Wow

What can you say to what he has done with this campaign? Any dem (Im an Independent) who doesn't want this guy at the front of the party is nuts.

Josh has called out those voters who say that they will vote for McCain if their preferred candidate for the Democratic nomination loses. Ok, it's his blog, he can say whatever he wants, but he is wrong. Josh goes on to label those of us who would do this, "emotional infantilism." I suggest that instead of calling names, Josh should make an effort to see things from a different perspective.

Josh's analysis, briefly is this, on the issues there isn't any significant difference between Obama and Clinton. Both candidates have similar policies on health care, taxes, social security and the environment. Both have similar policies on Iraq.

Their policies are quite different from McCain, and this is the crux of why Josh thinks that anyone who would vote for McCain instead of Clinton or Obama would just be shooting themselves in the foot, or in his words, "shows as clearly as anything that one's ego-investment in one's candidate far outstrips one's interest in public policy and governance."

Ignoring the dime store psychology, and as a purely logical argument, if I accept Josh's presuppositions, then his conclusions follow. Of course, I don't accept his presuppositions.


Obama and Clinton have no similarities at all on the issues that I care about. Sure, both have a stack of policy papers on health care, global warming, the environment and Iraq that most of their supporters would be unable to tell apart. But, for me, the issue isn't the policy papers, it is what is actually going to happen after the candidates become the President. If policy papers mattered, the we would have had 7 years of compassionate conservatism and a humble foreign policy under the Bush administration.

Here's how I see the issues.

Iraq


In my opinion, Clinton will be hobbled in her ability to extricate us from Iraq. In voting to authorize the war, Clinton gave up whatever moral and political authority she would have had to begin a prompt and speedy withdrawal. Obama has not. Clinton's statements will be doubted, and her actions second guessed in a way that Obama's won't be. McCain will have a Nixon-to-China advantage to be able to act freely and will be much better able to either 1) declare victory or 2) admit defeat than Clinton. McCain will be able to begin to withdraw our troops soon just because he has stated that it is ok if we are in Iraq for 100 years. So on this issue, ignoring the policy papers and concentrating only on outcomes that I want, I rank the candidates Obama - McCain - Clinton.

US Moral and Political Standing


This is as an important issue as Iraq to me, perhaps more important. Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, torture, illegal surveillance, and violation of international laws and standards have tarnished the our standing in the world and more importantly are a danger to our national security and stability. If European intelligence agencies cannot cooperate with us because we practice torture or Canada refuses to extradite criminal suspects to the US, these are significant dangers to our long term security and stability.

Again, I think that Clinton is compromised in her ability to deal with these issues. Her experience, such as it is, is in becoming a member of and a representative of, the status quo. McCain is a maverick, Obama an outsider.

Both McCain and Obama will be able to strongly repudiate torture, Clinton will have to waffle on some "I was a New Yorker on 9/11" pretext. I don't believe Clinton stand up for our 4th amendment protections. So on this issue I rank the candidates Obama - McCain - Clinton.

Decison Making and the National Dialogue

But the most important issue isn't covered anywhere in any policy paper, it is presidential decision making style. We have had 7 years of the Bush style of decison making. Briefly, I would describe this style as make shit up, lie repeatedly, and question your opponents patriotism so that you can do whatever you want. In response to this decison making style, there has really been no room for a national dialogue and there is very little broadly shared understanding of the issues facing the nation. We don't need another decider, we need a leader.

Fortunately any of the three candidates will be an improvement over Bush, but I believe that McCain's shoot from the hip style of decsion making will not be as bad for the nation as Clinton's polarizing personality and divisiveness. I am also unimpressed by Clinton's actions in voting for the AUMF and in her later refusal to engage in any dialogue about that decision. I believe that she voted as she did with an eye on the 2008 electoral calculus, and not on the basis of logic or evidence. McCain is almost as bad in refusing to engage in dialogue or to explain himself, but not quite as bad in my estimation.

Obama is by far the superior candidate on this measure; just imagine how far a series of speeches like last Wednesday's Philadelphia speech would advance our national dialogue. On this issue, I rank my candidates Obama (by far) - McCain - Clinton.


I could go on: Health Care - Clinton can have any policy that she wants, but she isn't going to accomplish it, etc. but, long story short, I reject Josh's implicit definition of what "the issues" are.

I care about the issues, but I care more about the outcomes on those issues than the candidate's policy position papers.

Furthermore, Josh should really keep his name calling to himself until he becomes more competent at reading other's minds.

Not outraged by the Politico column?

Where do I start?

 1. After the primary season is over, we will count primaries only, and add Florida.  I will give in on not adding Michigan, though as a Michigander, I am outraged by what Dean did to us. There will be several ways to look at the popular vote.  Remember Florida 2000?  The results were examined under at least 9 difference set of assumptions.  Here are the assumptions on the popular vote, and likely winners:

1. Sanctioned primaries and caucuses, with estimates.  Obama likely wins
2. Sanctioned primaries only (no caucuses, which are un-democratic, and will likely never be used again).  Michigan and Florida are not in here. Obama likely winner
3. Sanctioned primaries, caucuses, and Florida.  Clinton likely winner, but this will be very tight.  Hillary is going to win PA by over 300,000 votes
4. Sanctioned primaries, caucuses, Florida, and Michigan, but Obama gets all uncommitted in Michigan: Clinton likely wins
5. Sanctioned primaries, caucuses, Florida and Michigan, with only Hillary’s vote counting in Michigan (Obama knew he would lose so he took his name off the ballot). Clinton wins
6. All primaries, with Florida and Michigan (Obama gets uncommitted).  Caucuses are out.  Clinton likely wins.

 

1. Let’s start using the electoral college analysis that will performed by the major polling outfits.  If you combine this data with the different popular vote scenarios above, you will find that Clinton has a legitimate case to be made. 
1. Let’s tale the midpoint of the scenarios above, and say the popular vote is about 50-50.  That is close to what it will be, though I am inclined to believe that Clinton will be ahead by a point (under certain scenarios).  What we will have is Clinton winning 50% of the vote but only about 47% of the delegates (though this will likely be 52-48 at the end).  That tells you that the delegate selection system is unfair and undemocratic.  Let’s be consistent democrats: if we believe in popular vote, let’s believe in popular vote.
2. The number of states won is totally and completely bogus.  It is irrelevant in any evaluation, and needs to be omitted from any discussion.  In this scenario, Americans abroad, with 22,000 votes, counts as much as the 2.7 million Texas voters.  And that big Obama win in the Virgin Islands is as important as California?  If we want to start counting states, here is how to count: What is the electoral college vote totals of states won by Clinton and Obama.  Ok, that does not make sense?  Well it makes more sense than equating the Virgin Islands with California.  Of course, this state total is supported by the Obama for President channel, aka MSBNC.
3. Can you say 527 group and Wright?  It will be grainier than a Willie Horton ad.

