Iraqi reporter throws shoes at Bush, calls him dog TPM: News Pages | Talking Points Memo |

TPM: News Pages | Talking Points Memo | Iraqi reporter throws shoes at Bush, calls him dog: “BAGHDAD, Dec 14 (Reuters) - An Iraqi reporter called visiting U.S. President George W. Bush a "dog" in Arabic on Sunday and threw his shoes at him during a news conference in Baghdad.

Iraqi security officers and U.S. secret service agents leapt at the man and dragged him struggling and screaming out of the room where Bush was giving a news conference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.

The shoes missed their target about 15 feet (4.5 metres) away. One sailed over Bush's head as he stood next to Maliki and smacked into the wall behind him. Bush smiled uncomfortably and Maliki looked strained.

"It doesn't bother me," Bush said, urging everyone to calm down as a ruckus broke out in the conference room.

When asked about the incident shortly after, Bush made light of it. "I didn't feel the least threatened by it," he said.”

United we stand? Divided we fall?

Has Clinton insulted less-educated voters?

Senator Clinton has recently suggested, for example, that other journalists refer to an Associated Press story including, “how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.” Most of those ‘uneducated’ white voters are capable of hearing the underlying text, and being insulted at the implication that their support is linked to their educational level in a sort of class-based oppression that’s familiar to them, but not welcome.

Visit any Union hall, or construction site, and you will find that most know who among their “peers” is conversant with the subtleties of any major issue, that there are on-site pundits without college degrees who garner more respect than most of the talking heads and media experts. No, not everybody agrees with these "not college educated" backroom philosophers and professors, the differences are present, but that’s just the point: differences ARE present, and Senator Clinton arrogantly lumped all of these people together as though individually they don't matter - as though none will notice.

There could hardly be a more fundamental difference between the presidential candidates, as demonstrated by campaign strategies: The Rove tactical toolset and playbook, targeting specific groups to shave a few points in carefully selected spots vs. the Obama vision of "strength through unity" trusting savvy voters to act for the common good.

Barack Obama’s vision of a country increasingly united can be likened to the recognition that while copper is a soft metal which can become brittle, and zinc is also brittle, mixing them yields: brass -- which is stronger than either separately. He trusts the voters to think, to act for the good of the whole, to resist divisive assaults on our freedoms, to respond in ways that resonate with patriotism that once rallied the nation to put a man on the moon.

read more | digg story

CLINTON PISSES OFF TEXAS WITH LAWSUIT THREAT OVER CAUCUS

In a classic case of "What are they thinking" Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign is threatening a lawsuit against the Texas Democratic Party over the complicated Texas Caucus process. The lawsuit action contrasts with the "Go with the program" approach of the Barack Obama campaign, where the Obama website has a special section devoted to the Texas Primary and a guide to the voting and caucus process.

The Clinton website's Texas link takes one to a phone banking page; there's nothing on the website about the Texas Caucus process.

What's interesting about this also gives a window to why the Clinton team is failing. It comes from the old "control" centered mentaility, which says "I must have control over what I do not understand," hence the lawsuit. Meanwhile, the Obama campaign's 21 Century approach is to jump into the culture of a region, in this case, Texas, and inform its supporters on the "rules of the game" there.

Which process do you think works better?

But the larger concern I have is with the slash-and-burn approach of the Clinton campaign and its impact on the Democratic Party. The Clinton's seem bent on destroying the party for their own purposes. An Obama win would mend the party quickly; a sweep of all states would terminate the Clinton campaign and right this ship before it's too late.

What's the concern of the Clinton camp? They feel the party has not trained each campaign on the process itself. However, it could be said that the Clinton campaign didn't even bother to learn about the caucus process either. The Obama campaign's not complaining. Perhaps that's because they're prepared.

Think about it.

Ron Paul Fielding Questions After The CNN YouTube Debate

Congressman Ron Paul has a one-trick-pony approach to his candidacy that is based on classic conservative ideology. In this video made after the CNN / YouTube Republican Debate, we see how Ron Paul adresses questions.

Barack Obama Rally Boston 10/23/07

Barack Obama Rally Boston 10/23/07
Originally uploaded by stevegarfield

Senator Obama was endorsed by Mass Governor Deval Patrick at a huge rally in Boston Common. Here's the video of Governor Patrick's speech: