Jack & Jill Politics

rikyrah: Sharing. On THIS day, "sith" made a strong defense for Mr. Obama on Meet The Press [July 13, 2008]. http://haroldfordjr2006.blogspot.com.
Don't shoot the messenger. :>) :>)

Barack made the following comments at La Raza:

"But I know how hard you’re working. I know the difference you’re making in our communities. And I’m here today to make you this promise: I will be a President who stands with you, and fights for you, and walks with you every step of the way."


I wish he had the same praise for us.

Hear, hear.

Maybe Jesse Has a Point

http://www.progressive.org/mag/wx071208

He does. This woman's comment I thought particularly cogent:

I live on an Indian Reservation so I have some experience with the "targeting" of communities based on racial stereotypes. Would Obama dare feel free to lecture Native Americans about absentee fathers or garbage?... Or give the same speeches in Appalachia? My point is that these are NOT issues based on the color of one's skin, but rather on socio-economic circumstances.

That is why Jesse Jackson is RIGHT and Obama is WRONG. Jackson recognizes the plight of all poor communities. Notably two decades ago Jackson campaigned extensively in West Virginia during the 1988 Presidential primaries, so he saw firsthand how poor white people live. Whereas, Obama deigned to visit West Virginia only once and momentarily. That exemplifies the difference between Jackson and Obama. Jackson is a proven humanist, but Obama is becoming known as an opportunist. Obama uses the black community for his own political purposes, and that includes pandering to white voters by lecturing to blacks about their shortcomings... all for media consumption.

Racism/Sexism Alert: Look at this new cover of the New Yorker. I don't even know where to begin.

Wow.... I don't even know where to begin. Um, I guess I get it, they are mocking the whole "terrorist fist jab" ridiculousness, but the artist is emphasizing all the stereotypical physical traits of black women as well. I'm not sure how to take it. Well.... okay it's bullshi........

You can find it here: http://bp0.blogger.com/_1xQeOPE9ePU/SHp2Ki8qjiI...

Wow....umm....damn....this is supposed to be satire

The Obama campaign has responded to this cover. "Tasteless and offensive".

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/07...

Lord knows I try to laugh some of this stuff off. But, it gets harder by the minute. The cover has a "where's Waldo" kinda thing happening. One glance you see Michelle's afro, next...Barack wearing Muslim attire, next the flag burning in the fireplace...Osama on the wall...oh and Michelle in militant gear.

I'm trying really hard to find the humor folks...but as a person of color..this shit ain't funny.

Exactly. I don't care if you are being "ironic", it's just not okay to perpetuate stereotypes. How many people's negative image of the Obamas will that image reinforce?

UPDATE -- Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton says: “The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree."

UPDATE to the UPDATE -- McCain spokesman Tucker "Outward" Bounds quickly e-mailed: "We completely agree with the Obama campaign, it’s tasteless and offensive.”

::

Kudos to both campaigns. (I can give credit where it is due, even to McCain's people.)

Ryan Lizza tends to write balanced articles. But I'm not feeling this one as balanced.

With that cover, clearly The New Yorker is peddling a different agenda for the general election.

For the record, it actually IS satire. But it doesn't read as satire and that's the problem.

This is slick propaganda peddling and fear mongering, not to mention all the isms.

Tasteless and offensive, indeed.

For the record, it actually IS satire. But it doesn't read as satire and that's the problem.

I agree so so hard with it doesn't read as satire.

I love satire. Love it heart and soul. Have actually done some myself.

And real satire by others keeps me sane some days when nothing else works.

THIS, as Craig points out, is not actually functioning as satire. It isn't funny. It isn't clever or interesting or intelligent or insightful. Unoriginal and entirely useless on that level. Satire is an art that requires actual intelligence and work and deep analysis under the surface that shows in what is visible. Satire offers something good and useful.

This on the other hand is someone picking up others' stinking trash, slapping it into an image, claiming credit for doing something while not doing any real work at all, and naming it as something it isn't. Satire my ass. This is garbage.

This image has blown a circuit for me. I can't quite feel this yet. When my weird psychic novocaine wears off this shit is going to HURT.

Michelle you said it actually "IS" satire and then you said it's not it's "garbage". Which is it?

