As a trial-court judge, Florentino V. Floro Jr. acknowledged that he regularly sought the counsel of three elves only he could see. The Supreme Court deemed him unfit to serve and fired him last year.

Case closed? Not in the Philippines, where vampires are said to prey on unwary travelers and wealthy politicians consult fortune tellers and card readers. Mr. Floro, 54 years old, has become a media celebrity. He is now wielding his new clout to campaign for the return of his job -- and exact vengeance on the Supreme Court.

Helping him, he says, are his three invisible companions. "Angel" is the neutral force, he says. "Armand" is a benign influence. "Luis," whom Mr. Floro describes as the "king of kings," is an avenger.

Mr. Floro has become a regular on Philippine television. Often he is asked to make predictions with the help of his invisible friends. "They say your show will be taken off the air if you don't feature me more often," was Mr. Floro's reply to one interviewer.

 The day after Mr. Floro's first appearance on television last year, hundreds of people turned up at his house in a dusty Manila suburb hoping he could use his supernatural powers to heal their illnesses. Now Mr. Floro, who travels by bus, is regularly recognized on the street.

 The Supreme Court says its medical clinic determined that Mr. Floro was suffering from psychosis. Even so, a series of disturbing incidents appear to have the nation's top jurists rattled. According to local newspaper reports, a mysterious fire in January destroyed the Supreme Court's crest in its session hall, and a number of members of the court and their close family members have developed serious illnesses or have fallen victim to car accidents.

 
Enough bizarre things have happened that in July, the Supreme Court issued an en banc resolution asking Mr. Floro to desist in his threats of "ungodly reprisal." The Supreme Court's spokesman declined to elaborate.

 Mr. Floro says he is not suffering from psychosis, and that he's not to blame for the incidents. He points the finger squarely at "king of kings" elf Luis, who Mr. Floro says is bent on cleaning up what he says is the Philippines' corrupt legal system.

 
Mr. Floro says he never consulted the invisible elves over judicial decisions and the fact that he puts faith in them should make no difference to his career. "It shouldn't matter what I believe in, whether it's Jesus, Muhammad, or Luis, Armand and Angel," he says in an interview.

 The Philippines has a long history of mixing organized religion with a deep belief in the supernatural. During the 1950s and 1960s, when the Southeast Asian nation was already an independent republic, the Central Intelligence Agency stoked fears of vampires and ghouls to help its preferred candidates win elections.

 The elf, or "duwende," is one of a rich pantheon of supernatural beings that predate the Philippines' colonization by Spanish conquistadors in the 16th century. Many Filipinos make pilgrimages to Mount Banahaw, just south of Manila, which is reputedly the country's capital for elves and other beings.

 

READ THE CASE

 

• Read the Philippines Supreme Court decision dismissing Mr. Floro from the service. Url:

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/elf-floro-09172007.pdf

 

Jaime Licauco, who teaches parapsychology at San Beda College in Manila, testified on behalf of Mr. Floro in a 2001 hearing. He argued Mr. Floro is mentally fit and argues the former judge's beliefs aren't so unusual in the Philippine context.

Like many others in the Philippines, Mr. Floro says he himself is a Roman Catholic, and once studied to be a priest. He recalls that he wasn't convinced that serving the church was necessarily the best way to serve other Filipinos. He says he thought he could improve more people's lives if he became a lawyer, and he handily passed the bar exams.

 

Mr. Floro says he first realized he had the power to perceive Armand, Angel and Luis in 1986. In 1998, he applied to switch from being a lawyer to becoming a judge. He passed a mandatory psychiatric evaluation applied to all prospective judges and was sworn in as a regional trial-court judge in November of that year, handling both civil and criminal cases in Malabon, a district in greater Manila.

 

In 1999, Mr. Floro invited officials from the Supreme Court's administration unit to inspect his small courtroom. What they found unnerved them, and the Supreme Court convened a hearing to determine whether Mr. Floro should be removed from the bench.

 

According to Supreme Court papers, the court investigators presenting evidence at the hearing said they found Mr. Floro wearing blue robes instead of the normal black. Mr. Floro's own witnesses testified that he wore black on Fridays to "recharge his psychic powers."

 

The court investigators also reported that Mr. Floro began court proceedings with readings from the Book of Revelation and conducted hands-on psychic healing sessions for members of the public in his chambers during recesses. The investigators said Mr. Floro would sometimes enter a trance to write his rulings.

 

During the hearing, Mr. Floro revealed his contact with his elves. He also shared with the judges that Luis predicted that then-Philippine President Joseph Estrada would be ousted from office; Mr. Estrada was forced from power by a popular revolt two years later in 2001 and was sentenced last week to life in prison for corruption.

 

 

In March 2006, after lengthy delays, the Supreme Court finally dismissed Mr. Floro from the court service, largely because of his belief in the supernatural. Even though Mr. Floro says the elves played no part in his judicial decisions, the Supreme Court justices said his broad faith in mysticism and supernatural phenomena had affected his work. "Lest we be misconstrued, we do not denigrate such a belief system," Associate Justice Minita Chico-Nazario wrote in the Supreme Court's verdict. "However, such beliefs, especially since Judge Floro acted on them, are at odds with the critical and impartial thinking required of a judge under our judicial system."

 

Mr. Floro dissents. He has filed three appeals of the Supreme Court's decision since then and is continuing his campaign on local television and on the Internet. The Supreme Court hasn't reversed any of his decisions after suspending and later removing him from the bench.

 

JAMES HOOKWAY, james.hookway@awsj.com

"In the Philippines, Ex-Judge Consults Three Wee Friends Mr. Floro Loses His Job But Becomes a Celebrity; Using a Little Elfin Magic", September 17, 2007, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, EDITORIAL AND CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS, 200 Liberty Street, New York, NY 10281, (212) 416-2000   Urls:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118999288641229392.html?mod=psp_free_today

 

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/elf-floro-09172007.pdf

The Huckabee story is certainly a big one.  But equally big is Obama's wins tonight.  I know he was expected to win in the three Democratic contests tonight, but he was he expected to win by the overwhelming numbers he got?  I was in Washington and went to my caucus.  The enthusiasm for Obama was palpable.

By now, everyone's seen the results. As expected, Obama swept today's Democratic contests, winning in Washington, Nebraska, and Louisana. Less anticipated was his margin of victory. In the caucus states, he won better than 2/3 of the votes; in Louisiana, by double-digits.

So how do we make sense of those margins, and attempt to figure out their significance? Three ways spring to mind.

1) Polling:

Washington State: Only one polling firm released results from Washington in February: SurveyUSA. It found Obama ahead among likely caucus-goers, 63-33. So score one for the much-battered reputation of the robo-polling firm, and mark these results 'as expected.'
Nebraska and Louisiana: I'm not aware of recent polling in either of these states.

2) Internal expectations:

Obama Campaign: An internal campaign spreadsheet that was leaked to Bloomberg News gives us a rare view of what the campaign itself expected. The first of the projected scenarios had Obama winning 60-40 in WA and NE, and 54-46 in Louisiana. At this hour, Obama's actual margins in all three states exceed those counts (although in Louisiana, due to Hillary falling short). That scenario had Obama winning the pledged delegate count 95-63 tonight, and 1,647 to 1,580 overall. We'll see how that works out - one projection has him winning Nebraska delegates 14-10, while CNN puts him at 15-9, just like the spreadsheet. In WA and LA, the situation is still too confused to hazard a guess. But with the margins bigger than he expected, you've gotta believe that David Plouffe is going to be a happy man tonight.

Clinton Campaign: The first rule of expectations management is that it's better to be pleasantly surprised than suddenly dissappointed. If that applies to the Obama camp's internal projections (a good reason to take them with a grain of salt) it applies as well to the Clinton camp's memorandum to reporters as well. To quote:

The Obama campaign has dramatically outspent our campaign in these three states, saturating the airwaves...we will continue to compete in [February states] and hope to secure as many delegates as we can...

That about sums it up. The name of the game for the Clinton camp was to keep these races close enough to amass some delegates. We'll have to wait till morning (at the earliest) before we get reliable delegate counts. But when expectations start that low, it's tough to be dissappointed.

Edwards campaign: Yes, you read that correctly. In the big surprise of the evening, the moribund campaign of John Edwards roared back to life. Well, not really. But confounding expectations, it seems that thousands of (white?) Louisiana voters who were left to choose between a black man and a woman chose...neither. He didn't break the 15% threshold, so he won't walk away with any delegates, but I think we can faily say that he exceeded expectations. For Edwards, it must be a tantalizing reminder of what might have been. And for the remaining two contenders, it's a troubling indicator for November.

3) Exit Polls: Alas, caucus states don't get much love from the consortium, so we're stuck with the exits from Louisiana. Here, there's plenty for both camps to enjoy:

Obama campaign: There have to be some smiles in Illinois tonight. Obama won among both men and women, among voters in every age cohort up to 65, among religious voters (and ran almost even among the more religious Catholics), with those earning less and more than $50k, and among both Democrats and Independents. But there was plenty to frown about, to, including this statistic that's likely to get some play: 35% of primary voters said they would not be satisfied if Obama wins the nomination. (But then again, 12% of them voted for Obama - so much for polling.)

Clinton campaign: If the tally from Louisiana was discouraging, the exit poll bodes well for Clinton's chances, particularly in the crucial states of Ohio and Pennsylvania. White voters supported Clinton (70-26) by margins almost as large as blacks went for Obama (82-18). She won Catholics, including 73% of white Catholics. Voters thought she "cares about people," has "experience" and "electability" - she lost out only on "can bring change." The poorer the voter, the gloomier about their personal economic future and the nation's, the better Hillary did. And she brought home her bedrock supporters - 63% of voters over the age of 65 cast their ballots for Clinton. If she can replicate those margins in states with different demographic compositions, she can win in a landslide.

So there you have it. On the whole, the evening went about as expected. Three dramatic wins for Obama, whose lead among pledged delegates continues to mount. Clinton can take solace in the thought that the national media expected these wins, and so is unlikely to play them to her disadvantage, and that the biggest prizes left on the calendar are rust-belt states full of aging, white-ethnic voters.

If you find this worthwhile, please click the 'recommend this' link, so that other readers can share it. More election and polling analysis is available on my blog (click my name). And, as always, I welcome your comments and corrections.

What is with CNN's graphics/statistics in the Republican Primary?  They are reporting that a close race of 26% McCain, 25% Huckabee and 21% for Paul.  That is only 72%!  CNN's pie chart has four segments to illustrate.

It has reached a point where I can no longer be a part of the Democratic Party. Elements of my party, have become as sick, sad, vicious, and dangerous to this democracy as the intolerant, thoughtless, robotic zealots of the far right. Fundamentalists who have disgraced and left my country in shambles. Zealots who controlled the air waves and fed the mainstream media a steady, relentless stream of slander, lies, vicious innuendo fueled by an envy and outright incomprehensible hatred of Bill and Hillary Clinton for over ten years. It helped create for the MSM a grotesque standard applied and executed against only the Clintons that continues today. And worse, it has infected my party. The liberal wing of the Democratic party, unfortunately the ones who will nominate the next Democratic Presidential candidate, has become as irresponsible and vicious toward the Clintons as conservative fundamentalist and the MSM. Reading the responses on TPM, not so subtly fueled by TPM, to Hillary Clintons defense of her daughter, HER CHILD, HER CHILD regarding the obscene, mean-spirited comment by David Schuster made me sick. Made me ashamed. And it made me realize the liberal wing of the Democratic Party has drunk the kool aid of this unfair standard provided by the right wing and the MSM. The same kool aid we screamed against for the last eight catastrophic years. Arianna Huffington has described this Presidential race thanks to Barack Obama as a search for our better selves: " the importance of having someone in the Oval Office who can inspire us to tap into the better angels of our nature -- who can stir people to expect more of themselves than they otherwise would." That's funny coming from her. I don't mean that in a mean way. It's just funny coming from her. The self that is emerging from my party is not very pretty, not very pretty at all. Hillary Clinton has the audacity to run for President, Hillary Clinton stands up for her daughter and it brings out the butchers with their cleavers. When it happens, and it will, when the talking head easily blurts out a vicious,ugly racial slur, and not the kind served up by sad, pathetic Rush Limbaugh, about Senator Obama believe me there will be no weird oh it's only the Clinton's standard applied to that moment. And there should not be. The Left Wing of the Democratic Party will demand more than someone being fired. You will want that someone skinned alive.

Every time I think I would be okay with a Hillary presidency she manages to disgust me in a way usually reserved for Georgie.

Do we really want another president who bullies the media?  Who thinks that a cable tv station should fire its employees on the demand of a politician?

The tactic is really carry-over from the Bush Administration.  A reporter asks uncomfortable questions, ban him from press conference ... put him in the back of the room.  It's simple: access to the politician is contingent on following the politician's rules.

I have no doubt this Shuster incident is just a prelude to what we could expect from a Clinton presidency.  She's learned all of the wrong lessons from the past 8 years.

Yes, Shuster made a stupid off-the-cuff comment.  It's not the same as an uncomfortable question.  She can criticize it all she wants, and she probably should criticize it.

But, what business does a candidate have making demands on what type of commentary will be on a station covering her?

Not to mention, demanding that a man lose his job for this type of mistake shows so little humanity it's shocking.

Loyal readers are already familiar with my effort to count the forgotten supderdelegates - the 76 Unpledged Add-On Delegates (UADs) to the Democratic Nationa Convention. To recap: 720 superdelegates get to go to Denver by virtue of the party or governmental offices they hold. The forgotten 76 are handed out to the states in proportion to the number of DNC members in each state, and (s)elected by state committees, conventions, or delegations. In this incredibly tight contest, it's naive to believe that any candidate whose supporters comprise a majority of the body that selects the UADs will select anyone not (unofficially, but no less firmly) pledged to support them.

Counting UADs is hard, because like delegates from caucus states, we don't know who they'll be, only how they're likely to vote in Denver. Further complicating the picture is the diverse array of selection processes. So in this count, I'm only including delegates who we know, pretty much for sure, are going to back a given candidate. Though February 5, the count stood at:
Obama: 11
Clinton: 7

Tonight's results bring a further advantage for Obama, whose lead is based upon his dominance of caucus states, on show again this evening.
 
             Clinton      Obama      Undetermined
WA:           0               2                   0
NE:            0               1                   0
LA:            0               0                   0

Your new totals:
Obama: 14
Clinton: 7

We'll keep a running tally here every election night, until one of the more reputable bodies tracking delegates notices that they're excluding more than twenty delegates who, by any right, ought to be counted.

If you find this worthwhile, please click the 'recommend this' link, so that other readers can share it. More election and polling analysis is available on my blog (click my name). And, as always, I welcome your comments and corrections.

DC Obama +58
Louisiana Obama +21
Hawaii Obama +24
Maryland Obama +18
Maine Clinton +14
Nebraska Obama +15
Virginia Obama +19
Wisconsin Clinton +4
Washington Obama +9

This is very good. I want to respond to some of your responses. And I appreciate the willingness to engage the issues. First, someone indicated that Bill Clinton did good things in the White House, like balancing the budget and attempting to bring about peace in the Middle East. I agree, he did do good things. However I tend to like to view the entire picture. We can all agree that W. Bush is a walking disaster. However Hillary is running a campaign that continually hearkens back to the "Clinton Legacy". Well, the Clinton legacy includes high points AND low points. Hillary wants to take credit for the high points, and ignore (or spin) the low points. In my estimation, NAFTA and Rwanda (as I stated earlier) were severe low points. The Middle East effort was a high point. Balancing the budget however, I take issue with. The primary way that Bill Clinton was able to balance the budget, was by raiding Social Security Funds. And now is it a surprise to find that Social Security will run out within our lifetimes? What about our concern for future generations? To me, this is something that needs to be fully discussed before we accredit the Clinton Administration with a balanced budget.

Another responder suggested that Obama, although well meaning, would be "eaten alive" by the Republican machine in the general election. I cannot endorse that view. Although Obama was indeed shaky in those initial debates. However, in my estimation he has improved and he actually won the very last debate (though admittedly both performed well). Add to this the very recent (as in today) Time magazine poll, which indicated "Obama the Stronger Democrat Against McCain". Now this is a Time Magazine's poll suggesting this, not me. Obama wasn't even supposed to be a serious contender! But now he has serious momentum. The Republicans in my estimation, would really prefer to run against Hillary because she has so much baggage. Obama has some, though nearly not as much. Plus he was absolutely right on the war question. And he is attracting a boatload of new young voters. Hillary simply is not.

Another responder suggested that it was wrong of me to raise the question of Vietnam. And that it would be more accurate to compare Obama to JFK who made numerous mistakes, in his lofty estimation. Well, again, I am not here to defend Obama. Certain things about him I like, others I question. However to address his point, it is true JFK was considered inexperienced, and perhaps he made mistakes. The Cuban Missile Crises, choosing war in Vietnam. I agree, he was far from perfect. But if you asked most Americans who our most beloved president has been, to date, the vast majority of them would cite JFK. Of that I have absolutely no doubt. Why? JFK had an expansive vision. In the end he is remembered more for his advocation of Space Exploration and Civil Rights than anything else. JFK could inspire a nation to move beyond their preconceived notions of themselves. That's why he was loved. Obama SEEMS to share some of these same unique attributes. Hillary unfortunately does not.

Barack Obama has already improved

2parse put this up on his blog and I love the idea of a large group of people doing a little bit.

On February 12th, the birthday of a prominent Illinois lawyer/politician, blueinks over at Daily Kos suggests a Barack Obama “Money Bomb”. Previously, Congressman Ron Paul has benefited from two “money bombs” - or independently organized online fund raising days.

I propose that on February 12th (Lincoln’s Birthday) we have a money bomb extravaganza of small donations of $5.01 for Senator Obama. The reasons for this amount are easy to see:

1. Small donations are powering Obama’s campaign
2. Lincoln is on the $5 bill and the penny
3. .01 is also for us online progressives making a statement to the campaign that we are here and we’ve got money. That we aren’t the huge bundlers for campaigns. We sacrifice parts of paychecks that mean more proportionally to those of us with smaller incomes. We buy into Barack Obama because we do dream of a more hopeful future instead of cynicsm. I would much rather be called a Hopemonger than a Warmonger. So if you believe in the hope that small donors are powering the Obama campaign, please join me in showing that when Americans united with Hope can wield large influence with small donations!

A long-standing principle of online debate holds that the first person to invoke Hitler or the Nazis loses by default. 
The reasoning here is pretty obvious: such comparisons are almost always ludicrously overblown. The fact that a person is wrong, or mean-spirited, or even sociopathic, does not mean he or she is on a par with the historic figure now widely regarded as the living embodiment of pure evil. Such constructions as "feminazi" and "Hitlary" are not merely foolish; they grossly trivialize the actual horrors of the Third Reich.
I propose, by analogy, that we adopt a clear and straightforward standard by which to reject, out of hand, a certain type of comment that's becoming more and more frequent on political blogs. Specifically, I suggest we automatically dismiss any statement that takes the general form:
"If Candidate X is nominated, I'm going to vote for [McCain, Nader, Putin, Pedro, etc.]."
Such comments should be ignored -- and the person who posts them should be considered to have lost several points of credibility -- because:
1. If the commenter is serious -- if he or she truly would cast an anti-Democratic vote, knowing what's at stake in this election -- then the poster has no credibility to start with. Whether it's a case of trolling, or irrational thinking, or political immaturity, or sheer vindictiveness doesn't really matter.
2. If the commenter is not serious -- if this is just an emotional outburst, or melodramatic posturing, or overstatement for effect, or an outright lie -- then why bother to argue? The poster will either act responsibly in November, or not. 
3. The argument itself doesn't deserve to be dignified with a response. We saw clearly in 2000 what happened when people decided Al Gore wasn't ideologically pure enough, or too tainted by association with Bill Clinton, or otherwise unworthy of their support. With our nation and our children now doomed to suffer the consequences, that attitude should be regarded as permanently discredited.
I propose, also, that this principle be extended to similar comments in either of these forms:
-- "There's no real difference between Candidate X and [George Bush, John McCain, Britney Spears, etc.]."
-- "I'd rather see [McCain, Satan, Barney, etc.] elected than Candidate X. Maybe then things will get so bad, America will come to its senses." 
Such comments echo exactly the kind of rubbish people were saying in 2000 about Al Gore vis-a-vis George Bush. Look how smart and perceptive they turned out to be! So when we hear this kind of thing in 2008, let's treat it with the icy contempt it deserves.
The second comment, moreover, echoes a favorite slogan of the German Community Party in the last months of 1932: "Nach Hitler, kommen wir." (Roughly: After Hitler, our time will come.) This was the justification for not standing arm-in-arm with the SDP, the bumbling but decent mainstream liberal party of its day. This strategy never works.
So then: How to respond to comments of this kind?
The simplest approach, as always, is to ignore them. But sometimes a more pointed response seems in order -- especially when the poster is being notably idiotic. 
It would be good if we had a name for the kind of wrong-headed argument I'm describing. Then we could dismiss it conveniently by saying, for instance, "Oh yeah, XXXX again, I've never heard that before."
So ... how about ITMT -- as in, I'm Taking My Toys (and going home)?
That's just an idea. I've come to think of it as the Nach Hitler Defense, but I guess that's a bit too recondite. 
Any suggestions are welcome.

