^ leading exporter of rice in the world.  Thais define eating by rice; their way of asking if you want to eat is: “Gin khao?” Literally; “Eat rice?” If my wife goes one day without rice she is in agony and feeling like she hasn’t really eaten.  Westerners have no idea what rice means to Asians; it is literally the staff of life for them.  So, they will guard their supply.  Here, the U.S. is revered, but not cowed to.  Thai’s have never been colonialized, so they are fiercely nationalistic.  Needless to say this has its good points and bad points.

Gary Rosenblum,

You write: “Every news cycle should be filled with Republican administration criminals being flayed in hearings and the courtrooms, and being marched off to jail.”

Only one slight little problem: That scenario requires either the existence of a “Independent Counsel” (formerly known as “special prosecutor")—one drawn in from outside the government. Sadly, since the Special Prosecutor statute expired in 1999 it was since replaced by Department of Justice regulation 28 CFR Part 600.

What does that mean? Now any independent counsel can only be named by the attorney general of the DoJ (Michael Mukasey).

Since the DoJ is now nothing but a shill organization for the Bush Administration, as opposed to the supposedly “just” independent organization it was intended to be, the likelihood of this happening is about as high as if Bush Jr. in caring about democracy, the American public and/or telling the truth.

Sorry, but I’m very certain that Pelosi can handle the math of the stonewalling block of Republicans in both House and especially the Senate that would absolutely refuse to cooperate in any impeachment proceedings. And, as suggested, the point is made moot by the very simple fact that the DoJ would also stonewall such proceedings.

There is absolutely nothing that Pelosi, Reid, Hoyer or any other Dem can do about it because, while they were voted into a hair’s breadth majority in the Senate and only slightly better majority in the House, those numbers are not enough to support true accountability.

In fact, in terms of majorities, that the control of the senate rests in the hands of Joe Lieberman should be very, very troubling to any true Democrat (the numbers being 49 Repubs, 48 Dems, and 2 independents who side with the Dems). If watching Lieberman stump around with John McCain doesn’t do enough to chill your blood, just consider that all he has to do is say “I’m switching to side with the Republicans” out loud and the Senate then lands back under the control of the Repubs.

In many respects, to me at any rate, while we all watch the Terminator Clinton battle against Obi Wan Obama and vent our spleen at each other because of it, the more important thing to keep our eyes on for the fall is putting even more Dems into Congress if we ever hope to see accountability come about.

On that last point: In terms of the laws that have obviously been broken, there will still be time to investigate and prosecute those crimes once the next Congress is in session—and there will be *no* ability to claim executive privilege after the new president is sworn into office.

On *that* last point (and back to Obi Wan vs. the Terminator): The fact it is growing ever more apparent to me that Clinton does not care that her kitchen sink tactics could leave a Republican in office in the fall is deeply, deeply disturbing.

If we ever want the now-imperial presidency to be restored to its natural state and have a chance to exact some accountability for the last eight (30?) years of the neocon invasion, it pretty much requires that Democrats occupy two out of the three branches, for a while at any rate.

And, to his credit, Obama pledged that one of the first things he would do when he stepped into the Oval Office is to review and expunge the 700+ Bush signing statements to start the process of restoring balance in that branch.

When have you heard—or can you even imagine—Clinton pledging as a priority to relinquish presidential power?

Thought not.

This horror/farce movie will stop when a Hillary, plumped-up from countless campaign donuts, pancakes, hot dogs and beer-and-a-shots, gets up to sing her concession speech to Obama.

You can include one older guy and his spouse in you count!

You write:  “Did it bother you that not all of the people spoke in most Dem nomination contests?”

Yes. It bothers me. But it rather academic, isn’t it? I cannot make people go out and vote. At some point in time people have to make an adult decision and participate in their democracy. 

Community organizing and get out the vote campaogns can help. But isn’t the bottom lime still one cannot force people to vote.

Some countries actually make election day a national holiday. I often wonder of we did that here in the US if it would increase turnout.

What do you propose jps? Do you have any great ideas?

Very true. But with the baseball, I meant all the performance enhancing substances and such. As far as food is concerned, well, they won’t ever stop talking about how fat Americans are because the poorest Americans always seem to have the highest rates of obesity due to their steady diet of manufactured foods with highly refined and nutritionally starved grains in addition to the pesticide residues.

Lots of work on this, especially for a Friday night. But I understand from what you wrote what you did. I bet there is data on this somewhere. Maybe not yet for Primary season 2008. But I bet for previous years.

But what you found jives with what I remember reading about General elections, be it Presidential years or off year elections, even primaries, is that turnout is very low.

I am pretty certain (and I don’t want to do the research right now either) that in both 2000 and 2004 the percentage went up. But no matter how much it goes up, repubs still win. I think Kerry received the highest number of votes a Democrat for President ever received. But evidently Repubs did even better, aided and abetted by Blackwell in Ohio.

But you are right. Very few Americans vote. That is the bottom line.

You say “There is a reason that EU governments tend to be more responsive and progressive: they have to be.”

I am not sure that is the only reason, but it is part of the reason. I think history would show us it was a long evolution from rule by divine right of kings to the egalitarian Europe of today. And a lot of war and bloodshed occurred in the interim, except maybe in the Scandinavian countries, which have always been progressive. 

You also say:  “This terrible system is not the fault of the founders; proportional representation had not been invented when they laid out the rules.”

Well, the Congress was proportional but the Senate was not. But we have come a long way from that.

Mostly though the founding fathers hated the thought of political parties or quarreling “factions’” as they called them. What the founding fathers envisioned was more reasoned debate around the common good. They wanted individual citizens to vote for individual candidates, without the interference of organized parties. But that is not what occurred over our history and I doubt it changes during my lifetime.

This is a very cursory response to lots that you say, but that is partly because one cannot say a lot in 4000+ characters on Truth Dig.

I disagree about baseball.  Baseball is a thinking person’s sport.  When it was truly the national pastime we generally kept our heads screwed on straight.

As to our collective obesity...a year or two of food shortages (or not enough money to supersize everything) will fix that in short order.

You’re right though, they would find something else.  They are the circus.  But without bread, circuses aren’t very satisfying.

Isn’t Thailand the world’s leading producer of rice?

In any case, good for the Thais...they should feed themselves before they export for profit.  And i agree with Samak...that’s what everyone should say to the World Bank.

The rice crises made the front page (above the fold) of the Chicago Tribune today.  It made the cover of this week’s Economist.

A whole lot will depend on this year’s harvests in the States.  Last time i checked, it was overly wet through swaths of the grain belt, which doesn’t bode well.  Water shortages last year suggest that there could be more this year.  And nobody’s talking about the bees...well, farmers and apiarists are talking about the bees, and they’re scared shitless.

You too, i’m thinking it might be time to move to Thailand.

bert,

Unfortunately, i cannot find the document that i prepared when i took a long look at the numbers...so i’ll have to work from memory.  Furthermore, it turned out to be more difficult than i thought to find current totals for registered voters...so my numbers were somewhat skewed, but one would figure that the total RV number would have gone up...not down. (this would make the percentages that i found worse than what i figured)

What i did was look at total primary turnout, and then looked at turnout for Dem/Rep primaries.  I regfigured the published percentages against the old RV numbers that i found.

At the time, California had the highest turnout for their primary: right around 50% of registered voters in 2004. 33% (as i remember it) of CA’s registered voters voted in the Dem primary.

So if Clinton won 51-49 (again, i don’t remember exactly, and it’s been too long a day to care about details like that), then she actually garnered 51% of 33%...or a rather unimpressive number of votes.  I did not look at registered party members, mostly because most of the primaries have been open.

This argument cuts both ways.  Obama’s big wins look middling (at best).  And it makes my eyes roll when supporters of either candidate start talking about the “will of the people”.

I’ve done the same exercise on Presidential elections.  Bush’s 04 win looks terrible when you put the numbers in the context of total, registered voters...never mind census statistics for voting age population.

Our democratic participation is terrible.  The best is for presidential elections, and even that isn’t amazing.  Anything below that and the numbers fall off precipitously.  There’s no wonder in my mind about why we get stuck with such incompetent politicians...we let them waltz right into office.

And when you look at European representative governments (which, outside of England, are all proportional representation systems), you start seeing voter turnouts in the 90’s.  There is a reason that EU governments tend to be more responsive and progressive: they have to be.

Realistically, our votes often do not really count.  Because we have geographical representation and we allow Congress to draw/redraw district lines, it really doesn’t matter in a good many cases.  First they “vote” for us and then we’re allowed to vote for them.  If you live in a very Blue district, your abstention from voting (or voting for a candidate other than the Dem) will only really change the margin...and not by very much.

This terrible system is not the fault of the founders; proportional representation had not been invented when they laid out the rules.

I’m tempted to write a long winded essay about proportional representation and instant runoff ballots, but my brain is fried and i know that i’m not being very clear...so i won’t.

Bert, the ‘evidence’ has already been cited, and by outraged on various threads.

I’m not gonna RE-post it here, because it wouldn’t make any difference to you anyway. We could produce a sworn and certified affidavit from Hillary herself:

I CHEATED...and THIS IS HOW I DID IT..

And...you STILL would find a way to spin it.
Besides, weren’t you there in PA to help jam the machines? YOU should already KNOW how the cheating happened.

