Obama Evening News & Roundup -- 4,000 dead.

Many Iraqi refugees gather at night at Damascus teahouses. They spend much of the night talking over strong Iraqi tea, some smoking the water pipe.

"Not all of us can afford the water pipe," Salim Khattab, earlier an engineer from Mosul told IPS. "Most of us have run out of money after the long years of spending while there has been no income. I accepted a job of salesman for 100 dollars a month for a while, but I quit when I was asked to clean the shop and the doorsteps. A hundred dollars would not be enough for more than a few days anyway. Now I spend the days in bed waiting for night so I can meet my new friends."

With nothing to live for, the plight of the Iraqi refugees is a plight that will dwarf the problem of the Palestinian refugees. There were a lot fewer Palestinians who were displaced in the 1948 war than there are Iraqi refugees today. The Iraqi refugees will be made a pawn in the political power games of those who, like Saddam and Bin Laden before them, exploited them for their own evil purposes. At one fell stroke, George Bush has turned Iran into a regional powerhouse and provided ammunition for those whose sole mission in life is to kill, main, and destroy.

See Darcy Bruner's Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq.

There is still an alarming level of violence against women around the world.

Our world has changed beyond recognition in the last 50 years, as a recent republishing of a 1955 "How to Be a Good Wife" guide has shown. No doubt the women in my life would raise a smile at the line: "Don't ask him questions about his actions or question his judgment or integrity. Remember, he is the master of the house... You have no right to question".

So what would a baby girl born today expect from her life? Perhaps she will buy a house, securing a mortgage without a male guarantor or maybe she will return to work after starting a family of her own.

While we have seen some significant changes to society’s view of women it seems some attitudes are taking longer to change. This war is an undeclared war against women. A previous survey by the End Violence against Women coalition showed that 42 per cent of young people know girls whose boyfriends have hit them. A staggering 40 percent knew girls who had been pressured into sex; yet 27 percent thought it was acceptable for a boy to "expect to have sex with a girl" if the girl had been "very flirtatious".

Most importantly, we need to avoid any public attitudes that suggest that some kinds of assault or rape are somehow more forgivable than others. Rape is rape; violence is violence and no means no. The law must reflect that and be fully enforced.

Barack Obama's record on violence against women:

Reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act.

Senator Obama cosponsored the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act which passed the Senate on October 4, 2005 and was subsequently signed into law. The Act provides important funding and assistance to help communities, non-profit organizations, and law enforcement combat domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. The Act establishes a sexual assault services program and provides grants for education programs to prevent domestic violence and encourage reporting of abuses.

Obama has taken a stand against violence against women around the world as well, especially Congo.

President Bush has an opportunity to assert America’s moral leadership in the aftermath of Friday’s meeting with President Joseph Kabila of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). President Bush should seize it by stepping up efforts to stop the epidemic of sexual violence in the DRC - an epidemic that is similarly devastating places like Darfur, where rape is the weapon of choice.

In recent years, tens of thousands of women and girls have been raped, tortured, and assaulted in the DRC by disgruntled soldiers and bands of marauders. One expert says this is so common in some places that it is "almost normal."

The decision to stop the violence rests with the Congolese, but the United States has a number of options - many of which were included in legislation I helped pass last year and addressed in a letter I sent to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice earlier this month. These options range from making U.S. support contingent on Congolese efforts to stop the violence and care for the victims to building a coalition of donor nations to pressure the DRC into action. President Bush should make it clear that no diplomatic option is off the table.

You can read more about Obama's campaign against violence on women here. Barack would not just give knee-jerk support to it; he would make his campaign against gender violence a major national priority. He would appoint a special advisor who would report directly to him on what is happening in this field.

If you or someone you know is a victim of sexual violence, use this link to report it online. The only way that we will begin to make headway against this is for people to report it when it happens.

They said it themselves:

Spokeswoman Dana Perino was making the case that it's no surprise that Bush has low poll ratings because he is overseeing an unpopular war. But then her argument went off the tracks.

"Both the president and the vice president have long believed, and it's a part of what has made them the leaders that they are, which is not to chase popularity polls but to hold themselves to a standard that requires people not to like them," she said.