When Karl Rove made that comment, he was referring to John McCain's full-throated support of Bush's Hundred Year War.  I'd like to point out to Mr. Rove--as well as all the administration warmongers who never actually fought in a war themselves--that soldiers and Marines no longer use foxholes.  They haven't, in fact, used foxholes since World War II or possibly Korea.  We haven't fought a conventional war in 60 years, not that many Republicans would actually know that.

I would also like to be the first to point out that John McCain, for all his couragous heroism in enduring horrific torture as  a P.O. W. at the hands of the North Vietnamese enemy--still never actually FOUGHT in a war.  Fighter and bomber pilots do not fight in wars; they fly above them. 

Remember that old episode of M*A*S*H, when a disgusted and infuriated Hawkeye Pierce, who'd been listening to a bomber pilot brag about hitting all his "targets," dragged the stunned man through the hospital ward, forcing him to gaze at the maimed children his bombs had hurt?

Donald Rumsfeld was a pilot, too.

Karl Rove may have only been using a figure of speech in his analogy of McCain's war support--the full quote reads:  "McCain made clear, 'I'm with you and we'll die in the last foxhole together if need be.'  Rather than draw away from the unpopular strategy, McCain hugged it even tighter."

Hmmm.  I would also like to explain to our chickenhawk spokesman that there is a difference--militarily speaking--between STRATEGY and TACTIC.  The so-called "surge," or temporary troop escalation, is a battle TACTIC.  Not to be confused with strategy, though again, I would not expect most Republicans who glorify war while, at the same time, cutting the benefits allotted to those maimed and injured and tormented by those said wars, as well as hiding away from the public the flag-draped caskets of those returning from their war in a cargo plane, to understand the difference.

Sen. McCain likes to say that either of the Democratic candidates "want to wave the white flag of surrender."  He drives around a bus he likes to call the "No Surrender" bus.

We already know what kind of attacks his campaign will make on our nominee, because we've been putting up with it since 2003.  It's the same old tired rhetoric.  You either "support the troops"--meaning, US and OUR WAR--or, you are a coward, a cut-and-runner, a surrenderer.

These troops though--the ones used as stage props for just about every speech Bush gives--they seem to be giving their campaign contribution support to...the Democrats.

In fact, Sen. Barack Obama--who everybody knows is my candidate of choice--has received individual campaign contributions from NINETY-FOUR THOUSAND ACTIVE-DUTY TROOPS--more than ALL THE OTHER CANDIDATES IN EITHER PARTY PUT TOGETHER. 

Over on another thread--long since lost in the recent TPM server-shuffle--this issue was discussed.  I think it was Greg Sergent who had mentioned the statistic, and mused that perhaps they were supporting Obama because they thought he secretly supported the war effort, since he'd voted to fund the war several times.  The first person to post agreed vehemently, claiming that these nameless faceless "troops" would support any war-mongerer over peace activists.

I posted immediately and explained that they'd BOTH missed the point.  The truth, I said, is that these "troops" everybody likes to brag about...are utterly EXHAUSTED by Bush's Wars.  Repeated combat re-deployments, stop-loss, lowered recruitment standards, less time home between deployments (spent training for more war), the psychological and physical costs of these deployments, and the unimaginable strain on families...had worn out our armed forces.

They know that Sen. Obama spoke out against the war in the first place, naming many of these same reasons, at a time when it was not politically expedient to do so.  They know he has said that the first thing he'd do after Inauguration, is meet with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and start drawing up plans to end this war.

I emphasized that NONE OF THESE TROOPS WANT TO RETURN TO IRAQ ONCE THEY'VE BEEN.  The only ones still gung-ho, I said, either have never deployed, had an office job and never went "outside the wire" during a deployment, or had only just deployed the first time.

"Soldiers and Marines like my son and nephews," I said, "who have been and been and BEEN, who've survived getting 'blown up' and seen buddies buried, have had enough of war and enough of the military."

To my deep gratification, active-duty soldier after active-duty soldier--some naming their units and ranks--supported every word I'd said.  They said it was an accurate assessment, and that they wanted this war to end.

My son, after two combat deployments to the Anbar with the Marines, now supports Barack Obama.  My nephew, who did three combat deployments and is extremely conservative in his political outlook, has said he, too, will vote for Obama. 

Whether we support Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, I think we as Democrats need to recognize that the Republicans are going to run a man considered to be a war-hero, and who, according to Karl Rove, hugged George W. Bush tight on Iraq.

Bush wants to preserve his legacy, and more than anything else in the world, he wants to keep his war going.  He and his formidable forces will gather like tornado clouds on the horizon to put their warmongering candidate in the White House to continue Bush's War into the next millenium.

They will use "the troops" as propoganda, ignoring the fact that those same troops are sick of war and want to come home.

The only true way we can "support the troops" is to work our hearts out--take nothing for granted; give no quarter--to put a Democrat in the White House and give him or her a large enough majority in Congress to end this bloody stinking war once and for all.

I do not disagree with Hillary when she says that we must be far more careful getting out than we did getting in, nor do I think we should leave the Iraqis high and dry after destroying their country's infrastructure and government.

But they will never step up and start defending their country until they no longer have their big burly American bodyguards to do it for them.  We must send them a clear signal that their time is limited; we're pulling the majority of our combat troops out; they'd better start functioning as a government and as an army.

And none of this will happen if we don't turn outselves inside-out to prevent the Republicans from using war to paint us with the brush of cowardice.

If they think wars are still fought in foxholes, let THEM go to Iraq, dig one in the Diyala province, and see how well they are protected.

The surge has "worked" only because we are still there in full force.  It has not worked as far as STRATEGY is concerned, and that is, a governing body in Iraq.  It won't work as long as we're doing their work for them.

We must send an overwhelming mandate of a message to the White House and to Congress in this election:  Hug tight to George W. Bush's Hundred Year War...and die by it.

If you think that creditcards are a good tool for protecting you from identity theft, think again.  From the guy who pulled the Credit Card Prank, see what he did by reading his articles on The Credit Card Criminal. Part2, Part3, Part4

I can't say that I am satisfied with TPM's new version. Is anybody? (show of hands). I found the old system very flexible and intelligent. The new system reminds me somehow of Window's Vista, f'yaknowhaddamean.

I am very unhappy that there is not a "review" capability in this new system.

Like many people do, I make loads of typos when I'm writing and I like to see the final result a couple of times before everybody else does. Then sometimes I find new material later and would like to add it to the original  I  liked that it was possible to go back and re-edit things once they were up.

If you're looking for my column of faith and the bible, please "tune" into this same digital "network" next Monday or Tuesday. I had to rush out this edition of Inspection because I feel the topic is important.

   Why I'm typing this I'm not sure. My guess? No one will pay attention. No one will read: grab and run with my advice I give at the end of this edition of Inspection. The cannibalization of the Democratic Party from within will probably continue by both sides feasting on each other, while McCain... and a somewhat reunited Republican Party, will sharpen their teeth. It's almost as if all the followers of Hillary and Barack have invaded the body politic: as represented by their chosen candidates, and are ready, willing and quite able to burst forth like the creature in Alien. The only thing that saves my sanity is I'm sure that folks like Jon Stewart will do their best to dress up these vicious creatures in a top hat and cane and help them dance off stage singing...
 

"Hello, my baby
Hello, my honey
Hello, my ragtime gal..."

   In 2004 Jon said, "Please don't make my job easy." We sure seem determined to do that again in 08. Sad to say this Democratic Party faction need to devour itself is a hell of a lot older than that Mel Brooks movie, or even all the Sci Fi it spoofed.

    During my last Inspection I mentioned that I would vote for whoever gets the nomination. But if the party continues down its present path it will be a wasted vote.

   You may ask...

"Why 'wasted?'

 

    First, I'm going to set a few ground rules here. This is not going to be some sandbox like, "He did it first/She did it first..." or "worse," or "more," type of column. At this point I really don't care and pursuing that will absolutely animate that little, hungry creature even more than it already is. Frankly, I'm beinging to wonder if he's wearing The Mask. I also don't perceive this, despite my own obvious, personal, political skew as only a Democratic Party issue. I would no more wish this kind of racial, sexual, bashing on Republicans than Democrats. If we were arguing about who was more "Roosevelt-ish," or "more Liberal," or more anything that's more political philosophy or policy oriented... no problem. That's what we should be doing.

    But who is a racist, or uses code words, or who doesn't shake somebody's hand, or who is a sexist...

    Well, if I actually cared at this point I would buy some rats, remove their posteriors... and give them to you. But, personally, I don't give a rat's... about that. In fact I didn't think it was a discussion we needed to get in to begin with and even less now.

   Why? Because we're into political end game now. The Republican machine is quickly rolling unto a conclusion: and I'll bet you know who the main target will be once that's fini'. Anyone who has ever watched any war movie, or battle in space, knows what happens if different factions don't stop fighting each other while their being attacked by the enemy too.

   Let's use a better, less partisan, analogy. I loath boxing. But, politically I enjoy a clean, and an honest, fight. No below the belt. Politically, these days, that's impossible. But when two people won't stop assailing each other, and below the belt is part of the fray (No matter who is, or isn't doing it.) are then also joined by a third party determined to take them both out... that's a definite end game. I wouldn't wish it on either party.

    Some might claim that there are elements within the Republican party who hate McCain so much, if he will be the nominee, that this will counter any angst between Clinton and O'Bama supporters. Need I remind you that, no matter how divided they may seem sometimes, the lockstep effect is incredible on that side of the fence? My prediction: they will swallow whatever disgusting medicine they have to when it comes to keeping the White House. Plus, politically, it's just a bad bet to make. It's like betting there will be no resistance when we land in Normandy because Hitler's not sure where we are landing: or sending too few troops into Iraq because we think it's going to be a "cakewalk."

    My solution?

    You're not going to like it.

    You're going to hate it.

    For me it's worse than a meal of pig's liver and Brussels sprout; and those are my least favorite inedibles. (I refuse to type, "Edibles.")

    Both candidates agree, publicly, to this...

    Whomever wins the nomination, the other becomes the VP.  Hard to choke down, isn't it? But here is what that deal would do...

1. It would immediately stop whatever under-handed tactics and race-baiting, or sexist, comments that come out of either camp. I would never claim "all," but it would certainly dry up this vast sea of poisonous, polluted, swill we are choking down and drowning in.

2. It would turn the candidate's, and most supporter's, attention back to who is most likely to be the best head of the ticket, issues and how each will change the path the Republicans have taken us down.

   Now after swallowing that icky medicine, we will get better and healthy again. Otherwise? Expect the majority of either rather large, and important, coalition to either stomp away in disgust or support the "winner" tepidly.

    That's the best way to turn any winner into a loser I can imagine.

 

 

                       -30-

Inspection is a column that has been written by Ken Carman for over thirty years. Inspection is dedicated to looking at odd angles, under all the rocks and into the unseen cracks and crevasses that constitute the issues and philosophical constructs of our day: places few think, or even dare, to venture.

I am fascinated by Robin Morgan's new essay. You know, the one Chelsea forwarded on to her friends.

Well, I can't respond better than this.

I am all for Hillary going to war with MSNBC and Shuster,
It is her choice to use whatever power she has, as she likes.  The comment was crude, sexist, and junk commentary. If she can put a squeeze on the big media, she might as well.

On the other hand, Chelsea is a grown woman who has chosen to put herself in the public eye by campaigning for her parent.  As such, I believe she is fair game, as are Hillary and Bill.

I've just finished The Conscience of a Liberal.  Thank you--it was fantastic.  I recommend it, along with Jacob Hacker's The Great Risk Shift, tpmcafe's Jared Bernstein's All Together Now, and tpmcafe's Elizabeth Warren The Two Income Trap, as the best books I've seen on what is happening to our country's middle class and poor and where we need to go first on social and economic policy in the progressive movement and the Democratic party.

Here's the thing--I vote Tuesday in Virginia's primary.  As of now I am voting Obama.  I think he gives us the best chance of beating McCain and helping us get a favorable Congressional balance for the looming UHC battle.

You are supporting Hillary.  I want to know why, really.  What is it that you know or perceive that leads you to think Hillary is the better bet, to win and help get us a better Congress?  A major argument you make in your book is that race is the single issue that has hurt the progressive cause the most in our country.  Do you believe that, polls notwithstanding, when push comes to shove, enough Americans are not ready to vote for a person of color for President yet?   Is that the fear and concern?  If that is not it, what is it?  What polling and survey and impressions are you focusing on that leads you to the other conclusion?  I want to know because you're a super smart person and the agenda you lay out in your book is one I support wholeheartedly for our movement, our party, and our country.

I get that you think her health care proposal is better as policy and is a better way to get more quickly to a single payer system.  If it stands as good or a better chance of passing as any other proposal out there that moves the ball forward, that sounds right to me.  The Obama supporters, and Obama himself, do not impress me when they bash the purchasing mandate because without it how do they suggest we get everyone covered and eventually in the same risk pool?  If Obama can't move off his present position I'm not sure we're going to get the forward motion we need on this issue.  People like me have to hope that he'd be open to revising his current proposal, or that if Dem leaders in Congress can come up with a better bill he'll support it.  The purchasing mandate has a major problem of its own, in that lots of our fellow citizens of modest means cannot afford to make the up-front purchase of insurance even though they'd get a tax credit later on.

You realize full well that elections aren't about who is the best policy wonk, I know, or who has the best proposals on paper right now--that we have to win and get a Congress that can help instead of impede in getting a progressive agenda enacted.

 A penny for your thoughts, which I really want to hear before I vote on Tuesday.  As of now, it's Obama for me.

In case you missed it, after Super Tuesday, Whoopi Goldberg switched her endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama to Sen. Hillary Clinton. Her rationale: the first among them to have promised a policy proposal to punish companies that outsource American jobs! You must be wondering if you are hearing me right and I guarantee you are. Whoopi’s gigantic election issue and primary concern is the time at which either of the candidates made this declaration.

Watch Video

It is disgusting and quite honestly disingenuous for celebrities of Whoopi’s ilk to imagine we are as simple minded and as blatantly idiotic when they come out, attempting to base their flawed judgment on reason and principle when the supposed judgment and principle is so fatally flawed. Supporting a candidate based on the date they said something convenient to your ears rather than what their actual policy inclinations have been over the years is just simply stupid. Hold on, don’t get all worked up on me on the timing of Sen. Obama's anti-war speech because this is different.

I stumbled upon this Asia Times article highlighting Sen. Clinton’s stance on the very subject, during her India visit back in 2005.

Hillary clears outsourcing air
Hillary Clinton made it apparent where she stood on outsourcing during her India visit, in an attempt perhaps to clear the Indian misgivings received during the Kerry campaign. "There is no way to legislate against reality. Outsourcing will continue," she told an audience of Indian big-wigs. She pointed out that there were 3 billion people who feel left behind and are trying to attack the modern world in the hope of turning the clock back on globalization. "It is not far-fetched to imagine ... if the Indian miracle would be the one of choice of those who feel left behind," said Hillary.

Hillary has been at the forefront in defending free trade and outsourcing. During the height of the anti-outsourcing backlash in the US last year, she faced considerable flak for defending Indian software giant Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) for opening a center in Buffalo, New York. "We are not against all outsourcing; we are not in favor of putting up fences," Hillary said firmly, despite inevitably invoking the ire of the anti-free trade brigade.
-- Asia Times, May 1, 2005

For the record, I am not at all against all outsourcing; I am just disgusted by celebrities babbling about without knowing what they are talking about, especially in the presence of people who somehow depend on their perspectives to make political decisions. As for the endorsement, I'm sure Sen. Obama's campaign is having cool sweet laughs at her.

All the bugs aside, I think that the new site is a huge improvement. I particularly appreciate the reader blogs and “recommended reader posts” section. It’s definitely caused me to spend more time contributing, to the detriment of my productivity at work. The quality of user posts seems to have improved as well, perhaps because of the required registration.

I do, however, see some flaws in the reader recommendation system. Initially, it worked very well, but the recommended reader posts section is starting to go stale. For instance, flyonthewall's super tuesday analysis is stellar, but super tuesday is over, and the post is still 4th on the recommended list. I'm sure that he/she has new posts that should replace it.

The staleness seems to have happened for two reasons:

1) The recommended reader posts get a lot more visits than the recent reader posts, so they get still more recommendations, which pushes them even higher in the ranking.

2) The number of reader posts has increased so that new posts now move quickly through the recent posts lists before anyone has a chance to read and recommend them. I've commented on posts, and then a few hours later, I can't find the post anymore.

I'd like to start a list of ideas for improving the functionality. If anyone has suggestions, please add them to the comments (and recommend this post, so we can keep the thread live for a little while).

Suggestions:

1) Time out user recommendations. Recommendations more than a few days old should be discounted. That way, recommended posts will fall off the list when they go stale, but posts that continue to receive recommendations will stay up.

2) Increase the length of the recommended list. That will make the threshold for stickiness lower. Recommendations by a few users will get the post into the list where more users can see it and recommend it.

3) Increase the length of the recent posts list. That will give recent posts a little more time to be read before they fall off.

4) The "all reader posts" section should have a headline index. Currently, you can only seem them in long view, which makes it hard to find a thread that you were following but has fallen of the lists.

Hi... and, hi. Hello. It's nice to meet you, all of you. 
You've all been using this cafe, well not THIS cafe, but you know what I mean, you've been here for awhile. Thank you for building such an interesting, useful, calm, thoughtful and engaging community. I've been using TPM for a number of months now, god, has it been over a year? And, I'll be the first to admit, the Cafe was the last area I found, but once introduced it became my favorite. I don't need to enlighten you all to the best parts of the old cafe, you helped create them. I have heard, since the change over, some confusion at the proliferation of new bloggers, of which I am one. Who are we? Where did we come from? Why did we come here? What do we have to offer?
So, allow me to tell you a little about myself. My name is Steven, I live in Madison, WI, the Berkely of the Midwest. The land of 5,000 lakes, cows, cheese, Favre, Neenah steel, Milwaukee, Door County and Washington Island wheat. I've lived here my whole life and so have come to, I think, internalize a lot of what my city and state strive to represent: progressivism, community, inquiry, compassion, patience and family. 
I'm married to a young, beautiful woman, who makes me look like Jerry Falwell on some days, and is far too busy running our lives to participate on this blog. She is a student and works in textile and apparel. 
I favor sociology, and I've had a particular focus on wealth inequity, segregation, civil religion, the arts, and people with disabilities. The first half of that list composes my academic passion, and there has been some spill over from there into my activist habits, but the latter half of the list are my private passions. I have worked in our cities community theater for 10 years, started a few small companies therein, written, produced, directed and (mostly) acted in hundreds of performances. I have a sympathetic streak for what's going on in the art world, in general, I try to keep abreast. 
Two of my bothers are severely, physically disabled, and I am sensitive to their plight, what will make their lives easier, and all the issues, from care to solutions to policy, that come with that experience. Most of my extended family lives here, in Madison.
I'm passionate about issues of sustainability, I have worked for the greenest restaurants in my state, and am friends with the farmers whose food I sell. I have the fortune of living a block from my food co-op, they sell the same farmers' wares. That being said, I love my car, and I drive too much. 
I liked the original cafe because of the quality of thought and writing that was taking place, the format was nice too. I know a lot of you miss it, I do too, and I used it for a much shorter time than any of you. I hope this format tightens up. 
As an adult undergraduate student, I don't have as much opportunity for thoughtful conversation as you might think. That's why appreciate the cafe. Please keep writing, and say hi to the new guys, as they keep letting themselves in. 
Have a great weekend, I'll see you in the book club.

Was anyone else a little freaked-out by "VH"'s  feedback on the "pimping" comment? Shuster's remarks were idiotic, and MSNBC was correct to suspend the guy.  But do we really want to borrow a page from the Bush/Cheney handbook and freeze out the media when they get too aggressive? 

