Heaven help me, for I'm about to agree with David Brooks, the stupidest political analyst this side of his namesake Broder. But tonight I think he's on to something

Republicans are saps. They think that they're running against some academic liberal who wouldn't wear flag pins on his lapel, whose wife isn't proud of America and who went to some liberationist church where the pastor damned his own country. They think they're running against some naïve university-town dreamer, the second coming of Adlai Stevenson.

An "FYI" post. The 35 articles are quite dry and time consuming to read.

Elizabeth de la Vega has done a wonderful job of simplifying them for easier consumption and understanding, and they enumerate all of George Bush's crimes since he took office.

Maybe more people will understand these articles and comprehend the nature of Bush's offenses now, not having to wade through the legalese.

de la vega translates them into plain english that no one has any excuse for not getting, now.

Kucinich's Articles of Impeachment: A Three-Part Guide
By Elizabeth de la Vega
The Public Record
Saturday, June 14, 2008

It is entirely possible to be a reasonably well-informed citizen of the United States and not know that on June 9, 2008, Representative Dennis Kucinich (D. Ohio) took to the floor of the House of Representatives and spent over four hours reading thirty-five Articles of Impeachment against President George W. Bush.

Even worse, it is not merely possible, but likely, that the vast majority of people who have been more than willing to ignore or ridicule those charges have not read them.  Or, if they have read them, they have found the allegations and citations so overwhelming they just switch off their minds.  Perhaps surprisingly, I understand this phenomenon quite well. I spent many years attempting to present complex and disturbing information to people in the context of criminal indictments and cases.  And the truth is that legal documents are confusing to everyone, including lawyers. Much as I hate to admit it, for example, I have never been able to plow through our family will, so for all I know, our very meager estate has been designated by my husband to be held in trust for the care and feeding of ferrets.

But the House Judiciary Committee does not, of course, have the luxury of being so cavalier.  For the past seven years, we have watched as evidence of President Bush's deceit, contempt of Congress and abuse of power has piled up like rank seaweed on a beach.  We cannot, in this summer of 2008, simply step around it and pretend it's not there. There is a constitutional process to follow and we must follow it.  If the threat of terrorism is not a reason to disregard the constitution - and it is not - then surely neither is an election.

So I have decided to offer some help, a modest contribution in the one area I know best: the presentation of charges.  It's a Three-Part Guide to the Articles of Impeachment.  There is nothing fancy here -- no sarcasm, no vitriol and no cynicism.  Part I is a chart that itemizes the Articles of Impeachment with a subheading and a longer description. Part II is also a chart which itemizes U.S. and international laws that are implicated by the charges in the Articles of Impeachment.  (Quite properly, not every impeachable offense is based on a specific legal violation.)  In Part III, to come early next week, I will present an opening statement setting forth - just as a prosecutor would do before a trial - what the evidence would show with regard to these allegations.  

Forward them around, if you would.  At the very least - before we decide to ignore it --we should all clearly and unflinchingly apprehend the nature and scope of this executive misconduct and its consequent human misery and damage to our country.

Part I:   http://www.pubrecord.org/docs/vega/kucinich-bush-articles-of-impeachment.pdf

Part II: http://www.pubrecord.org/docs/vega/kucinich-bush-articles-of-impeachment-violations.pdf

From the Desk of those hard working folks at Netroots Nation:

We are thrilled to announce that Gov. Howard Dean will kick off the 2008 Netroots Nation convention as Thursday's evening keynote speaker.

The chairman of the Democratic National Committee and governor of Vermont from 1991 to 2003 addressed the Netroots community at the 2006 and 2007 conventions. This year, we're especially proud to recognize his efforts to create an active, effective movement by organizing in every precinct and in every state.

Dean has been one of the most influential forces in the progressive movement. As chairman of the DNC, he has worked to make Democrats competitive in every race, district and state, while integrating national and state party operations and standing up for Democrats' core values.

His belief that every citizen matters, from California to Connecticut, from Alaska to Mississippi, echoes our belief that the voices of all Americans deserve to be heard.

Netroots Nation is July 17-20 in Austin, TX. So if you haven't registered, now is the time!

Click here to register now

A few days ago, when Obama & Clinton supporters first turned their attention in earnest to the primary in Puerto Rico ("PR"), several Obama supporters gave short shrift to this primary, even going so far as to suggest that PR's primary results be excluded from calculation of the popular vote leader.  Although they correctly point out that PR does not have a role in U.S. presidential elections, they overlook the DNC's decision, back in the 1970s, to give PR a role in selecting the Democrat's nominee for president as a means of courting Latino votes on the mainland.  (Michael Janeway, PR's Moment in the Sun, NEW YORK TIMES, May 22, 2008).   But in recent years, Democrats have not been uniformly successful in courting that vote, while the margins of victory in presidential elections have become smaller and the Latino population here has continued to grow.  With all this in mind, it is instructive to consider the role Latinos have played in this Democratic primary season and how it compares to their role in the 2004 Presidential and 2006 mid-term elections.

