"Yes, people ARE angry, and bitter, but Obama never said that they aren't resilient, opitmistic or hard-working. Those are Hillary and McCain's twisted words, and for them to stand up and suggest that rural Pennsylvanians aren't fed up with the way things are, only reveals how out of touch they really are with at least this part of the country." This is a great article from a woman who lives in Rural PA. Take a moment. Bittergate, people, isn't about Obama being out of touch (how dare McCain think he could make that stick?) it's about Obama's opponents so desperate to find another smear that they played the out-of-context card again -- only this time, it's working in his favor, because he's "forced" to talk about... you guessed it... HOPE.
read more | digg story
Saturday, April 12, 2008
PA Wrap-Up: The Politics of Fear vs. the Politics of Hope
The PA primary has come to this. No it's not a fallout shelter, just the vault in the Ardmore Obama'08 office mentioned in my previous diary.
This is my last day canvassing in PA. On my way back home, I will stop off northeast of Philly for the campaign-sponsored meeting tonight with Dan Kurtzer, our former Ambassador to both Egypt and Israel. It has been nine years since I last saw him at the Department of State, where he was my boss during my last two-year tour of duty in Washington before we both headed overseas to very different destinations. It will be good to see him again, but even more important to hear how he addresses the concerns of the Jewish community here, which has clearly been influenced by the politics of fear.
Dan Kurtzer is both the consummate diplomat and a great human being. And that is why I was very pleased to hear last month that he had come out in support of Barack Obama. With his Middle Eastern experience and as an observant Jew, Kurtzer should have considerable credibility in addressing Jewish concerns. But I do not want to minimize the challenge here, underlined by the young female rabbi visiting from NYC who told me yesterday that she was surprised by the degree of suspicion of Obama in the Jewish community.
wizinit :: PA Wrap-Up: The Politics of Fear vs. the Politics of Hope
A couple in northern Indiana County [PA] awoke yesterday morning and discovered their Barack Obama lawn sign had been spray painted with a red swastika.
"I was really disgusted. It's completely un-American," said Kamal Youssef, an artist and engineer from Egypt who became a U.S. citizen in 1958. "Everybody should have his own feelings and ideas and opinions," but he and his wife were stunned that someone defaced the sign.
...Mr. Youssef, 86, ...is Muslim...his wife, Maria, 75, is Jewish and Christian Orthodox and became naturalized after immigrating from Czechoslovakia.
--from Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, April 6, 2008
I do not share the rabbi's surprise, but do feel her disappointment. After all, with his unique heritage and message of unity, I believe Obama transcends historic racial and religious divisions in our society. And when it comes to his past actions, he has a "100 percent pro-Israel" voting record. So what is the reason for the resistance in about half of the Jewish community here to voting for Barack Obama?
For those of us who have closely followed this contest over the past year it would appear that the targeted campaign against Obama in the Jewish community was launched big-time in mid-January of this year. Former Israeli Ambassador to the US Danny Ayalon published an anti-Obama Jerusalem Post article entitled "Who Are You, Barack Obama?" January 23 that questioned the motives and encouraged suspicion of Obama's policy views vis a vis Iran and Israeli military security. At about the same time, at a relative's wedding in Florida, I learned that virtually every member of my family had received a version of the similarly entitled "Who Is Barack Obama" slurmail, which also circulated widely in white Christian communities in the south.
The campaign continued in February, reflected in an email forwarded to me by a relative that apparently originated with Lee Farber at the University of Pennsylvania. It contained Ed Lasky's American Thinker article of January 16 entitled "Barack Obama and Israel". Whatever his intentions, Farber did not mention that Lasky, who has by now published at least five anti-Obama articles, is critical of most Democrats and in 2004 argued "Why Jews Should Vote for Bush". In fact, Lasky's diatribes are very similar to the February 21 Jerusalem Post's "Obama and the Jews" by Marc Zell, who happens to be the Co-Chairman of Republicans Abroad in Israel.
If there is HOPE in this tale, it is that approximately 50% of Jewish voters I have talked to since Saturday are open-minded, or even commited Obama supporters. Many are actively volunteering in the campaign. Most question the Likud and GOP arguments directed against Barack Obama. They all realize that at this stage of the Presidential contest the anti-Obama attacks can only benefit Hillary Clinton's campaign.
Another encouraging indicator comes from the Pennsylvania Secretary of State's party registration data, which yesterday reported that, for the first time in 30 years, Bucks County has joined Montgomery County and "flipped" from Republican to Democrat. Just since last November, there are 300,000 new Democrats in Pennsylvania, while Republican registrations have dropped by almost 60,000.
I ran into five Republicans this week who had recently re-registered as Democrats (since I was only canvassing previously registered Democrats, this was entirely by coincidence). All intend to vote for Obama on April 22. There were two other voters who did not leave the Republican Party, but hope to vote for Obama in November. When you combine these anecdotal stories with the fact that statewide there are now a million more Democrats than Republicans in PA, the prospects for an Obama victory in November are very positive indeed.
This is my last day canvassing in PA. On my way back home, I will stop off northeast of Philly for the campaign-sponsored meeting tonight with Dan Kurtzer, our former Ambassador to both Egypt and Israel. It has been nine years since I last saw him at the Department of State, where he was my boss during my last two-year tour of duty in Washington before we both headed overseas to very different destinations. It will be good to see him again, but even more important to hear how he addresses the concerns of the Jewish community here, which has clearly been influenced by the politics of fear.
Dan Kurtzer is both the consummate diplomat and a great human being. And that is why I was very pleased to hear last month that he had come out in support of Barack Obama. With his Middle Eastern experience and as an observant Jew, Kurtzer should have considerable credibility in addressing Jewish concerns. But I do not want to minimize the challenge here, underlined by the young female rabbi visiting from NYC who told me yesterday that she was surprised by the degree of suspicion of Obama in the Jewish community.
wizinit :: PA Wrap-Up: The Politics of Fear vs. the Politics of Hope
A couple in northern Indiana County [PA] awoke yesterday morning and discovered their Barack Obama lawn sign had been spray painted with a red swastika.
"I was really disgusted. It's completely un-American," said Kamal Youssef, an artist and engineer from Egypt who became a U.S. citizen in 1958. "Everybody should have his own feelings and ideas and opinions," but he and his wife were stunned that someone defaced the sign.
...Mr. Youssef, 86, ...is Muslim...his wife, Maria, 75, is Jewish and Christian Orthodox and became naturalized after immigrating from Czechoslovakia.
--from Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, April 6, 2008
I do not share the rabbi's surprise, but do feel her disappointment. After all, with his unique heritage and message of unity, I believe Obama transcends historic racial and religious divisions in our society. And when it comes to his past actions, he has a "100 percent pro-Israel" voting record. So what is the reason for the resistance in about half of the Jewish community here to voting for Barack Obama?
For those of us who have closely followed this contest over the past year it would appear that the targeted campaign against Obama in the Jewish community was launched big-time in mid-January of this year. Former Israeli Ambassador to the US Danny Ayalon published an anti-Obama Jerusalem Post article entitled "Who Are You, Barack Obama?" January 23 that questioned the motives and encouraged suspicion of Obama's policy views vis a vis Iran and Israeli military security. At about the same time, at a relative's wedding in Florida, I learned that virtually every member of my family had received a version of the similarly entitled "Who Is Barack Obama" slurmail, which also circulated widely in white Christian communities in the south.
The campaign continued in February, reflected in an email forwarded to me by a relative that apparently originated with Lee Farber at the University of Pennsylvania. It contained Ed Lasky's American Thinker article of January 16 entitled "Barack Obama and Israel". Whatever his intentions, Farber did not mention that Lasky, who has by now published at least five anti-Obama articles, is critical of most Democrats and in 2004 argued "Why Jews Should Vote for Bush". In fact, Lasky's diatribes are very similar to the February 21 Jerusalem Post's "Obama and the Jews" by Marc Zell, who happens to be the Co-Chairman of Republicans Abroad in Israel.
If there is HOPE in this tale, it is that approximately 50% of Jewish voters I have talked to since Saturday are open-minded, or even commited Obama supporters. Many are actively volunteering in the campaign. Most question the Likud and GOP arguments directed against Barack Obama. They all realize that at this stage of the Presidential contest the anti-Obama attacks can only benefit Hillary Clinton's campaign.
Another encouraging indicator comes from the Pennsylvania Secretary of State's party registration data, which yesterday reported that, for the first time in 30 years, Bucks County has joined Montgomery County and "flipped" from Republican to Democrat. Just since last November, there are 300,000 new Democrats in Pennsylvania, while Republican registrations have dropped by almost 60,000.
I ran into five Republicans this week who had recently re-registered as Democrats (since I was only canvassing previously registered Democrats, this was entirely by coincidence). All intend to vote for Obama on April 22. There were two other voters who did not leave the Republican Party, but hope to vote for Obama in November. When you combine these anecdotal stories with the fact that statewide there are now a million more Democrats than Republicans in PA, the prospects for an Obama victory in November are very positive indeed.
Barack Obama gets it! Charges of Elitism ring hollow
“No, I’m in touch. I know exactly what’s going on. I know what’s going on in Pennsylvania, I know what’s going on in Indiana, I know what’s going on in Illinois,” Mr. Obama said, his voice rising. “People are fed up, they’re angry, they’re frustrated, they’re bitter and they want to see a change in Washington. That’s why I’m running for president"
Barack Obama gets it! Mindy is a Pennsylvanian and she said, "I know, he spoke the truth. Some people may choose to stick their heads in the sand and pretend everything is honky dory, but the reality is that things are tough everywhere, and there are many many people who are angry and frustrated. There is no insult there. What is offensive is how the Clinton/McCain camp try to spin a perfectly true and fair observation into something negative. What is offensive is how the Clinton/McCain camp continue to insult out intelligence by assuming that we should all be running around like happy idiots despite what is going on around us."
Even CNN has labeled it as a non-story lacking in credibility, but getting some traction because it's got some potential as more out of context sensationalism when there's nothing much else getting covered - why talk about the actual issues, or keep remarks in context, after all?
Still not sure? Read the transcript, or watch CNN:
Barack Obama gets it! Mindy is a Pennsylvanian and she said, "I know, he spoke the truth. Some people may choose to stick their heads in the sand and pretend everything is honky dory, but the reality is that things are tough everywhere, and there are many many people who are angry and frustrated. There is no insult there. What is offensive is how the Clinton/McCain camp try to spin a perfectly true and fair observation into something negative. What is offensive is how the Clinton/McCain camp continue to insult out intelligence by assuming that we should all be running around like happy idiots despite what is going on around us."
Even CNN has labeled it as a non-story lacking in credibility, but getting some traction because it's got some potential as more out of context sensationalism when there's nothing much else getting covered - why talk about the actual issues, or keep remarks in context, after all?
Still not sure? Read the transcript, or watch CNN:
Why vote for Obama?
All politicians say they're for the people.
How many priests, evangelists, and politicians do we have to endure before it's OK to be cynical and expect him to be just one more like all the rest?
Don't his remarks, now being characterized as "bittergate", show a run of the mill, old-school, out of touch politician?
Won't Obama just get greedy and help special interests and line his own pockets if we elect him?
Here's a guy saying there's s fundamental difference about Obama's maturity. Read his reasons, decide for yourself, and if you agree, vote it up at DIGG!
Mayhill Fowler An Ememy of The Obama For America Campaign
This is my letter to the Obama Rapid Response Team
Hello ORR,
Just some FYI. The person behind the installation of the "video" with Senator Obama's comments on the plight of Pennsylvania small towns is Mayhill Fowler. She's an Oakland resident of 61 years old who I first met online via Amanda Michel of The Huffington Post.
At first, our emails were fine as I wrote about videoing her -- we both live in Oakland But as her coverage became obviously anti-Barack, I not only backed off, I stopped contacting her, except to tell her that she was being biased.
All of her coverage at the time was pro-Hillary and Anti-Barack. Plus, she had the nasty habit of quoting Barack or any supporter without taking notes or using a camcorder. That habit was SO BAD she pissed off key members of the Obama For America campaign in Northern California.
Nuts.
Also, my Huff Post articles were pro-Obama and I was open about it. But they -- the Huff Post -- had a WEIRD tendency to promote Mayhill's anti-Obama coverage over my pro-Obama work, which also attacked Clinton.
Thus, I stopped submitting work to the Huff Post because of that, plus the fact that my interest is in building my blog network and not Arianna's. I love Ariana and I've copied her here, but all's fair in the Internet business.
My point was to tell the world the other story and that was being slowed, so I concentrated on using better "SEO" systems than the Huff Post, to rank higher -- it's worked. One thing I've learned is that once a person in this business finds the right formula, all of the beneficiaries of the "old" way give way to the new.
This will be true for the Huff Post, as much as any other website. You can't sit still, and yet they do. Just how is something I know. It's not that I don't respect the Huff Post -- in fact, I love it -- but I did not like the Mayhill matter. It stuck in my craw and fueled me to make my own news and not contribute to their content, or try to.
Meanwhile Mayhill pressed on. To her partial credit, this article has some evidence which I frankly think is good for the campaign. Barack's a speaker of the truth and the fact is that small towns in Pennsylvania have really been hit hard. He's right to talk about where they're coming from and it should spark conversation. Like the "race" issue, we will come out on top in the end. We're fighting against people who use dishonesty as a weapon -- I've learned that the best counter is honesty.
Also, I suspect that Mayhill's getting some assistance from Huff Post, but if so it's small. That $10 million they got is not going into the pockets of editors and writers as it should -- bully for me!
In closing, if you want to contact Mayhill yourself here's her email:
JuneHill@aol.com
As Scooby Do would say "Rotsa Ruck Roy!"
Dear
As
--
Zennie Abraham, Jr.
Chairman and CEO
http://www.sportsbusinesssims.com
Sports Business Simulations
510-387-9809
SBS Online Marketing at http://www.sbson.com
Hello ORR,
Just some FYI. The person behind the installation of the "video" with Senator Obama's comments on the plight of Pennsylvania small towns is Mayhill Fowler. She's an Oakland resident of 61 years old who I first met online via Amanda Michel of The Huffington Post.
At first, our emails were fine as I wrote about videoing her -- we both live in Oakland But as her coverage became obviously anti-Barack, I not only backed off, I stopped contacting her, except to tell her that she was being biased.
All of her coverage at the time was pro-Hillary and Anti-Barack. Plus, she had the nasty habit of quoting Barack or any supporter without taking notes or using a camcorder. That habit was SO BAD she pissed off key members of the Obama For America campaign in Northern California.
Nuts.
Also, my Huff Post articles were pro-Obama and I was open about it. But they -- the Huff Post -- had a WEIRD tendency to promote Mayhill's anti-Obama coverage over my pro-Obama work, which also attacked Clinton.
Thus, I stopped submitting work to the Huff Post because of that, plus the fact that my interest is in building my blog network and not Arianna's. I love Ariana and I've copied her here, but all's fair in the Internet business.
My point was to tell the world the other story and that was being slowed, so I concentrated on using better "SEO" systems than the Huff Post, to rank higher -- it's worked. One thing I've learned is that once a person in this business finds the right formula, all of the beneficiaries of the "old" way give way to the new.
This will be true for the Huff Post, as much as any other website. You can't sit still, and yet they do. Just how is something I know. It's not that I don't respect the Huff Post -- in fact, I love it -- but I did not like the Mayhill matter. It stuck in my craw and fueled me to make my own news and not contribute to their content, or try to.
Meanwhile Mayhill pressed on. To her partial credit, this article has some evidence which I frankly think is good for the campaign. Barack's a speaker of the truth and the fact is that small towns in Pennsylvania have really been hit hard. He's right to talk about where they're coming from and it should spark conversation. Like the "race" issue, we will come out on top in the end. We're fighting against people who use dishonesty as a weapon -- I've learned that the best counter is honesty.
Also, I suspect that Mayhill's getting some assistance from Huff Post, but if so it's small. That $10 million they got is not going into the pockets of editors and writers as it should -- bully for me!
In closing, if you want to contact Mayhill yourself here's her email:
JuneHill@aol.com
As Scooby Do would say "Rotsa Ruck Roy!"
Dear
As
--
Zennie Abraham, Jr.
Chairman and CEO
http://www.sportsbusinesssims.com
Sports Business Simulations
510-387-9809
SBS Online Marketing at http://www.sbson.com
Friday, April 11, 2008
Why vote for Obama?
All politicians say they're for the people. How many priests, evangelists, and politicians do we have to endure before it's OK to be cynical and expect him to be just one more guy who talks the good talk but worries about himself and those who help him get rich? After all, isn't he really just like all the rest? Won't he just get greedy and help special interests if we elect him? This guy doesn't think so.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Tavis Smiley Quits The Tom Joiner Show Over Barack Obama
Tavis Smiley Quits The Tom Joiner Show Over Barack Obama
After his disasterous handling of the Barack Obama presidential run and his snub of Michelle Obama during the promotion for his "State of Black America" event, Tavis Smiley has quit the Tom Joiner Morning Show. Joiner himself says it's because of the "hate" he's getting around the Barack matter.
Florida Cheerleader Beating Shows Teenage Cruelty To World
This video is all over the place and on YouTube and various other online video distribution sites. These Lakeland Florida cheerleaders were upset with a girl that wrote "bad things" about them on MySpace page and on text messages, and then set up a plot to entrap and then eventually beat a 16-year old girl.
Here's the video:
That video also shows Ms. Garcia, who's the mother of one of the girls responsible for the event. I feel sorry for the mother as I don't think she knows the gravity of what's happened and is trying to protect her daughter against a angry society.
But the fact is that teenage girls like this have been around us for years. What's happened is that we have sent messages to them that violence and "beat-downs" are just fine, and oh, let's show it all on YouTube.
The kids are teenagers who don't know better and should not be tried as adults in my view. But I think some kind of message should be sent and we also need to take a hard look at how society is raising these 21st Century "Heathers".
This is the video of the incident itself:
Here's the video:
That video also shows Ms. Garcia, who's the mother of one of the girls responsible for the event. I feel sorry for the mother as I don't think she knows the gravity of what's happened and is trying to protect her daughter against a angry society.
But the fact is that teenage girls like this have been around us for years. What's happened is that we have sent messages to them that violence and "beat-downs" are just fine, and oh, let's show it all on YouTube.
The kids are teenagers who don't know better and should not be tried as adults in my view. But I think some kind of message should be sent and we also need to take a hard look at how society is raising these 21st Century "Heathers".
This is the video of the incident itself:
Thursday, April 10, 2008
TIME Magazine: Obama's Mother
Unlike her son who has been teased and queried about his middle name, Ann Soetoro had an unusual first name: Stanley. Her father wanted a boy.
Indeed, her son is not like most sons, either. Time magazine had put Obama on their cover in December 2007. Now, as we head for the Pennsylvania primary on April 22nd, the magazine turns to examine his mother in an article full of information about the woman who first shaped the person we know today as U.S. Senator Barack Obama.
"It turns out that Obama's nascent career peddling hope is a family business. He inherited it. And while it is true that he has not been profoundly tested, he was raised by someone who was.
In most elections, the deceased mother of a candidate in the primaries is not the subject of a magazine profile. But Ann Soetoro was not like most mothers."
Indeed, her son is not like most sons, either. Time magazine had put Obama on their cover in December 2007. Now, as we head for the Pennsylvania primary on April 22nd, the magazine turns to examine his mother in an article full of information about the woman who first shaped the person we know today as U.S. Senator Barack Obama.Obama to receive numerous PA endorsements today
Philly.com is reporting that a bevy of city and state elected officials - specifically, 6 Philadelphia City Council members, 3 state representatives, and state senators Shirley Kitchen and Vincent Hughes - are expected to endorse Barack Obama for president at the Philadelphia City Hall today. The state's governor and the mayor of Philly are both Clinton supporters, so the Democratic party in PA is clearly not of one mind on the presidential race.Obama supporters seem to anticipate that the contest will go past the April 22 Pennsylvania primary: Cinco de Mayo fund-raisers are already in place on the Obama campaign site.
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Olympic Torch not Coming To Downtown SF
according to a source
There are too many protesters here and the crowd is intense and full
of both Chinese and Tibetan protesters.
At Coca Cola Stand at Olympic Torch Relay
100,000 people. Every media person is here and both Chinese and
Tibetan Flags -- a sureal scene.
The number of Chinese supporters here is overwheming and in this area
but not outside of it far outnumber Tibetan supporters.
I do not think many of the Chinese supporters get it. They seem to
not want to discuss it.
Olympic Torch Relay Day - TShirt Sale
Clinton "mis-speaks" About Obama's Iraq Record
Even if one were to employ this "Start Counting in January 2005" measurement she's suddenly using as a metric to attempt to prove she was against the Iraq war before Senator Obama was (yes, I know, it sounds fantastic, but work with me here) Clinton did not criticize the war in Iraq first.
Scrambling to support their boss's claim, Clinton campaign officials pointed to a statement Clinton issued on Jan. 26, 2005, explaining her vote to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State."The Administration and Defense Department's Iraq policy has been, by any reasonable measure, riddled with errors, misstatements and misjudgments," the January 2005 Clinton statement said. "From the beginning of the Iraqi war, we were inadequately prepared for the aftermath of the invasion with too few troops and an inadequate plan to stabilize Iraq."
Clinton is correct as quoted, and she certainly knows about misstatements. But, as reported by Jake Tapper on
Political Punch, Senator Obama still offered his criticisms of the war in Iraq (directly to Secretary Rice) eight days earlier, during his first meeting with the Secretary of State as a new member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on January 18th.
Senator Clinton would be well advised to dispense with the tired platitudes, stop her premeditated posturing as we approach the Pennsylvania primaries in an attempt to appear more presidential than Obama and offer specific, concrete concepts about what she'd actually do to address the situation going forward. Voters are seeking more than politics as usual. Even Peter Idusogie, a candidate for congress from Minnesota, has advanced more cogent suggestions regarding the a resolution of our involvement there than Senator Hillary Clinton.
Scrambling to support their boss's claim, Clinton campaign officials pointed to a statement Clinton issued on Jan. 26, 2005, explaining her vote to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State."The Administration and Defense Department's Iraq policy has been, by any reasonable measure, riddled with errors, misstatements and misjudgments," the January 2005 Clinton statement said. "From the beginning of the Iraqi war, we were inadequately prepared for the aftermath of the invasion with too few troops and an inadequate plan to stabilize Iraq."
Clinton is correct as quoted, and she certainly knows about misstatements. But, as reported by Jake Tapper on
Political Punch, Senator Obama still offered his criticisms of the war in Iraq (directly to Secretary Rice) eight days earlier, during his first meeting with the Secretary of State as a new member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on January 18th.Senator Clinton would be well advised to dispense with the tired platitudes, stop her premeditated posturing as we approach the Pennsylvania primaries in an attempt to appear more presidential than Obama and offer specific, concrete concepts about what she'd actually do to address the situation going forward. Voters are seeking more than politics as usual. Even Peter Idusogie, a candidate for congress from Minnesota, has advanced more cogent suggestions regarding the a resolution of our involvement there than Senator Hillary Clinton.
An Interview With Sarah Ann Hayes And Kelly and Rick Dobbins
Not to put too much pressure on her, but Sarah Ann Hayes is going to be the next big thing in female bodybuilding.
I met her at Gold's Gym where shes' being trained by my friends Rick and Kelly Dobbins in Oakland, CA, but she lives in Minnesota.
Obama Supporters. Home Made Signs
number of homemade Obama signs versus the machine printed Clinton
signs! That is a image that proves Barack's grass roots appeal!!
Zennie Will Mobile Live Blog From Olympic Torch Relay
I will use Blogger Mobile Live Blog to report from the SF Olympic
Torch Relay today. I will have. VIP seating in the sponsor area where
I will report on events and ask questions.
