A Convention Quandary
John McCain’s choice to manage the GOP convention this summer is lobbyist Doug Goodyear, whose firm once represented Burma’s repressive regime.
Michael Isikoff
Updated: 11:27 AM ET May 10, 2008

After John McCain nailed down the Republican nomination in March, his campaign began wrestling with a sensitive personnel issue: who would manage this summer’s GOP convention in St. Paul, Minn.? The campaign recently tapped Doug Goodyear for the job, a veteran operative and Arizonan who was chosen for his “management experience and expertise,” according to McCain press secretary Jill Hazelbaker. But some allies worry that Goodyear’s selection could fuel perceptions that McCain—who has portrayed himself as a crusader against special interests—is surrounded by lobbyists. Goodyear is CEO of DCI Group, a consulting firm that earned $3 million last year lobbying for ExxonMobil, General Motors and other clients.

Forget all that lobbyist muckity muck! The McCain campaign has a prime opportunity here to woo Republican voters…

Potentially more problematic: the firm was paid $348,000 in 2002 to represent Burma’s military junta, which had been strongly condemned by the State Department for its human-rights record and remains in power today. Justice Department lobbying records show DCI pushed to “begin a dialogue of political reconciliation” with the regime. It also led a PR campaign to burnish the junta’s image, drafting releases praising Burma’s efforts to curb the drug trade and denouncing “falsehoods” by the Bush administration that the regime engaged in rape and other abuses. “It was our only foreign representation, it was for a short tenure, and it was six years ago,” Goodyear told NEWSWEEK, adding the junta’s record in the current cyclone crisis is “reprehensible.”

Don’t run away from your base, Senator McCain! What better way to prove your Conservative bona fides then siding with a authoritarian military junta who mismanages a predictable disaster and rejects the U.N. (’cause everyone knows the U.N. is a one world government body trying to subvert the U.S. of A.).

Staging an ancient Greek play:

Attending a tragedy or comedy in 5th century BC Athens was in many ways a different experience than attending a play in the United States in the 20th century. To name a few differences, Greek plays were performed in an outdoor theater, used masks, and were almost always performed by a chorus and three actors (no matter how many speaking characters there were in the play, only three actors were used; the actors would go back stage after playing one character, switch masks and costumes, and reappear as another character). Greek plays were performed as part of religious festivals in honor of the god Dionysus, and unless later revived, were performed only once. Plays were funded by the polis, and always presented in competition with other plays, and were voted either the first, second, or third (last) place. Tragedies almost exclusively dealt with stories from the mythic past (there was no “contemporary” tragedy), comedies almost exclusively with contemporary figures and problems.

…

Deal with defeat
by Jerome Armstrong,
Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:05:25 AM EST

I’d humbly suggest, to all the Obama supporters that join us here on this blog, that if you can’t stand the heat of the West Virginia primary, you stay out of the kitchen. While I’m at it, I also suggest that you refrain from accusations against West Virginians as being racist, or you’ll join the other 6 previous users here, whose offensive comments were deleted on Friday, and that were themselves banned from the site. This is a political junkie website, we thrive on primary and election coverage. When Obama blew out Clinton in Wyoming, it was blogged excessively here, both in the run-up and the day of the event coverage, and it’ll be the same way with West Virginia. You don’t like that? Fine, its a big wide blogosphere, go find a blog that has its head in the sand. Are the ground rules understood?

…

May 10, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
Seeds of Destruction
By BOB HERBERT

The Clintons have never understood how to exit the stage gracefully.

Their repertoire has always been deficient in grace and class. So there was Hillary Clinton cold-bloodedly asserting to USA Today that she was the candidate favored by “hard-working Americans, white Americans,” and that her opponent, Barack Obama, the black candidate, just can’t cut it with that crowd.

“There’s a pattern emerging here,” said Mrs. Clinton.

There is, indeed. There was a name for it when the Republicans were using that kind of lousy rhetoric to good effect: it was called the Southern strategy, although it was hardly limited to the South. Now the Clintons, in their desperation to find some way — any way — back to the White House, have leapt aboard that sorry train.

