The Iraq-Iran Alliance

I have mentioned in several past commentaries that when it is all said and done ,and no matter how the war in Iraq ends, Iran and Iraq will be united allies.  They will enjoy the fruits of the billions of American dollars used to rebuild Iraq. Iraq and Iran as well as other countries in the Middle East, will also have even a greater advantage in the control and price of oil for years to come.---All of this because of Bush's reckless policy in Iraq over WMD that did not exist.

 

Just this past week, Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's troops were locked in combat in Shiite controlled-Basra against Iraqi forces.  At the same time, al-Sadr's Mahdi Army was making trouble all over Baghdad.  Iraqi officials have now reported that over 500 Iraqi solders, police, and civilians were killed in the Basra and Baghdad fighting, with hundreds more wounded.

 

Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki, who vowed to see the Basra campaign through to a military victory, instead came to an agreement with al-Sadr to end the fighting and agreed to al-Sadr's nine demands.  Once again, al-Sadr told his army to stand down.  That can be deemed success---for now...

 

But the fighting in Basra and Baghdad this week has exposed the weakness of the American troop surge.  Al-Sadr and his army can and do turn the heat and violence up any time they want to.  The surge did not have an affect on this operation.  It should be noted, however, that the Iraqi representatives who handled the cease fire with the Shiite in Basra and Baghdad also had to send representatives to Iran to deal with al-Sadr to help negotiate the cease fire.  In other words, al-Sadr is operating from Iran.  The American people should and need to understand just what is taking place here.

 

All the while, our troops are still dying in a country made unstable by the President's invasion.  It should also be noted to the American people that the fight in Basra and Baghdad was between al-Sadr's army and the government and not al-qaeda.  Al-Sadr does not like the way the government is handling the Shiite-Sunni problem, and he has no problem raising hell to get what he wants.

 

In other words, the civil war is still going on in Iraq and Americans are dying because of forces that our military can not control.  If Bush or McCain or any other  neoconservative Republican thinks that America is waving the white flag of surrender by bringing out troops home, then they are the ones who care nothing about our men and women in uniform.  If all our troops came home tomorrow, they will all come home just like they served, with the highest honor. 

 

If any one thinks that America, the greatest military power in the world, has to occupy a foreign country in order to keep our country safe, then our children's future is really in jeopardy.  Indeed, this country's future is in jeopardy if that is the case. Think about that.

The Morning Dose---4/8

Anne Kornblut of the Washington Post is today's source for the Morning Dose. In her latest article, Anne highlights the facts concerning Clinton and her hospital story, which despite what many in the Obama-loving media would have you believe, was true:

_____________________________________________________________

The aunt of a young pregnant woman who died after a hospital told her she needed to pay $100 up front for care said in an interview on Monday that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has been telling the story accurately on the campaign trail -- following claims by a different Ohio hospital that it did not turn the patient away.

For weeks, Clinton repeated an anecdote she heard in Ohio on Feb. 28 involving a young woman who lost her baby and later died because she lacked health insurance and did not have $100 to gain access to a nearby hospital.

But over the weekend, Clinton came under fire when officials at O'Bleness Memorial Hospital, after reading about her remarks, demanded that she stop recounting it because the patient, Trina Bechtel, was admitted there and did have insurance.

That part, it turns out, is true. But so is Clinton's claim that Bechtel did not get care at another hospital that wanted a $100 pre-payment before seeing her, according to the young woman's aunt, Lisa Casto. "It's a true story," said Casto, 53.(...)

(...)Casto said her niece, who suffered from preeclampsia during her pregnancy, did not seek care at the first hospital she when she fell ill because she knew she did not have the $100 out-of-pocket she believed she would need to be seen. Instead, she went to O'Bleness Memorial Hospital, where her baby was stillborn. Bechtel was later flown to Columbus and died there. She was 35. 

Casto said she has been stunned by the amount of negative attention her niece's story generated, and that she was sorry it had hurt the Clinton campaign. She was, and is, she said, a supporter. "Did I vote for Hillary?" she said. "You'd better bet I did."

Anne's article, important to note, also clarified the issue on the patient's insurance situation. The woman did not have insurance originally, as Clinton correctly noted.  At the time of her death, however, she was insured, but, "the damage", so to say, was already done to her health from not being able to be treated originally.  

Clinton's Latest "Lie"; The Video Says It All

Ooops, you mean those in the Clinton-hating media were the actual ones lying when they reported that Clinton lied about a woman not receiving medical attention because she couldn't afford it.  As ABC News reports, "the hospital that denied Bachtel the coverage was not O'Bleness Memorial."  Read the entire article, proving the story Clinton told TRUE, here.  

I'm wondering if the New York Times, Keith Olbermann, and others who promoted this story will apologize to Sen. Clinton for tarnishing her record without the proper research and reporting to back it up.  Sadly, I doubt Obama lovers in the media will ever admit their flaws in their Clinton hating, biased ways. 

The Morning Dose---4/7

Today's Morning Dose comes from New Jersey Governor and Democratic superdelegate, Jon Corzine.  In a article that Corzine wrote for the Huffington Post, Corzine argues why listening to the will of the people in Michigan and Florida is not just an issue of process, but an issue of Democracy:

________________________________________________________

There have been some who have tried to read my comments last week on CNBC's SquawkBox as stepping back from my support of Senator Clinton. Nothing could be further from the truth.(...)

(...)I truly believe Senator Clinton is the most qualified and prepared to be our next president. I unequivocally support her candidacy.

My point on SquawkBox was and remains that superdelegates should consider a number of factors in their final decision, particularly after the primaries and caucuses have run their course.

Clearly, the cumulative delegate totals must be considered. Absolutely, the cumulative popular vote is important. And, a practical analysis of electability and the electoral map must be weighed.

For me, the most important of those factors is the popular vote since Democrats have rightfully and passionately long argued that every vote should be counted. Practically, that popular vote should include participation of the fourth and eighth largest states in the nation. Most Democrats agree that ignoring the voices of Florida and Michigan is a mistake and threatens to impact the outcome of the fall elections.

Like many, I fear that not considering the wishes of millions of Democratic voters in those states will taint the attitude of voters everywhere about our ultimate nominee. Early polling in Florida has already indicated as much.

Without a "do over" for those states, the short-term gain could well come with long-term pain for our nominee, the party and the nation.

The party should be responsible and raise funds for a primary "do-over" in a way that doesn't give the competitive edge to one candidate over the other.

I believe, as I think most Democrats do, that the popular vote is the most democratic way to select a candidate. In fact, I recently signed legislation in New Jersey that joins the state in a compact to choose a president by direct popular vote.

When we listen to all (emphasis added by me) of the people in our party, we end up choosing the person the entire party can support.  

Obama's America:

Credit to Taylor Marsh for the photo; It speaks for itself.  

Republican Administrations = Fiscal Disasters

The economic numbers for the first quarter are in, and they are not good.  And even worse, it comes at a time when the Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, says that he does not rule out a recession.  Let's take a look at what is behind all of this:

 

The economy lost 80,000 jobs in March; 76,000 jobs in February, and 76,000 jobs in January for a total of 232,000 jobs lost in the first quarter of 2008.  The government reported that the March job loss was worse because the actual number of jobs lost in the private sector was 98,000 and only hiring by the government brought the job loss to 80,000.  The unemployment rate increased from 4.8% to 5.1%, the highest  in two and half years---at the end of March there were 7.8 million people unemployed.  The Federal Reserve also reported first quarter GDP will more than likely show none or very little growth.

 

It was reported in my three part series, "The Economy: Which Party Performs The Best", that the problem with Republican administrations and the economy is twofold.  They have a tax cutting plan ,called trickle down economics, but no real, broad based economic policy.  They have a reckless fiscal policy of deficit spending and debt creation, rather than what this country needs for a stable economy--- a sound fiscal policy, based on balancing the federal budget.

