Let me start out by pointoing to my title "SICK OF IT" and I chose it for a reason: I was sick of women being smeared. I was sick of women having their credit stolen.
Mainly Hillary but I'm getting damn pissed at these little male thieves. C.I. was first out of the gate with the Times of London story I'll link to in a second. Community member Heather went to ____ and left a comment stating, "At The Common Ills, C.I.'s just posted a link to" and providing the link.
Guess what? Heather's comment is gone as Eddie e-mailed me. And the guy in charge of the site, posts on the Times of London story in a post that went up thirty minutes after Heather's comment. Heather was the ninth or ten comment on that thread.
Is it so damn hard to give credit? I mean the guy didn't have to say, "As Heather pointed out, C.I. has linked to a Times of London story . . ." But he didn't have to erase her comment either to wipe his theft tracks clean.
Let me explain: I AM SICK OF IT. Today, that site is linked to in the snapshot. Not anymore. Not at my site. I'll take it out of every snapshot. C.I. is the sweetest in the world and doesn't give a damn about credit. When Jar-Jar Blinks ripped C.I. off -- even copied C.I.'s Iraq snapshot into an e-mail to a media 'watchdog' (not Media Matters) -- Jar-Jar pissed off the community for good. C.I. called out nonesne in April. Jar-Jar showed up in May. Jar-Jar got the credit. It's why no one listens to Flashpoints -- a program that actively sought C.I.'s support. And C.I. gave it to them with no questions asked and no expecations of ever having a shout out back.
But we were listening to that show, community members, and heard Jar-Jar get credit for something C.I. had covered a month before and heard Jar-Jar praised as the only one who'd noticed it besides the media 'watchdog.' Rebecca went ballistic. She called that crap-ass organization out at her site.
They were so embarrassed by what Rebecca wrote that the next day they e-mailed C.I. saying, "We didn't know. We didn't know. Look, here's the e-mail Jar-Jar sent us." And in that e-mail is Jar-Jar telling the story. The story that was told in the snapshot. With the same typos in the snapshot. All Jar-Jar did was copy and paste the snapshot and claim it as his own AND GET CREDIT FOR IT. Word for word, his e-mail was the snapshot.
Now C.I. stayed out of it. That's C.I.'s style. But Jess tried to be a good guy and wrote back to the organization to say C.I.'s not making an issue out of this, you've been noted by C.I. before, you will be again. We're much more concerned about The Nation . . .
That e-mail was then fowared by the organization to The Nation magazine.
A friend at The Nation told C.I. and C.I. didn't believe it. The e-mail was provided to C.I. at which point C.I. knew what little backstabbers the media watchdog was.
As C.I. has repeatedly said, Jess didn't write anything embarrassing about himself or anyone else in it. But just the idea that they were all working on their big July 4th entry, which Jess mentioned, about The Nation and this allegedly 'fair' organization (yeah, that's a hint) would turn around, while begging for C.I.'s forgiveness and forward Jess' e-mail? That was so offensive.
So the guy -- I don't know his name, I know from Ava and C.I.'s talking that he's a Green, he's working for The Nation and he sniffs his own armpits -- shows up to write Third via C.I. Why? Because there was no e-mail address posted at the sites.
But there was. There was a window of a few weeks when everyone flipped templates (in May) that there wasn't. That was a thing about the templates and they didn't even know it hadn't showed up. C.I. always does (on all but the snapshot entries) "The e-mail address for this site is firstname.lastname@example.org." And the media watchdog pointed out that they wanted to write Rebecca but there was no address. Jess replied that it was due to flipping the template, that they didn't know that happened and that Rebecca's e-mail address was . . .
That was May. The end of May I believe. Mid-June, the organization fowards the e-mail to The Nation. The Nation guy e-mails Third via C.I. (because he had the e-mail from Jess) and states he would be e-mailing Third (this is July 2nd or 3rd) but their address isn't posted. It was fixed (for all sites) as soon as the watchdog pointed it out. At least three weeks before The Nation wrote. Why would Sniffs Own Armpit say the e-mail address wasn't displayed? Because he had the e-mail Jess wrote (from the public account of The Common Ills) explaining that must have happened when they flipped templates and that it appeared (Jess had checked before replying) to have happened for all community sites. He said they'd work on it. (They had fixed that night.) But Sniffs Own Armpit assumed it hadn't been fixed. It was fixed weeks before he wrote and he'd know that if he had checked out the site but he just went by the e-mail that was forwarded.
Here are the links to the piece The Nation was trying to get killed:
"Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you must have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis," and "Are You A Writer For The Nation? If so, chances are you have a penis."
Now David Swanson passed on (in September) as well. He wrote Rebecca -- posing like an admirer -- she responded and he forwarded her e-mail to that Hip Hop Rev (that none of us link to and will never link to). Rebecca was really happy because she liked David Swanson's site and it was great that he liked her site. But she goes into her e-mail and she's got an e-mail from that Rev. He wrote her?
No, he was out of the country. He was out of the country and had his e-mail set up to autoreply. Because Rebecca's e-mail was forwarded by Swanson, somehow Swanson and she both got Rev's auto reply.
She immediately wrote him and asked him why he forwarded her e-mail. He lied. He lied and said he didn't. She wrote him again (this were brief, very basic e-mails from her) and asked him why he was lying. He told her she was crazy. She told him he was lying and she knew he forwarded her e-mail. He told her she was emotional.
Rebecca has that e-mail to this day. I've seen it. David Swanson wrote her and for some reason forwarded her e-mail -- without her permission or knowledge -- to the Rev.
Those aren't the only pass ons. But that's why no one is too keen to answer e-mails privately. They know people like David Swanson and The Nation are frauds. That organization owes Jess and apology and they better do it soon because the end of the sites may be coming (November) and when it does, I wouldn't be surprised if C.I. chose to publish the e-mail from that organization, the one where they foward Jar-Jar Blinks e-mails without his permission. C.I. could post it and copy and paste the section of the April snapshot Jar-Jar ripped off and that would be embarrassing for all.
Now C.I. got ripped off again by a male blogger not all that long ago. Tuesday night of the Texas debate (which C.I. didn't watch), Rebecca calls as Ava and C.I. finish speaking and asks, "Was Barack running for the US Senate when he gave his Iraq speech?" No. Rebecca said, "He just said he was." C.I. grabbed the laptop and immediately posted on that. Tuesday night. On Thursday, someone -- who links to The Common Ills in their permalinks -- suddenly finds it. All on his own. Eddie and Martha had a meltdown. The LIAR blew off Martha but did respond to Eddie and tried to act like it was no big deal and he didn't even know this site The Common Ills.
Uh, his site changed their web address a year or so ago and, when they did, they e-mailed C.I. asking that their new address be listed. Not only that, but, again, they were already linking to The Common Ills. And he wanted to play to Eddie like he never even heard of The Common Ills.
