The first issue blamed is an overall “woman bias” But looking closely, Hillary has not achieved anything extraordinary except to be a woman in the running for President. Her record as First Lady and as a Senator is acceptable but certainly not outstanding. She is intelligent but not brilliant and sometimes seems lacking in discernment and judgment. So what, other than her gender and the “it’s time for a woman“ climate, has brought her to this position? It appears that perhaps Christine Ferraro’s chain of thought applies more to Hillary than Barack Obama

The second often blamed issue is resentment of Hillary because she is a “strong” woman. But what do people mean when they say that? Could they be confusing ambition with strength? Are they just parroting something they’ve heard? What are the signs of her strength? There has been evidence of whining more than once during her campaign and strong women don’t whine. She stood by her man when his philandering became public but that was simply a choice, not proof or disproof of strength. Many strong women would have felt they deserved better and said bye, bye.

As a woman of an age that placed me squarely in the middle of the fight for equal rights in the business world, I am fully aware of the problems of woman bias and have suffered my share of consequences for being considered a strong woman. But rather than bringing me to agreement, my experience causes me to dismiss these issues as the explanation for Hillary’s lack of popularity.

It seems more likely that Hillary’s problems lie with her personality and character. Bill Clinton has skated through many situations because he has a winning personality – lots of charm and a warm and personable appearance. Unfortunately, Hillary doesn’t have this advantage. She comes across as stiff, and has a tendency to sound abrasive when trying to appear tough. In the character department, both the Clintons seem wanting. But in a sad commentary on our society, people seem more inclined to overlook that lack in Bill because of his personality.

Hillary Clinton may be the first viable woman presidential candidate but she will not be the last. To support her just because she is a woman is a disservice to women everywhere. There have been female leaders in other countries - women of character and strength. We can afford to wait until we are sure we have found a woman with those qualities. It seems prudent to leave Hillary’s gender out of the equation and pay more attention to her character and past record when considering her qualifications for president.

When we inaugurate our next president, we will have lived through 20 years of administrations that did not value truth and did not work for the common good. This time let’s choose a leader we can trust.

Three years ago, Justice Department Inspector General, Glenn Fine, reported on the FBI’s abuse of national security letters. These letters, a form of administrative subpoena used by the FBI to obtain the personal records of U.S. residents or visitors, reached a total of 140,000 requests over the period of 2003 to 2005. In his report Fine stated numerous instances of FBI personnel violating internal guidelines and procedures in how they obtained and used national security letters.

Despite his report and the subsequent Congressional involvement the abuses of this secret investigative tool continued in 2006. In a new report this past week; Inspector Fine concluded the continued abuse was in part because of “shoddy record keeping and poor oversight” which have gone uncorrected. Even the Justice Department and FBI reforms implemented last year do not guarantee correction of all the issues uncovered in the original investigation. Fine states:

“The FBI and Department of Justice have shown a commitment to addressing these problems. However, several of the FBI’s and the Department’s corrective measures are not yet fully implemented and it is too early to determine whether these measures will eliminate the problems with the use of these authorities.”

First the FBI and DOJ “…have shown a commitment to addressing these problems.” That’s a pretty innocuous statement. It gives lip service to doing something without a concrete pledge of doing anything particular. And apparently in the past three years they haven’t done anything particular.

Next is the statement: “…corrective measures are not yet fully implemented…” What kind of organization cannot, in three years, manage to get its employees to abide by its own internal guidelines and procedures? How about announcing a zero tolerance policy that starts immediately?

And last but not least, “…it is too early to determine whether these measures will eliminate the problems.” After three years, these measures that aren’t fully implemented may not even work when they are. Is this the kind of planning we pay our government agencies to do?

So what this statement seems to mean is, there is no real desire to correct this abuse. Could it be that all this - making mealy mouthed statements about commitment to handling the problem while very slowly implementing changes that may not even fix it - is just a way to run out the clock?

If we have people working for government agencies as big and powerful as the FBI and the DOJ who can’t understand, “Stop doing that now” … or who understand it but refuse to do it… then our government is out of control.

