost sobby, (is that a word?) and some reporters said that while she “officially” did not shed a tear, tears welled up in her eyes, as she talked about how her campaigning was about the country not turning back, and that it was a personal matter for her to insure that this didn’t happen. But, the one time I heard the extended version of her comments, I discovered that she actually ended up the sobfest with the tired campaign rhetoric about having someone in the white house that is ready on the first day in office.

There are so many things weird about those statements. First, in the eyes of just about everyone, voting for Hillary is turning back the country. The Boston Herald tabloid, which apparently circulates widely in New Hampshire, put her on the cover of their paper today, with the headline, “Hillary is So Yesterday,” with a picture of her in the hole of the Beatle’s 45 of “Yesterday” on Capitol Records. Accompanying that sentiment was a double digit surge in Obama’s poll numbers over Hillary in the last 24 hours in New Hampshire, and lackluster crowds and excitement over her campaign, including appearances by former president and husband, William Jefferson Clinton.

The pundits punditized about whether or not Hillary’s sentimental moment, combined with her uncharacteristic outburst at the debate last night after John Edwards labeled her the candidate of the status quo and big money special interests, would help or hurt her. The null hypothesis was that with some people, these emotional flurries were welcome because it showed her to be human and not a robot, and therefore, helped her because it made her more “likable.” One network even purported to briefly interview a woman who said she was switching to Hillary from Obama because of her emotional showings. This legitimately raised the question over whether or not Clinton would gain or lose from this, according to some pundits.

I don’t think so. Hillary has staked her whole campaign on the fact that she was the most “presidential.” To someone like Hillary, that means, or should mean, not getting rattled by mere facts on the ground. Speak firmly, calmly, act decisively, and in process, lead your people to safety during dangerous times. To now switch and go from Ms. Stodgy political machine leader with nary a hair out of place, speaking calmly, firmly, and knowledgably about every subject under the sun (remember the incident not that long ago when a man held some of Hillary’s campaign workers hostage for a couple hours - how the prognosticators touted her “presidential” demeanor) to now Ms. Emotional, Sensitive female, who gets her “feelings hurt” by a questioner on a debate, gets angry when she goes negative and gets called on it, and now is almost tearful because she is so personally concerned about the country not “turning back, seems about as believable as her changes during the campaign as being the most “experienced” candidate to being the candidate of “change.” I think most people are going to see that and wonder about it, making it an easy choice to turn toward the excitement of being part of the Obama generation. It is going to hurt Hillary a lot more than it helps her in my opinion.

The fact is, though, that I do admire Hillary. In most circumstances, she would be a great candidate. She is aware and has detailed information about a myriad of governmental issues, is a very strong woman, has withstood the republican attack machine for going on two decades, and takes pretty liberal positions on a number of important issues. Unfortunately, she is not the right person at this time, at least that’s what a lot of people think. She is a polarizing figure, for better or worse, and many people feel that she will continue the gridlock in Washington at a time when we need to get some important changes through the government. The “Herald” was right on in their portrayal of Hillary as being “....So Yesterday.”

Hillary will stay in the Senate and be a decent senator, especially compared with Mitch McConnell or someone like that. I doubt if Obama will put her in his Cabinet, because I doubt if she would view a cabinet position as being more powerful and prestigious than her current senate seat, and I wonder if, although all of them being pro politicians, there isn’t going to be too much baggage from the campaign to allow that to happen. It all will be interesting, that’s for sure. Won’t tomorrow night be fun?

Catching up: Travels, politics, news shows

It’s been several days since I’ve written on Rural Thoughts. That’s because Kristi and I are on a trip to Southwest Florida to visit my mom and I just haven’t had a chance to write. But, we have been keeping up with the political news, have had some very interesting experiences traveling, and I have been anxious to write about them.

One of the most interesting stops we made on the trip down was at the Jesse Owens museum in Oakville, Alabama.http://www.jesseowensmuseum.org/ Oakville is the very rural area in which Jesse Owens grew up and laid the foundation for his greatness. Of course, Jesse Owens is one of the icons of U.S.A. athletics. This is due to the fact that he won a number of gold medals in the 1936 Olympics in Berlin, at the height of Hitler’s influence over the German nation. This was significant to the extreme, because Hitler was trying to convince the world that his version of the white race was superior in every way to all other races. Owens, an African-American, defeated outstanding German athletes in a number of events, as Hitler watched, embarrassing him and giving the U.S.A. a great psychological boost.