It's pretty damn pathetic. In addition, other sites started crediting this male blogger for what he stole from C.I. One site, that Eddie visits, did it and C.I. e-mailed the man who said he didn't realize that someone else had been the one to write about it first. Two days before. He asked how to make it right and Eddie said forget about it that C.I. wouldn't care but that it really pissed him off the way these men saying it's not fair that Hillary's not crediting were turning around and ripping of a woman.
Well that man, the one who wanted to make it right. We're full circle now. That's where Heather posted today. She has a copy of it. Mainly because she didn't believe as easily as Eddie did. Her comments gone and Eddie's posted there asking "Where is Heather's comment?"
Where is it? It had to be vanished. It had to be removed. Because the man couldn't pretend to have discovered the Times of London story all by himself, a half hour later with Heather's comment at the top of the thread saying she'd just seen C.I. link to the story.
I'm SICK OF IT.
I'm SICK OF these men ripping off women.
I know C.I. doesn't give a damn. That's not surprising. If I were C.I., I probably wouldn't care either. If I were C.I., I'd be saying, "I've got a mansion, I'm rich, I've got a ton of awards for my professional offline life, I don't grant interviews with the press, do you really think I give a damn if someone credits me online or not?" That's what I'd say. From Elaine, I know the reality is that C.I. has spent the entire life not seeking attention. Attention's always been there but C.I. always shifted it to someone else and that's because C.I. grew up in a press family and believes (a) the further you are away from appearing in a paper, the better off you are and (b) was raised to believe you do not seek out attention, you be modest. (When C.I. says something to the effect of "I'm no big deal" or gladly admits "I was wrong" that's not false modesty. That's how C.I. was raised.) C.I. grew up wealthy and had it instilled that you do for others.
So that's C.I.'s attitude but it pisses the community off because we don't like it. It's not fair, it's not right. If C.I.'s the one pointing something out or writing about something no one else is, then C.I. gets the credit, not someone ripping C.I. off.
It pisses us off. And I'm not interested in that site anymore because all the guy had to say was, "Heather pointed this out in the comments" -- he didn't even have to credit C.I. He should have but for some reason that site's been really shitty to the community. That site contaced Ruth via the public account of The Common Ills and Ruth was so pleased and wrote back and never heard from them again.
What was that about? Was it another get an e-mail to foward?
If not, are they just so rude that they write someone, praise their writing (specifically Ruth's work covering Diane Rehm and asking if they could highlight it?) (Ruth's response was use whatever you want) and then when Ruth writes you back, you never reply?
I mean maybe they were upset that Ruth's reply was four or five hours after they wrote? We don't send out e-mails. Ron of Why Are We Back In Iraq? long ago warned C.I. -- when The Common Ills was the only site -- that people would try to get an ISP address. Which is why two people in Oregon, four people in Dallas (one of which is Eddie), two people in DC, three in NYC and I don't know how many in San Francisco (one is in Los Angeles or just outside) e-mails out responses.
When I decided to start my own site, I knew C.I. didn't send out replies to anyone but members. That's why C.I. always would say, "Members write the private e-mail accounts." Those go out immediately. (And may be replied to by C.I., Ava, Jess, Dona, Jim, Martha, Shirley or Eli.) If you write the public account and whomever's replying doesn't recognize you as a member, you go into the "Draft" folder and at various times during the day (and at night), e-mails get sent out. C.I. explained the process to me and asked if I wanted to do that with my e-mails and I hadn't thought about it but, yeah, if someone wants my ISP, I don't want them having it without asking.
But anyway, C.I. saw the e-mail (it was probably a Thursday night) and told Ruth during the roundtable (for the gina & krista round-robin) and Ruth got on during the roundtable (online) and replied. She said, "It's in draft." And then talked about how much it surprised her and meant to her that someone liked her work. She was really pleased and happy. And then she never heard from them again. About two weeks ago. She asked me if she sent me the e-mail would I read over it and see if she'd said something insulting accidentally?
I read over it. It was a very nice reply as is to be expected from Ruth. So I'm ticked about the non-reply to Ruth, I'm ticked about deleting Heather's comment so the man could play like he discovered something and I'm ticked that C.I.'s now been twice ripped off by the site.
I'm not interested in highlighting it again. If it's in the snapshot, I'll pull it out.
It's in today's snapshot. I'll leave it in this time. But that's the last time.
I am SICK OF IT.
And remember, I go back to the first weeks of The Common Ills. It was never really a blog, but it did allow comments and I was one of the people leaving comments. I was glad when they were closed because those rude and racist remarks those "Blue Dog Democrats" left to community member Keesha were outrageous.
But my point is, I have seen non-stop rip offs of The Common Ills. I've watched as community members posted to The Majority Report blog about something C.I. had written and heard Sam Seder on air, repeatedly, note the point and either not note that it appeared elsewhere or say "It was on a blog." Rachel got an apology on air from Sam when C.I. was all over Ohio and others were playing dumb (including Raw Story which wrote an insulting reply to Martha when she e-mailed to ask them to cover the Ohio hearings and that's why, even though Ron's there, Raw Story has never been on the links). Rachel took Sam to task for stealing C.I. on air and Sam apologizes on air to Rachel and still doesn't mention The Common Ills.
It happened over and over. It happened on Laura Flanders crappy ass show where Liang would e-mail with all her friends who listened together. Laura would note it on air and 'forget' to note "at The Common Ills." She would say their margarita party sounded like so much fun and blah, blah, blah and never, ever note The Common Ills.
It was very obvious to us that C.I. didn't give a damn. Didn't care that a Laura or Sam ended up with a fiery commentary STOLEN from The Common Ills, sent to them by members of the community, and The Common Ills never got credited.
C.I.'s attitude was, "It's about the point" or the issue and "not about me."
But we saw it, we saw crappy ass Stephanie Miller do the same thing, by the way. NPR's the only one who ever credited C.I. on air.
And though a lot of posers pretend to care about ending the illegal war today, we lived through it. We remember the post-2004 election, we remember MoveOn and the crap ass AlterNet moving on. AlterNet spied on a teenager and got delinked for doing that, by the way. It's why no one links to AlterNet. Some people were pissed about AlterNet delinking from The Common Ills but C.I. would always point out in the news letters, "I made a choice to stand up for a child and I don't care. More importantly, I delinked from them first. They only followed." AlterNet also had a 'blogger' -- no longer there, who ripped off Mike's first post when she decided to become a blogger. It's why Ava and C.I. repeatedly crucify that woman. She ripped Mike off and took his blogging is like having sex in public to make it blogging is like filming a love scene in public. She's a theif and steals all the time. She's also an idiot. And Ava and C.I. never miss the chance to insult that lying piece of shit. If she'd ripped off C.I., nothing would ever be said, but she ripped off Mike and C.I. who doesn't give a damn about being ripped off goes ballistic when someone rips off any of us.
