News portal

“An idea that is not dangerous is unworthy of being called an idea at all.” - Oscar Wilde

- Happy Mother’s Day, Susie. And to all the rest of our mothers, too. We are not Republicans, here.

- Torture, lies, killing and poverty … all in a day’s work.

- The secret lives of Saints.

- Our pretzeldent, fighting the war on plurals, cedars.

- Happy birthday, Shakes, for she brings an awesome blog roundup, and just generally rocks.

- You don’t get a cookie for doing the right thing, but then, it’s its own reward.

- Public transit and poverty.

- Bees not doing so well.

- Mugabe’s government rejects any additional conditions, such as an end to violent attacks on the citizenry, being put on a presidential runoff election.

- Bermuda: come for the sunny beaches, stay for the tax relief on your Pentagon contracts.

- The American Petroleum Institute plans a multi-year PR blitz to defend their obscene profits.

- Supporting Ed Fallon over Leonard Boswell in the IA-03.

- The real terrorist threat.

- Looking for justice in the Sean Bell verdict.

- The man John McCain picked to run the Republican National Convention has ties to the Myanmar junta. Given the chance to take up Bush’s third term, McCain will probably consider the man to run the show trials at Guantanamo.

Tags: blog news, news roundup (all tags)

A collection of thoughts as we head into the West Virginia presidential primary on Tuesday.

The caller ID last night showed an 877 number, but I answered it anyway. “I’m a local volunteer for Sen. Hillary Clinton,” the caller said. He was polite and asked me if I intended to vote for Senator Clinton in West Virginia’s primary on Tuesday.

I told him I liked Senator Clinton a lot, but I liked Senator Obama more. I said we had early voting in West Virginia and I had already voted for him, but wished him luck in his calling.

I meant it.

I wrote a post Thursday at West Virginia Blue:

Whether you want Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton to be our Democratic nominee, go volunteer for your candidate.

As I’ve mentioned for months, the Obama supporters have been much more active on the ground even though polls have shown Clinton with an insurmountable lead in the state. As Clem has pointed out so well, this state’s demographics are perfectly suited for Clinton. But even more than the demographics, this state’s personality is suited for her to win. West Virginians love politicians they’re familiar with. We had Bill Clinton as our president and Hillary Clinton as our First Lady for eight years.

So for months Obama’s supporters here have heard that Obama does not have a chance in West Virginia. That just made his supporters, and there are many of us, work even harder. Damn the overwhelming odds and full speed ahead has been the attitude of many of them. In Berkeley County, 50 of the 52 county delegates elected to attend the state convention were Obama supporters. Similiar efforts have taken place across the state.

The Clinton campaign effort got a late start in West Virginia. And national pundits and experts are calling the race over for her. To Senator Clinton’s West Virginia volunteers, as an Obama supporter I urge you not to listen to them. Go out and give it your all for Senator Clinton.

In 2004, many of us worked very hard here in the Eastern Panhandle to GOTV for Sen. John Kerry. We increased his vote by 30 percent over Vice President Al Gore’s total here in 2000. And we still had our asses handed to us.

But you know what? I look back in pride to the fact that I did everything I could to make a difference. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: every door knocked, every mile walked, every letter sent, every dime spent, I’d do it all over again.

Now go do that for your candidate, whether Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton or even if you’re a Republican supporter of Ron Paul. (And someone has planted more Ron Paul signs in this county than for any other candidate - with the exception of Democratic sheriff’s candidate Kenny LeMaster.)

We’ve got plenty of time to come back together as Democrats before the convention in Denver. Primary wounds will heal. But what will be harder to get over is regret. If you want your candidate to win, go do everything you can to make it happen.

Barack Obama’s West Virginia GOTV.

Hillary Clinton’s West Virginia GOTV

It has been since 1960 that West Virginia’s vote really mattered in the presidential primary. I do not agree with those calling for Senator Clinton to drop out of the race. While even her most loyal supports admit the odds aren’t looking good for Senator Clinton to be the nominee, she has every right to stay in the race and West Virginia will be a high mark for her. Her husband predicted she’ll take the state with 80 percent of the vote and who am I to disagree with the benchmark he set? The best and most enthusiastic GOTV in the world is not going to overcome the state’s demographics which are perfectly set up for her as Clem so well demonstrated in the post I link to above.

