The Talking Dog provides a great essay on the tone some have chosen to use in the media and online in opposition to Senator Clinton. There is an extreme in our civil discourse that should not be crossed, and too many have been crossing it, while far more have been ignoring instead of challenging it.

It’s time for that to change, too.

Go read TD and think about it. And don’t say “well, turnabout’s fair play.” It isn’t. It wasn’t fair even in middle school where tit-for-tat originated. And it should be left there, among the immature and illogical, because rude, hurtful and hateful advances nothing.

Yes, we should, and can.

And as I interviewed Dolores Huerta 16 years ago, she also deserves enormous credit for what they both achieved. Each played a critical role. So call it political pandering, but in this era where anti-immigrant sentiments are strong in some swing states, it’s still rather risky for Obama to take this position.

Though if we really were to celebrate the pioneers who promoted the ideas that Chavez and Huerta utilized, we also ought to have holidays for Fred Ross and Saul Alinsky. Still, it was Chavez who fasted and put his health at the greatest risk to drive home the message and gain public support. So it remains a great idea.

Then let’s have one for FDR, Eleanor Roosevelt, Susan B. Anthony, Harriet Tubman, George Marshall, and a few dozen other greats. After all, we should each get six weeks off each year, just like most Europeans do, along with their national healthcare and their capacity to separate church and sex.

Si, si puede!

They don’t seem to be blaming it on Obama, as he performs a hair better in the polls than Clinton there.

Polling in Florida displays a much bigger gap favoring Clinton, but that may have less to do with the primary disqualification than to the demographic biases present in a state full of senior citizen women, and a fair number of racists.

I certainly wouldn’t oppose a revote, because I believe the two states would split, with Obama winning Michigan. Anyone suggesting the first vote should stand is simply playing games while rooting for Clinton. The lack of any real campaign there makes the original results flawed.

So let a re-vote settle the controversy once and for all. If Clinton’s supporters think she can repeat those results, I say, let’s do it. On the level playing field of a revote, And then they’ll run out of excuses for why she’s in second place.

After all, every Republican is not a warmonger convinced that we’ve got to stay in Iraq forever.

Another Pennsylvania Republican who supports Mr. Obama is retired Major General Walter Stewart, a township supervisor in Burks County who says he has given money both to an anti-Bush Texas Republican, Rep. Ron Paul, and Mr. Hagel, who he said was his first choice for president this election season.

General Stewart said he was supporting Mr. Obama because he could not endorse a candidate who voted to authorize the war in Iraq, which he compared to King George’s decision to send the British army and Hessian mercenaries into New York Harbor in the Revolutionary War. In 2004, General Stewart said, he supported Mr. Kerry, the Democratic nominee, over Mr. Bush. “I think there is a general feeling in the military that this war in Iraq has been a catastrophe,” he said.

I’ve asked around, via friends and family who are active or military veterans (19 in all), and roughly 2 out of 3 agree with Major General Stewart, pretty close to the same percentage of US civilians with the same view.

Saturday was an amazing experience at the Bastrop County Convention, Senatorial District 18 (SD18) and a great to be a democrat in Texas. I was actually surprised at the organization, participation and enthusiasm. Everything was handled efficiently, all rules were followed and every single delegate knew what they were doing and what was expected of them.

Keeping 378 Delegates and 275 Alternates under control is like herding cats, but our county leaders kept the convention under control and moving along smoothly. I believe this success is the result of our leadership, county chair Mitzi VanSant, the hard work of the committee members and of course the delegate chairs.

• This year Bastrop County Democrats moved the county convention to the Bastrop Intermediate School. They set up canopies for the overflow crowd and they even went so far as to tell some people to bring their own chairs. Party leaders expect up to 1,000 people at Saturday’s convention.

The March 4th caucus numbers for my county were Clinton 41.26% and Obama 58.73% . I expected the Clinton campaign would make every effort to try and up their numbers at the county convention however, just the opposite happened. Some delegates for Hillary didn’t show up nor did some precinct delegation chairs; this probable affected their strategy at the convention. However, I was very pleased that some Hillary delegates changed over to Obama.

The final count for our county was Clinton 13 delegates (32%) and Obama 19 delegates (68%) for a total of 32 delegates from Bastrop County going to the State Convention in June.

How can a candidate loose delegates? Our caucus system is a three step process, the precinct caucus which was held March 4th after the polls closed, the Senate District/County Conventions which where held around the state on March 29 and then the State Convention in June. With that said a candidate can lose delegates:

• A presidential campaign which fails to stay organized and doesn’t get its delegates to the next ascending level will lose delegates to the campaign which does. This has the potential to change the numbers of national delegates from Texas for each candidate as the process plays out.

According to the Houston Chronicle, Senate District 6 in Houston, 40 precincts that Hillary won on March 4 didn’t even show up to their convention. How does that happen? It could be the dismissive behavior of the Clinton campaign towards caucuses, lack of training for their delegates or most likely as stated above lack of organization.

• At the Senate District 6 convention, an area of heavy Clinton support, there were more than 40 precincts who had no delegates show up for the convention.

• Clinton received about 64 percent of the popular vote in the Senate District 6 in the March 4 primary, but only 55 percent of the delegates attending Saturday’s convention backed her.

• At the Senate District 13 convention at Texas Southern University in Houston, an Obama stronghold, Clinton supporters unsuccessfully tried to gain delegate strength by asking Obama backers to switch so they would be elected as delegates to the state convention. Obama came out of the convention with 272 state delegates to Clinton’s 69.

Despite the hassles Saturday, many Democrats said the turnout excited them about their prospects of breaking the Republican political hold on Texas.

For all that I support Obama in his contest with Clinton, it’s well to remember that he’s often not the profile in courage he’s portrayed to be. He may not even be the best Senator from Illinois.

Writing for The Nation, Alexander Cockburn remembers how (in June, 2005) Senator Richard Durbin courageously compared interrogation and detention policies at Gitmo to Nazi and KGB practices — and how Obama characterized that statement as a “mistake”:

The right wing jumped all over Durbin, and he paid the penalty of having to eat crow on the Senate floor. His colleague the junior senator from Illinois duly rose to speak. Now the topic here, remember, was not the candidacy-endangering one of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, a man eager to grasp every nettle, tug it up by the roots and lash at the face of Empire with it. This was Senator Dick Durbin, who had quite properly denounced insupportable conduct by US government personnel. Courage should have required Obama to support Durbin.

But Obama is careful, far more than he is courageous. In this instance he lent a supportive hand to his beleaguered colleague Durbin by shoving Durbin’s head under the waves with the thrice-repeated use of the word “mistake.” “We have a tendency to demonize and jump on and make mockery of each other across the aisle, and that is particularly pronounced when we make mistakes. Each and every one of us is going to make a mistake once in a while…and what we hope is that our track record of service, the scope of how we’ve operated and interacted with people, will override whatever particular mistake we make.”

Read the rest of this entry »

When it includes “Bush reduced to Irrelevancy in Iraq”.

You remember him, doncha? The guy on the ticket with Warstarter Cheney? Son of a former president? Vowed to get Bin Laden, dead or alive?

Think, dammit. I’m sure you’ve seen his mug on the news at least once.

I know, the guy John McCain hugged, you must remember that. Don’t you?

I dunno about irrelevant, but consistently ineffective describes him well. He described al-Maliki’s assault as an historic moment in Iraq’s democracy. Just before al-Maliki became the fool.

Especially the ones you owe money to> As Pam Spaulding notes, it’s an essential thing.