If we want real change, we have the opportunity for that in Barack Obama. But to realize this chance, we have to repudiate the smear tactics now in full force against him. We have repeatedly allowed ourselves to be influenced by rumors and gossip. Remember the attacks and accusations - against John McCain in the 2000 primary and against John Kerry in the 2004 election, just to name two – that manipulated voters even though the so called facts were patently false? We are way past the “fool me twice” stage and into the “now we’re just plain stupid” stage if we let this happen again.

The Washington insiders were caught off-guard by Obama’s ability to raise huge amounts from small donors thereby avoiding the usual octopus grip special interests have on potential candidates. As reported by Robert Parry on Consortiumnews.com:

This spreading realization that Obama’s political movement might represent a more revolutionary change than previously understood is sparking a deepening resistance among defenders of the status quo – and prompting harsher attacks on Obama… lobbies – from AIPAC to representatives of military and other industries (realize)… It’s in their direct interest to dent Obama’s momentum and demoralize his rank-and-file supporters as soon as possible….So, neoconservatives and other ideological movements – heavily dependent on grants from the same special interests – are now joining with the Clinton campaign to tear down Obama by depicting him as unpatriotic, un-vetted, possibly a “closet Muslim.”

http://www.solari.com/blog/?p=501 Where’s the Money? Let’s Get It Back!
http://www.whereisthemoney.org/S00223_collateral.htm Where’s The Collateral?
http://whereisthemoney.org/collateral_II.htm So, where is the collateral?
http://www.dunwalke.com/gideon/privatization030402.html Transcript:Greg Palast interview by Alex Jones

We cannot afford to be willfully uninformed. The future of our country depends on us.

What we don’t hear much about are these people reaping the consequences of their actions. There are a few sacrificial lambs that pay the price for their dastardly deeds, but there are many more who walk away unscathed. The public reaction seems to be a collective head shaking or tsk, tsking, accompanied by acceptance that this is just how it is.

Do we, as a society, no longer value integrity or have we simply forgotten that actions speak louder than words? No matter what we say, young people will be more influenced by what they see than what they hear and the example we are setting is abysmal. .

The young people of America see that lying and cheating to get ahead are acceptable if you don’t get caught. If you do get caught you just keep lying. If that doesn’t work, the next step is to fight like crazy to avoid the consequences - even when justly convicted, appeal, appeal, appeal. Evidence of this lack of integrity is rampant in private lives, in business practices and especially in government. If we are not involved first hand, many of us are at least guilty of silent acquiescence.

Every time we “get away” with something in front of our children, we are saying, “its okay since I didn’t get caught. “ It may be a small thing, but each small misstep makes the next and larger misstep more likely and easier to justify. Dishonesty is cumulative and grows easier with each commission and rationalization. Those of us who make no objection when corporate and government officials betray our trust, are complicit in their corruption. As common wisdom says, all evil needs to prevail is for good men to do nothing.

Do we not have a responsibility to insist that our government act ethically? We elect these people, and by extension, those they appoint to government positions, to represent us. If they are representing us, it stands to reason that we bear some responsibility for what they do. And just look at some of what they are doing:

In a recent court decision* $101.7 million was granted in restitution to four innocent men who were convicted of murder. The verdict that sent these men to prison was not due to misleading evidence, but rather to testimony the FBI knew was blatantly false. In the civil suit filed by the families of the four wrongly convicted men, federal Judge Nancy Gertner wrote in her 223-page decision, “FBI officials up the line allowed their employees to break laws, violate rules, and ruin lives.”

Two of the men died in prison, the other two served 30 years before they were released from prison and exonerated of all charges. 30 years! Think about your family and what you and they would miss if you dropped out of their lives for 30 years – the skinned knees, first experiences, birthdays, graduations, weddings, and funerals. No amount of money can give back to the families of these men, the years that were taken from them. To do anything except apologize and pay the award in a timely manner is adding insult to injury. And yet our Department of Justice is set to appeal this decision.

The one consolation is that my state has had its primary so the phone calls will stop. At least until the general election starts. I lost count of the number of times I hung up on recorded voices of candidates, candidate wives, and candidate supporters. Only once did I receive a “live body” call.

Is anybody enjoying this besides the pundits and newscasters? Why in the world don’t we have national primaries instead of dragging them out over three months? If there are reasons for doing it this way – other than habit and inertia – someone please explain it to me.