C.I.'s actually gotten more credit in books for online work than online or on air. There's one man we all dislike but no one is ever again go to say a mean word about him because in his book he noted C.I.'s critique of him. He credited The Common Ills, said something like "there's a woman blogger . . ." And he will never have a bad word from any of us. That's true of all the people that have given credit.
And that's because we have seen non-stop rip-offs. As Gina points out, what is Laura's crappy book but a rip-off of the "Red" State entries (five) C.I. did and all the other work on that topic? It is a rip-off and Laura cites all these websites in it but doesn't cite C.I.? Laura knows The Common Ills. She just couldn't mention it.
But that's why C.I. can (and will privately) rip Laura's book apart. Not because Laura stole but because she stole badly and C.I. researched in depth to write those pieces and knows the facts. Laura just stole them.
Amy Goodman decided to plug a website once in one of her e-mails. It's called The Orange Satan by most sites today. C.I. always calls it The Daily Toilet Scrubbers.
But that was offensive. She linked to praise about herself in some post. And the community was outraged -- a number of us, including me, were signed up for those e-mails she sends out. Every day, every story Democracy Now! did was noted. Every story. No one plugged the show more than C.I. and the thanks for that was her applauding and sending her group to The Orange Satan?
C.I. didn't care but we were so outraged as a community, had to comment on it. That comment never appead at The Common Ills. C.I. wrote it at the mirror site and it only went up there. Gareth or Pru saw it (British members prefer the mirror site) and they started e-mailing it out to the rest of us.
But I mean it's just crap. All these people asking for highlights, asking to be noted and they do nothing in return. Week after week, people beg for highlights at the public account of The Common Ills and C.I. gives them. (C.I. forgot one of them today and will include it on Monday.) C.I. never expects -- forget asks, never expects -- anything in return.
And C.I. doesn't care. But the community does and we get outraged. We get outraged and very angry. I don't think giving interviews would have changed C.I. or Ava but I do respect their decision not to and to repeatedly turn down those requests. Jim will tell you he would hit the roof for the entire first year when papers and magazines would ask for interviews and they'd get the standard turn down. (If they were a woman, C.I. and Ava or just C.I. if it was just C.I. they were asking, would reply to explain why there would be no interview and to suggest people who would be better interview subjects.) C.I.'s attitude was, "Let's not cut off the Cokie Roberts only to have a million new Cookies spring up in her place."
And hasn't that happened? Hasn't the blog world turned out to be nothing but a bunch of gasbags trying to get media appearances? C.I. didn't want the attention and would also point to Ellen Goodman's statement of why she stopped doing the TV shows (I didn't know this until C.I. explained it at The Common Ills but good for Ellen Goodman) which was, you're asked on and you're expected to be an expert on everything. You go on to talk about whatever you've written about but you're then expected to be an expert on everything and you can get into that mind-set (the gas bag I know it all mind set). I really don't think that would have happened with Ava or C.I.
But I'm glad we didn't have to see it happen. Jim would say, "Do you know how many people read this magazine! Do you know how many people will see this newspaper article! Do you know how many people watch this program!" And Ava and C.I.'s attitude was always that it was about work and if the work was good people would read. That there was no reason to draw people in.
That has become the attitude of all. A blogger who's not a member of the community but tried to pretend to be one gave an interview and wrote a big kiss-off e-mail to everyone after about how he was going to be big and blah, blah, blah and how he didn't need them anymore. (He was jealous of C.I., Rebecca will tell you all about that.) Then the big interview never ran. He stopped blogging. They removed him from the links. (I started my site after this.)
But that's why C.I. doesn't do evening entries except on Sundays and Thursdays. This guy was griping at C.I. in e-mails and saying that if C.I. didn't do evening entries, he'd be getting attention but C.I. is always posting and blah, blah, whine, whine.
Give C.I. a compliment and it will be immediately blown off and dismissed. Make an accusation and C.I. will take it seriously. Rebecca said C.I. called her immediately and asked, "Is it true, Rebecca? You blog at night. Does it hurt you if I'm posting something?" Rebecca told C.I. that the guy was a jerk and just jealous. But that was it. C.I. stopped posted in the evening except for the Thursday and Sunday entries. C.I. didn't want to do anything that might harm anyone else in the community.
But that's why we are all so protective of C.I. in this community. We know how much C.I. gives and that C.I. could be home and by the pool instead of on the road speaking out against the illegal war. We know that C.I. is ripped off over and over. We know that C.I. stands up for what's right when others don't. The Great Orange Satan didn't stand up for the kid.
The kid is West and he's now a young man. But he was 15 years old at the time. He was going to work with his Dad, it was the summer, bored and got online. He went to AlterNet because it was a bookmark on his dad's computer (his parents supported AlterNet with cash until they spied on West). The idiot Evan and his Peek was boring. I never read it after three times. But he was reading that and using their links which is how he found The Common Ills, The Great Orange Satan and other blogs. So stupid Evan posts this Michelle Malkin's making sense post and Iraq's going to hell bigger than usual that day so West posts a comment pointing that out and links to a thing at The Common Ills on that, a thing at The Great Organge Satan, a thing at Rebecca's blog and a thing at another site which I forget (not a community site).
Evan hits the roof because this kid has called him on praising Michelle Malkin. West wrote, "Step out of the GOP closet." And Evan e-mails him and tells him he's homophobic and using hate speech and he is banned and if he doesn't apologize Even will never link to the four sites that the kid plugged. West immediately writes an e-mail apologizing. That's not good enough for Evan, he wants West to crawl. (And is e-mailing others who post at Peek to get dirt on West -- which we only found out after C.I. delinked and people started passing on Evan's attempts to get dirt on West asking them did they know who he was, did they know anything about him, blah, blah, blah.) His editor (or 'editor') Matt gets in on it and they are threatening West (the gina & krista round-robin would publish all the e-mails exchanged). West is apologizing like crazy and beggin them not to stop covering Orange Satan, The Common Ills and the third site. (They'd never noted Rebecca but he was apologizing there too.) These punks, these grown adults, are writing these nasty e-mails to this kid, just bullying him and when you read it, you can see what a mind f**k they were doing on West. They are SICK.
So West has apologized and apologized. He tries one more time. He writes he is sorry that he liked those sites and he didn't mean to get them banned. And he e-mails it . . . to Evan and Matt and to Rebecca, The Great Orange Satan, C.I. and the fourth site.
