I'm guessing they're all below average in size.

------------------------------------------------
“Rules are not necessarily sacred, principles are.”
- Franklin D. Roosevelt

Lots of wisdom to be taken from them.

Re: point #1, the one that applies in this case would be, IMO, "Money talks."

Re: point #2

I'll make this one a twofer. "Don't rock the boat because you might upset the gravy train."

Re: point #3

"Power corrupts." You know the rest.

Re: point #4

Refer to #1. This is an inherent flaw.

Re: point #5

"Don't put all your eggs in one basket."

Re: point #6

"Be careful what you wish for."

Clinton is part of the village, that is why she voted not just for the Iraq War Authorization vote, but also Kyle Lieberman.

And Obama is little better, see his speech to AIPAC.

If the Israelis do attack Iran in October, as predicted, then neither Clinton, nor Obama, will be able to say, with any truth, that they did all they could to avert disaster.

shame on all of us

Beware of entities (employers, political parties, religions) that talk about how they're "like a family" or that "we're all one big family here." In my experience, with an employer that used that kind of "family" rhetoric, it's deployed to extract more out of the individual (more work, more silence, more money, more devotion, etc.) than the entity is willing to return to any individuals. The rhetoric of "family" runs in only one direction--from the individual to the entity, and not mutually in the other direction.

http://interestingtimes.blogspot.com/200...

-- and don't forget--McCain has directly said the media is his base. Both candidates have not at all appealed to their party's biggest blocs, and both are trying to be seen as bipartisan and independent with special appeal to people not in both parties...

and Obama has been doing everything the media demands, over and over and over--the recent butch "tough guy" stuff too, is in response to their complaints.

this is really a superb manifesto.

superb.

at the heart of our crisis in representative democracy lies this monster, this disney grendel:

"... “the real enemy” — artificial persons, corporate entities who have more power than real people***..." .

and so they are - artificial persons, artificial "life forms" (cf somerby), robotic corporate armies,

given life in the u.s. by judicial sanction,

inexorably destroying government and corrupting the commons,

increasingly entrusted with public duties (garbage collection, war, maybe social security).

all this occurring right under the noses of innumerable science fiction writers slaving to imagine what artificial life might be like.

yes to both.

now,

off with your head.

before the beheading:

about those pricks?

clever and funny.

But this bit really hits a huge dynamic of this race:

"5. The Village wins because the smarter and more opportunistic Republican operatives in the creative class have migrated to the Democratic Party, pulling it right, toward libertarianism. Arianna; Kos; Andrew Sullivan; and many others."

It f***ing kills me that Obama somehow became the "progressive" candidate in this race. It is the biggest lie of an entire primary season full of lies.

if they don't go systemic and kill you first...

Well done to lay this all out, Lambert. Agreed, Items naught thru six, as well as Exhibits A thru N without even seeing most of them; Exhibits O thru Zed as well, no doubt. I may not see them from exactly the same angle, but certainly the general POV is convergent.

Mentioned twice here, the result I accept of having stuck my oar in, I will do my bit with the rowing. But right today I am still in the foulest mood imaginable and I fear offending more people than should be. One post is on the way, in consequence of the comments towards the end of Anticipating Hillary (thank you for the assistance there) and then I'll stay away from the national electoral politics for a bit. My New Year's resolution was to try and not piss off everybody all at the same time; need to be really careful if I want to keep that, right now.

That many doctors enjoy opening up an abcess (sack of pus) and draining it out.

Don't ask me how I know this.

It's very tasteless indeed.

My admiration for Lambert is near-boundless. For myself, not so much. Trust me on this. Put your full faith and credit in Lambert, and keep your secret fan club membership right there with him; he's a completely good guy and - shhh, don't tell - a teddy bear. I am, by informed acclamation, not all that.

keep your secret fan club membership right there with him

I wouldn't dream of letting it lapse.

