Court Of Impeachment And War Crimes: Impeach Bush and Cheney, A Cleveland Installment…Of A Good Man And Lesser Politicians. And Hillary Is Toast!

Click for a full report.

Imbush Peach

An interview with Naomi Wolf about the 10 steps from democracy to dictatorship!

Stop The Spying Now

Stop the Spying!

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Impeach Bush and Cheney, A Cleveland Installment…Of A Good Man And Lesser Politicians. And Hillary Is Toast!

Impeach Bush and Cheney, A Cleveland Installment…Of A Good Man

And Lesser


Re-Elect Kucinich We Need Your Help!

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act!" -- George Orwell It Is All Coming To Pass…see Hillary Declare She’ll Have The Presidency No Matter What. She Is Now Toast With Me!

Re-Elect Kucinich We Need Your Help!

“I want to inspire America to take a new path, a different direction. I envision an America which has the capacity to reconnect with the heart of the world; an America which proceeds in the world optimistically and courageously.

An America which understands that the world is interdependent, that it is inter-connected, and that what we do today impacts future generations.

I want to break the shackles of fear which have deprived our citizens of rights. We need to change the way this country values humanity, so that instead of fear and lies, we can live our lives based on principles of peace and hope. We need to regain the trust of the American people and we need to have a government which trusts the American people.

It's time for America to resume its glorious journey; time to reject shrinking jobs and wages, disappearing savings and rights; time to reject the detour towards fear and greed. It's time to look out upon the world for friends, not enemies; time to counter the control of corporations over our politics, our economy, our resources, and mass media. It's time for those who have much to help those who have little, by maintaining a progressive tax structure.

It's time to tell the world that we wish to be their partner in peace, not their leader in war. Most of all, it is time for America to again be the land where dreams come true, because the government is on the side of its people, and the rule of law has been restored in our great nation.” –Dennis Kucinich-

The corporate rulers of the United States, a term viewed by most as a sign that one is so absorbed in the American Political process as to be an aggravating person to be around), are determined to have their revenge against Dennis Kucinich, the principled Ohio congressman who has held high the progressive banner in the last two Democratic presidential primary seasons.

Not content with having banned Kucinich from a succession of debates and erased his name and platform from the daily media discourse - finally forcing him to withdraw for lack of funds – “Corporate Democrats” now conspire openly to oust him from his Cleveland congressional seat.

Yes, Kucinich has been targeted by the same forces, and for the same fate as befell Georgia's Cynthia McKinney and Alabama's Earl Hilliard: exile from the Big Business-infested Democratic Party.

In his presidential campaigns in 2004 and 2008, Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich told Democrats a brutal truth. Party orthodoxy is a disaster, a series of lies that must no longer be accepted.

While his opponents, Obama, Clinton and Edwards, made it clear they weren't serious about ending the occupation of Iraq, Dennis presented a plan to do just that.

When they made the case for leaving a failed for-profit health care system intact, Kucinich said that non-profit universal care was possible. He had the audacity to say that we cannot fix a medical care system that is so inbred and broken, that it is beyond repair…that we have to get out of the box, think outside of the box and plan, and design anew. That would demand change, and though the buzz word of the moment is “change”; it is the same old campaign record that we drag out every 4 or eight years with a new label stuck on by some new spinmeister print shop.

Now I will admit that in today’s world the only real constant we have is change, but in politics change is just a new coat of cheap paint. It looks good, smells good but like every other coat it discolors, cracks and peels, disappointing like the last cheap coating. We need to some real scraping and sand blasting to get down to the foundation material and buy some good stuff that really works rather than just hide the old and firm up the dry rot for a few more years. You can only do that so long before the whole edifice falls apart…and I think I hear some cracking sounds.

Taking just a moment more and casting some bait on the waters for you; let’s work with something old that works pretty well: “The Government Employee Health Insurance Program(s). Now before you jump all over me and insist we can’t cover everyone that way, or knit a bigger blanket to cover everybody, you had better take a few days to think and research before you fire back at me, because I’m ten years down the line on this one in study and debate and a more than a few Senators engaged face to face on this one. I don’t care if you have a collection of other ideas, because if they are just that, a collection; they are to me band aids that I have already rejected. So bring it on. Yes insurance providers will go berserk. I don’t care, and neither should you! But back to Dennis…

He co-sponsored legislation calling for impeachment hearings against Vice President Cheney and President Bush while leadership declared the criminals should go free. Now after carrying our banner everyone is getting all upset with his dropping back for the moment in an attempt to survive here in Cleveland. He and Wexler have led the way and there are enough of us to continue the fight. The breaking news that Dennis is not going to push the Impeachment of Bush until after the November elections should shake no one’s faith, only renew our own efforts while our good soldier wages the fight of his life here at home.

On Air America Radio February 6th on the Randi Rhodes program, Dennis was a guest and answered the question regarding his pursuit of the impeachment of President Bush, and Dennis to the disappointment of many who do not appreciate the difficulty of his current situation, indicated that he is not going to push for the impeachment of Bush until after the November 2008 elections.

“I will sum it up as, "I am running for the House. I have five challengers. They are funded by big corporations."