 

1. Conclusion: The Politico column, like you JM, and the entire MSNBC Obama for President Channel (sans Pat B), see everything through Obama-colored glasses.  This is the bias in the media.  It is not as simple as anti-Clinton bias, though that certainly exists.  Example: Russert states that if Michigan and Florida count, black people will riot in the streets of Denver (he does not say it like this, but that is his conclusion).  He says this cannot be fair.  But what about the other perspective; lets say Michigan and Florida are given 50-50 as Obama wants.  Why is this not totally unfair to Clinton?  You, JM, and Russert and Matthews and Dowd and Gloria B, as well as all the other Obama-chill up their leg crowd only see the race from Obama’s perspective.

 

1. The race card:
1. Obama is very talented and gave a nice speech.
2. Obama joined the Wright church to enhance his street cred in the Chicago black political community.
3. The Clinton campaign, with very high probability, had the Wright clips all along, but chose not to use them.  Yet Bill Clinton’s comments are called coded racism, and called the ghettoization of Obama.  If the Clintons wanted to use the race card, they would have pushed the Wright tapes much earlier than the republicans have.

 

1. As a Hillary fan, here is my objective view:
1. I have watched almost all 20 debates, and she is simply more prepared and more knowledgeable than Obama.  I know others think grasp of issues is not as important as vision and choirs, but that is my bias.  They are both good, but she is simply better than him. 
2. She should have pushed her Senate experience, reaching across the aisle, more than her first lady experience.  Obama has never reached across the aisle.  We heard he did this in the Illinois legislature.  We also heard W. did this in the Texas statehouse.  Hillary is respected by colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
3. The 47% of people who oppose Hillary is based on irrational fears and biases.  Can this be changed?  Absolutely.  What JM and others in the media have never discussed is how Hillary, as the nominee, will get a serious look by the country, and an examination that is not based on Monica or her 1993 health care initiative.  People will see what we have during the primary season, and her negatives will go lower; the 527’s cannot bring up stuff we do not know about her, and people will grow to respect her.
4. The red phone ad was lame, and likely moved less people than is claimed.

 

<h1>Obama's Church is Racist</a></h1><p class="commentary_date">Saturday, March 22, 2008 - Matthew Weaver</p><p>Obama's Trinity United Church of Christ, which he has been a member for 20 years, was married at, his children baptized at, and his family contiues to attend and financially support is unmistakeably racist.&nbsp;&nbsp;How?  Consider their "Black Value System"  that the church adopts and states "...must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schooles, whereever Blacks are gathered."&nbsp;&nbsp;First, consider the <a href="http://tucc.org/black_value_system.html" target="_blank" title="Click to open in a new browser window">direct text</a> (below), then re-read with Black replaced with White.&nbsp;&nbsp;Any organization, church or otherwise, that set this as their standard would be clearly and likely universally labeled as racist.&nbsp;&nbsp;Thus, it is fair to conclude, in my opinion, that Trinity United Church of Christ is also racist.&nbsp;&nbsp;Obama's 20  year membership puts his character and suitability into question just as it would a member of a similary guided "White Christian Church."</p><p>THE BLACK VALUE SYSTEM</p><p>Trinity United Church of Christ adopted the Black Value System ... in 1981. ....These Black Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Blacks are gathered.  They consist of the following concepts:</p><ol><li>Commitment to God.  “The God of our weary years” will give us the strength to give up prayerful passivism and become Black Christian Activists, soldiers for Black freedom and the dignity of all humankind.</li><li>Commitment to the Black Community.  The highest level of achievement for any Black person must be a contribution of strength and continuity of the Black Community.</li><li>Commitment to the Black Family.  The Black family circle must generate strength, stability and love, despite the uncertainty of externals, because these characteristics are required if the developing person is to withstand warping by our racist competitive society.</li><li>Those Blacks who are blessed with membership in a strong family unit must reach out and expand that blessing to the less fortunate.</li><li>Dedication to the Pursuit of Education.  We must forswear anti-intellectualism.  Continued survival demands that each Black person be developed to the utmost of his/her mental potential despite the inadequacies of the formal education process.  “Real education” fosters understanding of ourselves as well as every aspect of our environment.  Also, it develops within us the ability to fashion concepts and tools for better utilization of our resources, and more effective solutions to our problems.  Since the majority of Blacks have been denied such learning, Black Education must include elements that produce high school graduates with marketable skills, a trade or qualifications for apprenticeships, or proper preparation for college.</li><li>Basic education for all Blacks should include Mathematics, Science, Logic, General Semantics, Participative Politics, Economics and Finance, and the Care and Nurture of Black minds.</li><li>Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence.   To the extent that we individually reach for, even strain for excellence, we increase, geometrically, the value and resourcefulness of the Black Community.  We must recognize the relativity of one’s best; this year’s best can be bettered next year.  Such is the language of growth and development.  We must seek to excel in every endeavor.</li><li>Adherence to the Black Work Ethic.  “It is becoming harder to find qualified people to work in Chicago.”  Whether this is true or not, it represents one of the many reasons given by businesses and industries for deserting the Chicago area.  We must realize that a location with good facilities, adequate transportation and a reputation for producing skilled workers will attract industry.  We are in competition with other cities, states and nations for jobs.  High productivity must be a goal of the Black workforce.</li><li>Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect.  To accomplish anything worthwhile requires self-discipline.  We must be a community of self-disciplined persons if we are to actualize and utilize our own human resources, instead of perpetually submitting to exploitation by others.  Self-discipline, coupled with a respect for self, will enable each of us to be an instrument of Black Progress and a model for Black Youth.</li><li>Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness.”  Classic methodology on control of captives teaches that captors must be able to identify the “talented tenth” of those subjugated, especially those who show promise of providing the kind of leadership that might threaten the captor’s control.</br>Those so identified are separated from the rest of the people by:<br />1. Killing them off directly, and/or fostering a social system that encourages them to kill off one another.<br />2. Placing them in concentration camps, and/or structuring an economic environment that induces captive youth to fill the jails and prisons.<br />3. Seducing them into a socioeconomic class system which, while training them to earn more dollars, hypnotizes them into believing they are better than others and teaches them to think in terms of “we” and “they” instead of “us.”<br />4. So, while it is permissible to chase “middleclassness” with all our might, we must avoid the third separation method – the psychological entrapment of Black “middleclassness.”  If we avoid this snare, we will also diminish our “voluntary” contributions to methods A and B.  And more importantly, Black people no longer will be deprived of their birthright: the leadership, resourcefulness and example of their own talented persons.</li><li>Pledge to Make the Fruits of All Developing and Acquired Skills Available to the Black Community.</li><li>Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions.</li><li>Pledge Allegiance to All Black Leadership Who Espouse and Embrace the Black Value System.</li><li>Personal Commitment to Embracement of the Black Value System.  To measure the worth and validity of all activity in terms of positive contributions to the general welfare of the Black Community and the Advancement of Black People towards freedom.</li></ol><p>Now, the same with White replacing Black:</p><p>THE WHITE VALUE SYSTEM</p><p>Trinity United Church of Christ adopted the White Value System ... in 1981. ....These White Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Whites are gathered.  They consist of the following concepts:</p><ol><li>Commitment to God.  “The God of our weary years” will give us the strength to give up prayerful passivism and become White Christian Activists, soldiers for White freedom and the dignity of all humankind.</li><li>Commitment to the White Community.  The highest level of achievement for any White person must be a contribution of strength and continuity of the White Community.</li><li>Commitment to the White Family.  The White family circle must generate strength, stability and love, despite the uncertainty of externals, because these characteristics are required if the developing person is to withstand warping by our racist competitive society.</li><li>Those Whites who are blessed with membership in a strong family unit must reach out and expand that blessing to the less fortunate.</li><li>Dedication to the Pursuit of Education.  We must forswear anti-intellectualism.  Continued survival demands that each White person be developed to the utmost of his/her mental potential despite the inadequacies of the formal education process.  “Real education” fosters understanding of ourselves as well as every aspect of our environment.  Also, it develops within us the ability to fashion concepts and tools for better utilization of our resources, and more effective solutions to our problems.  Since the majority of Whites have been denied such learning, White Education must include elements that produce high school graduates with marketable skills, a trade or qualifications for apprenticeships, or proper preparation for college.</li><li>Basic education for all Whites should include Mathematics, Science, Logic, General Semantics, Participative Politics, Economics and Finance, and the Care and Nurture of White minds.</li><li>Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence.   To the extent that we individually reach for, even strain for excellence, we increase, geometrically, the value and resourcefulness of the White Community.  We must recognize the relativity of one’s best; this year’s best can be bettered next year.  Such is the language of growth and development.  We must seek to excel in every endeavor.</li><li>Adherence to the White Work Ethic.  “It is becoming harder to find qualified people to work in Chicago.”  Whether this is true or not, it represents one of the many reasons given by businesses and industries for deserting the Chicago area.  We must realize that a location with good facilities, adequate transportation and a reputation for producing skilled workers will attract industry.  We are in competition with other cities, states and nations for jobs.  High productivity must be a goal of the White workforce.</li><li>Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect.  To accomplish anything worthwhile requires self-discipline.  We must be a community of self-disciplined persons if we are to actualize and utilize our own human resources, instead of perpetually submitting to exploitation by others.  Self-discipline, coupled with a respect for self, will enable each of us to be an instrument of White Progress and a model for White Youth.</li><li>Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness.”  Classic methodology on control of captives teaches that captors must be able to identify the “talented tenth” of those subjugated, especially those who show promise of providing the kind of leadership that might threaten the captor’s control.</br>Those so identified are separated from the rest of the people by:<br />1. Killing them off directly, and/or fostering a social system that encourages them to kill off one another.<br />2. Placing them in concentration camps, and/or structuring an economic environment that induces captive youth to fill the jails and prisons.<br />3. Seducing them into a socioeconomic class system which, while training them to earn more dollars, hypnotizes them into believing they are better than others and teaches them to think in terms of “we” and “they” instead of “us.”<br />4. So, while it is permissible to chase “middleclassness” with all our might, we must avoid the third separation method – the psychological entrapment of White “middleclassness.”  If we avoid this snare, we will also diminish our “voluntary” contributions to methods A and B.  And more importantly, White people no longer will be deprived of their birthright: the leadership, resourcefulness and example of their own talented persons.</li><li>Pledge to Make the Fruits of All Developing and Acquired Skills Available to the White Community.</li><li>Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions.</li><li>Pledge Allegiance to All White Leadership Who Espouse and Embrace the White Value System.</li><li>Personal Commitment to Embracement of the White Value System.  To measure the worth and validity of all activity in terms of positive contributions to the general welfare of the White Community and the Advancement of White People towards freedom.</li></ol>

Joshua Marshall continues to bridge the divide caused by the emotional infantilism.

He shares a "most feared scenario" offered by a reader, which concludes with the same question heard over and over again: how can we get Candidate Hillary to go away?

She could start winning big time in this home stretch and make a convincing case the superdelegates.....

Hmmmmm.......   What to do??

I don't speak for Sen Clinton or her campaign, but I believe your candidate, his campaign and his supporters have brought it on yourselves.

Time and time again, he failed to seal the deal with the voters.

Now we have the Wright problem to worry about.

Day after day he continues to alienate core Clinton support, because short of attacking her character he has nothing left to run on.

It started long before Iowa but it rang the alarm bells with "You are likeable enough". And we are now starting to see it on full display.

We tried to spin it using the pledged delegate lead as the key metric. When ignoring the nomination rules didn't help dislodge the evil lady from NY, we tried the opposite, urging the utmost respect for the rules for the MI/FL issue. 

Now we have the latest idea: let's pressure the superdelegates to come out in droves for Sen. Obama, that will surely finish her off!

Let's go back to our premise: it would be better for Sen. Obama if Sen Clinton ended her campaign, effective immediately.

I have a suggestion: instead of trying to help Sen Obama by looking for ways to push Clinton out of the race, why don't you think if you are actually asking the right question.

Also, some thinking about emotional infantilism will go a long way.

And you could always check with John McCain about his answer to the famous question: "How do we kill the bitch?"

Short of all that, ricin could be an option.

Joshua Marshall continues to bridge the divide caused by the emotional infantilism.

He shares a "most feared scenario" offered by a reader, which concludes with the same question heard over and over again: how can we get Candidate Hillary to go away?

She could start winning big time in this home stretch and make a convincing case the superdelegates.....

Hmmmmm.......   What to do??

I don't speak for Sen Clinton or her campaign, but I believe your candidate, his campaign and his supporters have brought it on yourselves.

Time and time again, he failed to seal the deal with the voters.

Now we have the Wright problem to worry about.

Day after day he continues to alienate core Clinton support, because short of attacking her character he has nothing left to run on.

It started long before Iowa but it rang the alarm bells with "You are likeable enough". And we are now starting to see it on full display.

We tried to spin it using the pledged delegate lead as the key metric. When ignoring the nomination rules didn't help dislodge the evil lady from NY, we tried the opposite, urging the utmost respect for the rules for the MI/FL issue. 

Now we have the latest idea: let's pressure the superdelegates to come out in droves for Sen. Obama, that will surely finish her off!

Let's go back to our premise: it would be better for Sen. Obama if Sen Clinton ended her campaign, effective immediately.

I have a suggestion: instead of trying to help Sen Obama by looking for ways to push Clinton out of the race, why don't you think if you are actually asking the right question.

Also, some thinking about emotional infantilism will go a long way.

And you could always check with John McCain about his answer to the famous question: "How do we kill the bitch?"

Short of all that, ricin could be an option.

Why is it that virtually all of the discussion concerning the democratic primary is focused on obama's faith and skin color? since the weekly debates ceased, the campaigns have gone low brow tabloid and it appears as if the blogs have followed suit.
My elderly father made a comment the other day about the last depression not being called such until after the fact. It is shocking that the majority of discussion is focussed on the Reverend Wright while the economy is grinding to a halt with the real time effects being evidenced in our everyday lifes. If the republicans could start with the premise that the point of the war is secure the oil reserves for the future use of the american consumer, then we could start with a discussion of the merits. As I see it, at a certain point, all of the stated intentions of the candidates will be rendered moot with the defecit we will be facing due to the war and the continuing bailout of wall street due to the self created subprime fiasco. The budget will be decimated and the funds necessary for education, infastructure, health care and affordable housing will not exist.
 We are off point to date. The only public figure (although pushed from the public's earshot) is Nader. If for no other reason, his presence could bring the focus back to where it should be.

Someone needs to make a YouTube of this.. please modify as necessary.

Clinton Supporter Robin Purnell Hourly Wage:  $14/hr

Groceries for the Iowa Caucus:  $95,000

Howard Wolfson's Monthly Salary:  $267,000

Mandy Grundwald's One Month Media Services Fee:  $2.3 Million

Mark Penn's One Month Polling Fee:  $4 Million



Lying about facing snipers when she was actually facing a 8 year old girl holding flowers?   Priceless

Discussing Sen. Barack Obama's speech addressing race and controversial comments by his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, Pat Buchanan wrote in his syndicated column:

"Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American."... "no people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans," ... "We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude?"

i'm speechless....
why the hell is this guy on the air?

According to breaking news reports, the Michigan Congressional District
conventions (previously scheduled for March 29th) have been changed to
April 19th.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080322/POLITICS01/803220419

Most
of the national convention delegates are actually
selected at County/Congressional District conventions. In
communications to congressional district chairs, the state party chair
(Mark Brewer) has awarded Clinton 58% of the voting delegates and
100% of the alternates.

Michigan party rules drop all
candidates that didn't achieve 15%, leaving Clinton as the only
remaining candidate (other than uncommitted). Clinton barely won 55% of
the actual statewide
vote.

http://www.michigandems.com/2008DSP.pdf

See pages 6-9, sections III.A.6.a, 6.c(2), and 7.d(5)(b)(1).

Notes:

Section III.A.7 "District Conventions" comes after subsection 6, but is
mistakenly numbered 4, although there is already a subsection 4 earlier.

The rules conflict on the date that the delegates were to be awarded,
saying March 3 in section III.A.6.c(1), and March 22 in section
III.A.7.d(5)(b) and IX.D "Timetable".

I am another one who will not vote for Obama in the general.  McCain will beat him soundly and Hillary will run in 4 years if she cannot make it this time.  Obama's dirty laundry that has not been revealed yet will allow an easy McCain win so we better hope that Hillary wins the primary.

It’s good to see Josh directly addressing, in his “Goodbye, Cruel Ballot Box” post, the threats by some Democratic voters to sit out or vote McCain in 2008. It’s an important conversation that needs to begin now.

However, I disagree with him on a few points. By focusing on the minor public policy differences between Clinton and Obama, he underestimates what is at stake in the most divisive - but most realistic - scenario for a Clinton victory. And because of that, Josh gives no consideration to the rational and potentially justifiable reasons Obama supporters might give for not voting Clinton in the fall.

Before explaining why I disagree with Josh on these points, I should say a few things (as an Obama supporter). In the unlikely, nearly impossible event Clinton wins the nomination by passing Obama in pledged delegates, I’ll vote for her without hesitation. In the unlikely, nearly impossible event Clinton takes the nomination by pulling even in pledged delegates and winning via supers, I’ll vote for her with a tinge of regret. In the unlikely but not entirely implausible event Clinton takes the nomination by running off a string of victories between now and June, pulling very close in pledged delegates, and winning via supers, I’ll much more likely than not vote for her. And I don’t have much of a problem with labelling sitting out or voting McCain as emotional infantilism under most plausible scenarios like those just listed..

However, the most likely scenario for a Clinton victory doesn’t run like that - the most common victory scenario is that she’s still down in the delegate count by a substantial amount and the supers overturn the expressed wishes of a process in which millions upon millions of Democrats participated.

In that case, I don’t know what I’d do. Nor do I pretend to know right now what I think others should do. There could be massive, angry protests at the convention. The chances for a Democratic victory would be much diminished, even if angry Obama supporters didn’t sit out. A good chunk of one of the strongest, most loyal Democratic voting blocs could be alienated for several elections, perhaps forever. And there will be millions of Democratic voters asking themselves “What exactly is the point of voting or attending caucuses in a party nomination process if the process does not recognise the candidate with the most support as the winner?”

Speaking only for myself, I don’t have an answer to that question. Nor have I seen any convincing answers in the press or blogosphere. But I will say this - a political party that cannot supply a good answer to that question is a political party that does not deserve your vote or mine.

If the nominee is the pledged delegate leader, the question won’t come up. And perhaps the Democratic party can come up with an answer even if Clinton overturns a pledged delegate lead with superdelegates. I have my doubts. But if the Democratic party cannot give a good answer to the question everyone will be asking, I do not see how anyone could label citizens who choose not to vote Democratic in the fall or who turn to extra-electoral politics after an unjust nomination process as “emotionally infantile.”