Sorry, Ms. Martin, I was quoting Craig and it got confused.

What I thought Craig was saying was that it was not consciously and intentionally a right wing hit on the Obamas.

But really -- intention is irrelevant to me. Function is what matters.

Also, I realized the more I reflected on it that it feels like a psy ops propaganda hit anyway.

So -- no, not satire IMO. Sorry for the confusion!

Yeah right....and they're laughing their asses off because the damage is done...and they didn't have to lift a finger.

Satire is a joke that fades, something you can't remember in it's entirety when you try to retell the joke a week later, not a picture that details every point of insane hateful spew.

I can't believe this.

Blah blah blah whatever. Who did they think they were supporting? He is not a leftist candidate [say like Bill Bradley] and never has been. It's like when someone expects Obama's stance against Iraq to mean he would not support militarism. He says he's against dumb wars not any war. So one would need to decide what issues are a priority to them in the long run. People need to stop projecting and do some research on the candidates they claim to support. I bet most of them are white 'progressives' - what an oxymoron - who are as equally upset that Obama is not marching to their tune. They can come up with legit concerns or vote McCain either directly or by not voting. Next!

Seen on a tshirt hawked on Los Angeles street corners around the Crenshaw District:

"Black man running and it ain't from the police."

Eh hee.

lol...

love it

I wrote a short story entitled Black Man Running years ago.

I love this particular T-shirt slogan.

Will Bernie Mac be another brotha getting slung under the bus by Obama's campaign handlers?

http://omg.yahoo.com/news/bernie-mac-makes-off-...

Um, why in the hell would they invite Bernie Mac as the entertainment? Haven't they seen his standup or Kings of Comedy?

In any other context, this wouldn't have been a big deal, but you know people are going to try to make something of it.

When they booked him, they knew he was a risque comedian with politically incorrect jokes bound to offend some portion of the audience.

Bernie Mac is not a campaign issue and I see no reason for the brouhaha regarding his comments UNLESS he wasn't funny, and failed to entertain the attendees who ponied up a lot of dough to be in the house.

When you're paying top dollar like they were, you want broiled lobster tails, poached salmon, filet mignon, and exceptional entertainment. Baked chicken and unfunny jokes are disallowed.

If he didn't deliver maximum funny, then yeah, he should have been booed off stage. Otherwise, pfft on more of the media trolls' tabloid journalism.

CPL,

What About Our Daughters had a different take on this.

Why would he do a routine commenting about a wife sleeping with the mailman for $50K? I mean it wasn't even funny. People want the proximity but take no responsibility for their actions. They come into these situations with all their baggage on display and cause unnecessary embarrassment.

Why would he do a routine commenting about a wife sleeping with the mailman for $50K?

::

Because he's:

1) Stupid

2) Intentionally trying to sabotage Barack

3) Looking for attention through controversy

4) All of the above

Craig: I'm going to go with #4! ding! ding! ding!!! I win!!! :>)

What other brothas have been "slung under the bus" by Barack's campaign?

"We can't afford to be divided by race. We can't afford to be divided by region or by class and we can't afford to be divided by gender, which by the way, that means, Bernie, you've got to clean up your act next time," Obama said. "This is a family affair. By the way, I'm just messing with you, man."

Probably not...Obama usually waits to see how much heat he's getting, and unless Hillary and her feminists complain that Bernie and Obama are sexists, then Bernie is safe.

MAKING IT - How Chicago shaped Obama. NewYorker.

In Class with Hancock: A Black Family Man's View‏
HipHop is the new plantation!

Obama Supporters on the Far Left Cry Foul - a NYT's article.

“I’m disgusted with him,” said Ms. Shade, an artist. “I can’t even listen to him anymore. He had such an opportunity, but all this ‘audacity of hope’ stuff, it’s blah, blah, blah. For all the independents he’s going to gain, he’s going to lose a lot of progressives.”

Yeah, I've been seeing that over on Daily Kos but, again, the use of 'a lot of' is exaggeration. Plus, Obama isn't a leftist and never ran in the primary as one; it is the media that hung the liberal/leftist label on him, just as they did with Billy Jeff Clinton..