Torch Relay today. I will have. VIP seating in the sponsor area where
I will report on events and ask questions.
Sent from my iPhone
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Is Obama post-racial?
Wyclef Jean on the difference between being on a high horse and dealing with things directly. Short and sweet - and right on point.
www.bigthink.comhosted in Obamesque's "vodpod."
Zennie Dances - Anticipating An Obama Victory
OK, it wasn't really for that reason at all much as I was just plain clowning around after a big dinner with friends. But when Barack Obama wins the presidential race, you can bet money that's the dance I'm gonna do!
Monday, April 07, 2008
Hillary Clinton Lies Again! ABC's Jack Tapper Exposes Iraq Lie
ABC News; Jack Tapper has a online space called "Political Punch" and where Tapper reveals yet another Clinton lie. This one on who spoke out against the Iraq War first after 2005, his first Senate year. She says she did, but Tapper shows that Obama did. Read on..
In Oregon, Clinton Makes False Claim About Her Iraq Record Vs. Obama's
April 06, 2008 9:49 AM
In Eugene, Ore., Saturday. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., attempted to change the measure by which anyone might assess who criticized the Iraq war first, her or Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., by saying those keeping records should start in January 2005, when Obama joined the Senate. (A measure that conveniently avoids her October 2002 vote to authorize use of force against Iraq at a time that Obama was speaking out against the war.) She claimed that using that measure, she criticized the war in Iraq before Obama did.
But Clinton's claim was false.
Clinton on Saturday told Oregonians, "when Sen. Obama came to the Senate he and I have voted exactly the same except for one vote. And that happens to be the facts. We both voted against early deadlines. I actually starting criticizing the war in Iraq before he did."
It's an odd way to measure opposition to the war -- comparing who gave the first criticism of the war in Iraq starting in January 2005, ignoring Obama's opposition to the war throughout 2003 and 2004. (And Clinton's vote for it.)
But even if one were to employ this "Start Counting in January 2005" measurement, Clinton did not criticize the war in Iraq first.
Scrambling to support their boss's claim, Clinton campaign officials pointed to a paper statement Clinton issued on Jan. 26, 2005, explaining her vote to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State.
"The Administration and Defense Department's Iraq policy has been, by any reasonable measure, riddled with errors, misstatements and misjudgments," the January 2005 Clinton statement said. "From the beginning of the Iraqi war, we were inadequately prepared for the aftermath of the invasion with too few troops and an inadequate plan to stabilize Iraq."
But Obama offered criticisms of the war in Iraq eight days before that, directly to Rice, in his very first meeting as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Jan. 18.
Obama pushed Rice on her answers to previous questioners regarding the effectiveness of Iraqi troops, and he criticized the administration for conveying a never-ending commitment to a US troop presence in Iraq.
"I am concerned about this notion that was pursued by Senator Biden and others that we've made significant progress in training troops," Obama told Rice "Because it seems to me that in your response to Senator Alexander that we will not be able to get our troops out absent the Iraqi forces being able to secure their own country, or at least this administration would not be willing to define success in the absence of such security. I never got quite a clear answer to Senator Biden's question as to how many troops -- Iraqi troops -- don't just have a uniform and aren't just drawing a paycheck, but are effective enough and committed enough that we would willingly have our own troops fighting side-by- side with them. The number of 120,000 you gave, I suspect, does not meet those fairly stringent criteria that Senator Biden was alluding to. I just want to make sure, on the record, that you give me some sense of where we're at now."
Obama concluded his brief q&a by saying "if our measure is bring our troops home and success is measured by whether Iraqis can secure their own circumstances, and if our best troops in the world are having trouble controlling the situation with 150,000 or so, it sounds like we've got a long way to go. And I think part of what the American people are going to need is some certainty, not an absolute timetable, but a little more certainty than is being provided, because right now, it appears to be an entirely open-ended commitment."
**
The misrepresentation of the record is symbolic of the re-writing of history Clinton has attempted on her record regarding the war in Iraq.
Because the larger context is more important. And Clinton's written criticism of the war in a press statement in January 2005 received little attention compared to the press surrounding her trip to Iraq the next month, in February 2005.
Upon returning she argued that setting a deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops would aid the enemy.
“I don’t think it’s useful to set a deadline because I think it sends a signal to the terrorists and the insurgents that they just have to wait us out,” she said.
Describing her trip to Iraq, she said, "It’s regrettable that the security needs have increased so much. On the other hand, I think you can look at the country as a whole and see that there are many parts of Iraq that are functioning quite well."
She also interpreted a series of suicide bomb attacks as an indication that the insurgency was failing.
“The concerted effort to disrupt the elections was an abject failure," she said. "Not one polling place was shut down or overrun. The fact that you have these suicide bombers now, wreaking such hatred and violence while people pray, is to me, an indication of their failure.”
In an interview with NBC's Meet the Press on Feb. 20, 2005, Clinton said that withdrawing some troops or setting a date for withdrawal would be a "mistake."
"I don't believe we should tie our hands or the hands of the new Iraqi government," Clinton said. "We don't want to send a signal to the insurgents, to the terrorists that we are going to be out of here at some, you know, date certain."
"We have just finished meeting with the current prime minister, the deputy prime minister and the finance minister, and in our meetings, we posed the question to each of them as to whether they believed that we should set a firm deadline for the withdrawal of American troops," Clinton said. "To a person, and they are of different political parties in this election, but each of them said that would be a big mistake, that we needed to make clear that there is a transition now going on to the Iraqi government. When it is formed, which we hope will be shortly, it will assume responsibility for much of the security, with the assistance and cooperation of the coalition forces, primarily U.S. forces."
Clinton said that "what the American people need to know is, number one, we are very proud of our young men and women who are here," and second, "there can be no doubt that it is not in America's interests for the Iraqi government, the experiment in freedom and democracy, to fail. So I hope that Americans understand that and that we will have as united a front as is possible in our country at this time to keep our troops safe, make sure they have everything they need and try to support this new Iraqi government."
She soon told New York Daily News editors and reporters that it was important for Democrats to combat the idea that they're soft on national security issues like Iraq.
"If you can't persuade a majority of people that you're going to be strong and tough where we need to protect America and our [national] interests, you can't cross the [electoral] threshold," she said.
**
That same month, while Clinton was talking up the need for Democrats to project strength, and claiming a withdrawal deadline would be sending a signal to the terrorists, Obama was meeting with his constituents, sounding quite skeptical about the war and reiterating his opposition to the decision to go to war to begin with.
The Bloomington, Ill., Pantagraph reported that during a town hall meeting, asked about the Iraq war, "Obama said poor planning by the Bush administration has left Iraq woefully incapable of handling its own security. He expressed hope that more intensive training will be provided for Iraqi forces, saying such measures could allow most American troops to return home next year. While Obama said the recent Iraqi election is an encouraging sign for democracy, he questioned Bush’s rationale for the Iraq invasion. ’I didn’t see the weapons of mass destruction at the time, I didn’t think there was an imminent threat from Saddam Hussein.'"
Clinton made this latest questionable claim the same day that she came under fire for repeatedly telling a story that turned out not to be true about a poor pregnant woman losing her baby and her own life after being denied hospital treatment because she couldn't afford a $100 fee. The New York Times discovered that the woman in question was never denied treatment, and that she did have insurance. “We implore the Clinton campaign to immediately desist from repeating this story,” said a representative of the hospital.
The Clinton campaign said that the senator had been told the story by a sheriff's deputy, and had not been able to fully check its accuracy. "We did try but were not able to fully vet it,” Clinton campaign spokesman Mo Elleithee said. “If the hospital claims it did not happen that way, we respect that."
This latest incident also comes less than two weeks after Clinton had to back off a description of a plane landing during a 1996 trip to Bosnia that she had claimed was under sniper fire. Video evidence surfaced proving that claim false and Clinton admitted that she "misspoke."
- jpt
In Oregon, Clinton Makes False Claim About Her Iraq Record Vs. Obama's
April 06, 2008 9:49 AM
In Eugene, Ore., Saturday. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., attempted to change the measure by which anyone might assess who criticized the Iraq war first, her or Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., by saying those keeping records should start in January 2005, when Obama joined the Senate. (A measure that conveniently avoids her October 2002 vote to authorize use of force against Iraq at a time that Obama was speaking out against the war.) She claimed that using that measure, she criticized the war in Iraq before Obama did.
But Clinton's claim was false.
Clinton on Saturday told Oregonians, "when Sen. Obama came to the Senate he and I have voted exactly the same except for one vote. And that happens to be the facts. We both voted against early deadlines. I actually starting criticizing the war in Iraq before he did."
It's an odd way to measure opposition to the war -- comparing who gave the first criticism of the war in Iraq starting in January 2005, ignoring Obama's opposition to the war throughout 2003 and 2004. (And Clinton's vote for it.)
But even if one were to employ this "Start Counting in January 2005" measurement, Clinton did not criticize the war in Iraq first.
Scrambling to support their boss's claim, Clinton campaign officials pointed to a paper statement Clinton issued on Jan. 26, 2005, explaining her vote to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State.
"The Administration and Defense Department's Iraq policy has been, by any reasonable measure, riddled with errors, misstatements and misjudgments," the January 2005 Clinton statement said. "From the beginning of the Iraqi war, we were inadequately prepared for the aftermath of the invasion with too few troops and an inadequate plan to stabilize Iraq."
But Obama offered criticisms of the war in Iraq eight days before that, directly to Rice, in his very first meeting as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Jan. 18.
Obama pushed Rice on her answers to previous questioners regarding the effectiveness of Iraqi troops, and he criticized the administration for conveying a never-ending commitment to a US troop presence in Iraq.
"I am concerned about this notion that was pursued by Senator Biden and others that we've made significant progress in training troops," Obama told Rice "Because it seems to me that in your response to Senator Alexander that we will not be able to get our troops out absent the Iraqi forces being able to secure their own country, or at least this administration would not be willing to define success in the absence of such security. I never got quite a clear answer to Senator Biden's question as to how many troops -- Iraqi troops -- don't just have a uniform and aren't just drawing a paycheck, but are effective enough and committed enough that we would willingly have our own troops fighting side-by- side with them. The number of 120,000 you gave, I suspect, does not meet those fairly stringent criteria that Senator Biden was alluding to. I just want to make sure, on the record, that you give me some sense of where we're at now."
Obama concluded his brief q&a by saying "if our measure is bring our troops home and success is measured by whether Iraqis can secure their own circumstances, and if our best troops in the world are having trouble controlling the situation with 150,000 or so, it sounds like we've got a long way to go. And I think part of what the American people are going to need is some certainty, not an absolute timetable, but a little more certainty than is being provided, because right now, it appears to be an entirely open-ended commitment."
**
The misrepresentation of the record is symbolic of the re-writing of history Clinton has attempted on her record regarding the war in Iraq.
Because the larger context is more important. And Clinton's written criticism of the war in a press statement in January 2005 received little attention compared to the press surrounding her trip to Iraq the next month, in February 2005.
Upon returning she argued that setting a deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops would aid the enemy.
“I don’t think it’s useful to set a deadline because I think it sends a signal to the terrorists and the insurgents that they just have to wait us out,” she said.
Describing her trip to Iraq, she said, "It’s regrettable that the security needs have increased so much. On the other hand, I think you can look at the country as a whole and see that there are many parts of Iraq that are functioning quite well."
She also interpreted a series of suicide bomb attacks as an indication that the insurgency was failing.
“The concerted effort to disrupt the elections was an abject failure," she said. "Not one polling place was shut down or overrun. The fact that you have these suicide bombers now, wreaking such hatred and violence while people pray, is to me, an indication of their failure.”
In an interview with NBC's Meet the Press on Feb. 20, 2005, Clinton said that withdrawing some troops or setting a date for withdrawal would be a "mistake."
"I don't believe we should tie our hands or the hands of the new Iraqi government," Clinton said. "We don't want to send a signal to the insurgents, to the terrorists that we are going to be out of here at some, you know, date certain."