I understand that some people are still smarting from the MSM's relentless attacks on the Clinton administration back in the day.  But, as I hope we've learned during the last 7 years, the media is much more dangerous when it is passive than when it is overly aggressive.  Of course, I am not arguing that Shuster's mindless spouting in counts as diligence or inquisitiveness.  However, the Clinton campaign's response (using the comments as an opportunity to torpedo MSNBC, control the news cycle, and drum up support among its base) strikes me as cynical, part of a well-established pattern of dodging accountability.  The media was not Bush's lap dog just 'cause-- rather, the Bush/Cheney Administration dangled access in front of the most docile and complimentary reporters, and left dissenters out in the cold.  Do we really want another administration that would do the same thing?

I have had the great fortune of living abroad for the entire Bush adminstration.  While it has spared me much of the day to day heartbreak that my fellow American's have undeniably endured during this tragic period on our nation's history, I too have suffered in foreign lands by seeing the perception of my country degrade and diminish in the eyes of so many around the world, and am saddened when I return annually to an America with an irrational fortress mentality.
 
During these past 7 years I've lived in 4 different countries.  The first was France, where my family arrived in the summer  before 9/11.  I had already lived in France and heard many "thanks" from French people (over the years prior to this return) for America's role in WWII.  I had also heard many remarks of admiration for all of the good things that America represented; openness, ingenuity, etc.  French people that I met, young and old, loved America. 

My kids began a local French school on September 4.  The kids didn't speak any French and we were an oddity; the one foreign "American" family in the entire school.  I'll never forget how the entire school reacted to 9/11.  How they reacted to us.   I had just seen the plane hit the second tower on CNN at home, and had to leave before watching the entire thing unfold because I had to collect the kids from school.  Afterall, 9/11 happened in the afternoon in France. 

When I arrived at school I saw the long line of cars that stretched around 2 blocks with parents waiting for children, all of the doors open, people listening silently to radio news broadcasts about the attack.  As I walked past them, people who only knew that I was the one "American" mother were quick to address me and say how sorry they were, how tragic for my country.  Many asked whether I had family who might have been hurt, where I was from, etc.  They were genuinely shocked and hurt.  They were all listening, and waiting along with every other American to see what might happen next.  They were with us. 

Over the next two years, all of the misguided talk of war against Iraq replaced the genuine feeling of solidarity that anyone in France had after 9/11. And why not?  The French became the enemy solely because they didn't agree with the Iraq war.  The entire nation became the object of ridicule and America embraced silly, jingoistic Republican battle cries declaring that French Fries would henceforth be Freedom Fries as though such proclaimations would ring the Liberty Bell loud enough to be heard across the Atlantic!

Take that France!  Nevermind that the French themselves call French Fries, "fried potatoes" and the concept itself originate in Belgium, (supposedly).

By the time I left, I was having rather heated discussions about the invasions of Iraq.  I opposed the war from the first hints that it was coming.  Not because I'm anti-war, but because a cursory read of Middle Eastern history since WWI would make it clear to anyone why military invasion in that region just doesn't make sense....almost NO upside to that misadventure.  It wasn't a secret, then or now.  Yet I was left defending my country, which I did, against calls to have the UN oversee any post-war operations.  No one cared about Saddam, but they did care about the US playing occupying force.  I countered these argument saying that while the invasion was a mistake, I believed that no other country would be better to "reconstruct" and "bring democracy" to Iraq than the US.  We had a history of doing such remarkable things...remember post-war Germany?  Remember post-war Japan? We knew how...

To a person, every Frenchman or woman said, "yes, of course, but this is not a world war...this is an American war with American goals.  The goals are not limited to ousting a dictator.  It is different."

For those bloggers who will jump on the argument about French interest, please realize that I am not so naive as to suggest that France (and Total) didn't have economic/oil designs, and that there were certainly more than a few political and economic imperatives that the French had in mind...but remember, I was talking to average French people...not government officials.  They knew the Iraq war was stupid.  The American public didn't.  We were duped...they weren't.

Fast forward to the next year and the Australians, even though they were part of the coalition of the willing they were anything but willing "IN" Australia.  Aussie's were scratching their heads as to why any one of their troops was going to war...but PM Howard would eventually pay the political price for that decision.  More than a few Aussie's expressed their view of Bush.  "He's a wanker!..."  I would only add to their comment "a bloody wanker!" which would always get a big round of laughs. Yet my anti-war/Bush comment didn't stop more than a few from speaking their minds and saying things like, "you Yanks think you can bloody invade anywhere you want!" 

Aren't we the peace-loving, democracy building country?

Then came Japan.  Boy.  By this time it was already difficult to meet people and tell them I was American.  It became apparent that many would try to work out what "kind" of American I was; the Gore/Kerry supporting kind or the Bush/Cheney kind.  I got to the point where it was easier to clearly identify myself as the kind of American that wasn't a Bush supporter; one that was anti-war.  This was almost always met with a sigh of relief.  Even Japanese taxi drivers would ask me whether I liked Bush, often giving me that famous Japanese "backward hiss" while saying, "Yeah...Bush...I don't know...America...really great country....but Bush.......yeah....I don't know....a little......dangerous."  [I think you have to know how Japanese speak to really appreciate the hesitation to say anything bad, and the fact that they said anything at all was indication enough that it was bad.  I guess you have to be there!]

Now Singapore. It is interesting because I was pleased to discover other Americans here who think like me, who have had more than a few uncomfortable moments with their Nationality while being abroad.  Not all, mind you.  There are a fair number of "enfranchised" corporate-folk who believe that Hillary is the anti-christ and Obama must be her illegitimate offspring somehow.  To these folks McCain is a clear thinker, and nevermind that he wears those kaleidascopic goggles that somehow show that the war in Iraq makes sense, and that the surge makes progress even though young soldiers are killed everyday. 

I struggle with American citizens who can NOW view the war as a good thing, even though I, to a certain degree, can understand that twisted world view from McCain.  Over Christmas this year I visited the famous "Hanoi Hilton" where he was held for those many years, right in downtown Hanoi, and it was truely a gruesome place.  And boy, did American's look like saints compared to the colonial brutality of the French!...But on the same trip I visited the Bomber airplane wreckage in the middle of the city and reflected on the absolute horror those people must have experienced night and day knowing that awesome, superior airplanes would fly over their homes and bomb them at random.  I realize that the US didn't bomb indiscriminantly over Hanoi, but we did bomb.  And people died.  That said, the Vietnamese, much like the Iraqi's (hopefully) someday, seem to be getting about building their economy and finding ways to make money and look back at the senseless American aggression against their country as a tragic chapter in their nation's history that is worth forgetting while worth profiting from as a tourist attraction.

They got my 5 bucks.

And won't it be a thrill to visit the "green zone" and "Sadar City" someday knowing that our nation was responsible for untold Iraqi deaths?  Forget the "Saddam killed his own people" BS...they didn't do a thing to us, nor did they threaten our power...and there are a tub-load of Iraqi's that are dead because of our actions.  And we wonder why people don't like us?  Don't trust us?

I digress.

So, I'm going to look at the close of the Bush Administration as the hopeful ending to a tragic chapter in America's hisory.  I choose to believe that my country will turn the page on the past, and choose a new direction for the future. We have a lot of damage to repair, both at home and abroad.  Looking to past leaders will not take us forward.  They've had their chance.  It's time to give change a chance and invite a new vision with new leadership into our government.

We have to do it.  Yes.  We can.  Yes.  We will.

Choose to leave partisan rancor in the past and embrace a new tone for our politics in the future.  The world is waiting for us to redefine America.  I am too.   

What's happened here at the Cafe is like what's happened during 7 years of bush.  It's:

"a twist on a market research technique called "deprivation research," in which marketers measure how loyal consumers are to a brand or product by taking it away from them."  WSJ

It's amazing the pent up interest and demand for the Constitution after 7 years of near-dictatorship.  There's tremendous longing for it, ever since we've experienced absence of the Rule of Law, absence of the Balance of Powers, and a judicial system perverted.  Yes, I'd like my Constitution back!  But at this point that is still in doubt.  Serious doubt.  Deprivation research is occurring in the nation.  An overwhelming majority of people now say the nation is seriously on the wrong track.  There may be disagreement about the "right" track, but no doubt the results are in.  Will things change?  We can only hope.

Take away our Constitution.  And suddenly there's a groundswell of loyalty and appreciation.  A desperate desire to get back to the Rule of Law.

Here at the Cafe there is also evidence of pent up interest and demand.  Yes, we'd like our Cafe back!  It's not the substitution of a  dictatorship of course. And we do believe Josh and his terrific crew are doing all they can to restore order.  But it seems we must endure more weeks (months?) without the "home" so many of us have come to depend on and make use of.  Will things ever be like the old Cafe?  We can only hope!

Take away the Cafe as we've known it.  And suddenly there's a groundswell of longing and frustration.  That cannot easily be assuaged.  TPM and the Cafe are the means for many of us to discuss the need for national change and renewal.  That's why the "deprivation" at the Cafe has left us so sorely in need these past 10 days.

 Used effectively "deprivation research" only goes on for a short while. And mostly it happens with consumer consent.  Here's a description of it from a Wall Street Journal article describing a hoax where customers at two Las Vegas Burger King's were greeted with no Whoppers on the menu.  They were filmed and these vignettes were used in Burger King advertising.

In the case of the Constitution and the Cafe we've got a serious case of deprivation going.  And there may be no going back.  That's what's worrying so many of us.  Not just the Cafe.  But the Constitution.  The nation as we've known it.

When Shuster made the pimping comment, laughter erupted in the studio.  Case closed.

Of course you didn't.  They weren't covered by any mainstream corporate media, nationally or even locally here in the San Francisco Bay Area. But a neat little open-publishing site called <a href="http://www.indybay.org/antiwar/">Indybay</a> has the scoop...

Direct Action to Stop the War (DASW), the same folks who <a href="http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2003/03/21/12002.php">shut down downtown San Francisco</a> the day after the war started, were back in action by organizing protests at the Bay Area headquarters of <a href="http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/02/05/18477244.php">Clinton in SF</a> and <a href="http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/02/05/18477231.php">Obama in Oakland</a>.

----------------------------------

As a historical note, the emergency demos that were called for the day after the Iraq War started -- which turned out to be March 20th, 2003 -- involved 50,000 people in the streets, young and old, hippy and punk, business people and blue collar workers.  There were marching bands and puppets.  There were Black Bloc marchers.  Over 2000 arrests made as police swept up hundreds at a time.  The demos went on for days in San Francisco.

A great documentary was made from activists' video of the downtown shut down called <a href="http://www.videoactivism.org/empire.html">We Interrupt This Empire</a>.  You can check the exciting <a href="http://stream.paranode.com/imc/portland/media/2003/07/269038.mov">trailer here</a>.

McCain was the architect of laws that violated the human and civil rights of the Dineh-Navajo in Arizona.  The activities were condemned by the UN Human Rights Commission.  This is a skeleton in his closet which, if it ever sees the light of day, could result in jeopardizing his run for the White House.

Click Here and read this article about McCain.
Read the Press Release attached to the article.

Then read the website that containes hundreds of pieces of evidence and supporting stories (You can click here to go directly to "Cain 2008: Am I my brother's keeper?")

What's amazing to me is that he's gotten away with it thus far, misleading the public that he's supportive of the American Indians.  Ironically, he was instrumental in organizing a phony tribal counsel which gave rise to false claims contesting the right of Dineh-Navajo to occupy lands they'd farmed for 500 years, which phony counsel of fake "Hopi" have been testifying year after year before the Senate as McCain authored bills to dispossess the Dineh-Navajo, without any testimony allowed by the actual owners of the farmlands.  Just happens their lands are atop the largest Coal deposits in Arizona.

Sadly, thousands of the Dineh-Navajo have died just being relocated, and many have been forced to live on a Nuclear Waste superfund site, as a result of McCain's conspiracy with the Coal and Power companies (Peabody Group and Bechtel/Mohave).

He's really destroyed a 500 year old Navajo culture. Ironically, Common Cause states his presidential runs are being funded by street names in Nevada where the coal is piped, and originates with Peabody, Bechtel and the Las Vegas Casino Gaming industry).  His wife has been accused of garnering huge beer contracts down there in accompaniment.  Meanwhile, McCain never ceases to pat himself on the back for "all my great achievements for the indians', which largely have resulted in their deaths, dispossession from their lands, relocation onto nuclear waste, and now he's working on legislation to close down all the Indian Casinos around the country.

Anyone think he's working for the Casino Industry in Nevada?

There is politics; and there is the political culture.

Politics is about power – who can wield the power of the government to advance their interests and their theory of the general good.  The political culture, on the other hand, is about what people think and say about politics – what they think the issues are, how they vote.

The issue for progressive people has been how the political culture is constructed in such a way that the majority of people are convinced to vote for candidates and parties that do not serve their interests.   Why should the GOP win elections when they effectively work to make the rich richer and the poor and middle class poorer?  

The political culture must  obscure these power relationships.

In 1980, there was a radical shift of our political culture.  In the aftermath of the defeat of the US in Vietnam, Watergate, the OPEC oil shock, the invasion of the Afghanistan by the USSR and the general levels of unrest and cultural dislocation of the 1970’s, the political culture was unsettled.  At the very lowest and most common level, the changes of the 60’s and 70’s appeared as changes in the role of women, and the first beginnings of the gay liberation movement.

In 1980, the culture of American politics became organized around gender panic.  When the manufactured masculinity of the Hollywood Actor, Ronald Reagan, was deemed to be more useful, and more powerful,  than the nuclear engineer and Submarine officer Jimmy Carter, the country entered in a period in which the cultural assertion of traditional masculinity was the coin of the realm.

The Republican Party became the party of “real men.”

The Democratic Party was relentlessly depicted by GOP publicists as  a party of  men who were not real men, and women who were not real women. 

The mainstream media in this country has found this theme to be useful, as a way to talk about the character of political leaders without having to evaluate their positions and policies.  A whole school of political commentary and analysis developed which was focused on the psycho-sexual issues of political leaders.  See Maureen Dowd and Chris Mathews.

The imagined psycho-sexual ambiguity of Democratic leaders was merged with GOP criticisms of Democratic positions.  The result has been a narrative about Democratic political leaders which turns on their personal inauthenticity.

The upshot has been a generalized critique of Democratic leaders, (a critique that originates within the GOP, but has been taken up by the mainstream media) that they are congenitally inauthentic, which is demonstrated and proved by their psycho-sexual ambiguity.

Hence, Bill Clinton is not really a man, because he has a powerful and emasculating wife.

Al Gore is not really man because he sought the advice of a woman, supposedly, to project a less threatening male image.

John Kerry was not really a man, because ‘he looked French’ and wind-surfed  etc.  That he married a woman with much more wealth than him was noted.

Whereever you look the story is the same: Democratic leaders are inauthentic and, indeed, deceptive about their true positions, and that is intertwined with stories about the psycho-sexual  confusion.

Even Bill Clinton’s sexual impropriety with a young woman was eventually perceived as not masculinity (surprisingly, since traditional masculinity has always seen the sexual attentions of young women as a reward for power.) but as juvenile hijinx,  an immature rebellion against the castrating power of Hilary, the dragon-lady behind the throne.

At the core of all of this is a Republican strategy of consolidating a reactionary majority who respond viscerally against the fact that men no longer act like men and women no longer act like women, and that the world is dangerous, and falling apart because these basic pillars of reality are being shaken.

At the very center of this, the ground zero of  gender panic , has been Hilary Clinton.  She was first identified as a she-bitch from Hell  as a critique of her husband’s masculinity.  He was not truly a man, because he was linked to this strong woman, who was reputed to be his political and intellectual equal, if not superior. 

A joke from the early 90;s.  Hilary and Bill are out driving and stop for gas.  The gas station attendant went out with Hilary in high school.  After leaving the station, Bill says, “just think, Hilary, if you married him, you would be married to a gas station attendant.”  To which Hilary replies, “No Bill, that guy would be President of the United States of America.”

It is through the demonization of Hillary that the GOP and the popular media have vilified Bill Clinton.  

Large elements of the Democratic party have accepted the vilification of Hillary Clinton as inauthentic,  castrating and manipulative.  It is the ultimate cave-in of the progressive wing of the Democratic party, which says, “we will fight the administration and the GOP everywhere, except in one area, we will accept your characterization of our leaders as true.  We will accept what you say about Bill Clinton; we will accept what you say about Al Gore; we will accept what you say about John Kerry; we will accept what you say about Howard Dean; we will accept what you say about Hillary Clinton.”

I say no.

 I do not believe that we can compromise with this trend in political culture.  It is tempting to believe that Barack Obama can move us beyond this moment, just as it was tempting to believe that a proven war hero like John Kerry would allow us to transcend the criticism that Democrats were soft on national security.

The only way to end this era of a political culture defined by gender panic is to defeat the GOP with the woman whom they have vilified the most as unwomanly.  Only then , will they get the message that even though they all hate Hillary, it is not true that a majority of the country shares their prejudices.

If Obama is nominated, the same thing will start all over again.  This time, the critique will be that Barack is a little boy, who can’t keep his papers straight, and Michelle wears the pants in that family.  And his inauthentic façade of masculinity only suggests all the other ways that he is deceptive: from he is not really black to he is not really Christian, to that he is a secret Muslim agent. 

And if he is nominated,  then he will face the same Clinton problem as Al Gore.  Will he allow Bill Clinton to have a major role at the convention, the pundits will ask.  If he does,  then  Barack is not a real man,  but under the thumb of the narcissitic Bill and his  she-bitch controller, Hillary.  If he does not, then he is not a real man, afraid to let his rival overshadow him.  

While the pundits revel in the psycho-sexual angst of Obama Barack, the GOP will delight in the political neutralization of the most popular living American ex-President, who will be sidelined during the campaign, as he was in 2000, to preserve the masculinity of Obama Barack. 

 The Democrats have a strong hand in 2008.  We have good candidates, party unity, a fired up base, and the issues are cutting our way.  The GOP has an extraordinarily weak hand in 2008.   They are split, saddled with an unpopular incumbent, a discredited war in Iraq, and a gathering recession.  They are running an old man—the Bob Dole of the 21ST Century.

When your opponent is weak, you want to push all your chips into the pot, so that your opponent bets everything they have.   We want them to bring all of their psycho-sexual gender panic to the battle, so that they can be defeated holding the strongest weapons they have.

They have chosen Hilary as their nemesis, not because of anything about her, but because she was the screen upon which they could project their reactionary hate and confusion.   What they have done to her is unconscionable. 

I am willing to bet the future of the country on her as she fights to be seen as the person she really is, which is her tiny piece of the fight that we are also fighting -- to be the nation that we really are becoming.  

Seems everything else is subscriber, why not here? I have to subscribe to cable TV to hear presidential debates. I'd rather pay to have the features we used to have here. There is no argument one can make to say the current setup is going to be superior, and of course it's a mess now.

That there were problems keeping the old system running in good communication with TPM is not the issue. It would have cost money to get some custom software written that would make that work, but it is far from an insoluble problem. It was whether it was worth it ($$) to keep the ragged kludge together.

It's worth it to me, and I'd pay at least $100/yr for the privilege. But there are some things money can't buy, and I  guess the past is among those. Mainly, money won't buy what someone is not selling.

Going somewhere else is one answer, but what we had here was Josh's pull with good writers, them interacting with us, and TPM's profile pulling in new readers. That can't be duplicated.

I've had enough of the "Hillary Clinton's 35 years of experience" argument, claiming that she has foreign policy and other experience that Obama does not.  Hillary Clinton is my Senator. She's got a half term more experience than Barack Obama.  Sure, I'm bitter about jobs she promised Western New York State and never delivered on, (unless you count outsourcing to India from a Buffalo home base) but I honestly think that she's blowing this "experience" out of proportion.

As much as I'm not a fan of hers, I would never short Clinton on her accomplishments. She's a smart, motivated, accomplished woman.  --But I've had enough of her touting her experience. Again, she's my Senator, a one and a half term Senator. THAT is her experience.  --and personally I don't feel she's represented my portion of the State very well.

For her to say that she has all of this experience is as the nice janitor at my work place would call it: bull-hockey. Being married to someone with on-the-job experience doesn't give you the experience. If Laura Bush were running, I doubt Democrats would be praising HER experience.

By Hillary Clinton's definition, you gather experience from osmosis from other people's experience.  I'm happy to start using her definition.  I feel like I've many worthwhile experiences in my crazy life, but by Hillary's classifications, I can do anything. Apparently if you sleep with someone, you not only sleep with everyone that person has slept with, but you experience all of their experiences.

I invite you to reply with your own Hillary-esque experience by osmosis.  Here are some of mine.

Me, I've dated two cellists.  I must have written Handel's "Messiah."

I've dated a woman who worked on some pretty major Hollywood films. I'm an Oscar nominee.

