(cross posted at kickin it with cg and Clintonistas for Obama)

With last week GM reporting a $15.5 billion loss in the second quarter, it is quite clear that American car manufactures are getting their come-uppance.

Edmunds.com published a list of the top 10 most efficient 2008 sedans available.  They ranked the cars based on EPA fuel economy numbers.  And sweet moses would you guess that not one from an American manufacturer made the list!  Even the Wall Street Journal, not known for its criticism to big business, has sharp words about American car manufacturers.

Now we see the results of the myopia that has afflicted Detroit auto executives. These are the people who staked their companies' futures on gas-guzzling, heavyweight behemoths.

Auto execs claim they were giving Americans the products they wanted. Really? For proof to the contrary, look at their U.S. market shares, which are slumping to historically low levels as Japanese auto makers gain ground.

In lieu of GM's stunning losses, I was reminded of the complete and utter arrogance they displayed when they crushed its fleet of EV-1 electric vehicles in the Arizona desert.  The EV-1 was among the fastest, most efficient production cars ever built. It ran on electricity, produced no emissions and catapulted American technology to the forefront of the automotive industry.

The story of the EV-1 is documented in the amazing film Who Killed the Electric Car?  It chronicles the life and mysterious death of the EV-1 and it examines the cultural and economic ripple effects caused by its conception and how they reverberated through the halls of government and big business.

A summary:

The film deals with the history of the electric car, its development and commercialization, mostly focusing on the General Motors EV1, which was made available for lease in Southern California, after the California Air Resources Board passed the ZEV mandate in 1990, as well as the implications of the events depicted for air pollution, environmentalism, Middle East politics, and global warming.

The film details the California Air Resources Board's reversal of the mandate after suits from automobile manufacturers, the oil industry, and the George W. Bush administration. It points out that Bush's chief influences, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, and Andrew Card, are all former executives and board members of oil and auto companies.

A large part of the film accounts for GM's efforts to demonstrate to California that there was no demand for their product, and then to take back every EV1 and dispose of them. A few were disabled and given to museums and universities, but almost all were found to have been crushed; GM never responded to the EV drivers' offer to pay the residual lease value ($1.9 million was offered for the remaining 78 cars in Burbank before they were crushed).

Embedded below, the film in its entirety:

If the above does not work, visit this LINK.

However its not all bad news.  In the same WSJ piece - it would seem that some have climbed aboard the bus.

In a recent meeting with Ford executives, CEO Alan Mulally dared to challenge the Detroit gospel that you can't make money on small, fuel-efficient cars.

At last Ford appears to be making bold moves to design and sell vehicles that people want. In Paris earlier this summer I spotted an unfamiliar car so attractive that I went over to see what it was. It was a Ford. Presumably this is one of the six European models that, as part of the "Drive One" campaign, Ford will introduce in the U.S. Ford is also boosting production of its fuel-efficient "EcoBoost" and four-cylinder engines, speeding up hybrid introductions and converting three truck plants to small-car production.

Even GM seems to be facing reality. It said it's planning for oil prices in a $120-$150 range for the foreseeable future, boosting light vehicle production, and suspending production at four truck plants. It, too, is accelerating production of efficient four-cylinder engines, and announced a global Chevrolet small-car initiative.

While promising, what pulls my chain about the above is that rather than take responsibility for the planet and in the role these car companies play in emissions, the American car manufacturers are only taking these steps because of the price of gas.  Let's hope their successful.  However as they say, karma's a bitch.

(cross posted at Kickin it with CG and Clintonistas for Obama)

Okay - you know things are bad when you stop yourself in the midst of writing 2 diaries, one on Darfur and Electric Cars to write about trolls, MyDD and the latest round of GBCW diaries.

Seriously guys the only reason trolling and flaming is happening is because - you are participating!  Many incredible diaries go unnoticed because they - shall we say - have no flavour....

Not only are there McBloggers taking over, but also the Purity Trolls are out in full force - policing everyone's motives.  Stop the insanity!

