I just saw this diary on the recommended list on Daily Kos, and after reading it I feel pretty humbled as a would-be blogger / diarist. This is the kind of personal reflection and honest, substantive discussion that is blogging at its best.
Among many highlights is this passage (emphasis mine):
But Hillary is not my first choice. Yes, she is competent and hardworking and tough. What turns me off most about Hillary is that whenever I hear her speak she is almost always speaking about herself, not about her vision for us. I hear her repeat: "I am the most experienced." "I am the most competent." "I have been tested and survived Republican attacks." "I am the one ready to lead from day one." It's a given that all politicians have to have strong egos and are in some fashion ego-driven, but I get the feeling that Hillary's campaign is mostly about her, and not enough about us. That turns me off. I want to know what her vision is for America, other than an America headed by the first woman prsident. What is she passionate about, besides being President? What course will she chart, and how will it be different from what has been done before?
It's looking like McCain't is getting double his pleasure with fucked up endorsements this week, having already been endorsed by Joe "I'm all over the place here" Lieberman. According to the New York Sun,
"Making a rare foray into primary politics, Henry Kissinger, 84, who served as secretary of state under Presidents Ford and Nixon, is saying Senator McCain is the best person to serve as president at a dangerous time for America and the world".
Uh, yeah Henry. We'd like to thank you personally for helping make this world "a dangerous time for America".Why does anyone think that having Henry Kissinger endorse you as a candidate is a good thing? For the love of sanity, this man is a fucking war criminal. Remember Chile? Remember Cambodia? Remember fucking Vietman? I could go on and on.
Well...not yet, but he's laying the groundwork. He was admitted to the hospital last night for flu-like symptoms. Given how well he's been doing in the polls, the questions being raised about his business dealings, security clients, law clients, pedophile friends, indicted buddies, expensing his affair to NY taxpayers, etc. I'm betting that this hospital stay is the first installment of a plan to withdraw from the race for "health reasons." Anyone remember his Senate race with Hillary when he withdrew for health reasons? Or maybe he'd made the calculation that he couldn't win, but he wanted a note from his doctor so he could drop out and save face.
Looks like Ralph Nader thinks John Edwards might be his choice "if he doesn't back off." Chris Matthews has Ralph on his show and it turned out to be a great exchange. Especially interesting are his comments on Obama, saying: "he doesn't have the agenda"
and
"he's a lot smarter than his public statements, which are extremely conciliatory to concentrated power and big business".
Well. Is he the sleeper candidate? Is he? Damn right he is. This is for a few of my fellow Crinchers here who are all up on the J-Eds tip. Well guys, here you go. I'm posting about John Edwards. I must admit though, and I've had this discussion within the circle of Crinch Pin bloggers, that there is something to this John Edwards thing lately. I have been noticing how little attention he has been getting and commenting on how this mudslinging between Obama and Hitlery has really been quietly working to Edwards' advantage. He seems to have taken on a new tone lately: a little more angry, and little more ballsy, and a lot less bullshit. Maybe he has been taken off of the establishment's list of "potential puppets" and is finally fighting back against those on the insider track. We know that at one point John Edwards was a darling for the establishment, being essentially chosen as the VP candidate by the Bilderberg Group at their 2004 meeting. So it's still too early to tell what's really might be going on behind closed doors, but from a glance, it looks like Edwards is NOT being pushed by the machine any longer, and just maybe he's starting to fight back. Hey, he's not known for making great initial decisions (see Iraq War vote) but we can all agree that he has taken a knack for owning up to his mistakes later (see mistaken Iraq War vote admission).
This is great. Presidential Candidate Ron Paul, appearing yesterday on Fox News morning show Fox and Friends, has an interesting take on the recent story revolving around Mike Huckabee's "cross ad". He evens drops one of my favorite quotes by Sinclair Lewis.
"When Fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross".
But, maybe Moneymonk should consider voting Republican, since it seems that Huckabee, Giuliani and Romney all hate puppies, the natural enemy of the cuddly kitten.
And, although it's not an endorsement, Paul Krugman's Op-Ed in today's New York Times is about a close to an endorsement of Edwards as you can get without just coming out and saying it.
Of Obama, Krugman notes that "in an important sense, he has in effect become the anti-change candidate."
Krugman's piece, of course, comes in the wake of a number of articles on the shortcomings of Obama's healthcare plan, as well as his use of republican frames like "The Social Security Crisis." But this column seems to me to also be a response to yesterday's column by Frank Rich, who seesm enamored of Obama's Hope Campaign.