There’s definitely some powerhouses in the group, but when I think of the pioneers, I wonder where Jeralyn Merritt is. Or Laura Rozen. Or Leah at Corrente. Or Natalie Chart and Mary Ratcliff. Madeleine Kane. Or Avedon Carol, whose blog entry tipped me off to this vote.

And for the value of their contributions, there’s so many other great bloggers missing: Barbara O’Brien. Julia of Sisyphus Shrugged. Jane Hamsher and Christy Hardin Smith. There’s Melanie Mattson, public health crusader. Blue Gal should be in the running, too. As should Susie Madrak, Roxanne Cooper, eRobin, Watertiger, Jill of Brilliant at Breakfast or several of the women blogging here on the Street.

I can think of many more. But so can you. Go vote at that one, then add your missing favorites here, in comments.

When the Big Media Mouthpieces are discussing McCain. it’s not off the pavement on the right shoulder of the road, but it’s still across the line in the breakdown lane. How did the extremist positions McCain holds get sold as centrism? And why is the media buying that lie?

Sean-Paul wants to know why it’s worth saving. What’s in it for us, the average taxpayer?

It’s worth your time to consider that. ‘They’ deregulated it and ran it into the ground. Along the way, millions of Americans were hurt in the process. Now ‘they’ say they’re going to reform it, heal it, make it all better. Do you trust them? Is there a benefit for the use of your tax dollars?

There oughta be a return on your investment, don’t you think? Otherwise, why do they deserve to use our money for the fix?

Go reply at Sean-Paul’s after you mull it over.

It sounds like a Must See film.

Via Erik Eckholm of the NY Times:

Driven by a painful mix of layoffs and rising food and fuel prices, the number of Americans receiving food stamps is projected to reach 28 million in the coming year, the highest level since the aid program began in the 1960s.

The number of recipients, who must have near-poverty incomes to qualify for benefits averaging $100 a month per family member, has fluctuated over the years along with economic conditions, eligibility rules, enlistment drives and natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina, which led to a spike in the South.

But recent rises in many states appear to be resulting mainly from the economic slowdown, officials and experts say, as well as inflation in prices of basic goods that leave more families feeling pinched. Citing expected growth in unemployment, the Congressional Budget Office this month projected a continued increase in the monthly number of recipients in the next fiscal year, starting Oct. 1 — to 28 million, up from 27.8 million in 2008, and 26.5 million in 2007.

The percentage of Americans receiving food stamps was higher after a recession in the 1990s, but actual numbers are expected to be higher this year.

Food stamps, too, have not kept pace with food price inflation. Donated food sources locally are describing record demands while simultaneously donated food stocks are falling. I would not be surprised to see the numbers worse in 2009 than even these record projections.

With the report of a diplomatic contingent sent hastily to Iran in pursuit of a ceasefire in Basra, it suggests Prime Minister al Maliki doesn’t even know what members of his own party are doing to offset his error in southern Iraq.

Normally, one would expect this to presage an effort to unseat al Maliki, but Iraq politics has become so unpredictable that none can be certain of that outcome.

What is certain is al Maliki erred and is weaker politically. Beyond that, there’s a bigger question: is there anyone dumb enough to want his thankless and impossible job?

From my perspective, a lot of the current Clinton strategy can be called ‘whistling past the graveyard.’ She’s not really trying to win pre-convention, she’s trying to stop the serious trend of superdelegates endorsing Obama so she can simply maintain some mathematical argument for a brokered convention.

If she fails that, her candidacy will be dead before June. Despite her whistling, however, her argument’s still failing. In the eight weeks since Super Tuesday, among pledged or superdelegates, I believe she’s only come out ahead in Ohio and Rhode Island, while Obama’s moved ahead in 12 states, the District of Columbia and one US territory.

Of the eight states and two territories remaining, polling indicates she’s favored to win three. Winning more will take more than whistling; it will take the savvy necessary to gain more delegates, a savvy so far better demonstrated by Obama.

While the research and intuition of Charles Karelis about the persistence of poverty rings very true to my experience, I don’t think it’s a perfect explanation. It’s just closer to perfection than any other explanation advanced before.

I have been poor, I have been homeless and have only temporarily elevated myself to the lower middle class, only to get pushed back down by a number of circumstances: job layoffs, a divorce, family illness and a house fire.

But I’m not exactly the representative of deep poverty Karelis has been studying, I suspect, because I’ve had some ups amid these downs. As well, I can’t recall anytime I felt less motivated to work or advance. I believe current sleeping problems originated from my long hours working to try and get ahead. The only time I’ve found myself feeling unmotivated to pursue paid employment is when potential employers offer insulting levels of compensation, far below what my skills and attributes are worth. (Almost all have underpaid; I refer to those who underpay by ridiculous amounts). In those circumstances, I find myself thinking “I’d rather be homeless, doing that same work for free for someone who’d appreciate it, than to work for that SOB who just insulted me.”

That’s a bit different than feeling no motivation to work; I just don’t want to work for the worst assholes.

But I always felt there was something amiss in the theories that arose under Reaganomics, that charity promoted dependency. I suppose it could be true for people lacking in education, job experience, lacking any mentors and role models except negative ones, but that’s a relatively small subset of the whole.

In my previous life as a social service worker, by far, the norm was people too proud to enter our agency’s doors till they were completely out of options, and then, they only sought temporary help, few longer than 6 months. Privation and hunger are not great motivators when accompanied by the whole set of problems Karelis describes. Hunger only motivates one to get to the next meal, just as owed rent motivates one to get one or two months rent by any legal means.

For people caught up in this web of poverty, luxury is not a week’s vacation at Puerto Vallarta. It’s having all the bills paid with enough money saved to pay next month’s bills, in case you’re laid off again. That’s one of the greatest comforts I’ve ever known in life. And how can public policy be crafted better to attack such poverty?

1) Real casework: determine what circumstances work against an individual or family. It could be environmental: a completely impoverished neighborhood (a ghetto or a struggling town) or the lack of any functional family/neighbor support system. In that case, moving the individual or family may help, or providing a mentor. It could be physiological: illness or addiction, which requires treatment. Overcoming environmental and physiological anchors are necessary first steps for some.

2) Increasing educational and job training opportunities, to advance people’s skillsets. And tax incentives are insufficient. Subsidies and tuition-free education is required.

3) More vocational school alternatives to traditional high schools. Some communities and many other countries have found some success utilizing vocational school alternatives.

4) An end to discriminatory practices in welfare systems. Single parents aren’t the only people needing help. Child support programs often criminalize the poverty of the payee, trying to compel them to earn more than they ever have previously achieved, even when the children are already well-supported. And clients asking for food stamps or welfare or medical care should be able to deduct forced payments from their base income used to determine their level of need. If an IRS lien or a court ordered payment is reducing one’s takehome, counting that deduction is a necessity.

But I don’t ever expect to see human service programs designed to really alleviate poverty permanently. Not only are such things way too expensive, but a great many marginal businesses depend on the existence of the poor to keep their labor costs low so their businesses can thrive.

Figuring out the impediments the poor face is not impossible. But it’s much harder to overcome the biases of those who thrive on the backs of the poor. Ultimately, that may be the most insurmountable obstacle of all.

Olvlzl, over at Echidne’s place, adds more class consciousness to these perspectives, and the commentors add great insights, as well.

Alphonse Jackson is set to resign as HUD Secretary, despite the current crisis in housing and subprime mortgages. Charged with favoritism, cronyism and incompetence, it’s uncertain what provoked his decision, unless he’s aware of a pending indictment.

