In a big win for the Cullinary Workers Union 226 and Senator Barack Obama, and a huge loss for the Nevada Teachers Union and Senator Hillary Clinton, a Nevada Federal Judge issued an order allowing the "casino-based" caucuses to go ahead this Saturday as planned and designed, according to Don Lemon on CNN this morning.
If you have followed this case, you know that after the Cullinary Workers elected to endorse Senator Barack Obama a week ago, the Nevada Teachers Union, which has Clinton supporters in it, filed a lawsuit to block the caucus because they felt it was biased in favor of casino workers and others who had to work on Saturday could not get there. But the problem is that teachers do not work on Saturday.
Moreover, the lawsuit was obviously politically motivated as all of the presidential campaigns agreed to it early on.
But as the Cullinary Workers are mostly minority, the lawsuit was seen as an attack on them and showed the Clinton's as being more concerned with winning an election than the needs of minority workers. Moreover, even though the Clinton's claimed no involvement in the lawsuit, this testy exchange between President Clinton and a KGO San Francisco reporter showed how much they cared about it.
For more on why the Court did not support the lawsuit, see this great DailyKos diary.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Apple MacBook Air At MacWorld San Francisco
This is one of many videos I made at this week's MacWorld San Francisco at Moscone Center, where the star this year is the MacBook Air computer. It's a very, very thin device that only costs $1,799. But according to Mickey Settler, a Mac expert who appears in the video, it has some design flaws that make it less than desirable for current Mac users contemplating a switch.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
What's On this week at nfldraftbible.com
> NEW PLAYER SPOTLIGHT
> INTERVIEWS
>
> Log Onto www.nfldraftbible.com To Listen To Interviews Of Upcoming Draft
> Prospects:
>
> -- Texas DT Frank Okam
> -- Georgia Tech G Nate McManus
> -- Oklahoma CB Marcus Walker
>
> Coming Soon: Senior Bowl Preview With Vanderbilt T Chris Williams
>
> Also Be Sure To Check Out New Shows At The NFL Draft Bible Powered By All
> Access Football:
>
> -- The Legal Line: Hosted By Scott Daniels
> Episode#2 Posted Now
>
> -- From The Press Box: Hosted By Dr. Bill Chachkes
> Coming Soon: Interview With Fox Sports College Football Analyst Richard
> Cirmeniello
>
> *REMINDER*
> The NFL Draft Bible's Football Friday Podcast Is Now LIVE every Friday From
> 6:30-8pm EST
> Listen Live At: www.blogtalkradio.com/nfldraftbible
>
> Join The Live Chat Room Or CALL IN: 1-646-200-0236
>
> *Pre-Order Your Copy Of The 2008 NFL Draft Bible Publication Now
>&
> Receive A FREE Subscription To Draft Digest Weekly (16 Issues), In addition
> To A FREE Instant Download Copy Of Our 2007 Edition.
>
> INTERVIEWS
>
> Log Onto www.nfldraftbible.com To Listen To Interviews Of Upcoming Draft
> Prospects:
>
> -- Texas DT Frank Okam
> -- Georgia Tech G Nate McManus
> -- Oklahoma CB Marcus Walker
>
> Coming Soon: Senior Bowl Preview With Vanderbilt T Chris Williams
>
> Also Be Sure To Check Out New Shows At The NFL Draft Bible Powered By All
> Access Football:
>
> -- The Legal Line: Hosted By Scott Daniels
> Episode#2 Posted Now
>
> -- From The Press Box: Hosted By Dr. Bill Chachkes
> Coming Soon: Interview With Fox Sports College Football Analyst Richard
> Cirmeniello
>
> *REMINDER*
> The NFL Draft Bible's Football Friday Podcast Is Now LIVE every Friday From
> 6:30-8pm EST
> Listen Live At: www.blogtalkradio.com/nfldraftbible
>
> Join The Live Chat Room Or CALL IN: 1-646-200-0236
>
> *Pre-Order Your Copy Of The 2008 NFL Draft Bible Publication Now
>
> Receive A FREE Subscription To Draft Digest Weekly (16 Issues), In addition
> To A FREE Instant Download Copy Of Our 2007 Edition.
>
Rush Limbaugh Hit For Using "Spadework" Term That Hillary Clinton Used Twice
Conservative shock-jock Rush Limbaugh's the hit-person-of-the-day for using a term in a monologue that's generally taken to be racially offensive, even though it's formal definition has nothing to do with race.
On his show, Rush twice used the word "spade," which can be used as a racial slur. Specifically, Limbaugh said that "Obama is holding his own against both of them [Bill and Hillary Clinton], doing more than his share of the 'spadework,' maybe even gaining ground at the moment, using not only the spade, ladies and gentlemen. But when he finishes with the spade in the garden of corruption planted by the Clintons, he turns to the hoe. And so the spadework and his expertise, using a hoe. He's faring well."