Most progressives and Independents are astute enough to understand that the guy is working to win a presidential election; we also understand that he isn't perfect and never said he was. Personally, I've never agreed with all of Barack's policies and I still think his economic policies, particularly regarding his only mention of creating jobs by improving the infrastructure was months ago before he was the clear winner, leaves a lot to be desired.

Barack Obama understands that he can't win the election only with the black vote or the so-called Far Left vote. He understands that he has to appeal to a wide range of people across all ideological spectrums. He's got to receive a number of the so-called Reagan Democrats, the moderate repugs vote, the Independent right and left leaning votes, the liberal/far left vote, as well. When he is president, he will be the president to all of the above and then some.

He's not losing the white progressive base by that much; he may lose some of the die hard white feminists (Clinton supporters), and there are those who voted for him in the primary who weren't going to vote for him in the GE, no matter what, and never really said they would.

Could 2008 Be a McCain Landslide? Kyle-Anne Shiver does a great job in that article She says - "I'm basing my assessment here on 3 factors: Time, the Anti-Obama vote and Obama's own arrogance."

Snippets:
It's only July 13th, folks. There are 113 days remaining until November 4th. In this internet era, when news travels around the globe faster than a speeding bullet, 113 days are long enough for even the most polished, eloquent orator in American history to put both feet in his mouth dozens of times.

Disillusionment among loyal Democrats has already begun and is mounting rapidly.

He's 47 years old, but has spent the bulk of his adult life either coddled in an out-of-touch academia or perennially running for one office after another. He has not even had to stare down or discipline teenage children, for goodness' sake.

Obama does seem to be in a slide...

No, I do not believe that McMumbles has the proverbial snowball's chance of winning the nomination. In fact, Shrub stole the 2000 nomination from Surly, just as he stole the GE from Albert P. Gore, thus eliminating Surly from ever becoming president.

I haven't seen any arrogance or cockiness in Obama; were he fully caucasian rather than half white, he would not be labeled as such.

ITA with ljw: Polls prior to September are worthless; Obama is positioning himself to attract voters from all political ideologies, and he hasn't been officially nominated and won't be until the convention. After the DNC Convention ends, then I'll occasionally peruse the polls, though still with a fairly cynical/skeptical eye.

My research on Obama doesn't allow me to see him as leftist or liberal or even populist (which is why I initially supported Edwards) simply because he opposed the death penalty or because he was a successful community activist to the disenfrancised and the poor. Unlike Billy Jeff Clinton, Obama is a true moderate dem who sometimes leans left and sometimes leans right, depending on the issues. His constitutional law background only enhances his moderate political leanings.

As for this:

Disillusionment among loyal Democrats has already begun and is mounting rapidly.

He's 47 years old, but has spent the bulk of his adult life either coddled in an out-of-touch academia or perennially running for one office after another. He has not even had to stare down or discipline teenage children, for goodness' sake.

I call bullfeathers on each word. The author sounds - and writes - like a right wing nutter/bitter Hilary supporter.

Were I you, I'd flip that script because it is McMorton who is liable to lose by a landslide.

99%Sure: YAAAAAAAAAA! Love your analysis. Learning a lot! Thank you!

The combo of interest
(TV, interent, etc) has led many people to lose sight of several key issues. First, polls prior to September are worthless. Secondly, Obama has begun to position himself from left to center (which has angered many on the left) which has cut into his poll numbers. Thirdly, the Dem and Rep conventions haven't even happened yet. Voters historically begin to develop their opinions after both. Lastly, like any other popular figure Obama eventually would be torn down by the same group
(see above) that finds faults in every public figure (eventually). Regardless of all the political analysis of what is wrong with him recently, the odds are greatly in his favor. Just chill.

I take those polls with a BIG heap of salt. Pretty much like the primaries, a close race equals more media. I find it hard to believe anyone besides those 23% that approve of Bush think McCain is worth voting for.

I am really worried about the Rasmussen Daily Tracking Poll today Obama and McCain are tied at 46% !!

Here is the link:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/...

Rasmussen is a republican poll who always weigh their polls to republicans

Interesting comment.