"We have just finished meeting with the current prime minister, the deputy prime minister and the finance minister, and in our meetings, we posed the question to each of them as to whether they believed that we should set a firm deadline for the withdrawal of American troops," Clinton said. "To a person, and they are of different political parties in this election, but each of them said that would be a big mistake, that we needed to make clear that there is a transition now going on to the Iraqi government. When it is formed, which we hope will be shortly, it will assume responsibility for much of the security, with the assistance and cooperation of the coalition forces, primarily U.S. forces."
Clinton said that "what the American people need to know is, number one, we are very proud of our young men and women who are here," and second, "there can be no doubt that it is not in America's interests for the Iraqi government, the experiment in freedom and democracy, to fail. So I hope that Americans understand that and that we will have as united a front as is possible in our country at this time to keep our troops safe, make sure they have everything they need and try to support this new Iraqi government."
She soon told New York Daily News editors and reporters that it was important for Democrats to combat the idea that they're soft on national security issues like Iraq.
"If you can't persuade a majority of people that you're going to be strong and tough where we need to protect America and our [national] interests, you can't cross the [electoral] threshold," she said.
**
That same month, while Clinton was talking up the need for Democrats to project strength, and claiming a withdrawal deadline would be sending a signal to the terrorists, Obama was meeting with his constituents, sounding quite skeptical about the war and reiterating his opposition to the decision to go to war to begin with.
The Bloomington, Ill., Pantagraph reported that during a town hall meeting, asked about the Iraq war, "Obama said poor planning by the Bush administration has left Iraq woefully incapable of handling its own security. He expressed hope that more intensive training will be provided for Iraqi forces, saying such measures could allow most American troops to return home next year. While Obama said the recent Iraqi election is an encouraging sign for democracy, he questioned Bush’s rationale for the Iraq invasion. ’I didn’t see the weapons of mass destruction at the time, I didn’t think there was an imminent threat from Saddam Hussein.'"
Clinton made this latest questionable claim the same day that she came under fire for repeatedly telling a story that turned out not to be true about a poor pregnant woman losing her baby and her own life after being denied hospital treatment because she couldn't afford a $100 fee. The New York Times discovered that the woman in question was never denied treatment, and that she did have insurance. “We implore the Clinton campaign to immediately desist from repeating this story,” said a representative of the hospital.
The Clinton campaign said that the senator had been told the story by a sheriff's deputy, and had not been able to fully check its accuracy. "We did try but were not able to fully vet it,” Clinton campaign spokesman Mo Elleithee said. “If the hospital claims it did not happen that way, we respect that."
This latest incident also comes less than two weeks after Clinton had to back off a description of a plane landing during a 1996 trip to Bosnia that she had claimed was under sniper fire. Video evidence surfaced proving that claim false and Clinton admitted that she "misspoke."
- jpt
"McNasty" McCain Loses His Temper, Even With Wife?
According to this account in the "Raw News Story" , in 1992 Senator John McCain referred to his wife as a "cunt" in front of reporters, and in high school, he was called "McNasty" McCain.
Hmm..."McNasty" I like the sound of that.
Hmm..."McNasty" I like the sound of that.
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Mark Penn,Clinton's Top Strategist, Quits
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Hillary Clinton's chief presidential campaign strategist is quitting his post amid criticism of his public relations firm's contacts with the Colombian government over a pending free-trade deal, Clinton's campaign announced.
Mark Penn and his political consulting firm will continue advise the New York senator's Democratic presidential bid, but Penn will give up his job as chief strategist, campaign manager Maggie Williams said.
"After the events of the last few days, Mark Penn has asked to give up his role as chief strategist of the Clinton campaign," Williams said.
Penn is CEO of public relations giant Burston Marsteller and is president of Penn, Schoen and Berland, his political consulting firm.
Friday, he acknowledged he had met with the Colombian ambassador to the United States earlier in the week in his role as Burston Marsteller's chief to discuss the pending U.S.-Colombia trade pact, which Clinton has criticized on the campaign trail.
Penn called the meeting "an error in judgment that will not be repeated," and apologized. That prompted Colombia's government to fire the company Saturday, calling the remarks "a lack of respect to Colombians."
Clinton and top aides were sharply critical of rival Democrat Barack Obama in February when reports indicated that his top economic adviser had suggested to a Canadian official that Obama was not as supportive of changes to the North American Free Trade Agreement as the Illinois senator claimed to be on the campaign trail.
Mark Penn and his political consulting firm will continue advise the New York senator's Democratic presidential bid, but Penn will give up his job as chief strategist, campaign manager Maggie Williams said.
"After the events of the last few days, Mark Penn has asked to give up his role as chief strategist of the Clinton campaign," Williams said.
Penn is CEO of public relations giant Burston Marsteller and is president of Penn, Schoen and Berland, his political consulting firm.
Friday, he acknowledged he had met with the Colombian ambassador to the United States earlier in the week in his role as Burston Marsteller's chief to discuss the pending U.S.-Colombia trade pact, which Clinton has criticized on the campaign trail.
Penn called the meeting "an error in judgment that will not be repeated," and apologized. That prompted Colombia's government to fire the company Saturday, calling the remarks "a lack of respect to Colombians."
Clinton and top aides were sharply critical of rival Democrat Barack Obama in February when reports indicated that his top economic adviser had suggested to a Canadian official that Obama was not as supportive of changes to the North American Free Trade Agreement as the Illinois senator claimed to be on the campaign trail.
Mark Penn and his political consulting firm will continue advise the New York senator's Democratic presidential bid, but Penn will give up his job as chief strategist, campaign manager Maggie Williams said.
"After the events of the last few days, Mark Penn has asked to give up his role as chief strategist of the Clinton campaign," Williams said.
Penn is CEO of public relations giant Burston Marsteller and is president of Penn, Schoen and Berland, his political consulting firm.
Friday, he acknowledged he had met with the Colombian ambassador to the United States earlier in the week in his role as Burston Marsteller's chief to discuss the pending U.S.-Colombia trade pact, which Clinton has criticized on the campaign trail.
Penn called the meeting "an error in judgment that will not be repeated," and apologized. That prompted Colombia's government to fire the company Saturday, calling the remarks "a lack of respect to Colombians."
Clinton and top aides were sharply critical of rival Democrat Barack Obama in February when reports indicated that his top economic adviser had suggested to a Canadian official that Obama was not as supportive of changes to the North American Free Trade Agreement as the Illinois senator claimed to be on the campaign trail.
Mark Penn and his political consulting firm will continue advise the New York senator's Democratic presidential bid, but Penn will give up his job as chief strategist, campaign manager Maggie Williams said.
"After the events of the last few days, Mark Penn has asked to give up his role as chief strategist of the Clinton campaign," Williams said.
Penn is CEO of public relations giant Burston Marsteller and is president of Penn, Schoen and Berland, his political consulting firm.
Friday, he acknowledged he had met with the Colombian ambassador to the United States earlier in the week in his role as Burston Marsteller's chief to discuss the pending U.S.-Colombia trade pact, which Clinton has criticized on the campaign trail.
Penn called the meeting "an error in judgment that will not be repeated," and apologized. That prompted Colombia's government to fire the company Saturday, calling the remarks "a lack of respect to Colombians."
Clinton and top aides were sharply critical of rival Democrat Barack Obama in February when reports indicated that his top economic adviser had suggested to a Canadian official that Obama was not as supportive of changes to the North American Free Trade Agreement as the Illinois senator claimed to be on the campaign trail.
Saturday, April 05, 2008
Matt Leinart Party Boy In News For Partying With Girls
Two years ago, as Matt Leinart was repped by Leigh Steinberg and preparing to come out for the NFL Draft, I wondered if Leinart could focus in the NFL with all of the partying he's known for.
Well, with his season ending injury and now his photos of him simulating you-know-what with a champagne bottle and some celeb guys, the answer seems to be, well, let's review what I wrote first:
There's a school of thought that once Matt Leinart hits the grind of the NFL, he'll not post the same remarkable numbers that he did at USC. While I do disagree with that -- I think Matt will be one of the best -- I do think his first two years will be a bit hard. He's not going to be able to run the streets as he did at USC.
Look, as a Cal-grad who was getting his master's degree there at a time when most my age were still undergrads, I can identify with Matt's love for parties and the ladies. But now millions of dollars are on the line. Will Matt dump all of this fun?
Well, we have our answer and it's a resounding "no" because of these photos, but as Matt's partying always seems to have some casuality, this one fits the pattern. The Dirty.com is accusing Matt of serving alcohol to underage girls.
All of this was surfaced by a website called "The Dirty.com" which posted these photos of Leinart at his best.
As for the accusation, Leinart himself came forward and told Arizona Cardinals Head Coach Ken Whisenhunt about the party ahd the photos. Also, there's actual proof of this -- The Dirty.com dugg that up too -- so Matt's not off the hook regarding this, and in a way, that's too bad because I still think Matt tries to do the right thing, but that he get caught up in having fun -- and lets face it, it's not like he had to trick the women into being there.
The question is which one of Matt's "friends" leaked the photos. I mean Matt's got to watch his P's and Q's, but that means keeping your friends close and your enemies even closer.
And checking those IDs of girls before they drink.
UPDATE:
The girls age information according to TheDirty.com:
Courtney Elizabeth Halki (age 20 beer bong myspace profile below, this idiot made a picture from this night as her profile pic- same dress and beer pong set up) is a student at ASU. Liv Fierro (age 19 her bebo profile below was a blonde, but now short brown hair in blue big top), Chelsea Antoniono, and Karley Davis (in spa left of Matt zebra top- sophomore from Downers Grove, IL her myspace says in a relationship and ASU nursing major) were three of the other girls in the pictures. Still digging up more dirt so please email me with any info on the ladies pictured.
Clinton Swift-Boats Herself: Clinton Lies, Mistruths Nasty Pattern
Clinton Lies And Mistruths Are Nasty Pattern: Health Care and NC
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, just two weeks from a nasty storm of criticism on the heels of the disclosure that she lied about a trip to Bosnia she made as First Lady, faces a brand new problem of truth regarding an area that was her strength, health care. Then, just today as well, it was disclosed that Clinton is telling lies about Senator Obama's committment to North Carolina.
The Clinton Lies just keep coming.
According to the New York Times, Senator Clinton has crossed the country on her campaign tour, recounting a story of an Ohio woman who was denied health care for an illness that eventually took her life. Well, it turns out that the woman was not only not refused care, but had health insurance as well.
Bloggers are calling this a lie.
And CNN has the story on it's "Ballot Bowl" telecast:
Now the problem with the video is that Senator Clinton tells this story with a great deal of detail, and that the entire CNN segment makes Senator Clinton look bad, even as the CNN anchor's try to "balance" it out.
While this does not seem to count as a "lie" it certainly points to a lack of fact-checking on the campaign's part. They don't follow the Obama rule, which seems to be to talk in general terms and use the names of the people you know -- and make sure you know them.
What this story does is totally wreck whatever credibility Clinton and her staff had. Bloggers are already referring to this as "a lie" because of Clinton's Bosnia error, and it comes at the same day that Clinton is accused of lying about Barack Obama in North Carolina.
Eventually, no one will believe anything Clinton says at all.
Why Should Fantasy Football Owners Watch The NFL Draft?
While fantasy football owners steadfastly wait in anticipation for the beginning of the 2008 season, it’s imperative to remember that one must accrue the necessary building blocks and contributing factors in order to assemble a potent and versatile team capable of emerging victorious in all fantasy league formats. It’s essential to differentiate your team from the competitors by channeling a significant amount of energy, focus and determination into searching for what players in this year’s NFL draft have the ability to add value and provide meaning to one’s team. Still, maintain a vested interest in the excitement and thrill of the two-day spectacular at Radio City Music Hall.
As prospective players wait with overwhelming angst and nervousness, and high level executives remain engrossed in the complexities of the draft room, fantasy players are equipped with a desire to accelerate their overall understanding of the rookie landscape, and transform into stronger, more creative and innovative owners.
