Wednesday, November 07, 2007
San Francisco DA Kamela Harris Wins Seat Unopposed
Congratulations to Kamela Harris on her election victory as San Francisco DA! She will be a great Mayor of SF, too!
Hillary Clinton Gets Max Donations From Pakistan Lobbyist
This is from a Huff Post Blogger Zephyr Teachout.
Zephyr reports...
"Like others in the race for the White House, Hillary Clinton has strong words for Pakistan, but has yet to propose the United States seriously consider limiting its aid to the country. But unlike the other leading Democratic presidential hopefuls, Edwards and Obama, she has accepted tens of thousands of dollars from Pakistan's lobbyists, Cassidy & Associates. Its founder, Gerald Cassidy, long ago maxed out his donations to her.
According to the Foreign Agents Registration Act website, Pakistan recently hired Cassidy and Associates for a one year, $1.2 million/year contract. The Cassidy contract with Pakistan makes for good reading. For the $1.2 million, "target audiences will be identified for critical message reception," and Cassidy will inventively move beyond pushing pieces in the mainstream media, also focusing on blog outreach. In other words, Cassidy will shill and propagandize for one year, and use its contacts in Washington--presumably including Clinton--to ensure that the billions in aid are not diminished, regardless of what the government does to its citizens and its elections. According to The Hill, Pakistan's lead lobbyist is Robin Raphel, who served in the Clinton administration."
Read the rest here.
Zephyr reports...
"Like others in the race for the White House, Hillary Clinton has strong words for Pakistan, but has yet to propose the United States seriously consider limiting its aid to the country. But unlike the other leading Democratic presidential hopefuls, Edwards and Obama, she has accepted tens of thousands of dollars from Pakistan's lobbyists, Cassidy & Associates. Its founder, Gerald Cassidy, long ago maxed out his donations to her.
According to the Foreign Agents Registration Act website, Pakistan recently hired Cassidy and Associates for a one year, $1.2 million/year contract. The Cassidy contract with Pakistan makes for good reading. For the $1.2 million, "target audiences will be identified for critical message reception," and Cassidy will inventively move beyond pushing pieces in the mainstream media, also focusing on blog outreach. In other words, Cassidy will shill and propagandize for one year, and use its contacts in Washington--presumably including Clinton--to ensure that the billions in aid are not diminished, regardless of what the government does to its citizens and its elections. According to The Hill, Pakistan's lead lobbyist is Robin Raphel, who served in the Clinton administration."
Read the rest here.
Barack Obama - Right About Pakistan; Clinton, Giuliani Wrong - Ruben Navarrette Jr, CNN
Barack Obama's call regarding our Pakistan policy was timely, and shows that his judgement is better than that of Clinton or Giuliani or Edwards or Romney. CNN's Ruben Navarrette Jr. agrees.
SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- This week, like a lot of Americans, I have Pakistan on my mind -- again.
Ruben Navarrette Jr.: The United States has leverage with Pakistan in the form of military and economic aid.
The last time was in August when that country made a cameo appearance in the 2008 presidential campaign. When Sen. Barack Obama suggested getting out of Iraq and moving "onto the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan," and then pledged, if elected president, to go into Pakistan if our military was in hot pursuit of "high-value terrorist targets" (read: Osama bin Laden), his opponents pounced.
Rudy Giuliani suggested that Obama should be more accommodating of Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf. Mitt Romney said that Obama was "confused as to who are our friends and who are our enemies." Sen. John McCain called Obama's remarks "kind of typical of his naivete." And Sen. Hillary Clinton said that Obama's foreign policy views were "irresponsible and frankly naive."
And while U.S. intelligence agencies put bin Laden in the remote tribal areas of western Pakistan, the Pakistani ambassador to the United States insisted that, if the U.S. military went into his country after bin Laden, it would destabilize the region.
You don't say. What do you call what is happening now?