I’ve got my disagreements with Senator Clinton on some issues and some of her tactics, just as I do with any other candidate, including my absolute favorite in many election cycles. If - the biggest word in the English language - Senator Clinton had locked up the nomination in February as many had expected, I would have happily supported her in the general election. My initial pick was Sen. Chris Dodd. I’ve got a long history of voting for a candidate in November who was not the candidate I wanted to see there. But I’ve always voted for the Democrat and considering the Republicans we faced I have no regrets about that choice.

But at least this cycle, West Virginians have felt included in the primary process, which has raised voter registrations to record highs.
…
We had several volunteers from out of town on Saturday for the Obama campaign. I thought it was a bit confusing the way the setup was today with two “satellite” offices in different neighborhoods. So people who went to the main hq in Martinsburg were sent out to the other two offices to get canvassing materials. The usual people from the campaign we’ve dealt with were out in Morgan and Jefferson counties working and a new woman was in fresh from North Carolina as part of the reinforcements.

I canvassed Saturday with an older, African American woman. We partnered and did a predominantly African American neighborhood in Martinsburg. It was an interesting experience. I’ve done African American neighborhoods before for other races, but there was such a — I can’t really think of the right word. Not just a vibe or a sense of excitement. Like a sense of participating in something historic.

After canvassing last week in Precinct 21, a ballbreaker with lots of DINOs, it was good this week to have so many strong Obama supporters. We did have one woman who already voted for Hillary Clinton, but she said she expects Obama to be the nominee and will vote for him in November because she can’t stand McCain. (We have early voting or No Excuses voting in West Virginia where you can vote at the court house prior to the election day. The last day for early voting was Saturday.)

Our area also included part of a predominantly white neighborhood as well and we had some Obamas there as well. But possibly more interestingly was a conversation with a man outside his house who was not on our list. I suspect he’s an R, but he said he has big money bet on Obama winning the general election and he’ll probably vote for him over McCain.
…
While I’m on the issue of race, let me bring up something that really pisses me off, this false notion that Senator Clinton’s supporters are racists. They are not. I’m going to quote Clem extensively because he said it well and I agree with him completely:

It pains me, I feel the need to write this diary… but after reading the coverage of the West Virginia primary around the blogosphere this needs to be said.

When I voted for Barack Obama last week, I was voting for Barack Obama, not against Hillary Clinton and not against John Edwards (also on the W.Va. ballot).

I happen to think Barack Obama will make an even better president than Hillary Clinton. Just because I prefer Obama over Clinton doesn’t make make me anti-woman, anti-white people, or anti-anything else. I voted for Obama, it’s as simple as that.

So, for the love of God, why do some people insist a West Virginia vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote against Barack Obama? Further, why do so many insist it’s a vote against Obama just because of the color of his skin?

Yes, there are some West Virginia Democrats and Independents who will vote in the Democratic primary next week who will vote for McCain in November.

snip

Indeed, the vast percentage of Clinton voters will turn out in November for Obama — right now they prefer Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama. That doesn’t make them racist, misandrist, or prejudiced against people from Illinois.

You know, that vote for Hillary Clinton is probably just that: a vote for Hillary Clinton.

…
The Obama campaign has a new commercial airing in the state, the final one before the May 13 primary. Some of you might not like it, but I think it’s really good for its intended West Virginia audience. See it here.

…

Whatever Senator Clinton decides to do about ending her campaign or continuing - and it is her decision, not the media pundits - West Virginia as one of the last primaries this cycle is going to give her a high note for the finale of her historic presidential bid. Whether she wins by 60 percent or 80 percent and just because it won’t matter either way to the overall delegate count, the race continuing has been positive for West Virginia Democrats by increasing our regististration rolls and by preparation for the necessary volunteer effort that will be needed in the summer and fall again Sen. John McCain.

As much as many like to dismiss Senator Clinton, she’s a hell of a lot better candidate than Senator McCain can ever hope to be on his best day. A big win by Senator Clinton in West Virginia over Senator Obama does not mean the presumed Democratic nominee cannot carry the state in the general election. Believing that is a discredit not just to West Virginians, but also to Senator Clinton. John McCain is no Hillary Clinton.

Tags: West Virginia, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton (all tags)

I whole-heartedly agree with Jerome’s point in yesterday’s “Deal With Defeat“, but I don’t think he took it far enough. Yes, Obama supporters should be prepared to lose West Virginia (as well as Kentucky), but so too should Clinton supporters be prepared to lose the nomination.

