(cross posted at kickin it with cg)

In the ongoing series of blogs about the mediaFail™ there are two ripe, juicy examples ready to be plucked.

The first involves Joshua Green, senior editor at The Atlantic and author of the latest hit job on Hillary Clinton.  Having worked for some serious publications, like the Washington Monthly and American Prospect, where he perpetuated lies such as: Al Gore is a serial exaggerator who said he invented the internet. Green suggests that his analysis of the Clinton memos is the "empirical truth" and was billed fantastically by fellow Altantic columnist Marc Ambinder as "the story of what really happened."

With clear disdain, Green also refers to Clinton's famed majority female staff as a "bitchy staff" which "proved to be her Achilles' heel." In spite of Hillary's bitchy staff, the vast majority of Green's piece focuses on the men in her campaign, most especially Mark Penn.  Green complains that "the candidate herself evinced a paralyzing schizophrenia -- one day a shots-'n'-beers brawler, the next a Hallmark Channel mom."  

Next up is National Review Online editor-at-large Jonah Goldberg.  In his August 15 syndicated column, headlined "Nightmare on Dem Street," Goldberg wrote of former President Bill Clinton and Sen. Hillary Clinton's appearances at the Democratic National Convention: "Bill and Hillary are back. And forever more, Barack Obama won't be able to take a shower without fear of that curtain snapping back, as a woman -- or is that a man? -- prepares to plunge the knife into his back."  Another journalist suggesting that the Clintons would use violence against Obama and other political opponents.

As MediaMatters notes:

Goldberg also compared the Clintons to fictional horror movie characters Freddy Krueger, Jason Voorhees, and Dracula, writing: "Freddy Krueger always comes back. Jason re-emerges from the pond one more time. Dracula had so many comebacks, nobody was surprised to see him hanging with Abbott and Costello." Additionally, Goldberg wrote: "If the monster-movie thing is too offensive for you Clinton voluptuaries out there, think of it like this: They're like Richard Gere in 'An Officer and a Gentleman' (who, coincidentally, is hounded by a charismatic black dude but never gives up)." He added:

They've got no place else to go. And I was right. The Clintons are back. The coffin lid has sprung open, the seal of the crypt has been broken, the mutant virus has escaped the lab. Both Clintons will speak at the Democratic convention, and Hillary will get her I-told-you-so's. In the horror flicks, it's not that the creatures are impervious to damage, it's that no matter how much you hack them up, they seem to come back again. And again. And again. The Clintons have been horribly damaged, but they press on.

Who the hell are these clowns?  

(cross posted at kickin it with cg and Clintonistas for Obama)

Seems like the chatter on prospective VP candidates has hit a fever pitch. But historically not many cared about the vice president...

An afterthought in the construction of the Constitution, it was on Sept. 6, 1787 that America's powdered-wig wearin' Constitutional Convention approved Alexander Hamilton's proposal to create the office of the vice presidency, declaring that the Veep should be the runner-up in the race to be president.

That's how VPs were picked until the rules were changed to allow presidential nominees to pick their running mates, which has since been used as a way for candidates to garner more votes with a "more balanced" ticket.

All this speculation spent on a job that Former Vice President John Nance Garner once famously remarked was "not worth a bucket of warm piss" and which John Adams once called "the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived."

A recent CBS News poll on the presidential election states that 67% say their vote will be based mostly on the candidate at the top of the ticket, while 30% said that the choices of their vice presidential running mates will have a great deal of influence on their decision. That's twice the number who said the VP picks would matter in 2000, when George W. Bush and Al Gore were preparing their campaigns.

According to the poll, voters who are still undecided are more apt than those currently favoring Barack Obama or John McCain to say the candidates' choices for vice president will be important to their vote. 48% of those voters say the choices will influence their vote while 47% say they won't. And Independents are more likely than Democrats or Republicans to say the choice of vice presidential nominee will matter.

As interesting as Obama's and McCain's choices will be, the real question is, does it matter? The answer of many voters and political commentators is, more than any other time in American history, yes. But the better question is why?

(cross posted at kickin it with cg and Clintonistas for Obama)

In case anyone missed it, ExxonMobil will be sponsoring the CNN, CBS and the National Journal's coverage of both the Democratic and Republican National Conventions.

And just in the nick of time, the Exxon Mobile Citizen Action Team (CAT) issued its summer newsletter.

