ojai news at The Ojai Post :: blog, newspaper, events in Ojai, California

Up until recently, I truly haven't paid much attention (which may be a good thing) to our upcoming election. I haven't voted mainstream in 15-years, when I voted for Clinton in 1992. When 1996 rolled around, I said never again would I trust the machine. Now, after almost eight years of Bush we are an a terrible situation nationally and internationally and I am thinking about a different course for myself (and I hope the nation). If I'm going to step outside my 3rd party status, then I'll really need to do it. What this means is that it won't be Kucinich either. I love that man. His policies. His ideals. His positions. But will he get the demo nomination?

I can't see myself voting for Hillary either, after what I went through with President Clinton. The disillusionment.

I realize that California doesn't often matter when it comes to the democrats because it usually goes mainstream democrat. But can I impact others by taking a stand? So, I guess I'm undecided. Just to make things more complicated, check out the MoveOn released today.

I am going to give Obama a serious, hard look.

Hillary-
because she's smart, effective, i like the idea of a woman running the country and because she can and will win.

i don't know what all the fuss is about her "negatives"

Obama- don't know what to say other than the obvious inexperienced, full of oratory and rhetoric and don't know what else.

I usually like whatever Edwards has to say and "feel" him as the hip-hoppers say. i would vote for him.

but, and this must be said, politics affects me so little as to be almost irrelevant in my life

El An, is Iraq irrelevant in your life? Is this impending recession/depression irrelevant in your life? If they are, you must really lead a charmed life.

KUCINICH! Send your Democratic Party a message and vote for Kucinich! Worst case scenario, he won't get the nomination. It isn't likely that your vote will be the tie breaker between Barak and Hillary. Vote your conscience.

I voted my conscience in the last three presidential elections and I've gotta say, it felt good on election day to mark the right person for the job but our nation was still stuck with Clinton (NAFTA, DCMA, Defense of Marriage, welfare reform) and then Bush (no need to say more). Bush is significantly worse than Clinton and that is the only reason I would consider even voting for a democrat this time out. My conscience says we need radical change but it also says we can't have policies continue as they have been. One of my biggest concerns is the ongoing war in Iraq, and all its repercussions. My second biggest concern is the environment. Still searching and thinking.

I'm voting for Kucinich, with all my heart, head and soul!

Check out the comments by spk, David and others elsewhere on the post!

Here's why I'm voting for Seabiscuit in the primaries:

Dennis Kucinich has been an outspoken critic of the war in Iraq since its inception.

Kucinich connects global warring and global warming. The armed forces of the world are the single biggest polluters on the planet. 10-30 percent of all global environmental degradation can be attributed to military activities.

Kucinich has a 100% voting record against funding the war and his 12-point plan to bring our troops home and stabilize Iraq is outlined on his website: Dennis4president.com.

Kucinich is still the only candidate who comes right out and says that Bush and Cheney should be impeached for war crimes.

Kucinich is the only Democratic presidential candidate to vote against the Patriot Act. This Act uses a loose definition of “terrorism” to include activists of all kinds; it is designed to silence war resisters and many others with different viewpoints, including animal activists and groups like Greenpeace.

Kucinich follows a vegan diet and supports the humane treatment of farm animals. He sees the connection between public health and animal health.

Kucinich has never taken any corporate or special interest contributions, and relies on individual donations to his campaign. He has constantly done what is right—not what is always easy or popular.

For more see:
http://www.ojaipost.com/2008/01/a_man_with_the_courage_of_a_li_1.shtml

Anon 8:56PM

yes- Iraq is largely irrelevant in my life.
I don't like being lied to by certain people in the government or in positions of power, but again not much effect on me.

I am cagey enough to easily slide through any recession.
I hope we don't have a depreesion and don't suspect we will, but it makes for interesting blog and cocktail and coffee chatter.

my life is about FREEDOM

I'm voting for Bill...(uh...I mean Hilary) Clinton!!

