I am watching "race to the whitehouse" and a reference was made to "bittergate"  and it got me thinking to how this "gate" suffix has taken on a whole life of its own. Anytime there is any scandal or pseudo-scandal, it is always given a title with -gate at the end.  Now I was raised watching the watergate hearings, so this makes perfect sense to me. It was part of my childhood experience racing home to watch the watergate hearings. But most people were not weird political junkie kids, and watergate occured 35 years ago.

At the time of Watergate, the Teapot Dome scandal that doomed Warren Harding to one term was.. okay it was 50 years.  But I would not be surprised if the "-gate" suffix will not be with us still in 2025

Apparently he is leaning that way, refusing to endorse Obama.

I am not from Oklahoma, but I think it would be a good idea to give Congressman Boren some feedback on this decision of his. He is of course free to endorse or not, but I think he might consider changing parties as well.

I found little in the way of attempted justificatino in the AP article. He mentioned that his district is conservative. But if his dad David Boren, Sam Nunn, and Ben Nelson can come out for Obama (indeed, did so before the nominationg process was over), I don't see what hs holding Dan back. Will his district give him the boot?

918-683-2401 is the number his congressional office gave to me. I called and expressed my disapointment at the story if it is true (the campaign person I spoke to did not seem to know about the story)

Its about winning the general election. I have an Obama supporter since the the summer of 2007 (my first choice, truth be told, was Russ Feingold who declined to run). I canvassed for him,was a precinct captain, and am now overjoyed that for the first time in my life my candidate in the primary won the nomination. We can win this thing, and when we win, we will not be merely elected a non-Bush (or Non-McCain), but a great progressive Democrat who will set the national agenda for decades to come.
  So why all the anti-Clinton rants? I am not arguing about the truth of the various blandishments I see on here. I for one, do not claim to be able to see into HRC's soul.  But from a practical political view, pissing on Hillary (or worse, her supporters) makes no sense. I can't believe this is not obvious to everyone: pissing off Hillary supporters Hurts Obama.  I know Barack understands this. Listen to how he talks about Hillary. Let us follow his example.

Just a few thoughts as we end the primary season.

I have never been a fan of Hillary Clinton, nor even of Bill. I have thought that they embodied the sort of centrist politics that might engender short term gains, but in the long simply encourages the rightward drift of American politics. I am sure Hillary and Bill thought that by making their universal coverage plan based on private insurance (rather than the traditional single payer approach), they would pre-empt the accusation of "Socialized Medicine!"from the right (I remember speeches in which Private Insurance was emphasized). Instead, single payer was marginalized further and even private insurance based universal coverage plans became stigmatized as big government socialism.
  Despite all of this, I think we should embrace Hillary and try to understand where she is coming from.

Well, why the hell not? I am not a hilllary supporter, but why should  any candidate  not take their case all the way to the convetion? Why should we feel the need to declare before hand what the nominnee will be?
     Given that this year the convention is in late August, there is a good case that taking it to the convention harms the nominee. But it needs not be that way. we could have a two month primary season and a convention in June or July.   Franklin Roosevelt won on the third (I think) ballot. He had no problem defeating Hoover.         Conventions need to have a point. They should not be analogous to the electoral college-- merely ratifying the result of primaries.  National conventions, like state and county conventions, should be actual forums of debate, actual deliberative bodies, hammering out platforms, voting on rules, deciding who the nominee will be.This is not a plea for smoke filled rooms, but for a participatory process, (the caucus process is ideal), in which those active in the party take part in producing the nominee by discussing, by horse trading, but engaging in real politcal negotiation.A party is not a little nation. It is more like a club--those who choose to be active in it should choose its course.

Joe: You know John McCain says we might be in Irag for 100 years?

Bill: Shit! no.. that is batshit crazy!

Joe: He also thinks he can solve the health insurance mess with a tax credit

Bill: Them Republicans, tax credit here, Billions to Irag there. Gotta love the priorities.

Joe: McCain also refuses to endorse the GI Bill that Jim Webb has proposed in the Senate.

Bill: Hell! You'd think he support that, being a war Hero and all

Joe: War Hero! He's a war monger! I heard he's just itching for a fight with Iran!

Bill: That's all we need, another fucking war. *swills whiskey*

Joe: *swills whiskey*

Joe: So you voting for Obama now?

Bill: Hell no! I don't like that preacher dude from his old church.

The words in the Title refer not to any condemnation of Torture, domestic wiretapping, or suspension of Habeas Corpus. They come from Herbert Hoover's Veto message of the Muscle Shoals Resolution--the second attempt by congress to establish what later became the Tennessee Valley Authority.

But what is sad is not that Hoover, in 1931, was caught in naive free market pressupositions. What concerns me is that, long after the success of TVA and rural electrification we in 2008 are still in the grips of the same mindset that crippled Hoover. A mindset that is the mirror image of the the folley of communists insisting on public ownership of hot dog stands.

PETA has, in my opinion, done something very good. According to the Times,PETA will offer an X-prize like competition for development of test tube meat.  The idea, clearly, is that if oen can produce steak and chicken without killing animals, then the moral dilemma many of us face when confronted with a cheeseburger (strong desire to eat it vs the belief that the pain caused in producing it is bad) will vanish  Yet, I read in the same article that this is quite controversial. Apparently some animal rights advocates are opposed to fake meat. My question for you, dearest Kossacks, is what is the argument against fake meat. (In additional to preventing animal suffering, fake meat production would also cut back on the environmental destructiveness of factory farms)

Of course it is open to debate whether such test-tube meat would really be "fake." Unlike Boca burgers, which I enjoy but which also are quite different from hamburger.