If the people of America really want change the first step is to reject the kind of campaign the Clintons are running. They believed that Hillary was the inevitable Democratic candidate when they started campaigning. But the unexpected happened. Obama began overtaking her, and then he won Iowa. Both Clinton’s, true to their much touted experience, immediately began to fight dirty. After all, that’s the way the Washington insiders do it. Most of the dirty work has been done by Bill Clinton and other campaign workers, but don’t think for a moment that this imperial woman is not privy to and in agreement with everything that goes on in her campaign.

It was Bill Clinton who introduced the issue of race even though he has tried to lay it at Obama’s feet. Why? To change the perception of Obama as a candidate who happens to be black, to one of him as the “black candidate.” If you think that is unimportant just remember the effect of John Kennedy saying he was not a Catholic candidate but rather a candidate who happened to be Catholic. Much as some might deny it, semantics do matter. .

Whether we like it or not, we cannot underestimate the impact of race. Bush Sr. beat Dukakis in large part because of the way his campaign framed the Willie Horton issue. According to one political writer, Horton never went by the name "Willie" but was called that to get more racial mileage. An ad was run that included a menacing mug shot of the African-American Horton presenting him as “every suburban mother’s greatest fear.” The ad was run as an independent expenditure so the campaign could disclaim responsibility but such disclaimers are mere technicalities that fool no one.

If the Clintons can change the perception of Obama to the candidate who is "from the black community," it puts him in a box difficult to escape. It is divisive. It frames him as a "special interest" candidate, which is totally unfair to a man who clearly wants to serve the common good. That has been Obama’s express style, appealing across all the dividing lines, up to the point where the Clintons began race-baiting. This is not only despicable; it gives us a window into the future if the Clintons are back in power – a future of gridlock, culture wars and bitter partisanship.

It was and continues to be Bill Clinton who disparages Barack Obama not only with what he says but with his tone of voice and facial expressions as he twists Obama’s words. To those who are paying attention it is very revealing that the Clinton’s have to alter the meaning of Obama’s words and actions in order to have something negative to say about him. Sticking to the truth, never a Clinton strong point, in this case would leave them with no ammunition for an attack. And attacking is the M.O. for Washington insiders. Unable to beat Obama on the issues, losing ground in the face of his wide appeal across age, race, and gender lines, the Clintons reverted to type. Don’t forget who we are dealing with - the guy who didn’t inhale and didn’t have sex with that woman.

All the experience that Hillary repeatedly holds up as her strength is out there now to be seen for what it really is – experience in the political know-how of divisive, dishonest, and ugly behavior when things aren’t going her way. It is bad enough when the Republicans are swiftboating the Democrats. It is inexcusable when Democrats are doing it to other Democrats. Is that what we really want in our government for the next four to eight years?
.
We are demanding change and we need to recognize that the change has to start with us. We have to stop buying into the kind of dirty politics the Clinton’s are playing. The manipulation only works if we allow it to work. It is past time to let them know, loud and clear, that we have had enough; that we want a different kind of governance, one that unites people and serves the needs of our country.

Hillary Clinton is too much a part of the establishment to bring us that change. All of her experience is in playing the game the way it is played now. The Clintons are masters of electoral politics but they are not true leaders. Hillary is the candidate of the status quo at a time when we need a leader capable of consensus- building and problem- solving. Why would anyone think Hillary will suddenly start doing things differently? It’s sort of like the woman who marries a man thinking he will change. We all know how well that works.

Perhaps a good place to start is with the gross misunderstandings of today. There seem to be many people who are unable to differentiate between partisan issues and American issues. Partisan issues such as taxes, spending, and social programs have always been viewed differently by Democrats and Republicans and that has helped to maintain a balance in our country. But American issues such as the Constitution, government checks and balances, and the freedoms inherent in our way of life, have traditionally been protected by both Democrats and Republicans. Today it is obvious that many politicians, of both parties, put loyalty to their party or their large contributors before loyalty to their country.