I hooked up with a  college professor, I must have my PhD.

I've dated several single mothers, and am an expert in childhood development.

I've slept with adult entertainers. I must be eligible for an Adult Video News award.

I've done it on a boat, I'm the friggin' commander of the Navy.

I dated a Goth girl. I am a vampire.  I've dated a hippy chick. I was in the Grateful Dead.

I've dated several certifiably insane women, I'm an expert in mental health.

I've dated women on drugs. I wrote "Trainspotting."

I could go on and on. By these standards, I'm a Washington Lobbyist, related to a member of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, a State Police officer, a Judge, an expert in climate change, finance and bats, and so very much more.

I had ice cream with Bill Clinton and Al Gore once.  Am I more qualified that Hillary Clinton to  be your next President? By Hillary's standards, I think many of us are just as "experienced."

It's been a pretty mild winter here in Pennsylvania.  But there is still plenty of time for snow at least that's what my daughters are hoping.  That being said, things are starting to heat up here with a meaningful primary coming up.

Today, I received a call from the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.  They haven't released any polls since before Super Tuesday.  But, I'll be checking their web site below to see how my fellow Pennsylvanians intend to vote.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x271.xml

It was the expected, Obama or Clinton questions.  Followed by Obama vs McCain and Clinton vs McCain.  But, the next one threw me for a bit of a loop.  They threw Bloomberg into the mix.  Is there still a chance he's going to run?  Seems like months since I've heard anything about the possibility.

I think it's about as likely as Gore (who would have had my vote) emerging as the compromise Democratic nominee out of a brokered convention.  But, I wonder how Bloomberg would effect the race. 

I hope to have the chance to vote Obama in the general election.  But, I'd really have to look at things if it's between Clinton and Bloomberg.  It's still highly unlikely an independent could win, but he sure would make things interesting.

For those of you who support Barack Obama, PLEASE go to

www:freedomsenemies.com/_more/obama.htm

These are his own words from his book, friends and family. He was right when he said that no politician is clean. He is just as dirty if not more so than the rest. Some new change. He is not an outsider he's in the Senate. Why did he go along with supporting the war once he had the power to vote against it? What a hypocrite. I feel sorry for those who were taken in by him.

He has taken the great words of JFK and MLK and used them for his own. What a fraud. Yes the U.S. desperately wants change. They want change from George W Bush and it doesn't matter who it is. Obama wants you to believe in the words that he says but it's not what he believes in his heart.

ABC news has posted a <a href="http://tinyurl.com/36xemu">confidential memo (pdf)</a> sent to the US embassy in Iraq from a <i>"long-time Republican operative"</i> who has served in Baghdad for the past year.

Manuel Miranda didn't hold back his thoughts in the memo to Ambassador Crocker and All Concerned (ALCON).

<blockquote>I would venture to say that if the management of the Embassy and the State Department's Iraq operation were judged by rules that govern business judgment and asset waste in the private sector, the delays, indecision, and reorganizations over the past year, would be considered willfully negligent if not criminal. </blockquote>

Much of the 10 page memo is in a similar vein. Here he diagnoses the Embassy with ADD:

<blockquote>The Embassy is also severely encumbered by the Foreign Service's built-in attention deficit disorder, with personnel and new leaders rotating out within a year or less. Incumbent in this constant personnel change is a startling failure to manage and retrieve information. The Embassy is consequently in a constant state of revisiting the same ground without the ability to retrieve information of past work and decisions. </blockquote>

While support for the Iraq adventure was rapidly going downhill in the US, apparently the embassy had different worries:

<blockquote>At the keystone moment that America's leaders and people were pained over the debate of our continued national sacrifice, the Baghdad Embassy was doing a bureaucratic imitation of the Keystone Cops, counting chairs and desks and reviewing decisions over and over again.</blockquote>

So what does the State Dept think about the memo?  Tom Casey, the spokesman for the Department told <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=4263378">ABC news</a>:

<blockquote>"We think Ambassador Crocker and his team are doing a very good job under extremely challenging circumstances. We have great confidence in their ability to carry out their mission."</blockquote>

At least we'll know how many desks and chairs have been sacrificed for the mission.

I know you all have read lots of commentary on the Clinton and Obama proposed health insurance plans.  Krugman seems to write weekly complaining of th elack o "mandates" in the Obama plan.

I stumbled on this intelligent discussion of the matter through Brad DeLong's excellent blog and thought you may be interested.

http://sentineleffect.wordpress.com/2008/02/07/heated-debate-over-mandates/

Brad DeLong includes, under Feb. 7, an interview by Richard Escow of David Cutler, an Obama health care adviser.

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/

this from sullivan's blog:

The Unemotional Case For Obama

08 Feb 2008 04:01 pm

A meme is developing is that support for Obama is all emotion, fantasy, hysteria, etc. There's no question that the emotions behind Obama are powerful. And any fool can see why. His oratory does what oratory should. He is the greatest public speaker in American life since Reagan. And the shame and demoralization of the Bush-Cheney years - when we launched a war with reckless indifference to planning it, when we tortured prisoners and called it "enhanced interrogation", when we saw a government rendered so utterly useless that a hurricane made the US look like the third world, when conservatives added $32 trillion to the debt of the next generation, when a president made sophomoric jokes about not finding weapons of mass destruction he leveraged American global credibility on ... if you don't feel emotions in wanting to put this disgrace of an administration behind us, then you are not being rational.

But the strongest case for Obama is not emotional; it is as coolly rational as he is. I tried to express it in my "Goodbye To All That" essay. On the most critical issues we face - Iraq, the war against Jihadism, healthcare, and the economy - he makes more sense as a president than Clinton. And when you watch the knee-jerk opposition to him, I think it is actually more emotional and less rational than the support for him. Fear is more emotional than hope.

And defending Clinton on the grounds of "experience" and "substance" is a fairy tale on both counts, if you pardon the expression. Her legislative experience is one term longer than Obama's (and that's if you don't count Obama's state legislative record), is notable mainly for its uninspired diligence in constituency work, and on the most important issue of the day, Iraq, simply wrong. Her main executive branch experience was destroying a historic opportunity for healthcare reform through arrogance, secrecy and over-reach. Her "substance" claim is just as phony. There is no detail in her policy apparatus that isn't matched by Obama's. But you've heard a lot from me on this. Here's a video that shows a conservative cynic being slowly and rationally disarmed by the logic of young, shrewd voter.

A vote for Obama is a vote for reason over sentiment. Check it out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kica8hmSdAM

It's gone.  If this ever shows, it'll be a major miracle.  Sorry, Andrew, but you might as well diss the Cafe and put the front pagers somewhere else.

This post might be sacrilege in these parts, but I'm comfortable being in the minority when my sense of personal integrity is at stake.  I was in the seven to ten percent who disapproved of Bush after 9/11 (I knew they were lying as soon as Condi said they never imagined people using planes as weapons, it having been common knowledge about the 90s plot in the Philippines to crash US airliners).  I was amongst the 30% who were against the Iraq War, and even protested it, before it started.  I've been in the majority at times, too, but more often not.

At any rate, I often see discussion here about what current Clinton and Obama supporters will do once after one of them takes the nomination and I have to share what I plan to do as a current Obama supporter should he lose the nomination. I hear Hillary supporters express bewilderment when Obama supporters show uneasiness about supporting her in the general election and I'd like to explain why that might be. I certainly can't speak for every Obama supporter. Indeed, I probably do not speak for those who are lifelong Democrats, and I can't begin to speak for so-called Independents and crossover Republicans. Nevertheless, I would venture to guess that I am not alone in my thought processes here.

I haven't voted for a Democratic presidential candidate in the general since '92. (I have voted Green in safely Democratic California.) Bill Clinton was a giant disappointment for those who cherish progressive values more than party politics. His hard tack to the right in his first term greatly turned me off to the Democratic establishment, after having so much hope when George HW Bush lost the Presidency ending 12 years of Republican rule in the White House. Bill Clinton was bad on gays (Don't Ask Don't Tell, Defense of Marriage Act); bad on foreign policy (hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died due to sanctions); bad on taking the office of the Presidency seriously enough, and underestimating republican's desire to "get" him (Monica); bad on the death penalty, privacy and civil rights (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act); bad on labor/trade (NAFTA); bad on health care (caving on universal care when he had a Dem Congress); bad on poverty (welfare reform); and bad on fair use/copyright law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act). I could go on and on...

Sure, there are excuses for each disappointment, but the fact remains that Bill Clinton's administration largely conducted itself as if it were Republican-lite, a kinder, gentler, sort of Republican.

Ever since '94, and even before, Repugs have been dictating national policy and the best Dems have done is react, and often very weakly at that. Both Clintons have been in that mold for nearly 15 years now. Just look at how hard Hillary has been trying to be seen as tough and "prove" her national security bonafides since she came to the Senate (Iraq in 2002, Iran in 2007). Not to mention her recent fear-mongering about terrorist attacks on "Day One."

At least Obama offers the "hope" of real change in the Democratic party and the country. It's a chance at something new. Maybe it will turn out to be a false hope, but I have absolutely no hope that Hillary will do anything dramatically progressive as President. There's nothing in her or her husband's history that suggests otherwise to me.

I will definitely vote for Obama in the general election if he wins the nomination. Even he is a bit too conservative for my tastes, but I will take a leap of faith once again, believe in the Democratic Party again, like I did in 1992, and vote for the Democratic nominee if Obama is that nomimee.

Hillary is clearly running on Bill's history as President in the 1990s -- and I couldn't bring myself to vote for him a second time -- so, if Hillary wins the Democratic nomination, I will likely vote Green again. [About the only reason I can foresee that I wouldn't vote Green if Hillary is the nominee, would be if pre-election polls show that she has under a ten percent lead over McCain as the presumptive Repug nominee in California. I would never vote Green and throw a Presidential election to a Republican.] If she is the clear California front-runner I will vote Green both to vote my heart and to send a message, just as I did when Bill ran for re-election in 1996, and in 2000 when Kerry did not run as a strong anti-war candidate. Hillary as President can and likely will ignore that message but it's what I have to do to vote in good conscience.

In a year that began with Democrats feeling certain they would win back the White House, a quiet panic has begun.  According to some Democrats, it sounds something like this: “We’re dead meat.” 

The cause of all this dread is John McCain, a.k.a the Democrats’ worst nightmare.  With McCain now the de facto Republican nominee (and the Democrats apparently unable to choose one of their own), euphoria has given way to a sense of unease in the Democratic establishment.

The conversation in the Democratic race, not long ago dominated by quibbles over the mechanics of health care coverage, has shifted gears.  The new question: Who can beat John McCain?

The Clinton campaign argues that she has years of experience taking on the Republican attack machine.  She’s a known quantity.  Her negatives are baked in.  She has the experience.  She has national security credentials.

The Obama campaign argues that he can appeal to voters beyond the reach of Hillary Clinton.  As the candidate who owns “change” in a change year, he has the potential to transform American politics.  And he didn’t vote with McCain on the war in Iraq.

But while the Democratic candidates continue to duke it out – and Democratic insiders continue to wring their hands – the rest of the country is only beginning to be exposed to what is sure to be a long road to the White House. 

To be sure, McCain has many strengths.  His compelling personal story, maverick reputation, and aura of integrity make him popular with independent voters and give him a crossover appeal.  He even has the potential to make inroads with the Latino population (a key group in the Southwest and in Florida) that George Bush was never able to pull off.

Nonetheless, there are a number of reasons John McCain shouldn’t start ordering fabric samples for the Oval Office couches just yet.

The Democratic Party is more energized than it has been in decades.  After taking back the House and the Senate in 2006 and watching George Bush sink to public approval ratings in the low 30s, Democratic voters have acquired a taste for victory.  The energy is palpable and quantifiable.  Democratic voter turnout this year has dwarfed that on the Republican side.  In fact, Clinton and Obama have each received twice as many votes as McCain in the primaries and caucuses so far.

McCain’s strongest support in the primaries has been in states that he will not carry in the general election.  McCain has arrived at the Republican nomination through good luck and good timing more than anything else.  Would-be Republican nominees sapped each other’s strength on the right (Romney, Huckabee, and Thompson) and the other demi-moderdate, Giuliani, blew up just in time for his voters to flee to McCain in Florida.  The states that guaranteed him the nomination, California, New York, and New Jersey, are states he is sure to lose to Clinton or Obama.

The Republican Party is demoralized and unenthusiastic about McCain.  At the Conservative Political Action Committee Conference this week, McCain received a healthy dose of boos mixed in with his applause.  The misgivings movement conservatives have about him go beyond his willingness to jab his finger in the eye of the Republican establishment and his flirtation with leaving the party, maybe even serving as John Kerry’s running mate.  It’s his positions on immigration, campaign finance reform, taxes, torture, ANWR, and global warming.  Some of the loudest voices on the right, including Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, are threatening the conservative equivalent of sepukku: voting for Hillary Clinton.  While McCain can expect to consolidate support among rank and file Republicans, he is unlikely to generate enthusiasm among them and has a long way to go with movement conservatives.   

The heart of the Republican base, evangelical voters, is the constituency least likely to support McCain.  Evangelicals, who McCain called “agents of intolerance” during his 2000 presidential campaign, have yet to embrace McCain and there are indications that many of them never will.  McCain demonstrated in South Carolina that he can make nice with some evangelicals.  But does anyone really believe evangelicals will turn out in the kinds of overwhelming, unprecedented numbers that they did for George Bush – and which put him over the top?  Take a hint from national evangelical leader James Dobson.  “I am convinced Senator McCain is not a conservative,” Dobson said this week.  “I cannot, and will not, vote for Senator John McCain, as a matter of conscience.”

The independent voters who are attracted to McCain don’t really know him – and they will have plenty of time to learn about things they won’t like.  The independent voters I talked to in New Hampshire and Massachusetts preceding his primary wins in those states actually seem to have no idea who John McCain is.  They know about Vietnam.  They know about dirty tricks.  And they know about straight talk.  What many independent voters don’t know is where he stands on Iraq, Iran, tax cuts for the wealthy, health care, abortion, and a host of other issues that have yet to be discussed.  McCain has built a powerful personal brand.  But he has yet to be exposed to the scrutiny of a general election campaign and independent voters may find that he’s not what they think.  They may not even like what they hear.  McCain is uncharismatic on the stump and, in a general election, may not have what it takes.

McCain is notoriously bad at talking about the economy.  In Michigan, where the issue was central, McCain found himself only able to deliver the “straight talk” that jobs aren’t coming back to Michigan.  While much of McCain’s appeal is based on his independence and willingness to tell it like it is, U.S. presidents are not elected by selling pessimism about the economy, particularly when it’s on the verge of a recession.  In American politics, the most optimistic candidate usually wins – or at least the one that doesn’t appear committed to less jobs and more wars.

History is on the side of change.  More often than not, a party doesn’t get a third term in the White House.  See, for example, Bush/Gore in 2000, Carter/Ford in 1976, Nixon/Humphrey in 1968, Kennedy/Nixon in 1960, and Eisenhower/Stevenson defeat in 1952.  That being said, there are exceptions to the rule, most notably George Bush’s “third Reagan Term” in 1988, Franklin Roosevelt’s third and fourth terms in 1940 and 1944.  But the war on terror is not World War II – and George Bush is not Ronald Reagan.

 

This is for the Café "back benchers."  It just ain’t the same as it was.  I'm not really folding my tent and stealing away into the night; I'm just taking a sabbatical.  I’ll check back to see how things are shaking out.  I ain’t angry, and my frustration has subsided.  I’m saddened, but change sometimes does that.  So, I’m just going to drift away and leave a few songs behind that say thanks for the conversations, the sharing, the learning, the friendships, the community, the smiles, the hope.  Like me, they’re a bit dated, a bit schmaltzy and don’t say perfectly how special the back bench and the Saloon have been.

Poems, Prayers, and Promises
You’ve Got a Friend
Canta Libre (Sing Free)
Thanks for the Memory
Auld Lang Syne
Beautiful Noise

Véale pronto, mi amigos (see you soon, my friends).

The AP reports that a classified Pentagon memo concludes that prolonged wars in Iraq and Afganistan have prevented the military from preparing for any future crises. 
It's a good thing that that memo was classified, because we sure wouldn't want anyone finding out that our military was stretched too thin. I, personally, never would have guessed that spending $500 billion dollars annually on a losing proposition would amount to losses elsewhere. Had this memo never been leaked I would have guessed that our military's response to Hurricane Katrina was so shoddy because the military just hated Louisiana, not because their leadership was inept, shortsighted, ill-prepared or broke. Until today, I firmly believed that our military was the strongest in the world, invincible and led by super genius, genetically perfect, philosopher economists that were able raise capital from bake sales while waging urban warfare.
Now that this secret information has been released, we might all be doomed. Now the terrorists know that we're not really ready for them. If only we had all voted for Rudy, like we promised him we would on September 12th, 2001. 
I won't be able to sleep tonight. 

This post is a long comment on this post by Mary Davis:

"It is the reporting by the older generation that have experienced these real divides in the past that perpetuates these artificial divides into the future.

So truthfully, we need to get away from the reporting on which group is voting for what. We really are not as divided as the MSM suggests. The walls need to be broken or else it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy."

I agree with the sentiment, I would like to point out that there are very strong reasons behind the MSM's perspective,  is  a reflection of decades of 50%+1 politics where a candidate "locks" a core demo of voters  and goes after a "few" swing voters just enough to "win", I suspect as an unintended consequence of the electoral college in a massive country, the 2000 elections a prime example, from Reagan's Democrats to George Busch II's Latinos. For decades a campaign electoral success depended on attracting a relatively  small demo to add to their core support and that is the way the MSM "score" the success of a campaign  today.

I suspect that one strong reason behind the huge disparity of +76% (over 6M votes)  between those voting on the Dem side and those on the republican side, is  that both HRC and BHO  as a consequence of the proportional apportionment  of delegates on the Dems primary, are appealing and actively campaigning (personal appearances, GOTV, Ads, email) for 100% of the Democratic party voters, male, female, rich, middle, poor, white,black (AA), latino, gay, straight, single, married, young, old and most combinations thereof, they have a message for them. HRC is not ignoring the AA voter nor BHO the women vote,
The republicans by sticking to the winner take all system perpetuate the MSM' meme of slicing and dicing the electorate, minorities are demonized (browns and LGBT), the poor and AA are ignored and what is left is further sliced into neo-cons (USA Uber Alles), teo-cons (dominionist) and money-cons (tax cuts, deregulation) and their candidates reflect that, John McCain just happened to be able to eke out an sliver of moderates that gave him  victories on states that  have a larger proportion of them. i.e., the 50%+1 strategy when it is executed between 3 candidates.

By following closely the political analysis  from CNN and MSNBC is esy to perceive how comfortable they are with the Republican race, it follow their preconceptions to the letter and when it doesn't fit they make it fit somehow particularly if related to JMC. BHO on the other hand is killing them by winning in lily white states like Iowa and Idaho,  in this election season nothing made Pat Buchanan happier than Bill Clinton pre SC's primary comments that caused the AA vote to align massively  with BHO, you can see the glee on his eyes ...see the negr#$ are voting for the black candidate!!!!!!!!.

Add to the MSM's myopia that fact that most analysts  and hosts  have an agenda from professional relations with campaigns and parties to close ties with PACs, or are woefully  unprepared. There is a reason why you don't see often on TV somebody like Prof. Larry Sabato or Mark Blumenthal, because compare to them their highly payed talking heads will look like what their really are  dilettantes and partisans.

TIA for your comments

E

PS: webmaster would it be possible to make the signin cookie last at least 24 hours?

In this interview, David Frum, now with the American Enterprise Institute, and a former speechwriter for President George W Bush, pushes our personal freedom buttons:  <i>“Look, Gore-type environmentalists have been wanting to take your car away for 60 years for whatever reason they can find. If it wasn’t global warming, it would be something else. This is what they have always wanted to do. They have wanted to take away your car. They don’t like suburbs. They want to stop the trend of American life. We are not trying to achieve anything other than a cleaner environment. That’s it. We have a more limited and more rational agenda than they do.” </i>

http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=CD614215-B28F-49CC-9B6A-F669CB65EC7E

Frum doesn't say <i>which</i> environmentalists began clamoring to take your car away 60 years ago, though. US environmentalism goes at least back to Ben Franklin, but looking back 60 years, we find the very influential<i>A Sand County Almanac</i>.

http://www.aldoleopold.org/about/almanac.htm

The Almanac features Aldo Leopold's <i>Land Ethic</i>, which proposes ethics that lead to the conservation of wildlife:

<i>All ethics so far evolved rest upon a single premise: that the individual is a member of a community of interdependent parts. His instincts prompt him to compete for his place in that community, but his ethics prompt him also to co-operate (perhaps in order that there may be a place to compete for).

