Attacking Iran would be the biggest, costliest and stupidest blunder -- more so than Iraq which is already considered to be in US history.

While the younger Iranians are pro-Western they will line up behind their government in support. It will also further isolate them. They do not want the US to attack, saying it would set their small amount of progress back decades.

Furthermore Iran has been co-operating with the IAEA and El-Baradei, who says Iran does not have any nuclear programmes. Iran opened up its doors to the IAEA -- they found nothing.

The weapons confiscated the other day, before checking, Bush and others told the press had been manufactured in Iran. Well as it turned out not one weapon had been made in Iran. Nothing like standing there with egg on your face.

The nuclear fall-out from bombing Iran's plants would kill millions of people including some of our US soldiers in Iraq not to mention neighbouring states. This is a very dangerous plan and it will backfire. We could expect something much worse than 911 by-ten. The world outcry and backlash will be ... well, nothing good can come from this.

Ahmadinejad is only a figure head who shoots off his mouth (like Bush) without thinking.

Most are not aware that Iran used back channels via Switzerland to talk with the Bush administration before the US attacked Iraq or shortly thereafter, conceding to all of Bush's demands; Cheney said no talks! There is no doubt Cheney wants war!

Some of the recent events in Iran raised ire of the Bush administration. Recently Iran switched from the petro dollar to euros. Iran is a member of OPEC which the US has no power or control over. Draw what you want from that, but combined with the upcoming elections Bush & Cheney believe that will ensure a McCain-republican win! And this is about regime change. Bush has said as much or rather verbatim a year or more ago. His oil buddies would be ever so grateful. China and Russia not so much and could Yes possibly even start the cold war -- more likely WW3. A pipeline from Iran to India also presents a problem for US oil companies. There are a myriad of things which the Bush administration do not want to occur. None of which is a threat to us or Israel except who controls the oil!

Kissinger said those who control the oil, controls the world!

Israel has always wanted to castrate Iran. Now Iran's growing power and influence in the region gives Israel incentive ... a chance to show off its military prowess -- maybe even use some of its nuclear weapons. Israel has an arsenal of 200 - 400 nukes. It is okay if Israel has nuclear bombs, but Iran cannot nor can they build nuclear power for domestic purposes. Oddly ironic it was the US that sold Iran the idea and equipment years ago and promised to help build the plants.

Don't think for a minute Iran will sit there and allow the US and/or Israel to attack without consequence ... Iran will attack back. The Iranian army is not Saddam's army; it is modern and powerful. So is Iran.

Moreover Iran has not attacked another country in two centuries and more. Israelis are not thinking straight. They are getting hyped by the fear mongering Bush is wont to do. Iran would never attack Israel because in doing so it would be completely obliterated. Iranians are not stupid nor cavalier about committing instant suicide.

Last but not least, the one good piece of news is Conyers letter to Bush this week threatening impeachment if Bush dare attack Iran or any country without Congressional approval.

Posted at May 15, 2008 1:22 AM in response to Iran: What's the Game?

Otto F

I took the liberty to respond to some of your comments ...

*** "Jeremiah Wright's emergence in March raised doubts among white voters about Obama's racial attitudes and judgment. "

Not necessarily -- it did not did raise doubts about his racial attitudes, instead it raised doubts (for some) about his patriotism ... and because he does not wear a stupid flag lapel pin. The pundits tied the two together and played endless loops of Rev Wright infamous 3 words. And questions (actually by the media and of course HRC's talking points whisper campaign) about whether he agreed with his pastor's words "the chickens came home to roost" on 911. Well they did come home to roost-- the CIA called it blowback. Every action has a reaction. And what America does overseas has consequences.

*** "His comments about his "typical white person" grandmother did not help either."

His grandmother grew up in a different era. And typical white people do say certain things and hold certain beliefs. This is what Ta-Nehisi Coates is talking about.

Older people tend to have a different attitude toward people of colour -- no matter if Latino, African American, Asian, etc. There was absolutely nothing wrong with Obama's statement; it is true. Granted how it was said ... some took offense, but they misinterpreted it. I say "some" because each person uniquely interprets the world based on his/her perceived reality. Remember reality is always subjective and can become easily distorted by outside influences.

Take for instance the media's influence on people who were

1) forming opinions based on comments taken out of context

2) forming opinions without considering the historical context -- the conventional mind-set at that time was different.