The foundation for consistent success in the fantasy realm is to possess the knowledge base and skill set needed to make shrewd and purposeful decisions. The NFL draft affords individuals the opportunity to gradually increase their comprehension of who the rising young stars are projected to be, and in which ways they will cement their impact on the field and in a fantasy owner’s lineup.
Moreover, in order to accumulate the balance required on a fantasy roster, one must harbor a wide assortment of players who excel in a multitude of fashions and mesh well on a continuous basis. To have one or two dynamic players and a significant amount of inferior players will enable your team to survive, not thrive. The same notion remains constant for the draft in which understanding who the premier top five players are, but not recognizing the plethora of other viable athletes scattered throughout the rounds is both ill-advised and detrimental to one’s long term future aspirations in a potential fantasy draft scenario.
From Jerious Norwood and Stephen Gostcowski, to Brandon Marshall and Marques Colston at pick 252, it’s evident that watching the majority of the draft will enable one to discover a full spectrum of players who might not be recognizable to the untrained eye come the end of August, but would certainly be relevant to the person who put forth the effort to tune into eight hours of draft day coverage Saturday and Sunday.
Most notably, I would not have the ability to sift through rookie talent in a fantasy drat and intelligently determine what players are authentic difference makers who can polish out the latter portion of my roster if I did not glue myself to the television for two consecutive days in April.
It’s very important to remember that watching the draft equipped with a gameplan that pointedly describes what your looking to achieve, and in what measurable steps you’ll reach your target is critical to fostering a broad understanding of the incoming players into the league and in what aspect they can affect one’s fantasy team.
It’s noteworthy to include that in fantasy football when one sees the opportunity, they must seize the opportunity. So, when one is tirelessly concentrated on their draft in the waning days of August, and sees several formidable rookies available on the board, it’s advisable to seize the opportunity and draft one’s that could add value to your team.
Undoubtedly, I’d rather select various rookies who’s careers look bright and prosperous, but lack any real track record, then utilize precious picks on established veterans who’s careers appear despondent and gloomy, but have already etched their way into the minds of fantasy players. In order to know who the prominent rookies might be, it’s essential to watch the NFL draft. This all harps back to the notion that to put together a flexible team one must have the needed building blocks, and these building blocks start to grow by doing the homework on the draft, gaining important insights while tuning into the coverage, and then understanding what young players have a viable chance of making a real difference on the field.
In addition, it’s very important to note during the draft proceedings what skill players are being drafted to what teams and where they could immediately fill a starting role. For example, last year the astute fantasy owner recognized that when Kansas City drafted LSU star Dwayne Bowe and Indianapolis selected Ohio State phenom Anthony Gonzalez, they were instantly going to occupy positions that would warrant immediate production and attention. Both players combined for over 1500 yards receiving and eight touchdowns, certainly cementing their impact on fantasy owner’s rosters and potentially serving as the prime reason why an owner could have been propelled to victory during any given week.
For fantasy owners, watching the NFL draft is a shrewd and sensible decision that will pay significant dividends once the regular season commences. Through tuning into the rapid coverage, one can blaze a pathway to success for their team and catapult from the goal line to the finish line.
As prospective players wait with overwhelming angst and nervousness, and high level executives remain engrossed in the complexities of the draft room, fantasy players are equipped with a desire to accelerate their overall understanding of the rookie landscape, and transform into stronger, more creative and innovative owners.
The foundation for consistent success in the fantasy realm is to possess the knowledge base and skill set needed to make shrewd and purposeful decisions. The NFL draft affords individuals the opportunity to gradually increase their comprehension of who the rising young stars are projected to be, and in which ways they will cement their impact on the field and in a fantasy owner’s lineup.
Moreover, in order to accumulate the balance required on a fantasy roster, one must harbor a wide assortment of players who excel in a multitude of fashions and mesh well on a continuous basis. To have one or two dynamic players and a significant amount of inferior players will enable your team to survive, not thrive. The same notion remains constant for the draft in which understanding who the premier top five players are, but not recognizing the plethora of other viable athletes scattered throughout the rounds is both ill-advised and detrimental to one’s long term future aspirations in a potential fantasy draft scenario.
From Jerious Norwood and Stephen Gostcowski, to Brandon Marshall and Marques Colston at pick 252, it’s evident that watching the majority of the draft will enable one to discover a full spectrum of players who might not be recognizable to the untrained eye come the end of August, but would certainly be relevant to the person who put forth the effort to tune into eight hours of draft day coverage Saturday and Sunday.
Most notably, I would not have the ability to sift through rookie talent in a fantasy drat and intelligently determine what players are authentic difference makers who can polish out the latter portion of my roster if I did not glue myself to the television for two consecutive days in April.
It’s very important to remember that watching the draft equipped with a gameplan that pointedly describes what your looking to achieve, and in what measurable steps you’ll reach your target is critical to fostering a broad understanding of the incoming players into the league and in what aspect they can affect one’s fantasy team.
It’s noteworthy to include that in fantasy football when one sees the opportunity, they must seize the opportunity. So, when one is tirelessly concentrated on their draft in the waning days of August, and sees several formidable rookies available on the board, it’s advisable to seize the opportunity and draft one’s that could add value to your team.
Undoubtedly, I’d rather select various rookies who’s careers look bright and prosperous, but lack any real track record, then utilize precious picks on established veterans who’s careers appear despondent and gloomy, but have already etched their way into the minds of fantasy players. In order to know who the prominent rookies might be, it’s essential to watch the NFL draft. This all harps back to the notion that to put together a flexible team one must have the needed building blocks, and these building blocks start to grow by doing the homework on the draft, gaining important insights while tuning into the coverage, and then understanding what young players have a viable chance of making a real difference on the field.
In addition, it’s very important to note during the draft proceedings what skill players are being drafted to what teams and where they could immediately fill a starting role. For example, last year the astute fantasy owner recognized that when Kansas City drafted LSU star Dwayne Bowe and Indianapolis selected Ohio State phenom Anthony Gonzalez, they were instantly going to occupy positions that would warrant immediate production and attention. Both players combined for over 1500 yards receiving and eight touchdowns, certainly cementing their impact on fantasy owner’s rosters and potentially serving as the prime reason why an owner could have been propelled to victory during any given week.
For fantasy owners, watching the NFL draft is a shrewd and sensible decision that will pay significant dividends once the regular season commences. Through tuning into the rapid coverage, one can blaze a pathway to success for their team and catapult from the goal line to the finish line.
Brent Turner Talks About Open Source Voting
My friend Brent Turner is on a focused mission at the California State Democratic Convention to make sure our voting process is safe and free from the chance of fraud using "open source voting" where you can see the software code of the electronic voting systems. You can go to openvoting.org for more information.
Friday, April 04, 2008
SF Ad Execs Don't Know Digital Media, But Act Like It
Ok, I warn you. This is a rant of massive proportions and designed to get my dander up for the day. Here it is.
I'm sick and tired of meeting San Francisco Digital Media and Ad Execs who work for or with Linkedin, AOL, Facebook, and other once nice little startups that suddenly became large companies yet don't know the first thing about coding a website, or don't even use state-of-the-art digital communications tools like Twitter, or even know how to make a YouTube channel, let alone upload a video to it....and will not admit it.
These folks are nice enough, but they're doing no one any favors at all and need a massive crash course in online tech, yet work in it! I realized this after a trip to the St. Regis Hotel on March 20th of this fine year 2008 to make a video for a kind of industry networkng group called "SF-BIG" or San Francisco Bay Area Interactive Group.
Now the video was a volunteer matter on my part and part of the agreement was that the video is mine, not their's and so I make it and post it and use it. I mean heck, if I'm not going to get an SF-BIG membership out of the deal, then I've got to protect what I do, right?
Which also means I get to rant, big time.
What I saw in the event discussion -- you can seee the video here after this break --
is a collection of 250 people, with maybe three Black faces inluding mine, and of which the vast majority were not tech-types, yet have some say over which tech-type gets what job if a tech-type dared to wade into their shallow end of the pool. Melinda Mettler , who represents the Academy of Art School of Advertising, made a flip set of remarks, indicating a near dislike forthe very students she's supposed to be trying to find jobs for. She says they're too cool, "life's a party, man."
Maybe it's because the tech-heads know that their real "job" is to go out and make their own company and not work for another large corporate bureaucracy full of game-players and back-stabbers. Maybe they know that the people doing the hiring don't know what they know anyway, so why go there?
Melinda says that tech-types don't want to leave San Francisco because it's too nice. No. The real reason is that the venture capitalists who would fund new firms are most likely to be here than in, say, New York or Chicago. That's why.
Watch the video. The only person who gets a pass from me is recruiter David Greenwald, and that's it. As far as I'm concerned, SF-BIG would do its members a favor if it had a panel on blogs and new media and coding and optimization, ....and a test. Call it a tech industry I.Q. test.
The lecture would be necessary, because as of this writing, most of the SF-BIG members would flunk the I.Q. test.
I'm sick and tired of meeting San Francisco Digital Media and Ad Execs who work for or with Linkedin, AOL, Facebook, and other once nice little startups that suddenly became large companies yet don't know the first thing about coding a website, or don't even use state-of-the-art digital communications tools like Twitter, or even know how to make a YouTube channel, let alone upload a video to it....and will not admit it.
These folks are nice enough, but they're doing no one any favors at all and need a massive crash course in online tech, yet work in it! I realized this after a trip to the St. Regis Hotel on March 20th of this fine year 2008 to make a video for a kind of industry networkng group called "SF-BIG" or San Francisco Bay Area Interactive Group.
Now the video was a volunteer matter on my part and part of the agreement was that the video is mine, not their's and so I make it and post it and use it. I mean heck, if I'm not going to get an SF-BIG membership out of the deal, then I've got to protect what I do, right?
Which also means I get to rant, big time.
What I saw in the event discussion -- you can seee the video here after this break --
is a collection of 250 people, with maybe three Black faces inluding mine, and of which the vast majority were not tech-types, yet have some say over which tech-type gets what job if a tech-type dared to wade into their shallow end of the pool. Melinda Mettler , who represents the Academy of Art School of Advertising, made a flip set of remarks, indicating a near dislike forthe very students she's supposed to be trying to find jobs for. She says they're too cool, "life's a party, man."
Maybe it's because the tech-heads know that their real "job" is to go out and make their own company and not work for another large corporate bureaucracy full of game-players and back-stabbers. Maybe they know that the people doing the hiring don't know what they know anyway, so why go there?
Melinda says that tech-types don't want to leave San Francisco because it's too nice. No. The real reason is that the venture capitalists who would fund new firms are most likely to be here than in, say, New York or Chicago. That's why.
Watch the video. The only person who gets a pass from me is recruiter David Greenwald, and that's it. As far as I'm concerned, SF-BIG would do its members a favor if it had a panel on blogs and new media and coding and optimization, ....and a test. Call it a tech industry I.Q. test.
The lecture would be necessary, because as of this writing, most of the SF-BIG members would flunk the I.Q. test.
Supervisor Chris Daly Calls Matier and Ross Bottom-Feeders, Not Islam Leaders
Turning away from national politics and tech for a moment, we find more fun stuff in San Francisco.
In his blog, Chris Daly called San Francisco Chronicle columnists Phil Matier and Andy Ross "bottom-feeders" and took a shot at their constant contacting him for news and information. This is what Chris Daly wrote:
It’s been nearly a year since I last spoke to either Phil Matier or Andy Ross, the bottom-feeders of the San Francisco Chronicle. But I have to admit, they are persistent. In addition to their regular calls to my cell phone, they now have taken to emailing me. I thought that it may be fun to use this forum to respond…
Supervisor Daly, how you doing — I wanted to ask you about issue of Olympic torch run, and the fact that all the demonstrations will likely mean lots of police overtime. POA contends that board decries police overtime, then encourages demonstations (sic) here that require large police presence and hence lots of overtime? Any response to Gary Delagnes and Co.??? Feel free to call or write. Thanks, Andy Ross (777-7158)
When I called Andy Ross for a response, he said "Ya know. Chris, is Chris. You know? I mean. That's all I'm going to say."