Seriously, I agree with El Anonimo about Barak Obama - I don't really get a sense of what EXACTLY he wants to accomplish. I also think DC is such a nasty, vile place, he just might get eaten alive. I believe with more seasoning, his time will come.

The Clinton's (to me) have been on the right side of most (not all) of the issues that concern me. They are brilliant, driven, experienced and have the power and connections to get things done.

And what angers me the most is that much of what the Hilary detractors have on her is the residue of a bunch of right-wing-sponsored rubbish (Filegate, Travelgate, etc. please! Kenneth Starr should have been indicted for wasting tax dollars, government time and public focus on his obvious vendetta against the Clintons) I know she’s not perfect, but we don’t need a saint in the White House. We need a political warrior in there to start to reverse the horror that Bush and Cheney have unleashed upon this country and the world at large.

El Anon: you wrote:

"yes- Iraq is largely irrelevant in my life.
I don't like being lied to by certain people in the government or in positions of power, but again not much effect on me."

Certainly you jest??? Are you honestly saying that because you or your loved ones aren't the ones being fired upon, that you don't give a crap about the millions of others who are being maimed, killed, tortured and/or spiritually, emotionally and financially destroyed by the what our government is doing in our name?!?!

Too each his own, but to me that's irreprehensibly and insanely cavalier.

LTOR, I had the same response to what El Anonimo wrote. I want to give El Anonimo the benefit of a doubt but I despaired when I read it. I hope he explains himself.

we have sort of visited this theme before, tangentially in the Israeli-Palestinian thread of a month or two ago.
Call me insanely cavalier or lacking in compassion, but my feelings and reaction to the Iraq situation is not one of the 10 most important things in my life.
"what our government is doing in our name".
I didn't choose this government.
This may be a semantic path we are walking.
I am not an Ayn Randian- even though I don't know much about her brand of "rugged individualism"

I hate to use labels but I do see a lot of "bleeding heart liberalism" here.
And no I am not a Honey Brian republican.
I choose my challenges carefully.
I don't have a family or any loved ones involved in the Iraqi conflict.
I don't know anyone who died there.
The closest connection I have is a good friend (originally an Iraqi jew) who is an oil engineer who gets sent over there when the oil wells get blown up and need to be repaired. He travels under diplomatic and military cover.
And he will attempt to convince you that the terrorists are everywhere, that they have dirty bombs right in our backyard and that our presence over there is necessary for our survival.
He has not convinced me.
But we have wandered from the topic.
What will Hillary support vis-a-vis this issue?

i'm voting for Kucinich for precisely all the reasons that Suza mentioned. he's everything i want and nothing i don't. i'm voting my conscience. i'm not playing the game where i vote for what i dislike least, or vote for something entirely unconnected to myself in order to (maybe) prevent what i dislike most. all of those scenarios are voting for what i DON'T want, and that - for me - is not what voting or democracy are about.

what will Hillary support in regard to Iraq? well, she voted for it in the first place and hasnt taken a strong stand against it. she's in line with Obama and Edwards, saying "vote for me, and i'll get us out of the war." as a Citizen, i'd like to turn that shit squarely around and respond:

YOU'RE A MEMBER OF THE DEMOCRATICALLY-CONTROLLED CONGRESS. YOU COULD END THE WAR NOW. DO THAT, AND THEN I'LL VOTE FOR YOU.

El Anon, if being concerned with and feeling empathy for my other fellow human beings in other regions or situations on this planet (regardless of whether or not I “have a family or any loved ones involved” or “know anyone who died there”) is going to get me branded a “bleeding heart liberal”, then I will gladly accept the label. Look, I also don’t have any personal contacts in Burma, Darfur, Palestine, and other regions of the world where serious human rights infractions are a daily way of life. I don’t personally know the children in this world who are going hungry, being abused or lacking in decent educational opportunities. I don’t personally have relationships with the animals suffering daily in the slaugherhouses, chicken coops, or at the hands of their human “masters”, etc. I don’t know anyone personally who has or is going to lose their home due to the perfect storm of market events that burst the recent real estate bubble or is about to be laid off in the upcoming recession….Shall I go on?

