PUBLIC (OPTION) ENEMIES: BLUE DOGS

.
DEMOCRATS-IN-NAME-ONLY SCUTTLE AMERICANS' HEALTHCARE

REPUBLICANS IN & OUT OF DEMOCRATIC CLOTHING
WORK FOR BIG HEALTHCO AGAINST YOUR HEALTH

Could The Problems With Our Political System Be Any More Obvious?

OK, you can relax now. Put your pants back on. You're not getting healthcare for your tax dollars or your consumer dollars. Just another finger wave. All you'll get is exactly what you've always gotten: Whatever was left over after non-medical "insurance" middlemen and rich greedy Healthco's took as much profit as humanly possible, and then some. That's the purpose of the American healthcare "system": To make a few people rich while millions get sick and even die for lack of healthcare, including those who PAID for private health insurance. That's why we need a "public option." And that's why we're not getting one. Not a real one, anyway. Not ever, under the current political system. Because your "representatives" don't work for you. They work for the corporations; in this case, Big Healthco's.

Yeah, you thought with all this "CHANGE" you bought at the ballot box with your precious vote last November, you would AT LEAST get immediate single-payer universal national healthcare, right? Well, bullsh*t. That's all you're getting. B-U-L-L-S-H-*-T.

Who's to blame for this? Republicans. Conservatives. And their allies: "Moderates," "Centrist" DINO's and other right-wing -ssh-les and wh-res in the pay of Big Healthco's. Just read the lists below, and see if your "representatives" are on it.

Democratic President Obama and his Bush & Clinton staff and appointees just can't seem to put into action the will of 85% of the American people. Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi just can't seem to wring a simple voting majority out of her overwhelming legislative majority of Democrats in the House of Representatives. Democratic Senate Majority leader Harry Reed is unable to get his 60-vote majority to back the Democratic Party's Number One Priority. The public option be damned. No matter what the public wants.

Are we not a democracy? No? Why not? Because Obama, Pelosi and Reed are part of and/ or beholden to a small group of obstructionist, traitorous right-wing so-called Democrats who deliberately take the side of multinational healthcare companies against the side of their own voters and other constituents. They do this because they are bought and paid for by those same healthco's, publicly and unashamedly. The healthco's "political contributions" to the Blue Dogs are all out in the open and on the record. The biggest wh-res get the most money. And it's all perfectly legal. Well, look who wrote the laws. The very same crooked sc-mbags who benefit by them financially.

So, it's time for Step Three of our "CHANGE." In Step One, we kicked many of the Nazi-wannabee Repukelickin's out of Congress. In Step Two we kicked even more of them out, and kept them from holding on to the White House. In Step Three, we clean out the closet-Republican Blue Dogs. In Step Four, we dump Obama, if he doesn't get his sh-t together. Four simple steps to a real democracy. Oh, and we MUST eliminate all corporate money from our political system. Money is NOT speech. And plutocracy is NOT freedom. Change it now.

Here's the public data on the Big Healthco Ho's In Congress. Gawd only knows what else they get under the table. Tip of the iceberg, much?

Anyone with career-damaging information on these Blue Dogs please post it. Everywhere. Pictures of them with live naked boys or dead naked girls a plus. Photoshopping is OK. Just Do It.


NY DAILY NEWS
"'Blue Dog' Democrats ignoring Americans' pain in resisting Obama health care plan"
Are ya SICK, yet?

' You know the Blue Dogs: They're the conservative Democrats who are dragging their paws on President Obama's wish to pass a law by September to give all Americans health insurance. The Blue Dogs used to be called Yellow Dogs, because they were so loyal to the Democratic Party that they'd "vote for a yellow dog if it was on the ticket." They changed to blue after feeling "choked blue" by the liberals. The 52 Blue Dogs are linked to the Republicans. They want to "reduce the subsidies lower-income Americans will get," The Wall Street Journal says. As it is, medical bills cause half the personal bankruptcies in the U.S., even for people with health insurance. We called Alpha Blue Doggie Rep. Mike Ross of Arkansas to ask if he wants poor Americans to get less health care than rich Americans. He didn't call back. The Blue Dogs also want to know how we're going to pay for insurance for the 46 million Americans, including 8 million children, who don't have any. Maybe their fear is fueled by the $508,000 their political action committee got from the health care sector - up 90% from two years before. Oh, well, since Congress is going to recess before doing anything... '

THE BALTIMORE SUN
"Blue Dogs: Fiscally responsible or corporate tools? "
Tools.

' Brad DeLong says: The Blue Dogs have been bought and paid for. They do not want a fiscally-responsible bill. They want to please their masters from the health insurance industry by trying their best to keep there from being a bill at all. '

THE NATION
"Ain't Nothing Centrist About Them"
Centrist? They're freakin' closet Nazi's!

' The Nation -- At this moment -- when 72 percent of the nation supports a public plan option and 14,000 people lose their healthcare every day -- the House Blue Dogs and conservative Democratic Senators are doing just about everything they can to cripple real health care reform. So why does the media keep ceding them the label of "centrist" or "moderate" as if they are the guardians of mainstream values? The danger is that promoting the view that these conservative Democrats are somehow at the center of our politics plays into the hands of those who would like to marginalize progressives as far outside of the mainstream. (And I have no doubt K Street is advising Republicans to constantly refer to their Democratic allies as "moderate" and "centrist".) It also misrepresents what most Americans want from the government in these times. As Drew Westen, professor of psychology at Emory University, founder of Westen Strategies, and author of the invaluable The Political Brain, told me: "The average American, according to all available data, has largely moved slightly left of where it was in the Reagan years, and with changing demographics, it will be far left of Reagan and Bush in twenty years. So to call Democrats who are substantially right of the center of the electorate (let alone of their party), like Heath Shuler, 'moderates,' is both to misrepresent the center of political gravity in the general electorate and in the Democratic Party." How we tell the story of this battle for health care reform matters and will impact whether the battle is won or lost. So-called "centrists" are far from the center of this debate. They are, in fact, out of touch and out of the mainstream -- like the rest of their conservative brethren. '

US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: BLUE DOG COALITION WEBSITE
"The Blue Dog Coalition: 15 Years of Leadership "
You tax dollars at work, f**king YOU. If your Congressperson is on this list, work to defeat him or her next time he or she runs for office.

