Sickened at the prospect that a victory for reformist Mir-Hossein Mousavi in the Iranian presidential election might have led to better relations with the United States, neoconservatives here and their fellow war hawks in Israel are celebrating the dubious victory of hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Yes, this is true: Right-wingers in America and Israel don't want peace with Iran, nor do they want anyone to get the impression that President Obama's efforts at engagement with Iran might actually work, nor do they give a damn about the Iranian people. Mad Mahmoud is the man neocons love to hate, and they're as happy as clams that their guy found a way to steal the election.

Had Mousavi won the Iranian election as many in Iran and around the world hoped, it would likely have signalled a new and more positive direction for U.S.-Iranian relations as well as providing support for the "Obama Doctrine" of engagement with Iran and others in the Muslim world with which America's relations have been troubled. Such a development would at the same time have undercut the neocon attitude of hostility and suspicion toward Iran, as well as undercutting the right-wing Israeli government's aggressive stance toward Iran. As we know, neocons can tolerate peace only when it is imposed with an iron fist or the heel of a jackboot, and the prospect of peace through diplomacy in the Greater Middle East must surely have given them nightmares the rest of us could scarcely imagine.

In the run-up to the Iranian election last week, Daniel Pipes of the right-wing Middle East Forum came right out and admitted in a speech at the right-wing Heritage Foundation that he would actually vote for Ahmadinejad if he were allowed to vote in Iran (video). This speech was followed by a June 12 blog post by Pipes in which he reiterated that he was "rooting for Ahmadinejad" based on the twisted logic that the fundamentalist clerics who really rule Iran will always be our enemies and it's better to have an Iranian president we can really hate than "a sweet-talking Mousavi" who lulls us into thinking we can be friends. Never mind the aspirations or even basic human rights of the Iranian people; never mind anyone's desire for peace in the Greater Middle East. I've long had a pretty strong distaste for Daniel Pipes, but following this admission I'm more convinced of his utter vileness than ever. This is, after all, a man who has publicly advocated for the profiling and internment of Muslims in America, and who considers Israeli and Palestinian existence mutually exclusive (see Sourcewatch). As we leave the age of the neocons behind, I look forward to watching Pipes and others like him slide into the bitter, drooling irrelevance and oblivion they deserve.

The American Enterprise Institute's equally malignant Michael Rubin likewise told Kathryn Jean Lopez at the National Review that it might be better for Ahmadinejad to win, because a Mousavi win might give Obama and the rest of us the impression that diplomacy was actually working. Painting Iran as inherently and hopelessly evil, Rubin said of the Iranian election that should Mousavi win "it would be easier for Obama to believe that Iran really was figuratively unclenching a fist when, in fact, it had its other hand hidden under its cloak, grasping a dagger." James Taranto strikes a similar tone in the Wall Street Journal, warning against the "eagerness to see Obama's feel-good foreign-policy approach succeed."

Now that the Iranian election appears to be over, right-wingers will be tripping over themselves in the rush to use Ahmadinejad's victory against Obama. In fact, once and future Republican U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney has already piped up, saying that Ahmadinejad's win is proof that Obama's "policy of going around the world and apologizing for America is not working." These losers obviously have nothing left but the hope that Obama will fail, or can at least be said to have failed. I look forward to watching Romney and his party lose again in 2012.

Right-wingers in Israel, meanwhile, have been making noises very similar to their American bedfellows, and appear to see nothing good for themselves in any warming of relations between the U.S. and Iran, as observed by M.J. Rosenberg at TPM. From Israel in the run-up to the Iranian election Yaakov Katz wrote in the Jerusalem Post that members of the Israeli defense establishment were "silently praying" for an Ahmadinejad victory, fearing that a Mousavi win would result in decreased pressure on Iran and its nuclear program. Now that Ahmadinejad appears to have successfully stolen the election, Israeli officials and their allies in America are calling for renewed pressure on Iran. Meanwhile, Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff write in Haaretz that an Ahmadinejad victory is actually preferable for Israel because a Mousavi win would only "paste an attractive mask on the face of Iranian nuclear ambitions."

I suspect we'll hear more of this in days to come from eager neocons on both sides of the Atlantic. Obama's policy of engagement will work, however, and is working, as evidenced by the overwhelmingly positive reaction to his Cairo speech, by the Lebanese election results, by the reform movement in Iran, and by the likelihood that Ahmadinejad kept his office only through vote-rigging, suppression, and intimidation. Obama will succeed, and once he has neocons like Daniel Pipes can take up residence in the dustbin of history where they belong.

Mark C. Eades
http://www.mceades.com

President Barack Obama's interview this week with Arab news network Al-Arabiya appears to have been a success. The president's first interview since taking office, his appearance with the network's Washington bureau chief Hisham Melhem was an effort to extend a hand of friendship to the Arab and Muslim world, and included Obama's acknowledgment that Americans "have not been perfect" in their dealings with that world:

"My job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives...," Obama told Melhem in the interview, "...My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect. But if you look at the track record, as you say, America was not born as a colonial power, and that the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as twenty or thirty years ago, there's no reason why we can't restore that. And that I think is going to be an important task."

Obama's interview included a re-statement of his committments both to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and to follow through on his promise to address the Muslim world from a Muslim capital during his first months in office. It also included an aknowledgment of his own personal connections to the Muslim world -- connections for which Republican bigots viciously attacked Obama during the 2008 campaign, but which can hardly hurt him now as he begins the work of repairing US relations with the Muslim world:

"My job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world, that the language we use has to be a language of respect. I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries.... And so what I want to communicate is the fact that in all my travels throughout the Muslim world, what I've come to understand is that regardless of your faith -- and America is a country of Muslims, Jews, Christians, non-believers -- regardless of your faith, people all have certain common hopes and common dreams."

Obama's interview with Al-Arabiya comes as his new Mideast envoy, former senator George Mitchell, heads to the region to restart a peace process long neglected by Obama's predecessor, and follows his contact with Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas immediately after his inauguration Jan. 20. Obama's overtures to the Muslim world are certain to offend many conservatives, who regard Arabs and Muslims with extreme hostility and suspicion, and who think that the only people in the Middle East we ought to be talking with are the Israelis. Many of these were deeply offended when Obama's first call to a foreign leader was to the Palestinian president instead of his Israeli counterpart, and are likely to be equally offended that his first interview was with Al-Arabiya instead of the Jerusalem Post.

I say tough cookies for them. Elections have consequences. While President Obama has neither said nor done anything to suggest that he is about to "abandon" Israel (as I'm certain his conservative critics would love to charge), he clearly recognizes that a Mideast policy based on an exclusive relationship with Israel and on callous disregard of Arab concerns has not worked. The time for change has come, and from where I sit it looks like President Obama is off to a damn good start.

See also Washington Post, Youtube. 

(Your Tax Dollars at Work in the Middle East)

The state of Israel is facing charges of war crimes following the slaughter of innocent civilians including hundreds of children in its recent campaign against Palestinian militants on the Gaza Strip. Israel's powerful ally, the United States, also faces charges of complicity in the slaughter as Palestinians declare: "This Damage Made in USA."

UN human rights expert Richard Falk said on Thursday that the recent Israeli military operation on the Gaza Strip "raises the specter of systematic war crimes" and needs to be investigated. Falk told journalists in Geneva from his home in California that he had little doubt as to the "unavoidably inhuman character of a large-scale military operation of the sort that Israel has initiated... against an essentially defenseless population." Charging that "unlawful targets have been selected" by Israeli forces during the fighting, Falk insisted that Palestinian residents of the Gaza Strip including children and the wounded were effectively trapped in a war zone and prevented from fleeing.

Meanwhile, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has issued demands for a full explanation of "outrageous" Israeli attacks on UN facilities on the Gaza Strip including a school used as a refuge for civilians, killing dozens. The UN chief noted that Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert had promised to provide results of an Israeli inquiry into the attacks "on an urgent basis" and said he would then decide on "appropriate follow-up action." On January 12, the 47-member UN Human Rights Council voted by a large majority to launch an investigation into "grave" human rights violations by Israeli forces against Palestinians. Israel is also facing questions from human rights groups regarding the use of illegal weapons, including white phosphorus munitions, against Palestinian civilians on the Gaza Strip.

These charges come amid renewed calls for a global boycott, divestment, and sanctions against Israel from groups such as the Global BDS Movement. Recently, Canadian journalist Naomi Klein wrote in support of such a boycott: "The best strategy to end the increasingly bloody occupation is for Israel to become the target of the kind of global movement that put an end to apartheid in South Africa." Some are also calling for a boycott of US exports for its continuing support of Israeli actions against Palestinians.

The Palestinian death toll from Israel's recent war on Gaza currently stands at around 1300, most of whom were innocent civilians, and around a third of whom were children. Ten Israeli soldiers and three civilians were killed in Israel during the same period, an indicator of Israel's massively disproportionate response to Palestinian attacks on Israelis. A total of twenty-eight Israelis have been killed by Palestinian rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip since 2001, a tiny fraction of the number of Palestinians killed in Israel's recent Gaza actions alone. These numbers echo casualty figures from the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict which consistently show innocent Palestinian dead including children massively outnumbering Israelis.

Rocket attacks on Israel from the Gaza Strip deserve both condemnation by the international community and a proportionate response by Israel. The killing of one Israeli in a rocket attack does not, however, entitle Israel to respond by slaughtering twenty, thirty, or forty innocent Palestinian civilians. Such slaughter, furthermore, will no more stop Hamas' rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip than it stopped Hezbollah's rocket attacks from Lebanon in 2006. Just as Hezbollah could declare victory in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon war simply by surviving to fight another day, so Hamas can declare victory in Gaza this day. Meanwhile, Israel increasingly becomes a pariah state in the eyes of the world, as does the United States for its complicity in the slaughter. Ever-growing anger particularly in the Arab world serves America's national security interests no better than it serves Israel's.

Behold, America: Your tax dollars at work in the Middle East.