It is interesting to note that the mainstream media having driven Dennis into a desperate campaign to save his career here in Cleveland gave that message no play! They have bumped him off the national scene….”mission accomplished”.

It is interesting to note that, while Barack Obama garners 80% to 90% of black votes in the primaries, it is the Kucinich platform that actually expresses the political opinions of most black Americans. I have a friend back in Virginia, Ron Fisher who all along said repeatedly that Dennis: “has the best Platform of all the candidates.” He was right, and it is still the best.

Dennis never ducked or dodged on the issues and unlike Hillary and Obama who attempt in tradition “appearances politics” to offer/promise the sun moon and stars with “caveat expectation lowering”, end of sentence disclaimers, with “posturing position papers” and not platforms. It is a rather standard procedure in the politics of impressions, illusion and deceit, anything to impress, sound good, get your vote and then fade into business as usual…and people are buying into the manipulation of the managers again hugging the buzz words of “hope” and “change”. The hall of smoke and mirrors is intact and the masters of impression and illusion, deceit and demagoguery are hard at well-paid work.

Universal Health Care

US out of Iraq, UN in

Withdrawal from NAFTA and WTO

Repeal of the "Patriot Act"

Quality Education, Pre-K Through College

Full Social Security Benefits at Age 65

Right-to-Choose, Privacy, and Civil Rights

Balance Between Workers and Corporations

Environmental Renewal and Clean Energy

Restored Rural Communities and Family Farms

Disavowal of American military aggression and support for government enforcement of legal and civil rights of citizens are the hallmarks of Kucinich's history.

Obama makes eloquent but empty speeches bereft of specifics.

In contrast, Kucinich's national political life appeared to be over shortly after it began because he took a courageous stand against corporate power.

"It is the Kucinich platform that actually expresses the political opinions of most black Americans." In fact the Kucinich agenda is really what the American agenda ought to be!

Elected mayor of Cleveland in 1977, Dennis Kucinich refused to allow a privately owned electrical utility to purchase that city's publicly owned utility. In an effort to force the sale and thereby create a monopoly, banks refused to extend the city any credit and plunged it into default.

Dennis paid the price for his principles when he was defeated in his re-election effort. Years later Kucinich was vindicated, having stopped what would have been an enormous corporate theft of public money and services. Courage is often not rewarded but is ultimately recognized and vindicated.

Dennis returned first to the Cleveland City Council, then the Ohio state legislature, and in 1996 he was elected to Congress. Despite his vast experience, he was forced to drop out of this year's presidential race.

The lack of media and debate access were not his only problems. He faces a fierce challenge that once again puts his political survival in jeopardy. One might be tempted to say that is his own fault for being controversial, and if you are so inclined then you should be voting for the “change innuendo” corporate candidate sock puppets drooling their meaningless empty sound bite verbal lint.

In December 2007, Cleveland City Councilman Joe Cimperman declared himself a challenger for Kucinich's congressional seat. Within fifteen days, Cimperman raised more than $39,000 from fifteen contributors, none of whom reside in the 10th District that is being contested.

Cimperman is no different from these contributors. He doesn't live in the district either but that doesn't matter to the lawyers, bankers and real estate developers (*link contributors) who are giving him money. They expect access and influence. Cimperman's address, like the interests of residents, is of no importance to them.

Cimperman supporters are not alone in wanting Kucinich out of office. Cleveland's daily newspaper, the Plain Dealer, endorsed. Here is another once great newspaper gone to the hallowed heavens of the moneyed privileged.

Congress runs on relationships and loyalties. Yet Kucinich repeatedly has defied House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her leadership team by not supporting their attempts to impose a deadline on U.S. involvement in Iraq - even when those attempts were part of realistic bipartisan proposals to recalibrate a policy he detests.

Support for Nancy Pelosi and the delelict Democratic Congressional leadership should not be held up as the standard for political success.

After declaring that Kucinich's principles aren't worth supporting, the Plain Dealer heaps further insults by comparing Kucinich to Democrats who win approval by failing the people. Barney Frank is used as an example. ". . . he knows when and how to cut a deal. He delivers [emphasis mine] for his party, his constituents and his beliefs." That’s just what America wants, another “wheeler and dealer” and that does not imply constructive compromise!

Citizens never benefit from what Barney Frank or Nancy Pelosi would call victory.

There is no bipartisan recalibration with the Bush regime. Bush still gets what he wants from Democrats. They fund the Iraq occupation, support trade deals that endanger American workers, refuse to rebuild the Gulf Coast, and say nothing when administration officials ignore their subpoenas.

Because acquiescence is equated with political rectitude, Dennis flunks the test. He gets an (A) in my book.

"Kucinich was the only real progressive in the presidential campaign."

So great is the pressure to get rid of Kucinich, that Cleveland's Mayor, Frank Jackson, also endorsed Cimperman. Elected officials usually endorse incumbents, or refrain from making endorsements altogether. The pressure to get rid of Dennis is overwhelming. If you can’t control your Congressman; get rid of him! I say if someone else other than “we The People” controls a Congressman…get rid of him or her, and for God sake don’t vote for them in the first place. If you just have to try something new go out and buy and car and help American workers and the economy instead of screwing up America by voting for the same old shit just because it’s different or sounds good.

The Democratic leadership has a history of punishing their own who dare to oppose Republicans. Cynthia McKinney was twice sent packing from Congress because she wouldn't toe the line. Now it may be Kucinich's turn.

Kucinich is a "black", “labor”, “principled”, “accessible”, “real person”, congressional candidate true to the oath of his office and the Constitution of this nation.

There is not a candidate for President left in the race that can even claim to hold the same candle of integrity that Dennis lit so many years ago…not a one and I invite your discourse on that one!

He was the only progressive in the presidential campaign. His re-election should be the first priority for activists in this presidential campaign year.

Imagine a Congress with no voice for impeachment. Imagine Congress with no questions about Iraqi civilian casualties. Imagine a Congress without Kucinich when Bush decides on his pretext for war against Iran. Imagine the worst, because that is what we will have if Kucinich is defeated.

And what are Hillary’s and Obama’s positions on those issues. I rest my case!

Moving Right Along… “A Vote For The Lesser Of Two Evils, Is Still A Vote For Evil”.

You really, really need to ask yourself: “Why has the corporate media chosen the remaining candidates over any of the others?” If you can’t honestly either answer that question, or face the answer; you are among the duped and seduced flock grasping at the straws of rationalization to justify your personal decision to back one of “these business as usual” candidates who have shown not one wit of commitment to the restoration of the rule of law in America, and that is a simple fact. You are an enabler.

In poll after poll of grassroots activists Dennis Kucinich comes out ahead. In a poll conducted by the progressive The Nation magazine, Kucinich beat out Obama & Edwards. Kucinich topped all other candidates in 47 out of 50 States in a poll sponsored by Democracy for America. In the latest Progressive Democrats of America’s poll of more than 80,000 members, Dennis Kucinich outpaced all the other Democratic candidates.

This popularity may be based on Dennis Kucinich's stand on issues about which most Americans are deeply concerned: H. R. 676 which calls for universal, single-payer health care; cancel the WTO & pull out of NAFTA as part of the Kucinich plan to put America back to work in America; & the impeachment of Cheney.

Dennis Kucinich is the only Democratic candidate who voted against the war on Iraq & who consistently opposed it. He is the only candidate who sued the President to prevent him from gong to war without a declaration from Congress. He submitted a 12-point plan for Iraq in the House last year which includes, among other points, an end to further funding & using the funding already in the ‘pipeline’ to be used to take the troops & necessary equipment out of Iraq starting immediately.

He is the only candidate who will redirect our priorities from war & tax cuts for the super-rich to peace & education via his proposed Department of Peace.

Dennis Kucinich is the only Democratic candidate who voted against the “Patriot Act” & who has introduced a bill to repeal major sections of it.

Dennis Kucinich has said, “Our country is a nation of immigrants. They have enriched our heritage and enlivened our culture. As millions of newcomers continue to work hard, raise families, serve in our armed forces, and study at universities, the Bush administration has waged an assault on immigrant's rights.

“In Congress, I have co-sponsored a number of bills to help immigrants, including the Family Unity Legalization Act…I am a strong supporter of the USA Family Act (HR 440).”
Dennis Kucinich has been expounding upon his April 2006 statement opposing torture.

If you want the same old corporate answers to you questions ask the corporate candidates, but if you want different answers ask the champions of democracy.

From Dennis: Kucinich Under Fire The Battle Goes On!

Posted on Feb 7, 2008

By Rep. Dennis Kucinich

Cleveland, Ohio, a city which represents all of the challenges and potential of the American economy, is rightfully the focal point of the Ohio Democratic presidential primary on March 4. The candidate who can deliver an economic platform with solid programmatic initiatives for jobs, health care, education and retirement security can win the state and be on the path to the nomination. Of course, I am no longer a candidate for president. When I was continually locked out of presidential debates, it became apparent that there was no chance. At the same time, labor in Cleveland asked me to come back and defend the 10th District congressional seat.

The FEC [Federal Election Commission] reports released last week show that in the Democratic primary, I am currently being outspent by a margin of 5-1.

Corporate Cleveland has organized its considerable resources behind a candidate who has had a three-week television campaign of a “Swift-boat"-type distortion of my record. I have always felt that the seat never belonged to me, but belongs to working men and women and their families, who are entitled to representation in the Congress, especially given the corporate domination of both political parties.

It is particularly ironic to see the same Cleveland corporate development interests at work trying to take a congressional seat for their own profit, when 30 years ago they used their power to send the city of Cleveland into default over $15 million and then used the default to defeat my reelection bid as mayor! This $15-million default is now dwarfed by the handouts given to each of the same interests by the current city government. Back to the future!

What happens in Cleveland is, of course, relevant to the entire nation. Somewhere, somehow people have to win a victory over corporate control and corporate greed. Cleveland is a great place to begin. And this election is a perfect time to start.