3) Double-standards... Why is Obama being held to higher standards than the other candidates?

If you believe in guilt by association How do you feel about McCain getting endorsements from tele-evangelist Hagee and others who spew hatred against gays, make public anti-Semitic statements, and suggest killing all Islamists? Or is it okay because they are white preachers and Wright is an African American? And there is the matter of Clinton's "secret Bible Group" with allegedly cult-like leaders.

Double-standards are equivalent to bias. Generally speaking, most of us (myself included) often overlook our own biases. It is easier to see it in others. As individuals and as a collective we can overcome our shortcomings thru tolerance and acceptance. Put yourself in another person's shoes -- imagine what it is like to see from his/her point of view. By doing so we become better people and a better society.

Every one of us, at one time or another, have said something before thinking. We say things without realizing our words could be misinterpreted and/or misunderstood. How would you feel if your words were played ad naseum on the airwaves and given a different meaning than what you were trying to convey. Sure Obama could have said some things differently or better, but after all he is human, too.

*** "... he refused to disavow his self-described "important mentor" until eventually forced to do so for political reasons. Obama himself called Wright a legitimate political topic, and white voters should not be judged for having justifiable doubts."

Okay but what else can he do? He denounced Wright's words, rejected his pastor's words, and told us he does not hold the same views. His speech on race was beautiful. What other hoops must he jump thru to satisfy you? Have you even listened to what Wright said -- the entire sermon -- or any of his sermons? Have you done any research on Wright? What he has accomplished during his lifetime? There is a wealth of information on YouTube.

The media's propaganda keeps people from thinking ... for themselves.

Judge Obama on his merits rather than trivial issues blown out of proportion by MSN.

Posted at May 12, 2008 9:16 PM in response to The Myth Of The Black Racist Voter

Louisville

of course there is room ...

This is not only about protecting one of our own -- a femme -- this is about electing a democratic president and saving our Republic, too.

It is about Supreme Court Justices whose ruling favour corporate enterprise over the individuals, expanded police powers and a host of others that are harmful to all individuals. For instance worker's rights -- equal pay (for women) was rejected.

McCain has promised to elect strict Constitutionalist Judges. Several of the SCOTUS justices are in their late seventies to mid-eighties. Just one more judge on the SC could make a huge difference regarding: presidential unitary power, civil and human rights, women's rights, and host of other important issues and rights that very well could be lost if McCain (shudder) god forbid wins.

We will not recognize America if McCain, god forbid, wins.

McCain will be just like a 3rd Bush term, only on steroids.

In the long run what we stand to lose with McCain is by far much more important than which candidate is nominated.

For the good of the country I hope you will reconsider. This is about something much larger than ourselves.

Posted at May 12, 2008 12:37 AM in response to Repost: of "a call-to-arms for Michelle" A contribution to women's perspectives

If these are the type of people Hillary attracts it certainly reflects poorly on her.

Posted at May 11, 2008 5:38 PM in response to “Onward To West Virginia” - H=44 - May 6, 2008 - Pt 3

In Indiana and North Carolina Obama got 40% of the white votes -- an improvement from Ohio and Pa. And he is up 10 points with Catholic voters -- 41%. And 68% say Obama shares their values.

Each contest Obama improves his standing with white voters.

In Pennsylvania in less than 3 weeks Obama cut into her 20 plus point lead by over 10 points. He gained among:

HRC's core supporters
60 + years
white men and women
lower income
Protestants

And again today he did it again!

In Indiana and North Carolina Obama got 40% of the white votes -- an improvement from Ohio and Pa. And he is up 10 points with Catholic voters -- 41%. And 68% say Obama shares their values.

Consistently with each new contest Obama improves his standing with voters.

Clinton, in contrast, has not.

That is very cool.

Posted at May 6, 2008 9:06 PM in response to Meanwhile, In Indiana...

3 polls show Clinton in Indiana above 50%:

ARG: 53%

PPP: 51%

SUSA: 54%

But 4 show her below 50%

Composite Pollster: 49.7%

Inside Advantage: 48%

Zogby: 42%

Suffolk: 49%

1 poll shows Obama breaks 50% in North Carolina:...

PPP: 53%

2 poll show 50%

SUSA: 50%

ARG: 50%

3 polls show Obama below 50%

Composite: 49.9%

IA: 48%

Zogby: 48%

So it is anyone's guess for tomorrow....