Wild and crazy propaganda, eh? Thou doest protest too much I think. (always happens when liars and cheaters think their about to be ‘found out’)

At the end of the day, how does it matter? Hillary has won portions of the deep, deep south, the most racist and redneck part of the nation, DESPITE the fact that it serves as home for the larger percentage of the African-American population, (there goes Jacob’s theory of the black vote making a difference, since the black vote has ALWAYS been oppressed in the deep south) and...SHE’S STILL LOSING, and she’s not losing by a little bit, she’s long ago LOST HER ASS!!

She should just take the rest of her millions, and go back to New York, and hope THEY don’t toss her Mac truck ass right out of their Senate seat.

As a Nader supporter (i.e. no dog in the hunt) I couldn’t agree more. It’s always the Obama camp calling for HIllary to step aside. They conveniently manage to overlook the fact that Obama has a math problems of his own.

That said, it will be the cleverer candidate who now takes the approach of turning their campaign resources to McCain and the republicans.

“...the highest number that the Dem primaries have reached is 33% of registered voters.”

Is this number 33% of registered Democrats? Or is it 33% of all registered voters? I am assuming that it is Dems since you did say that.

I am just curious. I had not seen any data on this till you posted this. A clarification would help me understand the raw numbers better.

Historically the percent of Americans who vote is very low. I am sure you know that as well as I do.

As I have been saying for weeks on various threads here the number of folks who actually vote in a primary is very low and generally just the base in each party. The base is usually around 30% of voters. (30% R; 30% D; and 30% I or swing.)

Generally more people vote in the General election than the primaries. But in relation to the total population, America generally has low voter turnout in all elections. U would bet that the same general pattern will hold in the General. Although in ‘04, I think I read somewhere that we had the highest percent turnout ever.

I’ll tell you again, even though you never listen. (Pretty sure you just make a quip, and then move to the next comment, which explains why you have no coherency with context and facts)

I live in Florida. Born and raised in this state. The majority of my state doesn’t care about the votes. I wanted a re-vote and called my state government for it to happen. Most people don’t care. You’re fighting a battle for people who knew their vote was just for show, and don’t have an opinion favoring it being counted or not in a traditional sense.

He says:  “Who exactly is against the people deciding? Certainly isn’t Obama.”

Tell that to Michigan and Florida.

You say “I personally don’t think Clinton “won” PA. I say they cheated.”

What objective proof of this do you have?  Please present it or cite it. Ohterwise this statement is just wild and crazy speculation.

...who wrote:  “That’s why I think Clinton should QUIT CHEATING and LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE!”

I think the people in PA DID decide. And Clinton cleaned his clock!!!!!!!

^ for the food crisis articles too.  What’s with that?  Here in the land of smiles they are controlling the exports of rice.  $1,000/ton; triple the price from a few months ago.  Thank god Thailand has resisted signing an FTA with the evil empire America, much to the consternation of the Bushies.  We’re not a true democracy here (thank god) so the government still panders to the populace to some extant.  The World Bank is pissed and told Thailand to honor its export commitments and Samak (the prime minister) said basically “fuck off”; I love it!  Have a good one.

Is it possible Hillary is the planned carrot on a stick for the Republicans, to show how insane they are?

I do declare Hillary Supporters are the most coarse people in the Democratic Primaries. They go so far as to claim people like me, the rational Obama supporter, whine about losses. Scoreboard still says, via people’s “voices,” Barack Obama is leading the race.

...Or are you one of those Clintonistas who follows the ideology that there are states that don’t matter as much as other, bigger states? Who exactly is against the people deciding? Certainly isn’t Obama.

How anyone can feel that given the Clinton marred History and Her current statements (and Lies) is more ‘Electable’ then Obama is NOT LISTENING TO HER, and have gone Senile. I voted for Bill 2x’s- but he and she had so many scandals during THEIR last tour of the WH- I Will Not Vote For Her!
She has SOOOOMuch baggage from the ‘90’s, Now dwarfed by her time in the Senate, and her outrageous campaign tactics- She can ONLY Steal the Election in Nov to win.
What REAL Dem would even think of saying she’ Obliterate’ another country WITH NUKES, Esp In Defense of countries like Saudi Arabia or the UAE???No Dem I would Vote For- We have been Trying to GET OUT OF THE ME FOR DECADES!!!No doubt she is not only using Tactics out of Roves Playbook- But Cheney’s Doctrine. Who does she think she is fooling?
These so called “Reagan Democrats” are the flip side of the same Beast that Ruined the Republican Party in the ‘80’s Neo Cons, Neo Dems.Corporationists who are working both sides against the middle, they are attempting the same Coupe they pulled before.
LYING and Fear Mongering and Hate Propaganda. Anyone who considers themselves a ‘Reagn Democrat’ must admit to themselves- they are Not Democrats- We hated Ronny! He gave US ‘Will to Work’ Ruined Unions, Ignored AIDS to the point it spread further, Traded Hostages for Arms, turned a blind eye to Corp. Corruption, Failed to push the Auto makers into alternative fuels, Raped the environment, Encouraged Racial,gender and Religious Division,fortified the Military Industrial Complex with Profiteers....I remember the ‘80’s and that late Stage Alzheimers Puppet propped up by the same vile men who are working to prop Up this mental defect Pres( Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfie, et al)-.These are not Dem Values. If you consider yourself a ‘Reagan Democrat’ then you are a covert operative trying to undermine our party Too!
I am Outraged everytime some media idiot parrots that deceptive term- call them what they are TRAITORS to Our Democratic Free Society