In a power grab intended to head off a likely decision by the country's Supreme Court declaring him ineligible to serve another term, Musharraf has declared a state of emergency, suspended the constitution, limited freedom of the press, detained more than 1,000 lawyers and opposition leaders, and put the next round of elections on hold indefinitely. With that, a key U.S. ally in the war on terror -- and a nuclear power to boot -- seems to be spinning out of control.
Now for the really depressing part: The United States seems powerless to stop it. Speaking for his administration, President Bush said Monday that it is "our hope" that Musharraf will "restore democracy as quickly as possible."
Hope? Easy, Mr. President. You don't want to be too aggressive. You might scare him off. Is hope all we have left when dealing with Pakistan? What about the leverage that should come from providing the country with military and economic aid to the tune of -- according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies -- at least $10 billion since September 11, 2001?
By comparison, the amount of aid that Great Britain plans to give Pakistan -- $493 million over the next three years -- seems like a pittance. And yet the Brits say that they're reviewing their aid package in light of the crackdown and demanding that Pakistan's government release all detainees.
That's a splash of moral leadership -- and a good example for the United States to follow. After all, what good is having a friend in that part of the world if it is no friend of freedom and democracy? And, if expedience has us cozying up to a petty dictator who puts his interests before those of his country, what makes us think that -- when push comes to shove -- he won't put his interests before ours? And, if that's true, tell me again why this relationship is worth preserving.
Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a member of the editorial board of the San Diego Union-Tribune and a nationally syndicated columnist. You can read his column here.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer. E-mail to a friend
SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- This week, like a lot of Americans, I have Pakistan on my mind -- again.
Ruben Navarrette Jr.: The United States has leverage with Pakistan in the form of military and economic aid.
The last time was in August when that country made a cameo appearance in the 2008 presidential campaign. When Sen. Barack Obama suggested getting out of Iraq and moving "onto the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan," and then pledged, if elected president, to go into Pakistan if our military was in hot pursuit of "high-value terrorist targets" (read: Osama bin Laden), his opponents pounced.
Rudy Giuliani suggested that Obama should be more accommodating of Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf. Mitt Romney said that Obama was "confused as to who are our friends and who are our enemies." Sen. John McCain called Obama's remarks "kind of typical of his naivete." And Sen. Hillary Clinton said that Obama's foreign policy views were "irresponsible and frankly naive."
And while U.S. intelligence agencies put bin Laden in the remote tribal areas of western Pakistan, the Pakistani ambassador to the United States insisted that, if the U.S. military went into his country after bin Laden, it would destabilize the region.
You don't say. What do you call what is happening now?
In a power grab intended to head off a likely decision by the country's Supreme Court declaring him ineligible to serve another term, Musharraf has declared a state of emergency, suspended the constitution, limited freedom of the press, detained more than 1,000 lawyers and opposition leaders, and put the next round of elections on hold indefinitely. With that, a key U.S. ally in the war on terror -- and a nuclear power to boot -- seems to be spinning out of control.
Now for the really depressing part: The United States seems powerless to stop it. Speaking for his administration, President Bush said Monday that it is "our hope" that Musharraf will "restore democracy as quickly as possible."
Hope? Easy, Mr. President. You don't want to be too aggressive. You might scare him off. Is hope all we have left when dealing with Pakistan? What about the leverage that should come from providing the country with military and economic aid to the tune of -- according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies -- at least $10 billion since September 11, 2001?
By comparison, the amount of aid that Great Britain plans to give Pakistan -- $493 million over the next three years -- seems like a pittance. And yet the Brits say that they're reviewing their aid package in light of the crackdown and demanding that Pakistan's government release all detainees.
That's a splash of moral leadership -- and a good example for the United States to follow. After all, what good is having a friend in that part of the world if it is no friend of freedom and democracy? And, if expedience has us cozying up to a petty dictator who puts his interests before those of his country, what makes us think that -- when push comes to shove -- he won't put his interests before ours? And, if that's true, tell me again why this relationship is worth preserving.
Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a member of the editorial board of the San Diego Union-Tribune and a nationally syndicated columnist. You can read his column here.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer. E-mail to a friend
SpinVox Live Ad in San Francisco Market St. Dancing Boxes
This is an interesting ad approach. Personally it did not thing for me. Few stopped to figure-out what was going on.