The news outlets and internet was ablaze last week with the story of Hillary Clinton's statement supporting her long running candidacy in the Democratic primary.  The awkward, yet innocuous statement about Robert Kennedy's unfortunate demise in the 1968 Democratic primary was intended to illustrate that fact that her presence in this primary contest is not extraordinarily late in the process.  But a hostile media and netroot community saw an opportunity to distort her words and assail her very character.  Using hyperbole and conjecture, the various outlets told a narrative of Clinton suggesting she should be in the race in case Obama is befallen by some similar circumstance.  This narrative is as dishonest as it is virulent.  Determined to put the worst possible spin in the story,  and hoping to exact the final blow to a candidate for whom they have shown nothing but contempt, those of the media went into full attack mode.  

I wanted to set a few things straight prior to the May 31 RBC meeting. There has been a lot of bad memes and misinformation floating around regarding all that has happened and I thought I should clear up a few of the larger ones.

Eric Alterman, whose blog I have read for years, has a new book Why We're Liberals. I have not yet had a chance to read the book, but I have read with interest the TPM Cafe discussion, which has been conducted between a number of people I know and like from the leftosphere.

Cross posted at Corrente

On Super Tuesday, over 14% of voters in the Oklahoma Democratic Primary voted for neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama, despite their being the only two major Democratic candidates left in the race.  This was nearly twice the percentage of "someone else" votes as the next highest state (Arizona, with 7.2% of "neither" votes), and four times greater than Super Tuesday primary states over all (3.74% "neither" votes).

John Edwards received the lion' share (10.14% of the overall vote) of the `neither" vote, and his supporters represented a significant opportunity for both Clinton and Obama.  By examining where Edwards did well, both candidates could try and appeal to these "neither Clinton nor Obama" voters.

A review of exit polling from West Virginia shows that Hillary Clinton took advantage of the opportunity to appeal to Edward's voters, and it was her success among those voters that made the difference between her 24 point win over Obama in Oklahoma, and her 41 point margin over Obama in West Virginia.  Obama not merely failed to attract the support of Edwards voters, he actually lost support in the demographic categories where Edwards did best.

Okay. So Danger Kitty and I have been having a nice leisurely day here at Castle kredwyn.

Hers seems to be more so than mine...but nevermind that.

Over the past bit, I'm sure we've all noticed a glut of new members who seem to be intent on signing up and stirring the discursive pot in an effort, I can only guess, to ruffle feathers, raise hackles, and illicit nasty responses...if only to reinforce their already slanted view of one candidate or another...

We hear - and say - everyday that who becomes a judge is important, and a good reason to choose one candidate over the other.

Last week, St. John McSame promised to appoint more judges in the mould of Scalia, Alito and Thomas to the federal courts, decrying the influence of "liberal" judges.  Given that the vast majority of federal judges are Republicans and were appointed in 20 of the 28 years Republicans ruled, I suppose that means the judiciary hasn't given the Republicans all they want quickly enough.

Let's look at something which exemplifies GOP heaven, when it comes to the judiciary.

While the Obama campaign and its surrogate have been trumpeting the fact that it is bringing "new voters", it seems to have forgotten a key component of the "old Democratic coalition" that it disparages.

"Old" voters.  Literally.

The Clinton campaign consistently includes Hillary Clinton's appeal to seniors when it discusses why she is the better choice to face off against John McCain - but the media seldom mentions older voters, choosing instead to concentrate on Clinton's appeal to "white working class" voters to hype the race angle in the campaign.

The Obama campaign's use of talking points involving "new voters" and a "new coalition" is sending a message to older voters - that "old" is worth a lot less to them than "new", that young voters are more important than older voters, and that the "new coalition" means that the concerns of the "old coalition" members are no longer critical to the Party.

And all this is going on when the Republican Party will have a 71 year old as its nominee

I'm really disappointed in the Clinton campaign. As an undecided voter in NC, I have about an hour (waiting until after the lunch rush) to figure out what I'm going to do, but I've always had a mistrust of Clinton as she seemed to be willing to do or say whatever it took to get elected. To that extent, Obama seems to project a far greater degree of credibility in spite of his lack of experience - and realistically, I don't find being first lady to be suitable qualifying experience for being elected president.

As an economist by training, I was particularly unimpressed by by Clinton's choice to adopt McCain's Gas Tax Holiday proposal - in spite of her actually proposing to pay for it - which of course is a point in her favor. More specifically, I was deeply offended by her comment to George Stephanopoulos and a live audience, that the opinions of all economists are by definition elitist opinions and most disturbingly because they are elitist should be disregarded.

On being elitist - I'd prefer to vote for an elitist president who isn't ashamed if his/her intellect and success. At the same time, it's important to understand that one can be elitist without being condescending - that being the far more offensive behavior and more likely to turn off voters. With this in mind, Why bother with Robo-Calls? Certainly they're effective in reminding individuals to vote, who otherwise wouldn't do so, but is there really anyone out there who would be persuaded to change their preference from one candidate to another based on a robo-call? Last week I got a robo-call from the Clinton campaign, where the message itself was recorded by Clinton, which I found rather offensive. If you want to solicit my vote, have a volunteer call me, but don't waste my time with a recorded message. In their defense, I did receive a call subsequently, from a Clinton volunteer, to whom I patiently explained why robo-calls tend to offend voters. I did receive another robo-call sponsored by the AARP the content being a reminder to vote, at which I was not offended at all. Perhaps it's just my own personal elitism speaking, but I don't want to base my voting decision on such a petty thing as a robo-call, but at some level, I suppose everything should be considered.

Well, I guess I have an hour to come to a decision.