Rebecca sees it first, e-mails him back with her phone number (a typical Rebecca move as we all know and she will talk to you as long as you want -- I love that about her) and says, "Call me collect." He does and she's surprised he's so young so the first thing she wants to know is if his parents know. He thinks he did something awful because the two grown men are calling him a homophobe. Rebecca says he didn't and finally convinces him to let her speak to one of his parents. He goes and gets his dad and Rebecca (in the way that only she can) sets him straight in about five minutes about what happened. He hits the roof, rightly. Rebecca says, "I'm not going to mention your son's full name but he posted as West at AlterNet and I'd like to mention him as that. I don't think many will do a damn thing about this but I'm offended and if it's okay with you and with him, I'm writing about this." He was all for it. He couldn't believe that grown men were mind-f**king his son.
So Rebecca says she's going to contact the other two bloggers and explains she actually knows C.I. (they went to college together and are friends for life since then) and C.I.'s speaking but she's sure C.I. will weigh in, she doesn't know about the other two.
She writes the other two. She explains she got the same e-mail they did. She explains she spoke to the guy and he's a kid. She spoke to his father. She explains she's calling it out and asks that they do as well. They never said a damn thing.
They were shaking in their panties about losing a link. She waited and waited for a reply. (One replied the next day whining that he needed the link and couldn't make waves -- I forget which.)
She calls C.I. as soon as C.I.'s done speaking. C.I.'s in a taxi but says AlterNet will be delinked right away and this will be written about.
And that happened. And West, whom no one in the community knew, became a member (he still is, he loves Isaiah's comics) as did his parents. His parents have waited and waited in vain for the two grown men or AlterNet to write and apologize. Especially after the gina & krista round-robin ran the e-mails C.I. was sent after C.I. wrote about West, the ones Evan sent out asking for dirt on West. They've never apologized.
But, thing is, as Rebecca would say, she didn't have a damn thing to lose. They didn't link to her anyway. They never did. But C.I. was linked to on their 'blogroll' and they actually highlighted C.I.'s writing (like the piece on Ann Coulter on the cover of Time where C.I. explains how awful that was from a marketing stand point). (By the way, Rachel Maddow refused to call out that cover story, everyone else did on the 'left' and left. Rachel didn't. As C.I. explained, she's friend with the author, a gay guy who wrote an article drooling over how 'sexy' Ann Coulter was. How deep in the closet can you be? But Rachel was offering excuses for the story. She's a disgusting sell-out and always has been.) So Rebecca has always pointed out that there were three who had something to lose by standing up for West. Only one person did: C.I.
And C.I. did it without blinking, without any persuasion. There's right and there's wrong and C.I.'s never been afraid to make the hard choices.
We respect that. Community wide we know C.I. will not shrink to stand up for us. C.I. likes David Corn personally but when a member was trashed over the phone by Mother Jones, you saw C.I. becoming a mother bear and just let it rip. You can screw over C.I. who cares is the attitude. But you screw over one of us and it will get ugly because C.I. will not allow it.
And that's probably why we are all going to defend C.I. C.I.'s always there for us. And C.I.'s always there.
Seriously, if you're new to the online world, Iraq was dropped following the 2004 election. Iraq was dropped and women were attacked. We don't need abortion, whined the Blogger Boyz. We don't need it and it's dragging the party down! No wonder they all support Obama now. They slimed several women including one of C.I.'s friend (the wife of a film actor) and that was the first time I ever saw C.I. let it rip online. I was reading it (and I already loved the site) but talk about passion. (Rebecca told me after that C.I. knows the couple very well and wasn't going to let either of them be slammed or slimed.)
So it was a very different world after the 2004 election. I believe Amy Goodman was covering the slaughter of Falluja via an 'expert' at Hoover Institute or AEI. That's how bad it was. And women were being attacked left and right and blamed for Kerry's loss.
People who complain about the Blogger Boyz today, really need to go back to those days. One of the bloggers sliming C.I.'s friend (that wife of the actor) the most was also pushing religion and defending (get ready for it) James Dobson. C.I. immediately wrote "Focus on the Fool" (Dobson's right-wing group is Focus on the Family). That little crap ass blogger at Interesting Times then slimed C.I. and said that we needed the right wing to win.
Does it sound familiar?
It should, it's the Obama playbook.
These people are not Democrats. They've never been Democrats. They've always been trying to sell out the party. Kos has attacked women and abortion rights non-stop. The Daily Toilet Scrubber worked for Henry Hyde. He came over to get attention. And you can see the right-wing history in what he does today.
You could see it then. If you paid attention. And for people who ever doubt that, as long as The Common Ills is around (and C.I.'s sick of posting), C.I. will stand up, they need to grasp that in a much worse time, C.I. was ready to take those liars on. And did.
You think the little push-up bra Feministing troll did? Hell no. She didn't write about serious issues then or now. She needed her links. And that's why the non-feminist and non-political Feministing is linked to by all.
If you tell the truth, if you draw a line, they Blogger Boyz hate you. You won't play nice and suck up to them. They know they can't co-opt C.I. (they've tried). They have no use for C.I.
There mistake was thinking that C.I. gave a damn. C.I. built this community. C.I. didn't do it by begging for links. Anyone asked for help, C.I. was happy to help. C.I.'s plugged books, book appearances, upcoming TV and radio programs, you name it. All those people had to do was e-mail the public account and C.I. was happy to help out.
Look at Anthony Arnove. As Jess points out, suddenly that dried up. We all know why it dried up, C.I.'s not taking Amy Goodman's lying by putting on Barack supporters and not identifying them as such. So Anthony thinks he's punishing C.I. by not begging for links anymore.
Oh poor Tony, as Jess said.
C.I.'s plugged readings of A People's History everytime Anthony's asked. Anthony never did a damn thing for The Common Ills -- or for that matter EVER SAID THANK YOU!
And C.I. didn't care. They were having a reading, it appeared in every snapshot. It appeared before the reading started. It appeared every day leading up, it appeared every day going on. Over and over. And Anthony asked for it and got it and never said thank you.
People are ungrateful bastards. They have used C.I. over and over, never given a DAMN back and we're sick of it. Community members are sick of it.
Now C.I. plugs friends who call up and ask. And C.I. calls friends (at networks and papers) to ask, "What do you have on Iraq today? Do you have anything we can link to?" But all these people out of the mainstream? They asked for attention and they got it. And they never gave a damn thing about. And C.I. was (and probably still is) okay with that. But the community's not okay with it.
So when C.I.'s ripped off, we all get mad. We know C.I.'s put in the time. We know C.I.'s done favors for strangers without ever asking or expecting anything in return.
And those people are users. Look at Flashpoints, which read The Common Ills, which asked for attention from The Common Ills, which e-mailed things to The Common Ills, which then turned around and gave Jar-Jar Blinks and a media 'watchdog' credit for something C.I. called out a month before. That's it for us and Flashpoints. C.I. would still highlight them if the community hadn't said "NO!"
So that's where I'm coming from tonight and they can all go screw themselves.