But is there something more sinister afoot? Consider the following personnel changes during the Bush administration:

At the outset, 4 of his 15 cabinet members were women. Two have left and two have joined, so his cabinet remains 27% women in a country whose populace is composed of 52% women.

At the outset, two of his cabinet members were black. Both Roderick Paige and Colin Powell left awhile back. Only Condoleeza Rice remains as his sole African American cabinet member (plus Jackson, till tomorrow).

For Latino Americans, Bush began with one: Cuban American Mel Martinez. Upon a resignation, he added Mexican American Alberto Gonzalez. After Martinez departed, he later added Carlos Gutierrez, another Cuban American. After Gonzalez resigned last September, he was replaced by a white male, so the net effect is the same as at the beginning: one Latino-American with Cuban roots.

Lebanese-American Spencer Abraham left at the end of Bush’s first term.

Japanese-American Norman Mineta left nearly two years ago.

Elaine Chao is the first Chinese American, and the first Asian-American woman cabinet member in US history. She’s also the only original cabinet member still serving in the Bush administration.

So the net result (counting Blacks, Latinos, Asian Americans and a Lebanese American), is Bush began with 6 (40%), currently is down to 4 and with Jackson’s resignation, will be down to 3.

During Bush’s two terms, 17 cabinet members have resigned. Thirteen replacements were white, a 76% white replacement rate, which could go higher, depending on who he replaces Jackson with. Before Jackson’s resignation, only 27% of his cabinet are non-white minorities: Chao, Rice, Jackson and Gutierrez. 73% of his current cabinet is white, up from 60% at the outset, and 73% are males, the same as he had at the outset.

So the question I have is whether part of the Bush cabinet replacement strategy is to create a whiter cabinet before the next election, with a sole token representative for Blacks, Latinos and Asians, and an ongoing underrepresentation of women. The latter group is the only one where he’s remained steadfast against tokenism, but even with four women, that’s half as many as there should be if it was truly representative of the US population.

Some will say that’s a stretch, but the way Bush has played politics with national security, terrorist prosecutions, partisan investigations and prosecutions by his Justice Department, it’s not so far-fetched to suggest he’s playing into the racial divide as part of the GOP’s longstanding southern strategy, as the 2008 election looms.

Widest. Gap. Ever. Highest. Percentage. Ever.

It runs counter to the MSM narrative that the leader is now fatally flawed, which is a narrative the team in second place wants the MSM to promote. Only by worrying the party’s old guard, can they have any hope of prevailing, but grassroots voters may be asserting the power to define that narrative, too.

Yes, they can.

Via the outstanding work done by the Burnt Orange Report guys, it seems likely Obama will end with a 55%-45% delegate win in Texas. The BOR team outperformed all MSM outlets by a mile.

Currently, with 87% of the tally completed, it’s closer to 56%-44% but the subtle shift through late night and today leads me to that 10% separation by the close. The Texas superdelegates have ameliorated the outcome somewhat so the losses to Clinton won’t be as severe, but the end result is still likely to widen the gap between the two candidates.

Kudos to the BOR team, for all its fine coordinated and tireless efforts.

The Houston Chronicle provides an overview of the proceedings.

It’ll be smoking … whatever al-Maliki was smoking when he decided to go after al-Sadr’s guys. (No, I’m not headed to Basra; that was just a riff on an old Glen Campbell tune about Phoenix).

John Amato provides the latest update.

With al-Sadr restoring the conditional ceasefire, he’s granted al-Maliki an out that permits him to save a little face, but it’s clear that the coalition he heads will now have to turn to al-Hakim if they plan to try and takedown al-Sadr before October’s elections.

The Brits knew that where there’s oil, there’s plenty of corrupt factionalism ever-present but that it made no sense to keep the rancor alive by fighting al-Sadr’s Shia bloc there. That was a losing strategy before the handover and it’s a losing strategy still.

Al-Maliki’s purge failed. The British troops warned the US many months ago that Basra’s resistance was too deep to be routed. Now al-Maliki faces additional embarrassment and less support for his serious underestimation that caused hundreds of deaths.

Yet another grim mistake against the strength of Moqtada. I’m sure it won’t be the last, asn the elites of Iraq’s government - and ours - can’t tolerate a man they can’t buy and own. Ah, democracy.

As practiced by Bush and al-Maliki, it never had a chance.

Another foulup like that, and soon the Arab world will join in and a regional war will be the result.

Per the Miami Herald:

The Navy lawyer for Osama bin Laden’s driver argues in a Guantánamo military commissions motion that senior Pentagon officials are orchestrating war crimes prosecutions for the 2008 campaign.

The Pentagon declined late Friday to address the defense lawyer’s allegations, noting that the matter is under litigation.

The brief filed Thursday by Navy Lt. Cmdr. Brian Mizer directly challenged the integrity of President Bush’s war court.

Notably, it describes a Sept. 29, 2006, meeting at the Pentagon in which Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, a veteran White House appointee, asked lawyers to consider Sept. 11, 2001, prosecutions in light of the campaign.

‘’We need to think about charging some of the high-value detainees because there could be strategic political value to charging some of these detainees before the election,‘’ England is quoted as saying.

They’ll jeopardize the Constitution, jeopardize a favorable prosecution, but never jeopardize the next election.

A lasting hero, Dith Pran, is dead. What he achieved and photographed in his too short life, was the genocide of two million. It’s that result, after our withdrawal from Vietnam, that has been cited by war hawks ever since as the reason American troop withdrawals provide worse outcomes than the continuations of war.

They fail to mention that US actions in that war theater helped give rise to the Khmer Rouge government responsible for that, and that our troops killed between 1 and 2 million Vietnamese before the withdrawal occurred. It was a slower genocide of its own.

I extend my condolences to the family and friends of the remarkable Mr. Pran.

Considering the breadth of the Bush foreign policy results in 7+ years, it’s really quite shocking. And John McCain is making a continuation of Bushpolitik the centerpiece of his campaign. I’d advise you to have an antacid and an anti-depressant at the ready before you read the list:

Iraq: obviously the worst blundering war fought in US history, or at least since the War of 1812. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead, millions displaced, and when the long-expected move against the Mahdi army was made, the thin tissue of lies about the effectiveness of The Surge was ripped irreparably. Saddam was knocked from power within six weeks and captured in 9 months, and the war of occupation has continued for 4 years and 3 months since. Bad choices, bribery, crooked contracts, censorship, billions of dollars missing, soldiers without protective gear, stop-loss indentured servitude of soldiers, a ban on photographs of caskets, torture, rape, murder… what’s left to like besides the genuine efforts of most frontline troops to fight and rebuild, and their tragic sacrifices? Nothing.

Iran: a nutball president and a thocracy behind the throne, but a country where more than three quarters would prefer American freedoms and lifestyles. The government’s a big supporter of anti-Israel fighters like Hezbollah and Hamas, and has utilized outlawed weapons. With insufficient evidence, similar to the fakery used to justify Iraq, Bush has sought a defensible course to go to war with Iran, and may yet do so, blaming every failure in Iraq on Iran, for example. Evidence remains minimal for every charge made and repeated by the corporate media.

North Korea: the third in the Evil Axis Bush defined, they ultimately had a successful nuclear test before trading its nukes for economic support from Bush. But now they’re straggling, in their promise to disarm its nuclear weapons. Thus they remain a severe danger.