And we thought that Scott McClellan was bad. John McCain would be more of the same.

Gap in life expectancy between rich and poor widening:

In 1980-82, Dr. Singh said, people in the most affluent group could expect to live 2.8 years longer than people in the most deprived group (75.8 versus 73 years). By 1998-2000, the difference in life expectancy had increased to 4.5 years (79.2 versus 74.7 years), and it continues to grow, he said.

After 20 years, the lowest socioeconomic group lagged further behind the most affluent, Dr. Singh said, noting that "life expectancy was higher for the most affluent in 1980 than for the most deprived group in 2000."

"If you look at the extremes in 2000," Dr. Singh said, "men in the most deprived counties had 10 years’ shorter life expectancy than women in the most affluent counties (71.5 years versus 81.3 years)." The difference between poor black men and affluent white women was more than 14 years (66.9 years vs. 81.1 years).

Among the reasons cited are more access to advanced treatments by the haves. And this is where Barack Obama's plan to achieve universal healthcare comes in as well as his plan to invest $150 billion in green collar jobs around the country. By creating millions of new jobs, Obama would not only raise the standard of living among the have-nots, he would allow them to take advantage of the latest treatments. And by framing this issue in terms of lowering the gap in life expectancy between the haves and have-nots, we can win crucial bi-partisan support for Obama's proposals; the article notes that wingnut Senator Thad Cochran has championed legislation that would reduce such disparities.

There is growing concern about online privacy. Zoe Margolis explains:

One of the talking points at last week's South By Southwest Interactive Festival was the keynote speech by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. There was a lot of furore about the whole event and the way the interview with Zuckerberg was conducted - and the Guardian has covered the various aspects of that. But what particularly concerned me was that the question of online privacy was virtually ignored. As someone who has - due to circumstances not of my own choosing - lost my own online anonymity and privacy, this is an issue close to my heart.

So it makes me angry when the concept of online confidentiality is idly cast aside, as if just opening a web browser somehow eliminates your right to maintain privacy; or that the act of surfing the web means you have agreed to all your private information being made public. I disagree: just because internet usage is commonplace now, and people are more inter-connected on social networking sites and the like, it doesn't mean there should be less emphasis on the right to privacy for web users.

When Facebook tried to introduce its Beacon system of tracking the visits of its users in order to sell that information to advertisers, with a limited opt-out clause for its customers, there was a web-mutiny. The site was forced to retract and alter Beacon to be opt-in almost immediately. Providers, developers and new media companies need to learn from this experience and should be ensuring there is a strong focus on upholding users' rights at all times; they should be creating platforms that limit the information provided by users, while making it clear that people have the choice to opt in and share more details if they wish to.

Here is the Obama plan to protect your privacy online:

The open information platforms of the 21st century can also tempt institutions to violate the privacy of citizens. Dramatic increases in computing power, decreases in storage costs and huge flows of information that characterize the digital age bring enormous benefits, but also create risk of abuse. We need sensible safeguards that protect privacy in this dynamic new world. As president, Barack Obama will strengthen privacy protections for the digital age and will harness the power of technology to hold government and business accountable for violations of personal privacy.

To ensure that powerful databases containing information on Americans that are necessary tools in the fight against terrorism are not misused for other purposes, Barack Obama supports restrictions on how information may be used and technology safeguards to verify how the information has actually been used.

Obama supports updating surveillance laws and ensuring that law enforcement investigations and intelligence-gathering relating to U.S. citizens are done only under the rule of law.

Obama will also work to provide robust protection against misuses of particularly sensitive kinds of information, such as e-health records and location data that do not fit comfortably within sector-specific privacy laws.
Obama will increase the Federal Trade Commission’s enforcement budget and will step up international cooperation to track down cyber-criminals so that U.S. law enforcement can better prevent and punish spam, spyware, telemarketing and phishing intrusions into the privacy of American homes and computers.