The community online is:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Trina of Trina's Kitchen
C.I. built this community. And there's not a member that doesn't know that and marvel over it especially when the easiest way to build a site (forget a community) is to be a link-whore. To swap links, to sell out. And C.I. never did that.
C.I. believed that if you talked plainly and spoke out about what mattered, people would find you, the ones who wanted to hear. And that's exactly what happened. And what continues to happen.
I'm going to call this "The unauthorized history of The Common Ills." I would add "and the community" but Wally and Cedric link to every post we do (at all sites) and if we do a title that's X long, they can just copy and paste once. They pull it over and paste it. If we go long, they have to copy and paste the title and then go back and add in the link. That's probably confusing if you don't blog (it always confused me before I started this site). But all the sites except The Common Ills allow that. With C.I., it can be any length because they grab the copy and paste title from the mirror site. By staying to a set limit (those of us without mirror sites), Wally and Cedric can just copy and paste the title on the side of our blogs (our recent posts) and paste that in and not have to pull up a link because the title pastes in automatically with the link. If that doesn't make sense (I know I explained it badly), look at my post titles on the right. See
"Blog archive" where it lists my posts for May? That's what Wally and Cedric grab for their "Recommended" from -- where they list all our blog posts. Now go to The Common Ills and you'll see C.I. doesn't have that. Go to C.I.'s mirror site and you'll see that each title posted is a link to the original Common Ills entry. So Wally and Cedric grab from the mirror site to avoid having to copy and paste a title and then insert a link. And because they're grabbing from the mirror site, C.I. can do a longer title. The rest of us try to keep it short. (Wally goes over sometimes but since he and Cedric are the ones doing that kind favor for all of us, Wally can get away with it.)
Here's Howard Wolfson's "HUBdate: Strongest at the Top of the Ticket" (HillaryClinton.com):
Strongest at the Top of the Ticket: Several members of Congress released a letter today to other Democrats touting their support for Hillary, saying she is the strongest candidate to have at the top of the ticket in the fall: "[W]e are convinced that Hillary Clinton has the vision, skills and commitment to make the changes our country needs. As Democrats who have run and won in competitive Congressional districts and battleground states, we believe that Hillary is best positioned to successfully lead the Democratic ticket in districts and states like ours around the country." Read the letter.
Automatic Delegate Watch: Hillary received the endorsement of automatic delegate and Congressman Chris Carney (D-PA). Read more.
Honoring the Votes of Millions of People: In a letter written to Sen. Obama yesterday, Hillary urges him to "honor the votes of the millions of people who went to the polls in Florida and Michigan...One of the foremost principles of our party is that citizens be allowed to vote and that those votes be counted." Read the letter.
Previewing Today: "Hillary Clinton catches up with former Make-A-Wish winner Oregonian, still a big fan, now works for the former first lady's campaign." Read more.
WV Endorsement Watch: "Former West Virginia Governor Hulett Smith announced his endorsement of Hillary ...citing the Senator’s commitment to fiscal responsibility, veterans, and the economy." Read more.
"Hillary Clinton Would be the Stronger Candidate" The Charleston Daily Mail endorsed Hillary yesterday, saying: "She is by far the more experienced of the Democratic candidates, and the one who has had to learn the most about West Virginia." Read more.
West Virginia is a Test: At a rally in Charleston, WV yesterday, Hillary said: "I'm running to be president of all 50 states...I think we ought to keep this going so the people of West Virginia's voices are heard...West Virginia is a test...It's a test for me and a test for Sen. Obama." Read more.
South Dakota "Appearance Thrills Supporters" One South Dakota supporter at Hillary's Sioux Falls rally yesterday said: "'It feels good to be this close to hopefully the next president." Read more.
Support for the Farm Bill: Hillary released the following statement today: "Unfortunately, the Bush Administration is signaling that the President will veto the [farm] bill. Saying no to the farm bill would be saying no to rural America. I call on President Bush to get out of the way. When Congress sends President Bush the farm bill, he needs to sign it so we can start taking care of rural America." Read more.
I never did write about the Barack story! It's in the snapshot. Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Friday, May 9, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the assault on Sadr City continues, Barack loses a campaign staffer who was in talks with an organization the US has labeled a terrorist group (no, not Ayers & Dohrn) and more.
Starting with war resistance. Who is Ehren Watada? The answer is fairly obvious, the first officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq. But facts is hard for little local weeklies. Nina Shapiro (Seattle Weekly) takes time out from attacking Hillary but it's too bad she and her editor couldn't take the time to be factual. "Not Every Deserter Gets the Watada Treatement" is the headline and she matches that choice with her own writing. She writes, "When it comes to the military's handling of deserters, there is little consistency. Some, like outspoken war opponent Lt. Ehren Watada, face courts-marial and potentail jail sentences, while . . ." Where to begin. They do not generally face "courts"-martial. Watada may if double-jeopardy is thrown out. The face "court-martials." The "court" is singular. "Outspoken war opponent"? He can't just be a "war opponent," to Nina, he has to be "outspoken." That's curious considering he's given one interview since the failed Feb. 2007 court-martial. That was over a year ago. And prior to the court-martial, he'd already shut the press down. But there's Nina, trumping up the charges, just like she does with Hillary. Let's go slow for Nina: "Report to the nearest Army post with your Army ID or other picture ID and any documents or records in your possession which pertain to your Army service. On the installation, go to the Military Police station and turn yourself in to the MPs." What's that from? Fort Knox Law Enforcement Command's "US Army Deserter Information Point." Ehren Watada did not desert. He wasn't charged with desertion for that reason. Watada did not desert. It's a shame that Nina has to (again) put her name to lies because 'facts is hard.' But she's not interested in war resistance, she's interested in pushing lies. There's no war resistance in the story (which isn't about Watada, she just wanted to slime him and see if she get away with acting stupid in public). When trash likes this gets shoved off on the public, everyone loses. The serial liar was pushing conflict between today's veterans and earlier ones. That was a laughable article ("Camaraderie is in short supply"). So is this one. Is no one capable of a basic fact check at Seattle Weekly or do they just not care?
In Canada, war resisters are hoping the Parliament will take action on a motion waiting to be debated. Currently, you can utilize the following e-mails to show your support: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (email@example.com -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. In addition Jack Layton, NDP leader, has a contact form and they would like to hear from people as well. A few more addresses can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).
Turning to Iraq and starting with the press. In February of this year, (PDF format warning) Reporters Without Borders released "Freedom Of The Press Worldwide in 2008." which noted 57 journalists killed in 2007. If you're in Iraq and trying to report, just FYI, you're a journalist. You're not "a media worker" (RWB uses that phrase). "More than half the recorded physical attacks on the media were in Baghdad despite the huge presence there of Iraqi forces and US troops. . . . On top of the violence, Iraqi journalists face new restrictions imposed by the authorities, including a ban in May 2007 on filming the sites of bomb attacks and another in November on going to the Kandil mounatins, near the Iraqi-Turkish border, to talk to Kurdish PKK rebels." Earlier this week, The Committee to Protect Journalists posed Joel Campangna's report on the Kurdish region of Iraq which included the story of Nasseh Abdel Raheem Rashid whose reporting "railed against the political in Iraqi Kurdistan and the actions of uncscrupulous political officials." Campangna continues:As he strolled through the central market on his hometown of Halabja in eastern Iraqi Kurdistan last October, four armed men wearing military uniforms forced him into a waiting Nissan pickup, bound his hands and legs, and covered his head with a sack. "I didn't know where I was going. They drove around for a few hours and then went over what seemed like an unpaved road," Rashid told the Committee to Protect Journalists during an interview in Sulaymania shortly after the incident. Rashid said he was pulled from the truck, punched and kicked, and threatened at gunpoint to stop working or be killed. The assailants sped off, leaving Rashid bruised and shaken.
That is only one story in Campagna's report. Click here for audio of him talking about report.
177 is the number of journalists who have been killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war. CPJ divides up "media support workers" and "journalists" as well, we don't. Support workers in a war zone are doing a number of jobs they are journalists and, if they are targeted for who they are working for, the "I am just a media support worker!" is not a magic shield that protects them. On a related note, we have consistently avoided highlighting the work of US reporters who 'report' on Iraq from the US but attach themselves to the work done by local population. That's led to a number of mainstream stories being 'missed' but it's not missed because there is something pathetic and dishonest about it. Mentioning it today because among the links pulled from this site (The Common Ills) was a 'news' site where, article after article, an American journalist in the US feels the needs to attach his name to a reporter in Iraq's writing. When said journalist was supposed to go back to Iraq (he lost focus and ended up in Lebanon in the summer of 2006 instead), the Iraqi journalist was more than able to write his own reports for the web outlet. He had no problems with English (though if he had, no one would have been concerned because his voice is of value). He did a great job. But "I WANT ATTENTION!" can't make it back to Iraq and feels the need to put his name to first hand reports from Iraq. We're not highlighting that crap. It's insulting and offensive. And, hate to break it to the 'left,' it's the height of colonialism. So bye-bye. The community won't miss you. It is grossly offensive for an American in the US to feel the need to add his name to these first-hand reports of an Iraqi journalist in Iraq risking his life. We won't applaud that crap and shame on anyone who does. It has gone on now for over a year and it is offensive and people in the press are starting to talk about it. We draw a line. We also draw a line with 'respectable' source Pig -- twice busted for sexual predator activities online. Matthew Rothschild interviews Pig this week. Didn't listen, didn't need to. He's been delinked. The Progressive will be delinked from all sites. The Real Press kicked Pig to the curb because of his arrests. Panhandle Media wants to pretend like he's a 'respectable' source. He's not. If a young girl is raped or assaulted by Pig, it's on Panhandle Media's hands because they can't stop promoting him.
Back to the threats journalists in Iraq operate under. Selcan Hacaoglu (AP) reports that the BBC's Baghdad bureau was "damaged" by a rocket attack on the Green Zone and quotes Patrick Howse explaining, "It caused structural damage but no one was injured." Deborah Haynes (Times of London) notes, "It was one of a number of rockets fired towards the heavily fortified Green Zone by Shit insurgents taking advantage of a sudden sandstorm, which gave them cover from counter-attack by US aircraft." Meanwhile a McClatchy Newspapers Iraqi journalist blogs at Inside Iraq that "6 days after the occasion of World Press Freedom, Iraqi media witnessed a new violation against freedom of speech. Yesterday Iraqi forces closed Al Ahad Radio Station an excuse of adopting provocative political speech. I have many friends who listen to this radio as I do; I asked my friends if they notice any instagative tones in the programs or newscast of this radio . . . the answers were negative -- as always." Nouri al-Maliki, puppet of the occupation, made it clear in the summer of 2006 that he had no respect for a free press and he's only continued that pattern.
Somethings get little or no coverage, somethings get massive coverage. Like yesterday's big news (which was rightly ignored in yesterday's snapshot) that THE leader of al Qaeda in Iraq leader was captured! In today's paper (so filed hours and hours before sunrise), Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) noted the capture with qualifiers and, as a result, has no egg on her face -- unlike all of those 'reporting' it had happened! It never happened. Damien McElroy (Telegraph of London) traces back over the lie and US Maj (press flack division) Peggy Kageleiry stating, "This guy has a similar name." BBC leads with: "The United States military in Iraq says a man detained in the northern city of Mosul is not in fact the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq." As Tina Susman notes (LA Times' blog Babylon & Beyond), "For a few hours late Thursday and early today, it seemed the Al Qaeda in Iraq chief might actually be in custody." Yesterday afternoon, Tina Susman noted that the US military backed off from their usual declarations of charges against Iran and she writes:
A plan to show some alleged Iranian-supplied explosives to journalists last week in Karbala and then destroy them was canceled after the United States realized none of them was from Iran. . . . Iran, meanwhile, continues to seethe after an Iraqi delegation went to Tehran last week to confront it with the accusations. It has denied the accusations, and it says as long as U.S. forces continue to take part in military action in Iraq's Shiite strongholds, it won't consider holding further talks with Washington on how to stabilize Iraq."
In Iraq the assault on Sadr City continues. Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports, "Casualties in Sadr city for the last 24 hours stand at 14 men and 1 woman killed and 112 wounded many of whom are women, children and elderly people according to medical sources inside Sadr city." Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) notes the Thursday order by the Iraqi military for "residents to evacuate" and that "Sadr City has been a battleground since late March, enduring U.S. airstrikes, militia snipers and gunbattles between U.S. and Iraqi forces and the Mahdi Army, the militia loyal to Sadr. Already some 8,500 people have been displaced from the sprawling slums of some 2.5 million people, according to the Iraqi Red Crescent." Said Rifai (LA Times' Baghdad & Beyond) reports that one of the stadiums set up for Sadr City refugees (Shaab Stadium) is currently empty, that 25 tents are empty and other tents are nearby unassembled and: "Only Sadr City residents are allowed at this camp, which has made for some awkward moments. Seveeral families from other areas arrived Thursday but were turned away. . . . Sadr City residents have to get accreditation from one of their local police stations to qualify to stay in the stadium." And when someone calls it an Iraqi operation, note Eric Owls (NYT's Baghdad Bureau) statement yesterday: "The American military is fighting daily battles for the control of Baghdad's Shiite neighborhood of Sadr City." al-Maliki started it but don't think for a moment it's al-Maliki 'on the line.' That trip down to Basra was purely for show. AFP reports, "An aide to radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr lashed out on Firday at Iraq's most revered Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, for keeping silent over clashes that have killed hundreds in Baghdad" and quotes him (Sheikh Sattar Battat)stating, "We are surprised by the silence Najaf where the highest Shiite religious authority is based. . . . For 50 days Sadr City is being bombed. . . Children, women and old people are being killed by all kinds of US weaspons, and Najaf remains silent." Howard LaFranchi (Christian Science Monitor) notes, "Residents of this city's embattled Sadr City district are growing increasingly anxious that an escalation in fighting is imminent." Chris Floyd (Baltimore Chronicle) rightly notes, "George W. Bush and David Petraeus are preparing to make a new Fallujah in Sadr City, home to two million Shiites in Baghdad. Thousands of people are already fleeing the area before the full-scale slaughter and destruction begin. As in Fallujah, the multitudes who cannot escape will be trapped in a 'free fire zone' subjected to ruthless bombardment and ground assualt. Thousands -- perhaps tens of thousands -- of innocent civilians stand in the shadow of imminent death." But Panhandle Media largely stayed silent during the slaughter of Falluja and they're even more silent during the slaughter of Sadr City.
