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 declared, along with all other media, that it would be best for Barack Obama if Sen. Clinton ended her campaign, effective immediately.

I have no idea if Joshua Marshall will ever read this post.

If he did, I would like him to know that his new "thought of the day" is clear yet unchanged: Hillary Clinton needs to drop out in order for Barack Obama to win. And Clinton supporters must grow up and deal with it.

So please join me in praising Joshua Marshall for his uncommon healing powers and his immense contribution to bridging this divide.

I applaud your understanding of the Steps and your clever use of them at just  the right moment. As one of the people behind this site, you have shown me what emotional infantilism really looks like.

So yes, let's go back to the ballot box.

Perhaps it is the only way to see if your own way of dealing with emotional infantilism is by time-travel back to 1968.

AmericanDreamer nominated Cass Sunstein and Geoff Stone, both from the University of Chicago. Both have an Obama connection. Sunstein advised the candidate about wiretaps. Stone invited him to the University of Chicago. 

Sunstein was born in 1954, and clerked for Justice Thurgood Marshall. Stone was born in 1946, and clerked for Justice William Brennan. Stone has a blog that offers glimpses into his judicial views. 

These two are good. Thanks for the submission. Please continue offering more, everybody, particularly if they have a Clinton or Obama connection. The other thing I’m looking for are trial lawyer that would make a good judge.  

I see a lot of trash being flung around that Obama hasn't drawn much support from Republicans or Independents, and that he'll be even less successful than in the general election. Of course, the facts don't support this either. I don't think there's any need to repeat the poll results here, as this has been stated elswhere ad nauseum, but here's one interesting bit of info:

The "Republicans for Obama" bumper stickers, and the "Independents for Obama" buttons are sold out in the Obama Store at www.barackobama.com website. Someone is bothering to go to the official campaign site and order these items, which to me indicates some level of crossover support.

Unfortunately, we can't make any comparison to the Hillary campaign. There is no such thing as a "Republicans for Hillary" or "Independents for Hillary" button or bumper sticker available from her people. Is that telling in itself?

Same goes for www.johnmccain.com. Truth be told, would you expect to even see a "Democrats for McCain" sticker or button out there, anywhere? Independents maybe...

I find it very puzzling that people who claim African American voters will bolt the Democratic Party if the super delegates give the nomination to Clinton think the reason African Americans would do that is so obvious.  They never spell it out.   I guess what they're saying is if Obama gets the most pledged delegates and wins the popular vote (not counting Michigan and Florida) but the super delegates vote for Clinton, African Americans will assume the reason the super delegates picked Clinton had something to do with race.  But they never spell it out.   Is it that African Americans are going to think the super delegates themselves are bigots?  Is it that African Americans are going to conclude the super delegates picked Clinton because they think an African American can't beat McCain?  Is it that, no matter what the super delegates think about his chances, African Americans want Obama to be the nominee?  Do they want him to be the nominee even it they themselves think he will lose?  Is it some combination of all of the above?   Just once, I'd like to hear someone say clearly what they think will be going through the minds of those African American voters who are supposed to stay home or bolt the Democratic Party if Obama doesn't get the nomination.

AmercianDreamer recommended two: Geoff Stone and Cass Sunstein, both of the University of Chicago. 
Sunstein was born in 1954 and clerked for Thurgood Marshall. He looks to be around the right age for a Supreme Court appointment. He also advised Senator Obama about the wiretapping. A passage from his editorial, “In about 20 minutes, he and I investigated the legal details. He asked me to explore all sorts of issues: the president's power as commander in chief, the Constitution's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Authorization for Use of Military Force and more. Obama wanted to consider the best possible defense of what Bush had done. To every argument I made, he listened and offered a counterargument. After the issue had been exhausted, Obama said he thought the program was illegal, but now had a better understanding of both sides. He thanked me for my time. This was a pretty amazing conversation, not only because of Obama's mastery of the legal details, but also because many prominent Democratic leaders had already blasted the Bush initiative as blatantly illegal. He did not want to take a public position until he had listened to, and explored, what might be said on the other side.”

Geoff Stone was born in 1946, and clerked for William Brennan. He wrote a series of blogs about judicial philosophy. He also has an Obama connection. 

Please continue to nominate a few more, particularly if they have a relationship with Obama or Clinton. Thanks.  

Objective:  Senator Hillary Clinton now leads 46-44% over Senator Barack Obama int the Rasmussen Daily Tracking Poll.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows ongoing volatility in the Democratic Presidential Nomination. Nationally, Hillary Clinton now holds a very slight advantage over Barack Obama, 46% to 44%. Before the story broke about his former Pastor, Obama led Clinton by eight percentage points (see recent daily results). While the national polls remain close, Rasmussen Markets data gives Obama a 78.1 contract_type = "rasmussen";contract_id = 68180;node_id = 7608 + "_" + 7058;new Ajax("/extension/ajax/intrade_lastprice.php", {data: 'contractID=' + contract_id + '&contract_type=' + contract_type,method: 'get',update: $('intrade_' + node_id)}).request(); % chance to win the Democratic nomination while expectations for a Clinton victory are at 21.9 contract_type = "rasmussen";contract_id = 68178;node_id = 7607 + "_" + 188;new Ajax("/extension/ajax/intrade_lastprice.php", {data: 'contractID=' + contract_id + '&contract_type=' + contract_type,method: 'get',update: $('intrade_' + node_id)}).request(); %.

Looking ahead to the General Election in November, John McCain continues to lead both potential Democratic opponents. McCain leads Barack Obama 49% to 41% and Hillary Clinton 49% to 43% (see recent daily results). New polling shows McCain leading both Democrats in Georgia and Arkansas. In Minnesota, the race is very close.

On Saturday, Obama’s favorable ratings slipped a little further—46% favorable, 51% unfavorable. Before the Pastor Problem became big news, Obama was viewed favorably by 52%. One month ago, he was viewed favorably by 56%. McCain is viewed favorably by 54% of voters nationwide and unfavorably by 43%. For Clinton, those numbers are 43% favorable, 54% unfavorable (see recent daily results).

My Analysis
Based on my Levels of Evidence Rating System (Level I best rated polls like SUSA, Level II mildly well perfoorming polls like Zogby and the like, Level III Daily Tracking Polls), this is a Level III evidence poll.  Not the best, but better than speculation or opinion.

Here's where I lay out my level's of evidence:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/obama-regains-lead-in-the-gall.php

Interestingly, whereas the Gallup polls were showing Clinton ahead most of last week, Rasmussen had Obama ahead, now for whatever reason, they reverse again.  Gallup has Obama ahead, while Rasmussen has Clinton ahead.

Whether or not this relates to the style of polling or time course of the polling, it seems that Rasmussen lags a little in terms of the reflection of the populace.  That may be good news to Obama folks.  The other explanation may be right as well, that there is no real bump to Obama's speech and Richardson's endorsement.  Time will tell.

Objective:  Obama now is ahead 48-45% in the Gallup Daily Tracking Poll. 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105529/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Edges-Ahead-Clinton.aspx

PRINCETON, NJ -- Barack Obama has quickly made up the deficit he faced with Hillary Clinton earlier this week, with the latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking update on Democratic presidential nomination preferences showing 48% of Democratic voters favoring Obama and 45% Clinton.

Obama's campaign clearly suffered in recent days from negative press, mostly centering around his association with the controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Perhaps as a result, Clinton moved into the lead in Gallup's Wednesday release, covering March 16-18 polling. But Obama has now edged back ahead of Clinton due to a strong showing for him in Friday night's polling, perhaps in response to the endorsement he received from well-respected New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a former rival for the nomination. (To view the complete trend since Jan. 2, 2008, click here.)

My Analysis

It seems that Obama has weathered the harshest storm he has seen to date.  Not only did he stem the tide, the speech he gave and the Richardson endoresement likely puts him at an upswing as the week starts. 

While I hate to place any importance on polls, especially daily tracking polls, its all we got.  In medicine, we use Evidence Based Medicine.  Often our decisions are guided by rote learning, but when there is any studies published to guide our decision making, we refer to them.  The studies are graded Level I to Level III Evidence, with I being randomized, double blinded, controlled trials.  II being generally well done cohort retrospective of prospective randomized studies and III being published case studies or series without randomization.

Polls work the same way, I feel. 

Level I - large sample size, representative sample, well correlated to results in elections.

Level II - smaller sample size, represenstative sample, mildly correlated to results.

Level III - Daily tracking polls and the like.

To me, thsi is Level III evidence.  Its not somethign great, but its better than Pat Buchanan's opinion or any other person's opinion for that matter.

Taken as such, I think that Obama will gain greatly as more SD's come out for him and more endorsements come his way - not saying it will, but if it does.

... on Gallup. So contrary to what I thought in the darkest recesses of my mind after the Wright controversy broke and he made that speech, It looks like Obama might have shaken this thing (for now at least)

You can see the steady uptick from the day he made the speech till today in the gallup daily poll and I think we can now definitively say that his speech had a net positive effect.

I understand what Josh is trying to say but I think he papers over a key issue that merits discussion.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/184975.php

While the policy differences between the two campaigns are minimal, IMHO, there are marked differences in the candidates themselves and the way the two campaigns have conducted themselves.

The Clinton campaign expected a cake walk to the nomination. Instead, they have faced the most remarkably effective and uplifting presidential campaigns in my lifetime.

The manner in which the Clinton camp responded to the Obama threat has not been pretty. Bill Clinton's performance during the South Carolina primary was appalling. I was a mid-level staffer in the Clinton White House for many years. I defended him with friends and family during the Lewinski scandal. I thought he was a damned good president. My opinion of him has declined considerably.

After Wisconsin, the Clinton campaign responded like a cornered animal. As it became clearer that the delegate math was against them, the campaign concluded it's only chance was to tear down Obama. Their long-shot scorched earth strategy has been an ugly thing to witness. It has been a "say anything, do anything," ends-justifies-the-means approach to politics. I expect such behavior in a general election. But primaries are different, especially when there are no meaningful differences in policy between the candidates.

I had always assumed that I would support Clinton if she got the nomination. But my conscience began to be troubled by this question: Should I reward a Democrat with my vote who uses Republican political tactics to beat a fellow Democrat? Should I overlook the despicable means if the ultimate end is to beat a Republican in November?

I've tried to approach this as a pragmatic realist. I'm not a naive newbie when it comes to politics. I labored on my first campaign in 1972 when I worked for McGovern. I've since made a career of politics/policy advocacy.

In the end, it wasn't "emotional infantilism" that caused me to reach the idealistic conclusion that I couldn't support Clinton if she got the nomination. It wasn't childishness, rather, it was my advanced age and long experience in politics. I'm just too old for politics as usual. I have not been so excited by a political figure since I was mesmerized by RFK while in high school. I believe in Obama deep in my soul. He is truly a once-in-a-lifetime leader and I know that if this opportunity passes I will never see the likes of him again. OTOH, I find no inspiration whatsoever in Hillary Clinton.

After years of anger at the Atwater/Rovian tactics of the Republican Party, I concluded that I simply could not support a Democrat who would use such tactics to undermine such a remarkable Democratic candidate. So I shocked family and co-workers when I casually mentioned that I would sit the presidential election out if Clinton were the nominee. And I have stubbornly held that position for weeks despite the pleadings of my friends.

I would like to close with a plea to fellow Obama supporters. It is now becoming clearer by the day that Obama will be the Democratic nominee.

This will be the last time this year that I tell this story or speak unkindly of Hillary Clinton in any way. While I remain disappointed and bitter concerning her actions, continuing to express those feelings will do Barack Obama no good whatsoever.

It's time to for the healing to begin. I know that the feelings of some Clinton supporters mirror my own. I am not going to gloat or try to convince them that they have been wrong. But I think it's the obligation of all Obama supporters to refrain from fueling those bad feelings and hope that the party can come together to defeat John McCain in the fall.

This story in today's Post should get more exposure:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/21/AR2008032102989.html

Hillary Clinton has been regaling supporters on the campaign trail with hair-raising tales of a trip she made to Bosnia in March 1996.  .... There are numerous problems with Clinton's version of events.

It concludes:

Clinton's tale of landing at the Tuzla airport "under sniper fire" and then running for cover is simply not credible. Photographs and video of the arrival ceremony, combined with contemporaneous news reports, tell a very different story. Four Pinocchios.

FOUR PINOCCHIOS: Real whoppers.

Discuss.

Previously, in Bush's Abstinence-Only Crusade=1/4 Of Teenage Girls Get STDs, I connected Bush's abstinence-only crusade to the high rate of STDs among America's teenage girls. Today I delve into the real motivation behind yet another harmful Bush policy.

What makes the abstinence-only mob's objection to sex ed truly sickening is that it is not all about "morality." As per usual, it's mostly about M-O-N-E-Y. (Natch).

Abstinence-only programs have become big business. Big Republican campaign contributor business. Under the leadership of a Republican Congress and as escalated by George Bush, abstinence-only has swelled to a $1 billion boondoggle.

Ten months ago The Nation exposed this industry for what it is in "The Abstinence Gluttons":

Over the past six years George W. Bush's faith-based Administration and a conservative Republican Congress transformed the small-time abstinence-only business into a billion-dollar industry. These dangerously ineffective sexual health enterprises flourish not because they spread "family values" but because of generous helpings of the same pork-heavy gumbo Bush &amp; Co. brought to war-blighted Iraq and Katrina-hammered New Orleans--a mix of back-scratching cronyism, hefty partisan campaign donations, high-dollar lobbyists, a revolving door for political appointees and a lack of concern for results.

One of the chief cooks is a media-shy 63-year-old Catholic multimillionaire, welfare privatizer and Republican donor named Raymond Ruddy. With close ties to the White House, federal health officials and Republican power brokers that date back to W.'s days as Texas governor, Ruddy has leveraged his generous wallet and insider muscle to push an ultraconservative social agenda, enrich a preferred network of abstinence-only and antiabortion groups, boost profits for his company and line the pockets of his cronies--all with taxpayer dollars.

Following the money swirling around Ruddy offers an eye-opening glimpse into the squalor at the heart of the abstinence-only project. One top Bush adviser left to take a job at Ruddy's charity, Gerard Health Foundation, and a senior officer at Ruddy's for-profit company, Maximus, left to take a top-level position at the Department of Health and Human Services. Leaders of Christian-right organizations that are Gerard grantees have gained advisory HHS positions--and their organizations have in turn received AIDS and abstinence grants to the tune of at least $25 million. Maximus itself has raked in more than $100 million in federal contracts during the Bush era...

"I can't think of another federal program where so much money was spent without any oversight and to such little effect," said James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth, a national organization that promotes comprehensive sexual health policies."

It wasn't that policy-makers didn't know that abstinence-only didn't work. In 2000 the Institute of Medicine issued a scathing report on these programs. But they went full steam ahead despite the warning. It's beyond naïve. It's immoral."

If you haven't already (and even if you have), please read the rest for a stunning tale spanning America, Africa and soon China. The featured cast of unsavory characters includes wingnut heroes James Dobson, Ruddy lobbyist and former RNC Chair Haley Barbour, disgraced former HHS Deputy Assistant Secretary/Medicaid fraud/all-around quack Eric Keroack and more.

It details how the Bush Administration knowingly spends hundreds of millions of our tax dollars on harmful programs to enrich fat cat Republican donors and their uber-conservative causes i.e. The Federalist Society, Americans for Tax Reform (we knew Grover would somehow get a cut), Concerned Women for America, The Family Research Council as well as the anti-Kerry Your Catholic Voice, sleazy 527 Common Sense Ohio and old school anti-choice Life, Liberty and Family. A generous tithe of these funds is plowed back into the Republican Party in campaign contributions and Conservative GOTV efforts. Also well documented is the revolving door between these various conservative groups and the Bush Administration especially, and most dangerously, the Department of Health and Human Services.

Because of Bush's aggressive, immoral and unconscionable abstinence-only policy, a decade of teenagers are spectacularly misinformed. Earlier this week the Chicago Tribune's troubling story, "Teens have sex but don't have the facts," vividly illustrates the pitfalls of this stick-your-head-in-the-sand mentality: 

In a co-ed forum, the teens pondered contraception. One well-meaning young man stood and said aluminum foil could be used in lieu of a condom. Other teens offered up myths such as the efficacy of plastic baggies, having sex while standing and bathing right after sex.

Aluminum foil?!?! WTF? In this age, where using a condom could literally be the difference between life and death, we're all too squeamish and puritanical to tell kids considering sex how to best protect themselves. The message sent to today's youth: Sex is dirty, dangerous and bad. No wonder they are so confused. If these they should make it through adolescence without contracting an STD, our kids have a lifetime of psychoanalysis to look forward to. It will probably take at least that long to pay for and undo the harm caused by abstinence-only "education."

-AF

In the finale: Bush's Abstinence-Only Crusade Exported=Death.
(We're lucky our kids aren't African).

Cross-posted at Andrew Sullivan Is A Fraud

The coincidence of the Bear Stearns collapse and the Iraq War's 5th anniversary is breathtaking.  Both involved the best thinking of our elites on the left and right.  How many conservative and liberal Ivy League grads and professors ran or lionized Bear Stearns or opined in favor of the War in the best journals or on blogs such as this one?  It's stunning how the culture of our elites stifles dissent during these catastrophic run-ups--whether it be their ludicrous investment in "Big Shitpile" or their very serious support the greatest foreign policy disaster in American history.  

I believe in a vibrant intellectual life for our country.  I believe in vigorous discussion and the right to dissent on all matters whether they be scientific, philosophical, artistic, or political.  My revulsion at our elites has nothing to do with a latent or patent anti-intellectualism.  I am simply amazed at how the self-annointed best and brightest have so utterly failed to create an economy and an idea of America in the broader world that has any substance whatsoever.
 
It is sobering to think, therefore, what President Obama will do when it comes to fixing the economic and foreign policy messes we are in.  That he must choose from the same elites who have been so wrong about economic policy--who would have marveled at the wizardry and sophistication of Enron and Bear Stearns before they imploded--and so totally wrong about the Iraq war is sobering.  Amitai Etzioni suggested today Obama make Hillary (so calculating; so wrong on the War) his Secretary of State.  What genius on Wall Street will be suggested for Treasury Secretary?

Obama got it right on the War before it started.  But is there anyone like him who is acceptable to his or her elite peers in the media and Congress who can run the Defense Department or State?  Or Treasury or the Fed?  When and how can we break from the vacuous notions of American power found at the intersection of collateralized debt obligations and preemptive war?       

Read, watch, listen, absorb, rationalize, comment, re-think, respond, repeat process. I really love this place. Every day when I power on and head to my big list of news bookmarks, I dutifully go to the New York Times, Washington Post, BBC, Reuters, and few of the other mainstream news sites to see what's going on. But I find myself everyday looking forward to getting those out of the way to click on TPM and see what the latest rants of the day are discussing. I used to spend a lot more time on the front page, the Muckraker and Election Central, but now I pretty much head straight here to the Cafe to see all of the reader-generated "headlines." It's a great thing, Josh. Thanks to your and your crew for providing us with a place for amateurs and professionals to engage in such a wide variety of informative, illuminating (or at least entertaining!) political discourse.

Nobody mentions that VP Cheney while in Iraq, also CONVINCED the Iraq government to hold their next ELECTION in OCTOBER -- just days before OUR ELECTION in November.

Convenient for John McCain huh?

I can see him now -- "Our surge troops are still there BECAUSE of their Election and security needed.  This Election PROVES the Surge WORKED."

Bullwicky!

While I certainly agree with the spirit of Josh's commentary, I think that in some regards it does miss the mark. Admittedly, I have not been political for very long. After September 11th, 2001 I realized that I could no long remain cynical and indifferent while others decided the events of the world. In 2004 I registered to vote, but still not really understanding the process didn't begin the follow the election until early Fall (i.e. after it was too late to make much of a difference).

Not wanting to make the same mistakes again this time around, I paid more attention to debates, bought and read books written by the candidates, subscribed to mailing lists, spent hours a day pouring over political blogs and watching clips on YouTube, etc.

I say all this because I want to make it clear that for all my best intentions, I accept that I'm still very much wet behind the ears. I accept that the shenanigans, spin, and such might just be business as usual and at some point I'm going to have to grow up and learn to live with it.

But while I am still just a little wide-eyed and hopeful, I do want to believe that conduct matters. That *how* one shows up to the game could be in some ways more important than whether that person wins or loses. That the good guy can win.

I know that Hillary's policies are very similar to Barack's; it's been pointed out several times. And if I were voting for policies rather than leadership, it would be much easier for me to feel comfortable going to the ballot box and casting a vote for Hillary Clintion in November, should she win the nomination. But I don't think I am voting for ink on paper. I support Barack Obama because he represents a break from "politics as usual" (boy, I sure drank the Kool-Aid on that tag line).

My concern is that a vote for Hillary is a slap in the face of the platform Barack has run on and the movement that my fellow citizens and I have helped to foster. A vote for Hillary reaffirms that "politics as usual" wins elections. And for those of us that dared to invest ourselves in this process in the hopes of creating something better, we fear that such a victory might be more than what we can bear.

Thank you for reading

Pat has decided he just can't keep quiet about this whole racism thing anymore, so he had to blog about it.
What did he say? Some stuff that would make Barack's Grannie cringe, including

First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known.

Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American.

Second, no people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans. Untold trillions have been spent since the ’60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs designed to bring the African-American community into the mainstream.

Nobody mentions that FACT that even contractors must be PAID, and paid by the government.

So--why isn't anybody asking the simple question of how can a low level supervisor FIRE and possibly HIRE a employee (contractor or not) -- without notifying his Director or whatever the term is for his BOSS in the State Dept?

His BOSS must handle the budget for the State Dept.  How were these people fired without reporting them?

I'm an Obama supporter but I think this Bill Clinton comment that has some riled up is fair:

Clinton said today in Charlotte, North Carolina, that it would be great if the general election were between his wife, Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, and Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona. The vote would involve ``two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country,'' Bill Clinton said.

``People could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics,'' he said.

Obama has said from the beginning that one of the reasons to vote for him over Hillary is that Hillary brings a lot of divisive polarizing baggage -- whether her fault or not -- that detracts from talking abou tthe issues.

With the Wright flap, Clinton is noting that Obama now also brings in stuff that's polarizing and detracts from the issues that Hillary wouldn't bring in.

I think that's true and accusing Clinton of McCarthyism as some have done doesn't address his point.

I'm not pursuaded by his argument for several reasons:

1. Patriotism is an issue in itself that needs to be discussed and worked through. So having it brought up in the campaign is not a bad thing. The Right's abuse of this issue is something we need to address head on because it is used over and over again to affect policy. It must be dealth with.

And by the way, I think Obama's speech Tuesday suggested an answer. He stood by his pastor and community despite the fact that they said things he agreed were offensive. Isn't that the definition of loyalty? If he applies that same attitude toward America -- that he stands by his country even when it does things he disagrees with -- isn't that the definition of patriotism?

2. The polarizing nature of what comes in if Hillary is the nominee is worse and harder to deal with because it's all personal and revolves around issues of trust. You can't really turn anything like that around without trust.

3. Obama has, in my opinion, show this week that he response to such attempts at injecting this kind of stuff into the campaign far better than Hillary does and in ways that diffuse it rather than feeding into it.

I write this in response to Josh's post "Goodbye cruel Ballot Box."  Count me among the Obama supporters who will not cast a vote for Hillary if she was to somehow accomplish the impossible and become the Democratic nominee in the general election.  However, I disagree with Josh's take on why I -- and several like me -- have vowed never to vote for Hillary.  To me, this is less about policy differences than it is about rewarding bad behavior, or kissing progressive policies goodbye.

I was never much of a fan of Bill Clinton's, even though he was leaps and bounds better than the Republican nominees he faced, and light years better than his successor.  My problem with Bill was that his constant triangulating and generally centrist to right-of-center ideology worked to shift the center of debate unacceptably to "the right," such that once traditionally liberal or progressive ideas became more outside the mainstream (in perception, at least).  His tenure as president, and the resulting alienation of the "left wing" of the Democratic party, was one of many factors that allowed the word "liberal" to become a four letter word in popular jargon.  My main fear in electing Hillary to the same post once occupied by her husband was always that 4 or 8 years of similar politics would so damage the progressive wing of the Deomocratic party that it might never recover (that and the idea of 24-28 years under the "rule" of two families kinda freaked me out).

Despite these feelings, I entered this primary season pretty much resigned that the Democrats would shoot themselves in the foot and nominate Hillary, and that I would still vote for her in the end.  No more.

The level of mendacity displayed by Hillary on a more-or-less regular basis nowadays, and the lengths to which the Clinton campaign, and Hillary herself, have gone to keep this primary process alive have so bothered me that I could never support her run for the presidency.  For example, during the debates, Hillary accused Obama of shirking this responsibility to make tough decisions with his "present" votes in the Illinois legislature, when she knew full well that those votes were the equivalent of a "no" vote in Illinois, and that her intimation to the contrary had been debunked several times by that time.  She knew what she was implying was false, yet she continued on this course, depending essentially on the "low information voter."  (Curiously, no one ever challenged Hillary on what I think was the equivalent of what she was implying Obama did when it came time for her to vote on the Bankruptcy Reform Bill -- I think she abstained from voting altogether).

Prior to really pushing for revotes, Hillary also asserted that both the Florida and Michigan delegates should be seated based on the intitial primaries in those states.  This, to me, was the height of dishonesty and mendacity displayed by here and her campaign, and did not reflect the sort of conduct I expect from a president (current one notwithstanding).

Now, she and her campaign continue to push the nominating process beyond the point where it will do anyone on the left side of the aisle any good.  Using Slate's delgate calculator, I recently experimented with what would happen assuming Hillary totally kicked ass in all of the remaining primaries, including revotes in Florida and Michigan.  Giving her 60%-40% victories in all remaining contests (something I don't think she accomplished in any state yet, even at the zenith of her popularity), including Florida and Michigan, she still fell more than 100 pledged delegates short of Obama's total.  To make up the difference from the 300-400 or so uncommitted superdelegates would require that they choose her roughly 2 or 3:1, and yet this would only happen if something catastrophic happened to Obama and his campaign, or Hillary and her campaign went soooo negative that no one came out looking very good to anyone.  Again, I ask myself, to what end Hillary?  When is it enough?  The elevation of self above all else is not strength; nor is being a "fighter" for the sake of fighting something I value.

Don't get my refusal to vote for Hillary wrong; it does not mean I'll vote for McCain.  Unlike an earlier poster, I could never vote Republican, and doing so could never bring about the politcis and policies I believe in.  Like Hillary on the bankruptcy bill, I'll simply "not vote" for president, but will for other offices.     

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/184975.php

Josh got this one just about right. Emotional infantilism, indeed. As someone who has been guilty of this very thing, I am glad Josh is calling us all on our bullshit. I am heavily invested emotionally, mentally, financially, and physically in the Obama campaign. My first knee-jerk reaction to some of the other reader posts who are looking for a fight on the convention floor is to bring that fight. I'll be Denver, and if there is going to be a fight, I'll fight hard. I won't be able to help myself.

Democrats have the best chance we have had in decades of transforming the government, and it may all disappear as the party turns on itself. What is very sad about this all, is that I may end up being partly responsible.

We keep hearing about Antoin “Tony” Rezko’s fraud trial in the newspaper.  Nearly every article mentions that Rezko was a major fundraiser for Governor Blagojevich and Sen. Barack Obama, always with the caveat of course, “While Rezko’s fund raising for Obama has been briefly mentioned in the trial, the charges against him have little, if anything, to do with the presidential contender, who has been accused of no wrongdoing.”

One article, back in February I believe it was, went so far as to repeat that statement three different times.

To my knowledge the fact that former Illinois Republican Governor Jim Edgar also had Rezko as his fund raiser, has been mentioned only once and that was only briefly mentioned in one sentence at the end of that article.

If these reporters were completely fair, they’d report the fact that many other well known political people were helped by this man.  Such as Carol Mosley Brown and Bill and Hillary Clinton during Carol’s campaign years ago. 
Others were Comptroller Dan Hynes, Attorney General Lisa Madigan, and Lieutenant Governor Pat Quinn. 

According to a recent story, Rezko may have donated as much as $250,000 to Obama's many campaigns over several years.  I would like to point out a relatively unknown fact.  Rezko also co-chaired a mega million-dollar fund-raiser for President George W. Bush in 2003.

My point in all this is, why may I ask, are Sen. Barack Obama’s name, and yes, even Governor Rod Blagojevich’s names being the only ones mentioned during these reports, and why are they mentioned not just once, but many times throughout the articles?

If neither candidate has been accused of wrongdoing, why are ‘their’ names being repeated, when others are not? 

If their names are brought up during the trial, then of course report those facts.  But if their names were not mentioned, do not.
 
I would hope that if a report includes the names of Rod Blagojevich or Barack Obama, then it is only fair to include the names such as Jim Edgar, Carol Mosley-Braun, Dan Hynes, Lisa Madigan and Pat Quinn. 

It would especially be interesting to note that because of the money involved, President George W. Bush’s name should also be mentioned in relations to Rezko.

I’m sure those in the ‘know’, can come up with even more names, both Democrat and Republicans.  These I mentioned were found by simply googling on the Internet.

Remember when retired CBS Evening News Anchor, Walter Cronkite would say "...And that's the way it is:" and you trusted his reporting enough to believe him.  Remember when Cronkite and other reporters tried to actually "report" the news instead of making or "influencing" what ended up being news.  We know FOX News can't be trusted.  FOX long ago marginalized itself when it became little more than a video version of the Rush Limbaugh radio show. 

Occasionally, I tune to FOX just to see what new scheme the mischief makers are cooking up.  Picture this panel of objectivity, Brit Hume, Fred Barnes, Charles Krauthammer and Juan Williams sitting around stoking the flames of divisiveness with their "commentary" that Barack Obama hasn't explained enough to their satisfaction his relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright. And doesn't that Chris Wallace "Countdown until Barack Obama appears on FOX News" really silly and immature?  Well, if I didn't shy away from offending, I would say, "up yours FOX News".

Although bias reporting is the expectation from FOX, in some ways CNN and MSNBC are becoming just as bad.  Maybe there is merit to the claim that CNN has become synonymous with "Clinton News Network".  CNN and MSNBC continue to run the same sound bite video clips of Rev. Wright taken out of context while refusing to get off their journalistic behinds and explore other portions of the videos that might give more insight into the overall message that Rev. Wright was attempting to convey.  During one of his "inflammatory" sermons, Rev. Wright incidentally had words of praise for Bill Clinton.  Here's a novel idea, do an inside report about the different methods that Black preachers use to reach their parishioners.  The messages often are pointed in the Black Church, but the underlying message usually is about love for your neighbor.

On a more positive note, I do applaud David Gergen, Roland Martin, Candy Crawley, Jack Cafferty, and Keith Olbermann for at least trying to do objective and analytical reporting. At least from them we don't get the usual "he made this gain...but" comment hogwash. I also applaud the Blogs.  Without TPM, Politico.com and other similar sites, we wouldn't have gotten the Rev. Wright photo taken with Bill Clinton at his Monica Lewinsky repentance prayer breakfast or more insight into the Rev. Wright sound bite videos.

Nonetheless, it's still a sad commentary when we can't trust the mainstream media to maintain the standard set by journalists like Cronkite, Ed Bradley, Tom Brokaw and Ted Koppel.  I hope that mainstream media does some quick soul searching before it becomes totally irrelevant. As a resource for journalists, the Society of Professional Journalists has developed an outstanding code of ethics.  Here's a hint for you talking heads, read it more often.

I can't seem to find a list anywhere about who would a great Supreme Court Justice. The religious right has a list, I'm sure, but I didn't know if any of you knew of any that would fit the mold of a William Brennan, William Douglas or Thurgood Marshall. Any recommendations? I'd like to consolidate a list for everyone to look at. 

Wall Street donors have given Obama and Clinton about equally--around $6 million each. They have only given McCain abour $2.5 million CNN reported Friday.

Looks like Wall Street is hedging its bets, but they're betting on a Democrat.

Those contributors (Plan B) who say they will desert the party in the Fall to vote for John McCain if Hillary Clinton loses the nomination should leave the party and the debate NOW.  If your participation is conditional on your candidate winning, you have no place in the Democratic party.  Especially where, as here, Obama leads in pledged delegates, popular vote and states won - a lead in all three categories that will very probably be sustained through the primary season.  Michigan and Florida broke the rules that Hillary happily agreed to when she thought she would lock up the nomination on February 5.  They simply don't count.  (And even re-votes in those states would not alter fundamentally his lock on the pledged delegate lead.)  Does anybody really think the nomination should go to a candidate who has not won the most pledged delegates?  Would Hillary's supporters stand for the reverse verdict, that is, the superdelegates overturning her pledged delegate lead in favor of Obama?  The question answers itself.  So let's acknowledge that Obama is winning by the rules, and he deserves every Democrat's support in November.

I have to agree with DT's take on the Obama campaign.  I have been closely wathcing the events from two years ago as this historic election unfolded.  From the beginning, I have pegged Obama as an empty suit.  A little hars i know but only barely.  The thing that bothers me us that from my point of view Obama's campaign has utilized his race in a very cynical manner.  They use it as weapon against any criticism valid or not.  apparently, in order to avoid being a racist, you must blindly support Obama.  It was the obama camp that first accused the Clinton's of racism when hillary rightly pointed out that it was johnson's heroic efforts in the legislature that got kennedy's agenda past.  This isn't racism, it's a historical fact.  The Obama campaign has been given a complete walk on their cynical use of racism.  (Granted, I'm no fan of the Kennedy's.  I don't have any particular dislike for them, I'm just generally put off by elitist.  I view JFK as a very inspirational figure, but any objective examination of his presidency should conclude that he was largely ineffective, especially in terms of legislation.)  I, however, could not follow DT into the pit of evil that is the Republican Party.  I would definitely consider a third Party, but all the good names have been taken.  I have resigned myself to voting for Obama.  I was also disgusted that Obama, from his own lips, pretty much threatened that his supporters would not vote for Hillary if she is the nominee.  A form of extrotion in my opinion. His refusal to even consider a joint ticket, which in my opinion is the best and most powerful solution to this conundrum of a primary, has done more to divide and endanger our chances for victory in November than anything the Clinton camp may or may not have done.  It was Obama that twisted Geraldine Ferraro's words into a racist attack.  I was listening to the interview.  I'm about as sensitive to racism as they come.  I agreed with her.  In this particular cycle and with Obama's considerable qualifications, education and political accumen, he had a definite advantage in the primaries, especially in States with large American-African populations.  Furthermore, the MSM was constantly pointing out this political fact.  As one that has campaigned for office, you have to decide who your core constituencies are and you must hold them.  To suggest that Obama is the first candidate to attempt to carry a large portion of the AA community and simultaneously employ a startegy of speaking the language of hope is hooey!  One of the most recent was Edwards in 2004!!  they act like they invented it.  Certainly, Jackson's campaigns tried some form of it, but unfortunately, the timing was off and Jackson's qualifications pale by comparison.  Still, not even Bill was able to carry such large numbers among AA's.  I distinctly remember that just before the Iowa caucuses there was lots of tlk about how Hillary was polling better amongst AA's than Obama and Conventional wisdom was that even they were afraid that America wasn't ready for an AA Presdient regardless of how articulate he might be.  After Iowa there was a sea change.  So, how does this not make the case that Obama'a qualifications and talents as well as the hue of his skin are a distinct advantage in this cycle?  This is waht Ferraro was saying, the way I heard it in real time.  It was the Obama campaign that twisted into this bullshit black's are priveleged racist remark.  Are they really trying to change American politics or are they just trying to replace one tyranny with another? 

I will vote for Obama, but I fear that it's a mistake to nominate him and I fear even more that his presidency will result in a lost opportunity.  He has cynically failed to flesh clear and accurate positions on a host of issues.  I fear that his supporters have filled this void with their own desires and positions.  It is good startegy for the primary.  He can be all things to all people.  However, the Republican's won't let him get away with it.  They will state his position for him.  He will have to come back and defend.  In politics as with sales, the initiator always has an advantage.  McCain will dictate the terms of the argument.  They won't hesitate to employ every racist tactic that they can and will crank up the mud machine to ferocious levels.  And, they won't feel the least bit bad about it like unlike Hillary.  To be sure, Hillary has run a pretty inept campaign and like Mr. Josh, I think Penn is at the core of the problem.  Still, she has been relatively effective at preventing Obama from running away with the nomination.  Obama has shown himself to be brittle and thin skinned.  How will he fare against the awsome smear machine that is the modern Republican Party?  Not well I fear. 

Just a thought.

Big Ro

Al Gore:

In 2000, you stepped aside to preserve the national unity when George Bush and the Supreme Court stole the election.

In 2008, the Democratic party needs your judgment and leadership in deciding the nomination. If you endorse Barack Obama, or Hillary Clinton, you can tip the scales.

Perhaps you want to see all the votes counted, because you won the popular vote in 2000, but still lost in the Electoral College.

The ultimate Superdelegates.

Mr. Vice President, you have a decision to make.

I am a white educated mother and grandmother,  and I an highly offened at how Hispanic Bill Richardson is being treated because he stood up to  Hillary Clinton  and said no!

Mark Penn and James Carville , Clinton minions, are on the smear bandwagon already. Richardson is being painted as a tratior-to what? Are Hispanics just pawns to do Queen Clinton's bidding? How insulting.

Richardson has said he is offended the message the Clinton campaign is circulating is that his only value was to get Hispanic votes and now he can be thrown aside like a cold tortilla.

What a slap in the face of all Hispanics. No one has right to anyone's vote, unless they earn it. Bill Richardson has proven that. 

We are citizens not subjects. This is America not the queendom of Clintonia!
 

I am a white educated mother and grandmother,  and I an highly offened at how Hispanic Bill Richardson is being treated because he stood up to  Hillary Clinton  and said no!

Mark Penn and James Carville , Clinton minions, are on the smear bandwagon already. Richardson is being painted as a tratior-to what? Are Hispanics just pawns to do Queen Clinton's bidding? How insulting.

Richardson has said he is offended the message the Clinton campaign is circulating is that his only value was to get Hispanic votes and now he can be thrown aside like a cold tortilla.

What a slap in the face of all Hispanics. No one has right to anyone's vote, unless they earn it. Bill Richardson has proven that. 

We are citizens not subjects. This is America not the queendom of Clintonia!
 

Recently, Mark Penn stated:

The more that the voters learn about Barack Obama, the more his ability to beat John McCain is declining compared to Hillary. For a long time we have explained that poll numbers for a candidate who has not yet been vetted or tested are not firm numbers, and we are beginning to see that clearly.

Well, Penn has been proven, uh, correct?  Today's Gallup poll shows that Obama leads Clinton by 3 points, 48-45.

So I think that without any uncertainty, we should be able to deduce that Mark Penn thinks that Obama has been vetted, the damage has been done, and now that the voters have had a chance to reflect, they have come to the conclusion that they like Obama and prefer him over Clinton.  Right?

Come on, Mark, we're waiting for an answer.  Is this poll as insignificant as Richardson?  As insignificant as red states, caucus states, the popular vote, and Illinois?

On a serious note, I can honestly say I've never seen a political operative as short-sighted as Penn.  I sincerely believe he doesn't consider the impact his words will have in the next day's news cycle, let alone the impact they will have in a week, or a month.  He is a walking gaffe-machine and it is amazing that Clinton keeps paying him his millions.

In spite of the pointless, inane intra-party squabbling which has consumed the irreplaceable first months of this year, until this morning I was convinced that even the Democratic party was incapable of kicking away THIS election.  Even we, with our legendary pedalian marksmanship, should be able to beat a GOP saddled with the least popular president in US history, a disastrous war, and a looming economic disaster.  Shouldn't we?  Sure we should.
Then I read the latest whiny rant to make the front page at TPM, and it started to sink in:  there are plenty of Democrats -- lots and lots of Democrats, on both sides of the great divide -- who really, really don't understand what's going on in this election.
The 2008 Presidential election is NOT about whether Hillary's widdle feelings are hurt because the country seems to be rejecting her kind offer to serve as president.  It's NOT about whether Hillary has been mean to Barack.  It's not about the bad, bad things Barack's preacher said in July, or about where Hillary was on Stained Blue Dress day.  It's not even about Change, or Experience, or Leadership, or any other focus-group word you can think of.  This election is entirely about whether we can elect a President who is capable of undoing the fundamental, critical damage George W. Bush has done to the Republic.  That's all it's about.
John McCain can't do it, no matter how fine a fellow he might be.  It might have been possible to treat the problem from within the Republican party, in a Nixon-goes-to-China sort of way; but McCain has sold too much of whatever reformist instinct he might have had in order to make himself marginally acceptable to the base.  Once in the Oval Office, he'll be in thrall to the people who got us where we are now.  Any solution to the civic crisis we find ourselves in requires, God help us, a Democratic president.
I have my own opinion about which Democratic candidate is more likely to reign in our pretensions to empire, disolve the unitary executive and restore the rule of law; but the fact is that either remaining candidate MIGHT do it, and COULD be pressured to do it by the people who elect him or her.  If they don't get the chance, eight more years of Republican rule  will hard-bake the changes we've suffered into our system of government.  And that, folks, will be that.
Undoing the damage will be difficult; but the first step, electing a Democratic president, should have been easy.  It seems, though, that we remain the Peter Pan Party of American politics, refusing to grow up even when faced with disaster.  A few months ago, we seemed as united as it was possible to be and remain Democrats; and the Republicans seemed to be filling the take-my-ball-and-go-home role.  We've regressed horribly; faster than I would have though possible.  We can stop, take a deep breath, and set ourselves right, or we can let this opportunity pass.  If we do the latter, our grandchildren will be able to look back at our petulant, ridiculous blog posts -- assuming they can still afford computers -- and wonder what the hell we were thinking.

Democratic voters in FL and MI have a legitimate beef with the Democratic Party, particularly their state party leadership. They are the ones who led their constituents off the cliff by violating the national rules (written under the leadership of Clinton advisor Terry McAuliffe) that both states had approved just one year earlier.  
But I think it's important to recognize that some responsibility for FL and MI debacles falls on the shoulders of the party rank and file as well.  
These movements to hold earlier primaries did not happen in secret and they did not happen overnight. They were openly discussed and debated. There was an opportunity for public dissent. How many of you bitter TPM posters from FL and MI called or emailed their representatives to express their opinion on the matter? How many supported the idea of an earlier primary despite the warnings of the DNC?   It's easy to make moral claims to disenfranchisement but those words ring hollow without any action taken to protect your vote. Democracy requires more of its citizens than casting a ballot, electing representatives and tuning out while they make decisions on your behalf. It requires vigilance and active involvement.  The DNC, the state parties and the elected representatives of FL and MI have all let their party down by allowing this mess to happen. But Democratic voters enabled their leadership, either actively or passively, to violate party rules and risk their votes and must bear some responsibility for their own predicament.