See Obama's interview with Google execs here:

Michael Schwartz's "The Battle of Baghdad" tells what is REALLY happening that David Petraeus, John McCain, and the media don't want you to know:

Over the course of five years, Baghdad, the capital city of Iraq, has been transformed from a metropolis into an urban desert of half-destroyed buildings and next to no public services, dotted by partially deserted, mutually hostile mini-ghettos that used to be neighborhoods, surrounded by cement barriers reminiscent of medieval fortifications. The most prominent of these ghettos is the heavily fortified city-inside-a-city dubbed the Green Zone, where Iraq's most fearsome militia, the United States military, is headquartered. It is governed by the Americans and by the American-sponsored Iraqi government, headed by Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki.

The remaining ghettos, large and small, are governed by local militias, most of them sworn enemies of the United States and the Maliki regime. In the expanding Shia areas of the capital, the local guardians are often members of the Mahdi Army, the militia of cleric Moqtada al-Sadr that has opposed the American presence since the occupation began. In the shrinking Sunni-controlled parts of the city, the local guardians are usually members of the Sahwa forces (the "Awakening" or, in U.S. military jargon, "Concerned Local Citizens"). The Americans have ceded to them control of their cement-enclosed domains as long as they discontinue insurgent attacks elsewhere.

While the McCain Doctrine is still being pushed and Hillary Clinton is saying that the surge is working, Barack Obama is the one candidate who is telling it like it is. If the surge is working, then what is the point of going home?

The sad story of a soldier who committed suicide:

The Cedar Rapids Gazette reported, "Musack's body was found in a secluded area used to make phone calls and as a bathroom at Patrol Base South, according to the report. Musack was found lying on his right side, his left arm cradling his M4 Carbine gun, a single bullet wound to his head. There were no defensive wounds on Musack and no signs of foul play, the report said. No suicide note was found.

"Several soldiers interviewed under oath during the investigation said they knew of no reason Musack would kill himself. He had no medical, financial or personal problems they were aware of. Some described him as a quiet person who held in his feelings. When asked what he thought happened, the sergeant told investigators: 'Honestly, I have no idea. Nothing he did was out of the norm.'"

Musack's friends and family say he had become upset by an incident he never fully described, beyond saying he had made someone angry. According to the report, his girlfriend, Melissa Martin, said he called her in mid-October and said, "Honey, I am being set up." At Musack's funeral, Martin said he had made her make a promise. that "if he did not come home, we would all keep doing what we were doing."

According to the report, Musack's aunt, DeeAnna Newlin, said he had said he saw a little girl killed. Family members are exploring options to get the Army to reopen the investigation.

This, and the plight of the 1 million Iraqi refugees who can't find work is the true human cost of the occupation. When people like David Petraeus tell you that the "surge" is working, they totally ignore the devastating human toll.

John McCain's excuses on Climate Change:

While Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have clear plans to reduce our carbon footprint, John McCain does not even have a plan on his website to lower our carbon footprint or lower our rapidly-rising gas prices. Instead, he is resorting to blaming China and India and making excuses for his inaction.

Push him for specifics on his plans and views on this issue.  Let's see if we can figure out where he actually stands.  Once he is pushed further to explain his views, I can see two different scenarios play out:

He'll give more excuses for inaction and will advocate for legislation with safety valves and a cap that isn't mandatory.  More people will realize that he is the worst of the three potential Presidential candidates on the issue.  The American people are much closer to both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton than they are to John McCain.

He'll try to distance himself from his previous comments, and move closer, politically at least, to a sensible policy approach.  Then it will be up to the Democratic candidate, bloggers, the press and advocacy groups to hold him accountable.  Given his struggles to win the blessings of economic conservatives, it will put him in a tight spot if he has to publicly display support for government regulation of greenhouse gas emissions.  Pressure from The Chamber of Commerce, Detroit, Big Oil and their anti-regulation front groups on the right will squeeze him into a barely existent political space:  A free market economic conservative advocating government regulation of business in an election year.  

See the Obama plan on energy here.

"Well, I don't believe that climate change is just an issue that's convenient to bring up during a campaign. I believe it's one of the greatest moral challenges of our generation. That's why I've fought successfully in the Senate to increase our investment in renewable fuels. That's why I reached across the aisle to come up with a plan to raise our fuel standards... And I didn't just give a speech about it in front of some environmental audience in California. I went to Detroit, I stood in front of a group of automakers, and I told them that when I am president, there will be no more excuses — we will help them retool their factories, but they will have to make cars that use less oil."

Chuck Hagel won't endorse John McCain:

I think endorsements, at least when I endorse someone, or when I work for someone, or commit to someone, I want to be behind that person in every way I can,"

And why can't Chuck Hegel be "behind" McCain "in every way"?

"I've obviously got some differences with John on the Iraq war. That's no secret. I want to understand a little more about foreign policy, where he'd want to go. Certainly doesn't put me in Obama or Clinton's camp. But John and I have some pretty fundamental disagreements on the future of foreign policy,"

That crashing sound was the sound of a wingnut hitting the roof when he heard this news.

Inaccurate Washington Post article on Barack Obama's role in the immigration debate. The Washington Post has written an inaccurate hit piece disgused as "news" on Obama's role in the immigration debate. The article unfairly minimized his role in that debate when he was one of the leading voices for immigration reform.

McCain: "First Of All...This Legislation Was The Product Of Over A Year Of Negotiation...Myself And Senator Kennedy, Senator Obama, Senator Lieberman, Senator Martinez, Senator Graham-- We Met On Many, Many Occasions And Hammered Out This Bill." "Could I -- I'll be very brief because my colleagues are here to make comments, and I know that you want to ask questions. First of all, I would like to point out that this legislation was the product of over a year of negotiation. Myself and Senator Kennedy, Senator Obama, Senator Lieberman, Senator Martinez, Senator Salazar, Senator Graham -- we met on many, many occasions and hammered out this bill. It was not an easy decision -- some of it for us, nor was it for the Democrats because some of our base is opposed to this legislation, some of the unions are opposed to this legislation. So I'm proud of the product that we put out. I'm grateful for the leadership of Senator Specter and Senator Leahy, and I'm very pleased at the comments that the president has made in the last couple of days." [Transcript, Senate Immigration Reform Press Conference, 3/30/06]

Kennedy And McCain, Authors Of Immigration Reform Bill, Thanked Obama As One Of Small Bipartisan Group Of Senators Who "Stood Together To Make This Legislation Possible." McCain said, "After several weeks of extensive debate and consideration of numerous and complicated amendments, the Senate is about to move to final passage on S. 2611, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act...I also commend the Senate Leadership on both sides of the aisle for their efforts to ensure that the Senate addressed this important issue and gave us more than adequate time for a thorough debate. This is a proud moment for the United States Senate, as we have conducted good work and returned to orderly traditions of the legislative process as envisioned by our founding fathers...And of course, I commend Senator Kennedy, who is perhaps the leading expert on this difficult issue...I also want to thank Senators Brownback, Lieberman, Graham, Salazar, Martinez, Obama, and Dewine for their shared commitment to this issue, and working to ensure this bill moved successfully intact through the legislative process." In a speech on the Senate floor, Kennedy said, "I thank those of our bipartisan group who stood together to make this legislation possible--Senator Graham, Senator Salazar, Senator Martinez, Senator Hagel, Senator Durbin, Senator Lieberman, Senator Brownback, Senator Obama, and Senator DeWine." [McCain Press Release, 5/25/06; Congressional Record, 5/26/06]

Kennedy Praised Obama's Work On Immigration Reform And Gave His Assurance That Obama And Him Would Stand On The Floor Of The Senate Until A Comprehensive Immigration Bill Passed. "Kennedy spoke of Obama as a transformational leader, and made a direct appeal to Hispanic voters by highlighting his work on labor and immigration issues in the Senate. He also attempted to bridge the Hispanic and African American divide by linking the debate over immigration reform with the fight for civil rights. 'There are those [voices] in the floor of the United States Senate that were similar to the voices that I heard in the 1960s -- the voices of discrimination and bigotry and prejudice,' Kennedy said. Obama, he added, has stood with him throughout the effort. 'If you watched him last night, you saw a man of empathy, you saw a man of heart, you saw a man of soul, and I can give you this assurance, that Barack and I are going to stand on the floor of the United States Senate until we get a comprehensive bill.'" [MSNBC, 2/1/08]

Once again, Barack Obama is ahead of the curve. He had been calling for a national mortgage summit for a whole year before Hillary Clinton did the same. Here is part of the letter that he wrote calling for the summit:

There is grave concern in low-income communities about a potential coming wave of foreclosures.  Because regulators are partly responsible for creating the environment that is leading to rising rates of home foreclosure in the subprime mortgage market, I urge you immediately to convene a homeownership preservation summit with leading mortgage lenders, investors, loan servicing organizations, consumer advocates, federal regulators and housing-related agencies to assess options for private sector responses to the challenge.
   
We cannot sit on the sidelines while increasing numbers of American families face the risk of losing their homes. And while neither the government nor the private sector acting alone is capable of quickly balancing the important interests in widespread access to credit and responsible lending, both must act and act quickly.

Working together, the relevant private sector entities and regulators may be best positioned for quick and targeted responses to mitigate the danger.  Rampant foreclosures are in nobody's interest, and I believe this is a case where all responsible industry players can share the objective of eliminating deceptive or abusive practices, preserving homeownership, and stabilizing housing markets.

David Eisenhower on Obama's historic speech:

David Eisenhower teaches a class at the University of Pennsylvania on important American political speeches. Senator Barack Obama, with last week's address on race and politics, gave him a new course.

``It was a very powerful speech,'' says Eisenhower, whose grandfather was president of the United States and supreme allied commander in World War II. ``Obama gives a very compelling reason as to why this is his time.''

``Like Robert Kennedy, Obama used this as a teaching moment,'' says Eisenhower.

Eisenhower is the son of the former President.

Teresa Heinz Kerry endorses Obama:

Pennsylvania needs a president like Barack Obama, someone who understands the tough times Pennsylvanians are facing. Raised with much love but in challenging circumstances by a single mom and grandparents, he knows firsthand the stress and financial pressures families face. When he beat the odds and put himself through college, he could have made good money with a big-name law firm anywhere in the country, but he chose the gritty streets of Chicago's South Side where, as a community organizer, he worked helping families like his build better lives.

Mr. Obama's work taught him what happens to families and communities when factories shut down and jobs go overseas. He knows firsthand the devastation and despair the global economy can bring -- and how important hope is in overcoming setbacks and getting lives and neighborhoods back on track.

But there's more to Mr. Obama than hope. There's a practical approach to economic recovery. It starts with a tax cut of up to $1,000 -- for middle-class families, not for millionaires. And Mr. Obama believes that there can be no "free" trade without fair trade. He's committed to fixing NAFTA, so that it works for American workers. For those whose jobs are threatened by foreign trade, Mr. Obama supports reforms to the Trade Adjustment Assistance program so that workers can be retrained before they lose their jobs.

This is an important endorsement, because it will help him in this white, blue collar area.

Booman on the legitimacy of a Hillary nomination:

Provided that Obama receives the nomination after winning the pledged delegate count, there is no reason for 'Latinos, perhaps part of the Jewish and Catholic vote, certain women and working-class Democrats' to lose confidence in the process. Their preferred candidate simply lost. It happens.

But if Obama wins the pledged delegate count and still does not gain the nomination, his supporters (most especially but certainly not limited to African-Americans) will be deeply, deeply disillusioned with the process. Even if Clinton were to catch up in the popular vote (a near pipe-dream, but nonetheless) it would offer some measure of mitigation, but not nearly enough to avoid a gross sense of injustice.

If Jerome Armstrong cannot anticipate the rift such an outcome would create in the Democratic Party, then he isn't qualified to opine on American politics. African-American turnout in the general election will be severely depressed, and the damage will be lasting.

Black turnout is absolutely critical to any Democratic statewide run for office in states like Missouri, Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Latino turnout can be critical in some states, too, but Armstrong has no argument for why Latino turnout would be severely depressed by a legitimate Obama nomination.