' Blue Dog Leadership Team
Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Administration
Rep. Baron Hill (IN-09), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Policy
Rep. Charlie Melancon (LA-03), Blue Dog Co-Chair for Communications
Rep. Heath Shuler (NC-11), Blue Dog Whip
Blue Dog Members
Altmire, Jason (PA-04)
Arcuri, Mike (NY-24)
Baca, Joe (CA-43)
Barrow, John (GA-12)
Berry, Marion (AR-01)
Bishop, Sanford (GA-02)
Boren, Dan (OK-02)
Boswell, Leonard (IA-03)
Boyd, Allen (FL-02)
Bright, Bobby (AL-02)
Cardoza, Dennis (CA-18)
Carney, Christopher (PA-10)
Chandler, Ben (KY-06)
Childers, Travis (MS-01)
Cooper, Jim (TN-05)
Costa, Jim (CA-20)
Cuellar, Henry (TX-28)
Dahlkemper, Kathy (PA-03)
Davis, Lincoln (TN-04)
Donnelly, Joe (IN-02)
Ellsworth, Brad (IN-08)
Giffords, Gabrielle (AZ-08)
Gordon, Bart (TN-06)
Griffith, Parker (AL-05)
Harman, Jane (CA-36)
Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie (SD)
Hill, Baron (IN-09)
Holden, Tim (PA-17)
Kratovil, Jr., Frank (MD-01)
McIntyre, Mike (NC-07)
Marshall, Jim (GA-03)
Matheson, Jim (UT-02)
Melancon, Charlie (LA-03)
Michaud, Mike (ME-02)
Minnick, Walt (ID-01)
Mitchell, Harry (AZ-05)
Moore, Dennis (KS-03)
Murphy, Patrick (PA-08)
Nye, Glenn (VA-02)
Peterson, Collin (MN-07)
Pomeroy, Earl (ND)
Ross, Mike (AR-04)
Salazar, John (CO-03)
Sanchez, Loretta (CA-47)
Schiff, Adam (CA-29)
Scott, David (GA-13)
Shuler, Heath (NC-11)
Space, Zack (OH-18)
Tanner, John (TN-08)
Taylor, Gene (MS-04)
Thompson, Mike (CA-01)
Wilson, Charles (OH-06) '

HUFFINGTON POST
"SENATE BLUE DOGS"
Makin' a list, checkin' it twice...

' The Leadership Team:
Senator EVAN BAYH Indiana
Senator BLANCHE LINCOLN Arkansas
Senator TOM CARPER Delaware
Members:
Senator MICHAEL BENNETT, Colorado
Senator MARK BEGICH, Alaska
Senator KENT CONRAD, North Dakota - Chairman, Senate Budget Committee
Senator KAY HAGAN, North Carolina
Senator HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
Senator MARY LANDRIEU, Louisiana
Senator JOE LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
Senator CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missiouri
Senator BEN NELSON, Nebraska
Senator BILL NELSON, Florida
Senator JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
Senator MARK UDALL, Colorado
Senator MARK WARNER, Virginia '

CAMPAIGN DIARIES
"Of the power of conservative Senate Democrats"
Rats in the House, more rats in the Senate.

' Before becoming Majority Leader, Harry Reid was known as a moderate Senator, and it is possible that he would have been part of Bayh’s caucus had he not been part of the Democratic leadership. (The last time I wrote about Bayh’s group, I was only able to identify 12 other Senators: Landrieu, McCaskill, Lieberman, Lincoln, Pryor, Warner, Bill Nelson, Ben Nelson, Klobuchar, Shaheen, Casey and Begich. A recent NYT piece adds 5 names to the list: Tom Carper, Mark Udall, Michael Bennet, Kay Hagan and Herb Kohl. This is one of the first times Hagan has signaled she could cause trouble for progressive causes; Kohl’s presence helps explain why he is one of the Democratic hold-outs on EFCA.) '

538.com
"On Health Care, Who's Hooked on Special Interest Money?"
Who's feeding these rats?

' The AMA, however, is hardly the only player in the health player game. Based on data collected from OpenSecrets.org, I've tallied the amount of contributions that each of the 99 current senators have received from Political Action Committees -- PACs -- from the health care industry since 1989. This includes PACs associated with pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, HMOs, health services companies, medical supply companies and physicians', dentists' and nurses' groups. It does not include any money collected from individual contributors -- only money collected from PACs.

Share of Campaign Contributions from Health Industry PACs 1989-Present '

TALKING POINTS MEMO.COM
"Update: List of Dem Senators Who Don't Support the Public Option"
Is YOUR Senator opposed to the public option? Check the list below.

' Strongly Opposed (2)
Mary Landrieu (LA)-
Joe Lieberman (CT)- Both Lieberman and Landrieu have specifically opposed a public option.
Opposed (9)
Bill Nelson (FL)- Sits on the Finance committee, does not want to embrace the public option but has avoided openly opposing it.
Tom Carper (DE)- Co-sponsored the public plan-free Healthy Americans Act with Wyden. Wants co-ops.
Mark Warner (VA)- Deftly avoiding having to confront the public plan issue.
Mark Pryor (AR)- Blue dog senator who has kept quiet on the public option. I'll take that as secretive opposition. Again, if anyone else has better knowledge on a senator's position, let me know.
Ron Wyden (OR)- Frequent target of pro-reform ads, sponsor the Healthy Americans Act, which does not include a public option.
Mark Begich (AK)- Very little available about his opinion on the public option. He's from a weird state (sorry Alaskans). His next election isn't until 2014. I'm going to put his as a conditional tough sell until I learn more.
Jon Tester (MT)- I couldn't find much on his position, either. Maybe someone more familiar with his political tendencies can fill me in, but I'm going to fill him in as a tough sell.
Evan Bayh (IN)- Fiscally conservative Democrat. Wants to shift the focus away from public option, though he hasn't openly opposed it.
Diane Feinstein (CA)- Seems determined to avoid outright opposition to the public option, though it's clear she does not like it. Gets lots of $$ from insurance companies. Says criticism from left does not bother her. She has reason to worry, though, as her constituency is very liberal and probably very passionate about a public option.
Cajoleable (9)
Michael Bennet (CO)- Prefers the co-op idea, but said he could support a public option.
Max Baucus (MT)- He's been trying to compromise with Republicans by offering them compromises that don't include a public option, but he has said the public option is 'on the table', and he said he opposes the public option merely because it won't get enough votes, not on substance.
Maria Cantwell (WA)- Offered support for a public option, but was vague about what that means. She should be in a position to vote for the final bill.
Kent Conrad (ND)- Main reason for opposing the public option because it didn't have the votes, not because of its substance. If momentum picks up, I think he'll jump aboard.
Byron Dorgan (ND)- Said he would support public option if it doesn't put private insurers out of business.
Ben Nelson (NE)- Initially called the public option a 'deal breaker,' but recently claimed he would not support a filibuster.
Blanche Lincoln (AR)- Wrote a column today saying "Options should include private plans as well as a quality, affordable public plan or non-profit plan that can accomplish the same goals as those of a public plan." The nonprofit concept almost certainly won't be included in the final bill.
Robert Byrd (WV)- Very old and very sick.
Kay Hagan (NC)- Recently caved to overwhelming criticism and said she would support some sort of public option, though she was vague on details.
Recent converts (2)
Harry Reid (NV)- Looks like Harry Reid has decided to take some leadership.
Mark Udall (CO)- Said he supports a public health care option. '

(Cross-posted at The Smirking Chimp by cosanostradamus.)


IMPORTANT MESSAGE FROM YOUR BLOGGERS:

Suggestion Box & Tip Jar

We would like to make over this blog to make it easier to access, to read and to comment on. We would also like to serve our readers better by providing more of what you need and want to see. All serious suggestions will be considered. We hope to move to our own domain in the near future, and we would like to ask for your financial assistance in doing that, and in upgrading our hardware & software. Small one-time donations and larger long-term subscriptions are welcome. Exclusive advertising is also available. If you think we are wasting our time in doing all this, please let us know. If you wish to help us, now is the time. As always, negative bullsh*t from right-wing trolls will be sh*tcanned. Thank you to everyone else.

Please send feedback & PayPal contributions to cosanostradamusATexciteDOTcom. Thanks.

.
.

TO POST A COMMENT: CLICK ON "COMMENTS," "Post a Comment" or "# of COMMENTS" just below the SOCIAL BOOKMARKING LINKS (Digg, Delicious, etc), about three inches down from here. Please do comment. Thank you.

IMPORTANT MESSAGE FROM YOUR BLOGGERS:

Suggestion Box & Tip Jar We would like to make over this blog to make it easier to access, to read and to comment on. We would also like to serve our readers better by providing more of what you need and want to see. All serious suggestions will be considered. We hope to move to our own domain in the near future, and we would like to ask for your financial assistance in doing that, and in upgrading our hardware & software. Small one-time donations and larger long-term subscriptions are welcome. Exclusive advertising is also available. If you think we are wasting our time in doing all this, please let us know. If you wish to help us, now is the time. As always, negative bullsh*t from right-wing trolls will be sh*tcanned. Thank you to everyone else. Please send feedback & PayPal contributions to cosanostradamusATexciteDOTcom. Thanks.

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS: BRING THEM ALL HOME ALIVE, NOW!

TALKING TO THE WALL

.
NOW WE HAVE RIGHT-WING AND CENTER-RIGHT TALKING POINTS

WILL THESE PEOPLE NEVER LEARN TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES?

They Need To Recognize That The Right Is The Minority In This Country, And That The Left Just Won All The Elections

By their bullsh*t, ye shall know them. The Clintonians are back, bad as ever. Like their dopplegangers who are out-of-the-closet Republicans, they come with their endless series of lies and bigger lies, trying to deny & distort a reality that rejects everything about them. They have failed again and again in their corporatist ambitions. Their way simply doesn't work. Nobody wants it. We just told them that, loudly, in the Primaries and in the General Election. Now here they are again with their ridiculous talking points, trying to win by stealth and deception what they couldn't win in a full, free, fair and open election: The hearts and minds of the majority of the American people, progressives all, and control of our brand spankin' new government's policies. Just say no. Just say "CHANGE!" Just keep saying it till they f*ck off.

MY ORIGINAL COMMENT ON OBAMA'S LATEST NOMINATIONS:

The (inside) joke about our financial markets is that they have ever been in any way "public," or for the benefit of the public. Any benefit we might enjoy is purely incidental to the real purpose of enriching & empowering the people who set up & run these markets, and then go on to "regulate" them. They're nothing but casino's, and only the house can ever win, in the long run, and on a regular basis. They've even put our homes on the craps table.

Anyone who doesn't see this, or deliberately denies it, is either a damned fool or a shill. Or both. Our capacity for self-delusion is not limited to those outside the markets. It must be easy to believe your own cons when they work so f*cking well.

The latest interest rate cuts, the last possible, will either finally enable us to borrow our own damned money again, or show even the blindest fool what the game is really all about, and who benefits from it. It'll be easy: They'll be the ones not homeless, jobless, hungry and without medical care. We'll be the other ones, still paying for it all.

Is Obama likely to do anything about this? Or is he simply going to tell us how we need to be tightening our already strangulating belts, believe in the system, and trust in him to fix it? Well, he's got the usual suspects already rounded up. They're all on his economic team.

Oh, wait. Didn't FuxSnooze say we were voting for socialism? Phew! For a minute there, I thought there was no way out of this!

Anybody know where those posse comitatus-exempt troops are, right now? Just askin'.


Well, cosanostradamus and all of you out there who seem to think that Obama is going to be just as bad as Bush or McCain, tell me, what should we do? If we decide to take to the streets, who would support us? And since we can't retroactively remove Obama and replace him with Dennis Kucinich, or Cynthia McKinney, or the bones of César Chávez (and good luck getting someone else to run in 2012, short of someone putting a bullet into Mr. Obama, though considering the crazies on the right who think he's the second coming of Karl Marx, not that they know anything about Marx anyway), I'd say that Mr. Obama is, at present, our best hope at restoring sanity.
--SOMEGUYon SomeBodyElse'sSite

What "we" should do is whatever each one of us thinks is right. If you think that just voting for a President once every four years, and then just sitting on your ass and letting him do whatever he wants, regardless of his promises or your interests, your thinking is dead wrong. If you think voting for somebody involves some sort of Anglo-Saxon medieval thralldom to him or her, you're dead wrong. Here's what I think: We elected these people to do our bidding, not to tell us why they can't or won't. We live in a representative democracy, not an autarchy-by-lottery. Once they are elected, they are responsible to us, and must carry out our will until we fire them. It's up to us to stay right behind them, carefully watching, pushing them, pulling for them, and kicking them in the ass as needed. That's our job, not to be good Germans.