The highlight of the museum is a 45 minute film about the 1936 Olympics, with amazing films of the opening ceremony, with Hitler presiding, and of the Owen’s events. Owens himself narrates the film. According to the docent at the museum, the only place this film can be viewed is at the museum. I don’t know if that is true, but I do know that, although I have seen a number of films in my life about the Owens’ Olympic feats, there are a lot of scenes and facts from that film that I don’t recall ever having seen. The factual depiction of a society under the complete trance of an evil leader are scenes that all Americans should see, especially in this day and age.

One of the facts contained in the film that I found fascinating was regarding his gold medal in the long jump. Owens himself, as narrator, told very movingly about how his German opponent had befriended him, in spite of Hitler’s rhetoric, and had advised and assisted him in completing a successful final qualifying jump which got Owens into the finals. Owens and this German athlete, now dead, had maintained a friendship throughout their lives, and Owens interviewed his son on the film about their relationship. This definitely did not make the news at the time, once again showing that the mainstream media often fails to report some of the most important aspects of internationally significant stories.

________________________________________

There’s more that I want to write about travels, but I’m going to skip to politics at the moment. A lot has happened politically since the last time I wrote. The number one event, of course, was the Iowa caucuses. I had predicted that Obama would win. In fact, way back in May I predicted, to some scorn, that Obama would win the nomination. I still think that is true.

Then there was the ABC News debate last night. We watched both the republican and democratic debates. The republican debate should have come second, because it would have been good for getting us ready for bed. The democratic debate was much more interesting and fiery.

I won’t try to assess who “won” the debate for the democrats, but I will say that it was interesting, as other pundits have pointed out, that Edwards obviously sided with Obama and was trying to knock Hillary down. Hillary deserved the attack, though, because she attacked Obama and was in no position to do so. After Edwards launched his broadside against Hillary, branding her as representing the “status quo,” Hillary got angry. This is a double edged sword for Hillary. Hillary is the cold, calculating woman, and her “control,” or “presidential” demeanor is one of the things that she runs on. But after Edwards chided her about being “status quo,” she got obviously angry. Her eyes got big, she raised her voice, and lost the Ms. Control Queen persona that she runs on.

During the one Sunday News Show that I got to see today - Stephanopolous on ABC, he said that he had gotten a lot of emails during that outburst, some of which said that Hillary had lost it, and others that said, “about time Hillary showed some passion.” I believe that is probably true, but I think that it so cuts against Hillary’s “Ms. Control,” Ms. Presidential,” “Ms. Experienced,” that I think over all it will hurt her. Perhaps Edwards will be hurt too, for attacking her so bad, but then again, with so many people, even on the democrat side concerned about the Clinton dynasty issue and moving backwards instead of forwards, perhaps Edwards will not be hurt. These are deeply ingrained issues within individuals, and it’s pretty impossible to poll them out. My gut feeling is that Edwards will not be hurt that bad, Hillary will be hurt a little, and Obama will gain from that. I think Obama is heading for a victory in New Hampshire, a victory in South Carolina, and the nomination. John Edwards will make a great attorney general! That may be a better place to take on the big corporations than being president. I think Obama is smart enough to sense what Edwards is asking for, and smart enough to know that he is right for the job. Time will tell.

The republicans are so out of touch. With their aggressive talk about immigration, they are pushing all of the "foreign" minorities into the democrat's camp. They are also alientating all the muslims with their war mongering. I must make an exception for Ron Paul, who speaks a lot of truth. He needs some grilling on the environment and public lands, (as well as other governmental authority issues) however. If the dems can't win THIS election, they might as well go home. Of course, we haven't brought the Green party into this discussion yet, have we? That might change my thinking.

 

Sunday News Shows, Dec. 30, 2007

Today we watched Chris Matthews, Meet the Press, Face the Nation, and Sunday Morning with Stephanopolous. Of course, the imminent Iowa caucus and the quickly following New Hampshire primary were the main topics of conversation.

Interestingly, the two panels on today's shows - Matthews and Stephanopolous, were what I would call "mainstream" panels. For example, Chris Matthews show included Andrea Mitchell, wife of Alan Greenspan and long time NBC foreign affairs reporter, and both Joe Klein and Howard Feinman of Time and Newsweek. The only "radical" on the panel was Norris, of NPR. (I hope everyone understands what I'm saying here.)

On Stephanopolous, the panel extras included David Brooks and Donna Brazile. Donna Brazile, Al Gore's former campaign manager, and occasional participant on the panels for this show, was the token "liberal" on the panel - but you didn't see anyone from the Nation magazine, which you occasionally see on Stephanopolous' show. It would be interesting to know what kind of bureacracy has access to that decision making process. Perhaps it was all just a fluke, but I suspect not.