In other reported violence . . .
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad rocket attack that wounded three people, US air strikes in Baghdad left eight people wounded and 2 Baghdad mortar attacks claimed 2 lives and left eleven wounded. AFP reports, "A rocket attack on a coalition military base in Basra killed two civilian contractors Friday . . . . The two civilian contractors died when rockets slammed into the US-led coalition's base near Basra's international airport, wounding eight others, including four coalition soldiers, the military said." That was reported late yesterday in the US (by five p.m. EST, it's already midnight in Iraq). Reuters notes four members of the Iraqi military were injured in a Kirkuk roadside bombing.
Reuters notes 3 "Awakening" Council members shot dead in Baiji and three police officers and five people were wounded in an attack outside Balad utilizing "rifles and rocket propelled grenades."
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad.
Yesterday's snapshot noted: "Murray wasn't just noting a hearing the day before (see here and here for that hearing), she was also noting the very real frustration with the Veterans Affairs Department on the part of the Congress which includes begging off and blowing off the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee." That's here and here. Links weren't included. Yesterday's snapshot detailed the Senate Veeterans Affairs Committee Wednesday hearing on benefits. Today Paul Kane (Washington Post) reports that "Blue Dog Democrats" are in opposition to a House measure specifically because of "the creation of a program that would guarantee veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan a year of in-state college tuition for each year served in the war zones." Now let's get this straight, the "Blue Dogs" are okay with funding the illegal war and argue that not to do so would be sending a message to the troops in Iraq; however, they're okay with sending the message that your tours of duty aren't even worth in-state tuition if you're fortunate enough to survive? That's some message. Meanwhile Julian E. Barnes (Los Angeles Times) reports that the Pentagon is stating that stop-loss/back-door draft numbers have "risen sharply" and that the "number steadily declined through May 2007, when it hit 8,540. But since then, the number of soldiers subjected to stop-loss orders began to increase again, reaching 12,235 in March 2008." Drop back to the February 26th snapshot where the Senate Armed Services Committee heard testimony from the Sec of the Army and Gen George W. Casey:
In regards to the issue of the months involved in a tour, the committee chair, Carl Levin, had to be rather specific repeatedly finally asking "shorthand, you have to drawdown to what level?" Levin also had to pin Casey and Geren down regarding stop-loss. Beaming, Geren declared that the Army will get the number of stop-lossed soldiers down to "a little less than 8,000 today" and insisted -- at length -- that the Army wanted to "move away from" using stop-loss. Stop-loss is the backdoor draft. It's when you're service contract is ending and you're told, "Forget what your contract says, you're staying." Pressed by Levin about the decrease in the number of soldiers stop-lossed that Geren was so optimistic about, the Secretary of the Army swallowed and stated, "It might get to 7,000." Wow. It might drop to 7,000. To hear him spin and spin before Levin pinned him down you would have thought the figure was going to be significantly below 5,000. Geren insisted, "We're growing this Army faster than we planned."
Translation, they lied to Congress.
His name wasn't even on the ballot! Oh how the losers have cried that -- including an elderly woman with a shaky voice who really needs to be told "Step away from the microphone" -- about Barack Obama and Michigan. Michigan's Secretary of State on October 9, 2007: "Four Democratic presidential candidates -- U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, U.S. Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) and former U.S. Sen. John Edwards -- filed affidavits with the Michigan Department of State requesting that their names be removed from Michigan's Jan. 15 Democratic Party Primary ballot. This means four Democratic candiates are still on the Michigan ballot: U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), U.S. Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn), U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich and U.S. Sen. Mike Gravel (D- Ala)."
Hillary won Michigan. She received 328,209 votes. 594,398 votes were cast in the Democratic presidential primary. "Uncommitted" received 238,168 votes. As Jerlyn (TalkLeft) points out, Barack's attempting to claim those 238,168 votes and more: "It not only gives Obama all of the uncommitted delegates, a number that includes those who voted for uncommitted for Edwards, it includes those who voted for Dodd, Kucinich and Gravel and gives him some that voted for Hillary." It takes a lot of nerve to remove yourself from the field and then claim you earned a trophy. But hasn't that been the Obama campaign from day one?
Way back when, Peter Slevin (Washington Post) explained it all: "Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is the only top-tier Democrat on the Jan. 15 Michigan primary ballot, but followers of her chief rivals are hoping to wound her all the same. . . . The campaigns of Sen. Barack Obama and former Senator John Edwards are urging their supporters to cast ballots for 'uncommitted,' according to stae Democratic party chairman Mrak Brewer." "Uncommitted" should be divided between the four. If any "giving" is to be done, that's done on the floor of the national convention. But it's not enough that he try to steal what he didn't earn, he also wants to steal from Hillary Clinton. Now as I understand spots from my children participating when they were younger, you forfeit a game, you're the loser. When the championship's being awarded to another team you can't run up and say, "B-b-but, we forfeited and we should get credit for that!" Barack wants credit for a race he chose not to take part in. Talk about a sense of entitlement. It's not even the rules. (The rules were X number of delegates -- non-pleged -- would be sent to the convention.)
I thought the media said he was 'winning,' that he had the nomination all 'sewn up'. If so, why be such a little thief? Because he's not winning. Because he's not closed the deal. Because Hillary is expected to beat him in several upcoming primaries. Because he is probably unelectable in a general election nation wide. Nation wide is 50 states, not 48. A general election isn't a primary. If he gets the nomination, he'll be dragged through the mud and this is, after all, the fussiest candidate since the current occupant of the Oval Office. "I must have down time in the Virgin Islands!" "I need two days off from campaigning!"