You know, that’s my only real reservation about this whole process, JS. Still, if it wasn’t the primary, you know they’d find some other distraction from reality. Probably puppies or baseball or how fat Americans are. Anything but the issues is the motto of the Mainstream Media.

Well, Eugene has a decent amount of sense for realizing these hardcore candidate-heads will come down off their passion-high in the Fall. Still, I disagree about whether or not this campaign has turned into a ‘slugfest’ (can we stop the boxing metaphors please?). Yeah, Obama was unfairly interrogated with pointless questions, but it was going to happen eventually. Even Barack himself said Hillary was doing him a favor by kicking, screaming and throwing as much mud as possible. In the end, though, who’s still leading? What states are next? Does anyone honestly think Hillary is going to carry Indiana and North Carolina? We’ll see whose knocked out in the end. My money is on Obama.

The only comparison relevant here is the ‘no difference’ of the clintons(yes, this just as much a race of giving billy 1 or 2 more presidential terms) not so brilliant first 2 terms when the nafta was signed that is a total corporate piece of welfare which puts them in cahoots with the conservative which demonstrates the NO real difference in a democrat or republican. And as hard and tenasious(sp) as they are running this campaign I would not be surprised of them winning the democratic nod, by hook or crook.

Well at least while this circus continues it distracts the media and the public from the profound issues facing America...and maybe that is the real point of it.

With the “all primaries all the time” news template, there is no reason to cover food riots around the world.  There is no reason to confront the American people with the hollowing out of their collective dream.  There is no reason to discuss the meaning of last month’s statistic that foreclosures outpaced home sales in California.

The never ending primary story saves us from facing up to our dystopia.

The problem with talking about letting the “people” decide is that the statement doesn’t hold statistical water.  Look at primary turnout numbers versus registered voters (not even voting age population) and everything changes.  Up until PA (which i haven’t checked), the highest number that the Dem primaries have reached is 33% of registered voters.  That means that a 51% wins really means 17.5% of the “people” spoke.

Regardless, if the situation were reversed, would you be calling for letting all the people speak?  Did it bother you that not all of the people spoke in most Dem nomination contests?

Re: Jacob Freeze

I agree.  That’s why I think Clinton should QUIT CHEATING and LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE!

I ask you Jacob, what’s wrong with this picture?

“All the polls this weekend show Hillary Clinton leading in Pennsylvania, but Obama’s the one drawing the crowds. On Friday, he spoke to the largest group on the campaign so far-- 35,000, assembled in Independence Park, spilling onto the street-- and Sunday in Reading he drew about 2600. Clinton’s drew an estimated 1500 at a high school a few miles away the day before.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kelly-nuxoll/in-pa-its-p oll-numbers-ve_b_97699.html

(and this picture)
“But wait, as they say on late-night tv, there’s more: Remember the age breakdown of that first EP (10% 18-29, 17% 30-44, 73% 45+)? That is an older electorate than I have ever seen, even in FL
or AZ; and of course older skews toward Clinton, so even that first exit poll looks as if it probably heavily oversampled Clinton voters. (Actually, what they did was, however they actually sampled, they just weighted the responses to those bizarre age demographics, which has the effect of boosting the apparent Clinton vote in the process.)

“So what happened to all those young and first-time voters that we were told were turning out in droves? Do we really believe that three out of every four voters was 45 or older??”

http://www.markcrispinmiller.blogspot.com/

Good article Eugene.

Your comment: “Yes, I know it’s inappropriate to compare a talented and accomplished woman such as Hillary Clinton with a homicidal cyborg from the future.”

I have to disagree of course with the comment above.  I wouldn’t call it “inappropriate” I might call it something more like “EXTREMELY ACCURATE”.  This whole charade has gotten to the point of asininity.

For starters, I personally don’t think Clinton “won” PA. I say they cheated. Maybe that’s why they “let Penn go” so he could concentrate on his “sleight of hand"(polls).

It does seem there’s no reason for Clinton to continue.  Of course, then you have to ask yourself...unless there IS “some reason” to.  For me that’s the question of the day.  There must be a reason, I bemuse.  There must be a reason....