The site owners and administrators have promised site updates and clearly this is an acknowledgment that there is some work necessary here.  That said - I want to nip this in the bud by proposing a few things...

1.  No more flame wars.
If a diary is particularly enticing make a personal commitment to only respond to another user who commented to whom's opinion your respect.  That way - even though the diary may be a 'turd sandwich' (thanks thepurplestuff) you may participate in elevating the discussion.

2.  Stop complaining about MyDD in your comments.  
If you are aggravated with the situation - email the admins.  And I mean - every time you see something 'trollish'

3.  Be intellectually honest.
There tends to be a double-standard applied here by many whereby opinions they share deserve respect and general politeness - whereas opinion's they don't share - deserve snarky and rude receptions.

4. Kindness is a very underrated value in the Blogosphere.
Some people's hate-spewed speech is shocking.  I cannot imagine many speaking to others this way in real life.  But guess what folks - this is real life.  A good general rule of thumb is speak as you would hope to be spoken to.

5. Contribute.
Hunting trolls or adding smart-ass commentary is not contributing - sorry.  Write diaries, think about your 'progressive' ideals - and suggest ways to applying it to better the world.

I think that's a good starting off point for ways in which to make our little community better and hope that you guys can share with me your suggestions and enthusiasm for making MyDD a better place.

Please excuse any grammar and typos - this one was done on the fly!

(cross posted at Clintonistas for Obama)

About 2 months ago, give or take - I was approached by psychodrew and atdleft and asked if I wanted to join as a contributor for the blog Clintonistas for Obama.

I went to the site and saw the list of people that were involved.  Some of the names I didnt recognize, but others not only did I know - but were some of my favourite people at MyDD.  I didn't hesitate in accepting.  

Around the same time that I was working on a diary that was not particularly flattering to Obama.  I didn't know what to do - should I cross post it or not?  Since now it was not just little old canadian gal speaking - I was afraid that the C4O's may not want to be associated with it.  So I emailed psychodrew and atdleft asking what I should do.  They were split - on one hand we agreed that the C4O are explicitly not cheerleaders but on the other - this would be my first post - would this be a good introduction?  

In the end - they both encouraged me to cross post - I did.  But the fact that I considered censoring myself due to the political climate should be bothersome to those that share progressive values.  For the record C4O do not ask for consensus before posting - although I did this particular time.

Why am I sharing this, or better yet why should you care?

Well currently one of the C4O is being attacked for 'smearing' Obama.  We are not a monolithic voice.  Just like none of you are.  And speaking only for myself is I COULDN'T GIVE A DAMN WHETHER A PRAYER WAS LEAKED OR NOT. And I might add that not only am I Jewish but have been to the Wall.

But that's not the point of this diary really - rather that this hysteria of criticism of Obama - whether accurate, warranted or not needs to stop.  YOU ARE NOT A PURVEYOR OF DISCUSSION THAT IS ALLOWED.  Now that isn't to say that there are some blatant troll diaries around like this or this, but I think the disctinction is pretty clear to intellectually honest people.

We, as bloggers are not water carriers for a particular candidate but rather united in are desire to see liberal (or Democratic) values and agenda in governance (at least most of us are).  

I read a piece at Talk Left that summed this problem up rather nicely:

Consider how some on the Left react to any criticism of Barack Obama. Instead of thinking about the ramifications for the policies they claim to support (or oppose), their kneejerk reaction is to defend Obama at all costs and to lash out at anyone who criticizes Obama.

Do they care about the effect on the actual policies? Not so much. By attempting to create a political landscape where Obama can do no wrong - they lose the war on issues.

So really this has got to stop.  People have a right to gripe and complain about Obama and anyone else, you want to debate them - go for it.  That's why its called Democracy!  

Today has been a pretty bad day at MyDD.  Lots of flame wars and trolls bashing Obama and Clinton.  Feh.  