The ExxonMobil program that provides information on public policy issues and encourages employees and retirees in the United States and those citizens living abroad to get involved in issues that affect our business, families and communities. With nearly 100,000 U.S. employees and retirees providing representation in every congressional district, the ExxonMobil family is an important political force and a vehicle for positive change. By harnessing our collective strength, we can make a difference through the elections process, lobbying and grassroots communications.

Isn't it nice seeing a corporation take an active role in democracy?

(cross posted at kickin it with cg and Clintonistas for Obama)

I came across a story today about Hillary Clinton delegate Sacha Millstone of Boulder, Colorado.  Apparently Millstone has hired an attorney after she received a Democratic Party email that ordered her to come to headquarters to 'explain' disparaging remarks she made about Barack Obama.

Her attorney wrote the DNC asking for the rules that allow the party to threaten a person's removal from the state delegation. Party officials say the issue has been dropped.

Now I don't know anything about this particular person, nor her motivations.  But this raises an interesting conundrum for the Party - should delegates be free to criticize the nominee?  And if so - why would they be forced to 'explain themselves' for remarks they make.  Thoughts?

(cross posted at kickin it with cg and Clintonistas for Obama)

Darfur, which means 'land of the fur' is a region in western Sudan.  The region is divided into three states: West Darfur, South Darfur, and North Darfur.  Approximately the size of Spain,  the arid and impoverished region has been in a state of humanitarian emergency since February 2003.

The original conflict broke out after a rebel group began attacking government targets, claiming that the region was being neglected by its capital in Khartoum and oppressing black Africans in favour of Arabs.  

One side of the armed conflict is composed mainly of the Sudanese military and the Janjaweed, a militia group recruited mostly from the Arab Abbala tribes of the northern Rizeigat, camel-herding nomads. The Janjaweed are accused of the worst atrocities.  The other side comprises a variety of rebel groups, notably the Sudan Liberation Movement (SLA) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), recruited primarily from the land-tilling non-Arab Fur, Zaghawa, and Massaleit ethnic groups.

The Sudanese government, while publicly denying that it supports the Janjaweed, has provided money and assistance to the militia and has participated in joint attacks targeting the tribes from which the rebels draw support.

The current lines of conflict are seen to be ethnic and tribal, rather than religious, some attest that the combination of decades of drought, desertification, and overpopulation are among the causes of the conflict, because the Arab nomads searching for water have to take their livestock further south, to land mainly occupied by Black African farming communities.  There are now more than a dozen rebel groups - making peace talks extremely difficult.

The Sudanese government, led by President Omar al-Bashir admits mobilizing "self-defence militias" following rebel attacks, however it denies any links or control to the Janjaweed, who are accused of trying to "cleanse" black Africans from large swathes of territory.  Refugees say that following air raids by government aircraft, the Janjaweed ride into villages on horses and camels, slaughtering men, raping women and stealing whatever they can find.  Many women report being abducted and held as sex slaves for more than a week before being released.

After strong international pressure and the threat of sanctions, the government promised to disarm the Janjaweed. But so far there is little evidence this has happened.  Trials have been announced in Khartoum of some members of the security forces suspected of abuses - but this is viewed as part of a campaign against UN-backed attempts to get some 50 key suspects tried at the International Criminal Court in The Hague.  

Millions of civilians have fled their destroyed villages, with more than two million in camps near Darfur's main towns.  The Janjaweed patrol outside the camps and Darfuris say the men are killed and the women raped if they venture too far in search of firewood or water.

As the conflict enters its sixth year, with much of Darfur inaccessible to aid workers and researchers, conditions continue to deteriorate for civilians. Hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, even by the most conservative estimates. The United Nations puts the death toll at roughly 300,000, while the former U.N. undersecretary-general puts the number at no less than 400,000. Up to 2.5 million have fled their homes and sought safety in camps throughout Darfur, or in refugee camps in neighboring Chad and the Central African Republic.  But many of these are camped along the stretch of the borders remain vulnerable to attacks from Sudan.  As well Chad's eastern areas have a similar ethnic make-up and the violence has spilled over into the border area. Both capitals have also been attacked this year by rebel groups.  

Based on Sudan's actions over the past five years, it is clear that unless the international community imposes additional political costs for President Bashir, his government will continue to buy time by either accepting initiatives only to backtrack later or impose new conditions that render them useless.  The Sudanese government stresses that the situation and numbers are being exaggerated.