NEWSWEEK Poll shows Obama with 3-pt lead...Obama led McCain by 15 points in their poll last week. A lot of supporters are moving to the Green Party, where Cynthia McKinney won the nomination yesterday.

For what it's worth, here is a link to a post on politicalcarnival.com that says that huge previous lead was a statistical fluke because they couldn't find enough people to identify themselves as Republicans.

http://thepoliticalcarnival.blogspot.com/2008/0...

I wouldn't say 'a lot of supporters,' rather, I'd say more than a few. Again, in the end, it is the electoral college counts that matter. People should have learned a lesson from the specious popular vote argument that Clinton tried to float, when any politically astute voter knows that it is delegates that decide a candidate, just as it is electoral votes that determine the next president.

I don't pay any attention to polls, especially those run by corporate media trolls, particularly when neither candidate has been officially nominated at their respective conventions.

Good points. Also, you are correct - "more than a few" is closer than "a lot". Still, it seems that he may have peaked too early, and is now dropping in both support and donations. It’s going to be difficult for him to get the early momentum back now, even though it’s still early.

I'm sure that makes you happy Karmi

Are you flirting with humble devout hermit me again?

Hermit: - 1 a: one that retires from society and lives in solitude....

Not enough solitude for my liking.

I don't think u should put much stock in the nat'l polls. I think the state polls are a better way to view the race. Obama is ahead in most of the state polls where he needs to be, and he I'd ahead in some places where he shouldn't be. It just doesn't make sense that he would be ahead in all these states and actually have the race being do tight. So I suggest looking st the state polls. After all, you win by electoral college, not total voted!

Its only July. Those polls are going to go up and down quite a lot.

Yesterday I posted about Miss Black USA...it occurs to me that there is something wrong with black women embracing beauty contests as a way to validate ourselves when the whole thing is based upon reducing women. Pageants and the the recent VHI sexist black women alive reduce to our physical bodies as though that is all we have to offer to the world and I think that is plain wrong.

Sen. McCaskill did a great job on MTP today! She was poised, confident and countered every <strike>lie</strike> point Fiorina made. She has been Obama's best surrogate thus far.

She's fierce.

That's really all there is to say about her.

I wish she wasn't a Senator.

I agree, Sepia. McCaskill is smart, quick and she doesn't suffer fools gladly. I've been impressed every time I've seen her. I don't know if she's the best choice for VP, but I hope she finds a place in his administration whether as VP or something else.

AT WWW.EXAMINER.COM
LOUISVILLE HOME > NEWS

Commentary - Sunday Reflections: Black conservatives and the temptation of Barack Obama

JUL 13, 2008 3:00 AM (8 HRS AGO) BY MICHELLE BERNARD, THE EXAMINER
» 8 hrs ago: Sunday Reflections: Black conservatives and the temptation of Barack Obama «


WASHINGTON (Map, News) - Former President Bill Clinton most famously argued that Barack Obama is the presumptive Democratic nominee for president because he is black. And there are those who think many whites who support Obama do so because of "white guilt" and that blacks who support him, do so, simply because he is black.