Although I too am in such a foul mood today, I've hardly dared open my mouth.

because we have some leverage with our families and none with the DNC (only in large numbers).
It's like Hillary said-we have been invisible for the past 7 years with the repubs. Being invisible to our 'DNC family' is much worse.

Looks like the charm offensive by his people on tv has begun-going from trashing Hillary one day to praising her the next. Not exactly subtle.

You're a better person than me, Lambert. I am bitter, angry, and unforgiving. Tonight my husband answered the phone and I heard him say,"she's not interested" and "I wouldn't do that if I were you."
It was a call from Obama's people who have invaded our local party and they wanted to talk to me-and then asked if they could call me later. Apparently, Hillary's donor list has been passed on-and my husband wanted to prevent World War Three.

your comment here includes a "point" to a comment by "swift loris".

i did not find that comment at all offensive,

but it does offend my sense of fairness that you would choose that apparently new commenter to discharge upon.

personally,

i think larry johnson is someone to be admired and honored.

he was at the forefront of the criticism of bush for invading iraq,

at the forefront of the criticism of the idiocy of paul bremer's "governance" of iraq,

at the forefront of the weblog media's finest moment, their investigation of the bush administration's betrayal of a highly classified cia agent - valery plame.

he has had the nerve to actually criticize senator obama when most other media folk looked the other way.

including weblog media folk,

who shook the fringed cuffs of their white shirts, snorted a little snuff, and while looking the other way at inexperience and incompetence, typed away on their laptops.

if you have a problem with the comment by "swift loris" about larry johnson, take it up with me.

i'll be happy to discuss that matter with you.

Your psychic powers notwithstanding, I was referring above to a whole host of comment topics that were both too important and too difficult to deal with in that end-of-thread setting. There will be plenty of opportunity to disagree and rebut me, for you and Swift Loris, whose delicacy and inability to offer their own defense is something I do not presume; why, one wonders, do you?

I promised a follow-up; it will come, so rest up and brace yourself. It is, IMHO, a difficult and exhausting business to defend the indefensible.

point/comment exchange you're exercised about.

go to bringiton's comment above.

look for the purple prose, to whit,

"anticipating hillary".

that purple prose points to a particular comment made by someone whose nom de plume is "swift loris", not a name i've seen here before.

have you?

hope this helps.

your powers of wind notwithstanding,

my point was simple.

your purple prose pointed to "swift loris".

my suggestion was:

don't pick on someone who is new to commenting here.

my further suggestion, repeated:

if you have a problem with larry johnson, i'll be happy to discuss it with you.

likely no, but i will anyway. pus. yes, that's exactly right. title: highly effective, lb.

Demand specifics from Obama on policy (and suggest better ones).

this is our only job, kidz. seriously, it's all that is left to us, in this 'democratic' process. the rest is just distraction. he's like (heh, bill) clinton now. if you don't want an obama version of DOMA, DADT or NAFTA, now's the time to Get Busy. b/c he doesn't care about us Little People, and like any other Villager of any stripe, we have to make him care. or he won't. that's your 'mission.'

Exactly so, CD. And it's oh so much easier when I have zero respect for him to start out with.

that purple prose points to a particular comment made by someone whose nom de plume is “swift loris”, not a name i’ve seen here before.

Actually, I'm only relatively new here in terms of commenting; and I've been reading Corrente for a couple of months now with great appreciation.

FYI, I'm an old (66) lefty Democrat (female), and I've been a deeply committed Hillary supporter all along. I'm about to change my registration to Independent, and I will vote for Obama only if my state is in contention. If it's secure for Obama, I'll write in Hillary's name. Under no circumstances will I vote for McCain.

Yes, I'm perfectly capable of defending myself if I'm attacked. I hope I won't be. I asked the question some of you apparently find objectionable out of genuine bepuzzlement and look forward not to an argument, but to having my consciousness raised.

As I said, I am NOT a fan of Johnson or No Quarter. I've followed the "whitey" business because I find the mechanics of the spread of rumors on the Internet fascinating, in particular how they acquire layers of mythology (e.g., "Larry said he had the tape and promised to release it, but he never did, the liar!") that don't have anything to do with the original rumor.