You could object that I’m speculating on unlikely scenarios here, and I’d concede the point. You might even say that it’s extreme and irresponsible to discuss such divisive, remote possibilities. But if you believe it’s extreme and irresponsible or “emotionally infantile” to discuss potential consequences of the most likely scenario for a Clinton victory, what label would you apply to Clinton’s ongoing decision to continue her campaign?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOsGo_HWP-c
Email the link to everyone you know!

My children told me that I am too wrapped up in what is happening politically; that I have a negative view of the world.  It really hurt my feelings, and considering that it was more than two years ago, you would think I would have either moved on, or dealt with it in a positive way. 

Why,  today, am I at the point that I want a break from all this?  Well, in short, it is because of all the repetitive snarks between Obama and Clinton supporters (of which I am most certainly guilty as a strong Obama supporter).  I just happen to be sick of it all.

I am taking a break!

I am going to do alot of NetFlix movies, and read books,  check out the colleges that my sons have been accepted to, and apply for their FAFSA stuff and go on with my life.  I am sick and tired of parsing every word and trying to  figure out why people don't see the world like I do.

I am out of here!  (For Now)

Love Ya!

3/21/2008 MEMO: Obama Campaign: Just Words To: Interested Parties From: The Clinton Campaign Date: March 21, 2008 RE: Obama Campaign: Just Words At this point, it’s no secret that the Obama campaign is in political hot water given the news stories of the last few weeks and is desperate to change the subject. The ground is shifting away from them and their response? First, disenfranchise voters - Prevent new votes in Florida and Michigan. Stop voting in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Oregon, West Virginia, Puerto Rico, Kentucky, South Dakota, Montana, West Virginia and Indiana. Second, peddle photos of President Clinton shaking hands with Reverend Wright less than 48 hours after calling for a high-minded conversation on race. Well, President Clinton took tens of thousands of photos during his eight years as president. Stop the presses. Third, accuse our campaign of having something to do with Senator Obama’s passport file being breached, a reckless charge that has zero merit. Fourth, continue attacks on Senator Clinton’s character in an effort to implement what the Chicago Tribune called a full assault on her ethics. Fifth, stonewall the press: no tax returns, no state records, no answers about the inconsistencies in the Rezko story. So it’s not a pretty sight - it’s all part of a pattern of just words. Senator Obama talks about voter participation while actively disenfranchising millions. He calls for high minded debates while practicing lowdown politics. He promises a different kind of campaign while attacking Hillary’s character. He promises transparency while hiding basic info and stonewalling the press. It’s no wonder that Americans are coming to see that for all of his lofty rhetoric, Senator Obama’s candidacy is really just words. It’s no surprise that Americans are expressing serious doubts about his ability to answer the 3am call. It’s no wonder that top journalists are calling the Obama campaign desperate, saying that it’s amateur hour in Chicago.

    I am not sure what to say about President Clinton. I dont think his efforts to undermine Obama are ideologically driven, rather , they are driven by his pure self interest to get back in the White House by hook or crook. What is ironic is that millions of Dems voted for Bill Clinton even though they knew he clearly dodged the draft and was a womanizer. His talents and our thirst for change allowed us to overlook those deficiencies.

    Now he is using the Republican playbook to attempt to undermine Obama . His true colors are being exposed. Mind you, I voted for hime 2 times , compaigned for him and donated money ( as I have done for many Dems) His behavior this campaign was predictable but disturbing. What he and his wife failed to predict is the strong and palpable desire for change away form the politics of devision, code words and triangulation. Bill Clinton never got 50% plus 1 in popular vote and Senator Clinton would not either. She is simply unelectable, notwithstanding her campaigns protestations to the contrary.

     In my view Bill Clintons lying under oath and to the Amrican people about sex in the White House ( whatever you want to call it), the impeachment fight caused Al Gore the Election ( not Nader)and tarnished him forever. His subsequent behavior, unsavory business relationships and now his campaign antics will tarnish it furhter among his most loyal supporters and may be responsible for another loss.

    Although many of us once considered him a gift, he is now our worst nightmare, one which wakes me up sometimes at 3am. He lost me some time ago, but I suspect others have now caught on to what he is all about-- Ego and self interest. If it was anything else he would have advised his wife to bow out after she lost Wisconsin , Virginia and Wahington State by LANDSLIDES. How can a presumptive front runner justify a campaign where she has been so badly defeated in key states. While she has won a few, excluding her home state those wins were much closer and states which in all likelihood Obama will win in the general ( except Arkansas and Tenn) As to Fla where I live, she has no shot-- Really !! And frankly , while the Dems must compete there, absent a McCain collapse, an Obama win in Fla is equally unlikely.

    Her comparisons to Bill Clintons campaign are absurd, she was the presumptive nominee and he was relatively unknown. His losses and wins were nothing like the rejection of Senator Clinton in this campaign. While I suspect she will win big in Penn as the state is hard wired, this effort will not change the dynamic and the fact that Obama will have won more delegates , more states and probably more votes when all is said and done.

    The only thing which Bill and Hill will accomplish is further undermining Obama chances of winning in Nov., as to win they must destroy the Dems brightest star, most prolific grass roots fundraiser and organizer and the dreams and hopes of Millions of long time dems, new voters and independents. I dont think they will succeed as Obama has shown his mettle and his supporters wont be swift boated-- not by The Clintons and not by the Republicans and its media outlets ( Fox and Rush). If they do succeed in the short term, this jewish white male predicts it will be the end of the Democratic party as we know it. We shall see.

Here's another unscientific analysis of some data regarding relative national support for the two candidates.

Again following the "Halloween Mask" model, merchandise sales are a good indicator of popular support for a candidate. This particular sample looks at sales of lots on eBay turned up by a search for either "obama bumper sticker" or "hillary bumper sticker". The same could be done for buttons and t-shirts, but for this sample, I just focused on the primary format of American political expression: the bumper sticker.

There are a number of statistical variables that one should be aware of, and if I were a trained statistician I would know how to handle those numbers. First, there are a lot of anti-Obama and anti-Hillary stickers that were listed, but in smaller numbers than the pro-candidate examples. Second, the number of stickers per lot sold also varies. Most notable is the finding that the majority of the Obama sticker lots that sold were lots of five or ten stickers. Most of the Hillary lots were single stickers. Some lots were combinations of stickers, buttons and t-shirts, again, more of these multiple item lots were for Obama items.

eBay allows one to do a "Completed Listings" search for the past three weeks worth of sales, so these figures are for the period spanning 3/7 - 3/22. Sales appear to have been steady throughout the three weeks, with no "Wright effect" observed.

For the three-week period the numbers are as follows:

"hillary bumper sticker":
203 lots listed
33 pro-hillary lots sold
24 anti-Hillary lots sold.