Well, that's enough for us. It's certainly more than the Islam crap someone wrote to us about. But I'll leave that alone. Chris may have his enemies around town, but he's certainly well-respected and well-liked by many including this space.
In his blog, Chris Daly called San Francisco Chronicle columnists Phil Matier and Andy Ross "bottom-feeders" and took a shot at their constant contacting him for news and information. This is what Chris Daly wrote:
It’s been nearly a year since I last spoke to either Phil Matier or Andy Ross, the bottom-feeders of the San Francisco Chronicle. But I have to admit, they are persistent. In addition to their regular calls to my cell phone, they now have taken to emailing me. I thought that it may be fun to use this forum to respond…
Supervisor Daly, how you doing — I wanted to ask you about issue of Olympic torch run, and the fact that all the demonstrations will likely mean lots of police overtime. POA contends that board decries police overtime, then encourages demonstations (sic) here that require large police presence and hence lots of overtime? Any response to Gary Delagnes and Co.??? Feel free to call or write. Thanks, Andy Ross (777-7158)
When I called Andy Ross for a response, he said "Ya know. Chris, is Chris. You know? I mean. That's all I'm going to say."
Well, that's enough for us. It's certainly more than the Islam crap someone wrote to us about. But I'll leave that alone. Chris may have his enemies around town, but he's certainly well-respected and well-liked by many including this space.
Valleywag's Paul Boutin Exposes Gawker Media Pay Scale System
Apparently upset that Gawker Media is reducing it's payments to writers, Paul Boutin has elected to expose the dark underbelly of a system that compenstates its bloggers. Here's that description in full below:
Gawker Media dark overlord Nick Denton (pictured) has launched a new pay system for all Gawker Media blogs, after testing it at four of his leading sites. Denton's goal is to discourage "self indulgent" posts and "mind-numbing frequency" in favor of "linkworthy material, by which I mean a secret memo, a spy photo, a chart, a well-argued rant, a list, an exclusive piece of news, a well-packaged find." Where does a self-indulgent secret memo fit on that axis? I guess we'll find out after the jump.
From: Noah Robischon Subject: Editor Newsletter - 2008 Preview Edition Date: December 31, 2007 11:42:12 AM PST
In January, as you've no doubt heard, Gawker editorial is introducing a new bonus system. While your base monthly pay remains the same, the chance of a bonus will depend on your individual performance. More specifically: it will depend on the popularity of your posts that month. Below, an explanation of the background to the move; why now; and how the new system works.
1. BACKGROUND
It's only on the internet that a writer's contributions can be measured. At newspapers, a reporter's reputation depends on the opinion of their editors, which can be fickle. Some people get on because they play the office politics well. Or simply because they're more aggressive in lobbying for more prominent jobs, or pay increases.
Advertising people say that the internet is special, because the audience's engagement is so much more measurable than that of newspaper readers, or television viewers. Which makes it so bizarre that most writers, on the internet as in print, are paid for the sheer brute quantity of their output.
Gawker has been equally backward. Sure, we pioneered the pageview bonus system, which rewards all writers for a site's performance. But, let's be honest: those bonuses have been allocated subjectively. And, in the large, writers have been rewarded, at $12 a post, for mind-numbing frequency. When we've paid a higher rate (the $200 "feature" rate) we've often not been rewarding better pieces; merely encouraging the padding of perfectly good, short items.
In short, we have repeated the bad habits of traditional media organizations: leaving remuneration to the arbitrary will of upper management; and, by treating words as if they were Soviet steel output targets, encouraging quantity over quality.
2. WHY NOW
Early on in the commercial blog era, frequency was the key to the success of a site: Engadget took a lead because it churned out 24 posts a day while Gizmodo, fearful of overwhelming its audience, stuck to a dainty dozen items. We learnt that lesson, and vowed never to be out-produced again. But we now really are reaching the limits of sheer volume. Readers can't take any more. And the proliferation of blogs, and social news services such as Digg, has changed the rules.
Where there was a shortage of attitude and commentary, there's now a surfeit. And what's in heavy demand, and short supply, is linkworthy material, by which I mean a secret memo, a spy photo, a chart, a well-argued rant, a list, an exclusive piece of news, a well-packaged find. Gina showed on Lifehacker, with the style of feature she pioneered a couple of years ago, that it was possible to grow a site's audience without endlessly increasing the number of posts.
Second, our objective is not merely to provide gratification for a writer, or amusement for their pals, but to appeal to the wider readership of a site, and to new readers who might discover it through Digg or Google or some other link. It's fine to pen the occasional self-indulgent or self-referential item. But we're not going to waste the editorial budget on them, when we're investing so heavily in the sites. We need a more efficient form of bonus compensation — and one that's fair to the writers who care most about their readers.
Third, the market for editorial talent is becoming more competitive. If a writer works like hell, or sparkles, we always run a risk: that somebody outside the organization notices before the news trickles up the management hierarchy. We need a mechanism to reward hard work, and stardom — to dispense pay increases automatically, if you will.
3. HOW IT WORKS
For several months now, we've displayed the number of views each item receives. It's not a perfect measure. The view count does not reflect attention paid to the posts on the front page; nor photo galleries (which are usually junk views anyhow); and it can overstate the value of cheap items with superficial appeal, but which damage a site's reputation. Nevertheless, it's the best measure we have, so we're going to use it to calculate bonuses.
From now on, you will be paid a set monthly fee. This is the total amount of money outlined in your editorial agreement or determined between you and your site lead. The era of counting posts that are worth $12 or $200 is over. You will be expected to contribute a set number of posts each month in exchange for your monthly base pay.
On top of your monthly base pay, you will be eligible for a bonus based on the number of pageviews your posts receive each month. This total includes any pageview on any story with your byline that was read during the month, even if the story is months or years old. You can track your monthly total here: (Click your site name in the rollup data section along the very top of the page).
Each site will be assigned a pageview rate, which is the dollar amount that each 1,000 pageviews on the site is worth. Although this sounds similar to an advertising CPM, this number has nothing to do with your site's revenue or advertising value. At the end of the month, if the money you earn in pageviews exceeds your monthly base pay, you will be paid the extra money as a bonus.
This chart should make it clearer. If your site has a PV rate of $5:
$2,000 = 400,000 views:
$5,000 = 1m views:
$7,000 = 1.4m views
Based on this example, if your base pay is $2,000 per month then you would need to get upwards of 400,000 pageviews to begin earning bonus. A total of 500,000 views would earn $500 bonus (or $2,500 total pay).
Your site lead will be able to tell you the pageview rate for your site, and give you a chart like this one to for calculating bonus.
For the majority of sites, there is no cap on the amount of bonus you can earn each month. Four sites are already using the new bonus system (Gawker, Wonkette, Gizmodo and Defamer). One guest editor on Wonkette landed a huge exclusive and walked away with an extra $3k in his paycheck.
-Rules Of The Road-
* The pageview rate for each site will change at the beginning of each quarter. It cannot be changed at any other time.
* This bonus will replace all other bonuses that now exist.
* Site leads do not take part in this system. They are still measured on overall site performance.
* The site lead has the right to revoke pageviews on any post. This is to guard against the publication of material that may be inappropriate or illicit, and we hope it is never necessary.
The site leads have more detailed information about all of this, and can share specific numbers for your site to give you a better sense of how your pageviews will translate into bonus.
Please send questions to so that we can round them all up and answer for everyone.
All best,
- Noah and Nick
Gawker Media dark overlord Nick Denton (pictured) has launched a new pay system for all Gawker Media blogs, after testing it at four of his leading sites. Denton's goal is to discourage "self indulgent" posts and "mind-numbing frequency" in favor of "linkworthy material, by which I mean a secret memo, a spy photo, a chart, a well-argued rant, a list, an exclusive piece of news, a well-packaged find." Where does a self-indulgent secret memo fit on that axis? I guess we'll find out after the jump.
From: Noah Robischon Subject: Editor Newsletter - 2008 Preview Edition Date: December 31, 2007 11:42:12 AM PST
In January, as you've no doubt heard, Gawker editorial is introducing a new bonus system. While your base monthly pay remains the same, the chance of a bonus will depend on your individual performance. More specifically: it will depend on the popularity of your posts that month. Below, an explanation of the background to the move; why now; and how the new system works.
1. BACKGROUND
It's only on the internet that a writer's contributions can be measured. At newspapers, a reporter's reputation depends on the opinion of their editors, which can be fickle. Some people get on because they play the office politics well. Or simply because they're more aggressive in lobbying for more prominent jobs, or pay increases.
Advertising people say that the internet is special, because the audience's engagement is so much more measurable than that of newspaper readers, or television viewers. Which makes it so bizarre that most writers, on the internet as in print, are paid for the sheer brute quantity of their output.
Gawker has been equally backward. Sure, we pioneered the pageview bonus system, which rewards all writers for a site's performance. But, let's be honest: those bonuses have been allocated subjectively. And, in the large, writers have been rewarded, at $12 a post, for mind-numbing frequency. When we've paid a higher rate (the $200 "feature" rate) we've often not been rewarding better pieces; merely encouraging the padding of perfectly good, short items.
In short, we have repeated the bad habits of traditional media organizations: leaving remuneration to the arbitrary will of upper management; and, by treating words as if they were Soviet steel output targets, encouraging quantity over quality.
2. WHY NOW
Early on in the commercial blog era, frequency was the key to the success of a site: Engadget took a lead because it churned out 24 posts a day while Gizmodo, fearful of overwhelming its audience, stuck to a dainty dozen items. We learnt that lesson, and vowed never to be out-produced again. But we now really are reaching the limits of sheer volume. Readers can't take any more. And the proliferation of blogs, and social news services such as Digg, has changed the rules.
Where there was a shortage of attitude and commentary, there's now a surfeit. And what's in heavy demand, and short supply, is linkworthy material, by which I mean a secret memo, a spy photo, a chart, a well-argued rant, a list, an exclusive piece of news, a well-packaged find. Gina showed on Lifehacker, with the style of feature she pioneered a couple of years ago, that it was possible to grow a site's audience without endlessly increasing the number of posts.
Second, our objective is not merely to provide gratification for a writer, or amusement for their pals, but to appeal to the wider readership of a site, and to new readers who might discover it through Digg or Google or some other link. It's fine to pen the occasional self-indulgent or self-referential item. But we're not going to waste the editorial budget on them, when we're investing so heavily in the sites. We need a more efficient form of bonus compensation — and one that's fair to the writers who care most about their readers.
Third, the market for editorial talent is becoming more competitive. If a writer works like hell, or sparkles, we always run a risk: that somebody outside the organization notices before the news trickles up the management hierarchy. We need a mechanism to reward hard work, and stardom — to dispense pay increases automatically, if you will.
3. HOW IT WORKS
For several months now, we've displayed the number of views each item receives. It's not a perfect measure. The view count does not reflect attention paid to the posts on the front page; nor photo galleries (which are usually junk views anyhow); and it can overstate the value of cheap items with superficial appeal, but which damage a site's reputation. Nevertheless, it's the best measure we have, so we're going to use it to calculate bonuses.
From now on, you will be paid a set monthly fee. This is the total amount of money outlined in your editorial agreement or determined between you and your site lead. The era of counting posts that are worth $12 or $200 is over. You will be expected to contribute a set number of posts each month in exchange for your monthly base pay.
On top of your monthly base pay, you will be eligible for a bonus based on the number of pageviews your posts receive each month. This total includes any pageview on any story with your byline that was read during the month, even if the story is months or years old. You can track your monthly total here: (Click your site name in the rollup data section along the very top of the page).
Each site will be assigned a pageview rate, which is the dollar amount that each 1,000 pageviews on the site is worth. Although this sounds similar to an advertising CPM, this number has nothing to do with your site's revenue or advertising value. At the end of the month, if the money you earn in pageviews exceeds your monthly base pay, you will be paid the extra money as a bonus.