For more information about Kucinich’s campaign, go to

The Democratic presidential contest has now taken on the image of a titanic battle between an unstoppable force and an immovable object. I repeat myself when I say the practitioners of the political art are so myopic with their beltway blinders on that where they mouth their assumed wisdom and sell their snake oil; they are not perceptive enough to realize that they may well be selling deck chair seats on the good ship Democrat Titanic, or maybe I should start referring to the end game as “The Snow Job In The Rockies”.

Oh, but Pelosi has at least a superficial grasp of the problem; the only problem is that she views the matter in the framework of power and not within a vision of uplifting America and righting the ship of state.

...A senior adviser to Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, has suggested that she - along with other "party elders" - will step into the ring if they feel that Democratic hopes of winning back the White House or maintaining control over Congress are being threatened.

Ms Pelosi insists that she remains neutral in the race and that her "focus is on reelecting a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives".

However, her voice would carry great authority among many uncommitted super-delegates on Capitol Hill - and she is said by one of those close to her to be leaning towards Mr Obama. "The party Establishment is not going to turn its back on a candidate who is generating this tremendous excitement and bringing all these new voters into the political process," an adviser said. Mr Obama's team is busy pushing the same message, telling members of Congress in districts where he has already won that they would be foolish to alienate their core vote in an election year.

We have done it before and the inclinations for power and of ego make a party suicide in Denver loom ever more real.

But Let’s say you and I had the privilege, the right, the responsibility of conducting a debate between the remaining “chosen few”…what would you ask and how would you present/lead into your questions? Let me share with you my clip board!

Good Evening. Let me say from the outset that I and the American people are not looking for a political beauty show tonight. We’re not looking for a pretentious, practiced posturing of sound bite point and a repetition of your rote buzz words phrases we see on TV every day. We’re looking for a display a genuine leadership-- rather than just talk -- of leadership.

With the three major Democratic presidential candidates so intent on establishing themselves as the most capable of bringing about change, reporters and the American voter should be looking for you to make your case not with promises, but with action. That will be tonight’s premise and yardstick of judgment.

Barack and Hillary you are falling all over each other arguing that you alone have the leadership ability to achieve change.

But, what kind of leadership are you showing right now? Why should we believe you have great leadership ability if you’re not showing any on critical issues currently facing Congress and the nation?

Now, by contrast to the Republican presidential candidates who talk as if President Bush doesn’t exist, we/you Democrats talk about him a lot. But you act as if he wasn’t still very much in charge, still ramming legislation through Congress to fund his war in Iraq and generally subvert other key Democratic goals. You have the votes to stop all this; why haven’t you?

It’s understandable that presidential candidates themselves want to focus on what you would do once elected. And sure, being president is awfully different than being just one member of a political party whose majority, at least in the Senate, is tenuous.

But to the extent that part of your promises to the American people is that of being strong leaders, that you will have the courage of your convictions, and that you they will reach across party lines and build working political coalitions – why shouldn’t we ask for evidence of that in the here and now and not in the maybe of later?

When it comes to what really is/should be the dominant issue of the day, Iraq, you say you are devoted to ending the war. But so far you have been afraid to use – or even threaten to use – the only truly potent weapon in your arsenal: a cutoff of funds.

You/we Democrats in Congress may not have enough votes to override a presidential veto, but a simple majority is all it takes to stop writing Bush blank checks. The dominant argument against doing so appears to be that if you did, you would be attacked for being against the troops.

But what kind of principled leadership is it for politicians not to act on their beliefs out of fear that their actions will be misinterpreted?

True leadership demands that you articulate your position in a clear and persuasive way -- and defend it under fire if need be.

And yet, even though the public is overwhelmingly against this war, and a solid majority wants the troops to start coming home now, you are apparently paralyzed into inaction -- by fear of being called names. Is that leadership or pure political protect your ass behavior?

Why aren’t you articulating a clear position on the war?

Why aren’t you willing to threaten Bush with defunding the war if you really care so much about this?

Why aren’t you trying to mobilize the majority of Americans who agree with you?

Why aren’t you leading protest marches?

Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program may go down in history as the most egregious assault on American civil liberties since Watergate.

Despite your/our control of Congress, Bush appears to be on his way to winning Congressional reauthorization of his program and has won retroactive immunity for what is flatly illegal behavior by obliging telecommunications companies.

Once again, you ( your media minimized colleague ,Sen. Chris Dodd being a notable exception) appear to be afraid to stand up to Bush out of fear of being attacked as unpatriotic.

Once again, you are clearly crippled by your failure to clearly articulate your viewpoint: that civil liberties are worth defending, and that a devotion to civil liberties does not preclude being tough on crime and terror.

Why haven’t you been more outspoken in support of civil liberties?

Why have you done nothing as the government built an enormous surveillance apparatus which is used to spy on American citizens without probable cause?

Why have you failed to reach across the aisle and put together a bipartisan plan that reasserts that domestic surveillance can only be conducted with a court warrant?

Why have not committed to the restoration of law in America?

Why have you not repudiated the buildup Extra-Constitutional Executive Branch power?

Do You intend that they be your powers upon election?

And then there’s torture. Bush’s semantic feints aside, it’s clear that the Bush administration has engaged in torture – and wants to keep open the option to do so again. If there was ever a cut-and-dried moral issue, it is this. If there was ever and issue upon which to make a stand, it is this.