Humanitarian assistance in Darfur continues to be at risk of collapse, in part because of sustained harassment by the Sudanese government, and in part because of the government's militia allies and common criminals. In September 2006, the United Nations estimated that such a collapse would cause up to 100,000 civilian deaths every month.  Troublesome developments suggest that such a failure is becoming more likely with the World Food Program's Humanitarian Air Service receiving no funding in the first three months of 2008. Last-minute donations totaling six million dollars funded it through the beginning of May and many aid agencies working in Darfur but they are unable to get access to vast areas because of the fighting.

The Save Darfur Coalition who is raising awareness and demanding an end to the genocide describe the current situation as follows:

In the second half of 2007, the Sudanese government's divide-and-conquer strategy, described by Human Rights Watch as "chaos by design," caused an increasingly frenzied free-for-all in Darfur. Rebel groups fragmented further and criminal activity as well as intertribal fighting increased exponentially.  Still, the effects of tribal fighting should not be overemphasized. Of the eight largest displacements between January and November 2007, seven resulted from government or Janjaweed attacks. Only one was the result of intertribal fighting.  In early 2008, deaths and displacements from military operations by the government, its allied militias and rebels were even more common relative to those caused by tribal conflicts.  

Darfur activists and other human rights organizations wrote a letter to both candidates outlining the resolution SR 632:

Senator John McCain
Senator Barack Obama
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

August 7, 2008

Dear Senators McCain and Obama,

The day before Olympian Joey Cheek, a 2006 Gold Medalist in speed skating, was to travel to Beijing, the government of China revoked his visa. Mr. Cheek is one of the strongest voices in the pursuit of peace in Darfur.

Mr. Cheek and a group of other current and former Olympic athletes had been calling for an Olympic Truce for Darfur - a cessation of hostilities in the Darfur region for a period before, during and after the Games. The Olympic Truce dates from ancient Greece and has been revived as a diplomatic tool over the past several decades.

Earlier this week, Darfur activist leaders and human rights groups from across the country sent an open letter calling upon each of you, as US Senators and presumptive presidential nominees, to promptly announce your intention to co-sponsor a new resolution, SR 632, that urges the Chinese government and the broader international community to use the upcoming Olympic Games as an opportunity to push for peace and security in Darfur. We also asked that you support an Olympic Truce for Darfur in your public statements in the coming week and during the Olympic Games.

Although the Senate is in recess, additional Senate co-sponsors can submit their names now, to the offices of current co-sponsors, and those names will be officially recorded in September when the recess is over. As presumptive presidential nominees, your co-sponsorship will send a clear message to China and the international community that you are committed to help bring an end to the genocide in Darfur.

Your co-sponsorship of the resolution is critical, particularly in light of the significant advertising time your campaigns have purchased to air during the Olympic Games. We believe there is an obligation to balance the purchase of Olympic advertising time with a message about Beijing's responsibility, as Olympic host and close partner of Sudan, to do more to bring security to Darfur.

Mr. Cheek's visa revocation and Senate Resolution 632 both present important opportunities for you to act. The White House has already expressed the President's concern and instructed the US embassy in Beijing to discuss Mr. Cheek's visa with the Chinese government.

Last month, Mr. Cheek and more than 200 other athletes issued an open letter to world leaders calling for an Olympic Truce for Darfur. The athletes, including more than 70 hopefuls for the 2008 Games, called on world leaders to (1) ask the Government of Sudan to cease hostilities against civilians, at least for the 55-day truce period of the 2008 Beijing Games, (2) use the truce period to allow humanitarian workers to access the civilians in Darfur who have been without food, clean water and medical care for years and (3) make progress on deployment of peacekeepers.

We ask both of you to join these athletes - men and women who represent all that is great about American and Olympic values - and release public statements announcing your co-sponsorship of Senate Resolution 632 and your support for an Olympic Truce for Darfur.

Sincerely,

American Jewish World Service
Ruth Messinger, President
New York, NY

Americans Against the Darfur Genocide
Nikki Serapio, Director
Palo Alto, CA

Colorado Coalition for Genocide Awareness and Action
Roz Duman, Founder/Coordinator
Denver, CO

Darfur Action Coalition of Wisconsin
Sachin Chheda, Coordinator
Milwaukee, WI

Damanga Coalition for Freedom and Democracy
Mohamed Yahya
Founder/ Executive Director
Washington, DC.