"obama bumper sticker":
652 lots listed
286 pro-Obama lots sold
21 anti-Obama lots sold

Not counting that a majority of Obama lots were for 5-10 stickers, Obama lots are being listed at a rate of  3:1 over the Hillary lots, and are selling at a rate of  9:1 over Hillary lots in the same period.

If we take into account the 5-10 items per Obama lot, Obama is outselling Hillary in the neighborhood of 50:1 in the bumper sticker market.

Does this mean anything? I have no idea, and realize that I have too much time on my hands today. If you find these figures even remotely interesting, please it the "recommend" button. Thanks!

They're doing it to Bill Clinton again, this time accusing him of calling Barack Obama
"unpatriotic." 



Gen. Tony McPeak accused Clinton of McCarthyism today during
a rally in Oregon as Obama stood beside him, his arms folded, head
down, seeming
to agree, or at least not disagree.  McPeak was reading the
statement, so it was obviously planned, probably with the campaign's
approval. If not, the campaign would have repudiated it by now.

Of course, the cable networks -- CNN just a few hours ago -- and the Associated Press  today took just
the snippet that seems to make this case, omitting the fuller context
that makes it far less clear -- in fact, makes it seem innocuous.  Even the
biggest Clinton mind-reader and word parser -- who swears the man calculates everything, down to the ums and ahs --
would find it hard to interpret it that way in its totality.

Listen to all three, and judge for yourself.  This is the full version:  Here is a shorter version that provides some context, but was still
used by "Hardball" and other shows to show Clinton's McCarthyite tendencies. And here is the truncated version that could have the most insidious interpretation, for those seeking it.

This practice of playing carefully edited clips over and over again --
purposely leaving out sentences before and afterward that would give
the whole picture -- is the very thing  Obama decried in his excellent
speech on race last week. 

We can play Reverend Wright’s sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she’s playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we’ll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, “Not this time.”

Yet today he stands beside Gen. McPeak, tacitly, if not explicitly, comparing Bill Clinton to Joe McCarthy.   And by accepting the most malevolent interpretation of these clips, he is perpetuating the practice he so eloquently condemned.

This episode, combined with the Obama campaign's months-long effort to paint the Clinton as racists, is nothing short of character assassination, and Obama himself is complicit in it.

Every time I try to get used to Obama as the nominee, I recoil when I see him pretend to play the "new politics" game while trouncing Hillary at the old game, with a foul rarely, if ever, called by the refs.  The refs, as you've probably suspected, call fouls only on his opponent.

Trying to win by accusing your opponent's campaign of McCarthyism -- based on no evidence and a lot of suggestion -- could almost be considered McCarthyism itself, based on this definition::

"2. the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, esp. in order to restrict dissent or political criticism."

There's no better way to stifle criticism: Make incendiary charges that the media is all too ready to believe, about a political figure they'd like to take down, by a candidate all too willing to accommodate them.

Hillary Clinton revels in her image as a streetfighter who can take the fight to the Republicans in contrast to Obama the "Hopemonger".  

Imagine her surprise to find Bill Richardson, a dedicated Clintonik since her husband elevated from the House of Representatives to his cabinet, deftly twisting the knife in New York Times.  In essence, he said, I'm not going to tell her when to get out, but she's damaging the party by continuing.

Richardson was her faithful lapdog in 2007.  In debates and in the press, he and Dodd competed to affirm her ridiculous distortions of Obama's foreign policy speeches.

Neither expected that they could win the nomination, but they hoped that if they helped Clinton on her way to her coronation they might come in for the VP nod or at the very least one of the big four cabinet slots.

Dodd figured out a long time ago that Hillary was doomed.  Her only path to the nomination was to ignite a divisive race war that would cause African-Americans to stay home in November.  So he covered his bets and endorsed Obama.  He won't get a cabinet slot, but he could get a prominent ambassadorship.

Richardson, however, held out.  Watching, calculating, looking for an edge, waiting until he was sure.  It was clear he had learned from the master triangulators when he told Obama he was "99% sure", but didn't want to endorse until he had time to go on a vacation for two weeks (and the Texas primary had passed).

After the "More Perfect Union" speech, it was clear Obama had deftly deflected Hillary's final manure bomb.  Even Fox news anchor, Chris Wallace, couldn't stomach the vile stench emanating from his network as they pushed the Rev. Wright memes fed them by the Clinton campaign.

So Richardson made his move.  Perfectly timed to achieve maximum impact.  Just as the Obama campaign bottomed out and began to ascend toward the nomination.  Richardson didn't just give Obama a routine endorsement, he did it in a way calculated to do maximum damage to the Clinton campaign by signaling that it was now time for the party leadership to move to bring this contest to an end.

The outrage and surprise in the Clinton campaign is palpable as Carville compares Richardson to Judas.

We are at an inflection point in the campaign and if the press adopts the Obama come back meme, he will ride into the Pennsylvania primary on a rising tide of favorable coverage.

Clinton is at a very dangerous stage.  She realizes that the next 14 days may well be the last time that she will be seriously considered for the Presidential nomination.  Expect her to do all she can to ensure that Obama is damaged goods going into the General Election.

I've noticed in several website comment threads that folks are having a fun time mocking John McCain for his age.  I expect it will continue and it's tempting to join in. We can have fun with "McThuselah" jokes up to a certain point without a problem.  But I'll play the part of the scold and make a prediction: nasty age-related comments will be used in an attempt to neutralize racist comments against Barack Obama. "How can you get upset about (insert racist statement here) while saying (insert ageist statement here)?  It's harder to notice age-based discrimination and  harassment than it is to notice race-based discrimination and harassment.  After all, we all get older, right?

Discrimination and abuse against the elderly is a real and under-reported problem in our society.  Most older Americans can take a light-hearted jab without a problem; there's no need for over-sensitive "political correctness."  But as the intensity of the campaign shifts from Obama/Clinton to Obama/McCain, I'm making a plea to be careful with what you say.  Anger against McCain and his policies: yes.  Anger against McCain and his age: no. 

Age may become an electoral landmine.  Older Americans aren't the heaviest internet users, but they are the most likely demographic to vote.  And every vote counts.  Be careful out there.

http://thepage.time.com/clinton-camps-response-to-mcpeaks-mccarthy-comments/

So I'm watching CNN(more for background noise than anything else) and I hear Lou Dobbs doing a story on the Florida and Michigan redos. 
One fact missing he didn't quite make clear:
 the DNC rules, agreed to ahead of time by all candidates, state that delegates from Florida and Michigan would not count, because they moved up their primaries.  
 Can you do a story on this without stating why it became an issue in the first place?