Jerome is right. Clinton is going to do well in West Virginia, and blindly accusing that state of racism doesn’t make any more sense than blindly accusing North Carolina of sexism. Truth be told, this is one Obama voter who is happy to see Clinton pushing hard in WV and Kentucky. Assuming both candidates are capable of running positive campaigns, I welcome sending them to states Romney and Giuliani didn’t even dream about. We are registering millions of new Democratic voters, and if Obama and Clinton can focus on McCain rather than on each other, the remaining primaries will be wonderful opportunities for our party.

But even if Clinton wins landslides in WV and KY, this nomination seems just about locked up. As far back as March 21, Clinton advisers were privately putting their chances at a mere 10 percent. If it was just 10% all the way back then, what is it now that North Carolina and Indiana have spoken and the superdelegates have turned?

I am sympathetic for Clinton’s supporters. I’ve been on the losing side myself - Howard Dean and John Edwards in 2004, and Joe Biden in 2008. There’s a reason I call myself an Obama voter rather than an Obama supporter. It hurts, but reality is reality, and none of the remaining Clinton talking points make sense. You’ve heard most of the arguments before, but I’d like to sum them up in one post.

Clinton is more electable because Obama can’t close the deal: Of all the Clinton talking points, this is the one I am probably the most sick of. Thank God it has largely faded since NC. As recently as February, Clinton had a 20-point lead in national polls; today, Obama leads by 2. A year ago, he was an afterthought and she was inevitable - yet we’re supposed to believe that because he can only gain 22 points and become only a slight frontrunner, he’s not good enough? How exactly is this an argument for someone who LOST 22 points? Isn’t Senator Inevitable the one who can’t close the deal against the young upstart? The latest reincarnation of this argument is that a frontrunner should be able to win WV and KY - perhaps, although I wasn’t aware they’d changed the definition of “frontrunner” to “the candidate who wins every single state.”

I don’t want Clinton to drop out. Unlike some of Obama’s other voters, I don’t despise her; she’s done impressive things in New York and Washington. I do, however, want her to apologize for implying that the superdelegates should take African Americans for granted, but once she’s done that, I’m thrilled to have her go on to WV and KY and register thousands of new voters. This race should be settled on June 5, not May 11 - but just as Jerome wants Obama supporters to be cool about WV, so too should Clinton supporters be cool about the popular vote, the pledged delegate lead, the superdelegate lead, and the Michigan uncommitteds. Last year we kept talking about our abundance of riches and our wonderful slate of candidates. That’s still true, folks. These are the same people we had running last year, with the same potential.

Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, president, 2008, West Virginia, Kentucky, big states, electability (all tags)

Earlier today, I heard an NPR feature on the subprime mortgage crisis. They interviewed one guy who was in trouble with his mortgage, in arrears and facing foreclosure. They asked him what his stated income was on the application, and he said he had no idea. When they told him it was $16,250 a month, he burst out laughing — the year he applied for the mortgage, he’d only made $35,000 all year. He had literally no idea that number was there.

This brought a fundamental question up to me: how did that number get put on his mortgage application?

I’ve never applied for a mortgage, but it seems to me that there are only two possible explanations for how that number was filled in: either the applicant wrote it in, or the mortgage agent did. And if we take the applicant at his word, he didn’t put it there, so that leaves the agent.

OK, so the broker wrote it in. How did he get that number? More importantly, how did the applicant not know about it?

Again, two ready answers spring to mind: either the agent wrote it in after the applicant signed the forms, or the applicant simply didn’t notice the numbers when he signed it.

If the agent filled it in after it was signed, then we have a clear-cut case of fraud here against the agent. They put in numbers that they had no business putting in after the document was signed, and therefore ought to be on the hook — both financially and criminally — for the fraudulent mortgage.

If the applicant simply didn’t notice the numbers, then it’s a clear-cut case of negligence on the borrower. I’m sure somewhere in the application process there’s a form that says “I have read every single detail of this agreement, agree to every part of it, and attest that the statements I have made are true” or something like that. If he did sign that, and there was a part of it he didn’t read, then he’s screwed.

As I’ve said, I’ve never applied for a mortgage. (Never had the financial wherewithal, and besides as a single guy with no real ties anywhere, it seemed unnecessary. Just rent an apartment and let the landlord deal with all the headaches.) But I have signed other significant financial agreements (leases, car purchase agreements) and in each case, I read the penalty clauses for my failure to live up to my obligations to pay. And when I did have those failures, I knew precisely what to expect and sucked it up. It wasn’t fun, I didn’t like it, but I knew about it going in and didn’t think I had any business whining.