But as people are piling on Rush for using the term, they seemed to forget that Senator Clinton's staff used the same words on July 24, 2007....
In a post-debate rebuttal of Sen. Obama, reported by CBS, a member of Sen. Clinton's inner circle had this to say:
"I would think that without having done the diplomatic spadework, it would not really prove anything," former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said in a conference call with reporters set up by the Clinton campaign.
It's not the first time Senator Clinton has done this. According to Rush Limbaugh himself, Senator Clinton herself has used the term "spadework" before. Here's Rush:
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Did you hear what Mrs. Clinton said on the Today Show today with Matt Lauer? She said that Barack Obama "hasn't done the spadework necessary to be president." He "hasn't done the spadework necessary to be president," as though she has. Now, let's imagine, shall we, if Trent Lott, or Mitt Romney, or Ross Perot had said that Barack Obama "hasn't done the spadework necessary to be president." Nothing that happens in the Clinton campaign is coincidence, folks. Barack Obama hasn't done the "spadework"? Whew. Where is the Reverend Sharpton on this? By the way, big story: Reverend Sharpton is waiting on his time to endorse. He's waiting for commitments. That means he's probably waiting for money from one of these two camps.
He's right. Where's Al Sharpton on this issue? And why do the Clintons throw racist barbs into the campaign?
Al?
Labels:
Clinton,
Hillary Clinton,
Obama,
politics,
racism,
Ron Paul,
rush limbaugh,
spade
Arianna Huffington - My Email To Arianna On Lousy Dem Debate Article
Hi Arianna,
Normally, I enjoy the Huff Post, but this article makes my BLOOD boil. Which one? This one:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20080115/democratic-rdp/
"Clinton, Obama Vow to Bury Race Debate"
Why does the write refer to John Edwards as "the only white male in the race'? So freaking what? And why do your editors select headlines that focus on Obama and race and insult Obama?
I didn't see the debate -- I was at MacWorld -- but everyone I talked to, half not with any candidate in terms of preference -- said "Obama won."
Why in heaven's name are you all so afraid to point out when he does well, and why are you letting your new editor continue to inject racism into the campaign.
This is a real low for the Huffington Post.
Best,
Zennie
Normally, I enjoy the Huff Post, but this article makes my BLOOD boil. Which one? This one:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20080115/democratic-rdp/
"Clinton, Obama Vow to Bury Race Debate"
Why does the write refer to John Edwards as "the only white male in the race'? So freaking what? And why do your editors select headlines that focus on Obama and race and insult Obama?
I didn't see the debate -- I was at MacWorld -- but everyone I talked to, half not with any candidate in terms of preference -- said "Obama won."
Why in heaven's name are you all so afraid to point out when he does well, and why are you letting your new editor continue to inject racism into the campaign.
This is a real low for the Huffington Post.
Best,
Zennie
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Hillary Clinton On Meet The Press Tells Lies: Video
The video title itself is tame, but after seeing it again, I think "tells lies" is more appropriate. In the video, I take three issues: Martin Luther King, Gender, and The Iraq War, and show how she's not told the truth versus what she said on NBC's "Meet The Press". In the matter of the New York Times article on her support of the 2002 Iraq War Resolution, here's the article I referenced below and with this link. I'll add more to this aricle soon.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Barack Obama Calls For End To Race Fighting In Campaign
...not that he ever started it.
Senator Barack Obama called for a stop to the name-calling and race-baiting that has come to mark this campaign. According to The Politico , Obama said :You have seen a tone on the Democrat[ic] side of the campaign that has been unfortunate. I want to stipulate a couple of things. I may disagree with Senator Clinton and Senator Edwards on how to get there, but we share the same goals. We all believe in civil rights. We all believe in equal rights. They are good people. They are patriots....
I don't want the campaign at this stage to degenerate to so much tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, that we lose sight of why we are doing this."
Obama also said "Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton have historically been on the right side of civil rights issues. They care about the African American community.… That is something I am convinced of. I want Americans to know that is my assessment."
That's Barack: being Presidential.
Senator Barack Obama called for a stop to the name-calling and race-baiting that has come to mark this campaign. According to The Politico , Obama said :You have seen a tone on the Democrat[ic] side of the campaign that has been unfortunate. I want to stipulate a couple of things. I may disagree with Senator Clinton and Senator Edwards on how to get there, but we share the same goals. We all believe in civil rights. We all believe in equal rights. They are good people. They are patriots....
I don't want the campaign at this stage to degenerate to so much tit-for-tat, back-and-forth, that we lose sight of why we are doing this."
