Un zapatazo en contra de todas la guerras, not just the ones overseas, pero also the ones within and against communities here in the U.S. For New Orleans, the fronteras, the barrios, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Un zapatazo con tacon for Oscar Grant, Marcelo Lucero, all of those raided by ICE, all the children separated from their parents, for those young men of color sent to the front lines, for all those without health insurance and papers. For all those behind walls: prison walls, border walls, walls of poverty.

Time to feel my feet on the ground and dig into the earth with my toes and walk and work.

Throw your shoe up on your site and link to the shoe throwing throwdown at My Ecdysis.

February 24: VwV was launched in February of 2008 and one of our first posts was titled, “After Fidel, Cuban bloggers discuss US candidates.” The post compiled Cuban bloggers thoughts on what the new U.S. president would do with the new leader of Cuba and so Obama’s infamous “without pre-conditions” line began, which haunted him throughout the campaign.

March 21: After videos of Obama’s reverend were brought to the public, the now President-elect delivered, arguably, one of the most memorable speeches in history on racism. VwV’s post, “World moved by Obama’s speech on race,” highlights what bloggers throughout the world had to say after hearing Obama’s thoughts on race.

April 17: As the first African-American president of the U.S., it was crucial for VwV to get the thoughts of African bloggers on Obama. In the post titled, “A letter from Africa,” bloggers throughout the large continent shared their opinions on the then, Democratic contender for nomination.

June 9: As America’s summer heated up, so did the presidential campaign but throughout the world. In the post, “Global: The world has a say!” VwV’s editor compiled a list of Web sites that allowed non-Americans to vote who they think is best for the states.

June 19: The rapid growth of technology played a major role in the 21st century presidential campaign. In the post, “Global: I’m voting Republican” covers what world bloggers thought about a controversial film by Charlie Steak.

August 29: This was the day the world was introduced to Sarah Palin – the governor of the U.S. state closest to Russia and John McCain’s Republican running mate. Without much information about the Republican VP pick, bloggers simply commented about McCain’s pick being a woman as compiled in the post, “The world reacts to Sarah Palin’s VP nomination.”

October 10: Race was not only prevalent on the Democratic campaign trail but also on the Republican, as rallies became heated. The post, “Racism on the Republican Trail?” includes just a few of the comments that were fluttering through the blogosphere about remarks made during Republican rallies.

October 24: The rise of technology returns with the post, “Dear American Voter: an international persepective.” The post covers Link TV’s project that allowed non-Americans to send letters to American voters via videos. The post includes just some of the prevalent thoughts of the voices without votes.

November 4: Mainstream media outlets weren't the only ones covering “breaking news.” As soon as word got out that Dixville, New Hampshire, was the first county to close their polls and count their votes, the blogosphere was on it. This post, “Dixville notch makes global blogosphere history” quotes the excitement of some bloggers and skepticism of others.

November 9: And, after it was all said and done…bloggers began to look back and analyze how Obama ran a successful campaign. In the post, “Social media and the making of the president,” analyses were offered by bloggers in three different countries of how social media played such a major factor in the campaign.

On the lighter side of the campaign, our silliest moments include: Tina Fey as Sarah Palin; Sarah Palin’s conversation with “Sarkozy;” And, Joe the unlicensed plumber.

“I think you look at each item and see what is a violation of the law and do we even have a right to ignore it,” she told Fox’s Chris Wallace. “And other things that are maybe time that is spent better looking to the future rather than to the past.”

Pelosi’s remarks come shortly after Rep. John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said he wants to look into whether the Bush administration broke the law by taking the nation to war against Iraq and instituting aggressive anti-terror initiatives.

Conyers called for an “independent criminal probe into whether any laws were broken in connection with these activities.”

President-Elect Barack Obama told ABC News a week ago that he believes that Washington should look towards the future rather than the past. “I don’t believe that anybody is above the law,” he told ABC News a week ago. “On the other hand, I also have a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.”

Pelosi explained that Obama and Conyers are not “that far apart. There are different subjects and you treat them differently.

“We cannot let the politicizing of, for example, the Justice Department to go unreviewed,” she added. “I want to see the truth come forth.”

Although it was an unpopular decision, President Gerald Ford was right not to press charges against President Richard Nixon. Prosecution would have damaged the American people’s faith in government and it would undoubtedly have torn the country apart. Prosecuting top Bush adminstration officials will have the same effect. If Pelosi and Obama are serious about bringing the country together they have to let byones be bygones and focus on the future.

