This is a mini-rant: To use a basketball analogy, watching the campaigns from where i sit in Switzerland, I see that McSame came up with a new offensive (in more ways than one) strategy in the last week that has Obama on his heels. I agree with the great post of earlier that getting into a pie fight isn't the way to do it - but also agree with many who are worried about just sitting back and taking the punches. I really believe Obama needs to go on the offense himself - now!

And how should Obama go on offense? I imagine we all have ideas - and it would be fun to hear them - but my idea is that Obama should assertively start throwing McSame's voting record at him in commercials. All his votes against helping our service people (note Keith Olbermann's great report last week); his anti-education votes; his anti-environmental votes; his anti-choice votes; his VOTING ALONG WITH BUSH 95% of the time!!!

I am not sure if team Obama is playing rope-a-dope or what, but I think he can't lay back and take punches too long, because he is getting defined by McSame. It is time that Obama start defining McSame - GO ON OFFENCE!!

After reading what Josh Marshall said yesterday, regarding how he thinks Obama is not responding strongly enough to the Clinton attacks and that he is “on the ropes” right now, I began to feel both a bit pissed off and upset. I mean, what would you do if you were running a Presidential  race against someone in your OWN PARTY who was basically using Republican talking points to try and destroy you, and indicating that the Republican candidate is better than you?

I’d be really curious to hear your thoughts and  ideas. Here's mine (below)

Regarding the upcoming Tuesday caucus in Hawaii, here is new from the local MSNBC:

http://www.kitv.com/...

The Hawaii Democratic Party has increased its order for ballots for Tuesday's caucus to a total 17,000 ballots, officials said.

The number of printed ballots is a 400 percent increase over Hawaii's last presidential caucus.

Having myself lived in Hawaii for 5 years long ago, I found myself thinking that there is no way that Hawaiian’s would vote for a „Haole" (a white person from somewhere else) over a local person (Obama). Well...

At this point in time, we have been overwhelmed with people who want to participate that night in order to make it easier for participants taking that form with them registration night caucus night will help expedite registration much quicker," Hawaii Democratic Party Executive Director Florence Kong Kee said.

Local Democrats said now they are receiving more than 200 calls a day for applications for party membership.
They said most of the interest is from Sen. Barack Obama supporters.

I think it is going to be an Obama blowout...

So this isn't going to be a long diary, just an opinion I have developed after chewing over this whole emerging super-delegate mess. And the thought occurred to me, WHAT IF Obama was winning on the delegate count and the overall popular vote, but did not have enough delegates to stave off a brokered convention? Frankly I hate the idea of a brokered convention and super-delegates making the choice for us. So what would be something Obama could offer Hillary, to step back and let him have the nomination?

AHA! Offer her the next opening on the Supreme Court!! It would be a brilliant move (and it would drive the conservatives crazy!!) And we would have Hillary helping shaping law for our country for the next 20-30 years!!
I think that would be a fair trade, and can't imagine Hillary turning it down.

What do you think?

I will keep this diary short, but just want to share what a friend sent me from Factcheck.org, on the Democratic candidate debate from earlier this week, where it looks at claims, charges and counter-charges made, to assess who is being truthful and who is not. We need more of this stuff...

http://www.factcheck.org/...

And if this has been posted already, let me know and I'll delete it...

Cheers!

In reading over a number of diaries and blog sites about yesterdays results, I have been struck by the parsimony between our camps. People are pissed because the other side played tough in some way. But hey, I tell you what, we better learn to play tough, because when we run our final candidate against the Republicans in the fall, they are not going to be nice. So my observation here is that our primary process is really a training camp for the real game, and I wonder who will be the toughest? Right now, based on the NH and NV outcomes, Clinton is looing like she is tougher and hungrier. So, for the Obama side, I think he and his campaign need to really toughen up and get more organized if you really want to win. And...let's keep our eye on the prize, shall we? We want the presidency.

I'm not good at compiling in-depth anaylsis, unlike some of the wizards here on Dkos, but I do think we need to keep our eye on the prize. In the House we got 142 "no" votes on the Iraq supplemental...the rest were "yes", and we should familiarize ourselves with who these "yes" people are and strive to either change their votes, or replace them with someone who will. Here is the vote breakdown:

The House Iraq supplemental roll call

Of the "yes" votes, who can we change, or who can we replace? We need about 78 votes.

My feeling...now that Libby has been found guilty and Cheney's fingerprints are all over the outing of a CIA spy during a war, is best summed up in Larry Johnson's article (still on the rec list):

Although Patrick Fitzgerald indicated he has no plans to file further charges in this case, there is still work for Congress to do.  At a minimum, charges of impeachment against Dick Cheney should be introduced.

Yes! My feelings exactly...time to start impeaching the traitors! Help Mr. Conyers...please start the investigation soon!!

Let's start saying this from now on: Protect our troops

According to the Gavel: http://www.speaker.gov/...

two recent Pentagon reports demonstrate that our troops are currently paying the price for the Administration’s failure to provide them with proper equipment:

U.S. Troops Went Without

Troops Lack Up-Armored Vehicles.
[DOD/IG, Equipment Status of Deployed Forces, 1/25/07]

Troops Lack Communications Equipment.
[DOD/IG, Equipment Status of Deployed Forces, 1/25/07]

Troops Lack Electronic Jammers for Roadside Bombs.
[DOD/IG, Equipment Status of Deployed Forces, 1/25/07]

Troops Lack Heavy Machine Guns.
[DOD/IG, Equipment Status of Deployed Forces, 1/25/07]

How can you support them when you don't protect them?

