Tue, 20 May 2008 10:00:04 -0400
understand the endorsement of Senator Byrd.
Does he just not want to listen to the people of his state? The endorsement had a ring to it that he just either refuses to listen to his people and is totally oblivious or there is something behind his endorsement.
There is something very wrong with our system, when people of the stature of Senator Byrd turns a deaf ear to the voters of not only his state, but across the country.
I have a very bad feeling, not for Senator Clinton, but the people of this country. Are we being set up?
voters all across the country are saying that Senator Clinton is the person they feel should be the next POTUS, yet Senator Byrd is turning a blind eye to all of us...why? Why?
And his reasoning just doesn't make sense...he's following the talking points of....who? Again, why?
This is so disturbing to me, I just can't put into words...
Apparently, the night before this endorsement, Karl Rove was on television discussing Byrd's past ties to the KKK, racism in WVa., etc.
So some people believe that Byrd was aware of what Rove said, and this endorsement was his one last chance to get his past behind him. This endorsement could absolve him of his KKK ties, once and for all.
Because some of us do pay attention:
Barack Obama, last night in Portland, on Iran: “They don’t pose a serious threat to us.”
Barack Obama, earlier on the afternoon of May 19th, in Billings, Montana, on Iran: “I’ve made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave.”How can you say two very different things on the same day? Perhaps it was the audience? In liberal Oregon, Iran doesn’t “pose a serious threat”. In more conservative Montana, the “threat from Iran is grave.” You just don’t sound foolish, you just don’t look foolish, you are foolish.
And foreign policy is the one area where you believe have special competence? Anymore of this and I may just have to start using expletives because this is just unbelievable.
The videos are linked at By The Fault
"A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood of ideas in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." JFK
Corporate press will gloss over it, no one will know, except those who read blogs that aren't in praise of The One. If he secures the nomination, these types of discrepancies will be pointed out and he will be seen for the typical politician he is who will say anything to be elected. Getting O! the nomination is the only **hope** Repubs have for winning the WH.
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
...won't even need to dig for fodder. It's all right there on the surface.
I can see the ads now.
~~~shudder~~~
"A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood of ideas in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." JFK
Those two tapes where BO panders to two different groups of voters about Iran are interesting for another reason as well. His bit on the difference between the Soviet Union during the Cold War and Iran today sounds like something a student memorizes before an exam, then forgets right afterward, having never really absorbed let alone learned what he was talking about. It's a CYA exercise about his debate contention that he would speak with "I'madinnerjacket" without preconditions.
Yep, that's it. It isn't as if the U.S. and the Soviet Union used spy satellites to detect targets, find nuclear bunkers and program in attack coordinates. After all, the only reason to worry about an enemies eyes is he might hit you with them.
(Ok, this would be the point where I'm no longer helping... but the snark is hard to hold back sometimes....)
...and the Republican attack machine will give him the benefit of the doubt....
/snark
"A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood of ideas in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." JFK
You placed a period where it does not belong. Watch the video and hear what Obama actually says:
“They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us.”
Do you disagree with this? Do you believe Iran can wipe the U.S. off the map and/or lead to a global nuclear holocaust?
And in the other video he makes the exact same point. In fact, he is talking about the same thing. Iran poses a grave threat but no where near the threat posed by the Soviet Union. He only contradicts himself if you quote sentence fragments.
And as a side note to a comment below, satellites are useful for targeting missiles, not launching them.
Watching the video and reading the transcript together:
“Iran is a grave threat. It has an illicit nuclear program. It supports terrorism across the region and militias in Iraq. It threatens Israel’s existence. It denies the Holocaust."
The point is how this will be used by the Republicans.
Do we run in fear from what the Republicans will say or do we actually stand up to them? Did you see how Bush had to back down recently? They aren't used to someone attacking them on foreign policy, they are used to Democrats meekly echoing "me too" and then try to change the subject to domestic issues.
But to get back to the point, I think anyone paying attention (and even low information voters not paying attention, if it is repeated loudly and often enough) can get this comparison:
Iran: Might get a nuclear weapon someday that could be used against Israel or potentially smuggled on board a ship to the U.S.A.
Soviet Union: Can kill every man, woman and child in the U.S.A. with a single push of a button.
Iran sounds pretty bad, perhaps the danger is even "grave", but compared to the threat posed by the Soviet Union it isn't even in the same ballpark. It's like a major league player worried about a really good 5 year old on a pee-wee team.
...had been added where it shouldn't be. You chose to use a difference part of O's words to make it look as if he had been misquoted.
Right, only one of the two quotes was really a misquote. Both were out of context, of course, but that is just standard politics. It is only the quote from Oregon I thought was outright dishonest, inserting a period where he was actually in mid-sentence, which radically changed the meaning. (The other was mid-sentence as well, but one of those run-on sentences that sounds ok but doesn't look in writing, see below.)
The full context of the other quote clearly shows no disconnect at all. It is only the fear of misquoting that can make this a problem. (Sorry for the all-caps, that was the only transcript I could find.)
JOHN McCAIN YESTERDAY DECIDED TO ATTACK ME FOR SAYING THAT IRAN DOES NOT POSE AS GREAT OF A THREAT AS THE SOVIET UNION DID.
SO IF WE WERE WILLING TO TALK TO GORBACHEV AND KRUSCHEV, THEN THERE'S NO REASON WE SHOULDN'T TALK TO IRAN. SEEMS LIKE COMMON SENSE.
SO JOHN McCAIN, HE SAID, OH, OBAMA DOESN'T UNDERSTAND THE THREAT OF IRAN.
I UNDERSTAND THE THREAT OF IRAN.
WHAT I KNOW IS THAT THE SOVIET UNION HAD THE ABILITY TO DESTROY THE WORLD SEVERAL TIMES OVER, HAD SATELLITES SPANNING THE GLOBE, HAD HUGE MASSES OF CONVENTIONAL MILITARY POWER, ALL DIRECTED AT DESTROYING US, SO I'VE MADE IT CLEAR FOR YEARS THAT THE THREAT FROM IRAN IS GRAVE BUT WHAT I'VE SAID IS THAT WE SHOULD NOT JUST TALK TO OUR FRIENDS, WE SHOULD BE WILLING TO ENGAGE OUR ENEMIES AS WELL.
THESE WHAT DIPLOMACY IS ALL ABOUT. SO LET ME BE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR.
IRAN IS A GRAVE THREAT. IT HAS AN ILLICIT NUCLEAR PROGRAM, SUPPORTS TERRORISM ACROSS THE REGIONS AND MILITIAS IN IRAQ, IT DENIES THE HOLOCAUST.
BUT THIS THREAT HAS GROWN PRIMARILY, THIS IS THE IRONY, THE REASON IRAN IS SO MUCH MORE POWERFUL NOW THAN IT WAS A FEW YEARS AGO IS BECAUSE OF THE BUSH-McCAIN POLICY OF FIGHTING AN ENDLESS WAR IN IRAQ AND REFUSING TO PURSUE DIRECT DIPLOMACY WITH IRAN.
THEY'RE THE ONES WHO HAVE NOT DEALT WITH IRAN WISELY.
MAKE NO MISTAKE, IRAN IS THE SINGLE BIGGEST BENEFICIARY OF A WAR IN IRAQ THAT SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN AUTHORIZED AND SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN WAGED.
THANKS TO GEORGE BUSH'S POLICIES, IRAN IS NOW THE GREATEST THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES AND ISRAEL IN THE MIDDLE EAST FOR A GENERATION.
JOHN McCAIN WANTS TO DOUBLE DOWN ON THAT FAILED POLICY.
Seriously, does anyone really disagree with any of this? Do you think Clark disagrees with any of this?
When does Barack start standing up to the Republicans? Does he wait until AFTER the ad comes out of him and Kerry wind-sailing back and forth, "I voted for it before I voted against it" segueing into Obama's voice: "Iran is a grave threat" but "They don't pose a serious threat"? On the SAME FRICKIN' DAY??
Obama can't have it both ways and neither can you.
So which is it? Is Iran "grave" (for conservative Montanans) or "not serious" (for liberal Oregonians)? And tell me again how they're comparable to a 5yo child? That one is a hoot.
You Obama supporters will make any excuse for him (like making up stuff about how satellites were used in the '80s). It's pathetic really.
In comments from No Quarter:
Have you all seen this? From http://www.bythefault.com/2008/05/20/make-up-your-mind/
(video links are on that blog)
Barack Obama, last night in Portland, on Iran: “They don’t pose a serious threat to us.”
Barack Obama, earlier on the afternoon of May 19th, in Billings, Montana, on Iran: “I’ve made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave.”
Same day, two different audiences and two opposing ideas. I am ready to scream and explode!!@!
Also from the movie A Face in the Crowd:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=–_LmeHGeRg
Maybe this is what they will start doing if he becomes the nominee. I don’t think Axelrod can make Obama palatable to middle America even if he tries.
-snip-
O has no shame!
O talks like a lawyer. I suppose there's a fine difference between Iran not posing a serious threat to us and "the threat from Iran is grave." How many angels dancing on the head of a pin?
Beware of spam from 76.91.163.63:
“What a tragedy that so much energy is going into something so negative and damaging, both to our country and to the women’s movement in general. Instead of campaigning AGAINST Barack Obama in the fall, we should be campaigning FOR the many women who are running for the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate. Jean Shaheen, Kay Hagen, Mary Landrieu and others NEED OUR HELP! Let’s DO SOMETHING POSITIVE instead of spiteful.”I initally approved this comment from a “woman” “named” “Anne” - until I saw it repeated 14 times in my comment queue, under different names and e-mails, from the same web address.
I had been skeptical of that 400 blogger rumor, but more likely the joke’s on me.
http://hillary1000.wordpress.com/2008/05/19/astroturfing/
Never forget, Axelrod made his in fortune astroturfing.
"A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood of ideas in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." JFK
with your morning java! "Bird Brains" video at riverdaughter.
the video won't load. I just get a blank space where it should be. (It's a fitting title for what went on here last night!) LOL!
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
Oh yeah. It sure is an apropos title! ;b
I have been informed that my wicked sense of humor is in fact 'mean-spirited'... and that it "enables" the rest of the virulent hatred that our dear blog is apparently now so famous for- in some circles. In fact, much in the vein of "Clinton Did It", it appears that it's all my fault!
So in the future I'll need to issue more advance warnings when my mean-spirited humor is about to pop up so posters can be alerted to 'drive by' and not interpret it as some coded signal to begin the spewing. Which we are also now so famous for...
Just a heads up to all the fellow "haters" -- Please do not fall into the easy temptation to follow me down that dark road I set up by ... injecting comedic devices into the dialogue.
It is a trap.
Resist.
In this way I will be left as the 'lone gunman' hate-spewer of CCN, so to speak --and the rest of you won't need to be dragged down into my hate-filled gutter and thusly tainted by the association.
Back to work now! Us spewers never rest.
Oops. I just did it again. I think that was an attempt at humor. Sorry.
who you are and how you think/write, that will be a tragic day for everyone. Those who now see your snarkilicious humor as mean have gone down the rabbit hole for good! Brush them off your shoulder, scrape them off the bottom of your shoe, discretely flip 'em the bird and don't look back. Your light infuriates them, and since darkness can not exist where there is light, they are attempting to turn you off.
IF their guy gets the nomination, they're going to be learning (re-learning) a whole lot of lessons that should have been learned a long time ago. #1 - Corporate press is NOT our friend. #2 - Anyone who asserts they are a uniter, as they play the nastiest game of politics since KKKKarl Rove is NOT to be trusted.
And the passive-aggressive tactic of going through old threads and downrating you is a perfect example of mean-spirited, hateful, and angry behavior. These people take all their own ugly attributes and project them on to others, never seeing what they're doing, and believing they're right and we're wrong. Ha!
I have a feeling the most rabid of O's supporters will never allow their eyes to open to who and what this guy is. IF he's the nom the Repubs will take him down in about 2 weeks. And most of what will bring him down will be true. But we can bet on the fact that they will simply blame it on Clinton and go on believing he's the messiah and she's the devil.
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
I don't believe your opinion of Obama is accurate and I don't think the Republicans will take him down. I do believe the election will be ugly, though.
I guess we'll find out in November.
I'll take that as a Billy Joel song to me. And flick it off of my lapel in a gesture of ... pfft! ;D
Don't go changing, to try and please me
You never let me down before
Don't imagine you're too familiar
And I don't see you anymore
I wouldn't leave you in times of trouble
We never could have come this far
I took the good times, I'll take the bad times
I'll take you just the way you are
Don't go trying some new fashion
Don't change the color of your hair
You always have my unspoken passion
Although I might not seem to care
I don't want clever conversation
I never want to work that hard
I just want someone that I can talk to
I want you just the way you are.
I need to know that you will always be
The same old someone that I knew
What will it take till you believe in me
The way that I believe in you.
I said I love you and that's forever
And this I promise from the heart
I could not love you any better
I love you just the way you are.
BO and team's campaign style is as ugly as it gets. BO tries to come off super clean, but doesn't mind his team playing playing dirty. They used the "Racecard" on Hillary and Bill. Two people (Hillary & Bill) who have workded so hard their adult lives to better the lives of minorities. Like I've said several times - Hillary & Bill have been persecuted by the very same people they have helped.
Yes - BO and team have been Karl Rove-like.
and scold US for being hateful and divisive.
Ok, So Tell Us What IS Allowed
I’ve noticed a pattern here on the blogs of late and it was ratcheted up to deafening levels when people decided that BO’s already won our party’s nomination. Ok maybe a while before that but my point is there’s a definite double standard here on the blogs and there has been for quite some time. Anything goes when it comes to pointing out Hillary’s “shortcomings” or “faults”. Hell they rip into her with half-truths, distortions, lies and some of the most misogynist and hateful shite I’ve ever seen. And that’s coming from other Democrats!
But god(dess) forbid we point out BO’s short-comings or faults, or try to point out that the bridge is out and our party leaders are driving us straight toward the edge of a cliff in pushing Obama on us as our nominee. If we dare question his ability to beat McCain - mention folks like his pastor of 20 years (Rev. Wright), his friend of 17 years (Tony Rezko), or that Ayers fella everyone’s been talking about, we’re tagged as divisive, undermining a guy who’s obviously going to be our nominee (according to his supporters anyway), disloyal to our Party, turncoats, GOP Operatives, Karl Rove mouth-pieces, or worse yet - racists.
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
Ok, no one else answered so I'll take a stab. I guess we can all use the worst offenders on each side as our moral gauge, kind of like the way Republicans justify torture. But the truth is allowed, as is opinion. (Obama sucks!! -- that's fine.)
For myself, I just feel the need to defend Obama from the worst attacks. Sometimes I get carried away, say something I shouldn't and need to leave the site for a few weeks. But I believe it is important to show another side, as long as I can do it politely. Group-think is always dangerous left unchecked, as I'm sure you've noticed on other sites.
(Seeing pro-Clinton stuff here helps me get sucked into group-think as well. Though I'm solidly in the Obama camp I often defend Clinton to my wife who really can't stand her.)
To defend "Obama from the worst attacks," take it to some Republican blog. Oh wait, they'd kick you butt off. So you take advantage of General Clark instead. And for what? Trying to convert lurkers away from Hillary, whom Wes Clark is fighting hard to elect.
I feel sorry for you. Truly.
has a good piece at noquarter regarding this gem by BO:
“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.”
Story still developing.....
story here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24728667/
Very sad. This family has endured so much pain. So, so much....
I expect he'll need to talk to Arlen Specter. Didn't he also have a brain tumor that was treated pretty successfully?
My daughter was diagnosed with a brain tumor Feb. 1, 2002 and passed away October 2007. when she was first diagnosed the doctors didn't give her a year, but with kemo, radiaton and thalidomide we had her longer than we expected. She was 53 years old when she died. Her tumor was on the right side and affected her vision as well as the use of her left side.
It's I suppose a bit of a buffer that you had that extra time with her that was not expected. I had an extra 14 mos with my Dad due to the skilled hands of a Cleveland Clinic heart surgeon and was especially grateful for it. It meant so much to me to have 'borrowed time' with him as it were.
Thanks, to all of you. I know exactly what the Kennedy Family is going through. We are just happoy we had the extra time with her. She had three beautiful children. Her daughter is in the Marines and just came back from Iraq a couple weeks ago and is leaving tomorrow for Okinawa until August when she will be in Intelligence school in DC for a year.
Doesn't sound good for Kennedy. Older people don't usually recover very well from brain surgeries.
Hubby was diagnosed with glioblastoma in 1985 otr 86 (?) and had two surgeries as the tumor returned after the first surgery. After the second surgery he received radiation and has had no recurrence since (thank goodness).
But he was a youngster back then...in his 20s.
As someone else here said, what that family has endured is mind boggling...
Clarkie Light (known for its curative and restorative powers) sent out to Massachusetts and to Sen Kennedy and family.
A dear friend passed away 2 years ago from a brain tumor. He started getting horrible headaches, and that's what it was. He only lived a year after being diagnosed, even though he and his wife sought out the best doctors and traveled all over CA to get to them. He even tried some experimental procedures when traditional things weren't working. He also started having seizures and had to be on anti-seizure meds, which I know from personal experience it's really hard to function when they're screwing around with dosage levels, trying to find a balance of not too much and not too little.
Light going out to Senator Kennedy and the family. As many have pointed out, they certainly have gone through their share of family tragedies...
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
are Gates and Condi. If this was an army radio report, I'm inclined to believe it's true no matter what the WH says.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1210668683139&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
has written an excellent piece (originally posted on HuffnPuff) which is now at taylormarsh.com. This is an absolute must-read! It should be sent to all the SDs.Don't miss it--it's a keeper!
She goes up there with Debra Bowen and Sen Clinton and others in my book of strong, capable, brilliant female role models.
I long for her to run for Congress. Or Hillary's seat in the Senate. She is an attorney already so she has "legislative" experience. Heck, she might as well run for President. :)
...to Ted Kennedy
"A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood of ideas in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." JFK
the parietal lobe tumors are known to cause speech disturbances and loss of ability to write/communicate. This would be devastating... They have a specialist on.
Now she just said there is usually a 6 to 8 month prognosis...
I'm sure he's in the best hands possible, but this sounds very grave...
Oh thank goodness! According to Obama, that means there's no serious threat, right?
/sarcasm
Sorry. I know this IS serious, and my heart goes out to Ted Kennedy and all the Kennedy family. And those of us here who have been thru similar hardship.
I just couldn't resist highlighting the striking and potentially terrible difference in those words. Yes, Barack, words do mean things.
Women Across America
Unite to Stop Gender Bias in the Media
Join Professionals for Hillary, NWPC-CA,
NOW, and Hillary Supporters together
Professionals for Hillary are organizing a rally to "End Gender Bias in the Media." If you want to have your voice heard saying, “enough is enough!” then please join us in support of all American women who refuse to be diminished in the American Press.
We need your support at these rallies to show America that women are not putting up with this anymore! Please send this information to all your Hillary friends and family. Bring your Hillary signs. We need to send a strong message to the media and the Democratic party that says, “not so fast!”
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/actioncenter/event/view/?id=14749
WHERE:
Burbank, CA
WHEN:
Tuesday, May 20, 2008 at 3:00 PM
LOCATION:
NBC Burbank
3000 W. Alameda Ave
Burbank, CA 91523
General Area: Alameda and Riverside
FLORIDA RALLY LOCATIONS:
* WBBH 3719 Central Ave. Fort Myers, FL 33901 http://www.nbc-2.com
* WTLV 1070 E. Adams St. Jacksonville, FL 32202 http://www.firstcoastnews.com
* WTVJ Peacock Plaza Miramar, FL 33027 http://www.nbc6.net
* WTWC 8440 Deer Lake Road Tallahassee, FL 32312 http://www.wtwc40.com
* WFLA 905 Jackson St. Tampa, FL 33606 http://www.wfla.com
* WPTV 1100 Banyan Blvd. West Palm Beach, FL 33401 http://www.wptv.com
* WESH 1021 N. Wymore Rd. Winter Park, FL 32789
* WLWT 1700 Young St. Cincinnati, OH 45210 http://www.wlwt.com
PENNSYLVANIA RALLY LOCATIONS:
* WCAU City Ave. & Monument Rd. Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 http://www.nbc10.com
* WICU 3514 State St. Erie, PA 16508 http://www.wicu12.com
* WJAC 49 Old Hickory Ln. Johnstown, PA 15905 http://www.wjactv.com
* WBRE 62 South Franklin St. Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701 http://www.wbre.com
OHIO RALLY LOCATIONS:
* WKYC 1333 Lakeside Ave. Cleveland, OH 44114 http://www.wkyc.com
* WCMH 3165 Olentangy River Rd. Columbus, OH 43202 http://www.nbc4columbus.com
* WDTN 4595 S. Dixie Drive, Dayton, OH 45439 http://www.wdtn.com
* WLIO 1424 Rice Ave. Lima, OH 45805 http://www.wlio.com
* WNWO 300 S. Byrne Rd. Toledo, OH 43615 http://www.nbc24.com
* WHIZ 629 Downward Road Zanesville, OH 43701 http://www.whizamfmtv.com
MICHIGAN RALLY LOCATIONS:
* WEYI 2225 W. Willard Rd. Clio, MI 48420 http://www.nbc25.tv
* WDIV 550 W. Lafayette Blvd. Detroit, MI 48231 http://www.clickondetroit.com
* WOOD P.O. Box B Grand Rapids, MI 49503 http://www.woodtv.com
* WILX P.O. Box 30380 Lansing, MI 48911 http://www.wilx.com
* WLUC 177 US 41 E. Negaunee, MI 49866 http://www.wluctv6.com
For more information visit: www.ProfessionalsforHillary.com
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
Nice to be back from the blog fray. I've been over at Taylor Marsh the past few weeks because there are tons of posts over there and it's very active. Sorry CCNers.
But it's nice to stop by here and see such a beautiful CCN. It really is a technical marvel of blogging compared to other sites. I know the CCN numbers have gone down this primary, but happily there are still some great minds keeping the fires lit.
To be honest, I was not enjoying the Obama supporters here and really needed to be with a bunch of Hillary supporters for awhile. Now that things are winding down (not over) I'm going to spend more time here. It's better for my political health.
and well received -- at least from this one very weary and battered CCNer! (Rough night last night...)
It's always good to be appreciated. Nice to see you back Cate.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/05/20/main-core/
Govt. May Have Massive Surveillance Program For Use In ‘National Emergency,’ 8 Million ‘Potential Suspects’
/snip/
According to a senior government official…”There exists a database of Americans, who, often for the slightest and most trivial reason, are considered unfriendly, and who, in a time of panic, might be incarcerated. The database can identify and locate perceived ‘enemies of the state’ almost instantaneously.” … One knowledgeable source claims that 8 million Americans are now listed in Main Core as potentially suspect. In the event of a national emergency, these people could be subject to everything from heightened surveillance and tracking to direct questioning and possibly even detention.
/snip/
"They've declared her dead more times than a cat's got lives," President Clinton said to a crowd at a rally in Lexington KY.
"I believe it is far more likely than not, that when this is over, she will have won the majority of votes in all states despite being outspent by $60 million."
In Wealthy Santa Barbara, Some Call a Parking Lot 'Home'
A Growing Homeless Population Finds Shelter in Vehicles
By BRIAN ROONEY
SANTA BARBARA, Calif., March 2, 2007 —
This is a city for people who have arrived in life. Located an hour and a half up the coast from Los Angeles, Santa Barbara's flowery hills are covered with multimillion dollar homes that have a commanding view of the Pacific Ocean.
But the coastal community is also home to a growing population of people who have no roof over their heads, the homeless who wander the streets and sleep on public benches.
And now the city has a new class of resident, not quite homeless -- but doesn't have a home either. They are the working poor who live in their cars, trucks and campers. Call them the mobile homeless.
"We've lived in the homeless shelter, and it's full of people that are drunk and on drugs," said Carlos Cortez.
Working but too poor to afford rent in this expensive city, Cortez and his wife, Naomi, scraped together enough money to buy an old recreational vehicle they can live in.
It's a phenomenon that is happening all over the country as people are priced out of local housing and have nowhere else to go where life might be better.
California alone has about 350,000 homeless people. Santa Barbara has 2,000, some still trying to make it in the working world.
----------
Homeless find haven in their vehicles
Santa Barbara's 'Safe Parking' project lets some live in cars without criminal penalties
...took an informal census in 2007, driving around one evening looking for telltale signs of vehicular habitation: towels draped over windows, condensation fogging windshields. Within hours, he counted 249 makeshift homes.
"Mostly, they try to stay invisible," Talley said. "They don't want to get hassled by the police. They don't want to be victimized by thugs."
Talley is positive and draws on his Peace Corps stint for inspiration.
"When I go up to a vehicle, it's like going to some hut in Paraguay and clapping my hands before I enter, saying, 'Hey, I'm here!' "
In his closet-size office at the Salvation Army in Santa Barbara, he sometimes cringes at the stories he hears.
"They're crying in front of me, they're telling me about being raped on the streets, about all sorts of things - and a little piece of me dies," he said.
On the wall hangs a license plate, an artifact from the ancient Volkswagen bus that one of Talley's first clients lived in for years. Talley helped the man - an ex-lawyer who had attended the U.S. Military Academy at West Point - into low-income housing.
Talley drove him to a Los Angeles Veterans Administration hospital for knee-replacement surgery. He even got him a $1,000 check from a state program that pays motorists to scrap polluting vehicles.
"I just kept thinking that this guy could be my grandfather," Talley said.
is probably the best and worst place to be homeless. The best because of the weather. Santa Cruz always had a huge homeless population, and I'm sure now it's even huger! The worst, because of the cost of living there. At least somewhere affordable, one could feasibly work their way into a modest rental. Not so much in CA.
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
I've got about 12 solid reasons why I am not supporting Obama.Probably more, but I wanted to be realistic. These past few weeks I am feeling like he is the George W. of the Democratic party. I remember the 2000 election when I would be slapping my head wondering why so many people bought into such an empty suit as GWB. Little experience, difficulty forming cohesive sentences/thoughts outside of teleprompter or stump speech, but great marketing campaign.
Hey, I'm all for change, especially after seeing Michael Moore's "Sicko" for the first time last weekend. (Scary, corrupt, wrong US healthcare system). Some things need a radical change and I'm not too pleased with Hillary's acceptance of big $$ from the healthcare industry. But that said, I do think she will be best in foreign policy. Obama doesn't have a clue and is kinda scary with his "gaffes." I also think Hillary does have integrity and can get a LOT of changes made with a Dem congress. Obama probably could too, but not without a lot of good senior advisors. Michelle is going to have to get that chip off her shoulder too.
Just the facts! From OpenSecrets:
_____________________________________________
CLINTON
Health Professionals .....$2,715,184
Insurance industry .......$1,045,261
Hospitals/Nursing Homes ....$941,881
http://opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00000019
OBAMA
Health Professionals .....$2,482,665
Insurance Industry .......$826,209
Hospitals/Nursing Homes ...$996,361
http://opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638
They are but a few hundred thousand dollars apart. The HRC taking all the big health care $$ story (vis a vis Obama) is another election myth.
------------------------------------------------------
Also, each of them took in just over $15,000,000 apiece from Lawyers and Law Firms as a standard of comparison...
I'm curious about contributions from HMOs who I have decided are the real culprits in our inability to have universal healthcare like the rest of the modernized western world.
Sheesh , you can walk into any healthcare facility in CUBA and get better care than in the US. And it's FREE!!
HMOs come under Insurance industry.
They both raked in just under $5 Million apiece from the health care industry, and are still only a few hundred thousand apart.
The Clinton / Health Care story line vs Obama is not only a manufactured myth.... one might even call it a "fairy tale".
Oops.
There I go again.
Humor.
Sorry....
I am not buying into the Obama myth that Hillary is the only one who has taken contributions from healthcare. In fact I see him as being more quid quo pro than she is coming from his Chicago political background. What I wonder about is whether Hillary really means to make our healthcare free from cradle to grave like other countries, or whether she has been bought. I'd like to think the former, but questions arise.
corporate elitists and Vichy Dems.
I share your concerns and can only hope her plans for health care are genuine as reflected by her history and commitment to it. We may never get the opportunity to see or test her on it further, however.... which would be sad.
I doubt either could bring us near the levels of the other countries who provide for everyone in perpetuity. We've spent our treasures on the democracy bringin' thing. We're quite broke now.
My concerns with him are some of the advisors he enlists -- to his economic team, to his health care platform (Cooper comes to mind), to his foreign policy (republicans come to mind)... the all seem to be in the right corner of the room. Which is fashionable called "centrist" today.... That makes me nervous.
Anti Hate Spewing Responsibility Disclaimer: None of the above commentary is meant to be interpreted as spewing forth of hatred by poster towards any or all Democratic candidate(s) but is intended instead to explore the veracity of various claims regarding candidate positions at this critical juncture of our Democratic presidential nomination campaign. Poster encourages readers not to be tempted to jump on any hate spewing bandwagons that may or may not be incited by said commentary..
The problem with this statistic is they just show what industry a donator works in. For example, if a donator is a clerk working at Walmart the donation looks on this kind of list as a donation from Walmart.
The claim, as I understand it, is Clinton takes donations from healthcare lobbyists. I don't know if this is true or if this is important, but it is different than what is listed here.
From No Quarter:
-snip-
ALSO: My daughter just e-mailed me with this tidbit on Fox News: “After a voter in a townhall meeting asked obama about nuclear stuff and the hanford site:
“here’s something you won’t hear often from a politician..uh…i’m not familiar with hanford…uh…“
She reports he also said:
“i don’t know what’s going on there [hanford]“
**APPLAUSE** — My daughter says is what the audience did after hearing that. HOW IN THE NAME OF GOD can he NOT KNOW about Hanford? Oh dear god.
-snip-
Another round of applause please!! Dems just fold your tent now if this is the best you have.
Sticking with Hillary. Oh yeah!!
...and caring about the place you're visiting instead of trying to skate by with a standard stump speech. One size does not fit all.
Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary Main Entry:
ecol·o·gy Function: noun Inflected Form: plural -gies
1 : a branch of science concerned with the interrelationship of organisms and their environments
In 1989, the Washington Department of Ecology, the federal Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of Energy entered into the Tri-Party Agreement, which provides a legal framework for environmental remediation at Hanford.[8] The agencies are currently engaged in the world's largest environmental cleanup, with many challenges to be resolved in the face of overlapping technical, political, regulatory, and cultural interests. The cleanup effort is focused on three outcomes: restoring the Columbia River corridor for other uses, converting the central plateau to long-term waste treatment and storage, and preparing for the future.[48] The cleanup effort is managed by the Department of Energy under the oversight of the two regulatory agencies. A citizen-led Hanford Advisory Board provides recommendations from community stakeholders, including local and state governments, regional environmental organizations, business interests, and Native American tribes.[49] In recent years, the federal government has spent about $2 billion annually on the Hanford project.[50] About 11,000 workers are on site to consolidate, clean up, and mitigate waste, contaminated buildings, and contaminated soil.[5] Originally scheduled to be complete within thirty years, the cleanup was less than half finished by 2008.[50]
politically, that is. People were screaming about Hanford in the early 1990s when he was a young lawyer getting connected in Chicago. It wasn't on his radar at the time.
It continues. A new report filed by Lois Romano for the Washington Post looks at the tremendous depth of Sen. Clinton's support and the passion she inspires "not merely because she is a woman or because her campaign is breaking historic ground, but because she speaks to them about their real problems and they are furious at the way she has been treated."
For the first time, according to Romano, Sen. Clinton addressed what many have been discussing for months:
"It's been deeply offensive to millions of women," Clinton said. "I believe this campaign has been a groundbreaker in a lot of ways. But it certainly has been challenging given some of the attitudes in the press, and I regret that, because I think it's been really not worthy of the seriousness of the campaign and the historical nature of the two candidacies we have here."
"The manifestation of some of the sexism that has gone on in this campaign is somehow more respectable, or at least more accepted, and . . . there should be equal rejection of the sexism and the racism when it raises its ugly head," she said. "It does seem as though the press at least is not as bothered by the incredible vitriol that has been engendered by the comments by people who are nothing but misogynists."
The sexism has been pervasive and blatant, though rarely taken seriously, a great miscalculation on the part of the Obama campaign. Should he become the nominee, there won't be enough good will left for him to even begin to repair the rift, and he should not operate under the illusion that women, as well as many of their male allies, will "get over it" and fall in line. The repeated, insistent calls for Sen. Clinton to abandon the race aren't helping and are, in fact, rankling her supporters:
"I'm real tired of the pundits telling me the race is over -- telling America what it should think," said Dorinda Perkins, 63, a lab technician. "I do not want her to quit."
"I love her because she's a helluva fighter. She's tenacious and I like that," said Pat Parker, a night-shift worker at Hardee's in Bowling Green. "She cares for everybody, for people like me. . . . I'll tell you, she's been treated pretty shabby."
Most of the pundits do seem to agree on one thing: Sen. Clinton is a very different candidate today, and a far better one since the early days in Iowa. Post mortems, should it come to that, might dwell on whether she made a mistake when, at the beginning of the campaign, she focused on her experience more than on her convictions: that, I think, would be a spectacular mistake. As the first viable female candidate for the presidency, Sen. Clinton had to make her case early in order to erase another invisible disadvantage; the fact that very few now question whether a woman, or this woman in particular, has what it takes to be the Commander-In-Chief of this great nation is a testament to her success, not to her missteps.
"The irony is that candidates often find their voices once the pressure is off," said Peter D. Hart, a Democratic pollster and strategist. They are comfortable with "who they are and what they are. It comes at a point in the campaign when the candidate says this is what I want to say and this is who I am. For Hillary Clinton, as you stripped away all the varnish, the core person is the most attractive of all."
The truth is that almost no one has ever had one iota of interest in who the "core person" was; rather, they've all been too busy painting a distorted, grotesque picture, and selling that picture, to care. Even with all that, Sen. Clinton has earned more votes than any other candidate during the primary season, ever. That isn't just a victory, but a triumph. And the story isn't over yet.
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
It seems the examples of sexism are coming from the media. I have not seen examples from the Obama campaign. (not including supporters) I just want to be clear about who I should be mad at.
on the issue speaks volumes. And I feel the same about the Dems leadership who have let this go on unchallenged. It's not as if it happened once or twice, and no one really was aware of it.
Imagine if any one of the instances of blatant sexism leveled at Clinton had been a racist (or even a hint of racism) slam against O! Do you think everyone would have remained silent? Would it have been allowed to continue? Of course not! and rightly so! That's what's sick.
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
In all seriousness, though, I agree that the sexist stuff has had far less pushback than the racist stuff. Obama would be a much better man if he defended Clinton on this account from the beginning.
(Not that Clinton ever defended Obama on the racist stuff, but Obama is supposed to take the high road.)
...and all the people of the Great State of Kentucky!