That's what I want. But I also recognize that in the real world, that just ain't gonna happen. Powerful people excel at covering their own asses, and removing them from power usually means lots and lots of bloodshed. If you don't believe me, read the histories of the French and Russian Revolutions. Oh and tell me if you think what happened directly after those two events (the Reign of Terror and Soviet Russia) were any better than what had gone on before.
--SOMEGUYon SomeBodyElse'sSite

Yes, I do think that the reign of Terror and Soviet Russia were better than the Ancien Regime and the Czars. Too many people died, too many were oppressed, but those years represented a transition, and the stages that followed meant an end to that level of death & oppression: Fifty years of turmoil in France and seventy years of turmoil in Russia ended over a thousand years of oppression and exploitation. I don't think we should or need to go through any such violence and oppression to bring about change in the U.S. France and Russia did not have democracy to work with, we do. We just need to work with it. And I do mean work. This means actively participating all the time, not just in Presidential or Congressional elections. This means taking over our local political organizations and/ or forming new ones to return power to the grass-roots level. We need a bottom-up, not a top-down system. We're stuck with the "two-Party System," for now, so we need to use it to create a new system. Without a Party to control a Government, we have nothing. We must stay involved and take over the Parties. Electing Obama and creating the networks and mechanisms that helped him win is only step one. Step two is using those networks and mechanisms every day to help/ force Obama & Co to effect change.


Instead of surrendering, as we seem to be doing by saying we can't trust Mr. Obama to do much of anything, we can support him against the frivolous attacks that are already being launched on him and try to build the foundation of a better future. The GOP didn't get where they are overnight and it'll take us just about as long to set things straight, and we can only hope the next generation doesn't fall for conservative BS as ours did.
--SOMEGUYon SomeBodyElse'sSite

Speak for yourself. I didn't "fall for conservative BS," ever. My objections to Obama's very important steps and missteps so far are anything but "frivolous." And I don't consider "Mr. Obama" to be the answer to all of society's ills. He's nothing but a tool. If we leave him lying around, somebody else will make use of him, for their own purposes. I think that is already happening. And I think it is happening because people like you would have us fail to strike while the iron is hot, "giving him time"/ "waiting & seeing" etc, while the Permanent Government and the opportunists who represent only the Established Order jump in and gobble up every Cabinet post, every advisory position, every lever of power and every point of access to Obama that means anything, while people like you council us to be patient. F*ck that. My country can't afford any more of that sort of "patience," which is just the same old apathy, cowardice, laziness and muddle-headed thinking that gave Dubya eight freakin' years to destroy the World As We Knew It. Enough with your time-wasting: Lead, follow or get out of the way.


Not sure how I'm supposed to interpret that as anything other than "Obama's just as bad as the others, since he's picking the 'usual suspects'". I'm also not sure who it is you all want running things that hasn't already refused outright or indicated that they're better suited where they are (like Gore and Krugman).
--SOMEGUYon SomeBodyElse'sSite

Who do I want running things? Not conservatives, Republicans, ex-Republicans, reformed-Republicans, sorta-Republicans, neo-crypto-semi-demi-hemi-Republicans, DINO's, conservative "Democrats," "moderate" Democrats, corporatist Democrats, Wall Street Democrats, AIPAC Democrats, the DLC, "blue-dog" Democrats, Southern Democrats, Arkansas Democrats, Clintonistas, Hillbots, or any of the people who lost the Primary and the General Election because we voted AGAINST them. With all this talk about a "mixed" Cabinet, where is the even-slightly left of center Cabinet member, or top advisor to Obama? Name one. Just one. There's 300,000,000 people in this country; 6,000,000,000 people on this bloody planet. Let him pick at least 50% of his people from "outside Washington," as he promised. If, like they say, it's the people the President surrounds himself with who make or break him, apparently, "It" is Clinton and it's already broken. We all voted against that. Remember? Just last month?


And yes, I see this perpetual carping about "the usual suspects" as nothing more than whining, and worse, it's speculative whining, because the man isn't President yet.
--SOMEGUYon SomeBodyElse'sSite

In case you haven't noticed, Obama is already the President, to almost all intents and purposes. Except for some sneaky back-door moves by Dubya on his way out the door, the old regime has nearly closed up shop, and is letting everything go to Hell, now through the inauguration, even though Cheney still holds the keys & the codes. Obama, to his credit, is moving faster than any President-elect ever has in putting his Adminstration together. There will be no Clintonian inter-regnum of fumbled nominations, failed appointments and forgotten initiatives. But this means that, effectively, Obama has already started governing, and much of his government is being set in stone even as we speak. Now is not the time to stop speaking. Believe me, your erstwhile Clinton-faves are all rushing in to fill the vacuum you would have us leave. And let's not forget: The Clintons were an unmitigated disaster for the progressive movement in this country, a movement that has been stalled by forty years of Cons & DINOs. If we continue to "give them time" to take over the policy-making and implementing machinery of our government, we are in for four more years of "centrist," (i.e. Republican-Lite) Clintonian dithering and the end of "hope." It makes one wonder whose side you're on.


That's a pretty long list. Who does it leave, then? Got any specifics? And what criteria would you have for choosing them?

Mr. Clinton and Mr. Carter brought in a lot of non-Washington people and they got nothing but grief for it, and it hampered their ability to initiate a more liberal agenda. Mr. Clinton's failure on health care is a prime example of that. He was right, but didn't know how to work the system to get it done.

Mr. Obama isn't basing his cabinet decisions on ideological purity, he's basing them on their ability to do what he feels needs to be done. Whether you agree with these people's ideology isn't as relevant: I happen to agree with everything I say, but I wouldn't choose me for any position of responsibility because I know I wasn't up to it.