Afghanistan: the Taliban was pushed from power, but the warlord divisions offered a throwback to equally repressive social constructs in most of the nation. Women and children are still badly repressed. And the Taliban has regrouped and made the country more dangerous than it was at the outset, for US troops. Plus, it was in this country where Al Qaida’s leaders slipped through Bush’s fingers. Since our invasion, it’s set record levels of opium production which provides most of the global supply of heroin.

Pakistan: Bush backed the corrupt military dictator, Musharraf, with billions in aid. Then pushed to get Bhutto back in for democratic elections. She’s dead and the elections effectively ended his rule. The Pakistani scientist responsible for most of the world’s nuclear proliferation remains unpunished for spreading the technology to North Korea, Iran, Libya and more. And it’s believed Al Qaida’s top two guys reside in Pakistan’s wilderness.

India: Bush made a deal with the world’s second largest country that permits them to avoid nuclear limitation treaties.

Russia: slowed down the destruction of its nuclear stockpile, and it’s moved away from an era of cooperation to a more contentious country like it used to be on numerous international issues.

China: How ’bout them Tibetans? Still Communist, but with a more capitalist economic engine under the hood, it now vies with Russia to challenge us on international issues, especially in Middle East initiatives.

Indonesia: When struck by a catastrophic tsunami, one of the top 3 deadliest natural disasters in recorded human history, Bush offered paltry aid initially. It took actress Sandra Bullock providing a million dollars to get the aid spigot flowing as an embarrassed Bush upped the original amount and got his Dad and Bill Clinton to lead the fundraising effort afterward to help cover his initial miserliness.

Saudi Arabia: closed down the US bases there, just as Osama Bin Laden demanded. One of the most repressive societies on the face of the Earth, it spawned Al Qaida, and Bush walks around with its royalty, holding their hands.

Libya: sponsored the bombing of the PanAm flight to Lockerbie, Scotland that killed over 200, including Americans, yet Bush lifted economic sanctions against them and welcomed Gaddafi as a new friend to our country.

Somalia: Considered the world’s most lawless region, it’s a terror breeder that Bush hasn’t confronted as Clinton did.

Sudan/Darfur: the genocide continues.

Syria: in league with Iran in creating trouble for Israel, especially within Lebanon, Bush regularly rattles sabres at it, and nothing more. And Lebanon still hasn’t replaced its president, which Bush blames Syria for.

Israel/Palestine: After years of benign neglect and outright hostility to the Palestinians, now demands the peace process move forward, without any new initiatives. Just the demand that the Palestinians give everything that Israel wants.

Europe: after insulting staunch allies like France and Germany about Iraq, he’s grown conciliatory. But British forces stand by, refusing to get involved in the current Basra showdown. And the Euro has replaced the dollar as the world’s preferred currency.

Canada: now Americans need visas to travel there and those arrested in political demonstrations here are locked from travelling there.

Mexico: Soured his once solid relationship with its president.

Columbia: despite more aid, the ongoing war on drugs remains a colossal failure.

The rest of South America: the rise of more socialist American-government-hating governments has occurred in the Western Hemisphere under Bush than under all US presidents combined.

I’m sure I’ve left out more. And I add that, his aid to the rest of Africa has been the highwater mark of his foreign policy. Yet it’s also important to note his rejection of the Geneva Convention, the ending of an anti-nuclear treaty, his suspense of due process and habeus corpus, his illegal wiretapping of innocent citizens and his novel defenses of the use of torture have also been part of his foreign policy record.

And Osama Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri have never been caught.

The continuation of this is John McCain’s pledge to you for four more years.

Mariela Castro, 45, daughter of current President Raul Castro and the niece of former leader Fidel Castro, has a degree in psychology and has campaigned for greater awareness for sexual minorities in Cuba for many years.

She is currently attempting to get the Cuban National Assembly to adopt what would be among the most liberal gay and transsexual rights law in Latin America.

(Havana) Cuban lawmakers will vote in June on a bill that would make the country one of the world’s most progressive in LGBT civil rights.

The draft legislation would make it illegal to discriminate in jobs and housing against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transpeople. It would recognize same-sex domestic partnerships, although not grant marriage or adoption rights, and it would allow transsexuals to have identity cards showing their true sex. In addition the bill would require the government health service to pay for sex reassignment surgery.

The proposed legislation would recognise same-sex unions, along with inheritance rights. It would also give transsexuals the right to free sex-change operations and allow them to switch the gender on their ID cards, with or without surgery.

“A lot of homosexual couples asked me to not risk delaying getting the law passed by insisting on the word marriage,” Mariela Castro said.

“In Cuba marriage is not as important as the family and at least this way we can guarantee the personal and inheritance rights of homosexuals and transsexuals.”

She says that her father is supportive of her work, although he advises her to move slowly.

“I’ve seen changes in my father since I was a child. I saw him as macho and homophobic. But as I have grown and changed as a person, so I have seen him change.”

Mariela’s mother, the late Vilma Espin, was an internationally recognised champion of women’s rights.

Talking to people in the street, many said that they disapproved of homosexuals but felt that people should be free to live their own lives.

Mariela Castro? SHE may be the troublemaking, free-spirited rebel of the family, but Mariela Castro is seen by some as the future of Cuban socialism.

NY Times Profile for Mariela

Despite Ms. Castro’s pedigree in Cuba’s most famous family, however, no one seems to hold his — or her — tongue around her. While her father is known for his strait-laced bearing, Ms. Castro has a more down-to-earth air. A mother of three who is married to an Italian photographer, she speaks of topics that might make others blush.

“Sexuality does not just have a reproductive function,” she declared in an interview on the front porch of a Havana mansion, where the center is located, noting that sex is also about love and pleasure and discovery and experiment. “Human beings are much more diverse than we think.”

Isn’t it amazing that historically suppressive countries are coming out of the closet. Cuba of all places, has been quietly inching toward an open minded society. Mariela’s recent headlines make US antiquated homophobic laws look absolutely medieval. Phobias are prevalent in America’s triple standard society. Homophobia is one of the most damaging.

The do as I say but not as I do mentality has made America neurotic.

Social and sexual confusion abounds when the common reasons for discrimination and hate crimes is revealed to have false premises. People denying or suppressing their genetic condition, for the sake of conforming to a false norm has made America mentally unstable. The consequences of living a contradiction is demonstrated daily in the headlines describing sex crimes. Sexually, socially suppressed nations are the most dysfunctional in the World. Look at America’s contradictions every day in news headlines.

The NY Times:

JOHNSTOWN, Pa. — Senator Barack Obama had a few words of advice Saturday for his rival, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton: Do not drop out on my account.

“My attitude is that Senator Clinton can run as long as she wants,” Mr. Obama, of Illinois, said at a news conference in a high school gymnasium here. “Her name is on the ballot. She is a fierce and formidable opponent, and she obviously believes she would make the best nominee and the best president.”

A few prominent Obama supporters have recently suggested that the time has come for Mrs. Clinton, of New York, to consider withdrawing from the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, for one, said last week that Mrs. Clinton could not win the race and that her attacks on Mr. Obama were hurting “more than anything that John McCain has said.”

Mrs. Clinton’s forces have mounted a vigorous counterattack, saying she trails by a fairly narrow margin in the overall popular vote and in the delegate count. She has suggested to two allies that party leaders are trying to bully her.

The back and forth on Mrs. Clinton’s future is accompanied by a tactical subtext. Both she and Mr. Obama have applied pressure on each other, political and financial, and then taken the role of victim to rally their partisans and donors.

Former President Bill Clinton dismissed the notion that the discord had hurt the party’s chances of capturing the White House.

“We just need to relax and let this happen,” Mr. Clinton said in Girardville, according to The Associated Press. “Nobody’s talking about wrecking the party. Everywhere I go, all these working people say: ‘Don’t you dare let her drop out. Don’t listen to those people in Washington, they don’t represent us.’ ”

On Saturday, Mr. Obama, answering a question on the subject at the news conference here, seemed to agree with Mr. Clinton.

“You know, there’s no doubt that among some of my supporters or some of her supporters, there’s probably been some irritation created,” he said. “You can’t tell me that some of my supporters are going to say, well, we’d rather have the guy who may want to stay in Iraq for a hundred years because we’re mad that Senator Clinton ran a negative ad against Senator Obama. And I think the converse is true as well.”

All the mad talk of the divided party is simply heat-of-the-moment stuff. Some may choose to avoid voting for one of the two, but that’s more likely because of a complaint on an issue or three and not the tenor of this primary campaign. And for the thin-skinned, whatever the fight game, no-one’s ever become heavyweight champ without good sparring partners.

No, it’s not a joke, though it may prove more sporadic than they hope. And it won’t make a dent in the cost of fuel because everyone knows speculators always drive oil prices up for the summer.

Add to that, the end of the Iraq surge mythos, and a general aura of unease throughout the Middle East, and the stage is set for the $119/bbl oil prices I warned about last Fall.

My sympathies are with the independents all the way, but it’s clear the fatcats of oil will have to hang from the lanyards before their crooked games end.

Sinfonian has narratives and pictures.

NTodd has more pics.

TRex has pics and anecdotes, too.

(I didn’t use permalinks because each did multiple postings, so just scroll for the right stuff, and if you read this next week or next year, oh well, that’s what you get for being a laggard.

Some people think so.

Plans for Al Gore to take the Democratic presidential nomination as the saviour of a bitterly divided party are being actively discussed by senior figures and aides to the former vice-president.

The bloody civil war between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has left many Democrats convinced that neither can deliver a knockout blow to the other and that both have been so damaged that they risk losing November’s election to the Republican nominee, John McCain.

Former Vice President Al Gore speaks at a news conference: Senior Democrats mull Al Gore’s nomination
Former aides to Al Gore now believe he could emerge as a compromise candidate

Former Gore aides now believe he could emerge as a compromise candidate acceptable to both camps at the party’s convention in Denver during the last week of August.

Two former Gore campaign officials have told The Sunday Telegraph that a scenario first mapped out by members of Mr Gore’s inner circle last May now has a sporting chance of coming true.

Mr Gore, who was Bill Clinton’s vice-president and has since won a Nobel Peace Prize and an Oscar for his work on green issues, remains an influential figure eight years after he beat George W Bush in the popular vote but lost the White House after the Florida recount fiasco.

The opening has emerged because opinion polls show Mr McCain stretching his lead over both Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton, whose campaigns are engaged in a daily cycle of attacks, character assassination and mutual recriminations on religion, race and the economy.

I don’t believe the party’s as damaged as some claim. And I don’t think Al’s the answer at all.

On the other hand, he could be the cure for the insomnia I’ve been suffering from and I could just sleep till December.

Don’t argue with me. Deal with it. It was always a dumb idea.

I think I can safely conclude that the political reconciliation the “Surge’s” relatively lowered level of violence was supposed to facilitate has hit a rather significant, uhhm … catastrophuck.

The attempt of parliament to meet and take up the issue of the battle with the Mahdi Army failed when the federal legislature could not muster a quorum. The session then turned into a mere discussion session. Al-Hayat, writing in Arabic, says that one reason that parliament could not get a quorum was that the Kurdistan Alliance and the United Iraqi Alliance (Shiite) support al-Maliki and boycotted the session.

For those who are paying attention, note that the phrases “sectarian violence” or “ethnic violence” are no longer operable since this is purely a Shia on Shia conflict. The Sunni don’t seem to have a dog in this hunt and the Kurds have their own problems since, as Cernig points out, Turkey is far from done making mischief in the North.

Far be it from me to throw a wet blanket on the well deserved flames Fred Kagan is getting for pronouncing The Civil War in Iraq is over — a war the neocons never wanted to admit existed (kinda like not admitting we’re in a recession until the recovery starts). However, a civil war implies two different sides, at the most maybe three. We’ve got at least six separate entities lobbing bombs at each other — almost all of whom have no qualms about putting our troops in the crossfire (or deliberately in the cross-hairs). This is armed chaos, gangland style anarchy.

Some very big brains are still making the same old arguments why we should get out against the same old arguments why we should stay. I think one look at the current situation tells the story in a brand new light. It doesn’t matter if we stay or go.

If we left Iraq today, the Kurds would still be taunting the Turks and getting bombed for their troubles. The battle between the Badr Corps and Mahdi Army would continue just as today but without Teh Awesum aerial bombardments we supply. The Sunni “Crips” would probably make nice with the al Queada in Iraq “Bloods” since their raison d’entre, our occupation, would dissolve their venom for everything and anything, leaving Sheiks and Thugs looking to weigh in with the Shia faction that makes them the best offer. And just as they are now, Iran would be covering all bets, backing everyone so the eventual winner will feel all warm and fuzzy towards Teheran.

Explain to me how this would have played out worse if we weren’t there? That fact that we implicitly have Maliki’s back surely emboldened him to go into Basra with an obviously inadequate force while we bottled up Sadr City and provided air support in the south. The only real utility I see for our presence in the current conflict is Iran is quoting Rodney King (”Can’t we all just get along”) and supplying arms to the Sadrists (and everybody else for that matter) instead of making a move themselves.

Maybe embolden is the wrong word, since to me it’s inconceivable that this operation wasn’t green-lighted in Washington. It smells of arrogant incompetence — a specialty of the Bush Administration. Anything that can keep us there for any reason but the real one, control of that mountain of oil, is good enough for loyal Bushies everywhere — cuz we ain’t going nowhere.

.

Hustle and Flow….we haven’t seen the worst of George W. Bush yet…

political, cartoons,political cartoons, parody, satire, Republicans, GOP, Iraq, War, Theocracy, Bush, Cheney, comics, comic strips,

Zencomix

Yes, how long can one person rest on the laurels of 40 year old deeds? The media seems to think it’s forever, no matter how many times the reformer has been corrupted since.

Digby has more, on the Teflon du teflon man.

Screw the pottery barn rules, the political games, the mad quest to be the world’s oil spigot controller. Occupations only succeed where a united society has been defeated in wartime. Iraq was never united. Its ideological splits were kept at bay by a strongman ruler, just as was true in Yugoslavia.

Which leaves only two options: we either accept and project a permanent presence, as has occurred in Korea, or we simply get out. Yesterday.

This middle approach of trying this or that new strategy has no history on its side. As occurred in Vietnam, we can have a quick exit, save the lives of more troops and watch some immediate bloodletting afterward among the warring sects and tribes and classes. Or we can stay and have a slow motion bloodletting over months and years and include lots more American blood in the process.

That’s it. Our troops should be extracted as quickly as possible, likely about 8 or 9 months, due to the logistics. None of the candidates is proposing that, and they should.

Any alternative will not bring victory in Iraq, will not achieve any goal of anyone but war profiteers. Get out now. Accept the ugly result, because all the other options lead to uglier. And our troops have provided enough sacrifice. Leaving them longer threatens their lives for no chance of any better result.