Out of the tragedy of Gaza, perhaps, will come renewed opportunity to hold Israel accountable for its actions, to press for a new US policy on the Middle East, for peace, and for an end to Israel's long and bloody occupation of the Palestinian Territories. Boycott, divestment, and sanctions efforts such as those promoted by the Global BDS Movement have a proven track record of success as in the case of South Africa, and deserve our support. UN efforts to hold Israel accountable for its actions also deserve our support, but are likely to require UN Security Council action of the type America with its power of veto most often and most notoriously obstructs. Pressure, therefore, needs to be applied to the White House and Congress for a new US approach to the conflict and a new US attitude in the UN Security Council. Whether our new ambassador to the UN offers active support with a "yes" vote or passive permission by abstaining on UN efforts to hold Israel accountable for its actions, our message to the new administration regarding these efforts can be stated clearly and briefly as follows: NO VETO!

Sources: Agence France Presse, Time, Los Angeles Times, Haaretz, New Straits Times, Bay Area Indymedia, B'Tselem, Human Rights Watch.

Slide show: Gaza Massacre by Sabbah.

Photo gallery: Child victims of Gaza violence.

Contacts:

The White House

US Mission to the UN

Contact your US Senators

Contact your US Representative

For Democrats, Barack Obama's stunning victory last night over John McCain brought a seemingly endless and often bitter presidential campaign battle to a welcome end. Obama's victory came as cause for relief and for celebration, as did Democratic gains in the Senate and the House of Representatives. When our first African American president takes office in January, Democrats will enjoy a position of authority in Washington we have not held since a brief period from 1992 to 1994. Many progressives are saying now that the era of conservative dominance in America beginning with the rise of the "New Right" in the 1970s and the Reagan victory in 1980 has now come at last to an end, that the long Republican nightmare is over, and I too am hopeful that this is so. While we celebrate and look ahead to the Obama Era, however, we should also remember that just as power can be won so it can also be lost, as it was in 1980, 1994, and 2000.

Each end is also a beginning; and so the end of Campaign 2008 and the end of Republican rule is also the beginning of something, but of what? Are we at the doorstep of a bold new progressive age that begins with Obama and extends into infinity, or of another brief Democratic reign to end again with a bitter Republican resurgence? Now that we have successfully driven the Republicans from power, how do we keep them from coming back, as we know we must if we are to avoid a repeat of the past eight years? A Republican resurgence would be a disaster, not only for Democrats and progressives, but for America and the world. The Karl Roves and Dick Cheneys of the world are not going anywhere. They will simply retreat to their think tanks and begin cooking up plans to retake power, just as they did during the Clinton years. Their success must be prevented by any and all means at our disposal.

While progressives will surely have a place at the table in the new administration, we cannot expect that the Left will or should dominate the Obama agenda at least in the near term. I would consider myself to be well on the Left of the Democratic Party, and I'm happy that progressives will have a voice in the new administration, but I feel pretty certain that Obama will have to govern more-or-less from the center if he is to avoid creating a whole new generation of "Reagan Democrats." I am hopeful that it may now be possible for progressives not simply to move the government to the left but to actually move the country to the left, and to create a new progressive America free of the politics of Reagan and Bush. In order for this to happen, however, Democrats in Washington will first have to prove themselves capable of governing the country effectively and satisfactorily in the eyes of their constituents. Once conservative-leaning, "soft" Democrats see that liberals aren't so bad after all, they will be much more likely to elect Democrats to Congress in 2010, to re-elect President Obama in 2012, to put another Democrat in the White House in 2016, and to listen to progressive ideas in the meantime with an open mind. While Democrats in Washington focus on effective governance, they and Democratic activists including us in the netroots must also focus on maintaining the gains we have made and on making further gains in election cycles to come. We cannot afford a repeat of 1980, 1994, or 2000.

Meanwhile, a whole new generation of first-time Democratic voters has been brought into the electorate, and this new Democratic base must be maintained and built at a grassroots level. Because of a far less reliable base of Democratic voters in previous elections, a hardcore Republican base of social conservatives, neo-cons, bigots, and xenophobes was allowed to dominate American politics for the better part of thirty years. This can never be allowed to happen again. Republicans who cannot be persuaded to go Democratic must be isolated and outvoted. In the immediate term, this means building a broad new Democratic base that includes centrists and even moderate conservatives in addition to progressives and the Left: not an easy task. The brilliant success of the Obama campaign in doing precisely that, however, can be credited in great part to Obama's experience as a community organizer in Chicago - experience that will serve the Democratic Party's organizing efforts well in the years to come.

Indeed if anyone is up the difficult tasks which surely lie ahead, I think it is our new president-elect. Throughout his campaign, he has shown himself to be a steady, focused, and disciplined political leader: not bad traits if one wishes to be an effective and successful president. More importantly, Obama possesses clear vision and a spirit of idealism that could not contrast more with the cynicism of the era that has just ended. He also possesses a strong, committed base of grassroots support that is ready for the battles to come. I for one look forward with hope and confidence to the road ahead.

The threat of GOP voter suppression and election theft is as great as ever this election year, and perhaps even greater as Republicans grow desperate to head off what appears likely to be a crushing defeat on Nov. 4. While Republicans hurl baseless accusations of voter fraud at Democrats and progressives who seek to build turnout, the fact remains that it is the GOP which has repeatedly sought to suppress voting in order to win elections. Republicans have used and continue to use a variety of methods to disenfranchise likely Democratic voters, including disqualification, deception, and intimidation.

