Some recent comments by mainstream media columnists have missed the point on a major paradigm shift that aided Democrats in the 1992 and 1996 presidential elections.

Comments have been made that, in the same manner as the current McCain campaign strategy, the focus was on avoiding issues and dealing with personalities, as evidenced by the Swift Boat campaign of 2004, the "Gore as serial exaggerator" in 2000 and the infamous Willie Horton campaign of 1988.

Certain commentators have treated the 1992 campaign as an aberration, with some explaining that Lee Atwater was near death and this changed the campaign dynamic.  It did not do so anymore than Steve Schmidt replacing Karl Rove.  

In 1992 Atwater was simply replaced with lobbyist-campaign manager Charlie Black, who is back aboard in this election working for John McCain.  

Standing at or top of the list of why the Republican putatively "Christian love" right wing hates Bill Clinton is because of his deft political skills, which helped him to wrest their presumed monarchical possession of the presidency and then renew his White House occupancy for a second four year term.

After having seen how the hate mongering, frequently racist antics of Lee Atwater along with fellow henchman George W. Bush and others attacked Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis in 1988 by using the Willie Horton Case and the pledge of allegiance as wedge issues, Clinton in 1992 used a shrewd ploy to enable his candidacy to fight back against hate campaigning.

In addition to instituting what was termed the War Room in Little Rock, Clinton launched a Rapid Response Team.  It was coordinated so deftly that George H. W. Bush, used to getting away with excesses in 1988, was stunned when the Democratic responders had thoroughly rebutted his acceptance speech at the Republican Convention in Houston before he finished delivering it.

If there is one person who is probably smoldering more than any other Democrat at this moment it would figure to be Hillary Clinton.  The bilious Republican right has unloaded venomous insults against Hillary through the years at an equivalent level to the political Molotov cocktails figuratively hurled at her husband.

For the ex-President Ronald Reagan's administration big business loved being able to do anything it wanted to, without being stopped by any government oversight.

In the early 1900's certain big business manufacturers didn't have much governmental oversight.  Child labor was not uncommon.  If an individual had the bad luck of an accident in one of the fast moving machines as the Industrial Revolution swung into high speed, any compensation was minimal, until some time later.

Labor laws were enacted guaranteeing fair and just compensation for accidents, such as losing a finger or other body parts.

!2-hour days were not uncommon.  It took workers' unions to bring abut the 40-hour week.  It took workers uniting to demand fair and just salary scales for labor.

It's amazing how a presidential candidate coming from 20-30 points behind in all the polls, being up against two of the most popular figures in our nation's history, can end up getting within the margin of error or even beat those two historical figures, in a primary or caucus; but he's done it.  Barack Obama not only won in South Carolina, he won by a wide margin, something like 27 points.  He won in large part because of getting 81% of the black votes (male and female), but he also got a health three way share of the white men/women, all age voters.  In other words, he slaughtered Bill and Hillary Clinton in their (own) territory.

It's amazing how a presidential candidate coming from 20-30 points behind in all the polls, being up against two of the most popular figures in our nation's history, can end up getting within the margin of error or even beat those two historical figures, in a primary or caucus; but he's done it.  Barack Obama not only won in South Carolina, he won by a wide margin, something like 27 points.  He won in large part because of getting 81% of the black votes (male and female), but he also got a health three way share of the white men/women, all age voters.  In other words, he slaughtered Bill and Hillary Clinton in their (own) territory.

Early in her presidential effort Hillary Clinton made it abundantly clear that husband Bill would play a major role in her administration should she be elected to lead America.  This should come as no surprise and would double the danger potential of progressives seeking change.

Media snake oil effort has been at work to push the propaganda line that Hillary is a true voice of experience and has communicated her message professionally on the debate trail.  Meanwhile Bill stands ready to provide his voice and effort.

One of the pivotal Bill Clinton appearances came not in America but in England, when he attended a Labour Party conference.  After the British people had made a strong statement by mounting the most impressive grassroots demonstration I ever saw, a massive demonstration at Hyde Park involving people coming from all around the United Kingdom, Labourites took notice.

At an historic party conference where the members resisted Tony Blair's effort to continue longer in office, Labour members closed tightly around him, left no breathing space, and dictated his early departure.  