The land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land.</i>

http://home.btconnect.com/tipiglen/landethic.html

The Land Ethic's final lines address technology:

<i>By and large, our present problem is one of attitudes and implements. We are remodeling the Alhambra with a steam shovel, and we are proud of our yardage. We shall hardly relinquish the shovel, which after all has many good points but we are in need of gentler and more objective criteria for its successful use.</i>

Compared to the rhetoric of today, the Land Ethic is an entirely reasonable plea to temper the use of technology while recognizing that said technology has value. One would think that such "limited and rational" conservation would be the hallmark of any conservative ethic, but for politicos like Frum, ownership trumps stewardship and "gentler criteria" is an excuse to accuse frugal stewards of eco-fascism.

This is my first post here and I must say that this is the first blog that I ever read.  I wanted to get started with the Shuster thing and echo Josh's post.  While no one can excuse what he said, nor should they I think that there is a greater underlying theme. 

The fact that Bill and Hillary have injected or allowed Chelsea to inject herself in the campaign is something that seems to get lost in this conversation.  Shuster's argument is that she is unwilling to speak to the press.  He was expressing his frustration, albeit, not very well.  But isn't this typical of the Clinton's (Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea) and their expectations in this game.  The same as her not having to answer on the 5M that she just gave herself.  Why the reluctance to release her financial records now? 

Obama has had, and continues to have, many excellent policies.  Since they are overshadowed by his excellent oratory skills, I thought I would post this here, as a pointer for my fellow Obama supporters.  Please note that I am an active volunteer in his campaign, but, I trust, far from a mindless cult member. 
I will post updated links as I have time.

Note to Obama detractors:  Like hilzoy at Obsidian Wings, I came to the Obama side as a result of policy, not charisma.  Please respect that I made a decision based upon the same process I've used for 3 Primary seasons now, and I'll respect yours.

And my thanks to Matthew Weaver, for posting commentary that lead me to this 1st blog post here.

Obama's article in Foreign Affairs magazine.
Obama at various Town Halls, taking questions.
An article on Obama's legislative work in IL.
A detailed discussion on Obama's US Senate legislative work from 2006 by hilzoy, including this quote:

I can't remember another freshman Senator who so routinely pops up when I'm doing research on some non-sexy but important topic, and pops up because he has proposed something genuinely good. Since I think that American politics doesn't do nearly enough to reward people who take a patient, craftsmanlike attitude towards legislation, caring as much about fixing the parts that no one will notice until they go wrong as about the flashy parts, I wanted to say this.

Peggy Noonan, who wrote some of Reagan's best speeches, is the right wing's Maureen Dowd: Irish, beautiful, witty, subtle and dangerous. In today's Wall Street Journal, she joins such arch-conservative pundits as George Will and David Brooks in praising Barack Obama and favoring him for the Democratic nomination.

"(Obama) is the un-Edwards and un-Huckabee -- an adult aiming to reform the real world rather than an adolescent fantasizing mock-heroic "fights" against fictitious villains in a left-wing cartoon version of this country." George Will

"The Kennedys and Obama hit the same contrasts again and again in their speeches: the high road versus the low road; inspiration versus calculation; future versus the past; and most of all, service versus selfishness." David Brooks

I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to smell a rat here.

To me it's perfectly obvious that the right wing is licking their chops in anticipation at facing Obama. Read this from Noonan's piece:

"He will be hard to get at, hard to address. There are many reasons, but a primary one is that the fact of his race will freeze them. No one, no candidate, no party, no heavy-breathing consultant, will want to cross any line--lines that have never been drawn, that are sure to be shifting and not always visible--in approaching the first major-party African-American nominee for president of the United States. He is the brilliant young black man as American dream. No consultant, no matter how opportunistic and hungry, will think it easy--or professionally desirable--to take him down in a low manner."

Now, obviously it would be absurd to apply this criteria to Karl Rove or any of his understudies and acolytes ... If you know how to read Noonan, she is calling in the hit. That is going to be the campaign. I think it would be childlike to believe that Karl Rove hasn't done his homework already.. They are drooling in anticipation.

Why do they "like" Obama so much?

Because they are terrified of Hillary Clinton, that's why.

Here is how Peggy Noonnan describes her:

"One part of the Clinton mystique maintains: Deep down journalists think she's a political Rasputin who will not be dispatched. Prince Yusupov served him cupcakes laced with cyanide, emptied a revolver, clubbed him, tied him up and threw him in a frozen river. When he floated to the surface they found he'd tried to claw his way from under the ice. That is how reporters see Hillary.And that is a grim and over-the-top analogy, which I must withdraw. What I really mean is they see her as the Glenn Close character in "Fatal Attraction": "I won't be ignored, Dan!"

It is this simple: in recent decades the Clintons are the only Democrats that win elections against Republicans... They don't want to ever face them again, no more complicated than that.

As soon as Barack Obama is declared the official candidate of the Democratic party the voters will be treated to something similar to the old TV show, "This is your Life"... Here is how Wikipedia describes the experience:

"The format of the show was simple: the host would surprise someone (usually a celebrity or public figure, occasionally an ordinary citizen) and, consulting his "red book," conduct a biography of the subject in a television studio. The subject would be presented with family members and old friends, reunited with old acquaintances, and often shed a tear when a personal tragedy was recounted."

Peggy may be right and Hillary will do Karl's work for him. This is a high stakes affair after all

<p>MSNBC correspondent David Shuster asked yesterday, &quot;Doesn't it seem as if Chelsea is sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?&quot;</p>
<p>This is offensive in so many ways, it's unbelievable. It continues the constant stream of vicious, demeaning, degrading, and crude anti-Hillary and anti-woman rhetoric coming out of the media.</p>
<p>Apparently &quot;Mr&quot; Shuster <strong><a href="http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/08/msnbcs_shuster_to_offer_onair_1.html">is going to apologize</a></strong> on the air at 6:00 PM EST.</p>
<p>I have to wonder: will &quot;Mr&quot; Shuster really apologize?</p>
<p>Here's what he had to say <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/08/msnbc-reporter-begrudging_n_85706.html">earlier today</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>To the extent that people feel that I was being pejorative about the actions of Chelsea Clinton making these phone calls, to the extent that people feel that I was being pejorative, I apologize for that.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Look at what he says there. He apologizes if people <strong>feel</strong> that he was being perjorative. He doesn't apologize for actually <strong>being</strong> perjorative. In other words, he's not sorry for what he's done, he's sorry that people feel bad about what he's done. He's not sorry for what he's said, he's sorry for getting in trouble about it.</p>
<p>Well, &quot;Mr&quot; Shuster, to the extent that you feel that you are being attacked about your idiotic, misogynistic comment, then I'm sorry for that.</p>
<p>Wait a minute, no, I'm not.</p>

Conservatives don't hate McCain...<b>Rich</b> conservatives, and the fringe-right hate John McCain. It's both funny and gratifying to understand how at odds people like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham are with those who are their ideological kin.  If McCain doesn't deserve the conservative mantle or label, then it is quite clear that conservatives are drastically under-represented in the electorate.

We're hearing constant claims of splintering in the Republican Party, but it ought to be crystal clear to all of those who aren't inside the fishbowl: far-right conservatism has had a grand experiment as embodied by the GOP these last six years, and Americans as a whole have rejected it. There are still many true believers, but they are in either the pundit or corporate classes and haven't been on the receiving end of the drastic outcomes that their ideology has produced.

McCain is probably more of a conservative's conservative than anyone since Ronald Reagan.  Ronald Reagan was the champion of smaller government, but he also managed to back down when enough was enough.  That's not to say that Reagan's policies weren't disastrous, but in their time, they were less far-reaching than GWBush/Cheney's push to the extreme right.

What I find so comforting and inspirational about the constant nose-pinching and grimaces of the aforementioned "conservative" torch-bearers is that they're so alone.  Not only is their constituency is so small compared to their prominence, but they're finally observing the limits of their power to shape public opinion.  It's probably safe to say that America is turning back from the brink.

Assuming NBCs current estimate of pledged delegates (Obama 861, Clinton 858) is correct, and assuming that Clinton and Obama split all 796 superdelegates 50/50, then . . .  were Obama to win exactly 50% of the remaining pledged delegates the total delegate count would be: 2,026 Obama, 1,997 Clinton.

Assuming Open Left’s current estimate of pledged delegates (Obama 896, Clinton 878, with 18 still outstanding) is correct, and assuming that Clinton and Obama split all 796 superdelegates 50/50, then . . . were Obama to win exactly 50% of the remaining pledged delegates, the total delegate count would be: 2,034 Obama, 1,990 Clinton.

The missing 26 delegates are currently pledged to John Edwards. Florida and Michigan are not being taken into account in making these calculations.

A while back I posted about  the fiber optic cables in <a href="http://40yrs.blogspot.com/2008/02/something-weird-is-going-on-with-cut.html">Middle East and South Asia being cut</a>?

Well, the cause has been determined, and this is not the responsibility of any human activity.

<img src="http://pic60.picturetrail.com/VOL1689/10590113/18913141/302900124.jpg" />

I only pray that <a href="http://esr.ibiblio.org/index.php?p=135">I am eaten first</a>.

Well, the most talented candidate in the field right now is Barack Obama, because he can bridge the divide in this country. Can anyone else get Deadheads and Republicans to vote for them? If Americans don’t take advantage of the chance they’ve been given by uniting around this phenomenon, they deserve another 8 years of Washington as usual.

Go ahead Democrats, elect Hillary Clinton and watch Rush Limbaugh’s ratings go through the roof. Do you actually think she’s going to work with enough Republicans to get anything passed when in office? What will happen is after four or eight years in office, like Bush, the right and the left will be at war even more than they are now with Bush in office. The right-wingers, like the left-wingers now will be more galvanized and united than ever to ensure a Republican is back in the White House. When you nominate and elect a divisive figure like Hillary Clinton, you only feed the hunger of your opponent.

The Republicans had ‘Reagan Democrats’ and now Democrats can have ‘Obamacans!’

Regarding criticisms about the perpetual victim narrative of the Clinton campaign: what saddens me most about this narrative is that it seems almost necessary, not just for Clinton, but for marginalized demographics. It's the idea that you have to co-opt destructive narratives from the hands of your enemies, and tell them yourself in order to gain agency. I'm not sure it's possible to rend power without this device, even though it is not the only tactic, probably not the most powerful. And, I applaud the Obama campaign for rejecting it's efficacy. That being said, Clinton has been attacked, in a style that is unique, condescending and inappropriate in its tone towards women, for a very long time. If pundits didn't victimize her, we wouldn't have to bare the victim narrative, or we could at least all be as suspect about it, as her detractors. But, she is stepped on in ways that women are uniquely stepped on. The proof is in the pudding.
And regarding the "fair's fair" commentary by a number of readers i.e. If Clinton can see a pattern in MSNBC's comments, they should be able to see their own pattern of subtly portraying Barack Obama as the "black candidate," egging him into being defensive:Probably the only people who would seriously disagree that those comments were tactical, are the Clintons.
But, for the record, Barack Obama worked very hard to become the "black candidate" in Illinois, at first he wasn't accepted as such. He succeeded, and after having won over the grass roots, working class, African American constituency, he was able to return to being the "race-transcendent" candidate. Being the "black-candidate" has rarely been a liability for Obama, but I respect and support his vision of addressing "human" problems, above all else. I find the idea that Clinton's machine made Obama the "black candidate" a little bemusing. Not without merit, but neither the sufficient condition.

Howard Dean is facing a huge number of problems.  Nearly all of these problems can be summed up in two words:

Super Delegates

We now know that there probably aren't enough States left to push either nominee over the top.  So the wholly un-Democratic Super Delegates look likely to be the kingmakers of the Democratic Party.

The huge number of ways this is bad for the Party cannot be quickly summed up.  But here's a quick look at the worst of it.

The two months between the final primary and the convention would be a wild-west free for all of vote trading, job trading, perk trading, and all manner of unseemly conduct. Each of these minor corruptions would be closely followed by the media and used by the Republican machine.  Both Democratic candidates would be painted as modern-day Boss Tweeds.  And the candidate who did the dirtiest deals would likely become the nominee.

Worse yet, the Super Delegates could quite easily crown the candidate who had just lost the popular vote. Were this to happen, I believe the massive and positive fervor the Democratic Party currently enjoys would be immediately replaced with despondency and cynicism. 

The minor corruptions, the dejected supporters, and the nominee only being known two months before the election would likely conspire to deliver another 4 years of Republican rule.

So what is the solution?  What can the party do to make sure this nightmare doesn't happen?  Simple...

Disenfranchise the Super Delegates. 

What you say? How could the party change the rules so late in the game?  How could this be fair?  Why would the Super Delegates ever agree to have their votes taken away?

I propose allowing the Super Delegates themselves to vote for their own disenfranchisement.    Sounds crazy, but consider for a moment who these Super Delegates are.

About half of these Super Delegates are active politicians.  I can't believe any Democratic politician wants a convention battle.  A convention battle would strongly diminish the top of the ticket, and with it, every Democratic politician's chances of re-election.  Even those not up for re-election want a Democratic president.

My guess is that the portion of Super Delegates who are active politicians would overwhelmingly agree to disenfranchise themselves.  As for the 400 odd party functionaries with Super Delegate status, Dean may need to twist some arms, legs, and maybe necks.  But I think he could get the simple majority he'd need to make it happen.

The "disenfranchisement measure” could be something as simple as a binding pledge that would force the Super Delegates to vote for the nominee who had achieved the largest number of popularly elected delegates.  In this way, the nominee would be known no later than the date of the final primary. 

Unfortunately, this solution brings forward another issue, in that the final primary could easily decide the nominee.  Right now, a territory that cannot even vote in the Presidential elections is that final primary.  Puerto Rico has 55 (effectively) winner-take-all delegates.  Making it the single largest source of net delegates in the entire US.  

This could by solved were the party to (re)schedule the rumored Michigan and Florida do-overs (closed caucuses) for the two weeks following Puerto Rico's vote. In this way, the currently disenfranchised, hugely important swing states of Florida and Michigan would be the final deciders. 

The vote would still be close, the losing side would still grumble, but the winner will have won fair and square by popular vote.  The nominee would be decided no later than 4 months prior to the election.  This should give both sides ample time to come together and support the nominee.

Still no word from Edwards and Gore. Another big one, in light of the VA primary, is Jim Webb. Webb could particularly help Clinton with her anti-war credibility.

Three options:

1) Personal ambition: They want to be part of the next administration and are waiting for a winner in order to avoid choosing the wrong side. This seems particularly likely for Edwards, who is certainly ambitious and needs a platform to promote his agenda, and unlikely for Webb, who's in his first Senate term.

2) Avoid the fray: They want to cast themselves as Democratic statesmen who do not (or no who longer) dirty themselves in party politics. This seems likely for Gore, who has positioned himself as a statesman and has found channels outside of party politics for promoting his agenda.

3) Clinch the nomination: According this scenario, they're looking out for the Democratic party. No one wants this thing to go down to the wire. If they endorse now, the endorsee will get a boost, but the race will still be open. They may be waiting for one of the candidates to pull ahead, at which point they will put their weight behind that candidate in order to help wrap up the race and move on to a united front for the general election.

Peggy Noonan, who wrote some of Reagan's best speeches, is the right wing's Maureen Dowd: Irish, beautiful, witty, subtle and dangerous. <a
href="http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB120241915915951669.html">In
today's Wall Street Journal, she joins</a> such arch-conservative pundits as George Will and David Brooks in praising Barack Obama and favoring him for the Democratic nomination.<blockquote>"(Obama) is the un-Edwards and un-Huckabee -- an adult aiming to reform the real world rather than an adolescent fantasizing mock-heroic "fights" against fictitious villains in a left-wing cartoon version of this country." <a
href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/04/AR2008010403561.html">
<i>George Will</i></a>

"The Kennedys and Obama hit the same contrasts again and again in their speeches: the high road versus the low road; inspiration versus calculation; future versus the past; and most of all, service versus selfishness." <a
href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/29/opinion/29brooks.html"><i>David
Brooks</i></a></blockquote>

I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to smell a rat here.
To me it's perfectly obvious that the Republicans are licking their chops in anticipation at facing Obama. Read this from Noonan's piece:<blockquote>"He will be hard to get at, hard to address. There are many reasons, but a primary one is that the fact of his race will freezet hem. No one, no candidate, no party, no heavy-breathing consultant, will want to cross any line--lines that have never been drawn, that are sure to be shifting and not always visible--in approaching the first major-party African-American nominee for president of the United States. He is the brilliant young black man as American dream. No consultant, no matter how opportunistic and hungry, will think it easy--orprofessionally desirable--to take him down in a low manner." </blockquote>Now, obviously it would be absurd to apply this criteria to Karl Rove or any of his understudies and acolytes ... If you know how to read Noonan, she is calling in the hit. <i>That</i> is going to be the campaign. I think it would be childlike to believe that Karl Rove hasn't done is homework already.. They are drooling in anticipation.

Why do they "like" Obama so much?

Because they are terrified of Hillary Clinton, that's why.

Here is how Peggy Noonnan describes her:
<blockquote>"One part of the Clinton mystique maintains: Deep down journalists think she's a political Rasputin who will not be dispatched. Prince Yusupov served him cupcakes laced with cyanide, emptied a revolver, clubbed him, tied him up and threw him in a frozen river. When he floated to the surface they found he'd tried to claw his way from under the ice. That is how reporters see Hillary.And that is a grim and over-the-top analogy, which I must withdraw. What I really mean is they see her as the Glenn Close character in "Fatal Attraction": "I won't be ignored, Dan!"</blockquote> It is this simple: in recent decades the Clintons are the only Democrats that win elections against Republicans... They don't want to ever face them again, no more complicated than that.  As soon as Barack Obama is declared the official candidate of the Democratic party the voters will be treated to something similar to the old TV show, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Is_Your_Life">"This
is your Life"</a>... Here is how Wikipedia describes the experience: <blockquote>"The format of the show was simple: the host would surprise someone (usually a celebrity or public figure, occasionally an ordinary citizen) and, consulting his "red book," conduct a biography of the subject in a television studio. The subject would be presented with family members and old friends, reunited with old acquaintances, and often shed a tear when a personal tragedy was recounted."</blockquote>
Peggy may be right and Hillary will do Karl's work for him. This is a high stakes affair after all.

It is interesting to note the MSM insists on slicing and dicing us into racial groups. While our constitution says everyone is equal, it seems the boomer generation's reporting keeps pushing the racial/gender meme. I don't mean they are degrading one race/gender or another, but by merely reporting it broken down that way, only exaggerates the lines drawn from the past.

Think about it. As far as race and gender are concerned, you cannot use the "n" word on tv, but you can say how many black folks voted vs white. You cant imply a woman needed a man to get where she is, but yet they can report how many feminist women are behind a certain candidate. We have rejected the former arguments, but still accept the latter.

It is the reporting by the older generation that have experienced these real divides in the past that perpetuates these artificial divides into the future.

So truthfully, we need to get away from the reporting on which group is voting for what. We really are not as divided as the MSM suggests. The walls need to be broken or else it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

If you look, you can see the walls tumbling down around you. The younger generation is especially gender/colorblind. There are women/ethnic CEO's, doctors, lawyers, and just about every business you can think of, and they keep growing. When we'll we be at a point when we can drop the subject? When it is 50/50 across the board?
We will never get there if we allow ourselves to be continually be sliced and diced along gender/racial lines. Even in elections.

People may think it is newsworthy to report these. News outlets may think it is important to project a certain outcome. But does the need to project outweight the need to overcome our predjucies?
Every vote is counted equally, so just as we reject deragatory stereotypes of race and gender, so too we must reject election coverage that breaks us down this way.

Just as we want to change the mindset of what lead us to war, so too we must change the mindset that insists on supporting those crumbling walls that separate us.

Now that Mitt and Rudy! are gone, it looks like we'll have to look to silly Op-Eds to inject humor into the campaigin. From Krauthammer today: 

Before Florida, the national polls had McCain hovering around 30 and Giuliani in the mid-teens. After Florida, McCain's numbers jumped to the mid-40s, swallowing the Giuliani constituency whole.

He goes on to talk about how Rudy's withdrawl increased McCain's margins in the Northeast. Fair enough. However, does anyone really think that at this point in the campaign, Rudy had a 15% constituency? And, what about the former Rudy supporters that went to Mitt? Just a quick peak at NRO should lead one to believe that many ex-Rudyites jumped on the Romney erstwhile bandwagon...

