I have been asked by my Mom (of all people) to avoid the political and get back to subject of maritime matters. As Obama has defeated the Wicked Witch Of Westchester, I believe that Mom is right as usual and it is time to take to the seas again.

Dan

I know, I know. More than 15 million Democrats have voted for Hillary Clinton in the primaries and many of them are so invested in her candidacy that they’re threatening to stay home in November or vote for Republican in waiting John McCain in the very likely event that the Democrats nominate Barack Obama for presdient.
Obama should choose her as his running mate to honor and woo those Clinton supporters. He should choose her as his running mate to help soothe the still escalating intra-party hostilities. He should choose her as his running mate because she runs far stronger than he does among certain core Democratic constituencies.
And for those reasons he probably will offer her the No. 2 spot on the ticket.
Yet here are eight reasons it’s a bad idea:

1. Choosing Clinton would belie Obama’s message of change. Whether you admire her or not, you have to acknowledge that Clinton’s an old-style, legacy Democrat. Obama’s candidacy is premised on a break with the past.

2. Choosing Clinton would belie Obama’s repudiation of the old way of doing politics. Clinton and her surrogates are tough campaigners who have gone hard after Obama (see below) trying to draw him into the fight. And on those occasions where he and his team have responded in kind, Team Clinton has smirkingly asked whatever happened to the politics of hope?

3. Bill Clinton. He’s a brilliant man and an amazing politician, but he’s shown an inability to stay on message and keep his foot out of his mouth as he campaigns for his wife. Obama already has Rev. Jeremiah Wright to worry about — he doesn’t need another loose cannon out there ready to fire.

4. She’s polarizing. For all that she’s shown how popular she can be with certain groups of primary voters, Hillary Clinton also remains a controversial and unpopular figure. Here are her “unfavorable” ratings among all voters in a set of recent national polls, with Obama’s unfavorability ratings in parenthesis: 37 (30) ; 45 (37) 46 (38) 49 (40) 54 (39) 53 (37).

5. She’ll be the star of anti-Obama commercials: “It’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold,” she said on March 6. “I believe that I’ve done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you’ll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy.”

6. She’s gone beyond the pale in attacking Obama: “I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. Sen. John McCain has a lifetime of experience that he’d bring to the White House. And Sen. Obama has a speech he gave in 2002,” she said on March 4. Clinton delivered this insulting, dismissive, destructive critique several times, and it’s a bell she can’t unring.

7. She’s toting unpacked baggage. Clinton likes to claim that she’s been thoroughly vetted and withstood all the Republican attacks of the 1990s and now any bad news about her is simply old news. It’s not so. Obama hasn’t called her on this claim because he’s trying to preserve the image that he’s above the politics of scandal. And the Republican operatives are lying in the weeds, boosting Clinton’s candidacy and licking their chops, waiting to pounce.
Not only are there all the “–gate” scandals from her husband’s administration that were set aside rather than fully resolved in the public’s mind (travel, file, cattle and so on), but the issue of the pardons Bill Clinton granted on his way out of the door and the mysterious funding sources from the Clinton Presidential Library are still out there.

8. Picking a real teammate is better than picking a political counterweight. Bill Clinton of Arkansas himself surprised the pundits in 1992 when he chose as his No. 2 another young moderate Democrat from from the mid-South — Al Gore of Tennessee — and the two ran a vigorous, consistent campaign. Obama would do better to pick someone of his generation who shares his general outlook and who can speak passionately and convincingly to voters about why they should support Obama.

Blogger Code of Ethics

Bloggers have debated what, if any, ethics the Weblog community should follow. Since not all bloggers are journalists and the Weblog form is more casual, they argue they shouldn’t be expected to follow the same ethics codes journalists follow. Responsible bloggers recognize that they are publishing words publicly and therefore, have certain ethical obligations to their readers, the people they write about, and society in general.

CyberJournalist.net has created an excellent model Bloggers’ Code of Ethics, by modifying the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics for the Weblog world. These are just guidelines — and in the end it is up to individual bloggers to choose their own best practices. CyberJournalist.net follows this code and urges other Weblogs to adopt this one or similar practices.

Integrity is the cornerstone of credibility. Bloggers who adopt this code of principles and these standards of practice not only practice ethical publishing, but convey to their readers that they can be trusted.