I typically don't like to admit that George Will is an Illinoisan, but he did make some interesting comments today on the Stephanopolous show. In response to a comment by David Brooks (Oh geez, I think I suffer from David Brooks overload - if John Edwards gets in and takes on the corporations, the first thing he should do is demand less David Brooks!) that the "republican establishment (all 4 of them, according to Brooks himself) is behind Romney," Wills stated that the "republican establishment died in 1964 when Goldwater got the nomination over Stratton.

When Steph asked him if Reagan hadn't revived it, Wills said, no, that Reagan had the philosophy of, as the 4 people in the republican establishment call it, of "fusionism" which allied the small government, free market conservatives with the social conservatives. That, according to Will, was not a revival of the true Republican. That tells me that the Republicans are becoming more and more split.

There were two themes that emerged from the discussion about the Democrats - John Edwards surge and who benefitted in the response to the Bhutto assassination. Everyone that was in Iowa, agreed that something was happening in rising response to Edwards' aggressive campaign. Last week, Dan Rather, on Matthews, predicted that Edwards would win the Iowa primary. He very well could.

Edwards himself was interviewed on Face the Nation, and his wife, Elizabeth was interviewed on the Today Show. That indicates that the networks think that something is going on. Edwards is campaigning very well, and he has that hands on experience of actually having been thru the Iowa caucuses (although Hillary went thru it with Bill) probably does give him an edge. I still think that the newness of Obama gives him an edge.

Obama was interviewed on Meet the Press. He gave an excellent interview. Huckabee was also interviewed on Meet the Press, but he was wacko compared with Obama. Obama is very intelligent, and was intent on coming off as presidential, which I thought he did. But Edwards says he's fighting for us, and that "hoping" that we can fix the mess with the way out of proportion powerful corporations by talking it out with them isn't realistic. That message is attractive.

Hillary was interviewed by Steph. She gave a good interview. I just have a hard time believing she is going to win. In fact, Hillary herself is now downplaying expectations in Iowa, saying that she isn't going to predict the outcome of Iowa - a long way from her statements months ago about "when she was president." She had to spend a lot of time talking about Bill.

As far as the discussion about which candidate benefitted in the aftermath of the Bhutto assassination, as far as I can tell, Edwards wins that one. McCain and Hillary both talked about how they knew Bhutto personally, but what good did that do to Bhutto? If they knew her so well and liked her so much, why didn't they work harder to insure that she was safe?

Edwards actually had the sense to call the U.S. Embassy in Pakistan, and that lead to an actual phone conversation with Musharref. That seems to be the most direct action of any of the candidates. Huckabee blew his surge in Iowa by completing blowing his response in a number of ways regarding the Pakistan situation. He now is trailing in the polls in Iowa. I thought Obama gave a very good answer in response to questions about Pakistan, but he didn't talk to Musharref. Edwards wins on that one - helping his surge.

There was a lot of talk about what Iowa is going to mean. I do think that if the vote comes down to a 33 1/3% split among the three leaders, with one coming out a few votes ahead and the losers a few votes behind, it may not be defining. If one candidate wins by any kind of distinguishable margin, that is going to mean a serious bounce forward. In any case, I agree with all of the commentators that it is going to be an interesting week.

Why Don't We Try and Talk to Everyone to Make Peace?

The aftermath of the Bhutto assassination, along with a new message from Osama Bin Laden calling on continued hostilities against us and our allies, once again has brought to light the treacherous relationship between our society and those people we are quick to call radicals and terrorists, but which are lumped together under the category of "islamic extremists." Furthermore, they are labeled "terrorists" when they resort to violence to influence the political process. No doubt, those kind of tactics have caused way too much terror, but it seems too simplistic to me to just brush off these people when our national actions have caused our share of terror also. (How many civilians have been killed in Iraq, for example?)

Our leaders continue to tell us that we must have a "war on terror" to try and stop these people from destroying us. But at the same time, the very people telling us that know darn well that we cannot kill them all, at least not without dire consequences, and that there is no way that a relative handful of people can destroy our nation. Sure, they can inflict damage, and no doubt want to, but why do you want to do this?

One has to be brain dead to completely disassociate our foreign policy based on bullying and belligerence with the hard line position that the islamic fundamentalists are taking with us. It isn't necessary to go into the details of that discussion in this post, but, what is relevant is whether or not we are going to continue to take a position that we cannot talk to these people and can only fight them with violence and refuse to try and talk to them, or, we are going to make a fundamental shift in policy and try to talk to them and find out if there is a way that we could live together in peace. That means talking to their leaders.