As in Vietnam, folks will continue to deny this and will spend decades afterwards saying withdrawal was wrong. But if not now, then a year from now, or two, this same conclusion will be reached: our troops are dying and there’s no way out except to accept that things are too botched for any real success to be achieved.

That’s been the reality ever since the Abu Ghraib tortures and murders came to light. Once our moral underpinnings were that compromised, no Iraqi could trust the intents of our government. And that is not going to change.

Get our troops out as soon as can practically be done. It’s time for the delusion to end for the sake of our troops, the ones who still live and deserve to continue doing so.

But how quickly peace becomes war when money changers are involved.

How quickly peace becomes war when greased palms and tables are turned.

How quickly peace becomes mocking attitudes.

t would be naive to suggest that all we need is love.

But sometimes all we need is cash, knowing that love and cash are very intertwined.

So if we put our rose-tinted glasses on, let us never forget that the world is what it is. We see it through whatever filter we wish. The world is a good place when we are feeling good. It is an awful place if we are feeling awful.

We are in charge of our own reality.

We can play head games forever. We can distract ourselves from the real issues.

We can do that.

But if we do that.

NOTHING WILL CHANGE.

All you need is cash
and love.

Amen.

All You Need Is Love
Author: John Lennon; Lead vocal: John Lennon
Love, Love, Love.
Love, Love, Love.
Love, Love, Love.

There’s nothing you can
do that can’t be done.

Nothing you can sing
that can’t be sung.

Nothing you can say
but you can learn how to play the game.

It’s easy.

Nothing you can make
that can’t be made.

No one you can save
that can’t be saved.

Nothing you can do but
you can learn how to be you in time.
It’s easy.

All you need is love.
All you need is love.
All you need is love, love.
Love is all you need.

All you need is love.
All you need is love.
All you need is love, love.
Love is all you need.

Nothing you can know
that isn’t known.

Nothing you can see
that isn’t shown.

Nowhere you can be that
isn’t where you’re meant to be.
It’s easy.

All you need is love.
All you need is love.
All you need is love, love.
Love is all you need.

All you need is love (Paul: All together, now!)
All you need is love. (Everybody!)
All you need is love, love.
Love is all you need (love is all you need).

Yee-hai!
Oh yeah!
She loves you, yeah yeah yeah.
She loves you, yeah yeah yeah.

I’m not one of those calling for Clinton to step out of the primary race. I believe the problem is an overlong, complicated primary process much in need of reform.

When the day after the midterm elections began the primary positioning, I despaired at the thought of 24/7/365 campaigning without letup. Frankly, politicians just aren’t that compelling to have to be subjected to campaign twaddle with every breath.

In fact, in most years, one or two dozen states is disenfranchised from meaningful participation in the primary process because Super Tuesday or shortly after usually decides the nomination. Living in one of those states - Oregon - the plight of Florida and Michigan voters draws little sympathy from me. “Welcome to the We-Don’t-Effing-Matter Club,” I think.

Florida’s Senator Nelson is on the right track: 5 or 6 primary dates spaced equally, every four years, the groups in each rotate to a different date, so eventually, everyone’s first and everyone’s last. It’d be nice if there was some normalcy in how delegates are selected, too, though states being states, the latter may be too much to hope for.

But it’s not Clinton’s fault that the primary season stretches on indefinitely. How she campaigns may deserve critique, but continuing the campaign against long odds is every candidate’s prerogative.

Sure, there’s Obama supporters so angry they say they won’t vote for Clinton and there’s even more Clinton supporters saying the same about Obama. And the tenor of the campaign is part of why that’s so. But even that’s not the whole story. Race, gender, and past records account for some of that obstinacy. And how people feel by June 3rd is not a good predictor of how they’ll act on Election Day.

Historically, younger, newly involved voters have been more predisposed to take that fatalist approach if their candidate doesn’t emerge as the nominee. This year, because Obama’s likely to be the nominee, we’ll get to see how well they stay involved in November, which is a much rarer historical event.

And don’t start expecting Clinton to concede the nomination easily. After Pennsylvania, which she’s heavily favored to win, she really needs Indiana at minimum, and probably North Carolina, which will be very hard to do. So if you thought the Reverend Wright flap was bad, you ought to be prepared for another fresh revelation and new line of attack to emerge before that pair of primaries. Because that’s how political campaigning is done when it’s the fourth quarter, and the two minute warning occurs.

The candidate that’s behind starts throwing Hail Marys, hoping for a lucky break. So it’s likely to get contentious all over again. Folks will get apoplectic again. And at the end of it all, a nominee will emerge. Half of the party will sulk. Pundits will ask if the party’s broken.

And frankly, the party won’t be broken, as much as I wish it were. After all, what I want from the nominee is someone who represents me, my family and community and the US of A. The party’s just a vehicle, not the destination. And a good nominee transcends the party. In a time like this, with both a rotten economy that will be held together by chewing gum and baling wire by Bush and the Fed, and the misery of another rotten war around, McCain is a serious underdog. And if Obama and Clinton can’t figure out how to get themselves or each other into the White House, then the party itself is of little consequence, a meaningless label that its members could care less about.

In the next 4 to 6 weeks, we should try to remember what’s happening to our citizenry. Some are dying in Iraq, some are losing their jobs and/or their homes, some go hungry. That’s where our constant focus should be, on what is wrong that’s damaging American lives. No matter what happens between now and June 3rd, if enough voters keep seeing the giant suck at the center of GOP policies, the Democratic nominee will win.

We’re the grassroots. We control the outcome. We exert the influence on the nominees to address the issues more effectively. Neither has a lock on all the best answers and neither will prove astounding if we fail to convince them to listen and hear and take risks and perform. Getting all the dirty laundry aired out in Spring limits the chances of any October surprises occurring, when late revelations are more damaging.

So expect some more ugliness. Politics ain’t watercress sammiches.

And after this election, reform the stupid primary system to limit the torturous grind of it for future voters and future candidates. That, and papertrail ballot reform, conspire against a happy process and can undo the popular will more than stupid candidate tricks will.

It’s good to see Al Giordano adding Tracy Russo to his blog. She was the Internet Coordinator for John Edwards after the initial brouhaha provoked Melissa and Amanda to step away.

The Field is always a read worth checking, especially as primaries near.

From Paul Kane at the Washington Post:

More than three dozen Democratic congressional candidates banded together yesterday to promise that, if elected, they will push for legislation calling for an immediate drawdown of troops in Iraq that would leave only a security force in place to guard the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.

Rejecting their party leaders’ assertions that economic troubles have become the top issue on voters’ minds, leaders of the coalition of 38 House and four Senate candidates pledged to make immediate withdrawal from Iraq the centerpiece of their campaigns.

“The people inside the Beltway don’t seem to get how big an issue this is,” said Darcy Burner, a repeat candidate who narrowly lost to Rep. Dave Reichert (R-Wash.) in 2006.

The group’s 36-page plan does not set a specific deadline for when all combat troops must be out of Iraq. “Begin it now, do it as safely as you can and get everyone out,” Burner said.

The starkest difference between the group’s proposal, dubbed a “Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq,” and those embraced by many senior Democrats and the party’s presidential candidates is that it rejects the idea of leaving U.S. troops on the ground to train Iraqi security forces or engage in anti-terrorism operations. The group instead calls for a dramatic increase in regional diplomacy and the deployment of international peacekeeping forces, if necessary.