As for whose "side" I'm on, I'm on everyone's side. I want the world to be a better place for every human being on Earth. You don't get to that point by gauging everyone based on ideology.

And to address the side issue on this, I'm not saying people don't have the right to speak out, I'm saying that what some of you have been saying is speculative, whiny, and counterproductive. That's the great part about free speech, you state your opinion, I state mine.

If you want someone to go in the direction you want, you do it with deeds as well as words, by being pro-active as well as reactive. When FDR told the liberals of his day to "make him do it" that's what he meant. Stop whining and make Mr. Obama do it.
--SOMEGUYon SomeBodyElse'sSite

It seems to me that you're the one who is whining. Why don't you stop whining? All you do is regurgitate talking points you picked up in the tame corporate media, old, rank, stale sh*t going all the way back to the 70's.

If you can't think for yourself, don't bother repeating endlessly those ridiculous talking points. We've all heard them a thousand times. They always amount to this: "Do nothing. Trust the system. Left bad. "Center" good. Bullsh*t, plain & simple.

And if you think ideology means nothing, you aren't much at thinking. Carter and Clinton were incompetent DINO's without ideology. They compromised away any chance for change, just as you would do.

Even you admit Carter & Clinton accomplished nothing. Why give them another chance? As to other voices, try counting again: 300 million in America alone. 6 billion in the world at large.

Like I said, lead, follow or get out of the way. I'm already doing what I feel needs to be done, IRL. This is just a sideshow, as the name implies. Please do go on wasting your own time with your negativity, passivity and petty niggling. Yeah, you live on faith, not action. We get it. Now stop wasting our time. Go attack your conservative "friends" for all the harm they've done. The rest of us have real work to do, and whiners like you are just in the way.
.
.

TO POST A COMMENT: CLICK ON "COMMENTS," "Post a Comment" or "# of COMMENTS" just below the SOCIAL BOOKMARKING LINKS (Digg, Delicious, etc), about three inches down from here. Please do comment. Thank you.

IMPORTANT MESSAGE FROM YOUR BLOGGERS:

Suggestion Box & Tip Jar We would like to make over this blog to make it easier to access, to read and to comment on. We would also like to serve our readers better by providing more of what you need and want to see. All serious suggestions will be considered. We hope to move to our own domain in the near future, and we would like to ask for your financial assistance in doing that, and in upgrading our hardware & software. Small one-time donations and larger long-term subscriptions are welcome. Exclusive advertising is also available. If you think we are wasting our time in doing all this, please let us know. If you wish to help us, now is the time. As always, negative bullsh*t from right-wing trolls will be sh*tcanned. Thank you to everyone else. Please send feedback & PayPal contributions to cosanostradamusATexciteDOTcom. Thanks.

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS: BRING THEM ALL HOME ALIVE, NOW!

SENATOR MEOW!!!

.
CATFIGHT IN THE BIG APPLE

BILLARY SAYS CAROLINE KENNEDY "UNQUALIFIED":
"SHE'S JUST A RESUME WITH FAMILY CONNECTIONS"



And Hillary's Not Talking About Herself, For A Change

It seems like only yesterday that some catty New Yorkers were saying that Hillary Clinton was nothing but a resume, an empty pants-suit, trying to play on the big heart of the Big Apple with her sad connection to her disgraced husband, ex-POTUS & world-class poon-hound Slick Willie Clinton, in grabbing the Bobby Kennedy seat in the U.S. Senate. In fact, it was just yesterday that people all over the world were saying this about Hill's nomination to the post of U.S. Secretary of State. Other than ducking imaginary fire in Bosnia, and serving tea to other First Ladies in the Rose Garden, what the Hell does Hillary Rodham Clinton know about foreign affairs?

As to diplomacy, it's hard to imagine a candidate less qualified by temperament or style. When tasked with straightening out our national health care mess, an issue almost everyone thought needed attention, Hillary's imperious and secretive ways, her abrasive and dismissive personality, and her husband's philandering pretty much set the cause back twenty years. Just THINK what she could do in the cause of whirled peas, or international security! Oh, well, she knows where Israel is, or the AIPAC office, anyway. You can see it from her office. That's all that really matters.

That's pretty much all that really matters in being Senator from New York, also; besides shipping jobs out of State and overseas. From Jacob Javits to Charley Rangel, New York's congressfolk have established a tradition of not serving their constituencies, unless you count foreign countries. So, who needs experience? It hasn't hurt, or helped Hillary, her lack of it. Who even notices who fills that seat in the Millionaires Club?

I guess the Clintons do. They seem to think they own that seat now, though many NYers still contest their right to have ever even occupied it in the first place. Maybe it's Hillary's Illinois origins. You think she'd be more sensitive about that, in the midst of the Blagojevitch scandal. But, no, Billary wants what Billary wants, regardless of whom it hurts, or whom it doesn't help.

They don't care any more about the people of New York than they did about the people of the whole country during the recent election, when both Hill' and Billy stooped to unheard-of lows in attacking Obama violently and racially, even hinting that, as a black man, he could be assassinated. They seemed to be calling for Obama's killing, in many people's eyes. Despite this, Obama has given them an olive branch, a lot of them, a whole freakin' olive tree in Cabinet & staff picks. It just ain't enough. They want it all. They're the ultimate power-junkie couple. They just can't manage power once they get it. They haven't a clue, or an ideology, or principles, or any respect for Democratic traditions and institutions.

"F*ck Ted Kennedy," as fellow Southron Governor and failed President Jimmy Carter once said. Teddy's dying, but so what? The Kennedy legacy, so central to Democratic iconography and popular mythology, is not good for the crackerocracy of the DINO's. After all, Jack and Bobby split with the Dixiecrats over civil rights, and they may have killed the brothers for it. No bad blood there, hunh? The few blue dog Democrats (In Name Only) who remained with or returned to the Party after the Civil Rights Era are really Republicans, based on their opposition to everything Democratic except the voting trends in their own jurisdictions.

Some Southerners never could bring themselves to vote for the Party of Lincoln, their vanquisher in the Civil War. They may have voted Democrat, but they continually dragged the Party into the conservative swamps. Thanks to them even more than the Republicans, who used to be in the minority much of the time, the progressive agenda was never achieved. National health, federal funding for education, housing, transportation, the environment, etc, and the cause of peace on Earth got held off and put back and shot down every year for the last hundred years. In fact, the DINO's helped get conservative Republicans elected, and even pushed their arch-conservative, anti-progressive agenda. Zell Miller, anyone?

Still, we're supposed to work with these people, a minority within a minority. Why? Because they're armed & dangerous, with a history of political violence? Isn't that negotiating with terrorists? Shouldn't we be fighting these *ssholes, tooth & nail? The recent Presidential and Congressional elections show that the sixty per cent who rarely vote are in fact progressives, not conservatives. Even in the South, record turnouts turned out for a perceived progressive for President and many other offices. The fact that Obama is now squandering that historic victory, that sea-change in American politics, is a victory for the minority DINO's, and a major betrayal of his own vast but diminishing base.

Are the DINO's happy with that? Nope. They gotta have that NY Senatorial spot, too; just to show who's boss, once and for all. They're pissing a line in the sand on this one. How it turns out will show which way Obama is ultimately headed: Toward the right-of-center, or toward the left-of-center. (There is nothing further left than left-of-center in this country, outside of the graveyards.) Will Obama be able to govern the Clintonians, much less the country? The only hope is that all his moves so far have been part of a grand design to give the Clintonista's a chance to discredit themselves with their usual squabbling and bungling, and kick them out of the Party altogether. Of course, then they'll just come back as Republicans In Name Only, still furthering their principle-free, power-for its-own sake agenda. Clinton-Palin 2016, anyone?

No. I didn't think so.


CBS NEWS 2 NYC
"Caroline Kennedy Ready To Emerge From The Shadows"
Female, mom, has worked for children's issues, education, health care, smart, tough, dedicated, politically inclined, well-connected. Hum. Sounds just like Hillary, with better baggage. Much better. Oh, wait, she's gracious and well-spoken, genuine, natural, unpretentious and has a sense of humor. No, she's nothing like Hillary.

' It is a Senate seat that has long been held by political celebrities who had not held prior elective office. First Lady Hillary Clinton grabbed the seat in 2000. Robert F. Kennedy got it in 1965. Now, Caroline Kennedy wants Gov. Paterson to give it to her. Caroline Kennedy is a graduate of Harvard and Columbia Law. She has also written seven books, helped Barack Obama select a vice presidential running mate, and in New York City has raised millions for public education. Friends told CBS 2 HD she wants to concentrate on education and health care in the Senate. '

USA TODAY
"Kennedy would follow Clinton as late-bloomer senator "
So, Clintonians hate Caroline, Kennedyites love her. Some news.

' If Caroline Kennedy becomes a senator, she'd be New York's second female celebrity senator to take an unconventional route to Congress. Kennedy is a lawyer who has written about constitutional issues and raised money for the New York City school system. She expressed interest in the job Monday, according to several officials in the state, including the man who will make the choice, Gov. David Paterson. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, named by President-elect Barack Obama to be secretary of State in his administration, was the nation's first lady for eight years before moving to New York in 2000 to run for the Senate seat. Despite her family's political legacy, Kennedy has largely stayed out of politics. New York critics have zeroed in on that lack of public record. "She's not demonstrated the qualifications or the experience for the position," Robert Zimmerman, a Clinton adviser and fundraiser, told the New York Post. Bob Shrum, a Democratic strategist and speechwriter who has worked for the Kennedys, said that "like Hillary Clinton, the minute she got there, she would have influence." '

NY POST
"KENNEDY FOR THE SENATE"
Oh, yeah, she is an actual NEW YORKER, born & raised a City girl, a North-Easterner and an East-Coaster, unlike Hill-Billary...

' Her uncle, Robert F. Kennedy, held the very same seat from 1965 until his assassination three years later. But the arguments for her selection go far beyond mere symbolism. Consider her unusually high profile: As the only surviving child of President John Kennedy, she'd enter the Senate with considerably more political clout than the average freshman. While she hasn't been especially involved in New York's political wars, she's hardly unaware of the issues. A city resident since shortly after her father's assassination, she played a critical role in advancing the reform agenda spearheaded by Mayor Bloomberg and Schools Chancellor Joel Klein. '

NY TIMES
"Résumé Long on Politics, but Short on Public Office "
It's clear where the headline-writer stands. But read the article.

' But friends and associates say that Ms. Kennedy, 51, is no dilettante, and that her career is replete with examples of the kind of hands-on policy work and behind-the-scenes maneuvering that could serve her well. “She’s not shy about pushing people in a direction, and very good at doing it in a way that people don’t even realize they’re being pushed,” said Heather Campion, one board member. “She’s good in the room, but she’s also good at getting people to focus and come together quickly,” Mr. Klein said. Ms. Kennedy is now vice chairwoman of the schools’ nonprofit fund-raising arm, but she continues to visit schools across the city, with no entourage or press aide. Yet Ms. Kennedy spent about six weeks barnstorming battleground states for Barack Obama and took to it with gusto: An aide recalled her strolling into a Republican headquarters near Ocala, Fla., and peppering voters with questions at every turn. “Eric was the quiet one, and she was the one that, really, when I said something, asked, ‘Who? Why? How come?’ ” said Representative Joe Baca, chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, who met with them to analyze the contenders. “She did most of the talking.” Ms. Kennedy also took it upon herself to write a lengthy memo for Mr. Obama, a senior campaign adviser said. “I think she sized up the field in a way that was thoughtful and sophisticated and right,” he said. “And I think it weighed heavily with him.” Ms. Kennedy has said that it was her children who got her to give Mr. Obama a look last year. Elaine Jones, a retired head of the NAACP fund, speculated that Ms. Kennedy’s children — her two daughters are in college and her son is in high school — were also the reasons she had not entered public life sooner. “A fishbowl can adversely affect a child,” Ms. Jones said. “Her mother found a way to keep her children real. Caroline, I think, wanted that for her children. So I think, without knowing it, subconsciously, she was trying to get her kids to this point.” '

NY DAILY NEWS
"Caroline Kennedy's fine, but a senator? Andrew Cuomo not so sure"
Rival, kicked out of Kennedy family by her cousin, Cuomo disses Caroline. Like HE made it on his own! HAH! Real objective journalism, Daily News!

' Attorney General Andrew Cuomo praised Caroline Kennedy yesterday - but wouldn't say if he thinks she's qualified to be a U.S. senator. "I've known Caroline for years, I have a high opinion of her, but that's going to be up to the governor," Cuomo said. "I wouldn't second-guess his judgment." Kennedy is the cousin of Cuomo's ex-wife, Kerry. After 13 years of marriage, he and Kerry Kennedy went through an acrimonious divorce, with the Kennedys believing that Cuomo fed dirt to the media on his wife's extramarital affair. Cuomo sidestepped questions on whether he wants to replace Sen. Hillary Clinton when she becomes secretary of state. While insisting he's happy as attorney general, he did not deny interest in the Senate seat. He and Kennedy are front-runners. "I think it's a little presumptuous for someone to say 'I'm not interested,'" Cuomo said. '

BOSTON HERALD
"We Hear: Hillary Clinton, Caroline Kennedy and more..."
CATFIGHT!!!

' That Secretary of State-in-waiting Hillary Clinton is lobbying hard to prevent Caroline Kennedy from taking her Senate seat when she steps down. Clinton, who will resign once she is confirmed as Barack Obama’s new top diplomat, is more than a little peeved that Caro - and her uncle Ted - threw their weight behind Obama in the presidential race. '

THE NEW YORK OBSERVER
"The Not-Kennedy Campaign"
Billary's Talking Points Memo widely circulated, but secret, and deniable. How Republican!

' Suddenly, weeks after Caroline Kennedy's name first emerged as a candidate to fill the Senate seat that will be opened when Hillary Clinton joins the Obama administration in January, the establishment is very, very concerned—publicly—that she might not have what it takes. But at least one member of the New York House delegation—albeit one outside of the downstate echo chamber—has noticed that the Kennedy critics seem to be reading off the same page. "About two days ago one of my colleagues said that he thought she was too retiring, too private," said upstate Representative Louise Slaughter, who said that similar remarks made publicly by Ackerman suggested that "talking points are out there." For her part, Slaughter said she though Kennedy would be a fine choice to take Clinton's place. "The person who gets that seat has to be someone who has great stature," she said. '

NY DAILY NEWS
"Clintonites Against Kennedy"
And here's where those talking points come from.

' The storyline of pushback by Hillary Clinton supporters against Caroline Kennedy being tapped by Gov. David Paterson to succeed the junior senator whom Kennedy dissed in the Democratic primary is gaining steam. On the heels of questions raised about Kennedy's experience, or lack thereof, by Reps. Anthony Weiner and Gary Ackerman, both loyal Clinton supporters who were also her designated superdelegates at the Democratic National Convention, comes a statement from Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union head Stuart Appelbaum, who says Kennedy is "fascinating and engaging" but "a blank slate on New York issues." RWDSU was an early supporter of Clinton in the Democratic primary and Appelbaum campaigned with her in a number of early primary/caucus states, including Iowa. '

WIKIPEDIA: HILLARY CLINTON
"Hillary Rodham Clinton"
Ah, Memory! Ah, History!

' Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton (born October 26, 1947) is the junior United States Senator from New York and President-elect Barack Obama's nominee for United States Secretary of State. She was a candidate for the Democratic nomination in the 2008 presidential election. She is married to Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States, and was the First Lady of the United States from 1993 to 2001.A native of Suburban Chicago, Hillary Rodham first attracted national attention in 1969 for her remarks as the first student to deliver the commencement address at Wellesley College. She embarked on a career in law after graduating from Yale Law School in 1973. Following a stint as a Congressional legal counsel, she moved to Arkansas in 1974 and married Bill Clinton in 1975. She was later named the first female partner at Rose Law Firm in 1979, and was twice listed as one of the one hundred most influential lawyers in America. She was the First Lady of Arkansas from 1979 to 1981 and 1983 to 1992 and was active in a number of organizations concerned with child welfare, as well as sitting on the boards of Wal-Mart and several other corporations.When she was First Lady of the United States, her major initiative, the Clinton health care plan, failed to gain approval from the U.S. Congress in 1994. In 1997 and 1999, Clinton played a role in advocating for the establishment of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, the Adoption and Safe Families Act, and the Foster Care Independence Act. She became the only First Lady to be subpoenaed, testifying before a federal grand jury as a consequence of the Whitewater controversy in 1996. She was never charged with any wrongdoing in this or any of the several other investigations during her husband's administration. The state of her marriage to Bill Clinton was the subject of considerable public discussion following the Lewinsky scandal in 1998.
Senate election of 2000
The long-serving United States Senator from New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, announced his retirement in November 1998. Several prominent Democratic figures, including Representative Charles B. Rangel of New York, urged Clinton to run for Moynihan's open seat in the United States Senate election of 2000.[188] When she decided to run, Clinton and her husband purchased a home in Chappaqua, New York, north of New York City in September 1999.[189] She became the first First Lady of the United States to be a candidate for elected office.[190] At first, Clinton was expected to face Rudy Giuliani, the Mayor of New York City, as her Republican opponent in the election. However, Giuliani withdrew from the race in May 2000 after being diagnosed with prostate cancer and having developments in his personal life become very public, and Clinton instead faced Rick Lazio, a Republican member of the United States House of Representatives representing New York's 2nd congressional district. Throughout the campaign, Clinton was accused of carpetbagging by her opponents, as she had never resided in New York nor participated in the state's politics prior to this race. Clinton began her campaign by visiting every county in the state, in a "listening tour" of small-group settings.[191] During the campaign, she devoted considerable time in traditionally Republican Upstate New York regions.[192] Clinton vowed to improve the economic situation in those areas, promising to deliver 200,000 jobs to the state over her term. Her plan included specific tax credits to reward job creation and encourage business investment, especially in the high-tech sector. She called for personal tax cuts for college tuition and long-term care.[192]
The contest drew national attention. Lazio blundered during a September debate by seeming to invade Clinton's personal space trying to get her to sign a fundraising agreement.[193] The campaigns of Clinton and Lazio, along with Giuliani's initial effort, spent a record combined $90 million.[194] Clinton won the election on November 7, 2000, with 55 percent of the vote to Lazio's 43 percent.[193] She was sworn in as United States Senator on January 3, 2001.
After moving to New York, Clinton was elected as senator for New York State in 2000. That election marked the first time an American First Lady had run for public office; Clinton is also the first female senator to represent New York. In the Senate, she initially supported the George W. Bush administration on some foreign policy issues, which included voting for the Iraq War Resolution. She has subsequently opposed the administration on its conduct of the war in Iraq, and has opposed it on most domestic issues. She was reelected by a wide margin in 2006. In the 2008 presidential nomination race, Clinton won more primaries and delegates than any other female candidate in American history, but after a long campaign, she narrowly lost to Senator Barack Obama, who became the party's presumptive nominee in June 2008, and Clinton endorsed and campaigned for him. She is the first First Lady to be subsequently appointed to the Cabinet in any Presidential administration. '