"Bush deliberately misled the American people in order to rally support for an unnecessary invasion so poorly planned that it turned into a humiliating fiasco.  He has jeopardized our military, our foreign relations, and our reputation, not to mention our budget."

So said Michael Steely of Medford, Oregon in a letter to the editors in U.S. News and World Report's February 19, 2007 issue.

When Bill Clinton was put through the Republican moralists' enormously costly impeachment process, his mind had to be diverted from dealing with Saddam Hussein.  The Republican right couldn't dredge up enough hate campaigns in their "holier than thou" crusade.

Larry Flynt, the wheelchair-bound photographer, had detectives investigate some backgrounds of the Republican impeachment hate merchants.  After a parade of horribles was exposed in print against these phony moral Republican impeachment fanatics, things calmed down as Flint had more to reveal.

Democrats are not pefect...and no Democrat would ever say they were. But Democrats are the political force that, more than any other, has moved this nation forward since the 1930's. Economic fairness, education, civil rights, the dignity of the working many, populism, progressivism, these have all been DEMOCRATIC values since the 1930's. And largely remain Democratic values despite intraparty infighting, political ups and downs, and despite all the attempts of Greens and Republicans to paint our party differently.

Where Democrats too often fail is not, as the Greens and Republicans would have it, in lacking ideas. The Democratic Party has been, for 70 years now, the primary source of new ideas for American politics even while Republicans simply try to restore pre-1930's ideas over and over again no matter how often they fail. Where Democrats too often fail is in having a lack of good leadership from within. But when that leadership emerges, great ideas and great policies often result.

A Seattle Times October 15 editorial put it this way:

"Proliferation - It's estimated more than 40 nations now have weapons capability, largely a result of an expansion of nuclear-energy technology supported by the nominal nuclear powers and the watchdogs, raising fears of new arms races."

New York Times writers William J. Broad and David E. Sanger put it this way in their evaluation of what is happening right now, also on October 15:

"The spread of nuclear technology is expected to accelerate as nations redouble their reliance on atomic power.  That will give more countries the ability to make reactor fuel."

[[This is "Part II". Be sure to read "Part I" first and please consolidate any comments in Part I as well. Thanks.]]

We continue with Step 63...

Step 63) - 08/30/2003

North Korea announces that the Beijing talks convinced it of the need for nuclear weapons.

"North Korea angrily dismissed last week's six-nation talks in Beijing, saying it was now even more convinced of the need to strengthen its nuclear arsenal... The gathering was 'not only useless but harmful in every aspect,' a North Korean foreign ministry spokesman said... 'We are now more convinced than before that we have no other alternatives but to continue strengthening our nuclear deterrence as a self-defensive measure to protect our sovereignty'... North Korea repeated during the talks its long-standing demand for a non-aggression pact with the United States, which it accuses of wanting to invade. It also demanded the normalization of diplomatic relations with Washington before it would abandon its nuclear ambitions."

Much more over the bump...

(Warning: This post is long. Damn long! That's because there are heaps of evidence that show Bush, not Clinton, is reponsible for the nuclear debacle we face today with North Korea. Pace yourself, but please be sure to take in every word. The truth is always worth it.)

"Why should I care about North Korea?"

 -- President George W. Bush

Blame Clinton?

Yeah right!

Clearly, the Bush Administration is, by far, the causal factor in Kim Jong Il's entry into Earth's 'Nukular' Club. They can blame Clinton all they want. At least he did something about this rising calamity. In 1994, the Clinton Administration reached an agreement with the DPRK that successfully froze North Korea's nuclear production for the next eight years.

Bush, on the other hand has offered NOTHING except provocation and motivation for the DPRK to invest in nuclear weapons. Although many factors led to this devastating milestone, the buck unambiguously stops with the Bush administration.

To begin, after Secretary of State Colin Powell said the administration will "pick up where President Clinton left off," Bush took less than 24 hours to declare that the Bush Administration negotiations will take a different tone.

Enter the Axis of Evil!  -- a clever 'new direction' to effective diplomacy, no doubt.