It should be called the Coalition of the Tilling, as they offer to turn swords into plowshares. It’s a heartening and long overdue sign to see as now voters get a real chance to elect a team committed to end the war. And if that’s what voters want, it also gives them a stronger Congress to insure that the promise will be kept.

Juan Cole puts in in its proper perspective. al-Maliki, and al-Hakim have to destroy al-Sadr to keep his elective power from dumping them, in the coming elections.

This is how Bush democracy works: if you can’t beat him, kill him.

And to hear US military commanders tell it, all are supported by Iran, but Iran prefers al-Hakim, who’s more accomodating than the nationalist al-Sadr. The Bushists also like him for the exact same reason. But inside Iraq, al-Sadr’s got more support among the people.

.

.

From The Agonist and Info Wars, This is from 2 WEEKS AGO. Free Tibet demonstrators walking near the U.N., getting beat with clubs and threatened with death by cops in New York City.

There’s a man with a gun over there tellin’ me I got to beware.

Eventually, some Buddhist Monks will light themselves on fire on the sidewalks of New York. Do you think they will care whether or not they are being clubbed with batons or being tazed, bro?

Stop, Hey, What’s That Sound?

I’ve recently become aware that the Illegally Installed Drunken Cokeheaded Deserter is going to be throwing out the ceremonial first pitch for the Washington Nationals this year. I’m just wondering how well it would go over if about half of the crowd started singing this song:

The best version of this song online can be found here. If my Shockwave skills were a bit better, and/or if I could get a copy of this to host myself, I would try and imbed a copy here. But for now you’ll just have to click through and listen to it in its’ native environment on the internets.

It would be even cooler if somebody could get some covert assistance to have the original song broadcast over the staduim’s PA system. Do you think that any of the traditional media outlets would be showing such an event in the mainstream media if it were to actually take place?

Now that you know who the players are, and have a pretty good idea that the current cluster-fuque is something that smells suspiciously Cheneyesque, Juan Cole confirms that your tin-foil hat is receiving on the correct frequency.

My reading is that the US faced a dilemma in Iraq. It needed to have new provincial elections in an attempt to mollify the Sunni Arabs, especially in Sunni-majority provinces like Diyala, which has nevertheless been ruled by the Shiite Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. But if they have provincial elections, their chief ally, the Islamic Supreme Council, might well lose southern provinces to the Sadr Movement. In turn, the Sadrists are demanding a timetable for US withdrawal, whereas ISCI wants US troops to remain. So the setting of October, 2008, as the date for provincial elections provoked this crisis. I think Cheney probably told ISCI and Prime Minister al-Maliki that the way to fix this problem and forestall the Sadrists [c]oming to power in Iraq, was to destroy the Mahdi Army, the Sadrists’ paramilitary. Without that coercive power, the Sadrists might not remain so important, is probably their thinking. I believe them to be wrong, and suspect that if the elections are fair, the Sadrists will sweep to power and may even get a sympathy vote. It is admittedly a big ‘if.’

Silly me. I was thinking that Maliki would take a political beating for unleashing the Army on his own people. Indeed, I overthunk things, believing Maliki would look even worse for appearing too weak to handle the job without being rescued by the Americans who will undoubtedly act in our usual heavy-handed way and destroy the city in order to save it.

Seriously, if they can rig Florida and Ohio, no amount of purple die will ensure fair elections in Iraq.

Maliki says, according to reports translated by Professor Cole, that he doesn’t care about political parties, but won’t tolerate armed gangs (like the Mahdi Army) roaming the streets. Some of those gangs are none too happy with their Prime Minister:

In Baghdad, al-Hayat says, thousands of protesters came out to rally against Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, demanding that he resign and threatening him with a trial worse than that of Saddam Hussein.

Baghdad is essentially locked down until Sunday and the US Embassy is under mortar fire. Good Times. Great Surge.

Here’s the take that should make you spit coffee all over your monitor, so swallow now.

A member of Iyad Allawi’s National Iraqi List, which has 22 seats in parliament, said it was necessary to stop the activities of lawless gunmen. But Izzat al-Shahbandar warned that if the campaign went on very long, it could derail the political process in Iraq.

As if the political process was just going swimmingly before.

Brad DeLong offers as good an explanation why we are backing the same folks Iran likes in the inter-shiite struggle — they speak English. Of course, that doesn’t explain why Cheney backs President Bush, since he doesn’t speak English all that well either.

But don’t fret Boys and Girls. Your PrezNitWit has everything under control, you see, all of this “is a sign normalcy is returning back to Iraq,” cuz after all, Iraq “got their budget passed.” This dangerous man obviously lacks the basic awareness of a third grader.

We just keep on spreadin’ that democracy stuff like fertilizer on desert sand. Meanwhile, as we ready our big guns, Sadr asked for peace talks and was rebuffed by Maliki and protesters loyal to Sadr demonstrated peacefully. It’s quite apparent that despite NPR stating matter of factly “There is no doubt that this operation needed to happen” it didn’t have to go down this way. Unfortunately for all concerned, the Cheney/Maliki coalition can’t win a fair political contest and are forcing the issue.

• On Monday, a fairly light day in the post surge conflict, only 17 Iraqis were killed, 26 wounded and two dead US contractors were identified. This was the day after we reached 4,000 dead US troops.
• Tuesday deaths were up 200% at 54 with 129 wounded, plus one GI. Gen. Petreaus blamed Iran.
• Wednesday, even more Iraqis were killed, 76, wounded more than doubled from the day before at 367, and 2 GI’s and a British soldier were killed. We blamed Iran some more.
• Yesterday, things really got hairy with 225 dead Iraqis, 538 wounded, 1 GI and three of our contractors killed. Pentagon insists it’s all Iran’s fault.

I don’t know about you, but I’m sensing a very scary pattern here. We started air-strikes in earnest today.

Look, with even a goodly number of Democrats believing that Barack Obama is a Muslim, and even good progressive bloggers finding themselves comfortable using Karl Rove as a primary source of political insight, it won’t take much to convince a substantial number of Americans (enough to stave off immediate impeachment, anyway) that we had no choice but expand the current theater of operations across the Shat al-Arab right into Iran — for the maneuvering room if not in hot pursuit of “Terrorists.”

This is going to go from awful to extremely fucked up in a hurry.

Via Political Radar at ABC News:

“Right now, among all the primary states, believe it or not, Hillary’s only 16 votes behind in pledged delegates,” said Bill Clinton, “and she’s gonna wind up with the lead in the popular vote in the primary states. She’s gonna wind up with the lead in the delegates [from primary states].”

“It’s the caucuses that have been killing us,” he added.

Bill Clinton’s decision to flatly predict that his wife will finish ahead of Obama in the pledged delegates and popular vote which come strictly from primary states comes as his wife’s advisers concede that the former first lady will not be able to catch Obama in the total number of pledged delegates.

For several years, I considered Bill Clinton the reigning champ at figuring out how to run a winning campaign, no matter the odds. This primary season has disabused me of that notion, with the constant complaints about the process I thought he’d mastered. It’s not caucuses that have done Clinton in. It’s Obama’s better organization that has won those caucuses and more than half the delegates in the primaries, too.

Arguing for rule changes midway is the only strategy left, and it’s proving to fall on deaf ears. So I went back and looked at the numbers to realize Clinton’s pretty average as a national campaign and sure eough, in every national race, the Clintons have yet to break 50% , or a majority of all the voters.