 

The economy lost jobs in the first term of George W. Bush because a lack of a economic and fiscal policy.  Job creation under his administration, when it comes to an end, will be one of the weakest since Hoover.  One recession has already taken place on his watch and another one is brewing.  Yet with all the bad news, the President does nothing.   

 

It should be noted the unemployment rate on Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43's watch never went down at a steady pace.  On each of their watches it increased over what it was when they took office before it came back down: Reagan from 7.5% to 10.8% before it started to come down;  Bush 41 from 5.4% to 7.8% before it started to come down.

 

When President Clinton took office unemployment was 7.3% and it never went over that.  In fact, the unemployment rate went down on a steady basis every year that he was in office and was at 4.2% when he left.  The Clinton administration was also steady in creating jobs upward and in record numbers while Reagan, Bush 41, and now Bush 43 were/are inconsistent.  That was also covered in my three part series mentioned above.  Those three neocon presidents did not even come close in creating a sound economic and fiscal policy.  Clinton had a real economic and fiscal policy that produced the greatest economy, created jobs, low unemployment, advancement for the poor, middle class and all through the economic ladder and real increase in wages.  Not to mention, he also produced a balance budget that returned surpluses, paid down debt, and left Bush a $5.6 trillion surplus, which he of course blew.  By the way, crime and unemployment hit its lowest level in 40 years on Clinton's watch.  Yea, you read right, it happened on a Democrat's watch.

 

The Clinton haters are out now in full mode, especially journalists who are infatuated with Obama, since his wife is seeking the Democratic nomination.  They are still reporting opinions and false hoods as fact, just as they did during the impeachment of the President by the Republican Congress.  The voting public would also do well to remember that the U.S. Senate found Clinton not guilty of the impeachment charges, and a five year investigation by the government concerning Whitewater found nothing.  The only thing the President was guilty of was lying to the public about an affair.  The same Clinton haters are trying to do the same thing to Senator Clinton---they just can't stand the fact the country and its people did so well on President Clinton's watch and they don't want to see Sen. Clinton have that same success. 

He's Gone!!!

Mark Penn is gone.  Thank god.  I am unwavering in my support for Sen. Clinton, but Mark Penn was the single biggest idiot on that campaign.  In fact, I could have run that campaign better then Penn.  Not much more to say than that, but thank god.  

Hopefully now someone with actual knowledge can take control.  Carville anybody?  Begalla?  Hell, I'd take anyone at this moment over Penn.  Hillary's chance's although still slim, just went up with Penn not there to screw every thing up.  Hillary can finally now be...Hillary.  

DSCC Road to Victory: Mary Landrieu

As all attention is focused on the Presidential Race, it's important to keep in mind that in November, many Senate and Congressional seats will be up for the taking.  But more important than gaining seats in Congress, is keeping those seats which Democrats currently occupy.  

Now, with that being said, the general consensus is that Mary Landrieu's (D-Louisiana) Senate seat is the most vulnerable, and I, from being on the ground here in New Orleans, agree.  Still, she has had a very impressive first quarter in regards to fundraising and has racked up many high profile endorsements, from both Democrats and Republicans.  

What's important to remember, on a personal note for me, is how hard Sen. Landrieu has fought for the people of Louisiana, especially after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.  The following video, from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), highlights just that:

The Morning Dose---4/5

Today's Morning Dose is from Quinnipiac University, taking a look at the key general election swing states of Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania:

_________________________________________________________

...In general election match ups of the three largest and most important swing states in the Electoral College, the survey finds:

-Florida: Clinton 44 percent - McCain 42 percent; McCain beats Obama 46-37

-Ohio: Clinton beats McCain 48 - 39 percent; Obama gets 43 percent to McCain's 42%

-Pennsylvania: Clinton tops McCain 48 - 40 percent; Obama leads McCain 43 -39 percent

"When it comes to November, Sen. Hillary Clinton's strength is a big edge over Sen. Barack Obama among white voters, who have not given a majority of their votes to a Democratic presidential nominee since Lyndon Johnson in 1964," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute." 