But if being black is the only qualification necessary for becoming the presumptive presidential nominee of any political party, then Shirley Chisholm, Jesse Jackson, Alan Keyes, and Al Sharpton would have all reached the place where Barack Obama finds himself today.
Few American presidents have truly transformed America and its people. The question that the nation now asks is whether a President Barack Obama can be one of the world changers?
This question presents quite a conundrum for black Independents, Republicans, and conservatives, who fear being labeled "Judas" by their friends on the Right.
Rev. Jesse Jackson's crude attack on Obama last week points to the qualities that have caused so many Americans, including many blacks, to place their hope in the Illinois senator.
On Father's Day this year, in a speech delivered before the Apostolic Church of God, Obama spoke poignantly about the importance of fatherhood in the black community, stating that "if we are honest with ourselves, we'll admit that what too many fathers … are is missing – missing from too many lives and too many homes. They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it."
He challenged the black community, to "instill [an] ethic of excellence in our children … [where] we live glory to achievement, self-respect, and hard work." Jackson's whispered reaction showed that not everyone welcomed Obama's message.
An Obama victory in November is not assured. It would require that he transcend his most obvious political constituency, African-Americans, and reach beyond left-wing and liberal Democrats.
And if he does win the election, the challenges of office await. The incoming president must rally a divided nation and discouraged people. Adding to the challenge is nearly 16 years of partisan hostility that makes cooperation in Washington nearly impossible.
Obama's deeds must match his words. His much noted—and criticized, by the Left—move towards the center suggests so. This suggests a willingness to break free of liberal orthodoxy and reach out to Americans who are more conservative, culturally and politically.
Some of the nation's best known black activists only speak to what they perceive the needs of the black community to be, rather than the nation as a whole. Many have sought political power by harping on racial grievances and demanding governmental solutions to all that ails the black community.
The legacy of slavery and the horrors and injustices of racism are real, of course, but do not explain all of the black community's contemporary problems. Contrary to Jackson's assertion, Obama is not "talking down to black people."
There have been many African-American politicians who have breached racial limits with great success: Mayor Tom Bradley of Los Angeles, Sen. Edward Brooke of Massachusetts, Rep. Barbara Jordan of Texas, and Gov. L. Douglas Wilder of Virginia, for instance. But Obama is the first to attract a national following, the likes of which we have never witnessed.
His very success is powerful evidence that the American dream works for blacks as well as whites. If an African-American is elected president, vanquishing the vaunted Clinton machine and the Republican campaign apparatus, is there anything that black Americans cannot achieve?
Moreover, he is directly engaging African-Americans about our responsibilities for ourselves, our families, and our neighbors. Bill Cosby and others have sought to bring a similar message to black America. But Obama, on the cusp of winning the Democratic nomination for president, has special credibility.
In the end, white racism cannot be blamed as the sole cause of all that ails the black community. The causes of these problems are complex, but the failure of individual, family, and community responsibility lies at the heart of them all.
Obama has taken this message directly to African-Americans—offending Jesse Jackson and possibly others, in the process. But this merely highlights how Obama is a different type of politician. Who is the better representative of responsible black manhood? If President Obama continued to promote the same message, he could help transform attitudes within the black community.
It is this mix of symbol and substance that has attracted some right-of-center African-Americans to his cause. Among those who say they are tempted to back Obama are former Secretary of State Colin Powell, former Rep. J.C. Watts, and commentator Armstrong Williams. There is even a smattering of white conservative or Republican Obama supporters, such as Abigail Thernstrom, Doug Kmiec, dean of Pepperdine Law School, Julie Nixon, Susan Eisenhower, and four of President Ford's grandchildren.
As Thernstrom said after hearing Obama's speech on race in March, "I guess I'm not supposed to like Senator Barack Obama's Philadelphia speech — at least if I want to keep my conservative credentials intact. But I did — and join Charles Murray in celebrating its subtlety, seriousness, and patriotism. What other prominent contemporary black politician could or would have given such a speech?"
Obviously, there is no guarantee that a President Obama would live up to his enormous potential. Once elected, he could fall back on the usual liberal policy panaceas. But I suspect he understands that the importance of his candidacy reaches far beyond him, and that the only way to reach his potential is to challenge, not embrace, the status quo.

Michelle D. Bernard is the president and CEO of the Independent Women's Forum and Independent Women's Voice and is an MSNBC political analyst.

Angela1: Thanks for this information.

If our "policy" in the Middle East wasn't bad enough,well the doo-doo really going to hit the fan if saner minds dont prevail.
President George W Bush backs Israeli plan for strike on Iran
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/mid...

Please, the whole Iran attack thing is saber rattling blather; we ain't got enough troops either on the ground or in the air to run two occupations and the Afghanistan War.

Besides, haven't you heard? According to the Washington Post, The Iraqi Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) is dead and stinking.... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...

IMHO, Iraq is dealing with Iran, thus putting the Emperor Dim Son and his war criminals in an untenable position.

"U.S. and Iraqi negotiators have abandoned efforts to conclude a comprehensive agreement governing the long-term status of U.S troops in Iraq before the end of the Bush presidency, according to senior U.S. officials, effectively leaving talks over an extended U.S. military presence there to the next administration.

In place of the formal status-of-forces agreement negotiators had hoped to complete by July 31, the two governments are now working on a "bridge" document, more limited in both time and scope, that would allow basic U.S. military operations to continue beyond the expiration of a U.N. mandate at the end of the year."