Pelosi and Obama are not the same kind of politician, however. Where Obama ran as a moderate last year, Pelosi is known as an ideoligical liberal partisan hack who detests compromise. If one Democrat is indeed likely to prosecute Bush officials just to get even it is her.

Moderates and conservatives can only hope that Obama will have tremendous influence over the speaker, and that he will curb her desire for revenge.

©2009 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

So here, instead, was Keith Olbermann’s coverage of it (ie the conference in nice, palatable chunks broken up by comment/sarcarsm/fact-correction):

Followed by Richard Wolffe’s input:

This man really hates being president. He really fucking hates it. All those people who said that Bush was a front for Cheney? Never believed it until this conference.

I tried to find a transcript of the conference online--but so far, this video clip of "Bushisms" is the only thing I can find.

It's sort startling to me--the reporter seems think these -isms are so cute and funny--I find them more than a bit horrifying.

Maybe someday, the press will catch up with the rest of humanity and realize it's not funny when a president talks about great job done as people drown.

As the Huffington Post piece notes, however:

“As pointed out by Think Progress, Dawn Johnsen, Obama’s choice to lead the Office of Legal Counsel, has said that the next president should avoid “any temptation to simply move on.” Here is the relevant quote:

‘We must avoid any temptation simply to move on. We must instead be honest with ourselves and the world as we condemn our nation’s past transgressions and reject Bush’s corruption of our American ideals. Our constitutional democracy cannot survive with a government shrouded in secrecy, nor can our nation’s honor be restored without full disclosure.’”

Obama’s response to this issue strikes me as his usual pitch-perfect politics. The man is naturally forward-thinking, that rare breed: an optimistic and (yes) hopeful politician. But he also seems to hold certain strong beliefs and values (such as ‘torture is wrong’). So how do you balance those things? How do you look forward - get the country to be excited and optimistic and hopeful with you - while also look backward, at the horrific, dark realities of what has been performed in your name?

And while I understand this pitch-perfect playing - and realise that what Obama is mooting now won’t necessarily reflect his actions in the upcoming weeks and months - I think there’s a lot to be said for being unable to truly move forward without addressing the issues of the past. And I think there’s even more to be said for not letting Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al get away with the crimes they committed. We’ll see.

2. Joe Biden

3. Colin Powell

Apart from all being prominent American male political figures, that is. And all being white (like Stephen Colbert, I don’t see colour).

Give up?

They’ve all got a great track record on bipartisanship. Well, a good enough track record to be honoured by Our New Favourite President on the eve of his inauguration:

“President-elect Obama to Host Bipartisan Dinners Honoring McCain, Powell and Biden

Dinners on Eve of Inauguration to Highlight Commitment to Bipartisan Cooperation and Accomplishment

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today, as part of an Inauguration for all Americans, the 2009 Presidential Inaugural Committee announced a series of bipartisan dinners to take place on Monday, January 19^th, the eve of Inauguration Day.

Each of the three dinners will honor an American whose lifetime of public service has been enhanced by a dedication to bipartisan achievement: Senator John McCain, General Colin L. Powell, USA (Ret.), and Vice President-elect Joe Biden.  Attending will be leaders in Congress from both sides of the aisle and Americans from across the country of both parties.

On the eve of an historic transfer of power, the dinners serve to highlight President-elect Obama’s commitment to renewing America’s promise via bipartisan accomplishment.

“In these times of great challenge and great change, leadership requires rising above the same old narrow partisanship,” said President-elect Obama.  “Each of these distinguished Americans has spent his life in service to his country, at each and every moment placing the interests of America before issues of political party.  That is precisely the spirit of common purpose we need as we begin the work ahead.”

The dinners will take place at the National Building Museum, Union Station and the Hilton Washington.”

One of its main tools in order to strengthen the more moderate wing of the GOP is a forum. PoliGazette and CP may join forces later on with regards to this forum; it has a very real potential to be the forum for the kind of Republicans described above. I encourage you all to head on over to this forum, to read some threads, start some of your own, and to start debating with each other. The debate options at a blog are always fairly limited since you can only talk about whatever the blogger posts. Not so with a forum; there you can take the initiative.

Some threads are already in place for those who love to debate: one about the RNC chair, another one about Bush giving medials to America’s main allies in the war against Iraq, and so on. Go there, start debating.

©2009 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

And here they are walking and talking and such. Well, talking, at least:

Know what struck me most as I watched that video? That it’s really close. It’s about to happen. Any day now (January 20th - Ed) Barack Obama is becoming President. Wow.

*Update* Rachel Maddow talks about the meeting (and includes footage of a new interview with Obama, which leaps rather strangely from talk of the economic stimulus package to body-surfing in Hawaii, but still):

U.S. bloggers were outraged apparently. Australian bloggers were just as vocal.