If we don't, then we are doomed to neverending violent war for us and generations to come, because it is obvious that there are a lot of people out there that have strong roots to a certain way of life and certain lands that will never let us force our thinking on them without a fight. And, in today's world, where international diplomacy and politics involve many nations now capable of manufacturing and selling modern weaponry, we can never be sure what an even small group of determined and funded people can obtain and use against us. And that scenario is only going to get worse as countries like China, India, Russia, and Iran manufacture more and more sophisticated weapons, and have no qualms about letting our "enemies" purchase them. Then there are nuclear materials that have been manufactured at amazing quantities that in many places are not secure. The opportunities for creating mischief are numerous and our ability to monitor and police these people are limited.

So why should we keep saying that "we won't negotiate with a terrorist?" Is that really going to be a policy that is possible. Frankly, we have already negotiated with "terrorists" a number of times. We have diplomatic relations with Musharef of Pakistan, who is nothing more than a military dictator who has violated basic human rights a number of times, and has taken billions of our taxpayers dollars while playing both sides of the "terrorism" coin for and against us. There are a lot more examples. Perhaps we never will be able to live in peace with these folks, but the fact is for sure we won't if we don't try.

If we can at least try to talk to these people and work with them, why would we make a hard and fast rule that we will not, under any circumstances, try to talk with the people that we are branding as the biggest threat to us? Sure there are issues of identifying true leadership figures that can broker agreements in loose knit organizations that are trying not to be identified. But that doesn't mean that sincere efforts of good will can't reach across those controversies and find people that want to end this cycle of violence. But as long as we keep spending way more than any other entity on military weaponry, and keep inflicting our military will on foreign soils, we will have people out to get us in the most severe way that they can think of to do it. Not a great way to live, for us or generations to come.

Today’s editorial in the Paducah Sun is a recipe for economic disaster if followed.

by Craig Rhodes

"In truth, the “free market” means nothing to the men who run the system. It’s just a public relations scam designed to dupe investors into plunking their money into a system that’s rigged for the carnivores at the top of the economic food-chain. "

Mike Whitney

Today’s editorial entitled, "Solutions", in the Paducah Sun is a recipe for economic disaster if followed. To summarize, it advocates more of the same as a solution for the ravages brought onto our nation by conservative “free market” economics. It is tantamount to pouring gasoline on the fire.

Based on both recent and past history of conservative “free market” economics, the term should be revised to “Disaster Economics” as described in Naomi Klein’s recent book “The Shock Doctrine”.

We’ve heard it all before, less government regulation, tax breaks for the upper classes, scapegoating of liberals, and demonizing of anyone especially Democrats, offering viable solutions. And to add insult to injury the editorialist misspelled Obama’s name.

The Paxton Media Monopoly through their mouthpiece the Paducah Sun, are part of the problem not a part of the solution. What they are promoting is the very economic system Charles Dickens railed against in his many novels including “A Christmas Carol”. Merry Christmas suckers!

At this late date, we have numerous examples of the failure of unregulated free market economics. Whether it be privatized health insurance that denies benefits to improve their bottom line, an unregulated cable industry that gouges their customers, e coli in our meat, lead in children’s toys, Enron, Savings & Loan scandal, the Tobacco Industry, technetium in our aquifers, mercury in our water, corporate welfare, coal miners dying underground, the list goes on and on.

And now with the subprime mortgage crises exasperating the current recession and threatening to drag us into a depression, the conservative ideologues at the Paducah Sun offers as a solution, more of the same. They believe the government has no place in the solution because it “overreacts”. This totally ignores history.

Recessions have been a recurring feature of the American economy for centuries, even during the era of laissez-faire, when government left the economy almost entirely alone. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, eight American recessions worsened into depressions. It wasn’t until the advent of Keynesian policies that depressions were completely eliminated from our economy for over six decades.

Now that the free market, as defined by Milton Freidman and the Chicago School of Economics, has taken control of our government we find ourselves having to relive the past. How do you condemn today's government without condemning the corporate free market that controls it?

Just a cursory exam of what the “free market” has done to third world economies should be a warning to even the brain dead. No wonder that throughout Latin America this conservative ideology is being rejected for a more humane economic system. Nor is the U.S. immune to its ravages as evidenced by both recent and past history.

And to accuse Democrats of “class envy” is nothing more than a red herring designed to hide the fact that class warfare is actually being waged against the middle and lower classes of our society by the oligarchs for whom the Paducah Sun advocates even more tax breaks. Tax breaks for the wealthy while at same time they also promote an eternal war, which is unprecedented in itself.