I think HRC will win Indiana by 5 - 10 points

Obama will win North Carolina by 7 - 11 points

But the delegate count will be close so one victory washes out the other, however, it still puts Obama that much further ahead meaning Hillary cannot catch-up ....

This is about delegates NOT the popular vote which Obama is over 500,000 ahead of HRC; he is ahead in delegates and ahead in most states won ...

Hillary's lead in Super Delegates has narrowed to under 20.

Posted at May 6, 2008 5:39 AM in response to Totality Of Polls Suggest that Indiana And North Carolina Could Be A Wash

I do not believe the following are "liberal" values as much as they are human needs and wants. Our sense of humanity's connectivity is vanishing. Caring about one another are Human values.

So theretofore if the following list contains liberal values and beliefs, humanity is indeed in trouble:

Enforce Social Justice, human and civil rights.

SCOTUS and the lower courts protect individuals.

The President is not a CEO

Absolve unitary presidential powers

Co-equal branches of government

End corporate welfare.

End Government for profit

End the politicization of the courts

End the privatization of the military

End privatizing our infrastructure (especially foreign ownership)

End wars of attrition for regime-change and/or stealing other countries resources

End US occupation in countries that do not want a foreign presence

Stop selling publicly-owned lands to corporations

Stop allowing business mergers to become monopolies

Stop deregulating media ownership

Stop de-forestation

Stop killing human beings for gain

Stop allowing corporations to pollute the soil, rivers and seas with toxic waste and poisons

Government transparency is a must

Government oversight

Hold elected officials accountable

No one is above the law including the President, the VP and cabinet members

Protect small businesses

Promote competition

Promote Fair trade rather than free trade agreements

Enforce strong labour & consumer laws

Enforce federal regulations that protect the vulnerable -- humans, animals, the environment, et al

Enforce laws that put the onus on corporations to clean up their own waste

Fund R&D programmes for technology, science, medicine -- stem cell research

Fund and encourage better education that includes art, literature and sports

Initiate ways to clean the air and water

Invest in re-building America's infrastructure (provides jobs)

Reinstate social safety nets

Use government power for creation not military conquest, death and destruction

Make government work for and protect the people

When America's leaders started to prioritize advancing business interests abroad it became necessary to use the military to protect US businesses. Viola: wars for American imperialism.

Meanwhile as corporate power expands simultaneously the erosion of social justice along with human and civil rights, human dignity exponentially diminishing, the voice of the people is but a whisper. If humans were meant to be enslaved as worker-bees we would not have been given free-will nor intelligence.

Should profit come at the expense of the health and welfare of all living things including Mother Earth and that of future generations? Equally important to consider is that free and open societies are becoming the exception rather than the rule. Diversity, tolerance, acceptance on every level are being replaced with their counter-points. Profit and freedom are not mutually incompatible.

Today every thing is out of whack. The imbalance is causing chaos and insecurity. Things just need to be re-prioritized and re-aligned. Balance is the key.

Government is supposed to ensure our rights are protected, not taken away. Government is supposed to work for the people not enterprise.

But ....

I suppose it really boils down to which you believe:

Does business exist for society?

Or does society exist for business?

If the latter, would it be safe to say government is created to protect and subsidize large enterprise? [Apparently that seems to describe the "republican" (RINO) platform of today].

So where does that leave humanity?

If we truly value humanity shouldn't bettering the human condition be our priority despite the "liberal" label?

This is something all of us must contemplate and decide soon.

I believe all of us share a common goal: bettering the human condition. After all it is about us, we, the people. The manner in which we live, do business, treat one another are not separate, but parts of the sum -- each a reflection of something bigger than ourselves.

Posted at May 6, 2008 3:02 AM in response to What Makes Me a Liberal?

Thank You for sharing your story. I enjoy reading personal stories -- I find them compelling and authentic.

I have never been "actively" involved in politics, in fact I had little interest in doing so. That changed ...not only did I become a delegate for my CD in Dallas, my neighbour and I agreed, if Obama won the nomination, we'd actively work as volunteers to get him elected and shook hands on it.

Personally speaking, (being in HRC's demographic white female, mid-50's), from the very beginning I leaned toward Obama as my first preference. I did research, just for good measure on some of the republican candidates, too, yet the more I read about Obama the better I liked him. I am solidly in his camp.

