Just out of curiosity ...

Watch cable news lately? Is anyone in DC not a strategist? Read the rest of this post...

Hillary's ties to shadowy religious group raising eyebrows

After reading the links below, I can't even believe the Clinton people had the nerve to bring up Obama's pastor. From Mother Jones via the Dallas Morning News:

For 15 years, Hillary Clinton has been part of a secretive religious group that seeks to bring Jesus back to Capitol Hill. Is she triangulating--or living her faith?...

The Fellowship's long-term goal is "a leadership led by God--leaders of all levels of society who direct projects as they are led by the spirit." According to the Fellowship's archives, the spirit has in the past led its members in Congress to increase U.S. support for the Duvalier regime in Haiti and the Park dictatorship in South Korea. The Fellowship's God-led men have also included General Suharto of Indonesia; Honduran general and death squad organizer Gustavo Alvarez Martinez; a Deutsche Bank official disgraced by financial ties to Hitler; and dictator Siad Barre of Somalia, plus a list of other generals and dictators.

Here is the Mother Jones link. More on this group's leader, Doug Coe, from Harper's via a DKos diary. Honestly, I felt like I was reading about a cult.

At some point, the Clinton people need to learn about "the Google." Read the rest of this post...

Big Four accounting strikes again

Did any of the big accounting firms learn anything from Enron/Andersen and other big scandals? Apparently not and this time it's even linked to the failed subprime mortgage firm New Century. Obviously the regulations and penalties are not quite harsh enough so hopefully Washington is watching and can correct this mistake. If this report is proven, it's time to lower the boom on this industry. Allowing shenanigans like this to go on is killing the investments of Americans, many of whom will rely on honest information for their retirement plans. Is asking for the truth really so difficult? Read the rest of this post...

Is it time the IOC looks at alternative locations for Olympics?

The Olympic spirit is clearly dead in China so let's just cut our losses and move on. Do people really want to travel to Beijing and be spied on everywhere, including in your hotel room? Sally Jenkins of the Post has a great article today that's really worth reading, in full. What a sorry state of affairs that the business sponsors are all running for the hills to avoid upsetting Beijing, surely out of fear of later retribution. Despite providing 70% of the money for the IOC, somehow they just can't do anything though when it was South Africa, it was possible. When Greece was behind schedule, the threats were everywhere and alternative cities were kicked around. In 2008, world leaders, corporations and the IOC all show just what cowards they are by accepting such disgraceful actions. By attending and giving money, they're all endorsing the Beijing regime. Pathetic.

Oh can you feel the Olympic spirit? Read the rest of this post...

What you say by not saying anything at all

I understand from a self-protecting, classic political strategy standpoint why Senator Clinton hesitates to release her past tax returns, but from a common sense perspective, how can she not?

There is no excuse and/or explanation that doesn't reek of something to hide. Period. Read the rest of this post...

Hillary's top donors threaten Pelosi: Endorse Hillary's view that elected delegates can abandon Obama or we're pulling our money from the party.

UPDATE: Give to the DCCC, the congressional body in charge of electing and re-electing Dems to the House. They're the group that Hillary is threatening to boycott if Pelosi doesn't hand her the election. Let's show Hillary and her rich donors that they're no longer relevant in a party where millions of small donors now rule the day. You can give securely via our ActBlue page. And, we will be setting up ActBlue pages for more individual House and Senate races soon, too.

My contribution: $

UPDATE 5:31 PM: This statement was issued by the Obama campaign:

"This letter is inappropriate and we hope the Clinton campaign will reject the insinuation contained in it. Regardless of the outcome of the nomination fight, Senator Obama will continue to urge his supporters to assist Speaker Pelosi in her efforts to maintain and build a working majority in the House of Representatives," said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.

Speaks for itself.
___________________________________________

Every time I think I don't want to write another post about the failed candidacy of Hillary Clinton, some new outrage arises. Last week, Hillary's big donors were trying to buy a new election in Michigan. This week, they're trying to extort Speaker Pelosi.

Keep in mind that Hillary's campaign finished February in the red. You'd think that would be a major concern for her funders. I know a lot of reporters, like the ones at the Wall Street Journal, couldn't do the math from the FEC reports, but here's a quick breakdown: Clinton reported $33.1 million cash on hand at the end of February. Of that total, $21.7 can only be spent in the general election leaving her with $11.4 million. She has debts of $8.7 million, so the campaign is down to $2.7 million. Subtract the $5 million loan Clinton owes herself, she's in the red. (The WSJ reported the debt to vendors was only $3.7 million, which is wrong, but they haven't corrected it.)

That's a problem for a candidate whose inevitability was built, in part, on her fundraising ability.

But, what are Hillary's top fundraisers doing? They sent a clearly menacing letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi with veiled references to how much dough they give to Democrats. Greg Sargent has a copy of the letter at TPM Elections:

We have been strong supporters of the DCCC. We therefore urge you to clarify your position on super-delegates and reflect in your comments a more open view to the optional independent actions of each of the delegates at the National Convention in August. We appreciate your activities in support of the Democratic Party and your leadership role in the Party and hope you will be responsive to some of your major enthusiastic supporters.

What does that language mean? It isn't limited to superdelegates, that's for sure. The letter says "each of the delegates." That is significant. Keep in mind that the super rich contributors are upset with Pelosi for saying last week:

"If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what's happened in the elections, it would be harmful to the Democratic party"

Now, of course, Pelosi is right. That would be harmful to the Democratic Party. But, Hillary and her rich supporters care about Hillary, not the Democratic Party. And, this isn't just about superdelegates. Clinton's donors are directing Pelosi to go public and endorse Hillary's comments from a few days ago, when Hillary said that the elected delegates, the ones YOU voted for already, don't have to support Obama even though YOU voted for him. In their world, those delegates can just vote for Hillary anyway. That's what this letter is about. It's about extorting Pelosi to hand Hillary the election by stealing Obama's delegates. It's about Hillary doing something that a month ago she promised she wasn't going to do - try to steal Obama's delegates. (To be clear, I don't think there is any way Clinton could win over any of Obama's delegates. I have no doubt his delegates will stick with him. But, the Clinton campaign has reached the point of desperation that they are willing to try. Actually, Clinton should be more worried about her delegates ditching her for the candidate who is going to win the nomination -- and be the next President.)

What Hillary is quite literally doing is threatening to destroy the party if she isn't handed the nomination.

This is crazy. The leaders of the Democratic Party need to end this disaster now. Read the rest of this post...

So I needed to get a chest X-Ray in France...

I've had this killer flu for three and a half weeks now, and it's still lingering as a persistent cough, so I figured I'd go see the doctor in Chris' building. She said, yep, you've got the flu that everyone else has, and you might have a chest infection. Her prescription? Get an X-Ray. Ugh. An X-Ray. Does my insurance cover it? If so, how much? So, I paid the whopping 22 Euro (33 bucks) bill to the doctor, in cash (she paid me my change out of her purse), and called Blue Cross to see if they cover me while I'm abroad. After a good 20 minute phone call, I found out that if my French X-Ray center isn't "in network" then I have to pay a $300 deductible and 70% of the cost. At this point, I figured I'd better find out how much this X-Ray is going to cost, since for $300, I'd rather just have the doc dope me up on antibiotics and screw the X-Ray. The doc warned me that X-Rays are much more expensive than doctor visits. So I just called the X-Ray people and asked how much a chest X-Ray costs. Are you ready? 45 Euros. That's 67 bucks or so (and it would be only 45 bucks if the exchange rate weren't so out of whack). I just looked online and found that chest X-Rays go for around 200 dollars in the states. Amazing. So I'm going to suck it up and pay my 67 dollars for the X-Ray out of my own pocket. Tell me again how European "socialized medicine" is so bad?

Okay, just got back from the doctor (the x-ray was fine). I scheduled my appointment a few hours in advance, it was for 3:30pm (or 15h30 as they say here), and they took me at 3:33pm. I was out of there in 15 minutes, and that included seeing a doctor afterwards to explain what the x-ray said (and I then promptly left my x-ray in the check out line at the grocery - someone's in for a surprise with their creme brule!) Bottom line: Still not seeing what's so bad with the health care system over here. Read the rest of this post...

Hillary claims she considered joining the Marines

No further comment. Read the rest of this post...

“John McCain is a campaign finance criminal who is flouting the very regulations he championed.” Sign the McCain FEC complaint.

As Jane Hamsher so aptly notes in the video below, John McCain is a "campaign finance criminal." We've written about this issue repeatedly here, here and here at AMERICAblog. The Washington Post reported on the potential for criminal behavior by McCain:

Knowingly violating the spending limit is a criminal offense that could put McCain at risk of stiff fines and up to five years in prison.

Now, based on McCain's latest campaign finance report, we know the GOP nominee has violated the spending limit. So, it's time to take it to the next level. Yesterday, Jane delivered a complaint about McCain's criminality to the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) -- and gives the background:


Christy Hardin Smith explains the effort to hold McCain accountable:

We decided that McCain shouldn't be allowed to get away with this without questions -- lots and lots of questions -- being asked. The hypocrisy of the so-called "maverick" violating a law which he championed because it suits his purposes this time around is horrifying. Even worse is the relative silence of the press on this, given the rank hypocrisy of violations of McCain's "signature" issue and all. Does it get to be your signature issue if you are blatantly violating it in an in-your-face maneuver after being warned not to by the head of the FEC? I think not.

If the press isn't going to ask the necessary questions, then we have to do it ourselves. You can join in, too -- sign your name to the complaint here. At that link, you'll find a copy of the FEC filing and a list of signatories thus far. And help us get the word out on the need for McCain to be held accountable for any violations of the law that has his own name on it....and any other laws of which he may be in violation.

For shame...

For shame indeed.

Sign the complaint here. Read the rest of this post...

McCain flounders, reads teleprompter on big economic speech

The CNN video attached to the article is well worth watching because McCain is just terrible. His eyes stay glued to the teleprompter, proving yet again that when it comes to the economy he has no idea what he's talking about. His war-hero credentials are all fine and good if Iraq is the issue (though why he did a propaganda video is another question) how in the world does that show that he is the person to lead us out of what Goldman Sachs is now calling a $1.2 trillion credit crisis?

The best McCain can do is uncomfortably stumble through the teleprompter words and tell everyone what they already know. Speculative buyers and shady loans? You don't say! Gosh, what a story. The real whopper is when McCain calls for easing "regulatory, accounting and tax impediments to raising capital." Really? And here I was thinking that the lack of regulation has been critical to the runaway credit problem. The last thing we need is less regulation or more tax incentives for this group. Why would we ever make it easier for the industry that is dragging down the entire US (and probably global) economy? Don't journalists ask questions these days or will they just let McCain read scripts written by economists who created these problems? Read the rest of this post...

So is Hillary opposed to screening cargo for nukes?

Hillary is, as you know, bashing Obama for being "too liberal." Forget for a moment that Hillary is now parroting the Republican's number one blood libel they throw at Democrats, let's look for a moment at why Hillary is calling Obama liberal. She's doing it because of a National Journal "study" released a while back. The study purports to look at whose the most "liberal" member of Congress. And in the Senate, they found that Obama was the most liberal. So, I decided to look at National Journal's study and check out some examples of what makes a member of Congress liberal. You're going to love this. (Note that it's not clear which way you have to swing on this legislation to be "liberal," but either way, these things have nothing to do with being liberal or conservative):

Legislation that makes you a "liberal" according to the National Journal (and apparently Hillary):

Establish a Senate Office of Public Integrity to handle ethics complaints against senators. (So now ethics is liberal?)

Table an amendment that would require the Homeland Security Department to screen 100 percent of cargo containers entering the country within five years. (Is screening for Osama's nukes liberal or conservative?)

Approve the fiscal 2008 budget resolution.

Create a national action plan for reducing oil consumption by 35 percent by 2030. (Bush has advocated decreasing our dependence on foreign oil.)

Limit debate on an energy bill setting higher fuel standards for vehicles. (John Dingell, Democrat, is the lead member of Congress opposed to this.)

Increase financial aid for college students and reduce subsidies for student-loan lenders. (Student aid is liberal?)

Approve legislation reauthorizing and expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program. (This legislation was bipartisan and I seem to recall Hillary saying she created this program (which is a lie)).

Approve fiscal 2008 appropriations for the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education departments.

Limit debate on a measure expressing no confidence in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. (That's partisan, not liberal.)

Block individuals from serving on Food and Drug Administration drug advisory panels if they have conflicts of interest. (Again, ethics is liberal?)

Read the rest of this post...

Yes, that's Hillary and Richard Mellon Scaife yesterday

That's Hillary snuggling up to Richard Mellon Scaife yesterday. You remember him. The super-rich leader of the vast right-wing conspiracy that Hillary complained about. He funded the Arkansas Project, which was set up to destroy Bill Clinton. You've heard of Paula Jones, Vince Foster's "murder" (as the far-right calls it), Troopergate, and Whitewater? Mellon Scaife is responsible for it all. And now Hillary is getting all cozy with him over an editorial board meeting at his wacky far-right paper (but it's okay to fire whats-his-name at MSNBC, he was mean to Chelsea). Anything to destroy Obama. Josh Marshall has far more. Read the rest of this post...

A drastic development in Iraq

I've been closely following the situation in Iraq over the past day or so, and although I often downplay hysterics with regard to minor changes in political or military processes (in Iraq and elsewhere), this time the developments really could be a big deal. For nearly seven months, the militia loyal to Shia cleric and political leader Moqtada al-Sadr has observed a self-imposed ceasefire. Despite frequent analysis crediting the "surge" for reductions in violence, there's a strong correlation between this ceasefire and the drop in casualties. Along with a few other major factors (waning of ethnic cleansing, buying off insurgents in Anbar, shift in counterinsurgency strategy), the ceasefire had a big impact on the security improvements.

All of that, however, may evaporate in a hail of bullets if the current Sadrist "civil disobedience" campaign brings the simmering rift between rival Shia groups into sustained open conflict. One of the most frustrating things about mainstream Iraq analysis is that it tends to talk about worst case scenarios for leaving but best case for staying; well, there are some pretty bad possibilities for if we continue an occupation with no political strategy, and a full-blown Shia vs. Shia civil war is among the worst. For years the insurgency was overwhelmingly Sunni, which means the fighters were drawn from about 20% of the population. The Shia, on the other hand, are around 60% of the country. The problems are obvious and significant.

And, of course, this development was predictable -- and predicted. I've been warning about antagonizing Sadrists unnecessarily, as have others -- Eric Martin is one of many Iraq observers who saw this coming, and he has a comprehensive rundown of the history here. Bottom line, this is something that could change the dynamic considerably after a period of security improvements. For the millionth time, without a political solution, things will ultimately continue to get worse, not better. Read the rest of this post...

Wednesday Morning Open Thread

Good morning. It's Wednesday and there's a new episode of South Park tonight.

There seems to be a growing consensus that the Clinton campaign's last ditch strategy to steal the nomination is to destroy Obama. Just wondering if the superdelegates who support Clinton support that strategy? Might be a good time to start asking them.

We really need to be focusing our energies on John McCain. That guy is getting a free ride -- and he's dangerous. And, the traditional media type already love the guy. They're giving him a free ride right now. Just watch Iraq this week and remember McCain thinks we can be there for 100 years. Let's figure out a way to wrap up the Democratic nomination now so we can get to work.

So get to work. Read the rest of this post...

More lawsuits against Starbucks and tips

Looks like Starbucks is going to have to figure out how to squeeze money from someone else. If they're treating their US employees like this, one can only imagine how poorly they treat the poor coffee growers. At least it's easier to see how they managed such high profits for such overpriced and burnt (well beyond fantastic dark roasted coffee of Italy) coffee.

A week after Starbucks was ordered to refund more than $100 million to baristas in California over a tip pool controversy, the coffee giant was hit Tuesday with a similar lawsuit in Massachusetts.

And a Boston lawyer said more lawsuits could be filed in Washington, New York and Minnesota over whether shift supervisors can share baristas' tips.

Read the rest of this post...

World Food Programme makes first ever appeal for food

As middle class people in wealthy countries such as the US and Europe already know, the cost of food has skyrocketed in the last few years for a variety of reasons. Sure, some of that has to do with crop failures related to bad conditions though the more serious problem has been related to diverting food to biofuels (where the money is better) and the increasing cost of fuel, that has risen dramatically since the war mongering and invasion of Iraq.

For decades Republicans in the US have preached a tough-love approach to foreign aid but while this simplistic response appeals to a certain crowd in America it ignores the realities of the world around us. For example, a substantial percentage of the population across southern Africa eats mealy-meal, which is cooked corn meal. If they are lucky, maybe they will be able to afford a sauce to splash on this. This is what people eat for breakfast, lunch and dinner if they can even afford three meals. This is it. All of the extras that we're used to just don't exist as an option on a regular basis. With over one billion people around the world surviving on $1 per day, cost increases for basics such as corn and wheat have an enormous impact. It's really time to step back and look at where we are and how we came to this situation. Read the rest of this post...