So I thought I would lighten things up a bit and give you all my very unscientific prediction on whom I think will be selected as Vice President.  Recently on Meet The Press, Obama listed the qualities he'll be looking for in a VP:

"I'm going to want somebody with integrity. I'm going to want somebody with independence - who's willing to tell me where he thinks, or she thinks, I'm wrong. And I'm going to want somebody who shares a vision of the country: where we need to go - that we've got to fundamentally change not only our policies, but how politics work, how business is done in Washington."

"I think the most important thing, from my perspective, is somebody who can help me govern.  I want somebody who I'm compatible with, who I can work with, who has a shared vision, who certainly complements me, in the sense that they provide a knowledge base or an area of expertise that can be useful. Because we're going to have a lot of problems and a lot of work to do."

So I let me put it out there:  I think Hillary Clinton will be selected as the VP.  Why?

1.  UNIFYING THE PARTY
Many dismiss this at their peril.  Selecting Clinton would provide Obama the opportunity to get Clinton supporters enthusiastically behind the ticket.  This includes votes, activists and volunteers.

2.  COLD HARD CASH
Other than Obama, Clinton was the second highest campaign cash generator in history.  This combined with recent reports that her supporters have been dragging their feet in opening their wallets to him would help bolster the coffers.

3.  MAKING HISTORY
Okay so Obama will be making history if elected no matter what.  But not only would putting Clinton on the ticket make history because she is a woman.  But just as important - a former first-lady to a highly popular two-term president.

4.  ITS TOO QUIET
Why aren't the Clinton's out stumping for Obama?  Because they haven't been asked.  Isn't that strange?  I know its the dog days of summer - but still - it seems that almost every name (including frakking Republicans for pete's sake) are being discussed as possibilities but her.  The old bait and switch?

5.  POLLING DATA
The most recent polling that I have seen.  HRC is a greater net plus than Strickland in Ohio, Edwards and Easley in NC, and both Webb and Kaine in Virginia.  Therefore, she outperformed five prominent dems in their home states.  Only Warner outperformed her in the state of Virginia.  Now certainly the Obama campaign has done its internal polling - and my totally unsubstantiated guess is that they came out with similar numbers.

Now I might note that I am not crazy about this idea since I think HRC would be better served as a powerful voice in the senate, however Obama added something to the above quote from MTP that made me feel a bit better about it if she is the choice.

"I'm not interested in a vice president who I just send off to go to funerals.  I want somebody who's going to be able to roll up their sleeves and really do some work."

What do you think?  A Dream-Ticket?

(cross posted at Kickin it with CG and Clintonistas for Obama)

Yesterday there was a diary posted on MyDD that made the Recommended List entitled 'What if Obama was a Republican?' In it, the diarist - a self-described Republican - outlined his/her support for Obama.  But after reading the diary and following rah-rah comments, I got to thinking about the complexities of partisanship, progressivism, PUMA's and the General Election.

Seeing this diary both annoyed and perplexed me.  I asked myself, is MyDD viewed by some as a personal advertisement for a particular candidate or rather a champion for progressive values?  I think that it is safe to say that people who believe in liberal values and agenda to governance have very little in common with Republicans.  So save for wanting the democratic nominee to win.  Do we agree on much?

And while I share the 'big tent' philosophy, I also believe in liberal ideology and Obama's will to govern with these principles.

As well, I have seen PUMA's (save for the bunch that have really gone off the deep end) be criticized for not supporting Obama.  Many of which are life-long Democrats and state that they aren't voting for McCain but leaving the ballot spot blank in protest.

This is the paradox.

I shared my confusion with some close friends today and got some interesting answers - but the following stands out the most to me.

I find it counter-intuitive to turn against Democrats who don't like the nominee while welcoming Republicans who are angry with their party.  The former shares are values and beliefs while the latter do not.  I don't see why we can't just welcome both.  Why has expressing enthusiastic support (as grudging support does not seem to be enough these days) for a single candidate become a litmus test for MyDD?

So I'll throw the following out there to the community:

If a Republican supports Obama but not the Democratic party ideals and/or downticket races - then how are they any better/different than PUMA who will not support Obama but assuredly the Democratic ideals/downticket races?

Just because there were two diaries written in the past 24 hours bashing it here at my favourite little place - I decided an appropriate response was necessary.

Let me begin by sharing with you my history here, and it is relatively short.  Back in the winter when the media was in full force in its blatantly sexist tour against Clinton - I decided to turn to the internet to get my news about the election.

To my utter shock - the internet was way, way worse.  

Site after site that I visited, all I found were authors and commenters saying the most disgusting and vile things about her.  At the same time, most of these other sites I visited were echo chambers that either gushed over Obama - also were unified in their hate of Clinton.  

As my internet journey began, suddenly - BAM (cue the violins) I came across MyDD.  Not only was there (for the most part) some really good discussion - but also some positive Clinton stories and comments.  AS A LOST INTERNET SOUL, I KNEW I WAS HOME.

While I tried to stay away from the vitriolic diaries against both Clinton and Obama, I did get into with some people here many times.  And at the same time - gained a lot of respect for a lot of people (you know who you are) and frankly made a few friends.

In the past months - I have:

laughed
cried
screamed

At my laptop.  And frankly - in my baby brain state - this place has helped me get through the sleep depravity.

Now that my history is over with....  To all the haters - PLEASE SHUT UP.

We get it - you do not agree with the moderation here.  You may have a point - but I suspect that if you were serious in your criticism you would be contacting the owner and administrators rather than the constant bashing.  Yes - I have heard - they don't respond - well keep trying.  Or as they say - you might not want the door to hit you on the way out.

As well - there are other issues I and others here have problems with that many in the community are choosing to ignore.  And instead of stealing their ideas - I will quote 3 wonderful MyDD users in their own words.

I think one major problem is... (2.00 / 3)

(and I've been guilty of this too) is alot of us are too quick to label someone "McPUMA" or "McTroll" or a "Republican" whenever they post even the slightest hint of critisism. I don't know which way we could stop that, but if you take a look at Linfar's diary from yesterday in regards to Barack's Eurotrip, she was condemned as a "concern troll", "PUMA", "McBlogger", "Rethuglican with emotional issues" etc etc.

If we want dissent then we need to allow it. MyDD has two problems right now---GOP trolls and purity trolls. GOP trolls have caused the purity trolls to get all jumpy and call people like Linfar, a valuable diarist here, all sorts of names.

But if we want dissent, in all realistic fashion, we need to figure something out here.

Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008
by zcflint05 on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 08:34:00 PM EST

Sorry, but this diarist hasn't participated... (2.00 / 2)

...at all. They're a self-described "lurker," with this ultimatum being their first post and their first comment...perhaps....ever?!?!?

In of itself, I think this is a bit absurd.

So, what's the deal?

If we do what the diarist says, they'll continue to not post and not comment as they have in the past?

Or they'll leave? (And, then they won't post or won't comment wherever they're going, either! LOL!)

Looks like a breakeven proposition to me!

I'm just sayin'....

by bobswern on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 06:56:25 PM EST

There are plenty of Obama trolls (2.00 / 2)

here as well who contribute very little to any discussion except for labeling someone a McPuma, McTroll, or McBlogger.  If people are complaining about diaries from people who will vote for Obama and yet find him infuriating, then the same principle should be applied to the few Obama trolls who either suffer from HDS (Hillary derangement syndrome) or overreact and overreach as to anything that does not cast Obama in the most positive light.

by Blazers Edge on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 07:15:41 PM EST

And if you disagree with this diary - you know what - don't read it (oops too late) - or leave it - oh the joys of free will ;)

(cross posted at Kickin it with CG and Clintonistas for Obama)

As some of you may know I have an ongoing series of blogs called mediaFail™.  In light of the growing collection, I thought an epilogue to the unraveling of the fourth estate in the US during this election cycle was necessary.

mediaFail™ has been around for some time (as seen in the build up and subsequent coverage of the Iraq war).  But came into plain view in the treatment of Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primary.

Here's another first: the press's unique push to get a competitive White House hopeful to drop out of the race. It's unprecedented.