Why haven’t you done everything in your power – coalition-building, speechifying, filibustering, whatever – to stop this country from having anything to do with torture?

Why have you not advocated Impeachment on the issue alone, and don’t recited the worn out dodge that it will take too long and interfere with our other business because American knows that is a wheel barrel of manure.

On these issues and others, including the all-important budget, Bush is winning time and time again because, despite his atrocious approval ratings, because you Democrats won’t hold together and the Republican won’t break from the president.

Why have you supposedly great leaders running for president not been able to keep the Democratic party together? Why have you failed to win over any moderate Republicans to a more moderate course?

Why should we even believe you will do better or differently if elected President?

If you can’t build any kind of bipartisan governing coalition now, why should we believe you can do it later?

Two ugly, crippling and fundamentally un-American cultural changes have afflicted this country in the Bush era.

One, wholeheartedly encourage by Bush, has been the ubiquity of fear.

Rather than respond to 9/11 with an appeal to fearlessness, Bush used fear to achieve his policy goals and political objectives.

The other cultural trend -- actually discouraged by Bush, though listlessly – has nevertheless taken root during his tenure: A creeping and mean-spirited nativism.

Why aren’t you urging Americans to be brave?

Why aren't you urging them to be more tolerant?

Why aren’t you condemning the new anti-immigration fervor in the strongest way and constantly reminding voters that we are a nation of immigrants and that these are human beings people are talking about so viciously?

And here’s the ultimate question, lurking behind all the others:

Are you afraid of being called unpatriotic?

Are you afraid of being attacked if you stand up for what you believe in?

Are you afraid of sticking your neck out too far?

Is it leadership ability you lack – or is it courage – or both?

And some purely political yes or no questions and I know that’s going to be hard for you, but this is the people’s forum and these are yes and no questions, and if either of you attempt to utter even one syllable more or attempt to talk over me or each other I will turn your microphone off with some personal commentary that I am sure you won’t want to have available as post debate sound bites.

1) Mrs. Clinton if you come in second will you accept the Vice Presidency with Mr. Obama is asked…yes or no?

2) Mr. Obama, same question positions reversed…yes or no?

3) For both candidates; When you get to the Denver Convention will you support the candidate with the greatest number of American voters having supported one of you, or if you are second in the parade will you fight like hell to manipulate the superdelegate population to achieve nomination…no talking, explaining process, philosophy or any other thing that is supposed to pass for justification of your actions if so inclined…just yes or no? I Guess We Have The Answer!


By Susan Milligan, Globe Staff

WASHINGTON -- Hillary Clinton will take the Democratic nomination even if she does not win the popular vote, but persuades enough superdelegates to vote for her at the convention, her campaign advisers say.

The New York senator, who lost three primaries Tuesday night, now lags slightly behind her rival, Illinois Senator Barack Obama, in the delegate count. She is even further behind in "pledged'' delegates, those assigned by virtue of primaries and caucuses.

But Clinton will not concede the race to Obama if he wins a greater number of pledged delegates by the end of the primary season, and will count on the 796 elected officials and party bigwigs to put her over the top, if necessary, said Clinton's communications director, Howard Wolfson.

"I want to be clear about the fact that neither campaign is in a position to win this nomination without the support of the votes of the superdelegates,'' Wolfson told reporters in a conference call.

"We don't make distinctions between delegates chosen by million of voters in a primary and those chosen between tens of thousands in caucuses,'' Wolfson said. "And we don't make distinctions when it comes to elected officials'' who vote as superdelegates at the convention.

"We are interested in acquiring delegates, period,'' he added.

Clinton advisers rejected the notion that the candidate -- and the party -- would be badly wounded in the general election if the nominee were essentially selected by a group of party insiders.

"This is a nomination system that exists of caucuses, primaries, superdelegates and also the issue of voters in Florida and Michigan,'' states whose delegates currently will not be seated at the convention because they broke party rules by moving up their primaries to January, said Mark Penn, senior strategist for the Clinton campaign. But "whoever the nominee is, the party will come together behind that nominee,'' he said.

With the battle for the Democratic nomination excruciatingly close, supporters of both campaigns are questioning the nominating process. The Clinton camp has suggested that the caucuses -- where Obama has bested Clinton in all but one state -- are inherently undemocratic, since only a small percentage of eligible voters are able to make it to a caucus site and commit the time to vote at a particular hour.

Clinton -- who initially joined other Democrats in opposing Michigan and Florida's decisions to go ahead with early primaries -- now wants the votes of those primaries counted. The Obama camp thinks that idea is unfair, since candidates were not allowed to campaign in those states, and Clinton alone kept her name on the Michigan ballot, meaning Obama did not have a chance at getting even provisional delegates.

Superdelegates should "vote their conscience,'' despite how their states voted, Wolfson said. Penn noted that the Obama campaign, for example, has not asked Massachusetts Senators Edward M. Kennedy and John F. Kerry to cast superdelegate votes for Clinton, although the Bay State voted overwhelmingly for her in the primary.

The two candidates head into contests next week in Hawaii and Wisconsin; Obama is leading in the polls in both states. The Clinton campaign is pinning its hopes on the March 4 states of Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island, but Wolfson said yesterday the campaign is opening offices in every remaining primary and caucus state, including Puerto Rico.