Authorizing a war is no small matter, my friend. As someone who was out in the streets protesting against the war, I am truly dismayed by your logic. Hundreds of thousands of Americans hit the streets immediately in protest against the war. In fact many millions around the world. Obama was not the sole person in opposition. My question for you is, how can so many millions  be so clear-headed on such matters, and yet Hillary Clinton (and others) be so backward? What I find equally disturbing is any flippant notion about the dire consequences of that terrible decision to authorize a war. There are upwards of ONE MILLION Iraqi people DEAD. Millions more are displaced. Thousands of American soldiers DEAD. Tens of thousands of our soldiers severely injured. Trillions of dollars drained from the treasury and the American tax payer's pocket. Yet Exxon, Black Water and Halliburton continue to record record profits? You cannot minimize the consequences, my friend. The war is an absolute  disaster. With all of her years of supposed "readiness" and"experience", Hillary couldn't have made a worse decision, no matter how eagerly she tries to spin it. 

We cannot let Mittmentum end.  It it imperative that we have faith and keep the dream of Mitt's campaign going.  There's only one thing to do now - create a grassroots Mitt for VP campaign. 

Imagine the fun with Mitt on the ticket with McCain.  Mitt's positions in the primary could evolve to magically be right in line with McCain's. Best of all, we'd help America's armed forces by keeping Mitt's sons out of our military and continuing their battle at home to put their dad in D.C. 

First things first, who will purchase and maintain www.MittforVP.com?

Backup plan if Mitt refuses to continue his totally awesome campaign: we go for Rudy and put up a website at: www.911forvp.com

In an earlier post I mentioned how the liberal blogs and MSM that beat up on Hillary Clinton on a daily basis would have reacted if she had run away from debates with Senator Obama in the way that he is running from her now. They would have been on her like flies on stink. The California debate, the only one-on-one debate the two Senators have had, Hillary Clinton dominated. It had a definite effect on voters. In spite of the polls which all the Hillary Haters, bloggers and pundits threw up on their sites to show the massive surge and movement of Senator Obama, all done to deflate supporters of Senator Clinton. She not only won the states the polls said were now a toss up but one poll, the Gallop showed Clinton moving ahead. Now of course the thing to do is discredit that poll. I get that. The methodology and accuracy of all that polling is madness. But when the poll suits ones purpose in promoting their guy or gal their is no hesitancy to throw it up there and say SEE, big surge for my guy, why don't you just give up! ( just a note: I see that TPM and others are at it again with the polls. Obama Stronger Than Clinton Against McCain.) But the important part of all this is that the debate mattered. Had an impact. Made people think. I'm currently working with seven young men and women in their mid twenties. Bright, well educated and living in Illinois. Barach Obama supporters. We've had political discussions. He is their guy. They all watched the Los Angeles debate. Next day at work they are talking about what happened and to a person they were stunned at how ( to use their phrase) she wiped the floor with him. Impressed with her command of the facts, knowledge and the nuts and bolts of what she wants to do in addressing the mess President Bush and the Republicans have left this country in. They were surprised at the lack of depth in his responses, just slogans and feel good phrases. On Super Tuesday four of the seven voted for Hillary Clinton. Now, I completely buy the fact that this happens the other way also. But we were suppose to be having a surge here. We were suppose to be burying Senator Clinton after Super Tuesday. I'm suppose to vote on progressive blogs whether Hillary is finished or not. And now, and to me this is big, this is why I'm writing for the first time on a blog, we have the candidate who is for change, change we can supposedly believe in and he's scared to debate this women one-on-one. And the sad nonsense the Obama camp is putting out that they have already debated 18 times could be spitting out of the mouth of Karl Rove. The two Senators have debated one-on-one only once. And it had an impact. And yes, of course not debating is strategic. Strategic in the way of all run-of-the-mill politicians...manipulative, calculating, shrewd, all the things Clinton gets skinned alive for on progressive blogs and the MSM. And of course Senator Obama will continue to get his free pass on this too. Change we can believe in? Really? Sounds like the same-old-same-old. He's afraid to debate her and that tells me something. That tells me a lot.

What do you see as the biggest cultural change(s) in the US over the past 15-20 years that might have a substantial impact on our politics going forward?

If you know of an interesting article on this topic please feel free to share the link or reference...

In an earlier post I mentioned how the liberal blogs and MSM that beat up on Hillary Clinton on a daily basis would have reacted if she had run away from debates with Senator Obama in the way that he is running from her now. They would have been on her like flies on stink. The California debate, the only one-on-one debate the two Senators have had, Hillary Clinton dominated. It had a definite effect on voters. In spite of the polls which all the Hillary Haters, bloggers and pundits threw up on their sites to show the massive surge and movement of Senator Obama, all done to deflate supporters of Senator Clinton. She not only won the states the polls said were now a toss up but one poll, the Gallop showed Clinton moving ahead. Now of course the thing to do is discredit that poll. I get that. The methodology and accuracy of all that polling is madness. But when the poll suits ones purpose in promoting their guy or gal their is no hesitancy to throw it up there and say SEE, big surge for my guy, why don't you just give up! ( and just a note: I see this morning TPM is at it again with the polls. Obama stronger than Clinton against McCain) But the important part of all this is that the debate mattered. Had an impact. Made people think. I'm currently working with seven young men and women in their mid twenties. Bright, well educated and living in Illinois. Barach Obama supporters. We've had political discussions. He is their guy. They all watched the Los Angeles debate. Next day at work they are talking about what happened and to a person they were stunned at how ( to use their phrase) she wiped the floor with him. Impressed with her command of the facts, knowledge and the nuts and bolts of what she wants to do in addressing the mess President Bush and the Republicans have left this country in. They were surprised at the lack of depth in his responses, just slogans and feel good phrases. On Super Tuesday four of the seven voted for Hillary Clinton. Now, I completely buy the fact that this happens the other way also. But we were suppose to be having a surge here. We were suppose to be burying Senator Clinton after Super Tuesday. I'm suppose to vote on progressive blogs whether Hillary is finished or not. And now, and to me this is big, this is why I'm writing for the first time on a blog, we have the candidate who is for change, change we can supposedly believe in and he's scared to debate this women one-on-one. And the sad nonsense the Obama camp is putting out that they have already debated 18 times could be spitting out of the mouth of Karl Rove. The two Senators have debated one-on-one only once. And it had an impact. And yes, of course not debating is strategic. Strategic in the way of all run-of-the-mill politicians...manipulative, calculating, shrewd, all the things Clinton gets skinned alive for on progressive blogs and the MSM. And of course Senator Obama will continue to get his free pass on this too. Change we can believe in? Really? Sounds like the same-old-same-old. He's afraid to debate her and that tells me something. That tells me a lot.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm picking up a strong class-warfare undercurrent in a lot of these Clinton-Obama threads on this site and others.  A lot of HRC supporters accuse Obama supporters of being rich, liberal elitists and college students (groups I'm arguable a member of) and a lot of Obama supporters seem to say Clinton people are under-informed (read: working-class) types.  I'm not saying any of this is necessarily true, but it's the vibe a lot of people are sending out.  If anything, it seems to me that HRC is winning the traditionally "liberal elite" states (NY CA etc) whereas BHO is picking up votes amongst the "beer-drinking" states (IL, GA etc).  As a WI native, I'm betting that both the liberal elitist college town of Madison and the beer capital of the country, Milwaukee, go for Obama on the 19th.

One of the things I admire most about Mrs. Clinton is that she is taking the hits for so many of us on the authorization to use military force.  And she's doing it without whining. We are all guilty of not doing enough to stop Bush from going on with the invasion after the AUMF had worked to get the weapons inspectors back into Iraq. Those of us who stayed home should have marched. Those of us who marched should have fought. Those of us who fought and were jailed should have kept on fighting. She never says there were only 27 Senators who voted against the AUMF. She never says the bloggers never got off their asses and into the streets. She never says those who point to their speeches can't point to their actions. I don't think someone who says you were stupid and I'll never forgive you to the American people is going to unite America in November. One of the tragedies of this primary campaign is that a woman who might have brought us together on so many important issues has been savaged so brutally by an opportunistic gang.

 Two amazing and gifted individuals are energizing the Democratic Party this year.  I think both have their gifts.  And both need to be recognized and elevated to high office.  Without splitting the party in the process. 

Why not find a novel solution?  And make use of both candidates in terms of their abilities and strengths?

I think Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton need each other.  For each to reach their greatest potential, they would do well to combine talents.  I do not mean as a "ticket."  Because honestly I do not see either of these fine individuals doing well as Vice President.  No, that would be demeaning to either of them.  And somehow I do not think the chemistry would work... not because they would be unable to work together, but because each of them really does need and deserve a unique role and vantage point.  Where each can excel.  And where each can benefit the other.

In my view Hillary Clinton's mastery of knowledge, her legislative expertise and ability to speak the language of policy would equip her to be a superlative "Prime Minister."  What if we elevate her to Senate Majority Leader and have her lead the fight for all the good legislation that will be needed for change to come?  Why not recognize what half the Dems have already agreed by casting a vote for her?  Yes, I understand they voted for her as a presidential candidate.  But her debating skills have surely equipped her best for the Senate.  Her rhetoric is surely the type that is works well in the Senate.  And her long experience in government will surely help her pass the legislation we all want so much.

While Hillary Clinton would make the better "Prime Minister," I believe Barak Obama would make the better President.  Less polarizing than Hillary and by far the more gifted and inspiring speaker, Obama would, in my view, be better able to unify the country and mobilize popular support for the legislation tha Hillary could ably shepherd through the Congress.  I'm viewing the Presidency as a means of gaining power/influence and making use of that.  The president has the bully pulpit.  But needs a legislative ally.  The bully pulpit works to reach and inspire the citizens.   Obama can do that.  But as Hillary herself has made clear, inspiration is one thing and translation into legislation is another.  Let him inspire.  Let her legislate.  To me it would make a perfect combination.

So I propose this solution to the train wreck we all do not want to see happen ... for our country... or for our party:  I propose Hillary for "Prime Minister."  And Obama for President.

A novel solution.  For perilous times.
  

<p>Both Democratic candidates and their supporters have tried to make something from their performance in whichever "Red State", they've prevailed during this primary season. Of course winning the majority of Democrat votes in a Democratic primary means very
little beyond the current race and a candidate's victory is really no indication of how they'll perform in the General Election.</p>
<p>To illustrate this point, I've prepared the following chart. The figures for each of the two primaries represent the total vote for all candidates and the last number is the final vote for John Kerry in the November election.</p>
<p><b>Alabama</b><br>
2004 Primary Date: June 1<br>
2004 Democratic Primary: 218,574<br>
2008 Democratic Primary: 539,743<br>
Dem. Votes in 2004 GE: 693,933</p>
<p><b>Arizona</b><br>
2004 Primary Date: Feb. 3<br>
2004 Democratic Primary: 222,626<br>
2008 Democratic Primary: 390,016<br>
Dem. Votes in 2004 GE: 893,524</p>
<p><b>Arkansas</b><br>
2004 Primary Date: May 18<br>
2004 Democratic Primary: 266,848<br>
2008 Democratic Primary: 294,633<br>
Dem. Votes in 2004 GE: 469,953</p>
<p><b>Georgia</b><br>
2004 Primary Date: March 2<br>
2004 Democratic Primary: 602,499<br>
2008 Democratic Primary: 1,046,485<br>
Dem. Votes in 2004 GE: 1,366,149</p>
<p><b>Missouri</b><br>
2004 Primary Date: Feb. 3<br>
2004 Democratic Primary: 416,104<br>
2008 Democratic Primary: 820,453<br>
Dem. Votes in 2004 GE: 1,259,171</p>
<p><b>New Mexico</b><br>
2004 Primary Date: Feb. 3<br>
2004 Democratic Primary: 95,954<br>
2008 Democratic Primary: 139,869<br>
Dem. Votes in 2004 GE: 370,942</p>
<p><b>Oklahoma</b><br>
2004 Primary Date: Feb. 3<br>
2004 Democratic Primary: 299,806<br>
2008 Democratic Primary: 401,230<br>
Dem. Votes in 2004 GE: 503,966</p>
<p><b>South Carolina</b><br>
2004 Primary Date: Feb. 3<br>
2004 Democratic Primary: 291,175<br>
2008 Democratic Primary: 530,322<br>
Dem. Votes in 2004 GE: 661,699</p>
<p><b>Tennessee</b><br>
2004 Primary Date: Feb. 10<br>
2004 Democratic Primary: 358,840<br>
2008 Democratic Primary: 614,096<br>
Dem. Votes in 2004 GE: 1,036,477</p>
<p><b>Utah</b><br>
2004 Primary Date: Feb. 24<br>
2004 Democratic Primary: 33,839<br>
2008 Democratic Primary: 122,617<br>
Dem. Votes in 2004 GE: 241,199</p>
<p>As you can see, the 2008 primary totals are all higher than the 2004 figures, but that could be a function of a change in the primary date, the fact that we have a competitive race and every vote counts, and I'm sure some of it is attributable to persons voting in a primary for the first time or for the first time in a few cycles.</p>
<p>In every case, the 2008 totals are less than the Democratic vote in the fall, so I don't think a lot can be made from who carried what state by itself, and the exit polls posted on the CNN website does not note the respondent's history.</p>

As a point of reference my site was created to allow you to review the mishandling of a federal investigation by several major federal law enforcement agencies and the legality of the responses which I received. This in response to my complaint of illegal electronic surveillance of myself where it was established that my information was credible by former Chief Inspector Yvonne Bonner of the US Marshals Service, Office of Inspection (Internal Affairs) division. Please review my site below. Thank you

<a href="http://daprocess.com" target="_blank"><b>1: Da Process</b></a>

<a href="http://daprocess.com/verified/html" target="_blank"><b>2: Da Process Verified</b></a>

I just posted a comment here. I can't believe Linda, whom I respect and agree with about so much else, can truly argue that Senator Clinton is the candidate who will appeal to the swing states.

Here's the thing, I'm from a state that should be a swing state -- Kentucky.  In fact, in a larger context, it is a swing state.  Bill Clinton won the Bluegrass twice before George W. turned it red in 2000 and 2004.  So, I know something about what will appeal to swing staters, and want to tell you this -- it ain't got nothin' to do with Hillary Clinton.  Yes, that's partly because of the irrational hatred some people have for her, but it's more fundamentally because of the inability of the Clinton's to attend to anything larger than their own prospects.  We did not emerge from the '90's with a strong national party, and that's one of the sad legacies of the Clinton presidency. 

This year's race against the Republican party is a historic opportunity for the Democratic party because we have the wind at our back.  We need to take advantage of that wind  by nominating someone who can begin the great project of reintroducing our party and our ideas to the good people in Iowa, in Indiana, in Texas, in Kansas.  During the current contest and over the next four years, we can continue the vital work of Howard Dean's fifty-state strategy most ably if we have for our nominee someone who can speak to and be listened to by the people on the tobacco farms back in my old Kentucky home.

That nominee is not Hillary Clinton. 

Not only have too many people shut their ears to anything Clinton will ever say, or decided that anything they do hear her saying is mendacious, she simply will not represent anything new to anyone.  Voters will simply see her as a return to the '90's, and if they were red at the end of the '90's, then red they shall remain through a Clinton restoration. 

That's the real implication of Obama's change rhetoric.  He wants to reintroduce our ideas to Wyoming and North Dakota and South Carolina.  And if he's the one doing it, people will engage, they'll give him a chance, because his dance won't appear to them to be the old Democratic ragtime.  It will be new, and it will come from someone that these people in Mississippi and Alabama are willing to hear out; my mom calls me daily to report that she has talked to yet another died-in-the-wool Kentucky Republican who says he is interested in supporting Obama -- incidentally, they all say they could never vote for Hillary. 

And there's icing on top of the cake!  There's immediate payoff!  Linda notes that:

The attention given to states like Idaho is partly the product of Democratic Chairman Howard Dean’s fifty state iniative. In 2006, the DNC spent $327,000 in Idaho. allowing its state party to hire two field organizers and a communications director. Dean’s little Idaho organization must have been thrilled to see a national candidate in the flesh. Dean's plan is not foolish. In the long term, someday these states may vote Democratic. But out here in the real world it’s hard to figure out why a Democratic campaign for the unforgiving Electoral College should seriously worry about 14,000 Idaho Democrats, while ignoring 857,000 voters in Florida.

But my goodness, Linda!  If we have even a fraction of those 14,000 Democrats working their tails off in Idaho, and we have the small-dollar-donation-driven millions to air even just a few ads in Idaho, and we have a candidate who is going to actually appeal to independent and Republican Idahoans instead of bunkering them further into their conservatism, then the Republican party would have to play there, too, and invest their precious resources into defending territory they have traditionally taken for granted.

Obama can force a national race.  Clinton cannot. 

Obama can make obsolete the 50+.01% equation for victory.  Clinton cannot. 

Obama can begin the work of making the Democratic party a national party.  Clinton cannot.

Let's begin. 

Many Hillary Clinton supporters have suggested that she is the Democratic candidate most capable of solving the myriad of problems that now plague American society. I must beg to differ. I posit that upon deeper reflection, we will quickly discover that instead Hillary Clinton has played a major role in CAUSING many of the problems we now face. I'm going to focus on two primary examples: the war, and the soured economy. (And yes, there is some cross fertilization here.)

The war is rather simple. Hillary Clinton authorized Bush to do whatever the hell he wanted to in Iraq. (Talk about poor judgment?) Therefore, it can be argued, in her authorization, that she is partially responisble for the war. (BTW, as we all know Obama opposed the war from the very beginning.)

Secondly, the economy. Bill Clinton's administration passed NAFTA in the 1990s, and Hillary Clinton FULLY supported it. (A little bad judgment yet again?) This policy, in subsequent years, cost millions of Americans their jobs. Why? Because those jobs were shipped overseas for lower wages. Now tell me, has that not served to severely undermine the American economy? Yes? When one further considers that the Iraq War will end up costing TRILLIONS of dollars, is she not partially responsible (through her authorization) for the detriment to the economy due to the sheer costs of war spending?

Now I am perplexed by all of you Hillary Clinton supporters, who are now suggesting that she will solve these problems. Why would someone in their natural right mind look to the EXACT same person who helped create the disaster, to now solve the problem? I can't find any way imaginable that that makes any sense. But maybe some of you Hillary supporters will enlighten me. Please do.

Before I argued that there was not yet enough information to determine if Tuesday's results mean that Obama hit a ceiling or that he has momentum, but simply ran out of time to connect with voters.

Matthew Yglesias analyzes the exit polls and concludes that Obamentum.

For all the photo ops and press avails held by the various presidential candidates heralding endorsements by elected officials, celebrities and other dignitaries, former Vice President Al Gore has arguably attracted more attention for his reluctance -- so far -- to throw his muscle and prestige behind a Democratic contender.

Gore cast his ballot here in Tennessee on Tuesday, and there was some buzz in the days leading up to the "national primary" that he would endorse Senator Barack Obama. That never materialized, but two short days later Internet politicos are once again circulating rumors that an announcement of support by the ex-Veep was imminent.

It is no secret that Gore, winner of the popular vote in the 2000 presidential race, feels he was swindled out of the presidency by a party-line vote of the Supreme Court. Up until votes started being cast and counted this primary season, the recent Oscar and Nobel Prize recipient was rumored as a candidate.

Given the open antipathy that has existed between Gore and both Clintons since the end of the previous administration, and the consensus between Gore and Obama on the big issues, the lack of an endorsement, as we find ourselves in a deadlocked delegate battle, is a puzzle.

Let there be no doubt that Gore knows his own strength, and feels it, and is well aware of his status as the most popular and respected figure in the Democratic Party. He knows, also, that the sentimental longing for a Gore administration that might have been is far stronger than nostalgia for the Clinton years, within the party and the country generally.

In a campaign of back-and-forth brawls between the amorphous ideals of "Change" and "Experience," Al Gore -- Congressman, Senator, Vice President (and, to some, duly-elected President) who also made America safe for environmentalism -- is the one person with the credentials to trump both current front-runners on both counts.

If either Senator Obama or Clinton establishes a convincing lead in delegates the coming months, Gore will back the victor in order to secure the superdelegates for the popular choice. But if the Democratic race remains deadlocked and the party heads to Denver in August without a clear nominee, expect Gore to emerge as the compromise candidate for president, and to name Obama as his running mate.

It is in the Democrats' interest, as DNC Chairman Howard Dean stated Wednesday, to avoid a brokered convention, which would alienate the half of the party whose preferred candidate is left off the ticket. Who better to unite the party, following what figures to be a bruising and bitter nominating contest, than the man uncynically referred to by legions of adorers as "The Goracle"?

I know this has been discussed as a possibility in the past, but recent developments could cause the event to happen.

As you all know, John McCain pretty much has the Republican nomination in the bag now (unless conservatives decide to side with Huckabee in the last minute – which I doubt).  You also know that conservatives are steaming over the idea of McCain being their leader.

Here’s a thought for you to discuss.  Are the conservatives angry and desperate enough to ask Vice President Dick Cheney to resign early?

 

Has anyone read this. Boy is this scary

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23037049

I've seen a lot of indignant comments about TPM's pro-Obama bias, because it didn't flog the Gallup results yesterday that showed Clinton up, 52-39. I blogged about that poll, explaining that to the extent we look to tracking polls as predictors of voter sentiment, a poll that showed a thirteen point gap in the three days ending Tuesday at the same time voters divided their votes evenly was clearly flawed.

I also asked the guru of polling, Mark Blumenthal, for an explanation. He put forward a bunch of theories, and followed up with an extensive discussion this morning. Mark is on a righteous crusade to get pollsters to abide by the professional code of conduct to which they ostensibly subscribe, and to disclose their data and not just a summary of their results. So in addition to putting forward his own theories, he pressed Gallup for answers.

Gallup apparently delayed their usual early-afternoon release to crunch the numbers. And just now, Gallup has spoken. Their explanation boils down to this. They call 1,000 adults every night. About 200 of them say they're unlikely to vote, so they screen them out. The remaining 800 describe themselves as at least a little likely to vote (or that they have voted) in either the Democratic or Republican races. In other words, their sample includes 80% of American adults. But even in this seminal year, only about 30% are actually voting. And therein lies the problem.

Gallup went back and ran the numbers for the five days between John Edwards withdrawal and Super Tuesday. Among those who characterized themselves as highly likely to vote, about 50% of the total sample (thus still too high), Obama drew 48% and Clinton 45% - a statistical tie. Now there may have been more than that at work here - Mark's other questions remain unanswered, as does my biggest (what's the gender and racial composition of the sample, and does it vary night by night?) But it goes a long way to explaining the discrepancy.

I'd argue that it provides a good reason for Gallup to use a tighter screen in the future. Gallup says "a broad sample of over 80% of American adults would not be expected to match the actual voting patterns" which to me, is a very good argument for not using such a sample. But it should also provide us all with reason for caution. National tracking polls, it's worth remembering, are useful indicators of trends. Gallup picked up, succesfully, that Clinton had stopped the Obama surge by about Sunday. (And both Gallup and Rasmussen show Obama getting a post-Feb 5 bump). But they are absolutely lousy indicators, at least until they change their voter models, of how the electorate will actually vote.

Just received <a href="http://tpmelectioncentral.com/cgi-bin/mt4/plugins/Profile/profile.cgi?__mode=verify&profile_verification_code=4EB47gePkwL7XfY0VVyt663TKb50GctOb0tvIfhOjqd0E4lgDohiKgcCVbwklzST">this link </a>from a friend (and, incidentally, fellow political junkie) in an email titled "This Is You!"

Not sure which is worse, that my friends know me so well, or that they're a bunch of snarky punks.

I had not seen the turnout numbers anywhere yet and was curious to quantify the significant Democrat turnout everyone has been talking about. Knowing how much of a turnout advantage the Dems have had thus far is important in determining the impact of arguments for or against a candidate due to their ability to handle McCain in the general election.

Here are the latest numbers (after Super Tuesday):
Democrats: 18,628,105
Republicans: 12,550,753
Difference: 6,077,352

This seems like a pretty significant advantage so far. Excitement of Dems causing this level of turnout vs. Repubs will hopefully carry either candidate to a general election victory.

Rough numbers found here: http://elections.gmu.edu/Voter_Turnout_2008_Primaries.htm

I wonder why no one has pointed out that the loss of Mitt is a brutal blow to....... Obama! With all of the meaning gone from Publican caucuses and primaries, the pubs will undoubtedly vote in the dem primaries/caucuses to support Hillary, the only one they pubs think they can beat.

Senator Clinton fully supported her hubby Bill's passing of NAFTA legislation when he was president. NAFTA ended up costing America MILLIONS of manufacturing jobs. Do you really expect Hills to fix the economy when  policies like NAFTA helped to undermine it in the first place?

When Hillary served on the board of directors for Walmart (a decisively anti union company) do you really think she was concerned about the American worker. The more you delve into the subject, I predict the less you would want Hillary Clinton "under the sink". In the end she'll drill MORE holes in the pipe and flood our house in more corruption! 

Here is a first post.  Blah Blah Blah Blah

Another reason I'm for Obama is the following:

FRONTLINE #1705

Does anyone here talk about anything other than politics?

If you haven't noticed, ever since the big software changeover, there's generally been two kinds of people that are posting here: (1) people who navel-gaze about why the site is different, and what's going to happen to the way we used to blog, and why we lost our beloved tracker, and, (2) everyone else.

I, obviously, am in the former group.

What's clear to me at this point is TPM has two very distinct audiences, that of Election Central, and the old Cafe. What the new software change has done has brought these two audiences -- cultures, really -- together.

No offense to the Election Central people, but one of the happiest days of my blogging life was the day TPM moved you all over to another site.

I know that sounds rude. I don't mean it to be. We're just different animals, you and I.

You are, and this is simply my impression from the last few days, as well as knowing the old EC, fast and furious, breathlessly politically-astute and breathlessly consumed by politics. And sometimes, for me, it can be too much.

Don't get me wrong -- maybe it's too much for me, but I also admire this about you. I admire your passion, your knowledge. How you know things about undeclared delegates, or why Minnesota was so important to Obama on Super Tuesday. How you know about the "micro" of politics. I feel I can learn a lot from the people here who know so much more about politics than I know...and I actually thought I was pretty good!

Incidentally, it actually troubles me, then, when I read the "Obama Supporters Think He's Jesus" sentiment in many people's comments -- if nothing else, Obama's supporters are passionate about politics. Passionate, just like...you. What more could we want from people (other than having them vote exactly like you?)?

Anyway, the point of all this is, I've noticed that we're different. Not in a bad way; not in a good way.

Just different.

Which is, in case you were wondering, why some of us are spending so much time navel-gazing these days.

Just different...

I am hoping that I can learn from you. I am hoping I can get used to the much faster pace of things around here. I am hoping our two worlds end up being much better off by colliding.

OK, that's that.

So seriously, does anyone here talk about anything *other* than politics?

Cooking? American Idol?

Anything???

Oh, forget it...

I'm new at this, so cut me a little slack if I do something wrong.  I know the big topic of the moment is the Romney exit, but I'm going to avoid that for now - I'm not much into "big topics" in terms of a 24 hour frame of reference.  That's not really my side of the fence anyway, and I tend to try to stay in my lane.  I'm for Hillary Clinton. Here's why: With shop-damage and all,  she (and yes, her momentarily down-on-his-luck erstwhile husband) is a real PERSON, in political terms. She has a history for better or worse, and there's a sense that one can predict to some degree what she will try to do, and how skillfully she will be able to do it if elected. Senator Obama, for all his apparent talents, is first and foremost a CONCEPT at this point. He's to Senator Clinton as a highly polished door-to-door salesman of plumbing products is to a certified plumber.  They both know all the lingo, but who are you going to call if your drain backs up? We have a lot of backed up drains and many other problems right now, and we need a skilled trade craftsman to fix them. Some of what is needed can be done on the stump, but not for the most part.  Somebody is going to have to go under the house out of the public view, and know what to do when they get there. That's Senator Clinton, in my opinion.

It's premature to talk about brokered conventions and super delegate intrigue. Democrats don't need Howard Dean to play the deus ex machina just yet. This is great! Please! Let the campaign play out in full!

Democrats almost won last time by rallying prematurely around John Kerry. All in the name of unity. We can't afford another almost.

Besides, the situation is different today. Democrats are inspired! We are energized and active. We pay attention. We participate. We think our votes matter.

Republicans, by contrast, are demoralized and bored. They're waiting to be impressed by their own front runner. They're waiting to find out who the opponent is. They're waiting around for their same old, lame old convention. I say, the longer the better.

To take maximum advantage of the situation, however, Clinton and Obama should stop attacking one another. The campaigns should adopt an 80-20 rule: 80% positive and 20% negative. 80% of the positive should be about them self and 20% about fellow Democrats running down the ticket. 80% of the negative should be focused on John McCain, and 20% against vulnerable Republican Senators.

The Democratic primary should play out in full for as long as it takes. It should primarily be a contest to see who's the most superior to John McCain.

I don't have anything visceral against Republicans in general (well, not very much) and even have family members in that party. I like both John McCain and Mike Huckabee as people although I don't agree with them on very much, but Romney, I confess, I loathe.

Something in his facial expression makes me angry. His positions are hard to nail down, but I have never gotten that far... the face is enough.

Anyway, after having been made a fool of by Mike Huckabee who spent one tenth of what he did, he is calling it quits. Thinking about that gives me a nice warm feeling inside. With time you learn to take pleasure when and where you can.

Ben Smith of the Politico has some posts up today with major convention implications. He's put up a spreadsheet that Bloomberg News obtained, apparently an internal Obama campaign worksheet that attempts to project where the race is headed. It's of prurient interest, but most of its scenarios are fairly conservative, and there's not much news in it.

The big deal, though, is in a few boxes at the bottom. Obama's campaign lists the current superdelegate tally as 159-209. That's 40-50 more than any public tally I've seen. And it gets more interesting - Ben queried the Obama camp, and discovered that they're now claiming the backing of 170 superdelegates.

A word of caution. They haven't substantiated that with lists of names - as of this morning, only 113 endorsements had been publicly announced. And its perfectly plausible that Hillary has her own internal tally which also shows her doing better than the major media organizations project. But given that this spreadsheet, on the whole, is fairly conservative, and it does the Obama camp no good to delude itself as to how many delegates are going for Hillary, I'd say its prima facie evidence that Obama has finally closed the superdelegate gap. If he's really trailing by just 40, and his Super Tuesday projections hold up, then the overall gap is now in the single digits. And that would be huge news.

(And, for readers just joining me, I discussed this morning why the gap is at least four delegates smaller than any current count.)

A compiled list from health care experts explaining how they would fix the US health care system:

1. Mend the medical schools
   
2. Single-payer insurance
   
3. Individual, not company, plans
   
4. Divert the dollar to the doc
   
5. Pay for the care of populations, not events
   
6. Cut costs for med students
   
7. Eliminate insurance altogether
   
8. More health centers
   
9. Stimulating positive-sum competition
   
10. Keep it low-tech
    

For further explanation behind the recommendations go here.

Beyond the ususal bombast expected in a surrender speech, the sacrificial, acting-so-selflessly-I-can't-stop-talking-about-myself-ness of Mitt's last murmur is pomposity at it's most revealing.

Barack’s Iowa momentum fizzled before New Hamphshire and South Carolina momentum fizzled on Super Tuesday especially in California, New Jersey and in Massachusetts (and for that matter even in Florida). So far Hillary is playing tenacious defense against Barack’s offense in momentum. Barack’s offense team has so far scored field goals in CT and MO but hasn’t scored touchdowns similar to Hillary’s major 8 touchdowns (CA, NJ, MA, FL, MI, TN, AZ, OK). Barack’s victories in caucus and non-caucus RED states (UT, CO, ND, AL, GA) is equivalent to defense scoring points on turnovers. In electoral college terms, so far Hillary has scored 200 electoral votes to Baracks 121. If Hillary scores three touchdowns in TX, OH and in PA then she scores 275 electoral votes. Since Hillary has so far shown great momentum breaker, Barack’s expected upcoming victories in caucus states is not going to help him to score those three major touchdowns in TX, OH and PA. The score may be tied on pledged Delegates but the underlying statistic suggests that Hillary is going to win at the end. There is no way “runner up” guy in 275 electoral votes will be chosen as the Democratic party nominee. My prediction is from now on Hillary is going to win some cacus states also before winning those 3 major touchdowns. She did not invest in any of the red states on Super Tuesday because of lack of money. That does not mean she is a bad candidate.

Romney has now officially withdrawn from the GOP nomination process, leaving McCain a clear path to the nomination.  Huckabee cannot stand in McCain's way alone.

There is a possible collateral effect to the Democratic campaign.  Most of the upcoming primaries and caucuses are open to independents as well as Democrats.  With the GOP race pretty much over, it is very likely that an increased number independents and even some Republicans might cross over and vote in the Democratic Party's process.

This result should give Obama a big boost.  Just about every exit poll I have seen has given the edge in independents to Obama over Clinton.  It is very possible that as early as Saturday this effect will be strong.  This is definitely a trend worth watching.

Barack Obama's dot com has proven to be one of the most powerful fundraising tools ever devised, turning a wave of small donations into a tsunami of cash, for the independent minded Democrat. Also enjoying a happy fiscal position is the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC). They have about $35mil to burn on this year's contests, and are facing a happy dilemma: they have too many seats to contest. $35mil is a lot of money for the DCCC to throw around, yet they will have to pick their battles carefully, since there will be so many seats under contention, between 40-45, already. That's a lot of seats and even $35mil can't be everywhere at once. 
As the new leader of the party, Senator Obama, or one of his surrogates, should parlay his small donation movement into fundraising for the DCCC. In the last few days, Obama's ability to ensure the election of more Democrats to congress has become central to his campaign message. What better way to make good on this promise than to put our money where our mouths are? By using his ability to raise massive capital in small chunks for his fellow congressman and congress hopefuls, Obama will not only make good on his promise to strengthen and expand the party, he will buy even more good will for himself among Democratic voters and lawmakers. 
If Obama's dot commers can direct the momentum of their donations into the congressional races, via the DCCC, Obama's dream of building a permanent majority will be that much closer to reality.

If it is indeed true and Mitt Quixote is finally dropping out of the GOP Presidential race, I have a fundamental question that has been vexing me for a few days now:  Why did he ever run as a Republican in the first place? 

How did he think he could pull it off?  It wasn't a big secret that Romney ran "to the left of Ted Kennedy" in

My first blogging ever. I'm strangely frightened. Josh, you have been, information wise, my saving grace for a long time. You have been my must read every morning. Sadly that has changed. I have been sickened by the brutal, unfair, and vicious coverage of Senator Clinton by liberal blogs and the MSM. I assume you've received hundreds of notes from folks accusing you of a bias in favor of Senator Obama. We can debate that until our heads pop. To wrap up my first blogging attempt I would just like to point out this morning on TPM ( it's gone now ) you had Senator Obama saying no one is clamoring for more debates. I know why he doesn't want more debates. She wipes the floor with him. Look at what happened in California. That debate had an impact. While the liberal bloggers and MSM were busy spinning what happened to cover their own fannies " The People " were stepping back and thinking. Look at the last Gallop polling numbers leading up to Super Tuesday, Hillary Clinton was moving ahead. And remember most of the polls, pundits, and liberal bloggers who hate her had her losing California, New Jersey and Massachusetts. And Senator Obama is backing away from debates. This won't get any attention today. But you and I both know if Hillary Clinton said this you, and The Huffington Post, and the MSM would be all over her like flies on stink.Thank you for listening.
Johnnypro    

The issue was never the vote on Iraq. Even if you argue that the resolution was a vote to go to war, it was never a vote to occupy Iraq. Nonetheless, Hillary was clear on the speech she gave in voting yes that the resolution was an authorization to go to war as a last resort. She was specific that the inspectors be allowed to complete its work. That clearly implies that her vote was to give Bush the tool to threaten and move Saddam to let the inspectors complete their job. Otherwise without the tool, Bush becomes an emperor without clothes in the eyes of Saddam.

One can Monday QB the hype from the Bush before the invasion as a sure sign of his intent to invade, but that tool has been used by the US and others in the past to give teeth to its threat. At the least, Congress owes it to public who voted Bush into office to accord him some respect and trust that he'll use the tool like the others did before him.

The last time I check, Bush was the Commander-in-Chief. Hillary didn’t take this nation to war. Hillary isn’t a warmonger anymore than Barrack is. Barrack is barking at the wrong tree. To even imply that Hillary or any of the legislators who voted with her would have invaded Iraq before completion of inspection and solid proof of wmd is preposterous. It's political opportunism by Barack.

And from what we now know of Bush, it’s most probable that he would have gone ahead with the invasion even without the vote. Cheney and Rove knew all too well they own the patriotism card.

The issue is not the vote. The issue is Bush misuse and abuse of the tool given to him and his power grab. It's easy to lose sight of the ball simply because you're grasping for something that may bring Hillary down. Barrack's claim is not straight talk and is political opportunism. He can't be trusted.

         

Pat Robertson relays the message: “God told Jerry and Jerry, God bless him, told me.” PR Newswire, Feb. 7, 2008 -- Fox News Network is reporting that deceased televangelist Jerry Falwell, who helped verify responsibility for the 9/11 attack, has explained God’s reason for the record-breaking spawn of killer tornados that ravaged middle-American communities on Super Tuesday. At least 55 middle-Americans lost their lives. Falwell’s longtime collaborator, televangelist and conservative political personality Pat Robertson, gave Fox News an exclusive interview Wednesday to relay Falwell’s insight.
“I heard about the storms and was deep in prayer for all those patriotic Christians,” Robertson told Fox investigative reporters. “And Jerry came to me and said, ‘God and I agree. The pagans, the abortionists, the feminists, the gays, the ACLU, People For the American Way, and McCain voters - all of them – God and I point our fingers in their face and say ‘you helped this happen,’” Robertson relayed. “All I could say,” Robertson said, “was, ‘Amen, Jerry!' I totally concur. The problem is we might adopt that agenda at the highest levels of our government. And so we're responsible as a free society for what the top people do.” The line of storms spanned five states in the mid-South, destroying businesses and homes of liberal and conservative voters alike. Asked to explain why the homes of good Christian Americans – the once-vaunted ‘values voters’ – were not spared, Robertson said Falwell said that God said, “’Let Me spell it out: M-C-C-A-I-N. I TOLD them all to get behind Huckabee!’” Falwell, who in the 1970s organized a conservative religious political force he called “The Moral Majority” into faithful supporters of Ronald Reagan and the Wall Street faction of the Republican Party, died in May 2007. Robertson, who presides over that now-bitterly divided GOP base of Fox News fans, Rush Limbaugh “dittoheads” and Wall Street Journal readers, is not quite dead yet. Despite the violent storms, record numbers of voters turned out for primaries and caucuses in Super Tuesday states across the nation. Asked why 75 percent more Democratic voters turned out that day than good patriotic, Christian Americans, Robertson declined to speculate. But he did say that the bursting real estate bubble and a looming recession had led God to cut His budget for push polling this year. you've been reading satire... =-=-= what follows is not... Partial transcript of comments from the September 13, 2001 telecast of Pat Robertson's program, "The 700 Club": JERRY FALWELL: And I agree totally with you that the Lord has protected us so wonderfully these 225 years. And since 1812, this is the first time that we've been attacked on our soil and by far the worst results. And I fear, as Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense, said yesterday, that this is only the beginning. And with biological warfare available to these monsters -- the Husseins, the Bin Ladens, the Arafats -- what we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be miniscule if, in fact -- if, in fact -- God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve. PAT ROBERTSON: Jerry, that's my feeling. I think we've just seen the antechamber to terror. We haven't even begun to see what they can do to the major population. JERRY FALWELL: The ACLU's got to take a lot of blame for this. PAT ROBERTSON: Well yes. JERRY FALWELL: And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen."
PAT ROBERTSON: Well, I totally concur, and the problem is we have adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government. And so we're responsible as a free society for what the top people do. And, the top people, of course, is the court system... JERRY FALWELL: Pat, did you notice yesterday the ACLU and all the Christ-haters, People For the American Way, NOW, etc. were totally disregarded by the Democrats and the Republicans in both houses of Congress as they went out on the steps and called out on to God in prayer and sang "God Bless America" and said "let the ACLU be hanged". In other words, when the nation is on its knees, the only normal and natural and spiritual thing to do is what we ought to be doing all the time - calling upon God.
PAT ROBERTSON: Amen.

In a roundabout way, which I'll explain if this blog post actually posts, I ran across an apparent political and tax anomaly. My impression was that an IRS 501(c)(3) organization had strict limits on political activity. Is there a loophole in which such an organization (it's not "faith-based") can launch vitriolic attacks on elected officials as long as there is no formal campaign in progress?

So much of the discussion about Iraq is still about the errors of Bush and his administration. At this point I think the only ones who do recognize them will never see it. They will wait another 100 years for him to be vindicated and his legacy to shine. I'm hopeful that in the debates with McCain we can look a bit more big picture at the neoconservative policies and politics of fear that lead us into Iraq. In other words, let's get to the root of the problem. If we continue to put all of the blame on the individual the people will not recognize how we got there and the importance of checks and balances. We cannot allow McCain to pretend that the reasons were justifiable and the course is still the correct one.