Maybe that makes me a freak, but when I hear about people who are running into serious trouble with their mortgages (yes, even some dear friends of mine), I don’t go into convulsions of outrage over it. I offer sympathies (and in one case, some assistance), but I don’t go blaming the system or the mortgage company for “screwing them.”

There’s an old saying: “you can’t con an honest man.” It’s not 100% accurate, but it is true far more often than it’s not. Most cons and scams are based on the victim having a little bit of larceny in his soul, and thinking that they might get something for nothing. (This is the basis of the Nigerian 419 scams, for example.) And if these people are being victimized by bad or fraudulent mortgages, then I’m fairly comfortable in assuming that most of them either knew that there was bogus info on their application (either by their own hand or their agent), or should have known by simply reading it carefully (and, perhaps, consulting a disinterested expert) before they put their signature on it.

I know if I signed a contract that put me on the hook for six figures of money, and tied me up for a couple of decades, I’d read every goddamned word of it, and run it past at least one professional, to make sure there were no lies, no surprises, no loopholes, and no blank boxes to be filled in later on the thing. And if it did end up blowing up in my face, I wouldn’t be looking to blame anyone besides myself.

I guess I’m just a freak that way.

I don’t think this is exactly how the GOP wants this election to play out…

WOLF BLITZER: You just heard Congressman Van Hollen say that he represents a third Bush term. You know how unpopular the job approval numbers are right now.

HOUSE GOP WHIP ROY BLUNT: I don’t think anybody believes that. I think everybody does believe from his record that here is somebody who has always been willing to complain about the way business was done in Washington. And, frankly, people want to see that…

BLITZER: When it comes to domestic economic issues, what is the major difference between President Bush’s policies, what he wants to do, and what John McCain would do if he were president?

BLUNT: Well, I think what John McCain wants to do is continue these pro-growth tax policies that our friends on the other side have been talking…

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: But that’s what President Bush wants to do too.

BLUNT: And there is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing wrong with that.

BLITZER: So it would be in effect a third Bush term when it came to pro-growth tax policies?

BLUNT: It would be. I think it would be. And I think that’s a good thing. You can’t go out in the country anywhere and find people who believe that doubling the capital gains rate is a good thing, that raising the highest rate on every small business in America is a good thing, that eliminating those bottom brackets, that mean that people at the lower levels of tax pay less taxes than they would otherwise. In fact, I think one of the reasons that the economy has slowed down the way it has is the fact that there’s great uncertainty about how those tax policies move forward.

Let’s just highlight that last exchange for posterity.

BLITZER: So it would be in effect a third Bush term when it came to pro-growth tax policies?

BLUNT: It would be. I think it would be. And I think that’s a good thing.

Currently, George W. Bush’s rating on the economy stands at 27 percent to 28 percent positive, with 70 percent of Americans disapproving of the job that he is doing on economic matters. So if the Republican Party, and even better John McCain, want to hug President Bush on the economy, I’m totally fine with that. In fact, I’d probably be fine with a group — whether on the right or the left — running ads quoting House Republican Whip talking about how McCain would represent a third Bush term on the economy. I think that should do the party really well come November…

Tags: George W. Bush, John McCain, 2008 (all tags)

During a discussion of the possible presidential general election match-up between Sens. Barack Obama (D-IL) and John McCain (R-AZ) on Meet the Press this morning, John Harwood — CNBC correspondent and New York Times political writer — said that the McCain campaign is already “trying to work the referees in advance” to argue that Obama […]

The AP reports that despite a decline in total veterans “as soldiers from World War II and Korea die,” the government “expects to be spending $59 billion a year to compensate injured warriors in 25 years, up from today’s $29 billion,” according to internal documents. The VA “concedes the bill could be much higher” as […]

I’m hosting the Book Salon at Firedoglake today from 5-7PM EST. The book in question is Outright Barbarous: How the Violent Language of the Right Poisons American Democracy. The discussion will naturally be around framing, and particularly the right wing’s use of violent metaphors.
My own Firedoglake Book Salon for It’s a […]

As a single, childless person who intends to stay that way, I have to come out strongly and self-interestedly against giving kids the right to vote. It sounds fair on its surface, but in practice, it’s just giving people extra votes because they have children, since children will vote for whoever they’re told to by […]