What I do know is that I have enough moral certitude and empathy to (at the very least) FEEL for these people and ACKNOWLEDGE their pain and their suffering. And try to do what little I can to advocate for change, to help ease their pain if at all possible. Maybe just a drop in the bucket most of the time, I admit, but to just tune out to the very harsh reality of others (although so easy to do in this country) is not something I ever want to find myself doing.

And P.S. I truly believe the US Empire is on the decline. Who knows, you just may be praying for “the kindness of strangers” in the very near future.

The Clinton scorched-earth policy to destroy Barack Obama, with Bill Clinton serving as chief hatchet-man, has moved into third gear a little sooner than I anticipated. The article below details the Clinton's latest moves and the uneasiness it is generating among the party faithful.

As a former President, Bill Clinton's current role is a disgrace to his office (not anything new to him, obviously). Even some Democrats are likening him now to Lee Atwater, the notorious Republican scumbag hitman. How anyone could want to see this team back in the White House utterly escapes me.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/23/AR2008012304036.html?hpid=topnews&hpid=topnews

Not real sure how anyone could be unaffected by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I've already gone there with Anonimo to no avail. It's kind of like trying to argue with Brian about nuclear power.

I've said it on other threads, but since this one is all about the primaries, I'll go into it again. The delegates for the Democratic party are given out proportionally, so if the current dynamic holds, there will be no candidate in the Democratic Party that has enough delegates to clinch the nomination before the convention in Denver in August. There is no reason to believe this dynamic won't hold through Feb. 5th when we vote. If Clinton and Obama split the delegates and Edwards cruises away with 15% of them, Edwards will end up being the kingmaker. Not queenmaker, I suspect. The mainstream media and the Clinton campaign are aware of this, and that is why they keep strenuously and anti-democratically protesting that Edwards should simply go away. I say anti-democratically because they are suggesting that candidates for the nomination should bow out when only four states out of fifty have voted. There position should be one familiar to anyone with business marketing. They are not interested in what we think, they have their candidate(product) and they don't want us to upset her apple cart by insisting on voting for own self-interest rather then for that of the corporations.

The primaries are where we get to set the platform and the candidate for the party. It is not the general election. If you want an end to the war, if you want an end to the nearly 30 year run of Milton Friedman/Chicago School/Supply-Side Reaganomics/voo-doo economics/Free Market economics/Clintononimics/Neo-Liberalism/Neo-Conservative bullshit, vote for Kucinich, Edwards or Obama. It's not name calling if it's true: Hillary Clinton sat on the board of directors for WalMart. She is the #1 recipient of money in the entire congress from insurance companies.

If you are worried about the general election, don't vote for Clinton. Her candidacy will energize the base of the Republican Party. You know, the ones who wear the pointy hoods. They'll even vote for a man they hate, McCain, in order to stop Clinton. Meanwhile, the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party will be disgusted. They will join the vast majority of the American electorate. In other words, they won't vote at all.

David, you are obviously not a fan of the Clintons. Fare enough and, again, to each his own. I disagree and, obviously, so do many others. That's why this primary is such an interesting horserace.

You wrote: "As a former President, Bill Clinton's current role is a disgrace to his office (not anything new to him, obviously)"

I know he wasn't a perfect president and obviously had (has) some flaws, but I'm curious to know which of those flaws or policies he enacted (or neglected to enact) do you feel was a "disgrace" to his Presidency?

White water, Pardons, I did NOT have sex with that woman,Less than truthful, to say the least.Lots more if you want them,if I can remember, W hen is , is ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh,bill you are a fibber.

Thank you LTOR for your reply and for keeping this civil (not always easy to do).

The disgrace to the office I was referring to was the matter for which he was impeached. Not that he should have been impeached -- that was another disgrace -- but if the man had had an ounce of honor, once the truth came out, he would have resigned and let the good Al Gore take over.

SPK,

"Her candidacy will energize the base of the Republican Party. You know, the ones who wear the pointy hoods" - doesn't that also necessarily hold true for Obama?

Bill Maher had Edwards on his show a while back and made the statement that he felt Edwards was the only Democrat out there that was electable. I admit that may entirely be the case. What are your thoughts on that?

This week's top headline:
George Bush lied 935 times to take USA into Iraq war

I guess its all a matter of perspective, eh, Ron?

LOTR

You caught me being a little too flip. Of course, the pointy hood crowd wouldn't vote for Obama either, but what I mean to say is that a lot of more moderate Republicans who are turned off to Bush would vote for Obama. Clinton is another story. It's likely that the mods would actively campaign her. Especially if the republican nom is McCain.

I think any of the three "could" win, but I think Obama and Edwards are stronger. To me, strategically, the best thing that can happen is if we have no clear candidate until the convention. Kerry got swift-boated by the repugs in early May of 2004 because he was the nominee that early. Plenty of time to rev up the Rove machine and hit him. Who are they going to hit if there's no clear candidate. The media sphere and the attention of Americans for politics is finite. Three Democrats running and debating the disaster that is the state of this country after Bush is going to take up most of that finite space. The Republicans are likely to have a candidate in March. Who is he going to run against? Every time he says anything three competing campaign staffs are going to have a crack at him, each trying to outdo the other. Beautiful. Then, when we decide in Denver who gets to be the next President of the United States, there will be the inevitable honeymoon for the Democrat that could last two months all the way to the election. The repug will be old news.

Now if we could only get Hillary to try to be civil. And, one question. Where was Bill Clinton's vitriol when his vice president won on 2000. Not a peep. Now you can't shut him up. Weird.

Thank you, David. Yes, I’ve been down the other track many times and ultimately this way always feels better at the end of a long and heated thread.

As for the whole Monica Lewinsky episode: It is so inescapably embarrassing that the population and media of the US is so puritanically offended by (and at the very same time - ravenous for) any type of personal and/or sexual scandal involving our politicians. It is a distraction and a dangerous waste of time. Like junk food, it tastes so good, is easy to prepare and easy to consume, yet it silently weakens and poisons the hell out of us. It almost derailed a Presidency, one that was accomplishing much and keeping this country on a fairly secure, prosperous and globally respected track. This phenomenon is a complete joke in Europe and many other countries around the world. The tryst that Clinton had wasn’t obscene – Kenneth Starr and those who backed him, front-page coverage and the impeachment trial were the epitome of the word. George Bush is obscene, Dick Cheney is obscene. Their lies, deceit, ineptitude, arrogance, hypocrisy and entrenched, maniacal pig-headedness are obscene. Again, I may be wrong, but I wholeheartedly believe the Clinton’s are the only ones strong enough to counter all that they have set in motion. Whether “they” can win or not is another story. We shall see.

It looks like Kucinich is dropping out according to a Cleveland newspaper. Very disheartening for many here on this post. A real shame.

You're so right, LTOR, Bush and Cheney are the obscene ones, but what Clinton did was not just "any type" of sexual scandal. A fifty year old with an intern .... in the Oval Office.... and a man so keenly aware of the political implications... not to mention for his family.... yes, i call that a disgrace.

'nuff said.

you beat me to it, LTOR: Dennis is indeed dropping out, as announced on the Randi Rhodes show today (thanks to Coleen for the phone call!). His official press conference tomorrow is anticipated to be "lengthy", and he's to reveal what he has planned next.

thanks for the run, Dennis. i'll be writing your name in anyway, because even when you're not running you stand for more of my values than any of the other candidates.

more here on Kucinich:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22827738/

P.S. No one died when Clinton lied!

It's like a bad dream. My stomach just turned over. I am so sorry Kucinich is dropping out. I will write his name in too.

Dennis got shut out of this race when they started excluding him from the debates.