For the record, I do like a lot about Obama, but I prefer Edwards's plan for change to Obama's hope for change.
So, throughout the day today I have been checking in on version 2.0 of the Ron Paul "Money Bomb". It was set for today, December 16th, in remembrance of the Boston Tea Party. As of last night, Paul's Q4 total was at about 11.5 million. When I checked it this morning at around 9:30am CST, the number was already up to 13 million. Mind you, the campaign's stated goal was to raise 12 million by December 31. As of right now, 9:30 pm, its 16.95 million. This is nothing short of astounding, Congressman Paul will have broken his record of 4.3 million back on November 5th by, at the very least, a million dollars. Its already amazing to have one successful fund-raising day, but to have two of these is well...something to really pay attention to. I'm guessing the mainstream media is wringing their hands right now knowing that they cannot deny the "emerging contender" status that they will have to adorn him with. I bet they are regretting pushing the "Mike Huckabee is a real dark horse" project. Here's Paul's website donation counter, its pretty fascinating.
You know, back in the 90s when Bill was pulling his "I didn't inhale" bullshit (and c'mon...we all know it's bullshit), I was pissed he didn't just own up to smoking pot. I said at the time and I say it now: If someone who came of age in the 1960s didn't smoke pot, they're probably a republican and I don't trust them.
But what of Hillary's drug use? Has anyone asked her? It seems a legitimate question now that her campaign has opend up the issue. Has she ever tried cocaine? Has she ever smoked pot? I mean, she was hanging out with Bill, so maybe she just "didn't inhale" all that second hand pot smoke?
But seriously, people, Justice Stevens (who is 87) wrote this in one of his recent Supreme Court opinions:
“. . . The current dominant opinion supporting the war on drugs in general, and our anti-marijuana laws in particular, is reminiscent of the opinion that supported the nationwide ban on alcohol consumption when I was a student. While alcoholic beverages are now regarded as ordinary articles of commerce, their use was then condemned with the same moral fervor that now supports the war on drugs. The ensuing change in public opinion occurred much more slowly than the relatively rapid shift in Americans’ views on the Vietnam War, and progressed on a state-by-state basis over a period of many years. But just as prohibition in the 1920’s and early 1930’s was secretly questioned by thousands of otherwise law-abiding patrons of bootleggers and speakeasies, today the actions of literally millions of otherwise law-abiding users of marijuana, and of the majority of voters in each of the several States that tolerate medicinal uses of the product, lead me to wonder whether the fear of disapproval by those in the majority is silencing opponents of the war on drugs. Surely our national experience with alcohol should make us wary of dampening speech suggesting however inarticulately that it would be better to tax and regulate marijuana than to persevere in a futile effort to ban its use entirely."
And what of Cocaine? Well, there was time in Regan's 80s (back when a tipsy Nancy Regan would speak passionately about the war on drugs, with martini in hand) when cocaine was the drug of choice for those same 60s pot smokers (Bill? Hillary? George W?). It. Was. Everywhere.
If you had the money and were young enough in the 80s, you probably did a little blow. Cocaine was EVERYwhere. I'm glad Obama was honest about his drug use, and I hope honesty on the issue is what wins the day, not below-the-belt holier-than-thou attacks from hypocritical candidates, and not the moralizing judgment of Washington pundits.
And for the record, I don't want to hear a peep of judgment or high-minded fretting from "Cokie" Roberts.
Finally, Watch how Clinton's Rove, sleazebag schlub Mark Penn, ever-so-offhandedly introduces 'cocaine' into a discussion about generic 'drug' use, and watch how Joe Trippi calls him on it. Penn acts surprised (and he's a bad actor), but c'mon people. These are political advisors who scrutinize everything and are aware to a sickening degree of the impact of every word they speak. Penn knew exactly what he was doing, and Trippi called bullshit. Good for Trippi.
UPDATE: Todd Beeton now has a post up on MyDD about this. Check it out. The money quote:
Lenny "Nails" Dykstra was fingered as part of the former Senator George Mitchell's report on steroid use in major league baseball. The report, which has been in progress for 21 months, called out 70 players for drug use and will serve as evidence for Commish Bud Selig that random drug testing is needed in the MLB. Detractors in the sports press and the Player's Association assert that Selig knew of the rampant drug use all along, but was pleased with the home runs, pitching duals, and all-around increased popularity of the game after the devastating player's strike of 1995. They claim Selig turned a blind eye to the problem and is as culpable as the players themselves.
NOW talks to Congressman Ron Paul and his supporters across the country about Paul's extraordinary presidential campaign and the political waves it's causing.