Hillary was never a choice for me; I never trusted her. I did not know why exactly; it was just a feeling. I could care less about what happened between Bill and Monica. That was personal and should have stayed personal. I have no opinion about Hillary's decision to stay with Bill. But the more I became acquainted with her the less I found to like. I still think she is engaging, intelligent and funny.

Let me make this clear I do not hate Hillary -- I abhor her double standards. Her background is filled with inconsistencies. For instance as a lawyer protecting the interests of Monsanto and sitting on the board of WalMart are part of a culmination of things that form a pattern. The disconnect between what she says and what she does are, a lot of the time, 180 degrees apart.

The nomination was Hillary's to lose. At the start of her campaign she had every advantage going her way: more money (over $200 million dollars), name recognition, DNC support, loyal voters, her husband's record, over 100 super delegates, and inevitability; yet she is still losing by every mathematical equation to a "rookie."

Mathematically HRC cannot catch Obama even if you add in Florida and Michigan. He is ahead in every category: popular vote, delegates, money, and has won almost twice as many states. However Clinton is ahead in Super delegates barely. In December 2008 Hillary led by 106 supers. Since 4 February 2008 Obama has narrowed that lead down to less than twenty. This nomination is about winning the most delegates, but the Clinton camp keeps moving the goal posts. And that is another issue I find distasteful.

Obama supporters are upset with the underhanded rovian tactics, the republican's signature, Clinton uses to attack Obama. Obviously she learned the wrong lessons when she was at the brunt end of the far-right attacks. Going after Obama with a vengeance to destroy him Hillary could very well cost the democrats the WH. Thus she loses, Obama loses, the party loses and the country loses in the short and long run.

If the super delegates give Hillary the nomination they ought to note trivializing the African American voters, the youth voters, new voters, and discounting small states primaries and big state caucuses translates into Hillary winning by losing the general election. We cannot afford -- in every sense of the word -- another 4 years of Bush and Cheney via proxy.

I believe in him. I trust him. Barack Obama "gets" it. I commend those who have chosen to and/or are defecting to Obama.

Posted at May 5, 2008 4:51 AM in response to How Hillary Lost This Black Vote (And Maybe Many Others)

I have always believed that "experience" is a false narrative. If you do not learn from your experiences what does it matter? Someone may have 35 years of "experience" -- as Hillary claims and McCain likewise -- and still not have the good sense to know making different choices produces different outcomes.

Up until it became politically unpopular Hillary cheered on the Iraq war. When asked if she regrets the decision now she answered, I wish I could take my vote back. So does what does that mean? She not only voted to give carte blanche to Bush for Iraq she did likewise when she voted for the Kyl-Lieberman bill regarding Iran, although she claims the latter does not give Bush the same powers. However, it's close. Furthermore following in Bush's footsteps using bellicose language Hillary's recent threats to obliterate Iran, if it attacks Israel, not only has international implications it shows a lack of "experience."

By all indications McCain's "experience" has done little to teach him how to solve problems, either. He proposes recreating the G-8 without China in-addition to replacing the United Nations with a League of Democracies that would exclude Russia, China, Singapore, Jordan, Egypt, Iran, Morocco etc... In a global economy policies of hostility and exclusion are apt to alienate America further and create more problems if not start a cold war. While willing to, albeit falsely, claim he criticized the war's execution in the beginning McCain refuses to admit the Iraq war was a mistake. That is what McCain's "experience" has taught him.

Granted Hillary Clinton and John McCain have more "experience" in years, but their unwillingness to make different decisions or admit to mistakes leave a lot to be desired.

In contrast Obama easily acknowledged his mistake which in and of itself is significant; It shows strength of integrity with a willingness to change the outcome. His pragmatic and sensible approach to solving problematic situations coupled with nuanced, objective thinking and confidence in himself proves experience taught him well. For those reasons I have complete confidence in Barack Obama's leadership abilities.

Notably "years of experience" versus "learned from experience" have starkly different outcomes. I choose the latter.

Posted at May 5, 2008 2:26 AM in response to Obama The Flipflopper

"It is the mark of an educated man to entertain a thought without accepting it."
- Aristotle

Posted at May 4, 2008 3:57 AM in response to Bill Moyers NAILS IT!!! Thank you, Bill!