The latter was last week. That was cute. He took Wednesday off by staying home when his weak ass should have been in the Senate for the Veterans Affairs Committee -- which he sits on -- hearing on Veterans Benefits. But he wasn't there. Again. He managed yesterday to hobble through the House but he wasn't elected to the House and he's unable to do the Senate's business. But somehow, he wants America to believe, he'll be able to do their business. Susan UnPC (No Quarter) has posted the RNC's first video roll out against Bambi -- it's not pretty and this is the GOP taking baby-steps. (About the Louis. election, the elected Dem is a conservative and he started out with a double digit lead and barely squeaked by on election day after only a few weeks of the ads by the Republicans attacking him for his 'link' to Barack. Repeating, Barack at the top of the ticket risks Democratic control of Congress.) What group doesn't he have a lock on? I know that's a tough questions because there are so many; however, I'm referring to seniors and he's taken to knocking John McCain because of his age, doing the typical crap Barack does because Barack has no issues to run and no record to run on. John McCain's campaign (PDF format warning and link goes to USA Today) responds: "First, let us be clear about the nature of Senator Obama's attack today. He used the words 'losing his bearings' intentionally, a not particularly clever way of raising John McCain's age as an issue. This is typical of the Obama campagning. We have all become familiar with Senator Obama's new brand of politics. First, you demand civility from your opponent, then you attack him, distort his record and send out surrogates to question his integrity. It is called hypocrisy, and it is the oldest kind of politics there is. It is important to focus on what Senator Obama is attempting to do here: He is trying desperately to delegitimize the discussion of issues that raise legitimate questions about his judgement and preparedness to be President of the United States. Through their actions and words, Senator Obama and his supporters have made clear that ANY criticism on ANY issue -- from his desire to raise taxes on millions of small investors to his radical plans to sit down face-to-face with Iranian President Ahmadinejad -- constitute negative, personal attacks. Senator Obama is hopeful that the media will continue to form a protective barrier around him, declaring serious limits to the questions, discussion and debate in this race. Senator Obama has good reason to think this plan will succeed, as serious journalists have written off the need for 'de-tox' to cure 'swooing' over Senator Obama, and others have admitted to losing their objectivity while with him on the campaign trail." You need to pay attention closely to that memo. Had John Edwards, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson or Chris Dodd done anything like that, they'd still be in the race.
The reality is no one likes a brown noser, no one likes a teacher's pet or a little prince given everything. Hillary's a fighter and the fact that she is has turned the Democratic primary into a deadheat. John McCain appears to grasp what will work and what won't with Barack. Grinning like an idiot on stage next to Barack? Chuckeling? Playing his groveling little buddy to the point that you like a scared puppy exposing your belly? Getting punked and taking it with no challenge? Didn't work and all the men found that out, now didn't they? The only one who has held their own is Hillary and she's done that because -- though the pundit class hates strength -- the American people love it. Mark Salter, with that memo, goes from writer of McCain speeches to campaign operative to watch and you better believe Newsweek's gearing up their glossy profile. In terms of Barack's attacks on McCain's age, it's dumb, it's stupid and it will hurt him with seniors. If Barack's given the nomination, he's just given them the ammo to become "Democrats for McCain." Tom Baldwin (Times of London) reports that Robert Malley has left the Obama campaign after bragging to the paper that "he had regularly been in contact with Hamas, which controls Gaza but is listed by the US State Department as a terrorist organisation." By the strictest reading of the Patriot Act, I believe Team Obama could be locked away. Good thing Barack voted against the Patriot Act! Oh, wait, he voted to reauthorize it. And, yes, it does go to judgement, it does go to leadership and, yes, once again Obama has failed.
Perry Bacon Jr. (Washington Post) reports Hillary was in Portland today speaking about healthcare, "The plan I have proposed would cover everyone, children and adults. An artificial distinction between children and adults is unworkable, you have to have [a] seamless health care system that covers every single American. My plan does, my opponent's doesn't." AP quotes her saying, "If you don't start in favor of universal health care, you'll never get there. How can you run for the Democratic nomination and not have a universal health care plan?" David Chalian (ABC News) notes that the Clinton campaign's Geoff Garin and Howard Wolfson "offered a power point presentation looking at 20 competitive House districts currently held by freshmen Democrats that also went for President George W. Bush in the 2004 presidential election. Of those 20 districts, Clinton has defeated Obama in 16 of them during the course of the nomination battle and Obama has been victorious in four of them. Eleven of those 20 members have yet to endorse in the Democratic presidential race. Five have endorsed Clinton - including two this week - and four have endorsed Obama." The argument is correct. It was obvious in January to anyone studying the results (Obama has a larger portion of voters who only vote for him and in no other race -- indicating they are Republicans who will cross over only for him or that they're entire 2008 vote is for Obama only). With him being handed the nomination, the risk is that you drives away the base. That puts Congress at risk. But as Donna Brazile indicated in an e-mail Wednesday, it doesn't matter. Or, as she put it, "Message to the base: stay home." Message to Donna, stay away from buffets. You're going to have heart failure with all the pounds you're packing. Brian Goldsmith (CBS News) interviewed West Virginia governor Joe Manchin and asked about Tuesday's primary and whether the race should continue to which the governor responded: "Oh, absolutely. I truly believe so. And it's an exciting time to be a Democrat in the United States of America. And we have so many of them here. They're all excited about our primary. Myself, I'm up in the primary election. So we're all geared up for this. And having both of the candidates come to West Virginia adds that much more excitement to it."
Matt Tepper has a photo essay at HillaryClinton.com and writes: "Hillary Clinton proudly became the first Democratic Presidential candidate to visit the Mount Rushmore State on Thursday afternoon. Nearly 2000 South Dakotans packed the Landmark Aviation Hangar in Sioux Falls to hear Hillary speak about her Solutions for America. Hillary clearly demonstrated that she is ready to lead this nation starting on day one and she is best prepared to beat John McCain in November. When Hillary is president, the voices of South Dakota families will finally be heard. On June 3rd South Dakotans will get their opportunity to vote in this historic primary!"
In other news, Cynthia McKinney's campaign has not refuted Ted Glick's statements (that they linked to last week) so she's not a real candidate for president. This will be an editorial at Third. We are done with her in the primary coverage and it's doubtful she'll be mentioned too often in the general election. We're covering candidates running to win the office, not to run a tiny percentage. Team Nader announces Ralph needs "$50,000 to get Nader-Gonzales on the ballot in Illinois. Land of Lincoln. Where Ralph Nader was bumped off the ballot in 2004 by the state's Democratic machine. Where already in 2008, state Democratic machine operatives are making threats about keeping us off again." Oh come on, Ralph, the Dems would never do that, they believe in count ever vote. Oh, wait. Florida and Michigan. That's right, they don't believe in count every vote. They believe in count every vote that they want counted which is far less than universal suffrage.
leila fadelmcclatchy newspapers
paul kanethe washington postjulian e. barnesthe los angeles times
tina susmanthe new york timesalissa j. rubin