The failure of months of negotiations over the more detailed accord -- blamed on both the Iraqi refusal to accept U.S. terms and the complexity of the task -- deals a blow to the Bush administration's plans to leave in place a formal military architecture in Iraq that could last for years.

I know this you know this but the idiots in charge do not.Remember they thought Iraq would have been a cakewalk it wasnt.Even if we didn't attack Iran but the Israelis did in that part of the world it wouldn't matter it would just like if the US pull the trigger.And if Israel attack Iran all hell would break out and our soldiers and our pocketbooks will be the ones who will suffer the most.

Most Americans' and Europeans' pockebooks are already suffering - we're nearing a global depression much greater than that of 1929 because it will be compounded by so many negative economic factors, not the least of which is the lack of credibility of the Federal Reserve, let alone the fact that our dough isn't worth the paper it is priinted on. Both the Royal Bank of Scotland and Barclay's Bank recently warned that globally we're in dire finanncial straits:

From Barclay's:

There is an inflation shock underway. This is going to be very negative for financial assets. We are going into tortoise mood and are retreating into our shell. Investors will do well if they can preserve their wealth.

Royal Bank of Scotland:

On the global economy:
Our macro economic road map is playing out - slow growth for longer, deep into 2009, with the pain spreading globally, gradually. People are beginning to wake up to the view that 2009 growth will be stagnant and weaker than 2008.

The twist however is inflation, and in particular how central bankers deal with this stubborn problem. The worry is that the ECB raises [interests] rates even as growth falters, leading to bigger cuts in 2009.

In the US, policy paralysis is possible, whatever the Fed jaw-boning. And in Asia, uncertainty reigns. All in all, a poor backdrop for risk assets and a sure fire recipe for higher volatility.

Israel isn't about to attack Iran - check out what's going on over there right now. And remember, Lebanon is still unstable, and Turkey is also in an uproar, as is Pakistan. At this time, the terrorists are winning in the Middle East.

No, not even the US war criminals will do anymore than they are already doing which is to talk a bunch of junk, most probably because they know that Iran is making deals right and left with the Iraqi government, and there' s absolutely nothing they can do about it. Except talk.

Rikyrah: Your pics - "PRICELESS"! Thanks again.

That's it--I think Clarie McCaskill is the best person for the job. She's from a swing state. She has experience on budget matters (was the Treasurer of Missouri before getting elected to the Senate), and has the most talent of any of the VP picks. Barack's inept staff will tell him that she doesn't have enough experience. People don't want the same old Washington losers in office. The point this year is they want change. They should get change in the VP selection.

By the way, that stupid Bradenburg Gate idea MUST NOT HAPPEN. I cannot say that enough. Speaking to large crowds of Europeans will be a UNMITIGATED DISASTER.

By the way, that stupid Bradenburg Gate idea MUST NOT HAPPEN. I cannot say that enough. Speaking to large crowds of Europeans will be a UNMITIGATED DISASTER.

::

We heard you the first 10 times.

Perhaps Barack heard you as well. You write about his response yet?

I'm going to say it until the event doesn't happen. I want Obama to win. The way the campaign handled the Bradenburg Gate crap is cause for concern for anybody who isn't an unquestioning lemming of Chicago. The campaign's press shop is abominable....

It doesn't look like he will be speaking at the Bradenburg Gate.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/13...

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Did you read his response yet? Did you write about it?

I like McCaskill I think she is smart , well liked and knows what the priorities should be that is why she should remain in the Senate.I think that bushies will do something really stupid like starting a war with Iran in the coming months and we will need a V.P with a strong national security background to ease the minds of middle america.So I think he should ask General Anthony Zinni

General Anthony Zinni, USMC (Ret), is a Member of the Board of Regents of the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies. "General Zinni currently holds positions on several boards of directors of major U.S. companies. In addition he has held academic positions that include the Stanley Chair in Ethics at the Virginia Military Institute, the Nimitz Chair at the University of California-Berkeley, the Hofheimer Chair at the Joint Forces Staff College, and the Harriman Professor of Government appointment and membership on the board of the Reves Center for International Studies at the College of William and Mary. He has worked with the University of California's Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation and the Henry Dunant Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue in Geneva. He is also a Distinguished Advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations." [1]