Anyone paying attention knows that there has been a dramatic shift of wealth to the upper 10% of our nation due to the class warfare being waged against the rest of us. And it’s not due to the competence of the CEO class, as implied by the editorial, evidenced by compensation packages in the hundreds of millions for CEO’s leaving bankrupted companies behind them. Nor is it being reinvested in our economy as the editorial would have us believe, but instead is invested overseas. Ever hear of outsourcing? The fact that the Paxton Media Monopoly favors this redistribution of wealth into the hands of a few speaks volumes.

The economic system of disaster economics advocated by the Paxton Media Monopoly is, at its core, immoral. And herein is the immorality. If e coli is found in the meat supply of a meat market, the “free market” will self regulate when consumers stop buying the meat. So what if dozens of children lay sick and dying in the meantime? If a Ford Pinto explodes without warning, consumers will stop buying them thus the free market will self regulate. So what if dozens of owners of the Pinto burn alive in the meantime? If consumers discover lead in children’s toys they will stop buying them…so what if hundreds if not thousands of infants and children are poisoned in the meantime? The unregulated "free market" will self correct the subprime mortgage mess. So what if over 2 million homeowners have lost their homes so far?

The Paducah Sun’s advocacy of disaster capitalism is in keeping with their mean-spirited conservative ideology in that it is not designed for humanity and is consequently, inhumane. It has been around forever in many forms whether it be trickle down economics, voodoo economics, laissez faire economics, and now "free market" economics. The disastrous results have always been the same.

Unfortunately every few generations or so Americans have to relearn the lesson of past mistakes brought on by the failure of conservative ideology with its attendant disaster economics.

Kennedy Center Awards provides some quality performances

Last night CBS televised the lifetime achievement award ceremony at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. There were a couple amazing musical moments. One was when Earl Scruggs played with Mark O'Connor and Randy Scruggs, in honor of statements by Steve Martin, one of the recipients, that he was inspired to learn banjo from listening to Earl Scruggs when Martin was younger. Earl Scruggs, who is well over 80, tore up that banjo on "Foggy Mt. Breakdown," and having the greatest living country fiddle player accompanying him, as well as his own flesh and blood, provided an amazing performance.

Then, following, in the musical tribute to Diana Ross, another award recipient, a number of female African American singers did a medley of some of her hits. But what really topped off the performance was when the curtain was pulled and a 125 member black gospel choir joined Yolanda Adams’ powerful performance of “Reach Out and Touch (Somebody’s Hand)” . It was such strong and moving music that Ross was sincerely moved to tears and was clearly swept away in the moment. It was awesome.

It's nice to stumble onto some quality performances on network TV. It's way too rare.

“The greatest crime is the lie and the greatest lie is silence.”

by Craig Rhodes

A word of introduction…

Since Mark has so kindly agreed to allow me to blog here, I thought a word of introduction would be appropriate.

I’m born and raised in Western Kentucky. It is my home. I’ve lived in the Paducah area in particular for more than 50 years. From the outset my political inclination has been liberal and progressive based on my experiences growing up here. I will elaborate on those experiences in later blogs but suffice to say that, based on my experience, there is a strong liberal tradition in Western Kentucky.

My blogs will primarily center on Western Kentucky and Southern Illinois, which together represent an important area of the Ohio Valley Region. For too long, liberals in this region have been voiceless and under-represented. Voiceless because of the media monopoly under the ultra-conservative Paxton Media Group and under-represented because of Republicans and their cousins, the Blue Dog Democrats. I will refer to these voiceless patriots as the “resistance”.

I believe that our nation is at one of its lowest points in modern history. I believe this has been brought about, more or less, by a bankrupt conservative ideology. For the most part, we have been brought to this point through the age old political tactic of fear, a favorite conservative tactic. And for too long the average citizen has stood by and done nothing to stop this shredding of our Constitution as well as our American values.

Stopping this slide will take millions of voices in every rural area, town and city of every district of our nation. I intend to begin here with both critique and solutions.

Who I am is unimportant. Know me by my words. I prefer to stick to the issue at hand and all issues will be on the table including any particularly egregious editorial or biased article from the Paxton Media Monopoly.

I will be willing to document any position I take in the spirit of give and take. If there are holes in my position, I want to be the first to know. But silence is not an option even if no one reads my blogs. As Alexander Solzenitzen said, “The greatest crime is the lie and the greatest lie is silence.” The internet, with Al Gore’s help, has given us a voice outside of The Paxton Media Monopoly and we would be fools not to take advantage of the opportunity.

For the sake of our nation, it’s time the resistance ends its silence and makes itself known.