Ron Paul's Raised $4 Million In One Day - Shocks Presidential Race
Maverick Paul sets one-day, GOP fundraising record
By BENNETT ROTH
Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON — Maverick GOP presidential contender Ron Paul of Lake Jackson continued his fundraising juggernaut, raking in $4.3 million in one day over the Internet.
The 24-hour fundraising drive on Monday brought Paul's contributions to $7.3 million so far for the final quarter of this year, eclipsing the $5.4 million he raised in the third quarter.
Paul received 38,000 donations during the drive, which was spearheaded by the candidate's supporters in honor of Guy Fawkes Day, which commemorates Fawkes, a British mercenary who unsuccessfully sought to kill King James I on Nov. 5, 1605. Fawkes was also the inspiration for the novel and movie V for Vendetta, in which the lead character takes on a fascist government in Britain.
The Libertarian-leaning Paul is a strong opponent of many government programs and is the only Republican candidate for the White House advocating troop withdrawal from Iraq.
On Paul's Web site, his fundraising director, Jonathan Bydlak, called the cash haul "Earth-shattering, jaw-dropping ... No matter which way you phrase it, Ron Paul is for real."
Paul now holds the record among Republican White House candidates for fundraising on a single day, according to the Associated Press. Democratic presidential contender Hillary Rodham Clinton has raised the most, $6.2 million, on a single day during the current campaign.
While he has built a fervent fan base over the Internet, Paul still remains mired in the low single digits in most national polls.
Paul's spokesman Jesse Benton said the influx of funds will allow the candidate to increase his name recognition. Paul is already airing television and radio commercials in New Hampshire and radio spots in Iowa, South Carolina and Nevada.
Benton said the campaign has already increased its staff to 70 people.
bennett.roth@chron.com
COMMENTS
Readers are solely responsible for the content of the comments they post here. Comments are subject to the site's terms and conditions of use and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or approval of the Houston Chronicle.
Most recent comments
TheOddball81 wrote:
Good point, _NH. We may appear to have a two-party system, but there's really only one party. The goal of the media is to get the majority of Americans to support a pair of CFR candidates. Hillary, Obama, Romney, and Giuliani are not front-runners because they are loved by the most people or because they have the best positions on issues. They are front-runners because the mainstream media says so. This way, all media attention is devoted to these front-runners, and the public sees these candidates as "rational" choices, and they vote for them in the primaries. We are all programmed to accept the choices given to us, and have been for many years. Finally, someone like Ron Paul has come along who is not a pre-packaged puppet and actually stands for something and loves his country.
11/7/2007 2:16:24 AM
Recommend
Report abuse
jmunjr wrote:
"Libertarians (such as Paul) don't believe in social security, medicaid, AFDC, health insurance for poor children and many other programs not specified by the constitution."
So what is your point? All of those things are responsibilities of the STATES!!! Period. Paul would not eliminate Social Security either, but he would give the people who stand to gain absolutely nothing from it(younger people) a choice to opt-out while still taking care of those who put into all their lives.
My only fear about Paul is this country has gotten so used to getting handouts from the government that they won't vote for the guy because the handouts will stop. But guess what? You'll get far more after the federal income tax is eliminated. Granted the states will try to get more of it but you'll still end up with a heck of a lot more than you'll get from the federal government, and you'll get to choose how you'll spend it. This country if led by Paul would be more productive, richer, and freer than we've ever seen. Don't be a sheep and fall for the same old rouse put on by the Democrats and neo-conservatives.
Even if you don't like Paul, nobody from the Democrats or the rest of the Republicans has any qualities worth admiring. Most are nearly all pro-war, including Hillary, ALL want to spend out of control, and none of them genuinely want to protect our liberty, and that folks is the #1 role of our federal government.
The leaders of this nation have failed us. It is time for someone new to restore our Republic and make America the great country it once was.
11/7/2007 2:11:26 AM
Recommend
Report abuse
_NH wrote:
Trouble is, Hillary and Mitt's numbers are for PLEDGES not actual donations so Paul bested them too!
Look it up.
RON PAUL IS THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN BEAT HILLARY. They know it and probably won't care because either Rudy or Hillary is acceptable as they are one and the same.
11/7/2007 1:44:11 AM
Recommend (1)
Report abuse
antiwardoc wrote:
Oops, I meant Romney and Clinton, sorry. As State of Brain says, the FEC filings showed that Romney only raised 3.1 MIL, and the Clinton total was collected over the course of 1 week, not in a single day.
11/6/2007 11:55:59 PM
Recommend
Report abuse
antiwardoc wrote:
See the press conference today by Jonathan Bydlak, Ron Paul's press secretary. They investigated the Kerry and Clinton claims of having raised about 5-6 million dollars in a single day, and both were false. The press conference is posted at ronpaul2008.com
11/6/2007 11:54:19 PM
Recommend (2)
Repo
By BENNETT ROTH
Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON — Maverick GOP presidential contender Ron Paul of Lake Jackson continued his fundraising juggernaut, raking in $4.3 million in one day over the Internet.
The 24-hour fundraising drive on Monday brought Paul's contributions to $7.3 million so far for the final quarter of this year, eclipsing the $5.4 million he raised in the third quarter.
Paul received 38,000 donations during the drive, which was spearheaded by the candidate's supporters in honor of Guy Fawkes Day, which commemorates Fawkes, a British mercenary who unsuccessfully sought to kill King James I on Nov. 5, 1605. Fawkes was also the inspiration for the novel and movie V for Vendetta, in which the lead character takes on a fascist government in Britain.
The Libertarian-leaning Paul is a strong opponent of many government programs and is the only Republican candidate for the White House advocating troop withdrawal from Iraq.
On Paul's Web site, his fundraising director, Jonathan Bydlak, called the cash haul "Earth-shattering, jaw-dropping ... No matter which way you phrase it, Ron Paul is for real."
Paul now holds the record among Republican White House candidates for fundraising on a single day, according to the Associated Press. Democratic presidential contender Hillary Rodham Clinton has raised the most, $6.2 million, on a single day during the current campaign.
While he has built a fervent fan base over the Internet, Paul still remains mired in the low single digits in most national polls.
Paul's spokesman Jesse Benton said the influx of funds will allow the candidate to increase his name recognition. Paul is already airing television and radio commercials in New Hampshire and radio spots in Iowa, South Carolina and Nevada.
Benton said the campaign has already increased its staff to 70 people.
bennett.roth@chron.com
COMMENTS
Readers are solely responsible for the content of the comments they post here. Comments are subject to the site's terms and conditions of use and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or approval of the Houston Chronicle.
Most recent comments
TheOddball81 wrote:
Good point, _NH. We may appear to have a two-party system, but there's really only one party. The goal of the media is to get the majority of Americans to support a pair of CFR candidates. Hillary, Obama, Romney, and Giuliani are not front-runners because they are loved by the most people or because they have the best positions on issues. They are front-runners because the mainstream media says so. This way, all media attention is devoted to these front-runners, and the public sees these candidates as "rational" choices, and they vote for them in the primaries. We are all programmed to accept the choices given to us, and have been for many years. Finally, someone like Ron Paul has come along who is not a pre-packaged puppet and actually stands for something and loves his country.
11/7/2007 2:16:24 AM
Recommend
Report abuse
jmunjr wrote:
"Libertarians (such as Paul) don't believe in social security, medicaid, AFDC, health insurance for poor children and many other programs not specified by the constitution."
So what is your point? All of those things are responsibilities of the STATES!!! Period. Paul would not eliminate Social Security either, but he would give the people who stand to gain absolutely nothing from it(younger people) a choice to opt-out while still taking care of those who put into all their lives.
My only fear about Paul is this country has gotten so used to getting handouts from the government that they won't vote for the guy because the handouts will stop. But guess what? You'll get far more after the federal income tax is eliminated. Granted the states will try to get more of it but you'll still end up with a heck of a lot more than you'll get from the federal government, and you'll get to choose how you'll spend it. This country if led by Paul would be more productive, richer, and freer than we've ever seen. Don't be a sheep and fall for the same old rouse put on by the Democrats and neo-conservatives.
Even if you don't like Paul, nobody from the Democrats or the rest of the Republicans has any qualities worth admiring. Most are nearly all pro-war, including Hillary, ALL want to spend out of control, and none of them genuinely want to protect our liberty, and that folks is the #1 role of our federal government.
The leaders of this nation have failed us. It is time for someone new to restore our Republic and make America the great country it once was.
11/7/2007 2:11:26 AM
Recommend
Report abuse
_NH wrote:
Trouble is, Hillary and Mitt's numbers are for PLEDGES not actual donations so Paul bested them too!
Look it up.
RON PAUL IS THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN BEAT HILLARY. They know it and probably won't care because either Rudy or Hillary is acceptable as they are one and the same.
11/7/2007 1:44:11 AM
Recommend (1)
Report abuse
antiwardoc wrote:
Oops, I meant Romney and Clinton, sorry. As State of Brain says, the FEC filings showed that Romney only raised 3.1 MIL, and the Clinton total was collected over the course of 1 week, not in a single day.
11/6/2007 11:55:59 PM
Recommend
Report abuse
antiwardoc wrote:
See the press conference today by Jonathan Bydlak, Ron Paul's press secretary. They investigated the Kerry and Clinton claims of having raised about 5-6 million dollars in a single day, and both were false. The press conference is posted at ronpaul2008.com
11/6/2007 11:54:19 PM
Recommend (2)
Repo
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Oprah Winfrey's On YouTube, But Video Comment Restrictions Piss Off YouTubers
Oprah Winfrey goes Web 2.0! Oprah launches her YouTube channel and as our new Internet world would have it, she can't bring her old media control ways to YouTube without protest.
First, the video shown below is actually blocked from view! You may be wondering how I managed to at least show the image you see, and that's because I created my own embed code. Now, it's here, but you still can't play the video. It's disabled from being embeded.
It's not a smart approach as it actually robs Oprah of additional video views -- something advertisers focus on as if Oprah's people are going to embed sponsor ads in future videos, those companies want maximum exposure; the current strategy kills that.
But there's another move by Oprah's YouTube people that's really got the community pissed off. I was alerted to this by my friend Kenrg, a frequent YouTube contributor.
Ken wrote:
Hi Zennie -
I'm sure you've noticed by now that Oprah Winfrey has taken over the front page of YouTube (check out her "welcome message" and her selection of featured videos, including three of her own).
TaraGolden and I are putting together a quick collaboration video welcoming Oprah, and letting her know that YT is about 2-way communication, we're not all wanna-be stars or freak acts, and that we're here because we DON'T want more TV. As politely as possible, of course.
If you have anything you'd like to say to Oprah in our open video letter, please send it to me anytime today to kengoldstein@gmail.com.
I'm going to finish the edit and post it first thing Wednesday morning.
Thanks!
- Ken
So Ken's pissed. Renetto's upset too , although I think it's because he wasn't mentioned on Oprah.
AnimeDudeAsian's reaction was "You gotta be fuc#$ kidding me," and other choice words, referring to "That crapping ass dog on a skateboard" as the video Oprah showed that he wished she'd not have touched. Finally, AnimeDudeAsian thinks each YouTuber should get a car from Oprah.
Stay tuned for more reactions!
First, the video shown below is actually blocked from view! You may be wondering how I managed to at least show the image you see, and that's because I created my own embed code. Now, it's here, but you still can't play the video. It's disabled from being embeded.
It's not a smart approach as it actually robs Oprah of additional video views -- something advertisers focus on as if Oprah's people are going to embed sponsor ads in future videos, those companies want maximum exposure; the current strategy kills that.
But there's another move by Oprah's YouTube people that's really got the community pissed off. I was alerted to this by my friend Kenrg, a frequent YouTube contributor.
Ken wrote:
Hi Zennie -
I'm sure you've noticed by now that Oprah Winfrey has taken over the front page of YouTube (check out her "welcome message" and her selection of featured videos, including three of her own).
TaraGolden and I are putting together a quick collaboration video welcoming Oprah, and letting her know that YT is about 2-way communication, we're not all wanna-be stars or freak acts, and that we're here because we DON'T want more TV. As politely as possible, of course.
If you have anything you'd like to say to Oprah in our open video letter, please send it to me anytime today to kengoldstein@gmail.com.
I'm going to finish the edit and post it first thing Wednesday morning.
Thanks!
- Ken
So Ken's pissed. Renetto's upset too , although I think it's because he wasn't mentioned on Oprah.
AnimeDudeAsian's reaction was "You gotta be fuc#$ kidding me," and other choice words, referring to "That crapping ass dog on a skateboard" as the video Oprah showed that he wished she'd not have touched. Finally, AnimeDudeAsian thinks each YouTuber should get a car from Oprah.
Stay tuned for more reactions!
Monday, November 05, 2007
Another Clinton Sex Scandal? Big Head DC Thinks So...
I just saw this over at Big Head DC ...
A major sex scandal story involving one of the leading presidential candidates is believed to be soon published by the LA Times, Big Head DC has learned. Details are slowly trickling in through people who’ve heard about the story, and with Larry Flynt saying he’s set to reveal a “huge” sex scandal story involving a sitting senator in the coming days, the rumors seem to be gathering traction.
“So I was down in DC this past weekend and happened to run into a well-connected media person, who told me flatly, unequivocally that ‘everyone knows’ the LA Times was sitting on a story, all wrapped up and ready to go about what is a potentially devastating sexual scandal involving a leading presidential candidate,” reports Pajamas Media’s Ron Rosenbaum. “‘Everyone knows’ meaning everyone in the DC mainstream media political reporting world. ‘Sitting on it’ because the paper couldn’t decide the complex ethics of whether and when to run it. The way I heard it they’d had it for a while but don’t know what to do. The person who told me is not an LAT person and knows I write and didn’t say ‘don’t write about this.’”
Several commenters on Rosenbaum’s article strongly believe that Hillary Clinton will ultimately be revealed as a lesbian, and that the recent GQ story her campaign helped kill by threatening to withhold a Bill Clinton interview may have gone into some shocking details into her sex life.Rumors of a close Hillary relationship with one of her top aides Huma Abedin, shown above, have long been swirling. Hillary has long denied being a lesbian.
Stay tuned...
A major sex scandal story involving one of the leading presidential candidates is believed to be soon published by the LA Times, Big Head DC has learned. Details are slowly trickling in through people who’ve heard about the story, and with Larry Flynt saying he’s set to reveal a “huge” sex scandal story involving a sitting senator in the coming days, the rumors seem to be gathering traction.
“So I was down in DC this past weekend and happened to run into a well-connected media person, who told me flatly, unequivocally that ‘everyone knows’ the LA Times was sitting on a story, all wrapped up and ready to go about what is a potentially devastating sexual scandal involving a leading presidential candidate,” reports Pajamas Media’s Ron Rosenbaum. “‘Everyone knows’ meaning everyone in the DC mainstream media political reporting world. ‘Sitting on it’ because the paper couldn’t decide the complex ethics of whether and when to run it. The way I heard it they’d had it for a while but don’t know what to do. The person who told me is not an LAT person and knows I write and didn’t say ‘don’t write about this.’”
Several commenters on Rosenbaum’s article strongly believe that Hillary Clinton will ultimately be revealed as a lesbian, and that the recent GQ story her campaign helped kill by threatening to withhold a Bill Clinton interview may have gone into some shocking details into her sex life.Rumors of a close Hillary relationship with one of her top aides Huma Abedin, shown above, have long been swirling. Hillary has long denied being a lesbian.
Stay tuned...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)