That moniker has served as a powerful icon for the times -- but not quite the way Bush and Co. had planned. Instead, it has come to represent this administration's bold contempt for meaningful diplomacy and staunch dedication to asserting military force in a world that can narry afford the elevated state of militaristic provocation.

Remember the last time North Korea was dominating the headlines?

It was December of 2005. The DPRK was decrying as a 'Declarations of war' the latest comments of the US ambassador to South Korea, labeling him the 'worst ambassador in history'.

Not surprisingly, that wasn't the first time Pyongyang had accused the US of implicit declarations of war. But to understand the motivation for such extreme actions, the full saga must unfold before us.

Enter Kim Jong Il and George W. Bush... diplomacy departs... chaos ensues.

"...The danger of war is snowballing, owing to the extreme US moves to isolate and stifle the [North Korean Government], and threats of pre-emptive strikes"

So where do we stand right now and how did we come to this unfortunate place in history?

Painfully aware are we that President Bill Clinton serves as the blame-game catch-all from the vast swath of 'personal responsibility' Republicans. And on no issue is that more accurately the case than the fight against terrorism.

So it was particularly amusing that Vice President Cheney would promote a line of thought that would vindicate the entire Clinton Administration from any and all accusations put forth by the current Neoclown cabal regarding said fight.

Cheney said:

"'sound policy decisions' by the Bush administration were the reason the United States had not been attacked by terrorists" since 2001. Cheney's "claim of credit for the absence of attacks, a frequent theme in his recent speeches, contrasts sharply with criticism by Democrats and others who charge the administration has left the U.S. more vulnerable to terrorism by focusing on the war in Iraq."

(Let's pretend that his logic is not flawed and proceed...)

Using 'Cheney logic', Republicans should be lavishing Bill Clinton with praise since 'sound policy decisions' by the Clinton administration were clearly the reason the United States had not been attacked by terrorists since 1993 on through the rest of his two-terms in office - a LONGER period free of international terrorist attacks on US soil than that currently overseen by Bush.

So, on behalf of Bill Clinton, I thank you for defending the last duly elected leader of the free world from your lesser minions.

Perhaps there is some sense in that big fat head of yours.

The diary below was originally posted in my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal on May 11th.

I was an avid reader of Bill James' annual Baseball Abstract while growing up in the 1980s. As both a nerd and baseball fanatic, his methodical statistical analysis and incisive prose influenced me almost as much as listening to the Beatles. Perhaps the most memorable essay of James' career was in his 1983 abstract when he wrote about, "The Law of Competitive Balance." Twenty-three years ago I copied words of wisdom from that essay into the spiral notebook I was supposed to use for algebra:

"The Law of Competitive Balance: There develop over time separate and unequal strategies adopted by winners and losers; the balance of those strategies favors the losers, and thus serves constantly to narrow the difference between the two."

The Bush administration is continuing their sick and pathetic policy of torturing people in Iraq when they think that all the lights and cameras are off. This is the subject of a new report out of Iraq from Amnesty International. The Bush administration would like you to think that the Abu Girhab photos were just a matter of a few frat boys gotten out of control. But this new report shows that the Bush administration's torture plans are far broader than that. In their twisted logic, they thought that as soon as all the lights and cameras were off, they could go right back to doing whatever they wanted to.

The ploy of casting Howard Dean as an elitist drew enough skeptics to make the corporate media decide to hedge their bets.  After all, even if Dean had affluent roots his family wealth could not equal that of liberal Democratic presidents such as Franklin Delano Roosevelt and John Fitzgerald Kennedy.  

There was also enormously wealthy W. Averill Harriman, who served a term as Governor of New York while serving many Democratic presidents in a variety of roles in the foreign affairs field.  Governor G. Mennen Williams of Michigan also came from a family of enormous wealth.

All of the aforementioned were classified as liberals and received sturdy support from labor union members.  Then again, this was before Ann Coulter.  Had she been around then could she have convinced the men in the hard hats that they were elitists?

While the elitist tag would be used in instances where gullibility requirements could be met on the receiving end, as Dean's Internet revolution and fundraising knack of collecting small amounts of money from broad segments of progressives throughout the nation persisted, the real elitists who thought that the dollars should come from the corporate sector and be distributed into the Bush camp alone became concerned.