Along this same line, the headlines are full of talk about Mozillo's golden parachute and CEO earnings. It is important that we look at their incentives and how compensation is rewarded. But, this is only the side effect of capitalism without regulation. The purist capitalist will talk about how the system is socially beneficial often touting the creation of new medicines. But, we cannot allow them to continue pretending it is inherently good. It's goal is money and always more of it. Capitalism is what we have and we are all dependent on it's success, but this does not mean we allow it to continue in it's current form. I do not believe this current difficult patch is just part of the business cycle. We should not argue against capitalism, but the need for it to evolve. We can point to many successful companies who have products or services that are a detriment to our society. We can show that capitalism has no loyalty to the consumer or to the worker, only to the shareholder. Yes, it is how jobs and products and services are created in this system. But, it is only regulation that ensures some of those social benefits you talk about. You need only to look where regulation does not exist to see this, case in point China. Capitalism will even sacrifice the long term goals of a company for short term gains. Here I picture a family going through foreclosure and the maxed out consumer.

Blaming Mozillo or compensation committees for the results of capitalism is like blaming Bush for the results of neoconservative policy. Yes, errors were made and they must be held accountable. But, they are not the root of the problem. The solution is to make clear to the American people the importance of checks and balances.

“Change will not come if we wait for some other person – or if we wait for some other time.  We are the ones we have been waiting for.  We are the change that we seek.” --   Barack Obama

I take this 2008 presidential race personally.  Yes, I have chosen to support Barack Obama with my time and money.  But let me tell you why.

In June 1998, my family and I came back to Iowa to visit my parents at their farm.  During that week, I drove my parents to Nebraska Methodist Hospital Oncology Center for their comprehensive check ups.  Mom, who was battling colon cancer, had now developed two tiny spots on her liver.  And Dad, who was a five-year survivor of pancreatic cancer, was holding his own, but barely.  The long-term outlook for both was not optimistic.

Later that week, my dad and I sat at the picnic table in the backyard talking about what would happen to the farm.  He shared his disappointment that Iowa had never developed the economic opportunities to keep his three daughters and one son closer to home.  He also mourned the loss of rural culture.  That conversation, Dad’s deep disappointment and cracking voice, have stayed with me.

A little more than a year later, Mom and Dad were gone.  We spent two years sorting out the estate.  My older sisters inherited 80 acres of farm ground, the land where Dad had grown up, now rented and farmed by our cousin.  My brother and I (the younger two) inherited the farm and house where we’d grown up.  My brother, who was best suited to live here and maintain the place, searched for employment, but ran straight up against all the economic factors Dad lamented.  So my husband, a special education teacher, found a job, and we moved almost two years after dad’s death.  I was not upset to leave my corporate job behind and concentrate on our kids, then ages one and 13.

I did not anticipate what happened next.  Six months after returning to the place of my birth, my neighbors approached me about becoming a write-in candidate for school board.  Knowing the abysmal turnout for school board elections, I said, “Sure.”  Much to my surprise, I won the election, and the work has been non-stop ever since.  (For the record, school board directors are not paid in Iowa.) 

In addition to taking on school board leadership, I ended up with leadership roles in my Methodist church and a historic preservation group.  The new work included:  starting an after-school program at the church, writing and administering grant dollars, helping our school district develop a vision, establishing 501(c)3 status for the preservation group, and on and on.  On top of this, my son entered and graduated high school and my daughter went from toddler to elementary school.

Behind it all, though, replaying in my brain was that conversation with Dad.  I had returned to this place I love, disappointed to see so little had changed in the 18 years I’d been gone.  Decline was the only change.  And I was surrounded by people discouraged and confused – too cynical or worn out to fight for change.  Many didn’t know where to begin.

Yet I returned at a good time.  A few stalwart leaders are building some things here:  exploring economic development, opening small businesses, and pooling resources.  We’re beginning to show people that, “Yes we can” make a difference, whether it’s picking up the neighborhood or reopening a park.  But it’s a battle every day to get people to work for change; to believe it’s possible. 

So it’s exciting to see a national leader, who has lived this same experience, speak this truth and ask us to believe in ourselves.  Because until we decide to make America a better nation and to work for it, nothing will change. 

 

Good politics, in both moral and practical terms, comes down to where you expend your energy.  Let me preface this by stating what will likely become obvious: I currently support Obama for the nomination.  However, the lessons of the Obama campaign  are applicable across any boundaries of rivalry.

What I would say is Clinton's biggest problem at this point is her unwillingness to abandon the current system.  She's accepting money from special interest contributors (not a mortal sin in my book, but stay with me), and before the campaign, she was careful not to run afoul of the Republicans, but in the process made a lot of political decisions that weigh her down.

I'm not going to go into that with any depth, but here's the trick:  accepting political orthodoxy, or counting on it to win out is not the best way to campaign.  It relieves you of some risks, but the paralysis it brings on in terms of one's ability to answer the voter's sentiments with one's own is a risk all its own.

Obama's ability to raise money without going to the special interests, to sweep a whole number of red states and swing states handily should not be minimized.  He's not letting himself become a slave to demographic chess games, the strategy of catering to a base.

Base politics is the politics of fear.  Two kind of fear, really: fear of loss of support, and the fear inspired in the voters of other candidates as a means to keep power resting firmly in the hands of a few.  It is also, on a fundamental level, a losing proposition.  As the Democrats discovered in 1994, and Republicans discovered in 2006, there's a point at which people's disgust with those in power overcomes people's revulsion towards the other side.

It also makes some fundamentally flawed assumptions about the way people behave.  The fundamental flaw is free will.  Blacks don't have to vote for blacks, nor women for women, nor men for men or latinos for latinos.  People can choose.  This can be an alarming possibility for those who depend on their constituents being doggishly loyal, but it can be fairly useful in the hands of those willing to generate support by other means.

Categories bleed into each other, have boundaries where values become interchangeable.  Base politics appears to deal with solid chunks of population, but in fact mostly works by appealing to the more dedicate portions of the population.  That worked pre-Bush, when government seemed to work well enough without our help, but Bush has shaken people out of their sense of political apathy, which means that these different categories not only have become more unstable in their populations, but the parts of the population that were unstable in their political leanings in the first place, but who were staying out of it, are now much more involved.

Taking money from special interests is fine for Base Politics.  It works there because the base doesn't easily defect on such grounds.  They'll support you regardless of what deals you make.  The trick, though, is that it paralyzes your choices, your thinking, and in today's political environment, that's a risky proposition.

Obama's given himself freedom to do things the easy way by taking what would have seemed the more difficult route: depending on donation from individuals.  He's less able to abandon his supporters, but he's got more freedom to head in their direction, and not have to worry about getting that phone call from a special interest telling them they're looking for another candidate.  This is key, and goes to my whole point here: the old politics paralyzes political initiative and reduces the agility of our politicians.

He's also doing something smart in appealing to voters not traditionally part of the base.  Why?  Because there are plenty of people who feel underrepresented.  Reagan found success when he appealed to Democrats who felt their interests weren't being served by the party, and Obama is finding success by appealling to those people as well.  Only, instead of getting them to cross party lines against their interests, Obama will be able to do something even Reagan couldn't do: welcome constituents home.

Most Americans are to the left, in their attitudes, in their religious perspective, and in their politics, to the Republican party.  That party succeeded in carving people away from our ranks by use of wedge issues, taking issues like abortion and defense, and leading people to vote against their other interests.  Bush, though, took that thinking to its limits, and in many ways destroyed the usefulness of wedge issues for the Republicans.  They can still use them, but years of failure in the war, and the frightening over-involvement of church and state has convinced many that they're not well served by this political bargain with the devil.

When it comes down to it, there are plenty of people out there who aren't appealed to by the Democratic establishment and it's terribly careful triangulation with the Republicans.  They have come to believe that they are wrong, and don't see much promise in those Democrats who are still trying to appeal to them on the basis of copying the Republican's old macho appeal.

The change they want is paradigmatic change, change that feeds back and changes the playing field.  Some will try to advance the party's cause by carefully engaging in the same old politics.  They're fooling themselves.  Although such politics works on some people, it is obsolete; people are waiting for a completely different kind of change, and at best they will view any such candidate who wins on such grounds as a stepping stone.  No, it's for the best that somebody comes along and just sweeps the table of all the other junk.  That's what people want, and the more the candidates can approach things that way, the better for all involved.

Morally speaking, what people want at this point is somebody capable of dealing with the mess at hand.  Whether Obama or Clinton are up to the challenge is a debateable point.  Some will talk about experience, but all things being equal they're equally experienced and inexperienced.  Obama's been in public office longer, Clinton's been in the Senate longer, but both our main candidates hardly qualify as political veterans.  Neither of them has ever been in executive office, a governor or mayor.  Whoever our candidate is, they will have to learn that as they go, and in a new political environment to boot.

I think at this point, Obama's got it, and not only that, he's free to go with his (so far) good instincts.  It says something that with Edwards only recently  out of the race, Obama was able to get the significant majority of the states, and endure what should have been the fatal loss of the mainline blue states in the east, and California in the west.

We have to consider in this election not only who can defeat the Republicans, but who can defeat them moving forward, and who will have the political flexibility, when they get into office to tell the special interests to go to hell.  This will be important, because many of those interests will be set to frustrate change and waste the momentum of the moment.  We need a candidate strong enough and free enough to change the balance of power in Washington.  We may win with Clinton, but we will triumph with Obama.

First time poster anywhere, please be kind

In re to Hillary Clinton 24 hours 3 Mill fund raising extravaganza, I have a few questions:
1) How much of that amount is online? you know people that actually pull out their debit/credit cards?
2) How much is "pledged"? that is people that promised to send money.
3) How much of that money came from "bundlers"? that is people that promised to get x amount of money from y amount of contributors (a common lobbyist practice)

Anyone could follow Barak Obama money tally online, 100% online donations, His campaign will get the 8+ million dollars 48 hours take.

On Clinton's side only taylormarch.com acting as a press secretary is publishing some numbers with only campaing sources as supporting evidence.

What I don't understand is, if her campaign is able to rack that kind of money why they didn't do it after Iowa, or South Carolina? Obama's best fund raising days were after he lost NH, why wait after the announcement of Mrs.Clinton $5M loan to her campaign and that many staffers are working without pay to do it, with all the negative publicity connotations, this outcome let me to ponder, either:
1) They could do the money bomb in January but refused to do so for some germane reason, such as fail to match Obama's numbers or to avoid looking desperate.

2) They couldn't do it, it is technically very difficult to process such outpour of money Obama's website was overwhelmed last night and a phone banking operation to process 1M/Hour is not easy or cheap to setup.

I don't doubt HRC will be able raise that amount of money, in 2007 she raised 15M+ more than BHO, albeit with a fewer contributors and more maxed-out ones but she got 7.3M votes two days ago just like Obama. My concern is that this 3M+ announcement might include a large amount of "pledges" to make it look good on a press release to counter the 5M loan flap.

Regardless of their intentions Obama supporters are determined to beat the 5M+3M the last figure 7.5M before 11am EST
Best

Ernesto

So by now, we're all familiar with the rudiments of the delegate selection process. We ordinary folk go to the polls or the precinct caucuses (or in Texas, both) and cast our votes. Those are tallied, and eventually used to determine all of the pledged delegates, of whom there are 3,253. Then there are the superdelegates, the party bigwigs who get their tickets to Detroit no matter what, of whom there are 796. And that's the end of the story.

But it turns out that not all superdelegates are the same. For 720 of them, the process works pretty much as you'd expect - they hold public office, a seat on the DNC, or have held an important position in the past. We know who they are, we're tracking their endorsements, and we're tallying their support.

But then there are the 76 Unpledged Add-on Delegates, the ones I'll call UADs for short. These aren't necessarily party bigwigs. In fact, we don't know who they are at all, because they haven't even been selected yet. But as a block with 76 votes, there as important as any midsized state. <i>And if we look closely, we can already figure out how more than half of them are going to vote.</i>

Here's how it works. Every state is eligible to receive one UAD for every four DNC members it possesses (except for DC, which is stuck with just 2). Since the party chair and vice-chair of every state serve on the DNC, and the rules stipulate that the total be rounded up to the nearest integer, that means every state gets at least one UAD. Some get more. Illinois gets three, for example, and California has five. And it's up to the state parties to decide how to select these delegates. In the past, they've typically been awarded as plums to political insiders. Since they're not distributed until late in the process, they've never had an impact on determining the nominee. But this year, that's going to change.

States have adopted a wide range of methods for selecting UADs. Those include a vote of the state party committee; a vote of the entire state convention; a vote of the entire delegation to the DNC; or, in some cases, a vote of one of those bodies that's a sham, because the state chair only presents the nominees he wants to serve. Because the methods vary widely, it's not always possible to figure out which way these delegates will lean. But in most cases, we can be fairly certain. Although these delegates are formally unpledged, I can guarantee that any candidate who controls a majority of the body which awards them will ensure that the slots are reserved for their own supporters. That's right - there's nothing proportional about it. For UADs, the system is winner take all. And that allows us to start to compile a tally.

Here's a quick rundown of states that have already voted:
            Clinton       Obama      Undetermined
Iowa:        0                0                  1
NH:          0                0                  1
NV:          1                0                  0
SC:           0                0                  1
AL:           0                0                  1
AK:          0                 1                 0
AR:          1                 0                 0
AZ:           0                 0                 1
CA:          5                 0                 0
CO:          0                 1                 0
CT:          0                  0                 1
DE:          0                 1                 0
GA:          0                 0                 2
ID:           0                 1                 0
IL:            0                 3                 0
KS:          0                  1                 0
MA:         0                 0                 2
MN:        0                  2                 0
MO:        0                  0                 2
ND:         0                  0                 1
NM:        0                  0                 1
NJ:          0                  0                 2
NY:          0                  0                 4
OK:         0                  0                 1
TN:          0                  0                 2
UT:          0                  1                 0

Total:       7                 11               23

Those aren't enormous numbers, but I'll continue to track this, and I suspect the tallies will mount with time. For now, the result is a four delegate advantage for Obama that's not acknowledged in any tally of which I'm aware.

Now, a few words to forestall howls of outrage in the comments section. The most common method of selecting UADs in caucus states is a vote at the state convention; the most common method in primary states is a vote of the state committee. That confers certain advantages on a candidate who runs strongly in caucuses - in this case, Obama. He's already got the votes he needs to secure those UADs. Now it's likely that the state committees that meet in states that one candidate carried will choose delegates who will back that candidate - but we don't actually know that. A few examples. Hillary is almost certain to carry the four UADs from NY. But in Massachusetts, Obama still has the backing of a significant number of institutional players, even though he lost the primary. Similarly, Hillary has lots of endorsements in SC. So where the majority of people who will choose these delegates haven't publicly committed to supporting a particular candidate, I've left the delegates in the undecided column.

One other note: I'm sure I got things wrong! Please use the comments section to point out the error of my ways.

I'm running on empty but this last gasp of writing is to suggest that we have lost a coffeehouse but gained a Wal-Mart. Yes, there is coffee, yes, there are tables, and yes, there are customers. But you don't go there for the coffee, or the people.

And the purpose of the Wal-Mart coffee shop is not coffee or conversation, but keeping the customers in the store longer. That is the purpose of TPM Cafe. It's a reversal of an old media model, that of providing a good read to earn income, into the modern, TV version, that of providing an audience for the advertiser.

Even though newspapers earn most of their income from ads, the product got started with the older model, and it still carries some of the original emphasis. TV and radio, by comparison, got started with an understanding that only advertising could pay the bills, without a purchase needed to hear programs.

So now we have the abomination of TV programming that is designed only to render up an audience for advertisers, delivered by a subscription service that promised to free programming from that, and yet insults us with advertisements that we have paid to see. And blogs are discovering the power of this business model.

TPM is now another audience-delivery system. It's a living, I guess.

There are a couple of very strange bedfellows appearing together these days on the Senate floor -- The Economic Stimulus Package and the effort to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).  The Democrats failed by one vote to get their package past the waiting Republican filibuster.  OCP (our current president) will probably get his way for the umpteenth time with this spending measure.  And it is not a tragedy for the country.

Action regarding the FISA reauthorization is another thing.  If it is passed into law the way the Bush administration and their Republican Senate surrogates want, it will be a tragedy for the country.  The resulting diminution of Fourth Amendment rights to privacy and prohibition of unreasonable search and seizure is incalculable.

Do not just take my word for it.  Constitutional lawyer Glenn Greenwald often posts about this issue at Salon.com.  To quote from his most recent article two days ago:

This is really, really scary. We better forget about checks and balances and oversight and restraints of any kind and everything else and just make sure that the President can spy on our emails and telephone calls with no oversight, otherwise Al Qaeda is going to slaughter us in our Homeland. And we also better make sure that telecommunications corporations don't have consequences when they break the law, otherwise we're doomed, because Al Qaeda is coming.

What do I mean, more specifically ? At my main blog, South by Southwest, I often write about the FISA flap.  The points I make are these:
1) Telecommunications companies scoop up (data mine) our communications for the government to look at if they choose, much of the time without the warrant required in the Constitution.
2)  The Bush administration is holding the current legislation hostage to a grant of retroactive immunity to these companies for that unlawful behavior begun almost at the start of Bush's term.
3)  This would be unconstitutional because Congress is forbidden from imposing its will on court decisions, under the separation of powers doctrine.
4)  In addition to the Congressional Intelligence committees overseeing and helping the National Security apparatus to "protect Americans" from terrorists, the Judiciary Committees have a co-equal duty to "protect American"  civil liberties under the constitution.
5)  The complexity of the current world of electronic surveillance and the FISA statutes that govern the Governments use of it to spy on people, does not  excuse Congress from exercising very informed and vigorous oversight of the entire intelligence community.  The Executive Branch claims that certification by the Attorney General or the Director of National Intelligence constitutes some sort official oversight.  It does not.  Self-monitoring in not the oversight required of the three co-equal branches of government to check and balance each other under the U.S. constitution.
6) No Senator or House member is required to get a security clearance.  The Bush administration  cannot lawfully deny them access to the official  information held by the Executive branch.  A fight about it would be mediated by the courts, but no one ever wants to take it to that level and precipitate a so-called constitutional crisis.

And so these strange bedfellows -- intervening in an economic recession and intervening in the collection of foreign and domestic intelligence -- live together on the Senate floor.  They always have to fight to get the chance to amend the legislation, to get the obligatory 60 votes on anything that matters, and to get the interest of legislators' constituencies.

I guarantee it is worth your interest, study and citizen action.  The recession will come and go, having its own way with us.  But FISA is not like that.  Domestic surveillance will have its way with us, unless we say "no," through our elected representatives.  This link contains all the phone numbers you need, including free "800" numbers that can transfer you to Senate offices.

Looking at Tuesday's results, it's even it's even harder to argue that demographics aren't the primary driver in voting in the Democratic contest.  As Adam Nagourney writes in the NYT:

The Obama Democratic Party is made up of younger voters (under 44), blacks, white men (to a more limited extent) and independents whose show of support accounted for his victories in states like Missouri. Their level of enthusiasm for Mr. Obama — their excitement about the possibility of an Obama White House — is palpable in their response to him, or in any conversation.

The Clinton Democratic Party is the party of women, older voters, Hispanics and also some white men. A Clinton rally may not have the energy of a rock concert the way an Obama rally does. Yet the older women who have embraced Mrs. Clinton as the culmination of years of hope and other core supporters are no less passionate in their intensity and devotion.

It's more accurate however to say that white men are the swing group. White men in California, Missouri and Illinois went for Obama, but in the South, Massachusetts, and New York they went for Hillary. 
Even more, accurately, young men went for Obama pretty much everywhere, older men went for Hillary almost everywhere.  Without a dog in the fight, middle aged white men appear to be the swing group that will determine whether a woman or black man is the first to capture their party's Presidential nomination.

Who says were in the post-ironic age?

I live in California and I'm a very dedicated supporter of Obama, and I'm very concerned. I'm sure by now some of you have heard of these false, damaging emails being forwarded around about Obama. Emails saying he's Muslim (not that there's anything wrong with that, but he's not), and that he's going to "destroy the country from within", etc... For a while I just laughed these emails off, but in the last week alone, I've heard of three different people who believed them! One of these people in question being Hispanic, and with the results of Super Tuesday's primary here, I now believe this is a serious problem.

When people don't actively pay attention, when they are only casually involved in current events, something as simple as a false email can go a long way towards making up their mind. 

Can we investigate where these emails come from?  Are they secretly Hillary supporters?  GOP operatives?  And what can be done to set the record straight?