Looking back through modern U.S. campaigns, there's simply no media model for so many members of the press to try to drive a competitive candidate from the field while the primary season is still unfolding.

Until this election cycle, journalists simply did not consider it to be their job to tell a contender when he or she should stop campaigning. That was always dictated by how much money the campaign still had in the bank, how many votes the candidate was still getting, and what very senior members of the candidate's own party were advising.

~snip~

No longer content to be observers of the campaign, journalists now see themselves as active players in the unfolding drama, and they show no hesitation trying to dictate the basics of the contest, like who should run and who should quit. It's as if journalists are auditioning for the role of the old party bosses.

It's a new brand of political commentary that leaves some veteran journalists perplexed. "The idea that it's your job to tell candidates when to get out, and really trying to control the whole process -- putting it in the hands of the journalists or the reporters or the columnists -- I find that to be new and different," Haynes Johnson told me last week. A Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, Johnson has covered more than a dozen presidential campaigns and is currently working on a book about the unfolding 2008 contest.

The media coverage of this election however has gone to place that would be comical if not for how dangerous it is.  Not only does the press literally think its part of the selection process but they are blaming bloggers for creating the 'gotcha' politics that have permeated the media coverage.  

Um okay.  

Maybe Alter's undies are in a twist because of the rise of the Commentocracy, with bloggers actually gaining some recognition for their importance in the election?

Which leads us to the latest edition of mediaFail™:  Nagourney edition.  

In a new article in The New Republic, Gabriel Sherman explains how the media love affair is over with Obama due to a variety of factors.  Particularly the campaign's arrogance.  But what's telling about the article is that the arrogance is perceived to be directed at.....

THE PRESS.

"I've never had an experience like this, with this campaign or others. I thought they crossed the line. If you have a problem with a story I write, call me first. I'm a big boy. I can handle it. But they never called. They attacked me like I'm a political opponent." -- New York Times reporter Adam Nagourney, on how the Obama campaign handles negative stories.

DUH???

This is more about media arrogance and unleashed elitism than about a candidate.  And I read a comment that perfectly summed up a message we should all be sending to the press.

How 'bout the media reports news, and doesn't try to get laid by the candidates?

(cross-posted at Kickin it with CG and Clintonistas for Obama)

Today, in a CNN article titled, "Could an Obama Presidency Hurt Black Americans?" John Blake warns that "an Obama victory could be twisted to suppress the push for racial equality" and cites several commentators -- including African-Americans, whites, Latinos, and conservatives.

One such source is Steve Sailer.  

For those of you that are not familiar with Mr. Sailer - he is a columnist for the American Conservative magazine. Last year he wrote that some whites who support Obama aren't driven primarily by a desire for change. [...]

"So many whites want to be able to say, `I'm not one of them, those bad whites. ... Hey, I voted for a black guy for president"

"They hope that when a black finally moves into the White House, it will prove to African-Americans, once and for all, that white animus isn't the cause of their troubles. All blacks have to do is to act like President Obama - and their problems will be over."

A sampling of some of Sailer's beauties:

- African-Americans: "tend to possess poorer native judgment than members of better-educated groups. Thus they need stricter moral guidance from society"

- Obama's 'Blackness': "the brutal truth: Obama is a 'wigger'. He's a remarkably exotic variety of the faux African-American, but a wigger nonetheless."

- Michelle Obama: "sounds like she's got a log-sized chip on her shoulder from lucking into Princeton due to affirmative action."

- Katrina Victims: "Nor is it surprising that the black refugees at the Superdome and the convention center failed to get themselves organized to make conditions more livable. Poor black people seldom cooperate well with each other because they don't trust other blacks much, for the perfectly rational reason that they commit large numbers of crimes against each other."

Several of Sailer's comments appeared on the site VDARE, which the Southern Poverty Law Center has classified as a white nationalist hate group.

How the hell could CNN use Sailer as a source when he has a history of repeatedly made racially insensitive remarks? Shame on you CNN.

Oh and if you want to send good old Steve a message - here is his blog.