4) If nominated and elected will you support public funding of all future Presidential elections…yes or no?

5) If nominated and elected will you commit yourself to ending the impact and damn near 4th branch of government participation of lobbyists…yes or no?

6) Anyone out there in the reading audience have a few that you would like to throw into the stew, post below as comments…thank you.

And Now Back To Other News And Views:

First all is not will in Hillyland.

The Clinton Shake Up Long In The Making. Good Bye Patti!

The Cover Up Attempt

Bill and Hillary Clinton often say that you can learn more about people from their failures than you can from their successes. If that's true, then boy, are we getting to know Hillary. Tonight she lost primaries in Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia, extending her losing streak to eight states. Overall, Barack Obama has won 23 of their 35 matchups. He now leads in the total delegate count for the first time since Iowa.

Clinton lost in Virginia and Maryland by more than 20 percentage points. Obama maintained his coalition of young voters, the well-educated, and African-Americans. More importantly, he added to it by eating into the durable coalition that has been Clinton's bulwark against Obama's momentum. Obama won among all income groups, including the lower-income voters he's had trouble attracting even in states he won. The only voting bloc Clinton held onto was white women.

When the bad news was announced, Clinton was in Texas trying to change the story. Never mind these losses, her aides say: Focus on the March 4 Texas and Ohio primaries and the April 22 Pennsylvania one. The Clinton team's argument has narrowed to this: Obama cannot win in big primary states where large African-American populations don't dominate the electorate.

The puzzling thing, given this claim, is that Clinton isn't fighting hard for the Wisconsin primary next week, a state that should fit the Clinton model. It doesn't have a big African-American population, is home to lots of working-class voters, and was won twice by Bill Clinton. Independents and Republicans can vote in the Wisconsin primary, which favors Obama, but it's hard for Clinton to argue that winning with the aid of independents and Republicans is a bad thing. They'll be key to a general election matchup against John McCain.

With each previous Obama victory, the Clinton team tried to attach an asterisk. He won because the electorate had too many African-Americans or because the contest was a caucus where party activists dominate. These were attempts not only to explain away Clinton's losses but also to suggest that Obama could never win in a general election in which broader coalitions are required. As he makes inroads into Clinton's base, those asterisks fall away.

If Obama wins the key general election swing state of Wisconsin, he'll be in an even stronger position to argue that he can win among working-class whites. These victories give Obama ammunition for future states because they show he can build a coalition across race, gender, and income for the general election.

After the Obama sweep, one Democratic strategist who backs him speculated (salivated) that a big-name Democratic official would call on Clinton to pack in her campaign. Do it for the sake of the party, such a pooh-bah might argue, so that Democrats can avoid an ugly and protracted primary fight and unite against John McCain. Such a person probably won't be able to make the case. The party isn't in peril—Democrats tell pollsters they'll be happy with either nominee—and with Huckabee interfering with McCain's cakewalk, the fear of an organized GOP offensive is diminished.

Clinton is going to have to endure lots of this kind of speculation in the next three weeks before the Texas and Ohio primaries, as well as recriminations and finger-pointing from erstwhile supporters, anonymous quotations from within her campaign, and the daily publishing of her obituary in the newspapers.

Oh, and there will be a drumbeat of superdelegates bailing on her. This is the bounty that comes from political setbacks, and Hillary knows it well as a veteran of her husband's tough campaigns and his administration's scandals.

She's gone from inevitable to embattled, and now she'll have to grind her teeth as she did during those past fights, waiting three long weeks until she has her best chance to get another win. Now she just has to hope that voters give her some credit for it.

The Revolt of the Superdelegates?

Posted by John DeSio at 12:46 PM, February 7, 2008

Barack Obama’s is locked in a virtual tie for convention delegates with slim delegate lead over Hillary Clinton, but Democratic Party rules could still shut him out of the presidential nomination despite his strong performance in the primaries.

At issue are so-called “super delegates,” former and current elected officials and other Democratic power-players who are appointed as delegates to the party’s national convention and can choose their preferred candidate with no regard for how their state has voted. New York’s superdelegates include, among others, former President Bill Clinton, United Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten and every Democratic member of the State’s congressional delegation.

Within the primary voting system Obama has put together a small lead over Clinton, with 635 delegates compared to her 630, according to CNN, though other counts vary. But Clinton has maintained a strong majority of those super delegates that have made their official pledge, and leads Obama 783-709 when those numbers are factored in (other super delegate counts give Clinton a larger lead.)

Obama is well aware of the disparity and has sent a message to the Democratic establishment on those super delegates, stating that they "would have to think long and hard about how they approach the nomination when the people they claim to represent have said, 'Obama's our guy.'" Obama’s message is clear: do not subvert the will of the people.

The superdelegate system used by the Democrats was put into effect during the 1970’s, as a means for party officials to maintain their influence in the face of reforms that arose from the 1972 presidential campaign of former senator and liberal stalwart George McGovern, said Tom De Luca ,a professor of political science at Fordham University.