From Steve Clemon’s Washington Note:

Did the President Declare "Secret War" Against Syria and Iran?

Washington intelligence, military and foreign policy circles are abuzz today with speculation that the President, yesterday or in recent days, sent a secret Executive Order to the Secretary of Defense and to the Director of the CIA to launch military operations against Syria and Iran.

The President may have started a new secret, informal war against Syria and Iran without the consent of Congress or any broad discussion with the country. (…)

The debate about adding four brigades to Iraq is pathetic. The situation will get even hotter than it now is, worsening the American position and exposing the fact that to fight Iran both within the borders of Iraq and into Iranian territory, there are not enough troops in the theatre.

Bush may really have pushed the escalation pedal more than any of us realize.

What is the recourse of Congress, if in fact Bush has made this decision? I am beginning to think it may take impeachment to stop this madman.

Pelosi uses her campaign funds to help House candidates. In all, she has given some $659,000 from her personal campaign committee and PAC to the Future to about 80 Democratic incumbents and House challengers seeking to unseat Republicans. Those donations are limited to $4,000 from her personal committee and $10,000 from her political action committee.

She also contributed $617,951 from those same sources to the Democratic campaign committee, and she gave $3,750 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and a few individual Senate candidates.

In all, Pelosi has so far raised $1.5 million for her own campaign and $592,000 for her leadership PAC.

Those figures don't account for the millions she has helped generate for the party by headlining fundraisers, making direct requests of donors and other activities, her staff said.

The next Majority Leader of the House of Representatives wants to win. Just giving kudos where kudos are due...

JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR:(...)
The House just passed President Bush's bill to redefine the treatment of detainees, and the Senate's expected to do the same thing tomorrow. Buried deep inside this legislation is a provision that will pardon President Bush and all the members of his administration of any possible crimes connected with the torture and mistreatment of detainees dated all the way back to September 11, 2001.

At least President Nixon had Gerald Ford to do his dirty work. President Bush is trying to pardon himself.

Here's the deal.

Under the War Crimes Act, violations of the Geneva Conventions are felonies. In some cases, punishable by death.

When the Supreme Court ruled the Geneva Conventions applied to al Qaeda and Taliban detainees, President Bush and his boys were suddenly in big trouble. They had been working these prisoners over pretty good.

more below...

http://www.dailykos.com/...

and a quote from Rosa Brooks of the LA Times caught me up short (sorry, no link):

Rosa Brooks writes in the Los Angeles Times: "[T]ake any of the 'alternative' methods that Bush wants to use on U.S. detainees and imagine someone using those methods on your son or daughter. If the bad guys captured your son and tossed him, naked, into a cell kept at a temperature just slightly higher than an average refrigerator, then repeatedly doused him with ice water to induce hypothermia, would that be okay? What if they shackled him to a wall for days so he couldn't sit or lie down without hanging his whole body weight on his arms? What if they threatened to rape and kill his wife, or pretended they were burying him alive? What if they did all these things by turns? Would you have any problem deciding that these methods are cruel? . . .

And the thought occured to me is we should say what this really is - a Presidential and Congressional okay for others to torture our sons and daughters. Is that what they want? Let's call them out...

Gingrich: Democrats' slogan should simply be "Had Enough?"

Keep is simple, stupids.

"We can do better" is nice (that's the Democrats current slogan), but it's kind of whiny and doesn't really mean anything. And spare us the explanation that while it means nothing it really means EVERYTHING since each Democrat can tailor it to mean whatever he wants. That's tres John Kerry, standing for nothing and everything at the same time.

Newt is right.

I've had enough. Have you?

I've definitely had enough!!

Bush picks Abramoff prosecutor for federal judgeship -
Democrats wonder about the timing of president's move

Washington/NYT -- The investigation into Jack Abramoff, the disgraced Republican lobbyist, took a provocative new turn Thursday when the Justice Department said the chief prosecutor in the inquiry would step down next week because he had been nominated to a federal judgeship by President Bush.

The prosecutor, Noel Hillman, is chief of the department's Office of Public Integrity, and the move ends his involvement in an investigation that has reached into the administration as well as into the top ranks of the Republican leadership on Capitol Hill.

Democrats swiftly questioned the move's timing and called for a special prosecutor as Bush faced a barrage of questions about why he would not make public "grip and grin" photographs of himself with Abramoff. The photographs apparently show Bush and Abramoff smiling at White House Hanukkah parties and Republican fundraising receptions.

Cross-posted at: The European Tribune

Last night our Jerome a Paris was interviewed on Open Source Public Radio of Boston by Christopher Lydon, regarding the whole situation in Paris and around greater France. It is an interesting interview of several people, including Jerome and Jeremy Rifkin. Here's the link:

Open Source Radio of Boston

So have a listen and let us know what your thoughts are. (This requires the ability to play mp3).

cross-posted at The European Tribune

In an article overview from a lenghty BBC interview with Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the United Nations, he makes this significant statement: "Power to come from below"

Here are some key quotes from this article:

Power in the world will emanate more and more from the bottom up than from above...

"I think we have a situation where, more and more, we are going to notice that power will be emanating from the bottom up, rather than surging down from above...and Kofi Annan identified "increasing influence from the grassroots as a future trend".(...)

I would be real interested in hearing more of his thoughts on just what he means, when he says "the grassroots influences"! I find this both an acknowledgement and an encouragement, from one of the World's leaders...

and it just makes me wonder...Where did my Democratic Party go?? ...you know, the one that stands up for the little guy, for the common social good? This really upsets me...