I copied and pasted a link for the wrong screen; it happens. All I wanted to do is link back to my earlier post named Anticipating Hillary. No attack on anyone was intended.

If I go after someone, believe me, there won't be any question. Everyone will know.

Swift Loris, good of you to come back. I've read several of your comments and you've seemed more than capable. I'm sure we can sort out any differences between us on our own. I like the name; as the days go by, I'm becoming more of a Slow Loris myself. :-)

Because the guy we need to bust in the mouth hasn't let go the shotgun he's aimed at our bellies yet.

Two things.

One, the entire primary system is bad; it needs to be rethought from the ground up and centralized so that Iowa doesn't get to be "First in the Nation" for no reason. And caucuses are a good idea on paper, but it's true, they should be replaced. And there should really have been a do-over for Florida and Michigan, a better calendar system, none of these silly superdelegates, and so on -- a straight popular vote campaign lasting from February to May or so where the candidates get to visit every state and territory and meet voters, and so on. I agree that it needs to be revamped completely.

By the same token, though, so does the Electoral College. The party processes ultimately owe nothing to the people; the Democratic Party can choose whomever it wants to, and if we don't like it we can vote for someone else, in theory. It has a convention and wants to choose its delegates however it likes. If we don't like it, we do have other options, in theory. This is not true of our nation in general; we're forced into this ridiculously stupid system where each state gets some votes instead of each person. It's ridiculous. I hear Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) is trying to do something to get rid of this idiotic system that is almost as flawed as the primary process (no superdelegates, but it's winner-take-all). I think this is much more important than reforming our primary process.

But I guess I'll just keep dreaming. (Maybe I should go to sleep; I hear that helps get the dreams going.)

...for the reassurance and the kind words. I look forward to reading whatever you have to say.

I like the name; as the days go by, I’m becoming more of a Slow Loris myself. :-)

Yeah, I'm fighting that myself; "Swift Loris" is for inspiration!

orion, thanks to you as well for being ready to spring to my defense. Looks like it won't be needed, but it's appreciated.

Some really smart folks around these parts. It's a privilege to be here.

I think the problem is with more than just the primary system. First the system is a weird mix of party control, so the party can do whatever it wants and state control. Since this is how the only viable candidates for the general election are chosen, perhaps it shouldn't be up to parties, or else the 2 main parties shouldn't be given such advantages.

The first changes we need are with the general election so that its possible to have 3rd party candidates without their role just being spoilers. To do that we need to get rid of a plurality winning. If you needed more than 50% to win, then a candidate like Nader wouldn't have changed the outcome unless he had enough support to win or make it to a runoff. People could in good conscience vote for a third party candidate with out it causing to a candidate like Bush or McCain to win. There are many ways to go about this. We could have a second runoff election if no candidate got over 50% or we could have instant runoff voting, where you choose your first and second choices, and if your 1st choice isn't one of the top 2 your vote is changed to the 2nd choice. Or we could go with a system like Louisiana where there aren't party primaries, but an open first round and the 2 top candidates are in the general election. This would solve the problem of the important candidate selection process being controled by undemocratic parties that can follow whatever rules they feel like.

To make these sort of changes you'd presumably also have to get rid of the electoral college and maybe electoral college reform would be a good way to start talking about and lobbying for these other changes.

The type of voting system we have was probably the best they could do when it was instituted, but there has been more research on the weird paradoxes of different voting systems and we have more technical means to run other types of voting. For a simple look at other options and the problems with all voting systems there is a book I used with my kids, "Is Democracy Fair?
The Mathematics of Voting and Apportionment" by
Leslie J. Nielsen and Michael de Villiers from Key Curriculum Press http://www.keypress.com/x6016.xml

my apologies.

i declare myself detuned and appreciate your sensible and understandably impatient response.

when you referred to my psychic powers, you referred correctly. i have none. i had no idea whatsoever of your intentions. i was a bit on raw edge following an earlier summary dismissal (not by you) of my effort to bring new info in.