Obama also said "Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton have historically been on the right side of civil rights issues. They care about the African American community.… That is something I am convinced of. I want Americans to know that is my assessment."
That's Barack: being Presidential.
One Feminist's Perspective on the 2008 Election
By all rights, I should be a Hillary Clinton supporter. I'm white, in my late 30's, mother of two, educated, pro-choice, and was, up until recently, a member of EMILY's List. I'm a soccer Mom, happily married, and live just about an hour south of DC. If forced, I declare myself Protestant, though I'm not a Sunday church go-er and consider myself more spiritual than religious. I was raised to believe that there is nothing a woman can't do and since I heard the word, I have categorized myself as a feminist.
When it became clear (and honestly, when wasn't it?) that Mrs. Clinton was going to run for President, I knew that I would support her. Come on, a woman as leader of the free world? What woman-like-me wouldn't go for that? My knee jerk reaction was, "Go, Hillary!" But there was something niggling at the back of my mind.
I hate to go backwards. I detest the idea that people running for President aren't allowed the mistakes of their pasts. And yet there are certain mistakes that belie candidates' internal compasses and these mistakes, I believe, are fair game. With Mrs. Clinton, her conduct during her husband's pecadillos is, for me, one of these watershed moments.
As arguably one of the most visible women in the world, Hillary Clinton had a choice when Bill screwed around. She could stand up for herself and, by extension, women around the world or she could stand by her man and essentially prove that women deserve to be treated with little or no respect. She chose the latter and sent a message to men everywhere that they could screw around and to their women that we have to take it and not only shut up, but vehemently defend them.
Several feminists and feminist organizations have looked past Mrs. Clinton's stand-by-your man example and into an endorsement of her campaign. I love that they looked past this traditional, "shut up and take it for the the good of the marriage" role, championed her as a feminist, as Gloria Steinem has done on the New York Times Op Ed page, and then refused to cry foul when Mrs. Clinton essentially won New Hampshire because she got weepy when discussing how hard it is to have perfect hair and stay perky on the campaign trail. In fact, when writing in the New York Times on January 8, Ms. Steinem made the case that, ". . . Hillary Clinton could (not) have used Mr. Obama's public style - or Bill Clinton's either - without being considered too emotional by Washington pundits." It is convenient to be able to make such a comment in print and then overlook the national hubbub over the "mist" that won New Hampshire.
My point here, of course, is that championing Mrs. Clinton as a feminist and then overlooking such blatantly un-feminist actions is, at best, hypocritical. I can hear the old guard now, scolding me because I didn't live through the 60's and was only a babe in the 70's when they were fighting for the equal rights I now enjoy. While I appreciate their vision, I think it has left them with blinders. My point is that we shouldn't support the wrong woman just because she is the only one running.
When I went shopping for a new feminist candidate, I found Barack Obama. Coincidentally, he has also been called a feminist by Gloria Steinem on the OpEd page of the New York Times. He has a stellar record on reproductive rights issues; a plan for addressing math and science education, which is an area of concern for girls; an economic plan with focuses on expanding child care tax credits, providing a living wage, and job training; and a platform of promoting responsible fatherhood.
So, thanks Gloria, et al., for your input, but I'll be voting for Barack in my state's primary. He's one man I can both stand by and endorse.
When it became clear (and honestly, when wasn't it?) that Mrs. Clinton was going to run for President, I knew that I would support her. Come on, a woman as leader of the free world? What woman-like-me wouldn't go for that? My knee jerk reaction was, "Go, Hillary!" But there was something niggling at the back of my mind.
I hate to go backwards. I detest the idea that people running for President aren't allowed the mistakes of their pasts. And yet there are certain mistakes that belie candidates' internal compasses and these mistakes, I believe, are fair game. With Mrs. Clinton, her conduct during her husband's pecadillos is, for me, one of these watershed moments.
As arguably one of the most visible women in the world, Hillary Clinton had a choice when Bill screwed around. She could stand up for herself and, by extension, women around the world or she could stand by her man and essentially prove that women deserve to be treated with little or no respect. She chose the latter and sent a message to men everywhere that they could screw around and to their women that we have to take it and not only shut up, but vehemently defend them.
Several feminists and feminist organizations have looked past Mrs. Clinton's stand-by-your man example and into an endorsement of her campaign. I love that they looked past this traditional, "shut up and take it for the the good of the marriage" role, championed her as a feminist, as Gloria Steinem has done on the New York Times Op Ed page, and then refused to cry foul when Mrs. Clinton essentially won New Hampshire because she got weepy when discussing how hard it is to have perfect hair and stay perky on the campaign trail. In fact, when writing in the New York Times on January 8, Ms. Steinem made the case that, ". . . Hillary Clinton could (not) have used Mr. Obama's public style - or Bill Clinton's either - without being considered too emotional by Washington pundits." It is convenient to be able to make such a comment in print and then overlook the national hubbub over the "mist" that won New Hampshire.
My point here, of course, is that championing Mrs. Clinton as a feminist and then overlooking such blatantly un-feminist actions is, at best, hypocritical. I can hear the old guard now, scolding me because I didn't live through the 60's and was only a babe in the 70's when they were fighting for the equal rights I now enjoy. While I appreciate their vision, I think it has left them with blinders. My point is that we shouldn't support the wrong woman just because she is the only one running.
When I went shopping for a new feminist candidate, I found Barack Obama. Coincidentally, he has also been called a feminist by Gloria Steinem on the OpEd page of the New York Times. He has a stellar record on reproductive rights issues; a plan for addressing math and science education, which is an area of concern for girls; an economic plan with focuses on expanding child care tax credits, providing a living wage, and job training; and a platform of promoting responsible fatherhood.
So, thanks Gloria, et al., for your input, but I'll be voting for Barack in my state's primary. He's one man I can both stand by and endorse.
Republicans Have More Sex Than Democrats - Playboy And UPI.Com
This is a test of the Sexual Broadcast System...
I'm serious. That's what the study reads and it means that Democrats, with all of the worries of the American World on their shoulders, just aren't as horny as they should be, whereas Republicans, carring only about bombing the enemy, have more time to get sexual.
Look, I'm a Democrat, but the study doesn't speak for me. Playboy commissioned the study, which also reports...
that it was done by pollster Frank Luntz, conducted exclusively for Playboy magazine, and found that 25 percent of all Republicans and 35 percent of all Democrats have had more than 10 sexual partners in their lifetime.
The survey of 900 registered U.S. voters between the ages of 18 and 65, all of whom are very likely to vote in the 2008 presidential election, also found, on average, Republicans say they were 18.4 years old when they first had sex, Independents say 17.6 and Democrats say 17.5, the survey said.
Fifty-five percent of people who attend church every week consider themselves to be "sexually adventurous," while 51 percent of Republicans and 67 percent of Democrats have watched pornography with their sexual partners.
Americans belonging to both parties say they are more turned on by intelligence than by physical appearance, yet 23 percent of all Republicans and 24 percent of all Democrats would "definitely" or "probably" say yes to a one-night stand in the oval office with a president they found physically and sexually attractive.
Now if you compare that with the recent (as of this writing) ABC polls showing women preferring Senator Obama over Senator Clinton for president -- even the person who made Clinton cry -- you can draw some obvious conclusions.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Hillary Clinton's Campaign of Deparation - Fear Of Losing To Obama Makes Her Nuts
Hillary Clinton's Campaign of Deparation - Fear Of Losing To Obama Makes Her Nuts
Senator Hillary Clinton's running a campaign that makes her appear constantly deparate. She gets on "Meet The Press" and talks mostly about Barack Obama in the negative, not her message in the positive. She's so desparate not to lose to Obama, it makes you wonder what the problem is. I think she does not want to be seen as losing to him because he's Black. Yes, I think she's that terrible in this campaign.
How do you explain her behavior, with the crying and anger and whining? Do you want a president like that?
She fails to point to several problems of her own. She has a near 40 percent negative approval rating in her own state of New York, according to GovTrak.com. She also has a below average legislative record. According to GovTrak.com,...
"Hillary Clinton has sponsored 350 bills since Jan 22, 2001, of which 304 haven't made it out of committee (Very Poor) and 2 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers). Clinton has co-sponsored 1706 bills during the same time period (Average, relative to peers)."
Which means she doesn't have the relationships necessary to even think of being an effective president. Senator Obama's record is much better. And why do you think the majority of U.S Senators endorse Obama?
CloverField Movie Called A Landmark Genre Film
Ok. After months that seemed like years of anticipation and speculation, all caused by a terrific Alternative Reality Game marketing strategy, the pet movie J.J. Abrams has produced through his "Bad Robot" production company, Cloverfield has been seen and under tight security, by Harry Knowles of "Ain't It Cool News."
Now Harry seldom gives a bad review, but in this case he wrote a review that makes me think this flick's going to be an instant classic.
I'm not going to give away Harry's review, I'm just going to link to it here and post the video I made a while back that said Cloverfield was going to be the best movie ever.
..And this, the newest trailer that gives you a great idea of what this movie's all about.
Now Harry seldom gives a bad review, but in this case he wrote a review that makes me think this flick's going to be an instant classic.
I'm not going to give away Harry's review, I'm just going to link to it here and post the video I made a while back that said Cloverfield was going to be the best movie ever.
..And this, the newest trailer that gives you a great idea of what this movie's all about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)