Darfur Metro
Eileen Weiss, Director
New York, NY

Darfur People's Association of New York
Motasim Adam, Director
Brooklyn, NY

Dream for Darfur
Jill Savitt, Executive Director
New York, NY

Essex County Coalition for Darfur
Gloria Crist, Founding Member
Montclair, NJ

Investors Against Genocide
Eric Cohen, Chairperson
Boston, MA

Kentuckian Interfaith Taskforce On Darfur
Bob Brousseau, Chair
Louisville, Kentucky

Louisvillians Helping to Save Darfur
Dave Robinson, Chair
Louisville, KY

Massachusetts Coalition to Save Darfur
Susan Morgan, Director of Communications
Boston, MA

New York City Coalition for Darfur
Sharon Silber, Director
New York, NY

Physicians for Human Rights
Frank Donaghue, Chief Executive Officer
Cambridge, MA

San Francisco Bay Area Darfur Coalition
Esther Sprague, Executive Committee
San Francisco, CA

Save Darfur Washington State
Deborah Jones, President
Seattle, WA

Team Darfur
Martha Heinemann Bixby
Executive Director
Washington, DC

Unitarian Universalist Service Committee
Charlie Clements, President and CEO
Cambridge, MA

Use Your Voice to Save Darfur RI
Sandra Hammel, Director
Providence, RI

In addition to contacting both Senators Obama and McCain (who have both remained silent on this to date) to co-sponsor SR 632 , you can also contact the Save Darfur Coalition.

(cross posted at kickin it with cg and Clintonistas for Obama)

Earlier this week a draft of the 54-page 2008 Democratic National Committee's platform was sent to its committee members. Since the 80's, the real writing of the platform has been done by the campaign of the presumptive nominee.  Certainly the document reads more like a stump speech from the Obama campaign than cutting edge reform.  This is not surprising.

An Obama aide, Karen Kornbluh, has been designated by the Democratic National Committee as the "Principal Author" of the document. Kornbluh is on leave from Obama's Senate office, where she serves as policy director.

Indeed the platform contains a section on fatherhood, a definition of patriotism, a section detailing Obama's economic stimulus plan, a call for more service, through an expanded AmeriCorps and Peace Corps, and several mentions of hope.  The draft's preamble uses the wording "It is time for a change."  

The document did however include nods to both Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards.  

Edwards:
A pledge to elevate poverty eradication as a policy goal. "Working together," the platform states, "we can cut poverty in half within ten years."

Clinton:
Health care

In return for the guarantee, activists dropped a tougher platform amendment seeking a government-run, single-payer system and another amendment explicitly holding out Clinton's plan as the one to follow.

The party now declares itself "united behind a commitment that every American man, woman and child be guaranteed to have affordable, comprehensive health care."

Under any system in play, most people would still put out money for health insurance as they do now, but they would get help when needed.

Despite loud rumblings to amend, there were no changes made to the caucus system.  However an extensive section on women's rights was included that uses highly anticipated language many yearned to hear.

We believe that standing up for our country means standing up against sexism and all intolerance. Demeaning portrayals of women cheapen our debates, dampen the dreams of our daughters and deny us the contributions of too many. Responsibility lies with us all.

The Democratic National Convention will vote on it in Denver later this month.

(cross posted at kickin it with cg and Clintonistas for Obama)

With last week GM reporting a $15.5 billion loss in the second quarter, it is quite clear that American car manufactures are getting their come-uppance.

Edmunds.com published a list of the top 10 most efficient 2008 sedans available.  They ranked the cars based on EPA fuel economy numbers.  And sweet moses would you guess that not one from an American manufacturer made the list!  Even the Wall Street Journal, not known for its criticism to big business, has sharp words about American car manufacturers.

Now we see the results of the myopia that has afflicted Detroit auto executives. These are the people who staked their companies' futures on gas-guzzling, heavyweight behemoths.

Auto execs claim they were giving Americans the products they wanted. Really? For proof to the contrary, look at their U.S. market shares, which are slumping to historically low levels as Japanese auto makers gain ground.

In lieu of GM's stunning losses, I was reminded of the complete and utter arrogance they displayed when they crushed its fleet of EV-1 electric vehicles in the Arizona desert.  The EV-1 was among the fastest, most efficient production cars ever built. It ran on electricity, produced no emissions and catapulted American technology to the forefront of the automotive industry.