A BLOGGERS’ CODE OF ETHICS

Be Honest and Fair
Bloggers should be honest and fair in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.
Bloggers should:

• Never plagiarize.
• Identify and link to sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources’ reliability.
• Make certain that Weblog entries, quotations, headlines, photos and all other content do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
• Never distort the content of photos without disclosing what has been changed. Image enhancement is only acceptable for for technical clarity. Label montages and photo illustrations.
• Never publish information they know is inaccurate — and if publishing questionable information, make it clear it’s in doubt.
• Distinguish between advocacy, commentary and factual information. Even advocacy writing and commentary should not misrepresent fact or context.
• Distinguish factual information and commentary from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two.

Minimize Harm
Ethical bloggers treat sources and subjects as human beings deserving of respect.
Bloggers should:

• Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by Weblog content. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.
• Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.
• Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of information is not a license for arrogance.
• Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy.
• Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.
Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects, victims of sex crimes and criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges.

Be Accountable
Bloggers should:

• Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.
• Explain each Weblog’s mission and invite dialogue with the public over its content and the bloggers’ conduct.
• Disclose conflicts of interest, affiliations, activities and personal agendas.
• Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence content. When exceptions are made, disclose them fully to readers.
• Be wary of sources offering information for favors. When accepting such information, disclose the favors.
• Expose unethical practices of other bloggers.
• Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.

I embrace the Bloggers’ Code of Ethics and endeavor to apply them in my own work.

Technorati Tags: Ethics, politics, hillary, obama, mccain, election, bush, cheney, impeachment, United States, First Ammendment, Bill of Rights, Constitution, Liberty

    Sunday 27 January 2008

    Elizabeth Holtzman served in the US House of Representatives from 1973 to 1981.

    Since mid-December, members of the House Judiciary Committee Robert Wexler (D., Fla.), Luis Gutierrez (D., Ill.) and Tammy Baldwin (D., Wis.) have called for hearings on the impeachment of Vice President Cheney.

    This should not be surprising, given the strength of the case for impeachment. What’s surprising is that it took so long for members of this committee, normally tasked with holding impeachment proceedings, to call for them.

    They face huge political resistance on Capitol Hill. But they aren’t alone. Other Democratic members are joining them. Former senator and Democratic presidential nominee George McGovern recently published an op-ed demanding impeachment proceedings for both Bush and Cheney. Bruce Fein, a Republican who served in the Reagan Justice Department, and many other constitutional scholars also argue for impeachment.

    There is more than ample justification for impeachment. The Constitution specifies the grounds as treason, bribery or “high crimes and misdemeanors,” a term that means “great and dangerous offenses that subvert the Constitution.” As the House Judiciary Committee determined during Watergate, impeachment is warranted when a president puts himself above the law and gravely abuses power.

    Have Bush and Cheney done that?

    Yes. With the vice president’s participation, President Bush repeatedly violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires court approval for presidential wiretaps. Former President Richard Nixon’s illegal wiretapping was one of the offenses that led to his impeachment. FISA was enacted precisely to avoid such abuses by future presidents.

    Bush and Cheney were involved in detainee abuse, flouting federal criminal statutes (the War Crimes Act of 1996 and the anti-torture Act) and the Geneva Conventions. The president removed Geneva protections from al-Qaeda and the Taliban, setting the abuse in motion, and may have even personally authorized them.

    The president and vice president also used deception to drive us into the Iraq war, claiming Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda were in cahoots, when they knew better. They invoked the specter of a nuclear attack on the United States, alleging Hussein purchased uranium in Niger and wanted aluminum tubes for uranium enrichment, when they had every reason to know these claims were phony or at least seriously questioned within the administration. Withholding and distorting facts usurps Congress’ constitutional powers to decide on going to war.

    Can a commander-in-chief disobey laws on wiretapping or torture to protect the country in wartime?

    No. The Constitution requires the president to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” The Supreme Court ruled Harry S. Truman could not seize steel mills to prevent a strike, even during the Korean War. Nixon’s claim of national security as a justification for illegal wiretaps was also rejected in impeachment proceedings against him.