Open Democracy used their signature cartoon to comment. They also quoted online media service Crikey.

from Crikey …..

Our Johnny keeps the Obamas out

Richard Farmer writes:

It is always a bit embarrassing in Washington when there's a new President. The old one hangs around in the White House for two and a half months after the election while the new one prepares his team to take over.

The normal thing to make the home switching as painless as possible is for the incoming President to take up residence a couple of weeks before the official inauguration in Blair House, the President's guesthouse, managed by the Office of the Chief of Protocol at 1651 Pennsylvania Avenue. This January things have been different and Washington insiders were puzzled as to why Barack Obama, his wife and two children were spending their time in a Washington Hotel.

Did this mark a new point in relations between incoming and outgoing, Democrat and Republican? Was George W Bush practicing some final form of revenge?

At last such unwholesome speculation has ended with the Washington Post revealing this morning “Blair House Mystery Solved: It's John Howard”. The veil is lifted, said the report. “We now know who is booked at Blair House, kicking President-elect Barack Obama and his family to the waiting list and across Lafayette Park to the Hay-Adams Hotel. The only overnight visitor at the presidential guest manse is none other than John Howard, a former Australian prime minister and leading member of President Bush's coalition of the willing in Iraq.”

Our Johnny will be in Washington to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom from his retiring friend George Dubya on 13 January. Whereas fellow recipients of that honour, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, declined the presidential invitation to stay at Blair House and found private accommodation the Howard entourage accepted the invitation to bunk down at Blair House on the night of 12 January.

The Obama family are now scheduled to move in on 15 January.

the value of a self-important rattus …..

 Jeremy Sear used his usual sarcasm at An Onymous Lefty:

Our exiled former leader (only overseas can he escape the cruel derision of his former subjects) tries his hand at humility:

“This is very nice, but it is a compliment to the country”, says John Howard of the ironically-named “Medal of Freedom” he's about to accept from Bush.

I think I speak more on behalf of Australians than you do, John, when I say - please, feel free to keep that “compliment” from George W Bush all for yourself. No need to pass it on to the country that rejected you. No, really, we insist. Don't ascribe it to us - we don't want it, the man who's giving it, or the man who's receiving it.

Thanks, but no thanks.

I still represent you, even if you don't want me

Scott at GrodsCorp explains through a series of links why those on the left are laughing.

Former Prime Minister John Howard is set to receive the US Medal Of Freedom from outgoing President George W. Bush. Of course, the award has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Howard was one of only a few leaders who pledged his full support for the flailing President in the face of overwhelming opposition from most of the world.

The Medal Of Freedom is awarded to people who “work to improve the lives of their citizens and… promote democracy, human rights and peace abroad.”

I could only fit one link on each “achievement”, so what are some other examples of John Howard’s commitment to improving lives, promoting democracy, defending human rights, and fighting for peace?

UPDATE: Of John Howard, MK sez: “Humble as always.” The larfs!

Howard’s “achievements” recognised

The reference to MK is to a post on right wing blog Crusader Rabbit that defines its purpose in no uncertain terms as: “Radical islam has two allies here in the West - the Left and political correctness. The fight is with all three.” The post:

LiveNews - Former prime minister John Howard will receive the US Presidential Medal of Freedom at a White House ceremony next week. The award is said to be the highest civilian honour bestowed by a United States president. Mr Howard is being honoured for his role in fighting terrorism and for standing by the US as an ally during his 11 years as prime minister.

“Yes, I am honoured by it, more because of the compliment it pays to our country Australia,” Mr Howard told ABC Radio. “It's an indication of the very close relationship between our two countries and I'm very pleased that during the time as prime minister I was able to contribute too.”

Humble as always.

Good on ya John Howard

Soon both Howard and Bush will both be men of the past. History can make its judgment on their political contributions. The man of the present may well remember Howard's remarks in early 2007:

“I think he's wrong. I think that will just encourage those who want to completely destabilise and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and a victory for the terrorists to hang on and hope for an Obama victory,” Mr Howard told the Nine Network.

“If I were running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and be praying as many times as possible for a victory not only for Obama but also for the Democrats.”

Obama blasts Howard on Iraq

You know, little things like that.

Bob Cesca spells out what’s going on here - contrasting Obama’s clean record with Bush’s.

And Keith Olbermann and Richard Wolffe discussed (the latter rather disingenuously) the Obama camp’s response to the story last night:

See, Sarah Palin: this is ‘gotcha’ media.