The super delegates are bound to nothing but their own opinions, said De Luca, and make up a strong 20 percent of the total Democratic delegate count of 4,049. Should Clinton’s lead among super delegates vault her to the nomination, despite her defeat to Obama at the hands of the people, it could mean trouble for Democrats in November.

“I think it would be very, very bad for the Democrats,” said De Luca. “It might really demobilize some of the Obama constituency in the November election, which could well be very close.”

Harlem State Senator Bill Perkins was the first New York elected official to forsake his hometown senator and endorse Obama’s campaign, and he too is concerned that the will of the people could be cast aside at the convention, all in the name of party politics. Obama’s campaign is one of hope, said Perkins, and those hopes could be dashed by the superdelegate system, shutting Obama out of his rightful nomination “not on the basis of merit.”

“When you see a situation that has the potential to reverse that, by virtue of some sort of undemocratic, backroom machinations, it would be shameful,” said Perkins. “Worse than that, the agenda for change that everybody is singing now thanks to Obama would have a sour note.”

As a check on potential disaster the super delegate system does have its purpose, said De Luca. It gives party insiders the ability to control a maverick candidate, preventing him or her from seizing the nomination and doing potential harm to the party in November. But while Obama might not fit the preconceived notion of a Democratic insider he is certainly no radical, and a potential defeat engineered by backroom party politics would leave a bad taste in the collective mouths of his energized supporters.

“Obama’s an outsider in a sense, but he’s not Dennis Kucinich,” said De Luca. “I’m not going to say it would be devastating, but I think that would have a very bad impact on Clinton’s ability to mobilize Obama’s supporters in the general election.”

Both De Luca and Perkins agreed that, should Obama lose the nomination only because he lacks a majority of super delegates, it would put a lot of pressure on the Democratic Party to eliminate the super delegate system in its entirety. De Luca did see several ways out for the Democrats, noting first that more than half of the super delegates have not yet committed to any particular candidate, giving them time to gauge Obama and Clinton’s momentum and make a decision based on that, giving Obama a chance to minimize Clinton’s super delegate lead.

De Luca also pointed out that while it might sting a bit, a Clinton victory propelled by a super delegate majority will not be crippling to the party is Obama’s delegate lead is only a handful of votes, as it stands today. If Obama had a large delegate lead and was pushed out by super delegates, it would cause a figurative riot at the convention, said De Luca.

“It would be a bad blow for the party,” said De Luca, “and a lot of the people who got involved because of the Obama campaign would be very bitter about it.”

Perkins certainly would be. “We can’t have a democracy that people don’t have faith in, particularly in terms of our party processes,” he said.

I am a strong Obama supporter and I am becoming more and more concerned that the Democrats across this country will not be the deciding factor in who wins the nomination. I am further concerned by the fact that the DEM party, nationwide, has supported Hillary Clinton since early in 2007. Most of the super delegates who committed to Clinton did so a very long time ago. Obama has been able to bring voters to register as Democrats; his policies differ little from Hillary Clinton; he has a squeaky clean record; and, he is more electible. I believe the "old school" super delegates DO NOT WANT Obama to win the nomination as things in Washington will never be the same. Besides how many of those Super Delegates are hip deep in PAC obligations?

Eliminate The Superdelegates. This Country Is Supposed To Be Run By "We The People"!! Please Let Us Have Our Country Back!! Stop Making Up These Artificial "Safeguards", And Get Back To Democracy!! If We Don't, We Are Going To Lose Our Democracy. Eliminate Both The Superdelegates And Its Sister The Electoral College. Judy Cecil, Lake Stevens, Washington State

A Party Divided?
New York Times Blogs, NY - 4 hours ago
By Matt Bai The modern nomination system was designed to prevent us from getting to exactly where we are right now; the point of moving up the first few ...

To Hell With The Chief! Dave Lindorff

The idea that Americans, when they go to the polls, whether in a primary or in a general election, are choosing a commander in chief, as our feckless media pundits are wont to tell us, or as candidates running for president are fond of saying in these trying times, is not only overwrought rhetoric—it is downright dangerous, and idiotic too.

The Only Constant Is Change

Wexler Confronts Condi on Iraq War Lies

Secretary Rice Falsely Testified She Never Saw Intelligence Disputing Administration Claims that Iraq Possessed WMDs

(Washington, DC) Today, in reponse to questioning by Congressman Robert Wexler (D-FL) , Chairman of the Subcommittee on Europe and a senior member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice falsely claimed she never saw intelligence casting doubt on Administration claims that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of destruction. Numerous sources including the 2006 Senate Intelligence Report, a January 2004 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace report, as well as former CIA agents including Tyler Drumheller have pointed out that there was contrary intelligence to the information provided to the Bush Administration in the lead up to the Iraq war.

Congressman Wexler further questioned Secretary Rice on the over 900 false statements made by White House officials leading up to the war as recently reported by the Center for Public Integrity.

When the President does it, then it's not illegal.

