For those of you who are counting

Here's a list of "superdelegates" to the Democratic convention, both those who have already committed to a particular Democratic candidate for President and a link to those who've so far not committed. Why is this important? Because with all the hoopla about the Democratic caucuses and primaries (which so far have Clinton and Obama about tied for delegates, with Edwards behind), these "superdelegates" aren't the result of those processes. Instead, they're Democratic insiders: elected or formerly-serving Democrats, higher-ups in the Democratic Party, and the like. They make up almost 1/4 of the total delegate voting power at the convention, and when these are counted, Hillary Clinton leads Obama and Edwards by a huge margin. These "superdelegates" were the product of "reform" of the party in the 1970's, which allowed these leaders a lessened amount of votes in exchange for expanding the power of grass-roots caucuses and primaries.

Certainly, the reform was an improvement over the back-room deals the Democrats used before for choosing presidential candidates, but there's still a heavy loading of the voting in favor of traditional power--in this case, the Clinton dynasty.

All the news that's fit to print?

Here are two accounts of Bush's recent "important" speech during his trip to the Middle East. The first account (at the top of the report) is by McClatchy, and it places Bush's words in context, balancing what he says with the political and economic reality of the region; and the second (scroll down) is by the NYT, which merely parrots Bush's words. Recall it was Knight-Ridder (which since has been bought by McClatchy) that questioned the evidence about Iraq's WMD and its connection to al-Qaeda in the months before the March, 2003, invasion, while the NYT was rooting for war.

Just an observation, which, however, might lead my loyal readers to add McClatchy to their list of news sources.

Winning hearts and minds

by attacking Iraqi kindergartens?

The last dispatch

Here's an article in the Guardian, the final one from Iran by Robert Tait, whose application to remain in that country was recently denied. It's an insightful and sometimes sad and scary assessment of Iran's politics and culture by a man who lived there for three years, learned the language and married an Iranian woman. Must reading to get a handle on one of the members of the "axis of evil."

Here's where I stand (right now)

This essay says it better than I could, so I'll just add these thoughts: Imagine two little black kids running down the halls and playing on the lawn of the White House; imagine broadcasting to the rest of the world, including those "Islamofascists," that we've just elected a man whose middle name is Hussein (grandson of the prophet Muhammad); imagine what we would feel about America--its prospects at home and in the world, its promise to all peoples of the world. Just imagine. It's enough, isn't it, to make you want to race to the ramparts?

So, in a few days, maybe sooner, you'll see me astride them holding a sign that says,

Obama?

Oh, Yeah!

Well, duh...

Five years of invasion/occupation and it finally occurs to our leaders to offer the Iraqis jobs to clean up the damage we caused? Five years to figure this out? WTF?

The good hurt

Back in high school, the football coach told us when we were complaining that certain calisthentics were painful (I particularly despised the repeated running-in-place, then dropping to the ground, then up again), that we were feeling "the good hurt." Well, now, torn between voting for Obama and Edwards in the upcoming California primary, I'm experiencing the good hurt. They're both fine candidates and although my preference--based on positions alone--is for Kucinich, I realize he's not going to get the nomination, so I feel compelled to vote for someone who might.

Nader endorsed Edwards. Kucinich recently told those in Iowa who were caucusing for him in the first phase, that if he didn't get the required 15% of members, he'd want them to support Obama. This might be enough to give Obama enough votes to win in Iowa. However, I read today a piece by Michael Moore that mirrors my thoughts precisely, and it tends to favor Edwards for many of the same reasons I do.

Oh, the good hurt.

Iowa, where are ya?

Here's an important endorsement for Edwards, and a telling commentary on Hillary. I mean, with all his baggage, Nader is, to me, still the man!

Stories like this

make my blood boil--and, if you didn't deduce it from my name, I'm a whitey. If I were black or brown, I'd be heaving Molotov cocktails everywhere.

One step forward, ten steps back

Here's a description of the final "amnesty bill" that has been passed by the Iraqi parliament. (Scroll to bottom of article.) Under its terms I wonder who will be released? The way it reads, it looks like only innocent Shiites will be freed, as one would expect from a Shiite-dominated government. It sure doesn't feel like a significant move toward "reconciliation," does it? Next question: What the fuck are we doing in Iraq, spending our billions and our blood? The worst nightmare, to me as to Franz Kafka, is being persecuted without explanation, without reason. That's how I feel these days, as Americans drive by our protests of this ongoing occupation, heedless, apathetic, busy shopping.

One good thing about the new year...

It can't be worse than 2007. Can it?

Who's on first?

After you read this account of the present situation in Basra, the major port of Iraq through which most of its oil is exported (and which British troops will soon be leaving) you tell me.

Sometimes it helps to have a Ph.D.

It allows you to research and write concise, accurate blog-postings like this one on the "Top Ten Myths about Iraq." Must reading, even for those of us who don't believe a word of the telecasters on the subject.

Take a guess

Which is it: The Iraqi parliament is going to grant amnesty (under certain very vague conditions) to all "innocent" resistance fighters that are held in Iraq and US prisons, as is reported by AFP; or does the amnesty apply only to those held in Iraqi prisons, as reported by AP.? Since the US holds 26,000 (probably more) prisoners, the question is more than technical. And since those held by the US no doubt feel no love lost for the occupiers, I wonder how the DOD is going to explain a mass release to the soldiers who gave their lives capturing them.

Your guess as to which report is correct?

Just the facts

Here's a good site, especially during political campaigns.

Latino revenge

It looks like Rodriguez ain't no Gonzales.

Democrat's rule?

This WaPo essay predicts a decade-long (and maybe longer) domination by Democrats in both local and national politics. While I don't argue with the numbers that it cites, I'm troubled by its failure to recognize unforeseen contingencies, including, most notably, another terrorist attack between now and the 2008 elections. We've learned already that we're a nation of sheep, and it certainly wouldn't take much to once again shepherd us by fear into another corral. (Excuse the ugly metaphor.)

Danger, real danger

The politicization of the Judge Advocate General's office, from top to bottom, is looming under the Bush administration. In the past, these military lawyers have stood as an independent impediment to the incumbent administration's effort to shape the legalities of war and warmaking. Keep an eye on this prospect, it's truly alarming.

Women in Basra

This report from The Guardian about the status of women in Basra (click on title, then run the video) saddens me deeply. The film of the Iraqi women, dressed in normal western garb, coming and going about their business in the 1960's, and now, out of fear, draped in those ugly coverings: How has this happened? Indeed, how have we Americans allowed our nation to revert to past injustices and constraints on freedom? Are these times a present-day version of the Dark Ages?

Startling numbers

Check out this essay revealing the astounding shift of American incomes in the last five years, with the top 5% of household incomes gaining income at unprecedented rates, while the bottom 95% has lost an average of $3,600 annually in the shift.

I'd like to see the Democratic-controlled Congress address this issue, for heaven's sake. So far, I don't think it's even on their radar.