But before we despair let's see what he says at his press conference tomorrow and find out what his next move will be!

Good thinking! In the end, things will unfold as they should. At least I'd like to believe that.

Kucinich dropping out was expected, though not before Feb 5th. At any rate, his name is still on the ballot for those that want to vote for him. They already printed them up for CA. Also, he told his followers to caucus for Obama if he didn't gain viability back in Iowa, so he'll probably throw his weight that way. I guess we'll hear tomorrow. Now there is only one openly progressive candidate in the race--Edwards.

Meanwhile, it looks like Al Gore is piping up to try and push the race Obama and Edwards way, albeit timidly. He came out in favor of gay marriage. That's the last thing in the universe Clinton wants to talk about, but since the former vice president, and president for that matter, came out for it, the candidates will all have to weigh in. I'm betting she either tries to weasel out of answering or she comes out against gay "marriage" but for "civil unions". Interesting that Gore would throw a bomb at the Clintons this way. It's an incredible long shot, but he did say he would accept the nomination if they drafted him from the floor of the convention in the event there is no clear winner. If Gore is serious about trying to do anything about global warming, the only real way is to be in the executive office.

Tyler, you are right , the majority of politicians lie,please dont remind me of bush,or cheney,when will the american people realize the trillions of $ being wasted in iraq instead of being spent here.

The intelligence at the time concluded that he had weapons. No matter how many times the liberals say otherwise. Just because you say something over and over again doesn't make it true. The liberals are the ones with the lies. Everyone including the democrats believed that to be the case.

60 MINUTES: SADDAM INTERROGATOR: FORMER DICTATOR FAKED WMDs TO PREVENT IRAN INVASION

Saddam still wouldn't admit he had no weapons of mass destruction, even when it was obvious there would be military action against him because of the perception he did. Because, says Piro, "For him, it was critical that he was seen as still the strong, defiant Saddam. He thought that [faking having the weapons] would prevent the Iranians from reinvading Iraq," he tells Pelley.

He also intended and had the wherewithal to restart the weapons program. "Saddam] still had the engineers. The folks that he needed to reconstitute his program are still there," says Piro. "He wanted to pursue all of WMD…to reconstitute his entire WMD program." This included chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, Piro says.

Please.

"He thought that [faking having the weapons] would prevent the Iranians from reinvading Iraq," he tells Pelley.

He also intended and had the wherewithal to restart the weapons program. "Saddam] still had the engineers. The folks that he needed to reconstitute his program are still there," says Piro. "He wanted to pursue all of WMD…to reconstitute his entire WMD program." This included chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, Piro says."

What a load. Iran never invaded Iraq.

This column's for you, LTOR.... and for anyone else out there who still wants to see the Clintons back in the White House.

In case you're not familiar with him, Herbert is a columnist for the NY Times.....

By BOB HERBERT
Published: January 26, 2008
Charleston, S.C.

Joseph P. Riley Jr. has been mayor of this historic and often tense city since the mid-1970s. He’s a Democrat, highly respected and has worked diligently to heal racial wounds that have festered in some cases for hundreds of years.

He has endorsed Barack Obama in today’s Democratic primary. But what struck me during an interview in his quiet office in an exquisitely restored City Hall was not the fact of the endorsement, but the manner in which the mayor expressed it.

He went out of his way to praise the Democratic field, including some of the candidates who have dropped out, like Senators Joseph Biden and Chris Dodd. He talked about his fondness for Bill and Hillary Clinton and said: “It’s tough when you have to choose between friends.”

The mayor’s thoughtful, respectful, generous assessment of the field echoed the tone that had prevailed until recently in the Democratic primary campaign. That welcome tone has been lost, undermined by a deliberate injection of ugliness, and it would be very difficult to make the case that the Clintons have not been primarily to blame.

Bill Clinton, in his over-the-top advocacy of his wife’s candidacy, has at times sounded like a man who’s gone off his medication. And some of the Clinton surrogates have been flat-out reprehensible.

Andrew Young, for instance.

This week, while making the remarkable accusation that the Obama camp was responsible for raising the race issue, Mr. Clinton mentioned Andrew Young as someone who would bear that out. It was an extremely unfortunate reference.

Here’s what Mr. Young, who is black and a former ambassador to the United Nations, had to say last month in an interview posted online: “Bill is every bit as black as Barack. He’s probably gone with more black women than Barack.”

He then went on to make disgusting comments about the way that Bill and Hillary Clinton defended themselves years ago against the fallout from the former president’s womanizing. That’s coming from the Clinton camp!

And then there was Bob Kerrey, the former senator and another Clinton supporter, who slimed up the campaign with the following comments:

“It’s probably not something that appeals to him, but I like the fact that his name is Barack Hussein Obama, and that his father was a Muslim and that his paternal grandmother is a Muslim. There’s a billion people on the planet that are Muslims, and I think that experience is a big deal.”

Pressing the point, Mr. Kerrey told CNN’s John King: “I’ve watched the blogs try to say that you can’t trust him because he spent a little bit of time in a secular madrassa. I feel quite the opposite.”

Get it?

Let’s start with the fact that Mr. Obama never attended a madrassa, and that there is no such thing as a secular madrassa. A madrassa is a religious school. Beyond that, the idea is to not-so-slyly feed the current frenzy, on the Internet and elsewhere, that Senator Obama is a Muslim, and thus potentially (in the eyes of many voters) an enemy of the United States.

Mr. Obama is not a Muslim. He’s a Christian. And if he were a Muslim, it would not be a legitimate reason for attacking his candidacy.

The Clinton camp knows what it’s doing, and its slimy maneuvers have been working. Bob Kerrey apologized and Andrew Young said at the time of his comment that he was just fooling around. But the damage to Senator Obama has been real, and so have the benefits to Senator Clinton of these and other lowlife tactics.

Consider, for example, the following Web posting (misspellings and all) from a mainstream news blog on Jan. 13:

“omg people get a grip. Can you imagine calling our president barak hussien obama ... I cant, I pray no one would be disrespectful enough to put this man in our whitehouse.”

Mr. Obama’s campaign was always going to be difficult, and the climb is even steeper now. There is no reason to feel sorry for him. He’s a politician out of Chicago who must have known that campaigns often degenerate into demolition derbies.

Still, it’s legitimate to ask, given the destructive developments of the last few weeks, whether the Clintons are capable of being anything but divisive. The electorate seems more polarized now than it was just a few weeks ago, and the Clintons have seemed positively gleeful in that atmosphere.

It makes one wonder whether they have any understanding or regard for the corrosive long-term effects — on their party and the nation — of pitting people bitterly and unnecessarily against one another.

What kind of people are the Clintons? What role will Bill Clinton play in a new Clinton White House? Can they look beyond winning to a wounded nation’s need for healing and unifying?

These are questions that need to be answered. Stay tuned.

Thank you, David, for this post. Believe me, as a woman, I wish I could vote for Hillary. But, based on what I presently know (and I try to keep an open-mind and realize it's an ongoing challenge sorting out fact from fiction) I cannot in good conscience vote for her.

Yes, David I do get it - I do understand where you are coming from. And you bring up a lot of valid points, but with all due respect, you are going to have to come up with something a bit more compelling than that to convince most of us Clinton supporters that this isn't the right time for her to take over.

And yes indeed, stay tuned. It is going to be a very interesting and possibly historic moment when the new President is announced. And, unfortunately, I'm sure a lot more crap is going to be flung - from many sides. What a world we live in, huh? Speaking or crap (literally in this case), I just watched Fast Food Nation - behind the times, I know. Very compelling, maddening, frustrating - what's happened/happening in this country. And it all reverts back to the power and control of Big Business, which is the single biggest issue that I might have with the Clintons. And which is why if I did change my vote, it wouldn't be for Obama. It would go to Edwards.