"Out of uniform, Zinni was a troubleshooter for the U.S. government in Africa, Asia and Europe and served as special envoy to the Middle East under the Bush administration for a time before his reservations over the Iraq war and its aftermath caused him to resign and oppose it." [2]




[edit]War in Iraq
"It might be interesting to wonder why all the generals see it the same way, and all those that never fired a shot in anger and really hell-bent to go to war see it a different way. That's usually the way it is in history." --Zinni at Florida Economic Club, August 23, 2002.
See:

Operation Iraqi Freedom: Military and Political Dissent
Related External Links below.
[edit]May 2004
Zinni gave a speech — "Eye on Iraq" — at the Center for Defense Information Board of Directors Dinner on May 12, 2004.

On the May 23, 2004, edition of 60 Minutes, Zinni interviewed with Steve Kroft. The promotion headline for the show reads "'They've Screwed Up'." Zinni accuses "top Pentagon officials of 'dereliction of duty'" and says that "staying the course in Iraq isn't a reasonable option." Zinni states that "'The course is headed over Niagara Falls [and he thinks that] it's time to change course a little bit or at least hold somebody responsible for putting you on this course'."

According to CBS News, Zinni says that the "current situation in Iraq was destined to happen ... because planning for the war and its aftermath has been flawed all along."

"'There has been poor strategic thinking in this...poor operational planning and execution on the ground,' says Zinni, who served as commander-in-chief of the U.S. Central Command from 1997 to 2000.

"Zinni blames the poor planning on the civilian policymakers in the administration, known as neo-conservatives, who saw the invasion as a way to stabilize the region and support Israel. He believes these people, who include Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, the undersecretary of defense, have hijacked U.S. foreign policy."

"'They promoted it and pushed [the war]... even to the point of creating their own intelligence to match their needs. Then they should bear the responsibility,' Zinni tells Kroft."

"Zinni explains to Kroft, 'I think there was dereliction in insufficient forces being put on the ground and [in not] fully understanding the military dimensions of the plan.'"

Zinni "still believes the situation is salvageable if the United States can communicate more effectively with the Iraqi people and demonstrate a better image to them. ... The enlistment of the UN and other countries to participate in the mission is also crucial, he says. Without these things, says Zinni, 'We are going to be looking for quick exits. I don't believe we're there now, and I wouldn't want to see us fail here.'"

[edit]September 2003
Zinni, "a retired Marine general who was Bush's Middle East mediator, angered the White House when he told a foreign policy forum in October [2003] that Bush had far more pressing foreign policy priorities than Iraq and suggested there could be a prolonged, difficult aftermath to a war. He was not reappointed as Mideast envoy." [3]

[edit]October 2002
"Now comes retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, former head of Central Command for U.S. forces in the Middle East, who has worked recently as the State Department's envoy to the region with a mission to encourage talks between Palestinians and Israelis. Zinni, a Purple Heart recipient who served in Vietnam and helped command forces in the Gulf War and in Somalia, spoke last Thursday in Washington at the Middle East Institute's annual conference and laid out his own reservations about a potential war with Iraq.
...
In a keynote address striking for its critical assessment of the Bush administration, Zinni stressed the need to get the Israeli-Palestinian peace process back on track, build a broad coalition against Iraq, create trust among allies in the region -- and put Saddam Hussein's threat in perspective.
...
He also took issue with hawks in and around the administration who downplay the importance of Arab sentiment in the region. 'I'm not sure which planet they live on,' Zinni said, 'because it isn't the one that I travel.' And he challenged their suggestion that installing a new Iraqi government will not be especially difficult. 'God help us,' he said, 'if we think this transition will occur easily.'" --Salon, October 17, 2002.

I'm totally against a military VP. But that's me.

TBHP: Co-signing! I just wrote a comment to barackobama.com to "tell him"[sure he will personally read it :>)] so. It will be as well received as bush's Israel trip where he dogged out Mr. Obama. Hope he doesn't go!!

Fascinating account of Barack's life as a politician in Chicago at the new yorker
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/0...