Obama may have a different base than Clinton, but if we are going to do an honest analysis, we have to ask which constituencies are going to stay-home or vote for McCain because Obama won the nomination (in their eyes) illegitimately. The answer is, of course, none. Obama has the conventional and legitimate claim to the nomination. Clinton's claim is based on non-traditional and non-conventional arguments. Her claim is an electability argument, which can wax and wane depending on the day.

Exactly. Blacks would have much more cause to stay home in the event of a Hillary nomination than Latinos or women would in the event of an Obama nomination. The way that the Clintons have exploited them during this race was akin to stabbing them in the back for purposes of political calculation and gain. It is ironic that the Clintons, who demand absolute loyalty from their people, can turn around and show that little loyalty to the people that helped them to win in the first place. On the other hand, I have documented above the extensive work that Obama has done on behalf of both women and Latinos, and will continue to do. Thus Obama will have a much easier time winning over Clinton's base than the Clintons would winning over Obama's base.

And there is another dynamic at work here -- the superdelegates do not want a repeat of 1968. That is why we see legislators like John Lewis and Lynn Woolsey, who personally support Clinton, nevertheless respect the wishes of their districts and vote for Obama instead.

Same tired old politics as usual from Bush on the occasion of the 4,000th death:

"It’s a sober moment, and one that all of us can focus on in terms of the number of 4,000," Ms. Perino told reporters on Monday morning. "The president feels each and every one of the deaths very strongly and he grieves for their families. He obviously is grieved by the moment but he mourns the loss of every single life."

Mr. Bush "bears the responsibility" for the decisions to go to war in Iraq, she added, but he also "bears the responsibility to continue to focus on succeeding."

We have done all that we have set out to do. We deposed Saddam, killed Zarqawi, and set up a new government to take over. But now, it is time for the Iraqi government to solve their own problems. The longer we stay in Iraq, the worse the refugee problem will get, and the more long-term damage that we do in our efforts to stop international terrorism. And in the meantime, Bin Laden continues to remain at large.

Clinton's lie about Bosnia is threatening to sink her campaign:

Chris Matthews falsely claimed Bill Clinton was attacking Obama's patriotism:

Chris Matthews asserted that "[t]here's only one way to read" Bill Clinton's statement -- "I think it'd be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country ... instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics": "He's saying that if you pick these two people, you get two people who love their country. If you don't, you don't get two people who love their country." But others have in fact offered an explanation of Clinton's comments that differs from Matthews', demonstrating that, contrary to his claim, there is more than one way "to read that."

Bill Clinton has said a lot of inflammatory things during this campaign, but this was not one of them. It does not follow from the context that he was challenging Barack Obama's patriotism; this is a classic non-sequitur. In fact, as the context shows, he was making the case for his wife's electability against John McCain.

The real reason for Cheney's visit to the Middle East?

Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak has told visiting US vice president Dick Cheney that "all options should remain on the table" in the country's bid to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Barak met Cheney Sunday evening in Tel Aviv and expressed Israeli concerns over Iran's nuclear programme and said that it threatens the stability of the entire region.

"Israel believes that financial sanctions against Tehran could still prove effective, but all options should remain on the table," Barak told Cheney, according to a defence ministry statement.

Fallon is gone from the Central Command, so that shakes up the equation in the Middle East. He had been one of our chief opponents of a war with Iran. Cheney has long favored an invasion of Iran. Right now, he is racing against time to try to trigger a pretext for war with that country. With Fallon gone, right now, the strongest thing that we have on our side is time -- there are only 10 months left in this administration. The whole world begged the US not to attack Iraq. Will the US listen to reason this time?

Terrorism money is still flowing around the world, a direct result of the worldwide mistrust of the Bush administration:

The U.S.-led effort to choke off financing for Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups is foundering because setbacks at home and abroad have undermined the Bush administration's highly touted counter-terrorism weapon, according to current and former officials and independent experts.

In some cases, extremist groups have blunted financial anti-terrorism tools by finding new ways to raise, transfer and spend their money. In other cases, the administration has stumbled over legal difficulties and interagency fighting, officials and experts say.

But the most serious problems are fractures and mistrust within the coalition of nations that the United States admits it needs to target financiers of terrorism and to stanch the flow of funding from wealthy donors to extremist causes.