As for political parties as families, all I know is that the only time people other than my actual family or incredibly close friends, have claimed that we're all one big family was when they were hoping I wouldn't notice they were trying to fuck me over. A particularly common practice at my old law firm, usually pulled out when they didn't want you to notice that they expected you to give them your entire life and exchange they promised nothing in return.

All you lawyers know that the good stuff is always in the notes, right?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

From today's incomparable Daily Howler:

AND MICHAEL MAKES THREE: In Sunday’s New York Times, Michael Kinsley explained why Clinton didn’t win the Dem nomination. In the process, he made it three about the way your “press corps” actually functions. In case you ever believed the things your children read in their civics texts, here is Michael, explaining the way your mainstream “press corps” actually plays you:

KINSLEY (6/8/08): The theme of this campaign has been umbrage. The candidates took turns pretending to be offended by something another candidate had said—or the other candidate’s failure to denounce what some third party had said.

All the candidates played this game, but Mrs. Clinton played it with the most unscrupulous joy. The low point was when she piled on during the ridiculous debate about whether Mr. Obama harbored snooty attitudes toward small towns in Pennsylvania.

So, at the end, when her own clumsy comment about Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June was willfully misinterpreted to suggest that she was wishing that fate on her opponent, it served her right.

Last week, Richard Cohen said much the same thing (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 6/4/08). According to Kinsley, Clinton’s comment about Kennedy’s assassination “was willfully misinterpreted to suggest that she was wishing that fate on her opponent,” Barack Obama. Duh! His colleagues didn’t believe Clinton meant that, Kinsley says. But so what? They said it all the same.

If engineers toyed with basic facts that way, they’d end up in prison. They’d belong there.

It would be hard to imagine more squalid conduct, but Kinsley doesn’t bat an eye as he describes it—as he seems to say it’s OK when journalists make the nastiest possible statements, knowing their statements are false. And with this statement, Michael makes it three. He joins John Judis and Richard Cohen in a public display of true squalor:

But then, we’ve told you this, year after year: They don’t believe the things they tell you—the things they tell you as a group, reading scripts which are well-understood. (For example, they didn’t believe all that sh*t they told you for two solid years about Gore.) Many people can’t believe that such a remarkable thing could be true. But don’t believe us! Let Kinsley tell you! (And Cohen—and Judis. See THE DAILY HOWLER, 5/22/08 and 5/23/08) At this point, the commissars don’t even feel the need to disguise their cohort’s astounding misconduct. And don’t worry: Housebroken house-boys like Kevin and Josh won’t mention what Michael has said.

The Village lies about everything. They change language, as in the discussion over the growing verboten status of the word rape when discussing, well, rape. They peddle government bullshit using anonymous sources. See, Miller, Judith. They change the news so that it pushes a narrative and is "patriotic". They peddle unverified bullshit.

Or, as Bob Somerby says, they write novels. Not all of them, however, are about electoral politics. We should always remember that. These people lie.

What we've found out in this primary is that some bloggers are now part of the Village and are willing to do this crap, too, for a cause they believe in. This time it was Obama, who is to say what it will be next time.

A very useful piece of information to have, I'd say.

and if the only positive that comes out of this cycle is for everyone to be aware that the process is neither democratic nor reflective of anything but Party insider desires, that alone will be a big step forward.

There are still options short of taking to the barracades. Local politics is one, fascinating in the way that an autopsy or a car wreck is, blood and guts spread out for all to see. That approach has been so effective for the VRWC; for progressives, not so much.

Another is for us all to get up off our spreading asscheeks and march. Doesn't actually seem to matter what the march is about, just that a lot of people show up. Something about large numbers of angry people gathering together makes the Important Figures in shiny suits very nervous, and willing to cough up stuff like food and shelter and other basic human rights.