Sentimentality and feel good verbiage have replaced honest patriotism. While our country is being devoured from within, we alternate between waving flags and cowering in fear. Where is the outrage as Congress continues to allow Bush and Co. to unravel the very fabric of our society? What happened to the momentum exhibited in the 2006 election when we sent a message that we’d had enough? Why are we allowing business as usual to continue? Just look at what some of our so called representatives are doing.

Diane Feinstein: With her vote to confirm Mukasey on the grounds that he would be better than an acting AG appointed by Bush, went the responsibility to ensure that Mukasey does what he was confirmed to do - restore the creditability of the Department of Justice. So where was the outrage with Mukasey’s recent interference with the congressional investigation of the destruction of CIA tapes because they would hinder his investigation?

Joe Lieberman: It is hard to think of this Senator as anything but Israel’s representative in our government. He sides with anyone who is promoting something that benefits Israel and the interests of our country come in a poor second. No one should be surprised at his endorsement of McCain, the gung-ho Iraq war candidate.

John McCain: With a majority of Americans calling for our withdrawal from Iraq, McCain, while campaigning to represent the people of America as their president, supports ongoing occupation and permanent military bases in Iraq. He even claims that Americans aren’t opposed to this idea as long as we keep the body count low. What America does he think he is representing?

Nancy Pelosi: The biggest disappointment to date from the 2006 Democratic win is Pelosi. She was going to do this, she was going to do that, but as my grandmother used to say, she wound up doing wonders in her drawers. Pelosi caved and pulled an amendment that would have forced President Bush to come to Congress for specific authorization before attacking Iran. Either Pelosi and other Democrats are buying into Bush’s lies about Iran just as they did about Iraq or they are under the ridiculous illusion that Bush will request such authorization. Jim Webb is more realistic. He stated:

[T]he President's "signing statement" accompanying the 2002 congressional resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq indicates that this Administration believes it possesses the broadest imaginable authority to commence military action without the consent of the Congress.

Why is this important? Because those who own the media decide what we hear and see. As Robert Perry said:

“There is no more effective way to short-circuit democracy than to get large segments of the population to buy into a made-up reality, while keeping other citizens so uncertain of the truth that they are politically paralyzed.”

After three decades as a Washington journalist, Perry came to the conclusion that mass media was being used to convince the American populace that reality is something it isn’t. The distorted reality they are selling rewrites history, promotes fear, and ridicules those who try to point out the truth.

How do they do this? They use “false narrative” created by taking a kernel of truth and twisting and changing it to tell a different story. The twisted version is then circulated through the media, first by its authors and then by the mainstream “journalists” who repeat it over and over without checking its veracity. A journalist is supposed to be a person who gathers and disseminates information about current events, trends, issues and people. Once there was an entire industry of professional journalists who worked diligently to ferret out the facts, then offer a clear perspective on what they found. If they had an agenda, it was to oppose institutional secrecy and call public attention to abuses of power.

What changed? Media consolidation took root and began to grow. The owners of media outlets set policy just as any business owner does. But media is different from other businesses because it has the power to push its owners’ agendas in ways subtle and manipulative. And it changes the nature of journalism as journalists become employees first and reporters second, (if at all) making them complicit or afraid of losing their careers.

The results were: Information provided as a public service, was largely abandoned. Integrity in reporting ceased to matter. Profitability for media owners became the priority. Real news became a rareity and sensational speculation took its place. Sound analysis became passe and false narratives became the order of the day. A new reality was created in which the “truth” was whatever media owners said it was and what they said was based on what they wanted to achieve – destroy a career, elect a sympathetic candidate, or even start a war.

Al Gore is an example of how false narrative is used and its damaging and lasting effects. Not particularly a Gore fan, it still took only light research to understand that much of the public’s perception of Gore is based on false information which has painted him as a traitor, a liar, and a lunatic.

"We began to connect with circles of people who were giving life and hope to each other—and hope to us! We have been taught that the past and the present create the future—that trends and statistical projections tell us where the world is going. But that simply is not true. The future is created by people who go against trends and projections and begin to form creative circles—by people who begin to live out a new story before that story becomes history."

“Integrity” is usually pictured as personal. “That person has integrity,” we say, meaning that he or she has values and lives according to them despite the costs involved. But for some people, integrity has grown beyond the personal to include the trees and the oceans, the way nations relate to each other, and the very fabric of life on earth. Such people feel overwhelmed and lonely at times, but they are the ones who are capable of sowing seeds for an integral culture. Their work is done in a cloud of uncertainty and often without institutional support or approval. Our purpose is simple. We wish to further the sense of integrities which is taking shape in our time, and we wish to communicate the stories of people who are struggling to live their lives in an integral fashion. ~ Bill Cane

Each time Integrities arrives I read it from cover to cover. Its pages offer inspiration, hope for the future, and a renewed sense that not only can something be done to improve our world, but something is being done. Give this gift of encouragement to yourself and others. You may subscribe to Integrities for $15 per year through their website at: IF.org . Three or more gift subscriptions cost only $10 each. Donations in excess of that amount are tax-deductible and will help IF's efforts to:

• provide land for houses for poor families in Guatemala


• support women's soup kitchens in Peru


• collaborate with IF/WHEN in supporting low income housing, living wage initiative and human rights locally


• assist social work programs in Peru


• give a voice to grass roots leaders who speak for the poor of the world


• support Phil McManus' crucial work thorughout Latin America


• facilitate networks of ecology, justice and peace.

May 2008 be a year of action - of looking within and reaching out - to make our world a place where all people have access to food for the body and for the soul; where peace and justice take precedence over greed; and where values are an illustration of the way we live, not weapons used against those who think differently. May 2008 be the first year of the rest of our lives.

That appears to be the case with the issue of Blackwater in Iraq. There was a big uproar over the September 2007 killing of 17 Iraqi citizens in what was apparently an unprovoked attack by Blackwater contractors. The American public was outraged, Congress was outraged, and the Iraqi government was calling for the removal of Blackwater personnel from their country. It was all over the news, talk shows, editorials and articles. There were congressional hearings at which Erik Prince, Blackwater founder and president was grilled by Democrats and praised and defended by Republicans. Then as often happens, the issue faded from sight and hearing.

Now, after a period of silence, the U.S. and Iraqi governments announced new rules for Iraq contractors. These new rules require private security contractors to coordinate their operations with military authorities. The rules lay down specifics about when and under what conditions security personnel can shoot people. But there is one important ingredient missing in these new rules. They do not clarify whether contractors can be prosecuted under U.S. or Iraqi law. Considering the fact that this question of prosecution was a major issue in the September killings, it seems pretty clear that these new rules are a pacifier and not a solution.

It has always seemed strange when a moralistic denouncer of others turned out to be engaged in the very behavior he was condemning. Now, finally, there is an explanation. A study done by Scott Reynolds of the University of Washington surveying 290 workplace managers and 230 college students, found that those who considered themselves morally superior also thought their virtue set them above the rules. Some of the subjects admitted openly that their good intentions justified their major and frequent breaches of ethics. They “tell themselves they’re entitled to special rewards for their piety and their virtue.”

When you add to that the feelings of control and supremacy that positions of power give, it explains how so many politicians and evangelists have been involved in financial and sexual scandals. When a sense of entitlement combines with feelings of power, barriers disappear and normal inhibitions evaporate.

You do have to wonder, however, how someone can conclude that behavior they condemn as sinful in others can be considered a "special reward" for them. Such is the nature of run-away rationalization.

It is hard to get my mind around the latest Bush “clarification” of things, in this case, Iran.

For over a year President Bush has repeatedly said that Iran was trying to build a nuclear weapon and that they must not be allowed to succeed in this goal. That nuclear effort was given as the reason for urging stronger and stronger U.N. sanctions against Iran, for threatening military action against them, and for refusing to meet and talk with them.

On December 4 we found out the new National Intelligence Estimate says that Iran's nuclear weapons development program has been halted since the fall of 2003. That means the reason for threatening Iran and refusing to meet with them no longer exists and hasn’t for four years. And what does President Bush say about this? Mr. Bush says the new assessment underscores the need to intensify international efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

As with the war in Iraq, the reasons may change, but the goal stays the same. So now Mr. Bush says, “Look, Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous, and Iran will be dangerous, if they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon. What’s to say they couldn’t start another covert nuclear weapons program?”

Mr. Bush, doesn’t that sound more like a reason to sit down and talk with Iran than to continue threatening and saber rattling?