The Times article is here

IF there is one thing that is clear from this campaign season, it is that the nominating process is seriously flawed and needed to be reformed. Here is a brief sketch of some moderate reforms which would make the process much better

I am an Obama Precinct captain. I have canvassed my precint every weekend for the last two months or so, and I was sure our precinct would be very close.. Edwards was strong, Obama had supporters, Clinton also (though I thought she would come in third.
 When I arrived at the caucus early, there were tons of Clinton people. I thought "ought oh".  But as the evening progressed, the zero Obama supporters grew and grew. Clinton and Edwards did too, but by the time of the first talley we had one half of the room ( a high school cafeteria)on our side.
 

I just watched on C-span the Jefferson Jackson Day dinner speeches of the candidates (But where were Kucinich and Gravel????). As an Obama supporter, I was not dissapointed in his speech--I thought he kicked ass. But I am biased, so my opinion is perhaps not worth much. You can go check out his speech, I am sure, on You Tube in the near future. But what I want to write about is the other candidates.
 First, John Edwards gave the best speech I have ever seen him give. It was wonderful. JE has always been my second choice, and now that opinion has been confirmed. Chris Dodd, while not in the same league of oratory, did a great job. I especially appreciate his focus on restoring constitutional rights.  Biden and Richardson were okay. I have great respect for Richardson, less for Biden, and my opinion remains the same
  But what of Hillary Clinton? Her speech was fine. Nothing she said was especially disagreeable.  But I was struck by what She DID NOT say. She did not mention torture. She did not mention gauntanomo. She did not mention habeaus corpus. Now I have no doubt that HC would be far more respectful of individual rights than G. Bush ,but why did she leave out what, along with the war, is the greatest moral and political challenge of the campaign?

Ah into the tempestuous tea pot I unwisely tread. But reading about this silly thing lead me to become SHOCKED.. SHOCKED.. that a gospel singer might think being gay was a lifestyle choice and that he also thought (oh the horror!) that it might be changeable, and that God was against it.
 I don't agree with any of those positions. But it is notable that a large number of people, perahps the vast majority of southern baptists and non-denominational (read: fundamentalist) Churches.. hold the same position.  So as a politician, what should you do? should you say "BEGONE SATAN.. I dont even want to tread in your village, let alone get your vote or open a dialogue. Or would it perhaps be better to let such people in, not to water down our own principles. but to spread them! You do not gain converts by calling your opponents homophobes.. but you do if you can show (not tell) how idiotic and destructive this obsession with homosexuality is.

Being a college professor is a good gig. you get to teach what you like, you get paid decently, with health benefits, and you also usually have time to do research, write something for posterity on Hegel's view of the cosmos or the true nature of reality.  
  But there is an underside to academia, one which I participate in and would like to describe. But to be clear its not that  BAD of an underside, at least in my case. I am not a child labor slave, I am not forced into prostitution. I am much better than I was working as a temp laborer at the popcorn factory.  But there is still an injustice worth describing.

From TPM

"We sound like we don't want immigration; we sound like we don't want black people to vote for us," said Kemp. "What are we going to do — meet in a country club in the suburbs one day?"

Starting with Nixon, the Republican party has hinged its success to white fear. The southern strategy may still be sucessful--in the deep south. But as Kemp realizes, the Republicans cannot win elsewhere with such a narrow bigoted and xenophobic approach. Indeed, even Karl Rove realized this.

In ethical thought, deontology is the view that certain actions are right or wrong simply in terms of the sort of action they are. E.g. keeping a promise is good,not because of the expected good consequences, but because the act itself is good, in itself.  In political thought, libertarianism is the view that there are absolute duties that the government cannot, in any circumstances, overrule--namely the right of a person to their life,liberty, and property.
Deontology has problems, and it seems to me that these problems are analogous to the problems that confront a serious, consistent, libertarian

The BBC has the story here. And she is not just serving a few days, she is in two and half years, appreciably more than if she had risked life and limb driving drunk.

 Whenever there is a health problem, the political instinct is always to ban something or require something. Upset about head injuries--make helmet wearing manditory! Don't want your kids to grow up pot heads, send drug dealers to jail for life. Don't like problem drinking--send parents to jail who serve their kids booze (and keep the drinking age at 21).
 THe whole approach is wrong headed. As anyone who is or has been in college knows, under 21 year olds DO DRINK, and in massive quantities. Binge drinking is more of a problem now than it was when the drinking age was changed (this is just a sense I have, I would be happy to hear empirical evidence one way or the other).
 This is not a well written diary, but I am appalled at what happened to this woman (it reminds me of the recently diaried oral sex case). I wonder if others feel likewise.
from non family members.

This, I hope, is what someone called "another annoying Ron Paul diary"--though my intent is to discuss the question of why, now, someone with as extreme a record as Paul gets so much attention. Basically I want to claim that the reason Paul and libertarianism seems so attractive nowadays is the authoritarian direction of Bush and his minions. Libertarianism is the political philosophy most directly opposed the abuse (as well as, often, simply the the use) of government. While it is true that progressives also oppose this creeping tyranny, sadly it turns out that the main Democratic candidates,even the ones I am most likely to support (Obama or Edwards) do not speak out as forcefully and clearly on civil liberties issues--though on these issues they are just as correct as Paul.

Egad! one would think that there were oodles of kossacks ready and eager to change their registration and vote for Ron Paul.  But I assume, no one here, unless they are already libertarians, is going to vote for him. I did read a comment in which someone said they would give him money, but I thought this was a strategic move--to help make the Republican contest more interesting and divisive.  I would not give him money. I got a thing in the mail from the Yarmouth re-election campaign. If I give to anyone, it would be him or other Democrats. So what is the deal with the vituperative rage?