More than a third of voters in the three states think Obama's race is an advantage, more than twice the number who think it is a disadvantage. By contrast, roughly a quarter of voters say Clinton's gender is an advantage, and about the same number think it is a disadvantage. 

"Former Democratic vice presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro's assertion that Obama's race has helped his candidacy finds some support among the electorate," said Brown. 

"At least for now, Sen. Clinton's argument that she is the better general election candidate in these key battleground states appears to have some validity," said Brown. "In this survey, her strength among white voters is why she runs better against Sen. McCain than does Sen. Obama. 

"Roughly one in five Democrats in the three states say they will vote for McCain against Obama, but less than 10 percent say they would vote for McCain over Clinton. Among white Democrats, 23 percent defect to McCain in a matchup with Obama, but only 11 percent defect when Clinton is the Democratic candidate." Pennsylvania...

"Her strength is her clear advantage among white voters - blue collar whites, less educated whites, economically hurting whites, that group known famously as Reagan Democrats in the Keystone State."...

"The economic concerns of voters make Ohio a tougher challenge for McCain than has traditionally been the case for Republicans, who have never won the White House without carrying Ohio," Brown said. "But Obama's weakness among white men is an indication that he has not yet closed the sale among the lunch bucket brigade."... 

"The difference between Clinton and Obama in Florida is the white vote," said Brown. "She gets 38 percent to 50 percent for McCain, but Obama loses to the Arizona senator 54 - 27 among white voters. If Obama does get the nomination, how he fares with whites will be crucial to his chances." ...

The Inadequacy Of Being A Conservative

Senator McCain, the Republican nominee for President, is now attempting to reintroduce his and his family's military service on the campaign trail, attempting to show that he is better qualified to be President versus whomever the Democrats nominate.  Conservatives, like McCain and Bush, like to think they are tougher than their opponents on national security and protecting America.  They feel inadequate, so they try to work on the fears of the people and cry wolf.  Any American who desires to be President should have the wisdom and character to keep fear out of the campaign. 

 

The tragic event of 9-11 befell the U.S. while the conservatives were talking tough, and after seven years we still have not won the war on terror; bin Laden is still free to plot more attacks, all while George Bush, a conservative, is Commander-in-Chief. That should be a stalk reminder that trying to talk tough does not get the job done.  Most people who served in the military on active duty do not feel they have to exploit their service by trying to act tough, rather they use that experience to come up with sensible solutions to present to the American people.  

 

Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy were all combat veterans and served their country during the Cold War, but did not campaign on their service record; did not campaign on fear; nor were they critical of their opponents ability to protect our country during a crisis.  They spoke to all the issues facing the country, because they knew we faced more problems that did not require military solutions than those that did.  Today, some of our leaders and hope-to-be-leaders focus on military action above all else, and try to create an atmosphere of fear for society to live in.  In contrast, those three Presidents tried to educate the people that the only thing we had to fear was fear itself.

 

The country today has many major problems that need sound policies to deal with, and that are not involved with military solutions or tax breaks for the wealthy.  Conservatives do not have policies; they only have an ideology that calls for a military or tax solution.  The nation's current problems have not been addressed or solved because of this ideology for the past 8 years, or in the Reagan-Bush 41 administrations for that matter.  Conservatives are now scrambling around to patchwork the economy and the financial mess we have---a mess we have because of their lack of policy.

 

Senator McCain is silent when it comes to the debt that the last three conservative Republican presidents piled on our country and its people, for which we are paying for today.  He continues to go along with the fail policies regarding Iraq and Afghanistan.  He has now abandoned his past policy, and lines up with George Bush for more tax cuts for the wealthy.  The bottom line: Senator McCain and his tough military talk will not be an asset in over coming the Conservative's inadequate feelings, or getting himself elected President.