Truly, if the anger and frustration of the dismissed Hillary supporters doesn't get translated into a Million Person March on Denver I will assume that in reality y'all aren't that put off. If you want my attention, and the attention of those in power, you had better seize it. Otherwise, prepare to be ignored.

from the collins center for public policy: FLORIDA VOLUNTARY CODE OF FAIR CAMPAIGN PRACTICES

THE CANDIDATES
As I seek public office in Florida, I honor the following principles as a guide to conduct which the public is entitled to expect of me:

1. I will address valid issues in my campaign, will tell the truth as to my intentions if I am elected, and will fight fairly in any contest with my opponent(s).

2. I will shun demagoguery that seeks to deflect the public's attention to sham issues that obscure real concerns of the electorate.

3. I will limit my attacks on an opponent to legitimate challenges to that person's record, qualifications, and positions.

4. I will neither use nor permit the use of malicious untruths or scurrilous innuendos about an opponent's personal life nor make or condone unfounded accusations discrediting that person's integrity.

5. I will take personal responsibility for approving or disavowing the substance of attacks on my opponent that may come from third parties supporting my candidacy.

6. I will not use or permit the use or campaign material that falsifies, distorts, or misrepresents facts.

7. I will neither use nor permit the use of appeals to bigotry in any form, and specifically to prejudice based on race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, or national origin.

8. I will neither use nor permit the use of last-minute charges made without giving my opponent reasonable time in which to respond before Election Day.

9. I will demand that persons or organizations supporting me maintain these standards of fairness.

10. I will repudiate any abuses of this code.

THE NEWS MEDIA
As a journalist, free under the First Amendment to report to the people on their election process, I honor the following principles as a guide to my professional conduct, which the public should reasonably expect of me:

1. I will report the campaigns of all candidates fairly and will ensure their access to equitable coverage. While editorial expression of preferences in spaces reserved for opinion is an expected part of a robust press in a free society, the news presentation of political debate presupposes fair access to the public ear for the messages of all candidates.

2. I will emphasize coverage of candidates' stands on substantive issues and I will not allow my coverage to be distracted by images that some candidates seek to substitute for substance.

3. I will listen to the citizens and convey their concerns to the candidates through my questioning as a reporter, and in turn I will persist in efforts to elicit the candidates' responses to those concerns.

4. While offering news space or time to candidates who seek to state positions on serious issues, I have a like duty to draw the public's attention to the means by which less-than-honest campaigners may seek to mislead, distort, or falsify.

5. When accepting campaign advertising. I will require the identity of the person or organization buying the ad to appear with the ad. If the advertisement (including television commercial) in behalf of a candidate attacks an opponent, I will ask the candidate to state personally as a part of the ad itself whether the candidate approves or disapproves of it. I will keep a watch on campaign advertising so as to monitor and consistently publicize misrepresentations or untruths that may appear in advertisements in any of the news media including my own channel, frequency or publication.

apologies for injecting that bit of horseracism, but i couldn't resist.

anyway, given that a huge majority of americans are already pro-human rights [polls say we're mostly against the war, mostly for universal health care, etc], your nhrp would be an inclusive and diverse party but wouldn't that also lead to one-party government? i take it you're saying we already have one-party government now and in the foreseeable future, what with republican infiltration of the democratic party.

so far, cheetahs have survived 10,000 years in spite of their lack of genetic diversity, and monsanto is positively thriving on lack of genetic diversity, but it's not difficult to come up with likely doomsday scenarios in either case.

granted governments are made up of people, not genomes, but how about we go back to being a government based on human rights -- life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness anyone? all men [sic] are created equal? -- and divide up into a handful of parties, each one having approximately equal power as the others, each one specializing in a subset of those rights. sure, we might all end up just infiltrating each other's parties in one gigantic round-robin of intrigue, but i can't see that we'd be any worse off than we are now.

i have to admit though, that temporarily instituting an authoritarian left, where we summarily take all the rightwingers and throw them into tiger pits for the next generation or two, holds tremendous appeal right now.