To be fair,  Obama is quoted as saying that in Michigan, his name wasn't even on the ballot.  But a majority of the piece focused on Hillary's comments about how undemocratic it would be to disenfranchise voters.  
So many new voters are just starting to pay attention to the election,  especially those voters in Pennsylvania.  If they heard this story, it sounds like Obama is disenfranchising voters.
No self-respecting journalist can do a story on this without making clear that it only became an issue when the Clintons chose to break with the DNC rules.





 

i have to admit to the cyberworld that for a brief period, i was a registered republican. The reasoning was based on local politics. i live on the east end of long island where the democratic party seems more concerned with maintaining white picket fences then creating affordable housing, an accountable government, an environmental policy that does more than increase land values, etc. i never voted for a republican outside of the local elections but being a "republican" in itself was enough. i suppose i was trying to make a statement (without telling anyone other than a handful of friends). That's about it. Still not a registered democrat. the local dems are still lame.

Earlier
this week, I blogged as to whether or not it was time for Hillary Clinton to
close up shop on her campaign, whether before or after the Pennsylvania
primary (assuming she doesn’t have a earth-shaking victory, if any, there).

Now, as I note, the question is what happens to her after 2008?

Per the in-depth Politico story and other items linked
there, I noted that:

• Her campaign is essentially broke, including the fact that Barack Obama could outspend her 2-1 in Pennsylvania and still have $9 million on hand to drop on North Carolina, given their current finance numbers;

• She would have to do 60-40 in the vote in remaining primaries AND 2-1 in currently unpledged or yet-unnamed superdelegates;

• The release of White House logs from her years as First Lady have put the lie to her claims to have been ardently anti-NAFTA.

So, with all that in mind, assuming she doesn’t get the nomination in 2008, what happens to Hillary Clinton’s political life, future and plans after this summer?

 

Speculation 1. If Obama wins in 2008, that puts her next chance of a presidential run in 2016. And, as women like Geraldine Ferraro, or plenty an older Hollywood actress, would surely, and rightly, tell us, ageism has a sexism bias to it.

 

In other words, a 68-year-old Hillary Clinton ain’t going to get the nomination, and not just because she will even more seem to be a link to the past and not an “agent of change” in 2016.

 

Speculation 2. If Obama loses, a lot of intra-Democratic navel-gazing will probably point the finger at her, and quickly. Her 2012 nomination chances might not be “none,” but they would be “slim” indeed.

 

And, would she stay in the Senate, under either speculation? Her seat comes up for re-election in 2012, which would bollix things up more if Obama loses in the general this year.

 

Or, what if Obama wins? Does Clinton get a primary challenger, backed by the Obama White House, in her 2012 Senate race?

 

Hence, the almost desperate quality of her recent campaigning, most recently exemplified by the Slickster questioning Obama’s patriotism.

 

Huffington Post has more on Bill Clinton as desperation surrogate.

 

For more skeptical left-liberal blogging on a variety of issues, visit SocraticGadfly.

I have the urge to scream when I hear commentators and political experts, who should know better, assert that Clinton and Obama “need to stop bickering,” that “they” are hurting the party. Comments like these don’t square with the reality as I’ve come to know it.

The Clintons are the ones doing the damage here. They have been very successful at framing the race, which isn’t hard to do if you just keep on the attack. Last week they absurdly accused Obama of “playing the race card” after Clinton supporter Geraldine Ferraro’s remarks about his race.
 
It’s Alice in Wonderland time.

The only thing Obama has done to Clinton is to aggravate the heck out of her by (a) not engaging at her street-fight level, and (b) winning more states, more delegates, and more votes.
 
But Hillary Clinton claims that she has proven she is the most likely winner against John McCain because she won “all the big states” in the Democratic primaries.

It’s faulty reasoning; to accept this you have to believe that California, New York, Ohio and the remainder of the big blue states (Obama won Illinois) would automatically fall to the Republicans in an Obama-McCain match-up. Hard argument to make.

If Obama would only cede to Clinton the race he is winning — one in which she cannot now legitimately overtake him — all would be peaceful. Like a spoiled child, she seems determined to nag, browbeat, whine and stubbornly hold on until everyone else is exhausted and just gives in.
 
Some of those same misguided pundits and politicians suggest that the perfect solution is to put these two on the same ticket. I don’t think so.

Clinton has run a mean, dishonest, cynical campaign. The idea of both running together is idealistic to a fault, in my opinion. And not a good idea politically.

Nonetheless, the Clintons would have you believe they would offer Obama the vice-presidential spot, but if you trust a word they are saying you aren’t learning from history. The lying and cheating they’ve engaged in has completely alienated me, of all people.
 
But just for the sake of argument, imagine a Clinton/Obama ticket: That would present a near certainty that Mrs. Clinton’s high negatives throughout the country would (a) draw out more Republican voters and (b) cause not just a few Obama folks to just stay home — precisely because of the negative campaign she has run against him.

For that matter, can you imagine her choosing as VP someone who would outshine her? Or, for that matter, someone to whom she owes no favor?

Now imagine Obama/Clinton: If Hillary were the VP candidate, because of those high negatives, she would drag down the vote in the states Obama could win without her. The result would be losing many down-ballot races, so that even were Obama/Clinton to win it might well cost the Democrats important congressional seats.
 
Anyway, why would the guy who is in first place accept second place? Especially knowing that he would end up being part of a threesome, outnumbered by Clintons?

Finally, have you thought through what another four or eight years of Clintons in the White House would be like for the country?

I think she figures that she will by God be the nominee and devil take the hindmost; if that gives the election to McCain — who is better qualified anyway, according to her — then, so what? He likely would serve only one term and then she’ll be baa-ack!

People in the know have almost to a person acknowledged that in fact the candidates’ positions are so close on matters of substance, with differences primarily in how they would implement this or that idea, that it really has come down to which style of leader we want.

My own personal take on the choice is this:
 
Do we want someone who will tell us what to do, or someone who will persuade us to do it?  Do we want secrecy, or transparency? Do we want calculation and triangulation, or is it time to play it straight?
 
And, finally, do we want another four or more years of drama with all the same old players, or do we want a fresh start?

It simply astounds me that there are people stating that if their candidate (either Hillary or Obama) doesn't win that they will either not vote in the general election or they will vote for McCain.  Are we destined to lose another election and suffer 4 - 8 more years of the Iraq War, increasing abuse of our Constitution, a deeper economic crisis, a man with a temper so hot that even his OWN party members are fearful of the thought of him in the Oval Office and further deterioration of our country's reputation in the world opinion?