Contributed by: Bing Van Gorden on 2/12/2008

The 4th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads,
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue without probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The United States Senate, including our own Ken Salazar just voted to allow retro-active immunity for telecom companies for complying with the Bush administration orders and allowing the federal government to monitor the internet and phone traffic of millions of Americans. A practice that began before 9-11-2001. A practice clearly in violation of our privacy and consent. Even if one argues that terrorist threats demand we use new tactics like this it doesn't change the fact that it was done illegally. This needed to be argued before Congress and given their consent as well as over sight.

Apologists for the administration claim this illegal program only involved foreign communications with terrorists. But that's not true. They also say that if you have nothing to hide then why not? Because the legal standard is higher than that. It's not about what you are trying to hide. It's that the government can't come snooping in your house, tapping your phone, or demanding to know what library books you've taken out without a damned warrant as the 4th Amendment to the blessed Constitution of the United States demands of them!!!!! Think about the precedent we are setting by allowing the Bush administration to change the meaning of privacy.

Before this story as leaked by the New York Times the president swore up and down that Constitutional obligations were being met. That goes beyond simply denying a program existed. Whistle blowers and pending law suits finally got the truth out and the president has admitted this has gone on. Claiming it was legal, but demanding this retro-active immunity, just in case.

And today a bigger story is that the City of Boulder is pondering talking about impeaching Bush and Cheney. Never missing an opportunity to lampoon liberals and the city in general, this is a big joke. While they are dismissing and mocking just the idea of possibly considering such a thing, their federal government just dismissed the rule of law and the 4th Amendment and gave these two clowns a get out of jail free card. That's the joke. And it's not funny.

Memo to Obama Fans

Clinton's presidency was not a failure.

By David Greenberg

It’s Enough To Make You Dizzy

That’s It Now From Cleveland: Keep The Faith And Keep Going!

To All State, Regional, Organizational Coordinators and Friends Of The “It’s The Judiciary Committee Stupid!” Campaign:

KEEP TRACK HERE 227,117 And Counting!

Please Operate From This Page Link And Follow To The Other Linked Pages As Necessary. Again I emphasize; use the tools you are most comfortable with., but emphasize that during critical personal appearances campaign audiences of Committee members, Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer and Chairman Conyers be filled with our people delivering the message that: (1) if they do not move; they will be opposed, (2) Impeachment comes before Party, and (3) Our Presidential Candidates are on their own…support us; we support you; don’t and we oppose and defeat you! You are no good to us the way you acting, and you are no good for this nation the way you are performing!

Additional Linkage, Tools, Updates And News!

Reposted for those who have expressed the desire to build their own personal desktop tool kit. is a site that allows one person to target an entire congressional committee over the phone.

The web application utilizes the open source Asterisk PBX system to connect you to every senator or house member on a particular committee.

No more digging around the 'net entering zip-codes to retrieve phone numbers of representatives -- automates the tedium of repetitively dialing your favorite politicians.

Select a committee, enter in your phone number and click "Put me in touch with democracy!" and you'll be called by our system and sequentially patched through to the front office of each member on that committee.

You can even rate how each call went -- information that will enable us to rank representatives on how accountable and responsive they are to their constituents. For more information about how Committee Caller works, click here.To begin, follow these steps:

1. Select the committee you wish to target on the left. (Selecting a fictional committee will redirect all calls to Fandango, but will demonstrate the system's functionality.)

2. Enter your phone number below.

3. Press 'Put me in touch with democracy!'

4. Wait for Committee Caller's automated voice application to call you.

5. Pick up the phone and stay on the line while Committee Caller starts connecting you to the members on the committee you selected.

Once connected Committee Caller will tell you which representive your calling, who their legislative director or chief of staff is, and what district they represent.

At any point you can use the * to hang up the call and move on to the next one. After each call you will have the opportunity to rate how your call went.


Wexler has the support of two Judiciary Committee Democrats, Luis Gutierrez (IL-04) and Tammy Baldwin (WI-02). Four others are co-sponsors of H.Res. 333/H.Res. 799, Rep. Kucinich's Articles of Impeachment for Vice President Cheney: Steve Cohen (TN-09), Keith Ellison (MN-05), Hank Johnson (GA-04), and Maxine Waters (CA-35).

But that leaves 14 Judiciary Committee Democrats who have NOT called for impeachment hearings. These 7 voted to send Kucinich's bill to Judiciary on 11/6, so they should publicly support Wexler's efforts: John Conyers (MI-14), Sheila Jackson Lee (TX-18), Bobby Scott (VA-03), Brad Sherman (CA-27), Betty Sutton (OH-13), Mel Watt (NC-12), and Anthony Weiner (NY-09).

These 7 voted to kill Kucinich's bill on 11/6, so they need to CHANGE their positions and fulfill their oath of office to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign AND domestic: Howard Berman (CA-28), Artur Davis (AL-07), William Delahunt (MA-10), Zoe Lofgren (CA-16), Jerrold Nadler (NY-08), Linda Sanchez (CA-39), and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-20).


Please email all House Judiciary Democrats through this petition:

If you are represented by any of the 14 Democrats listed above, please join your local Congressional District Impeachment Committee (CDIC) and plan local actions like letters to the editor, district office visits, bird dogging, honkathons, and collecting petitions and personal letters on the streets:

If you don't see a CDIC, and you want to go this route please create one:


No comments: