Town Hell

Interesting pod - can't see why It didn't get more views or picked up. Nice to see a bit of politics at the local level. As for comments about the camera - so what? I prefer to focus an the content since I understand the producer:s situation - no use crying over spilt milk and all that.

i always hear so much about being left or right we need to pull together as us people and make one good choice

who is ron paul????2008

Pelosi must have put on tons of make up because she looks a lot younger in this video.

The incremental raids and arrests may instead be aimed at provoking the Iranians to respond, which in turn would escalate the situation and provide the Bush administration with the casus belli it needs to win Congressional support for war with Iran. Rather than making the case for a pre-emptive war with Iran over weapons of mass destruction -- a strategy the U.S. pursued with Iraq that is unlikely to succeed with Iran -- the sequence of events in the provocation and escalation strategy would make it appear as if war was forced on the U.S.
Prominent Republican and Democratic Senators seem to have picked up on the president's war strategy. At Thursday's hearing in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska drew parallels with the Richard Nixon administration's strategy of lying to the U.S. people and expanding the Vietnam war into Cambodia. "[W]hen you set in motion the kind of policy that the president is talking about here," he warned Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, "it's very, very dangerous."Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware added that war with Iran would require congressional authority. Still, Congress is yet to pose a major challenge to Bush's war plan beyond holding hearings with heated exchanges between frustrated Senators and defensive administration officials.The next move may be Iran's. Tehran has likely sniffed the trap and will sit idly by for now and deprive the Bush administration of a pretext for escalation. But continued provocations from the U.S. through additional raids of Iranian consulates and offices will likely lead to an intentional or unintentional response, after which escalation and war may become reality. Iran has at times failed to exhibit the discipline necessary to refrain from responding to aggressions.

Sometime in the next several months an announcer will interrupt regularly scheduled programming to introduce the President who, blinking rapidly, will announce a series of air strikes against Iran. That announcement will probably use religious rhetoric that makes a tragic situation even worse.iran, Iraq, a wreck. That's how you conjugate war in the Middle East, and Iran is the future tense.What's worse, the government continues to employ heated theological language that plays well to its base but hurts our efforts to reduce terrorism.There will be little or no loss of American life as a result of airstrikes against Iran ... right away. That will happen further down the road, when generations of Muslims that might have been our allies turn against us. (Remember: Hundreds of thousands of Iranians gathered in the streets of Teheran in solidarity with Americans after 9/11.) As the Administration continues to escalate militarily the danger increases. The Pale Horse and its rider draw closer to Iran - and to us. And the continued use of inflammatory religious rhetoric only compounds the problem.Take "Islamofascism." Fascism is a government function, and there is no evidence that any state participated in 9/11. In fact, the only Islamic government known to have sponsored terror attacks against Americans is Libya, yet the U.S. and Britain chose negotiation there. (Britain accepted a longstanding offer from Qadafi after the invasion of Iraq, so they could claim their war brought him to the bargaining table.)Why does Bush celebrate diplomacy with Qadafi - the architect of Flight 700's tragedy - while refusing to speak with Iran or Syria as the Iraq Study Group recommended? Iran is ten years away from being a nuclear danger, and has signaled its interest in negotiation since at least 2003.Why would we be afraid to talk now, especially when Iran can be helpful in resolving the catastrophe in Iraq? (And the fact is we've brought a pro-Iranian government into power there.) Instead, we're slamming the door on urgently-needed discussions by labeling our adversaries in theological termsWhat other countries might be described as "Islamofascist," besides Libya, Syria, and Iran? Only nations that are currently allies, nations such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Pakistan. Leaders like Musharraf in Pakistan are endangered and given less latitude to support our anti-terrorism efforts when we inflame their countrymen with religionist rhetoric.And if we are to encourage democratic reform in the Arab world, we can't do it by using terms that imply we believe all Muslim nations are inherently fascist or evil.Then there's "Divine Strake." Tests of this massive "bunker-busting" bomb remain on schedule in Nevada, despite protests from local residents.

Why is it called Divine Strake? A "strake" is a tool used to level sand. A reasonable interpretation of this name in the Islamic world would therefore be "a tool for flattening you into the sand ... in God's name." That will play like a declaration of holy war in the Islamic world.

The U.S. fundamentalist/conservative coalition benefits politically from framing the anti-terror effort as a battle against "Islamofascism." It allows them to claim we're in a new Cold War, with all the political opportunities that creates.

Maybe that's why Christian conservative Gary Bauer, in my debate with him on Sean Hannity's show, said that "The struggle against Islamofascism is the defining issue of our time."
Really? Other issues pale in importance? Ten times as many Americans have died from lack of health insurance as from terrorism in the 21st Century. Six times as many Americans have died from improperly tested pharmaceuticals.
Yes, fighting terrorism is vitally important - but it's not a fight against "Islamofascism." It's a fight against stateless criminals, and a fight to prevent them from taking over countries like Pakistan. So why do we conduct unnecessary military attacks that increase theirpopular sup

Thanks so much to everyone for your support. Speaker Pelosi, thanks for your awkward exchanges and schizophrenic leadership, no wonder I voted for a dancer. Alas, as she and Howard Dean have confirmed in the past few days, there will be no impeachment proceedings forthcoming. The least we can hope for is that the lap-dog Congress goes to get the paper for its "I don't look at the news" master.

And as Jon Stewart put it bluntly, how long until absolute power corrupts the Democrats as well? What contracts await for the new stewards of policy?

It's time to set a deadline for the expiration of funds for our Iraq adventure--pulling out doesn't have to mean putting troops in harms way, and we always have our lovely CIA and mercenaries to stick around and "smoke 'em out of their holes."

i like it - particularily the voice overs at the beginning and end - good calm tone - breif and articulate. only problem i can see is the "tv" audience or "current tv audience" or perhaps it is the "mtv generation" may require bells and whistles - not a one shot talking woman. On the other hand - Nancy is cool and it's good to have her but the awkward moments are pretty juicy - my favorite part..... the artificial connection is clear as day. Anyway- I'm all about it. maybe i don't have enough faith in the masses.... !****!%$$%#@!(**

Thanks shockerfilms. Maybe the greenlight button didn't work for you--unless Diebold got involved. Stay dry on my dirty third coast!

Definitely...greenlight the video, redlight the war. That should be a slogan "greenlight the democrats, redlight the war". Absolutely deserves to be on TV.

Good piece, i've been thinking about this issue alot as most California districts like mine are so secured in party turnout that it seems our vote matters so little compared to other places. When your vote matters little, you want to make you voice heard and how do you do that??

I must say the few captions are pretty distracting, almost snide comments, where the beginning and closing VO's are thoughtfull and balanced...

I think the root of the power behind this video is how distant Nancy seems from her constituents, on all levels--politically, socially, and physicially. I love the awkward moments (next question, please...), rigid hand gestures, and forced "folksiness." It illustrates the worsening problems of our political system in general, ie "politics," by using a town hall discussion on one of the most pressing political issues of our time. It seems like the perfect way to connect many related ideas into a neat package. Iron out the seams a little more, and it looks like a winner to me!

Well presented. It's tough with only one camera, well done with what you have.

Good interviews expressing the points of view of both sides.
You presented a fair and balanced approach (can I say that?)
Well done. GL

asm.

I think you should add a date to the opening, and tell where the questions come from / who they are read by. Also, maybe play up a slant, like the one written in the 'description' field, to make it a bit more engaging for the Current audience. That said, good stuff, and keep it up.

Thanks for the feedback and support. Coming soon, a shorter version with some intertitles. I feel a lot of the piece speaks for itself so I don't want the narrative voice to be too overbearing, and always the challenge with editing is axing what you think is great stuff. There aren't nearly enough objective stories about politics on Current, so I hope this adds some informed variety to the mix.

Great, this definitely gets a green light. I agree with DanPersons that intercuting some of the spectator reactions with the event, and adding some narration and/or titles would help transitions and the overall flow of the piece. The timing is appropriate in this critical election year!

What Pelosi said re impeachment is right on.

Democrats need to take over the majority and have real investigations...when the truth is known/exposed about what this administration has perpetrated impeachment and removal from office will be the least of Bush/Cheney's problems........they may well be facing criminal indictments, guilty verdicts, and long prison sentences........again; when/IF the whole truth were to ever be known.

Pelosi needs to be careful how she handles this since in an impeachment scenario that includes Darth Vader Cheney, she would become President.

This is an effective portrayal of the democratic process in action at the local level. Greenlight the video and redlight the war.

This could be structured much better. Right now, it feels more like a transcription than a fully formed piece. The reactions following the event could be intercut with the event itself, and the footage could be trimmed to capture the nature of how she handled things in a more concise fashion. Add some narration or titles to clarify what's going on, and you've got a more compelling piece. But the material to fashion such a piece is definitely here, so I'm GL'ing it.

high crimes and misdemeanors? It doesn't sound like she answers much at all. It sounds for the most part like she's just touching on the sensitive subjects without any substantial answers. She doesn't really get into the constitutional matters at all. But then i've been drinking....so who knows.

I'm voting for greenlight because this is entetaining enough to me. However, it was real dry with the one camera angle. It is funny to see her squirm and try to play politician to a resounding crowd. .