Methods of voter suppression used by Republicans and the threat they pose this election year were recently discussed by Andrew Gumbel at The Nation as well as by Peter Rothberg. Meanwhile, Roberto Lovato discusses what we can all do to protect our votes on Election Day and after. The Brennan Center for Justice documents and reports incidents of voter suppression nationwide for public information. Reports on voter suppression activities have also recently appeared in the New York Times and at CNN.

The Election Protection coalition (1-866-OUR-VOTE) is a nonpartisan organization formed to ensure that all voters have an equal opportunity to participate in the political process. Through their website and voter hotline Election Protection provides live, up-to-the-minute information and advice on voting conditions nationwide as well as taking reports of irregularities from voters. No Voter Left Behind (NVLB) is a Democratic organization founded by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to fight GOP efforts at voter suppression and election theft. NVLB also provides extensive information on GOP voter suppression methods and on how Democrats can protect their votes as well as taking reports of irregularities. In addition to offering direct assistance to voters, Election Protection and NVLB seek donors and volunteers to support their efforts.

Mark C. Eades
http://www.mceades.com

Proposition 8 is a California Nov. 4 ballot measure aimed at changing the California Constitution so as to eliminate the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry in California, and to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

In May 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that previous statutes limiting marriage to heterosexual couples violated the equal protection clause of the California Constitution, and held that individuals of the same sex have the right to marry under the California Constitution. As of this date, consequently, the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry in California is constitutionally protected. Proposition 8 would effectively overturn the California Supreme Court's decision, writing discrimination into the California Constitution.

Prominent Californians including Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger, congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, mayors Gavin Newsom of San Francisco, Antonio Villaraigosa of Los Angeles, and Jerry Sanders of San Diego, and California Superintendent of Schools Jack O'Connell, have all expressed opposition to Proposition 8. Proposition 8 is opposed also by every major newspaper in California, including the the Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, San Diego Union-Tribune, Orange County Register, Sacramento Bee, San Jose Mercury News, Contra Costa Times, Redding Record-Searchlight, Riverside Press-Enterprise, Napa Valley Register, Palm Springs Desert Sun, Santa Rosa Press Democrat, and Fresno Bee. Barack Obama has called Prop 8 "divisive and discriminatory."

California voters should visit the No On Prop 8 website, contribute if possible, spread the word, and vote NO on Proposition 8.

The McCain/Palin campaign of hate and fear against Barack Obama, and its attempts to tie Obama to alleged vote fraud by ACORN, have resulted in a string of attacks on ACORN offices and staff including vandalism, hate calls, and at least one death threat.

As McClatchy reports, ACORN offices in Boston and Seattle were vandalized Oct. 16, and ACORN staff in Cleveland and Providence RI have reported telephone hate calls as well as e-mails including direct threats. A senior ACORN staffer in Cleveland, after appearing on television last week, received an e-mail saying that she "is going to have her life ended." Meanwhile, a female staffer in Providence received a threatening call from someone who directed racial slurs at her and said words to the effect of "We know you get off work at 9."

ACORN spokesman Brian Kettenring told McClatchy that, since McCain's remarks accusing his organization of vote fraud, ACORN's 87 offices across the country have received hundreds of hostile e-mails, many of them containing racial slurs. "We believe that these are specifically McCain supporters" sending the messages, Kettenring said.

Right Wing Watch has obtained audio files of hate calls ACORN has received as well as copies of e-mails including threats and racial slurs. One young woman caller openly states that Barack Obama and other blacks should be lynched: "Barack Obama needs to get hung...," the young woman says, "...All the niggers on oak trees. They're gonna get all hung, honeys, they're gonna get assassinated, they're gonna get killed." A male caller, meanwhile suggests with obvious racial undertones that all "liberals" are "welfare bums" who "come to our country, consume every natural resource there is, and make a lot of babies." Accusing these "liberals" of sucking up welfare and health care benefits for their children, the caller continues: "I just say let your kids die.... And I hope you all die." In addition to the e-mail death threat from Cleveland cited above, an e-mail copied at Right Wing Watch says: "You blue gums are not going to steal the election. All of you porch monkeys need to go back to Africa."

As Rachel Maddow and others have reported and as ACORN itself has explained, any cases of voter registration fraud connected to ACORN are  most likely attributable to dishonesty on the part of people hired by ACORN to register voters (it's easier to fake registrations than go out and get real ones) rather than any dark conspiracy on the part of ACORN itself; and in any case is unlikely to result in actual voter fraud since fictional people are unlikely to show up on Election Day. As Maddow and others have also reported, Obama's only relationship to ACORN was as an attorney in partnership with the US Justice Department and the League of Women Voters in addition to ACORN to sue the State of Illinois for enforcement of the 1993 federal "motor voter" registration law.