The story of the EV-1 is documented in the amazing film Who Killed the Electric Car?  It chronicles the life and mysterious death of the EV-1 and it examines the cultural and economic ripple effects caused by its conception and how they reverberated through the halls of government and big business.

A summary:

The film deals with the history of the electric car, its development and commercialization, mostly focusing on the General Motors EV1, which was made available for lease in Southern California, after the California Air Resources Board passed the ZEV mandate in 1990, as well as the implications of the events depicted for air pollution, environmentalism, Middle East politics, and global warming.

The film details the California Air Resources Board's reversal of the mandate after suits from automobile manufacturers, the oil industry, and the George W. Bush administration. It points out that Bush's chief influences, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, and Andrew Card, are all former executives and board members of oil and auto companies.

A large part of the film accounts for GM's efforts to demonstrate to California that there was no demand for their product, and then to take back every EV1 and dispose of them. A few were disabled and given to museums and universities, but almost all were found to have been crushed; GM never responded to the EV drivers' offer to pay the residual lease value ($1.9 million was offered for the remaining 78 cars in Burbank before they were crushed).

Embedded below, the film in its entirety:

If the above does not work, visit this LINK.

However its not all bad news.  In the same WSJ piece - it would seem that some have climbed aboard the bus.

In a recent meeting with Ford executives, CEO Alan Mulally dared to challenge the Detroit gospel that you can't make money on small, fuel-efficient cars.

At last Ford appears to be making bold moves to design and sell vehicles that people want. In Paris earlier this summer I spotted an unfamiliar car so attractive that I went over to see what it was. It was a Ford. Presumably this is one of the six European models that, as part of the "Drive One" campaign, Ford will introduce in the U.S. Ford is also boosting production of its fuel-efficient "EcoBoost" and four-cylinder engines, speeding up hybrid introductions and converting three truck plants to small-car production.

Even GM seems to be facing reality. It said it's planning for oil prices in a $120-$150 range for the foreseeable future, boosting light vehicle production, and suspending production at four truck plants. It, too, is accelerating production of efficient four-cylinder engines, and announced a global Chevrolet small-car initiative.

While promising, what pulls my chain about the above is that rather than take responsibility for the planet and in the role these car companies play in emissions, the American car manufacturers are only taking these steps because of the price of gas.  Let's hope their successful.  However as they say, karma's a bitch.

(cross posted at Kickin it with CG and Clintonistas for Obama)

Okay - you know things are bad when you stop yourself in the midst of writing 2 diaries, one on Darfur and Electric Cars to write about trolls, MyDD and the latest round of GBCW diaries.

Seriously guys the only reason trolling and flaming is happening is because - you are participating!  Many incredible diaries go unnoticed because they - shall we say - have no flavour....

Not only are there McBloggers taking over, but also the Purity Trolls are out in full force - policing everyone's motives.  Stop the insanity!

The site owners and administrators have promised site updates and clearly this is an acknowledgment that there is some work necessary here.  That said - I want to nip this in the bud by proposing a few things...

1.  No more flame wars.
If a diary is particularly enticing make a personal commitment to only respond to another user who commented to whom's opinion your respect.  That way - even though the diary may be a 'turd sandwich' (thanks thepurplestuff) you may participate in elevating the discussion.

2.  Stop complaining about MyDD in your comments.  
If you are aggravated with the situation - email the admins.  And I mean - every time you see something 'trollish'

3.  Be intellectually honest.
There tends to be a double-standard applied here by many whereby opinions they share deserve respect and general politeness - whereas opinion's they don't share - deserve snarky and rude receptions.

4. Kindness is a very underrated value in the Blogosphere.
Some people's hate-spewed speech is shocking.  I cannot imagine many speaking to others this way in real life.  But guess what folks - this is real life.  A good general rule of thumb is speak as you would hope to be spoken to.

5. Contribute.
Hunting trolls or adding smart-ass commentary is not contributing - sorry.  Write diaries, think about your 'progressive' ideals - and suggest ways to applying it to better the world.

I think that's a good starting off point for ways in which to make our little community better and hope that you guys can share with me your suggestions and enthusiasm for making MyDD a better place.

Please excuse any grammar and typos - this one was done on the fly!