There’s not enough time for all the goodness out there, but here’s some really great ones I highly recommend from recent reads:

Lance Mannion on the definitions of Liberal Media, Liberalism and related people & things. (and a h/t to the loverly Avedon for that)

Chris Floyd, on ardent Christian soldiers in Iraq, oblivious to the destruction of the freedom to worship - especially Christian worship - that they’ve caused.

BossKitty on the thwarted activities of Bush in the democratic country of Pakistan. He’ll never get Bin Laden now, though he may have never really wanted to.

skippy reports on Ohioans going hungry. It parallels what I wrote yesterday about Oregonians feeling that same pinch.

He’s endorsing Obama which serves major notice Obama won’t concede the state despite long odds against winning it.

Thanks to Kevin Drum, we now have a handy cheat sheet so we know who’s shooting whom in the latest version of Teh Awesumest War Evar™. (Thanx Digby)

And you didn’t think there was going to be a test.

Of course, if you read our fearless host’s post below, even knowing the teams doesn’t matter much when folks take off their uniforms and change teams as soon as the game starts.

Why does this all smack of the surreal to me? I just get the feeling that the Iraqi government forces, and ultimately the Maliki Government itself are being set up to fail, and fail badly.

There’s just no way the Cheney administration will tolerate an Iran friendly Shia regime to take hold in Iraq. Maliki has been too cozy with Teheran, but he gets along with everybody, including us. Sadr hates everybody, especially us.

The two of them duking it out damages both, frankly; but especially the government and Iraqi Army who don’t look to have the force projection capability or loyalty in the ranks to accomplish this particular mission: taking over Basra. Maliki is doomed here to face the humiliating choice of a major defeat militarily or the other humiliation of being forced to call in the calvary — us — to inflict substantial damage to the Mahdi Army.

I’m quite confident nobody has thought through the end game here. Why should they start now?

UPDATE: Looks like the choice has already been made. Or maybe this was the plan right along.

Americans Appear To Take the Lead As Iraqi Units Wait — U.S. forces in armored vehicles battled Mahdi Army fighters Thursday in Sadr City, the vast Shiite stronghold in eastern Baghdad, as an offensive to quell party-backed militias entered its third day.

Of course, that’s Baghdad. The Battle of Basra is what where somebody’s dreams of power and glory will end.

I can’t get over the image of two old men, slumped down in their easy chairs after a circle jerk, complimenting each other for the beauty of their final surges, ignoring completely how flaccid the aftermath has become. But it’s more than two, as the think tank ideologues surround them, still masturbating furiously, contributing their own bit of precious bodily fluids to their quest for empire, just as they saw airbrushed empire in the centerfold of Fantasyboy mogulzine.

Glenn Greenwald also directs us to an equally eloquent essay by IOZ about the world of fantasy and fib these now-flaccid mortals still inhabit, trying to sell the same lies General Westmoreland sold to a skeptical American majority: “here’s fresh proof of success” they say, amid the concrete rat mazes of Baghdad and the oil spoils of Basra now being fought for openly.

This is not the way democracy is given birth. It’s not even close to a test tube birthing. It’s chaos, occasionally limited by military might and backdoor negotiating. And the only thing thriving is the rough beast of violent death, the most predictable reality of their fantasy world, next to the monetary gain of a few at the blood expense of the many.

It’s not just constitutional lawyers and bloggers providing fogcutting vision amid the circle jerk. Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post adds a healthy overview of numerous mainstream media sources who no longer - as some once did - accept the word of the hunched over men. They report the reality of the war now, with the airbrush excluded and the old men exposed, flaccid and delusional.

For the Times of London, James Hider reports:

Abu Iman barely flinched when the Iraqi Government ordered his unit of special police to move against al-Mahdi Army fighters in Basra.

His response, while swift, was not what British and US military trainers who have spent the past five years schooling the Iraqi security forces would have hoped for. He and 15 of his comrades took off their uniforms, kept their government-issued rifles and went over to the other side without a second thought.

Such turncoats are the thread that could unravel the British Army’s policy in southern Iraq. The military hoped that local forces would be able to combat extremists and allow the Army to withdraw gradually from the battle-scarred and untamed oil city that has fallen under the sway of Islamic fundamentalists, oil smugglers and petty tribal warlords. But if the British taught the police to shoot straight, they failed to instil a sense of unwavering loyalty to the State.

“We know the outcome of the fighting in advance because we already defeated the British in the streets of Basra and forced them to withdraw to their base,” Abu Iman told The Times.

“If we go back a bit, everyone remembers the fight with the US in Najaf and the damage and defeat we inflicted on them. Do you think the Iraqi Army is better than those armies? We are right and the Government is wrong. [Nouri al] Maliki [the Iraqi Prime Minister] is driving his Government into the ground.”

The reason for his apparent switch of sides was simple: the 36-year-old was already a member of the al-Mahdi Army which, like other militias, has massively infiltrated the British-trained police force in the southern oil city. He claimed that hundreds of others from the 16,000-strong force have also defected to the rebels’ ranks.Abu Iman joined the new Iraqi police force after the invasion, joining the Mugawil, a special police unit infamous for brutality, kidnapping and sectarian murders.

“We already heard two weeks ago that we were going to attack the Mahdi Army, so we were ready,” he said. “I decided to take off my uniform and join my brothers and friends in the Mahdi Army. All these years, we were like a scream in the face of the dictator and the occupation.” He said: “I joined the police because I believed we have to protect Basra and save it with our own hands. You can see we were the first fighters to take on Sadd-am and his regime, the best example being the Shabaniya uprising.”

Abu Iman said that the fighting raging in Basra yesterday was intense because the al-Mahdi Army was operating on its own turf. He was confident that the Shia militia would prevail because its cause was just.

“The Iraqi Army is already defeated from within. They come to Basra with fear in their hearts, knowing they have to fight their brothers, the sons of Iraq, because of an order from Bush and his friends in the Iraq Government. For this reason, all of the battles are going in the Mahdi Army’s favour.”

And from the Washington Post’s Foreign Service correspondents - Sudarsan Raghavan and Sholnn Freeman - today we see the conflict drawing more US troops in, back in Baghdad.

Fester at The Newshoggers describes the force ratios in Basra, indicating the Basra residents hold the upper hand in the battle:

Besides desertions and defections, another significant problem is force ratios. During the Second Battle of Fallujah, the US attacking forces were composed of a composite division as six battalions led the main attack, another battalion as a diversion force, and two battalions as local reserves. Additionally an Iraqi Army brigade was present as a mop-up/press release force. The defending forces would have been the equivlant of two or three battalions of light infantry and local insurgents/neighborhood militias. Fallujah was a city of roughly 300,00 residents before the assault. And this assualt was supported by theatre level artillery and air support. And despite this large armored and heavy infantry force with excellent air support, plenty of helicopter mobility and firepower, superior logistics, the defending force was able to inflict heavy absolute and proportional casualties — roughly 10% of the US force was wounded or killed, and many infantry companies saw 30% to 50% casualty levels.

The Iraqi Army force in Basra is a single division of lightly supported infantry with some US/UK locally controlled air support, minimal artillery, minimal aviation support. Basra is a city of 2.6 million people (2003) and it is overwhelmingly Shi’ite. If one assumes that one half of one percent of the male population are available to be called up for Mahdi Army fighting units, the defenders have numerical parity with the attacking force. That is never a good thing, especially when the defenders are on their own grounds, fighting from prepared positions in dense urban networks and have higher morale and more firepower than the attackers.

And no matter how the old men stroke it, they can’t get it up for a successful climax.