John McCain, meanwhile, has his own links to ACORN as Maddow and others have also noted. McCain was in fact the keynote speaker at an ACORN-sponsored event in Miami on Feb. 20, 2006 in support of comprehensive immigration reform, which McCain once supported. A video of the event including McCain's address clearly demonstrates McCain's support for ACORN's objectives at that time: "What makes America special...," McCain's declares to an audience filled with with red-shirted ACORN members, "...is what's in this room tonight" (see also Politico, MarketWatch).

The Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN) is an organization dedicated to empowering low- and moderate-income Americans through voter registration drives, ballot initiatives, service delivery, and other organizing efforts. ACORN is not the sinister cell of subversives John McCain, Sarah Palin, and other Republicans have accused it of being. In fact, ACORN has frequently been on the same side as the federal government in voters' rights cases such as that in which Barack Obama was involved as an attorney-at-law.

Republican attacks on ACORN have nothing to do with voter fraud, and everything to do with smearing Barack Obama and with finding ways to stop likely Democrats from voting. These Republican attacks are nothing more than a grand voter intimidation scheme aimed at young voters, low- and moderate-income voters, urban voters and people of color who would most likely be voting Democratic on Nov. 4.

John McCain and Sarah Palin did not tell their supporters to vandalize ACORN offices or contact ACORN with death threats. In view of their continued insistence on the use of fear and hate to manipulate voters, however, and in view of the similar types of hate-based behavior we have seen at McCain/Palin rallies across the United States, I would argue that McCain, Palin, and the GOP are as responsible for these acts as the perpetrators themselves. McCain and Palin need to be held accountable for the lynch-mob mentality they have knowingly cultivated among their supporters with their own divisive rhetoric.

Terminal hypocrite John McCain has been working overtime lately to draw a negative association between Barack Obama and the left-leaning community organization ACORN. What McCain has failed to mention is that he has also been associated with ACORN, namely as keynote speaker at a Florida event co-sponsored by ACORN in February 2006. Perhaps McCain needs to have his memory refreshed.

McCain is pictured here seated beside Florida representative Kendrick Meek at an event held in Miami on Feb. 20, 2006 in support of comprehensive immigration reform, which McCain also supported back when he was still a little bit mavericky. The event was sponsored by ACORN, the Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center, the Florida Immigrant Coalition, People for the American Way/Mi Familia/Vota en Accion, UNITE/HERE, Catholic Charities, the Service Employees International Union, and the New American Opportunity Campaign among other progressive groups (see Politico, MarketWatch).

A video of the event including McCain's address clearly demonstrates McCain's support for ACORN's objectives: "What makes America special...," McCain's declares to an audience filled with with red-shirted ACORN members, "...is what's in this room tonight."

Once at odds with conservatives in his own party owing to his support of comprehensive immigration reform, McCain has since abandoned his former position and fallen into line with the anti-immigrant far right, as ACORN chief organizer Bertha Lewis observed in a statement issued with the photo here:

"It has deeply saddened us to see Senator McCain abandon his historic support for ACORN and our efforts to support the goals of low-income Americans. Maybe it is out of desperation that Senator McCain has forgotten that he was for ACORN before he was against ACORN; he was for immigration reform before he was against immigration reform; and he was a maverick before he became erratic. We were thrilled to partner with him to help reform the outdated immigration laws in this country, and were pleased to work closely with him on this issue.... We expected Senator McCain to support our efforts to give voice to millions of American's who have never participated in an election before. We are surprised at his efforts to villify an organization that, until recently, he saw as an ally. Maybe this surprise attack and change of heart is indicative of his state of mind, and the way he would govern.... We are sure that the extremists he is trying to get into a froth will be even more excited to learn that John McCain stood shoulder to shoulder with ACORN, at an ACORN co-sponsored event, to promote immigration reform."

The far-right Republican base to which McCain now so energetically panders would not be pleased to be reminded either of McCain's former pro-immigrant stance or of his former support for ACORN. As long as McCain insists on attempting to use ACORN as a wedge issue against Obama, this photo and video should also be used to remind everyone what a hypocrite McCain truly is.

Rachel Maddow provides an excellent analysis of the ACORN controversy at MSNBC video. As Maddow and others have reported, Obama's only relationship to ACORN was as an attorney in partnership with the US Justice Department and the League of Women Voters in addition to ACORN to sue the State of Illinois for enforcement of the 1993 federal "motor voter" registration law. The ACORN voter registration fraud case, Maddow and others also report, is most likely attributable to dishonesty on the part of people hired to register voters (it's easier to fake registrations than go out and get real ones) rather than any dark conspiracy on the part of ACORN itself; and in any case is unlikely to result in actual voter fraud since fictional people are unlikely to show up on Election Day.

A new video from the Wasilla Project documents the controversial practice of charging rape victims for evidence-gathering exams under Sarah Palin's watch as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska. The video includes interviews from late September 2008 with former Alaska state representative Eric Croft, sponsor of the 2000 bill which made it illegal to charge victims for rape exams in Alaska; forensic nurse Tara Henry, who has conducted many such exams in Alaska; Wasilla city council member Dianne Woodruff (formerly a Republican but now an independent); Geran Tarr, chairperson of the Alaska Women's Lobby; and Dr. Colleen Murphy, formerly of the Alaska Violent Crimes Compensation Board. All attest to the wrongful nature of this practice, stubbornly pursued in Wasilla under Palin's watch even in the face of state legislation against it. This video follows a recent ad from Planned Parenthood hitting Palin on the practice of charging victims for rape exams.