WIKIPEDIA: CAROLINE KENNEDY SCHLOSSBERG
"Caroline Kennedy"
Just the facts, Ma'am.

' Caroline Bouvier Kennedy (born November 27, 1957) is an American author and attorney. She is the daughter and only surviving child of U.S. President John F. Kennedy and his wife, Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy. Kennedy was born in New York City and is named after her maternal aunt Caroline Lee Radziwill and a maternal great-grandmother. An older sister was stillborn in 1956. Her brother John Jr. was born in November 1960 and died in a plane crash along with his wife and sister-in-law in July 1999. Another brother, Patrick, died two days after his birth of a lung ailment in August of 1963. She lived in the Washington, D.C. neighborhood of Georgetown until a few months after her third birthday, when her family moved into the White House after her father's inauguration as President of the United States in 1961. Following her father's assassination in November 1963, she moved back to Georgetown with her mother and brother. However, their home soon became a popular tourist attraction in Washington, and they moved to New York City in mid-1964 where they lived in a penthouse apartment on Fifth Avenue, on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. She received her A.B. from Harvard University and her J.D. from Columbia Law School, after attending the Brearley School and Convent of the Sacred Heart in Manhattan, and Concord Academy in Massachusetts.
Personal life
Kennedy spoke during the first night of the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colorado, on August 25, 2008. during an introduction of her uncle, Sen. Ted Kennedy.
After interning with her uncle, U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy, and at The New York Daily News, Caroline Kennedy began work at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York in 1980, where she met her future husband, exhibit designer Edwin Schlossberg.[2]
Kennedy and Schlossberg were married on July 19, 1986[3] at Our Lady of Victory Church in Centerville, Massachusetts. Kennedy's matron of honor was her cousin Maria Shriver. She was walked down the aisle by her Uncle Ted. Although she is often incorrectly referred to as "Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg", she did not change her name when she married.
Professional life
Kennedy is an attorney, editor, writer and member of the New York and Washington, D.C. bar associations. She is one of the founders of the Profiles in Courage Award, given annually since 1990 to a person who exemplifies the type of courage examined in her father's Pulitzer Prize-winning book of the same name. The award is generally given to elected officials who, acting in accord with their conscience, risk their careers by pursuing a larger vision of the national, state or local interest in opposition to popular opinion or powerful pressures from their constituents. In May 2002, she presented an unprecedented Profiles in Courage Award to representatives of the NYPD, the New York City Fire Department, and the military as representatives of all of the people who acted to save the lives of others during the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.[4]
For 22 months from 2002 through 2004, Kennedy worked as director of strategic partnerships for the the New York City Department of Education. The three-day-a week job paid her a salary of $1 and had the goal of raising private money the New York City public schools.[5] In her capacity, she helped raise more than $65 million for the city’s public schools, according to her biography at the Kennedy Library.[3] She currently serves as the Vice Chair of The Fund for Public Schools, a public-private partnership founded in 2002 to attract private funding for public schools in New York City. [6]
In addition, Kennedy is currently President of the Kennedy Library Foundation,[3] a director of both the Commission on Presidential Debates and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and Honorary Chairman of the American Ballet Theatre. She is also an adviser to the Harvard Institute of Politics, a living memorial to her father.
Kennedy has represented her family at the funeral services of former Presidents Ronald Reagan in 2004 and Gerald Ford in 2007, and at the funeral service of former First Lady Lady Bird Johnson in 2007. She also represented her family at the dedication of the William J. Clinton Presidential Center and Park in Little Rock, Arkansas in November 2004.
2008 United States presidential election
Kennedy on the presidential campaign trail.
On Sunday, January 27, 2008, Kennedy announced in a New York Times op-ed piece entitled, "A President Like My Father," that she would endorse Barack Obama in the 2008 U.S. presidential election.[7] Her concluding lines were: "I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president — not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans." This was the first time she had endorsed a presidential candidate other than when she endorsed her uncle, Ted Kennedy, in 1980.[8][9]
Federal Election Commission records show that Kennedy contributed $2300 to the Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign committee on June 29, 2007. She had previously contributed a total of $5000 to Clinton's senatorial campaign in 2006. On September 18, 2007, she contributed $2300 to Barack Obama's presidential campaign committee.[10] '

.
.

TO POST A COMMENT: CLICK ON "COMMENTS," "Post a Comment" or "# of COMMENTS" just below the SOCIAL BOOKMARKING LINKS (Digg, Delicious, etc), about three inches down from here. Please do comment. Thank you.

IMPORTANT MESSAGE FROM YOUR BLOGGERS:

Suggestion Box & Tip Jar We would like to make over this blog to make it easier to access, to read and to comment on. We would also like to serve our readers better by providing more of what you need and want to see. All serious suggestions will be considered. We hope to move to our own domain in the near future, and we would like to ask for your financial assistance in doing that, and in upgrading our hardware & software. Small one-time donations and larger long-term subscriptions are welcome. Exclusive advertising is also available. If you think we are wasting our time in doing all this, please let us know. If you wish to help us, now is the time. As always, negative bullsh*t from right-wing trolls will be sh*tcanned. Thank you to everyone else. Please send feedback & PayPal contributions to cosanostradamusATexciteDOTcom. Thanks.

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS: BRING THEM ALL HOME ALIVE, NOW!