Unity or Bust

I wish things were different than they are, but all things considered, H. R. Clinton did an admirable job tonight at the DNC. I wish I could have supported a woman. I wish I could have supported Clinton. But her stance on the war made that impossible. At least it was good to see that she got to use the best of the campaign slogans her team had created. No way, no how, no McCain. Twins McCain and Bush in the Twin Cities. Can't survive four more years of the past eight years. And the evocation of Tubman's "keep on going" was very moving. I for one was impressed.

Now if Obama would just address torture, surveillance, and endless war in an appropriate manner I would be a happy camper.

There is much more to say on this topic... per parallels with slavery and womens suffrage for example... but I'm on a borrowed computer. My hard drive mysteriously died yesterday as the DNC opened. 10th hard drive in 5 years. Hmmmm. Statistically improbable. Put that together with them dying when week long progressive protest actions were beginning and well... that is statistically impossible.

Oh well.

The Buzz about Hillary & Watergate

Can anyone in the DC area go to the GWU library and photocopy or transcribe the information that would corroborate Jerry Zeifman's statements in his February 6th AIM piece? In it, he stated,

During that period I kept a private diary of the behind the scenes congressional activities. My original tape recordings of the diary and other materials related to the Nixon impeachment provided the basis for my prior book Without Honor and are now available for inspection in the George Washington University Library.

The real killer statement in that piece is Zeifman's statement that:

"My own reaction was of regret that, when I terminated her (Hillary Rodham) employment on the Nixon impeachment staff, I had not reported her unethical practices to the appropriate bar associations."

This is the first published version of Zeifman's statement I can find . My question is why didn't the corporate media pick up this story on February 6th? Why do I have to hear about it from a wacko neo-con and his 83,000 wannabe pundit echo-chambers?

I initially blew off the link to the neocon article my husband sent me because the writer only referenced himself and seemed to be more interested in his own tongue and tail wagging -- see the scoop, it's my scoop, I have the interview -- than in getting the accurate story out. Zeifman's comments on Clinton are significant and could have far reaching impact and deserve accurate links and complete references.

The neo-con cult of personality has to stop. As a progressive blogger I admit my biases but I do not try to deceive or misdirect.

This is what Zeifman says about Clinton in his article on the AIM (gag, sputter) website.

Hillary assured me that she had not drafted, and would not advocate, any such rules changes. However, as documented in my personal diary, I soon learned that she had lied. She had already drafted changes, and continued to advocate them. In one written legal memorandum, she advocated denying President Nixon representation by counsel. In so doing she simply ignored the fact that in the committee's then-most-recent prior impeachment proceeding, the committee had afforded the right to counsel to Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas.

I had also informed Hillary that the Douglas impeachment files were available for public inspection in the committee offices. She later removed the Douglas files without my permission and carried them to the offices of the impeachment inquiry staff-where they were no longer accessible to the public.

Hillary had also made other ethically flawed procedural recommendations, arguing that the Judiciary Committee should: not hold any hearings with-or take depositions of-any live witnesses; not conduct any original investigation of Watergate, bribery, tax evasion, or any other possible impeachable offense of President Nixon; and should rely solely on documentary evidence compiled by other committees and by the Justice Department's special Watergate prosecutor.

This first source, the February 6th one, is not to my liking, as it is a little puddle of "news" that is also teaming with conservatism but it does offer Zeifman in his own words.

All the current buzz seems to reference the wrong source. That infuriates me. If anyone knows how to link to images of or a transcript of the original source in the GWU library, please leave a comment.

So if our votes no longer count for anything... what next?

Just a quick question?

If our participation in the governance of our lives and property has been usurped, and:

• we know the 2000 election vote count was subverted before it was complete in Florida and we've also verified the massive illegal suppression of voters who were statistically favorable to Gore in that state in that election.

• we know that significant impropriety occurred in the presidential election voting in Ohio in 2004. And other likely tampering abounds.

• we're now hearing about super delegates having been given the ability to overrule the ballots of delegates so as to make sure an "electable" candidate is chosen to run as a democratic Candidate

• we hear that statistically impossible vote distributions were found in New Hampshire and York primary balloting,

does anyone really think they can make the case that the American people have any voice in their governance any longer?


I believe our Declaration of Independence says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."


When I was in school all students were required to memorize the Declaration of Independence. We did not have to memorize the constitution.

Conundrums, Quandaries, and Feb 5th

What's a progressive girl to do? Feb 5th approaches and I'm facing a question that hundreds of thousands (I'd like to say millions, but I don't think there are that many thinking people actually involved AZ Democrats) of other Arizonans are facing , do cast my initial approval, my primary vote in the AZ Democratic Primary for the woman, the black man, or the white man? Crass way to look at it I know, but at first pass that is what it seems like. It isn't a horrible situation to be in compared to what we've had in the past. White man, white man, white man... ad infinitum. It isn't a great situation to be in either.

Can't get real information on the candidate via the media, just talking heads flapping their jaws about polls and such. As has been the case for far to long, the media is making the news and not reporting information to be interpreted by the masses. I do not care much for Tim Russert, he gives the impression that he isn't framing issues and asks hard questions, but he misses the big glaring issues about corporatism, fascism, voting fraud and the farce elections have become in this country. His interview with Hillary Clinton this past weekend allowed me to remember why I think Hillary is a very bad choice for President.

Time after time yesterday when I watched Meet the Press I was absolutely floored by the false impressions she created when she spoke.

Hillary Clinton on Barack Obama, "He gave a very impassioned speech against it and consistently said that he was against the war, he would vote against the funding for the war. By 2003, that speech was off his Web site. By 2004, he was saying that he didn't really disagree with the way George Bush was conducting the war. And by 2005, '6 and '7, he was voting for $300 billion in funding for the war."

Via omission of the political climate of 2003 she misdirects people into assuming he pulled the speech from the website because he no longer believed in it. In 2003 there was near hysteria in this country about "you are either for us or against us." and the absolute cut and dried false picture that the administration and the media painted and piped into peoples homes 24 hours a day was that any criticism of the the invasion of the sovereign nation of Iraq was akin to treason. It would have been political suicide to leave that speech up on the website at that time.

She goes on to say a bit later in the interview, "I have been working on behalf of civil rights, women's rights, human rights for years and I know how challenging it is to change our political system and I have the highest regard for those who have put themselves on the line."

That is utter poppycock! Unless those people who are putting themselves on the line this time happen to disagree with you, as she has repeatedly shown in her disdain for the women of CODEPINK. Rather than answer questions about her support of the war in 2003 and stay and discuss the concept of the pink slip Jodie Evans attempted to present to her, she marched out of the room, and when she authorized her staff to call for the arrest of women engaged in demonstration in her outer office rather than meeting with them to answer hard questions they posed she showed no respect for those on the front lines of protest and change.

I can go on and on with statements she made yesterday that paint a completely false picture. Most times it can't be said that she lies in an outright fashion, but she is deceptive and judiciously picks through contradictory snippets to create depictions that lie. She is a consummate politician just as is her husband.

"Look, this is up to the voters of our country to determine. But I want them to have accurate information about our respective records, what we've accomplished, the working that each of us have done when given a chance to serve." she later stated. With election integrity being a missing component in the last several elections, anyone who speaks about voters determining anything without addressing the need for clean and fair elections conducted via paper ballots, then what they are saying is just balderdash. For AZ election integrity info check out Blog for Arizona

Can't support her -- she is all about what she can do for the country --- and changes her depiction of herself as necessary per shifting understanding about that for which the country may be looking. She plays old school politics with the big boys where the game is all about getting elected and not about having a vision that you support and strive to make real.

That brings us to Barack Obama. Geesh, he has a good presence and his diction and polished demeanor are everything that the top schools, colleges and universities promise to their well heeled clients, the parents of their students. He epitomizes a new diverse elite class that is coming into existence in the U.S. White men will not rule for much longer. Shifting demographics alone tells us that. I have been in the same room with him and he is , from my gut assessment which I trust most of the time, a sincere, intellectually sharp, and artfully well spoken. It does worry me that he has not been a successful leader in getting the war stopped.

Edwards. I really like him because of his wife. I won't vote for someone just because of a spouse. I heard her speak at the BlogHer conference in Chicago this past summer and was awed by the direct uncensored manner in which she spoke. Stage IV cancer had not up to that point diminished her presence, drive, or the courage to speak her mind. She said that her blog is uncensored much to the occasional chagrin of her husband's campaign coordinating publicity staff. I think I could relate to a man who has such a life partner. Now about him. I suspect that having a mill worker as a father gave him a very different life from Obama and Clinton. He was the first in his family to attend college. He started out in a private college, Clemson, and transferred to a state school, North Carolina State where he got a Textile Technology degree. When I transferred from private to state it was because of money. I suspect the same sort of thing played some role his transfer. Eventually he became a trial attorney and fought for individuals against corporations. So far so good. Blue collar. Worked for his education. Married an intelligent woman. Self made wealth. Knows what it is to lose a child; and understands health care concerns and adversity. I'm leaning in his direction -- the only real concern I have about him is his cushy cosiness with the banking industry -- the bad guys.

However, there’s one highly significant chapter in his Senate career omitted from Edwards’ campaign Web site. Edwards, who comes from a state where banking is big business, played a critical role in brokering legislation to allow banks to sell mutual funds and insurance, and to engage in other speculative ventures. This law, worth hundreds of billions to the banks, blasted a gigantic hole in the Glass-Steagal banking law’s firewall of protections designed to prevent the kinds of bank collapses that marked the Great Depression of the ’30s — meaning that it put the money of Joe Six-Pack depositors at risk. Such a gigantic boon to the banking lobby can hardly be classed as a populist victory. - LA Weekly 1/29/04

So what is a girl to do. Guess I will wear a clothes pin on my nose when I go to vote in the February 5th AZ Democratic Primary. I'm serious, I'm wearing a pink clothespin on my nose when I vote... even while I show my ID, and restate as I have the last few times I have voted, that requiring me to show an ID is unconstitutional.