Previous reports on Palin's rape exam controversy include a recent written report and video by CNN confirming that when Palin was mayor Wasilla did indeed cling stubbornly to the practice of charging victims for rape exams, even in the face of legislation against it sponsored by state representative Eric Croft. Croft told CNN that the only ongoing resistance he met was from Wasilla, where Palin was mayor from 1996 to 2002. "It was one of those things everyone could agree on except Wasilla...," Croft told CNN, "...We couldn't convince the chief of police to stop charging them."  While some of Palin's supporters say they believe she had no knowledge of the practice, critics call the suggestion "outrageous" and question Palin's commitment to helping women who are victims of violence. As Croft told CNN, "I find it hard to believe that for six months a small town, a police chief, would lead the fight against a statewide piece of legislation receiving unanimous support and the mayor not know about it."

Forensic nurse Tara Henry also spoke with CNN, confirming Croft's comments on Wasilla's intransigence in the matter of rape exams and telling CNN that while several local law enforcement agencies expressed difficulty paying for the exams, Wasilla was the most vocal in its opposition to paying. Charging victims for exams "retraumatizes them," according to Henry: "Asking them to pay for something law enforcement needs in order to investigate their case, it's almost like blaming them for getting sexually assaulted."

Wasilla police have claimed that their intent was not to charge rape victims for their exams, but to charge victims' insurance companies. This claim has yet to be substantiated, however, and provides no answer for what might happen in cases where the victim has no insurance. In any case, police departments have no more business charging rape victims or their insurance companies for rape exams than they have charging for any other type of criminal investigation: this is why we pay taxes.

As Dianne Woodruff notes in the Wasilla Project video, Mayor Palin redecorated her own office multiple times at public expense while Wasilla claimed that it could not afford to pay for rape exams.

With a rape rate 2.5 times the national average, as CNN observes, Alaska has the worst record of any state in rape and murder of women by men.

American women and all Americans should know about Palin's history of opposing fair treatment for rape victims.

Saturday's Washington Post reports that the John McCain campaign is preparing an aggressively negative campaign against Barack Obama in a last-ditch effort to squash the Democrat's presidential hopes as Election Day rapidly approaches. With scarcely a month to go until Nov. 4, as the Post's Michael D. Shear reports at length, Republicans "are readying a newly aggressive assault on Sen. Barack Obama's character," including any personal associations they can exploit, believing that to win on Election Day they "have to change the subject" away from the economic concerns which have boosted the Democrats in recent weeks (see also Huffington Post).

"Pit bull" Sarah Palin appears to be leading the charge in this effort. In an interview on Fox News Friday, Palin said that Obama is "reckless" and that some of what Obama has said, "in my world, disqualifies someone from consideration as the next commander in chief." Then at a fundraiser on Saturday, Palin accused Obama of "palling around with terrorists," a reference to Obama's tenuous association with '60s militant William Ayers. Obama "is someone who sees America it seems as being so imperfect, imperfect enough that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country...," Palin said, "...This is not a man who sees America like you and I see America." Clearly designed to paint Obama as someone who is "outside the American mainstream" (i.e., exotic, foreign, Other, and dangerous), Palin's comments were described as "unsubstantiated" and "racially tinged" by the Associated Press, who observed also that "John McCain himself may come to regret" them.

In view of their total reliance on negative campaigning, it seems clear at this point that John McCain and Sarah Palin have nothing positive to offer. 

The shameless bigot you see pictured at right is Bobby May, McCain campaign chair in Buchanan County, Virginia, as well as treasurer and former correspondence secretary of the Buchanan County Republican Party. Mr. May recently published a newspaper column containing an overtly racist attack against Barack Obama. Appearing in a local paper called The Voice, May's column contained a number of inflammatory charges against Obama, including the following on Obama's plans for America if elected:

"FREEDOM OF RELIGION: Mandatory Black Liberation Theology classes taught in all churches - raise taxes to pay for this mandate. Put Rev. Jeremiah Wright in charge...."

"DRUG CRISIS: Raise taxes to pay for free drugs for Obama’s inner-city political base...."

"2ND AMENDMENT: Under Obama will only apply to gang-bangers, illegal aliens, Islamo-Fascist terrorists, and Senator Jim Webb’s aide...."

"FOREIGN RELATIONS: Appoint Rev. Al Sharpton as Secretary of State, Jesse Jackson as UN Representative, and let Bill Clinton handle all other "foreign relations" ... As long as Hillary doesn't find out...!"

"THE WHITE HOUSE: Hire rapper Ludacris to “paint it black.” Taxes to be increased to buy enough paint for the job plus spray-paint for graffiti...."

"THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES: Raise taxes to send $845 billion, most of it to Africa so the Obama family there can skim off enough for them to free their goats and live the American Dream...."

"NATIONAL ANTHEM: Change to the "Black National Anthem" by James Weldon Johnson...."