This chart should make it clearer. If your site has a PV rate of $5:
$2,000 = 400,000 views:
$5,000 = 1m views:
$7,000 = 1.4m views
Based on this example, if your base pay is $2,000 per month then you would need to get upwards of 400,000 pageviews to begin earning bonus. A total of 500,000 views would earn $500 bonus (or $2,500 total pay).
Your site lead will be able to tell you the pageview rate for your site, and give you a chart like this one to for calculating bonus.
For the majority of sites, there is no cap on the amount of bonus you can earn each month. Four sites are already using the new bonus system (Gawker, Wonkette, Gizmodo and Defamer). One guest editor on Wonkette landed a huge exclusive and walked away with an extra $3k in his paycheck.
-Rules Of The Road-
* The pageview rate for each site will change at the beginning of each quarter. It cannot be changed at any other time.
* This bonus will replace all other bonuses that now exist.
* Site leads do not take part in this system. They are still measured on overall site performance.
* The site lead has the right to revoke pageviews on any post. This is to guard against the publication of material that may be inappropriate or illicit, and we hope it is never necessary.
The site leads have more detailed information about all of this, and can share specific numbers for your site to give you a better sense of how your pageviews will translate into bonus.
Please send questions to so that we can round them all up and answer for everyone.
All best,
- Noah and Nick
Super Bowl XLII Oakland To Phoenix Flight Southwest Airlines
This is a video of the flight that I took from Oakland to Phoenix to attend Super Bowl XLII and the events before the game. It was a Southwest Airlines flight that left at 1:30 that day and got in at about almost 5 PM.
TechCrunch Reports That Red Envelope's Closing It's Doors
Yep. Red Envelope, which has sent a number of gifts to me, is closing down after several years of operating at the margins. Here's TechCrunch's word:
Everything up to this point is fact - what comes next is rumor: We’ve heard the company is basically laying off all of the staff and shutting down in the next few days. We have an email in to the company for comment.
Stay tuned.
Everything up to this point is fact - what comes next is rumor: We’ve heard the company is basically laying off all of the staff and shutting down in the next few days. We have an email in to the company for comment.
Stay tuned.
Michael Irvin At Hall of Fame | One Of The Greatest NFL Speeches In History
Please listen to this speech by former Dallas Cowboys wide receiver Michael Irvin. It's one of the greatest speeches in NFL history.
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Reflections on the 40th anniversary of King's assassination
At a time when we were, ostensibly, trying to come together, it seemed the divisions had never been more pronounced. Each of us who lived through, and recalls, those times bears a certain number of wounds. The reaction to King's murder was rioting on a scale this country had never known. What started as a peaceful march for the rights of sanitation workers in Memphis became violence none could ignore.We must not forget. For the sake of our children, we dare not.
"We've been warned against offering the people of this nation false hope. But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope."
~ Senator Barack Obama
SF- BIG Panel On Digital Ad Talent - St. Regis Hotel, SF
The San Francisco Bay Area Interactive Group or "SF-BIG" asked me to make this video of their "Reach" event held March 20th, 2008 at the St. Regis Hotel in San Francisco. The topic was on what ad firms look for in digital ad talent and what advantage -- if any -- San Francisco has as a center of digital media. The panelists included Melinda Mettler (Academy of Art School of Advertising), Alyson Hyder (Avenue A | Razorfish); Bernie Albers (Federated Media); and David Greenwald, (i2iplacement). In all it was a great event and the breakfast was terrific.
iTunes Makes Apple #1 Music Retailer In U.S.A
According to ArtsTechnica.com, Apple has risen to become the number one music retailer in the United States, and all of those transactions are online - not one single money exchange was done by a cash register in an Apple store.
That's amazing. Apple has surpassed WalMart, BestBuy and another online retailer Amazon.com to reach this position. But this should firmly cement in the mind of the public the fact that online retail is not a fad and is the next wave of transactions.
But ArtsTechnica points to a "dark side" of Apple's success because many "offline" retail purchases are of high-end CD's, so Apple's success means that the overall revenue of the music industry is falling.
Factor military duty into criticism, Mr. Limbaugh. Did you volunteer, Mr. O'Reilly?
Vice President Dick Cheney, who was born the same year as Jeremiah Wright, received five (5) military service deferments, four for being a student and one for being a prospective father. Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, both five years younger, used their student deferments to stay in college until 1968.In 1961, amid an increasingly turbulent time in this country, after hearing President John F. Kennedy's challenge to, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country," Wright gave up his student deferment, left college in Virginia and voluntarily joined the recently integrated U.S. Marine Corps. Remember, it was not until the spring of 1968 that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated. All men may have been created equal, but in the U.S. in the 60s there was little assuring they would be afforded equal rights in most places.
Who is the real patriot? The young man who interrupted his studies to serve his country for six years or our three political leaders who beat the system? Are the patriots the people who actually sacrifice something or those who merely talk about their love of the country?
How many of Wright's detractors, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly to name but a few, volunteered for service, and did so under the often tumultuous circumstances of a newly integrated armed forces and a society in the midst of a civil rights struggle? Not many.
While words do count, as Lawrence Korb and Ian Moss point out in the April 3rd piece in the Chicago Trib after looking into Jeremiah Wright's history, so do actions.
CNN's Brianna Keilar Now Regular Anchor On CNN Morning
CNN's Brianna Keilar Now Regular Anchor On CNN Morning
After what seemed to be fits and starts, Brianna Keilar, who I met at the 2005 NFL Draft and was then with MTV-U, then after an agent contacted me in late 2005 -- well, pestered me, really -- about seeing her here online at this account I wrote about Brianna Keilar at the 2005 NFL Draft, I informed her and after she responded with an approval, I gave him her then current contact information.
The result, in 2006, was that Brianna Keilar was hired by CNN, and after she really thought it was going to take years to get there. I've not got a note from her since, even as we were emailing back and forth before then in 2005 and that agent guy was really bugging me for her contact information, and even though I wrote "Congratulations! A glass of wine would be cool."
The funny thing is that we -- she and I -- were talking about the importance of relationships as a key to success, you'd think she'd have said "thanks" at least. It's not like we didn't connect after the NFL Draft.
We had a lot of people we knew in common, from Frank Sommerville and Kenny Wardell who was then at KTVU with Sommerville, and the Cal-Berkeley connection, but for some reason now that she's a "big star" she doesn't even mention Cal on CNN when she had the chance to this morning. Yikes!
Hey, Brianna, saying "GO BEARS" on CNN just once will not kill you and Cal fans will sing your praises for years after that. The point here is that once people have done something for you, don't forget to thank them. In my case, an email saying, Hey, thanks so much for sending him my way; look what happened!"
That's enough for me, really.
Regardless, I'm glad she's got on a regular schedule. She's finally comfortable behind the camera, after it seemed that she was a bit uncomfortable reading the teleprompter live.
I just wonder if she's still wearing those fishnets?
Ok, I've not wrote this before, but truth be told, she had a wicked set of legs in fishnets and all the guys in the 2995 NFL Draft gallery were going GA GA over Brianna. And if she denies this, she's telling a massive fib! She looked hot, but in the lunch room all the guys totally ignored her as if they were afraid to talk to her, so I figured I would since she was all alone.
That's how it all started.
This is Brianna's basic background:
Brianna Keilar (born September 21, 1980) is a recently hired general assignment reporter for CNN in the Washington, D.C. bureau. She previously worked for CNN Newsource as a national correspondent, also in Washington, D.C.
Keilar started in television news as an intern and production assistant at KTVU Channel 2 in Oakland, California. In 2001, she went to work as a general assignment reporter at KIMA, the CBS affiliate in Yakima, Washington. During that same time, she also worked in radio as a morning show personality and weekend news reader.
In 2003, Keilar moved to New York to be an anchor, reporter and producer for CBS News on mtvU, a newscast that aired on MTV's college network. At CBS News on mtvU, she covered the 2004 presidential primaries and election from New Hampshire, Boston and New York. Brianna also covered events like the 2005 NFL Draft for MTV-U. Keilar was 23 when she fill-in anchored on CBS News' overnight newscast, Up to the Minute, for the first time.
She was also a freelance reporter for CBS Evening News Weekend Edition before moving over to CNN.
Let's see if we can get Brianna's Cal attention... HEY BRIANNA, GO BEARS!!!!
Fingerpuppets this Saturday North Beach Grant And Green
The Fingerpuppets will be at the famous North Beach restaurant Grant & Green this Saturday. For a sample of their music, just click on the videos below:
I will Survive
"Sedated"
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
Tony West Of Obama For America On Rev. Wright And Superdelegates
At the California State Democratic Convention, Oakland-resident Tony West took time to talk with me in this video about the fight for Superdelegates and the Rev. Wright issue and the Obama campaign's position on both from his perspective as Obama for America Northern California Finance Chair and Field Director.
Barack Obama Overtakes Hillary Clinton in PA - 15 Point Lead Gone
Just three weeks ago, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton entered the Pennsylvania Primary with a 15 point lead in the polls conducted there.
To many, especially those in the mainstream media, it seemed that her lead was one Obama could not overcome. Many had projected her to win; a few, specifically CNN's Jack Cafferty, did observe that Obama has a tendency to turn the polling in a state once he's visited its people.
A few days ago, there were signs that the polls were turning Obama's way after the Bosnian Trip Scandal, which caught Senator Clinton openly lying about her involvement in the war there. The Bosnian Scandal overtook the Wright Issue in news reporting and contributed to the polling side which continued and was marked by Rassmusen's reported Clinton lead of just five percent a few days ago , so it was seemingly inevitable that at one point Obama could overtake Clinton in the Keystone State.
That happened today.
Senator Barack Obama now leads Senator Hillary Clinton 45 percent to 43 percent in a survey conducted by Public Policy Polling. Heres the text from the press release I received:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE April 2, 2008
Obama overtakes Clinton in PA
Raleigh, N.C. – Barack Obama has taken the lead over Hillary Clinton 45-43 in Pennsylvania, according to the newest survey from Public Policy Polling.
It’s a remarkable turn around from PPP’s last Pennsylvania poll, conducted two and a half weeks ago, that showed Clinton with a 26 point lead in the state. That poll was released at the height of the Jeremiah Wright controversy and the day before Obama’s major speech on race in Philadelphia. Obama has been trending upward in nationalpolling and in many state level polls since then and this survey reflects that pattern.
“In the last few weeks there has been increasing attention given to the fact that a continuing divisive Democratic nomination fight could hurt the party’s chances of defeating John McCain this fall,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling.
“The major movement in Obama’s direction in Pennsylvania could be an indication that Democrats in that state think it’s time to wrap it up.”
Obama is narrowing the gap with white voters, trailing just 49-38, while maintaining his customary significant advantage with black voters. He leads that group 75-17.
Obama also leads among all age groups except senior citizens, with whom Clinton has a 50-34 advantage. The poll shows the standard gender gap with Obama leading by 15 points among men while trailing by 10 points with women.
PPP surveyed 1224 likely Democratic primary voters on March 31st and April 1st. The survey’s margin of errors is +/- 2.8%. Other factors, such as refusal to be interviewed and weighting, may introduce additional error that is more difficult to quantify.
Public Policy Polling had the most accurate numbers of any company in the country for the Democratic primaries in South Carolina and Wisconsin, as well as the closest numbers for any organization that polled the contests in both Texas and Ohio.
Complete results are attached and can be found at www.publicpolicypolling.com
More on this development soon.
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
"Factcheck" On Obama and Oil Industry Is Pure Bullshit
My letter to FactCheck.org editor Lori Robertson on Obama and Oil Industry
Dear Editor,
I read your writers' article that claims to be a fact check on Senator Barack Obama and the oil industry. This crap you had your writers issue is the biggest -- well near biggest -- bunch of bullshit I've ever read.