    What then is the justification for taking impeachment “off the table”? Congressional leaders don’t defend the administration, nor do they contend that its actions are unimpeachable or less serious than Nixon’s. Instead they argue there is no time, or that impeachment proceedings would distract the Congress from other work, or divide the country. The subtext seems to be fear that impeachment could undermine Democratic election prospects in 2008.

    But even these “pragmatic” arguments are wrong. Let’s take them one at a time:

    Insufficient time. In the case of Nixon, the House officially instructed the Judiciary Committee to act in early February 1974. The committee finished voting on articles of impeachment July 29, less than six months later. No presidential impeachment proceeding had taken place for almost 100 years, so the committee had to start from scratch, analyzing the Constitution and developing procedures for the impeachment inquiry. Now that the relevant legal spade work is done and a road map for proper impeachment proceedings exists, Congress might conduct them even faster than in 1974.

    Distraction. During Watergate, the impeachment inquiry didn’t prevent Congress from getting its work done. In fact, the House Judiciary Committee also worked on other matters during impeachment, just as the Senate did during its impeachment trial of former President Bill Clinton.

    Divisiveness. True, President Clinton’s impeachment was a highly partisan process that divided the country - because most Americans didn’t support it. They believed his conduct was reprehensible, but not an impeachable offense. Impeachment therefore had negative repercussions for the Republicans who instigated it.

    Nixon’s impeachment united the American people. The process was bipartisan, demonstrating this wasn’t just a Democratic ploy to undo an election. The fairness of the process, the seriousness of purpose, the substantial evidence - all gave the public confidence that justice had been done. This reinvigorated the shared value that the rule of law and preservation of democracy are more important than any president or party.

    This value is again asserting itself in grassroots impeachment movements across America. The Vermont Senate, several state Democratic parties, and many municipal governments have adopted resolutions supporting impeachment. More state legislatures would have acted except for pressure from Washington. Many polls show a majority of Americans support impeaching Cheney (a Nov. 13 American Research Group poll says 70 percent of Americans believe he abused his office), and slightly less than a majority support impeaching Bush.

    Stonewalling such widespread public sentiment is itself divisive, leading at least half the country to feel their concerns about upholding the Constitution are being ignored. Only a serious airing of evidence in hearings would heal the split.

    Undermining election prospects. When the impeachment process began, Nixon had just been reelected in one of the largest landslides in history. Few, if any, worried about whether impeachment was a political winner for Congress or the Democrats. Public opinion simply forced Congress’ hand when Nixon fired Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox. After the Judiciary Committee conducted impartial hearings and voted on impeachment, Congress’ approval ratings soared. Republicans were swamped in the November 1974 elections.

    Whether or not they bring electoral rewards in 2008, impeachment proceedings are the right thing to do. They will help curb the serious abuses of this administration, and send a strong message to future administrations that no president or vice president is above the law.

    Former Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman served on the House Judiciary Committee during proceedings toward Nixon’s impeachment. She coauthored the 1973 special-prosecutor statute, and cowrote (with Cynthia L. Cooper) the 2006 book “The Impeachment of George W. Bush.”

  ——-

Fiction is the story. Fiction illustrates the dream and lets us expound on the possibilities.

I am a big fan of Aaron Sorkin’s “The West Wing.” I recently ran across a short clip of the Democratic Convention as presented on this show and thought to myself, “This is how I would like to believe that I make decisions.”

Decisions are made by those who show up!

The clip is about six minutes long and well worth your time. Click here to see fictional Congressman Matt Santos (actor Jimmy Smits) address the Convention on how to pick a candidate.

Technorati Tags: Democratic party, Presidential Election, primary. caucus, caucuses, Obama, Clinton, Hillary, Edwards, McCain, White House, West Wing, Sorkin, convention, nomination, politics

Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words…

Technorati Tags: clinton, obama, edwards, democratic, 2008, election, presidential, New Hampshire, super tuesday, Iowa caucus, primary, truth, justice, politics, bill clinton, hillary clinton, hillary rodham clinton, Stand for Change,

Today’s reports say that with the president’s latest “emergency funding” request, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will top the Six Hundred Billion Dollar mark.

$600,000,000,000 is a pretty big number!

It is beyond ludicrous!

Hey Congress, Just Say No!!!

Technorati Tags: iraq, afghanistan, war, war on terror, Nancy Reagan, Blackwater, cheney, bush, congress, funding, pentagon,