"US CURRENCY: Update photos to reflect US diversity; include pictures of "great Americans" such as Oprah Winfrey, Ludacris, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Paris Hilton, and Louisiana Congressman William Jefferson (Obama's new Secretary of the Treasury - 50 Cent refused position after learning that he would lose his crazy check if he accepted the nomination)...."

"US FLAG: Replace 50 stars with a star and crescent logo; red stripes changed to green to represent Obama’s tree-hugging radical environmentalism and his lack of experience. Flag lapel pins, having become a substitute for “real patriotism,” will henceforth be banned...."

At the end of his column May challenged Obama to meet him on "County Talk," a Friday morning talk show on radio station WMJD 100.7 in Grundy VA. It seems Mr. May is quite the local mover and shaker in Buchanan County Republican circles: In addition to his work with The Voice and WMJD, he has also appeared in the Virginia Mountaineer with other local Republican leaders.

Complaints and expressions of disgust at Mr. May's comments can and should be directed to the following:

McCain national campaign: info@johnmccain.com

McCain Virginia campaign virginia@johnmccain.com

Republican National Committee (Mike Duncan, Chair): chairman@gop.com

Virginia Republican Party: info@rpv.org

Buchanan County Republican Party (Jerry M. Lester, Chair): bcrp@naxs.net & jelester@mtinter.net / tel. 276-935-4764 or 276-935-5483

WMJD radio: info@wmjd.org / tel. 276-935-7227 ("County Talk," Fridays 10-11 a.m. EST)

The Voice: voice@mikrotecwildblue.com / tel. 276-881-8886 

Bobby May: bobbyleemay@yahoo.com / tel. 276-566-8788

This story has already attracted the attention of the Los Angeles Times and blogs such as the Daily Kos, and with lots of further attention could become a major embarrassment to the GOP and the McCain campaign. The GOP and the McCain campaign should be pressed to acknowledge Mr. May's statements, to condemn and apologize for them, and to remove Mr. May from any official party or campaign role. 

Sarah Palin claimed during Thursday's vice presidential debate that, as governor of Alaska, she fought to protest atrocities in Sudan by dropping assets tied to the country's brutal regime from the state's $40 billion investment fund. "When I and others in the legislature found out we had some millions of dollars in Sudan," Palin said, "we called for divestment through legislation of those dollars to make sure we weren't doing anything that would be seen as condoning the activities there in Darfur." Reporting by ABC News and the Washington Post indicates otherwise.

In fact, Palin's administration opposed a measure to divest Alaskan holdings in Sudan-linked investments. "The [Palin] administration killed our bill," Alaska state representative Les Gara told ABC News. Gara and state representative Bob Lynn co-sponsored a bipartisan resolution (HB287) early this year to force the Alaska Permanent Fund to divest millions of dollars in holdings tied to the Sudanese government. Palin's administration openly opposed the bill, stating its opposition in a public hearing on the measure in February. Said Brian Andrews, Palin's deputy revenue commissioner, at the hearing: "The legislation is well-intended, and the desire to make a difference is noble, but mixing moral and political agendas at the expense of our citizens' financial security is not a good combination." Gara told ABC that opposition from Palin's administration was instrumental in killing the measure. "I walked out of that hearing livid," Gara recalled, noting that because of Palin's opposition to the bill, "We could not get a vote in that committee." Any expression of support from Palin for the Sudan divestment effort would come only at the end of the legislative session, after the Gara-Lynn measure's fate had been sealed.

The Alaska Permanent Fund currently holds $22 million in Sudan-linked investments, according to the non-profit Sudan Divestment Task Force. Palin's running mate, John McCain, has expressed strong support of Sudan divestment efforts, but was criticized when it was revealed in May that his wife Cindy held $2 million in investment funds owning shares of Sudan-linked companies. Mrs. McCain sold those holdings following inquiries from the news media.

Planned Parenthood will begin running a new ad on Thursday hitting Sarah Palin on the fact that, as mayor of Wasilla AK, she charged rape victims for emergency-room rape exam kits.

The ad is slated to run in the St. Louis MO, Madison WI, and DC/Northern Virginia markets. The ad begins with a testimonial from Gretchen, a rape victim. "I just didn’t think it would happen to me," the young woman says. "I was drugged and raped." Then an announcer states: "Under Mayor Sarah Palin, women like Gretchen were forced to pay up to $1,200 for the emergency exams used to prosecute their attackers." Tying Palin's policy to those of her presidential running-mate, the announcer then ads: "In the Senate, John McCain voted against legislation to protect women from these same heartless policies." Finally, Gretchen returns: "That is something to me that’s unthinkable. It scares me to death" (see Huffington Post, MSNBC).

Wasilla police have claimed that their intent was not to charge rape victims for their exams, but to charge victims' insurance companies. This claim has yet to be substantiated, however, and provides no answer for what might happen in cases where the victim has no insurance. In any case, police departments have no more business charging rape victims or their insurance companies for rape exams than they have charging for any other type of criminal investigation: this is why we pay taxes.  

With a rape rate 2.5 times the national average, Alaska has the worst record of any state in rape and murder of women by men.

American women and all Americans should know about Palin's history of opposing fair treatment for rape victims.