If you look at the millions of donors to any political campaign who are employed, say, with bars or restaurants or how about strip clubs, you could say "Senator X has the support of the bar and porn industry" which of course would be total crap because the formal organizations and PACs of those industries may not have even taken a position. Moreover, an employee can and often does take a position opposite that of the company itself. You should know this; if you admit you do, then such a statement automatically negates the legitimacy of your work.
To then "use" -- which is what you've done -- a persons employment as the basis for a smear-job is totally unprofessional and unethical. In point of fact you've proven nothing at all -- except that you have a bias against Senator Obama.
Correct this -- please.
Thanks,
--
Zennie Abraham, Jr.
Chairman and CEO
http://www.sportsbusinesssims.com
Sports Business Simulations
510-387-9809
SBS Online Marketing at http://www.sbson.com
Title: "Factcheck" On Obama and Oil Industry Is Pure Bullshit
Dear Editor,
I read your writers' article that claims to be a fact check on Senator Barack Obama and the oil industry. This crap you had your writers issue is the biggest -- well near biggest -- bunch of bullshit I've ever read.
If you look at the millions of donors to any political campaign who are employed, say, with bars or restaurants or how about strip clubs, you could say "Senator X has the support of the bar and porn industry" which of course would be total crap because the formal organizations and PACs of those industries may not have even taken a position. Moreover, an employee can and often does take a position opposite that of the company itself. You should know this; if you admit you do, then such a statement automatically negates the legitimacy of your work.
To then "use" -- which is what you've done -- a persons employment as the basis for a smear-job is totally unprofessional and unethical. In point of fact you've proven nothing at all -- except that you have a bias against Senator Obama.
Correct this -- please.
Thanks,
--
Zennie Abraham, Jr.
Chairman and CEO
http://www.sportsbusinesssims.com
Sports Business Simulations
510-387-9809
SBS Online Marketing at http://www.sbson.com
Gov Bill Richardson v. James Carville A Warning To Superdelegates
Gov. Bill Richardson v. James Carville A Warning To Superdelegates
In a timely op-ed in the Monday Washington Post, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson reveals that is call to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to report that he'd endorsed Senator Barack Obama for President was "heated" but did not give more details.
Richardson was writing to report his displeasure with the "personal" attacks Clinton supporter and CNN Commentator James Carville has exacted on him after Richardson endorsed Obama.
In words he did not back away from, Carville compared Richardson to Judas for the act of backing Obama. But in his op-ed, Richardson hit a home-run of a point: neither the Clintons nor their backers and supporters leveled such attacks on Richardson when he opposed Sen. Clinton in the Presidential campaign race.
In all, in my view, this episode has revealed the worst aspects of the Clinton campaign. While Carville says it's personal because of the jobs Richardson had done for President Clinton, the simple fact is that there are a number of elected officials who owe some "debt" to the Clintons. I don't know who has "paid their debt" but it's got to give any Superdelegate in that position pause to see how Richardson was treated by the Clinton Campaign.
This could cause more undeclared Superdelegates to go for Obama over the next few weeks.
Stay tuned.
"Virgle" - Google Founders Page And Brin Want To Colonize Mars - I Can't Go
"Virgle" sounds and reads like a great project. The founders of Google and the founder of Virgin want to collonize Mars. But my take on this, after some thought, is why the hell should we focus on taking our fucked-up act to Mars?
Why can't Larry and Sergey focus on problems right here at home and in the U.S.A?
We've got an economy that's a mess. High crime rates. Homeless people abound. And yet, these guys, these billionaires want to go off and start a Mars Colony. They want you to make a YouTube video and explain why you want to go to Mars. Heck, I'm going to explain why we should not go to Mars, at least not now.
I think it's a waste of great time, money, and energy that could be applied to more worthwhile projects right here at home.
I also don't like they they get to chose who goes. Why? Because it's there project? Will there be any Black folks beyond the estimated one percent who work for Google? I wonder.
Well, here's their video:
Larry and Sergey:
Richard Branson:
Why can't Larry and Sergey focus on problems right here at home and in the U.S.A?
We've got an economy that's a mess. High crime rates. Homeless people abound. And yet, these guys, these billionaires want to go off and start a Mars Colony. They want you to make a YouTube video and explain why you want to go to Mars. Heck, I'm going to explain why we should not go to Mars, at least not now.
I think it's a waste of great time, money, and energy that could be applied to more worthwhile projects right here at home.
I also don't like they they get to chose who goes. Why? Because it's there project? Will there be any Black folks beyond the estimated one percent who work for Google? I wonder.
Well, here's their video:
Larry and Sergey:
Richard Branson:
NFL NATIONALLY TELEVISED PRIMETIME KICKOFF WEEKEND GAMES - NFLMedia.com
NFL ANNOUNCES NATIONALLY TELEVISED
PRIMETIME KICKOFF WEEKEND GAMES
The NFL announced today its 2008 Kickoff Weekend national primetime television schedule, including a Monday night doubleheader.
In a tradition that began in 2004, the Super Bowl champion annually hosts the NFL Thursday night season kickoff the following year. This September 4 at 7:00 PM ET on NBC, the Super Bowl XLII champion New York Giants will host their NFC East-rival Washington Redskins and their new head coach JIM ZORN. Kickoff will be 90 minutes earlier than the start time of the traditional season opener due to the Republican National Convention, which NBC News will cover following the conclusion of the game.
The Sunday night primetime game (8:15 PM ET) on NBC will feature a rematch of Super Bowl XLI as the Indianapolis Colts host the Chicago Bears. The game marks the first regular-season game at Lucas Oil Stadium.
On Monday night, September 8, ESPN will host a Monday Night Football doubleheader featuring two critical division matchups. The first game (7:00 PM ET) will send the Minnesota Vikings to Green Bay to visit the NFC North titlist Packers. The MNF nightcap (10:15 PM ET) will be an AFC West battle as the Oakland Raiders host the Denver Broncos.
The announcement of these national primetime TV games was made Monday by NFL Commissioner ROGER GOODELL at the NFL Annual Meeting in Palm Beach, Florida.
The rest of the 2008 regular-season schedule will be completed and announced in April.
PRIMETIME KICKOFF WEEKEND GAMES
The NFL announced today its 2008 Kickoff Weekend national primetime television schedule, including a Monday night doubleheader.
In a tradition that began in 2004, the Super Bowl champion annually hosts the NFL Thursday night season kickoff the following year. This September 4 at 7:00 PM ET on NBC, the Super Bowl XLII champion New York Giants will host their NFC East-rival Washington Redskins and their new head coach JIM ZORN. Kickoff will be 90 minutes earlier than the start time of the traditional season opener due to the Republican National Convention, which NBC News will cover following the conclusion of the game.
The Sunday night primetime game (8:15 PM ET) on NBC will feature a rematch of Super Bowl XLI as the Indianapolis Colts host the Chicago Bears. The game marks the first regular-season game at Lucas Oil Stadium.
On Monday night, September 8, ESPN will host a Monday Night Football doubleheader featuring two critical division matchups. The first game (7:00 PM ET) will send the Minnesota Vikings to Green Bay to visit the NFC North titlist Packers. The MNF nightcap (10:15 PM ET) will be an AFC West battle as the Oakland Raiders host the Denver Broncos.
The announcement of these national primetime TV games was made Monday by NFL Commissioner ROGER GOODELL at the NFL Annual Meeting in Palm Beach, Florida.
The rest of the 2008 regular-season schedule will be completed and announced in April.
Pull the other one, Hillary. Vetting the Theft of Valor story from Bosnia.
You probably recall from last week that this doesn't sit well with me. I'm prone to taking the high road, my role model is Barack Obama, but I just can't not comment on the flagrant, disingenuous responses Senator Clinton has advanced to try to disavow her "mis-speaking" with regard to the risks from sniper fire when she went to Tuzla, Bosnia with her daughter.
There was no sniper fire. There was no mis-speaking, either. This was not an oops, slip of the tongue moment, this went on over numerous, well-documented speeches and in response to direct questions. I am chagrined that I had considered her a potentially good President at one point. Senator Clinton's finesse with ear-marks is an endearing quality to her present constituency, I'm certain, but her theft of valor is not something I can condone in a (potential) Commander-in-Chief.
That's why I wrote about Tammi Hetherington, the Army vet who bravely spoke out because she was present that day in Bosnia. I've discussed it with friends during the intervening days. I've followed the story. I've blogged about positive things in the meanwhile, too, such as the amazing engagement of High School students in the south Bronx, who are talking about race and politics, and paying attention...
But today, once of my favorite Obama supporters took the plunge and started blogging at Daily Kos with this very same topic, and that story is so much better presented than my own that I invite you to read Kiku Botura's take on why it matters if somebody claims risks that aren't real. Nevermind, that Senator Clinton's boasting calls into question the judgment of the pilot who set her down and let her deplane, or dismisses the competence and efforts of those tasked with providing her security that day on the ground - that's not the point. The point is that good people do, in fact, act heroically on their oaths under mortal risk in defense of this country.
So go read, please, about Marine Captain John McKenna of Brooklyn, NY, born that very day Hillary and Chelsea had their excellent adventure in Bosnia, and tell Kiku I said hi.
The same old divisive, say-anything to get elected politics doesn't work any more. It doesn't get things done, it doesn't solve our problems, and it doesn't lead us to the future our children deserve.
There was no sniper fire. There was no mis-speaking, either. This was not an oops, slip of the tongue moment, this went on over numerous, well-documented speeches and in response to direct questions. I am chagrined that I had considered her a potentially good President at one point. Senator Clinton's finesse with ear-marks is an endearing quality to her present constituency, I'm certain, but her theft of valor is not something I can condone in a (potential) Commander-in-Chief.
That's why I wrote about Tammi Hetherington, the Army vet who bravely spoke out because she was present that day in Bosnia. I've discussed it with friends during the intervening days. I've followed the story. I've blogged about positive things in the meanwhile, too, such as the amazing engagement of High School students in the south Bronx, who are talking about race and politics, and paying attention...
But today, once of my favorite Obama supporters took the plunge and started blogging at Daily Kos with this very same topic, and that story is so much better presented than my own that I invite you to read Kiku Botura's take on why it matters if somebody claims risks that aren't real. Nevermind, that Senator Clinton's boasting calls into question the judgment of the pilot who set her down and let her deplane, or dismisses the competence and efforts of those tasked with providing her security that day on the ground - that's not the point. The point is that good people do, in fact, act heroically on their oaths under mortal risk in defense of this country.
So go read, please, about Marine Captain John McKenna of Brooklyn, NY, born that very day Hillary and Chelsea had their excellent adventure in Bosnia, and tell Kiku I said hi.
The same old divisive, say-anything to get elected politics doesn't work any more. It doesn't get things done, it doesn't solve our problems, and it doesn't lead us to the future our children deserve.
President Bill Clinton Hugged By Hot Blonde In Mosh-Pit After Speech
http://zennie2005.blogspot.com/2008/04/president-bill-clinton-hugged-by-hot.html - President Bill Clinton came to the California State Democratic Convention on Sunday, March 30th to give a speech in support of his wife, Senator Hillary Clinton as she works to add more Superdelegates to her side. After an excellent speech, President Clinton came down to the floor to greet the crowd.
As I went over to get a video of his action, and as he made his way toward where I was standing, a Blonde woman bulled past me and got to a place where she was right in front of him and proceeded to give him a hard, long (considering the time), and passionate hug. I have no idea who she was as by the time she did this, I was being pushed by a growing crowd of people behind me who were trying to get closer to Clinton. It was a wild scene.
But the whole sight of the Blonde made me think of the Monica Lewinsky matter. Not because of the hug -- I am sure that happens a lot -- but the way she hugged him, and his response, which was that he not only didn't turn away, but seemed more than a bit "pleased" by the event.
Now, the woman called for her husband "Eric" who was no where to be seen and could not have easily got in to see Bill as it was totally slammed. So maybe she's just an excited fan?
I also note that they continued to talk after the hug. Well check out the video for yourself.
Were it not for Bill's reputation and the fact that he's married to the Senator from New York, Hillary Clinton, the video may not be such a big deal. But I can't change history.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)