How can ANY person who is a Democrat or an Independent that even leans slightly towards the progressive side of things reasonably and rationally contemplate voting for McSame? Have they learned nothing from the past 7 years?  Are they really wanting things to continue as they are and get worse? Are they wanting to see if McCain will further commit us to Iraq rather than trying to extract us which he has said he will?  Are they really wanting to see if we can push things so far with Iran that we finally end up in another war that we can't afford financially let alone the cost in human lives?  Are they really wanting to turn over an economy already deeply in crisis to a man who admits he doesn't know much about the economy?

Anyone who has complained about the Bush Administration and then goes on to vote for McCain is a disgrace and a hypocrite.  Even Bush acknowledges that McCain will continue his policies.

So grow up, get over your childish bickering as to whom is better, Hillary or Obama, and do the right thing come November. Vte for the Democratic Nominee so that this Country finally has a chance to turn things around.

Earlier this week, I blogged as to whether or not it was time for Hillary Clinton to <a href="http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2008/03/time-for-clinton-to-close-up-shop.html">close up shop</a> on her campaign, whether before or after the Pennsylvania primary (assuming she doesn’t have a earth-shaking victory, if any, there).

Per the in-depth Politico story and other items linked there, I noted that:

• Her campaign is essentially broke, including the fact that Barack Obama could outspend her 2-1 in Pennsylvania and still have $9 million on hand to drop on North Carolina, given their current finance numbers;

• She would have to do 60-40 in the vote in remaining primaries AND 2-1 in currently unpledged or yet-unnamed superdelegates;

• The release of White House logs from her years as First Lady have put the lie to her claims to have been ardently anti-NAFTA.

 

So, with all that in mind, assuming she doesn’t get the nomination in 2008, what happens to Hillary Clinton’s political life, future and plans after this summer?

 

Speculation 1. If Obama wins in 2008, that puts her next chance of a presidential run in 2016. And, as women like Geraldine Ferraro, or plenty an older Hollywood actress, would surely, and rightly, tell us, ageism has a sexism bias to it.

 

In other words, a 68-year-old Hillary Clinton ain’t going to get the nomination, and not just because she will even more seem to be a link to the past and not an “agent of change” in 2016.

 

Speculation 2. If Obama loses, a lot of intra-Democratic navel-gazing will probably point the finger at her, and quickly. Her 2012 nomination chances might not be “none,” but they would be “slim” indeed.

 

And, would she stay in the Senate, under either speculation? Her seat comes up for re-election in 2012, which would bollix things up more if Obama loses in the general this year.

 

Or, what if Obama wins? Does Clinton get a primary challenger, backed by the Obama White House, in her 2012 Senate race?

 

Hence, the almost desperate quality of her recent campaigning, most recently exemplified by the Slickster <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080322/ap_on_el_pr/obama_patriotism_11">questioning Obama’s patriotism</a>.

 

Huffington Post has more on the Slickster <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/22/hes-back_n_92907.html">as desperation surrogate</a>.

 

For more skeptical left-liberal blogging on a variety of issues, visit <a href="http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com">SocraticGadfly</a>.

I volunteered for an afternoon today in the Montgomery County area of PA, an eastern part of the state, a big Philly suburb, where Obama is expected to derive a good number of votes.   The PA primary for Democrats takes place April 22nd, but the deadline for registration to vote in that primary is this coming Monday, March 24th.    In PA, one cannot vote in the Democratic primary unless one registers as a Democrat.

Our mission was to encourage new registrations of Democrats or, more importantly, to register Independents or Republicans willing to switch to being Democratic voters for the primary.

From my afternoon hours greeting mostly white men in front of a large hardware/appliance store and a large private gym (a local place along the lines of a Gold's), I was struck by the number of guys who reported they had already registered to vote.  There were those who asked me to help them switch, and my Obama affiliation was crystal clear, but who knows for whom they'll ultimately vote?  The point is I have a feeling there'll be amazing turnout on April 22nd from folks here who are well aware the national spotlight is on them. 

Obama has several weeks to climb back up in the polls in PA, and many who passed me on the way to their cars expressed interest or even excitement for the election in general.   The Obama camp is emphasizing major door-to-door canvassing next week...

I can scarcely believe my ears when I hear that Hillary vows to fight all the way to the Dem Convention.

Obama is the clear leader here. His ascendancy has made a nomination win for Hillary into a virtual impossibility.
 But she can still cause enough ruckus in the party, and incur enough rancor and needless expense to cost the Democrats an election that they should win.

I wouldn't mind having Hillary for president. I know she is a scrapper. But her uphill fight for the nomination could very possibly lose the party the election.

Should that occur I never want to hear another word from her.
Recovering from the unspeakable disaster of the last eight years needs to be the first priority. I think it is clear that can not occur if the republicans remain in power.

If she LOSES the general election she should be allowed no further voice in the party, in the media, nor in the government.

She can expatriate and move to Australia for all of me. If HILLARY loses this election, I hope she will.

After  all, Obama is a lead pipe cinch to win this, and he offers the first glimmer of hope of recovering Americas' greatness that we have seen in many years. He can't lose the general; election.

Hillary can. So she better not, unless she wants to become Gary Hart, Thomas Eagleton, Larry Craig and Ralph Nader all rolled into one person.

"[ed.note: A few readers seem to have had the misimpression
that we might agree with DT's email. Ummm ... not so. And in case
there's any question, most of DT's claims are patently false. Actually
I'm not sure there's a single claim that has any factual validity to
it. But sometimes I think it's worthwhile to know what folks on the
fringes are thinking, especially when the fringes are growing in toward
the center.]

I'm assuming that DT is short for Delirium Tremens.  It certainly isn't for Deep Thinking. 

Today Joshua Marshall woke up to the realities of supporters threatening to vote for a Republican or sit out the elections.

He sympathized, by pointing out that it's perfectly understandable - supporters get so emotionally invested in their candidate's success! He even compared it to the mean-spirited but ultimately harmless exchanged between lovers and friends.

Then, with surgical precision, Joshua Marshall made it clear that those friends and lovers who do not make up are really suffering from emotional infantilism. And it was that kind of infantilism that gave us the ghastly events of 1968.

Joshua Marshall pragmatically concluded that if you follow the temptation of infantilism by sitting out the election it would show that you do not really care about public policy and governance.

So I found it a only a little bit ironic that just yesterday the same wise Joshua Marshall spoke about the "Step 8".

In that post, Joshua Marshall told us what inspired that creative headline - his enthusiastic agreement with Politico which once again decl