In a newly-released excerpt from Sarah Palin's CBS News interview with Katie Couric, the vice-presidential nominee was unable to name so much as a single newspaper or magazine she has read (see CBS News, Huffington Post):

COURIC: And when it comes to establishing your worldview, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this to stay informed and to understand the world?

PALIN: I've read most of them, again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media.

COURIC: What, specifically?

PALIN: Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me all these years.

COURIC: Can you name a few?

PALIN: I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news, too. Alaska isn't a foreign country, where it's kind of suggested, "Wow, how could you keep in touch with what the rest of Washington, D.C., may be thinking when you live up there in Alaska?" Believe me, Alaska is like a microcosm of America.

The fact that Palin was not able to name so much as a single national or international publication that she has read speaks volumes on how out-of-touch she really is with the world beyond her Alaska backyard. National leaders, and those aspiring to become national leaders, typically read such publications as the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and Foreign Affairs. Those possessed of more curiousity about world affairs might look over any of the international news agencies available on the internet. Any average citizen might at least be able to refer to Newsweek, Time, or a regional daily paper that covers national and world news. It appears that, for Sarah Palin, "news" means tuning in at 6:00 for the local 30-minute news broadcast, 20 minutes of which consists of sports and weather.

Palin displays not only a lack of knowledge about the world, but also a lack of curiosity about it - a lack of the desire to know anything, a fatal flaw shared by the Bush administration, but perhaps even more dangerously pronounced in Palin.

Sarah Palin's stage-managed "meetings with world leaders" at the UN are nothing more than a ridiculous attempt to weave foreign-policy credentials out of thin air. What of any substance are we supposed to believe Palin discussed or negotiated in her brief photo ops with these leaders over two days at the UN? Are we really supposed to think that anything substantive took place as Palin rushed around Lower Manhattan posing for snapshots? Does the McCain campaign really expect anyone to take this nonsense seriously?

Unfortunately for McCain and Palin, this charade appears to have blown up right in their stupid Republican faces, highlighting nothing so much as Palin's inexperience and unpreparedness. First thing yesterday, Palin's photo op with Afghan president Hamid Karzai was spoiled by a press revolt over access to the meeting. It seems the McCain campaign initially allowed reporters into the meeting only for the polite preliminaries between Palin and Karzai, kicking them out after a 29-second exchange on the topic of children, and moving to limit coverage to brief photo ops for a still photographer and a TV camera. Obviously, Camp McCain was hoping to use the media to circulate some nice images of Palin "meeting with world leaders" while denying any substantive access to the meetings themselves. A full-on press revolt quickly ensued, however, as news agencies told the McCain campaign that they would broadcast no images of the meeting unless a reporter was also allowed in to observe. At this point the McCain campaign partly relented, allowing one CNN producer into the room while yet denying access to print reporters and wire services. Later, McCain press representatives claimed that the restrictions were the result of a "mix-up, a miscommunication among staff." A pool of reporters was then allowed to observe Palin's meeting with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe for 15-20 seconds (see New York Times, CNN, Huffington Post).

Republicans have suggested that Palin's two days of "meetings with world leaders" at the UN are comparable to Obama's summer tour of Europe, the Middle East, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The two are hardly comparable, however: Obama's summer tour was far from being his first-ever foreign affairs experience; and from his summer tour we have a substantive record of speeches, interviews, and press conferences to demonstrate that it was far more than a mere photo op or a game of catch-up. From Palin's "meetings" we have nothing but smiling snapshots and pleasantries.

The Republicans are trying to put one over on us, and I for one won't be taking the bait.

Since Sarah Palin's pick as John McCain's vice-presidential running mate, details of her years as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, have included revelations that under her watch the town charged women for rape exams. This story was given a new pair of wings today by a written report and video at CNN confirming that when Palin was mayor Wasilla did indeed cling stubbornly to the practice of charging for rape exams, even in the face of state efforts to halt the practice.

As CNN reports, former state representative Eric Croft sponsored a state law requiring cities to provide free rape exams to victims. Croft told CNN that the only ongoing resistance he met was from Wasilla, where Palin was mayor from 1996 to 2002. "It was one of those things everyone could agree on except Wasilla...," Croft told CNN, "...We couldn't convince the chief of police to stop charging them."  While some of Palin's supporters say they believe she had no knowledge of the practice, critics call the suggestion "outrageous" and question Palin's commitment to helping women who are victims of violence. As Croft told CNN, "I find it hard to believe that for six months a small town, a police chief, would lead the fight against a statewide piece of legislation receiving unanimous support and the mayor not know about it."

Forensic nurse Tara Henry confirmed Croft's comments on Wasilla's intransigence in the matter of rape exams, telling CNN that while several local law enforcement agencies expressed difficulty paying for the exams, Wasilla was the most vocal in its opposition to paying. Charging victims for exams "retraumatizes them," according to Henry: "Asking them to pay for something law enforcement needs in order to investigate their case, it's almost like blaming them for getting sexually assaulted."

With a rape rate 2.5 times the national average, as CNN observes, Alaska has the worst record of any state in rape and murder of women by men.

American women and all Americans should know about Palin's history of opposing fair treatment for rape victims.