Some quotes from it: Ivory Mitchell, the ward chairman in Obama’s neighborhood, says of Obama that “he was typical of what most aspiring politicians are: self-centered—that ‘I can do anything and I’m willing to do it overnight.’”

Many people who knew Obama then remember him for his cockiness.

Privately, however, he unleashed his operators. With the help of the Dobrys, he was able to remove not just Palmer’s name from the ballot but the name of every other opponent as well.

Obama and Rezko’s friendship grew stronger. They dined together regularly and even, on at least one occasion, retreated to Rezko’s vacation home, in Lake Geneva, Wisconsin.

According to her friends, Harwell was furious that the campaign made her Obama’s scapegoat. “She got, as the saying goes, run over by a bus,” Lois Friedberg-Dobry said.

Not a very flattering article...

Meh. Opinions are like anuses and rectums - everyone has one; one journalist's "cockiness" is another's "confidence." Does that piece also say that Palmer is now an 'adviser' to the Obama presidential campaign? I think it does.

I'm working on a blog post that will hopefully be up in the next couple of days, which dissects Obama's "ruthless" political ambitions, and his swift climb to the political heap in less than two decades. Most politicians with Obama's high aspirations (and make no mistake, he's had aspirations of being president since HS) take a lifetime to achieve what he has in little more than a decade and half.

Both the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times ran the same story, and were identical in their telling of it:

The day after New Year's 1996, operatives for Barack Obama filed into a barren hearing room of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners.

There they began the tedious process of challenging hundreds of signatures on the nominating petitions of state Sen. Alice Palmer, the longtime progressive activist from the city's South Side. And they kept challenging petitions until every one of Obama's four Democratic primary rivals was forced off the ballot.

Anyone running for president who intends to win doesn't play political softball and is ruthless. Politics is, after all, a very dirty business. Anyone who thinks Obama isn't cutthroat and doesn't sometime operate with a rusty hacksaw is extremely naive. He's an authentic, pragmatic, calculating political gamesman who slices and dices by the rules and eliminates political opponent's by using the rules of the game against them.

.Black community denied water for decades, jury says
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/11/civil.rights.w...

Frank Rich column in the New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/opinion/13ric...

Arizona Law Professor: McCain Not Eligible To Be President
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/us/politics/1...

Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt welcome twins (BOY & GiRL)

Knox Leon Jolie-Pitt and Vivienne Marcheline

Congrats to the family!

http://omg.yahoo.com/news/doctor-angelina-jolie...

now, is this true, cause I was fooled a couple of weeks ago into believing that she had twins.

Yes, last night it was reported as a rumor but all the major media sites are reporting such, I even checked the French paper in Nice, France.

A source I use, http://www.celebrity-babies.com/ is also reporting such.

Media Alert: Venus Williams on Larry King Live on WEDNESDAY'S SHOW

According to the latest Jet, neither she nor Serena vote or are in anyway politically involved because they are Jehovah's Witnesses.

Interesting ...

Someone else posted this earlier, but I had failed to click on that link.. If this is true, I might be able to enjoy this:

TV ONE TO COVER OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION: Nightly recaps to feature Michael Eric Dyson, Jacque Reid and Sheryl Underwood.

http://www.eurweb.com/story/eur45096.cfm

MLK,JR. SIBLINGS AT WAR: Bernice & MLK III file suit against Dexter.

http://www.eurweb.com/story/eur45206.cfm

..Too many lawyers.

Power tripping again. Bernice and MLK are part of the Reichschwing; now that Yolanda is dead, Dexter is all alone against these alligators who want power over the King Center as well as SCLC.

I think that is so sad.

From the ' He's So Trifling' files:

MORE INFIDELITY TALK SURROUNDS KILPATRICK: Wayne County Prosecutor says Detroit mayor cheated with multiple women.

http://www.eurweb.com/story/eur45182.cfm

TIGER WOODS TO BECOME FIRST BILLIONAIRE ATHLETE:

http://www.eurweb.com/story/eur45169.cfm

SPIKE LEE WEIGHS IN ON JACKSON'S OBAMA COMMENT:

http://www.eurweb.com/story/eur45167.cfm