He can’t win! Don’t you understand? He’s black! He’s black!

The Clintons have been trying to embed that gruesomely destructive message in the brains of white voters and superdelegates for the longest time. It’s a grotesque insult to African-Americans, who have given so much support to both Bill and Hillary over the years.

(Representative Charles Rangel of New York, who is black and has been an absolutely unwavering supporter of Senator Clinton’s White House quest, told The Daily News: “I can’t believe Senator Clinton would say anything that dumb.”)

But it’s an insult to white voters as well, including white working-class voters. It’s true that there are some whites who will not vote for a black candidate under any circumstance. But the United States is in a much better place now than it was when people like Richard Nixon, George Wallace and many others could make political hay by appealing to the very worst in people, using the kind of poisonous rhetoric that Senator Clinton is using now.

-All the worlds a stage…

Don’t make me slap you, soldier.

• Missing Records
• John McCain gets tax-free disability pension
• Obama accuses McCain of ‘losing his bearings’
• McCain and the ‘presidential temperament’ question
• John McCain’s suicide attempt and his resulting PTSD

-Poster boy for so many things, but remember…it’s O.K. if you are a Republican.

Some still dissing McCain at polls
By: Jonathan Martin
May 9, 2008 09:33 AM EST

It’s hard not to notice: In each of the last three Republican primaries, roughly a quarter of the vote went to someone other than John McCain.

Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee got a combined 27 percent of the vote in Pennsylvania last month, long after the GOP nomination had been settled in McCain’s favor. On Tuesday, Paul, Huckabee and Mitt Romney received a combined 23 percent in Indiana. Alan Keyes, Huckabee, Paul and “No Preference” took 26 percent in North Carolina.

On the surface, it would seem that McCain, the party’s presumptive nominee, still has some distance to go in winning over his party. But aides to McCain and other observers say the results are less than meets the eye.

They argue that the lingering votes for Paul and Huckabee—who together won about one-fifth of the vote in Indiana and North Carolina—represent vestigial passion for two candidates who developed a fervent, if narrow, grassroots following.

Still, for a candidate viewed with suspicion by some in his party’s base, the dissenting votes are a nuisance he could do without.

The three legged stool the GOP used to sit on while it milked everything good this nation used to stand for is busted. I’m glad to see the Christian Coalition (who’ve done some great things for this country in earlier incarnations, and may do so again in the future) and the Libertarians (whom I’ve grown fond of for their principled stance on many issues dear to my heart) part ways with the Kleptocrats.

At least…that’s how I remember it.

Interview With Senator Barack Obama; Should Clinton Be Forming Exit Strategy?
Aired May 8, 2008 - 16:00 ET

BLITZER: You know a lot about the Supreme Court. And the next president of the United States will have an opportunity to nominate justices for the Supreme Court.

He gave a speech, McCain, this week saying he wants justices like Samuel Alito and John Roberts. And he defined the kind of criteria he wants.

So, what would be your criteria?

OBAMA: Well, I think that my first criteria is to make sure that these are people who are capable and competent, and that they are interpreting the law. And, 95 percent of the time, the law is so clear, that it’s just a matter of applying the law. I’m not somebody who believes in a bunch of judicial lawmaking. I think…

BLITZER: Are there members, justices right now upon who you would model, you would look at? Who do you like?

OBAMA: Well, you know, I think actually Justice Breyer, Justice Ginsburg are very sensible judges.

I think that Justice Souter, who was a Republican appointee, is a sensible judge. What you’re looking for is somebody who is going to apply the law where it’s clear. Now, there’s going to be those 5 percent of cases or 1 percent of cases where the law isn’t clear. And the judge then has to bring in his or her own perspectives, his ethics, his or her moral bearings.

And, in those circumstances, what I do want is a judge who’s sympathetic enough to those who are on the outside, those who are vulnerable, those who are powerless, those who can’t have access to political power, and, as a consequence, can’t protect themselves from being — from being dealt with sometimes unfairly, that the courts become a refuge for judges.

That’s been its historic role. That was its role in Brown vs. Board of Education. I think a judge who is unsympathetic to the fact that, in some cases, we have got to make sure that civil rights are protected, that we have got to make sure that civil liberties are protected, because, oftentimes, there’s pressures that are placed on politicians to want to set civil liberties aside, especially at a time when we have had terrorist attacks, making sure that we maintain our separation of powers, so that we don’t have a president who is taking over more and more power.

I think those are all criteria by which I would judge whether or not this is a good appointee.

-You voted for Clinton in the primaries. Heh, to each his own. However, if you did vote for Clinton it is beyond me why you couldn’t vote for Barack in November.

THE WORLD FROM BERLIN

‘Nature Has Dealt the Burmese Junta a Devastating Blow’
The cyclone that hit Burma over the weekend has killed tens of thousands and made more than a million homeless. The Burmese government has asked for international help — and the consequences could be remarkable.

Days after Cyclone Nargis devastated the southeast Asian nation of Burma, aid agencies are rushing to help millions of people affected by the storm. The death toll is already more than 22,000, and as towns and villages isolated by the storm are contacted the number of confirmed deaths is expected to rise. The Burmese government says more than a million people are homeless.

Aid officials fear the situation could go from bad to nightmarish if something isn’t done soon. But the aid effort is coming up against one of the most secretive, isolationist regimes in the world. Burma is ruled by a military dictatorship that has regularly used force to suppress democracy activists and monks. Foreign reporters are banned from the country, and aid workers are having a hard time getting in as well.

Burmese government officials have offered an unprecedented level of cooperation, perhaps an indication of the disaster’s scope. “The task is very wide and extensive,” Information Minister Kyaw Hsan told Reuters on Tuesday. “The government needs the co-operation of the people and well-wishers from at home and abroad. We will not hide anything.”

Iran offers nuclear deal but refuses to stop enrichment

• British officials say plan is a ’spoiler’ to west’s proposal
• Breakthrough in deadlock thought to be unlikely

Julian Borger, diplomatic editor
The Guardian,
Thursday May 8 2008

Iran said yesterday that it is to present the international community with a new package of proposals aimed at breaking the diplomatic deadlock over the country’s nuclear programme.

Rasoul Movahedian, Iran’s ambassador in London, told the Guardian: “My government has worked out a new package, a new initiative, which is going to be put forward in the near future to deal with all aspects of our relationship [with the international community].”

He said he was not permitted to give details before the initiative is presented “before the end of next week” to the five permanent members of the UN security council - the US, Britain, France, Russia and China - as well as Germany, who together constitute the “5+1″ group leading nuclear negotiations with Tehran.

However, Movahedian said the initiative would cover the nuclear programme, the security of energy supplies in the Middle East, counter-terrorism and joint efforts to control the drugs trade.

The ambassador said Iran’s proposal would address western concerns that the rapidly developing nuclear project could be used to make weapons, hinting that his government would agree to extensive safeguards required by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

But he insisted that Iran would not surrender the right to enrich uranium, as the security council has demanded.

“My government is going to continue along the enrichment path. We do not accept any preconditions for negotiations,” he said. That continued refusal suggests that the new initiative is unlikely to break the deadlock but may simply add to the war of words over Iran’s programme.

Israel marks its 60th anniversary
Celebrations are under way across Israel to mark the 60th anniversary of the founding of the state.

Israelis thronged Jerusalem’s streets as fireworks opened the celebrations on Wednesday, while an aerial display is planned over Tel Aviv on Thursday.

Israel declared itself an independent state on 14 May 1948, three years after the end of World War II and the death of six million Jews in the Holocaust.

But Palestinians know the foundation day as al-Nakba, or “the Catastrophe”.

The anniversary is calculated according to the Jewish lunar calendar.

The celebrations began at sunset on Wednesday at Jerusalem’s Mount Herzl memorial, named after the founder of modern Zionism, where soldiers raised the Israeli flag from half to full mast amid tight security.