Freshly posted on TPM is a letter from a TPM reader, DT about how poorly Obama has performed and how he (she?) plans to vote for McCain in the Fall should Hillary not get the nomination. Some have commented that DT raises points that need discussion and I assume Josh thought the letter representative enough of enough people that he put up on the front page for all to see. However, I see a more profound issue here, and that is how, despite all the efforts by progressive and liberal leaning blogs to educate even those pre-disposed to their message about the truth behind the candidates and events around them, we still get trainwrecks like DT's letter. So, by way of example, let's run down DT's list of Obama transgressions:

1)Sat idly by as Jessy Jackson Jr called Hillary a racist and Wright likened what Bill Clinton did to Monica to how he treated Black people.

First, it's "Jesse," and second, he didn't call Hillary a racist so much as he implied her tears seemed awfully convenient at a time when she was being criticized for being to distant. Guess what? She hasn't teared up since, not in anger or in joy (even after her "big" wins in Texas and Ohio). Interesting, but even Mr. Jackson said that doesn't mean the tears were faked. Granted, his openly questioning her priorities with regards to Katrina, which failed to provoke any tears, and a campaign rally, which did, could be construed as "racist," though that's stretching the term a bit. As for Wright, I think that topic has been beaten to death, but, please, by all means, latch onto the scary black boogey man and vote for the guy with the scary white boogey man (Hagee).

2) Acted to avoid democracy both in caucuses and in Florida and Michigan

Does this really need to be slapped down, AGAIN? Michigan and Florida violated DLC rules and moved their primaries after being told that doing so would result in their delegates being refused a seat at the convention. They went ahead anyway (evidently part of an ongoing power struggle with Howard Dean). Obama and Edwards withdrew from the ballot in Michigan...but not Hillary, who leveraged the situation to snag the vast majority of votes and to sweeten her position with Michigan voters. She cheated. That's all there is to it. As for Florida, Obama remained on the ballot, but did not personally campaign there, though I do believe some mailers went out. Hillary, again flouting the agreed rules, went ahead and campaigned away, again getting the lion's share of the vote against greatly diminished competition. The Florida and Michigan voters weren't disenfranchised by the DLC or Obama. Their own party heads screwed them over and continue to do so for the sake of embarrassing Howard Dean.

3) Threatened the party both in terms of his voters not voting and in terms of his supporters often threatened rioting in Colorado if the rules are followed where super delegates vote as they please or with the majority vote not as the pledged delegates which are mostly determined by caucuses.

Okay, so some supporters get nasty and it's Obama's fault? Have you read your own letter threatening to support the GOP and throw your weight behind the party that has trashed the economy, put us in Iraq, wants to invade Iran, is actively trampling our civil rights, etc., etc.? It's even funnier when you consider that Hillary's campaign threatened to sue over the Texas primary, sat by as their proxies in the Nevada teacher's union sued to try and block the culinary worker's from voting in Nevada, and have been struggling to get Michigan and Florida counted despite having been a part of creating the rules that originally got them kicked out of the convention. I guess massive projection isn't just the domain of the GOP.

4) Called anyone a racist who challenged his 2 years on the national scene as not being enough experience for commander in chief

Ummm, what? Did not see his speech on racism or just winging it completely? Really, I don't even know where to go with this. It is, obviously, a reformulation of the now tired meme that Obama is too inexperienced to lead (with the race card thrown in to deflect debate...or incite it, I guess). Well, you could just read this list to get a better sense of what Obama has actually accomplished in his 11 years in elected office (I know, it's more fun to pretend his career only started 2 years ago...sorry). PLEASE hold that up against Hillary's record, and don't forget to mention all her votes for the invasion, it's continuation, Kyle-Lieberman, and, of course, her support of cluster bombs.

5) Minimized the connections with Rezko while refusing to answer questions about what appears to be a $600,000 bribe that likely comes directly from a Saddam loyalist.

Somebody missed the well publicized 3 HOUR sit down with the editorial boards of both the Chicago Sun-Times and the Chicago Tribune to talk about just that. Doh!

6) Claimed that his Independent and GOP voters are better than Hillary's Democrats.

Really? When? Obama is courting GOP voters? Projecting again? Hillary is the former Republican once who likes to play the "I'm a hawk, just look at all my generals!" card.

So, ultimately, DT's list is a bunch of "creative" interpretations and willful ignorance. He could have easily Googled his assertions and done a little research, but he didn't. Instead, he threatens to take his toys and not only not support Obama, but throw his weight behind a candidate with a history of dishonesty and fraud, who has supported Bush at every turn, and who literally sings the praises of unprovoked warfare (bomb bomb Iran). This, sadly, is what passes for political discourse. No thanks, DT, we can do just fine without your "support."

The first two lines of the "Maria Song" from the SOUND of MUSIC are:

"How do you solve a problem like Maria?
How do you hold a moonbeam in your hand?"

There are two ways to react to an issue that is perceived as a problem.

One is with thought and understanding.
The other is with fear and demonization.

These are the simplistic two points of view of the remaining campaigns for the democratic Presidential nomination this year.

This is a philosophical difference. It is not about agreement or disagreement with an issue. It is about how issues are approached and responded to.

One campaign is seasoned, battle tested and used to reacting in a "take no prisoners" style that has been successful for them. They have an insular "we"/"they" philosophy.

The other campaign is open to listen to ideas. A philosophy that people can "disagree without being disagreeable".

One campaign cites its ability to "fight" as a virtue, a reason to be supported.

One campaign wants to move beyond the partisan bickering and rancor of the past.

These world views could be seen as the core of the support for Senators Clinton and Obama.

Senator Clinton's core supporters are older white women and less formally educated people who make under $50.0 annually. Two constituencys who harbor a degree of anger and resentment for a variety of reasons - some valid and some institutionalized. People who are static--

Senator Obama's core supporters are young people who were turned off by government, african americans and the "starbucks:" crowd. Constituency's with a desire for hope and change. People who want to move beyond--

In a word:
Pessimism vs Optimism

And this is the prism within the candidates, their campaigns, their supporters and their reactions to issues could easily be viewed.

In the YOUTUBE universe reinforced by 24/7 cable news networks people of both groups are besieged with visual stimulation. The same way people react to an IQ test when flashcards are posted to have an instantaneous reaction - this is how the networks, and the campaigns, view trends in the electorate.

The Jeremiah Wright issue is now threatening the candidacy of Sen Barack Obama. Not necessarily through the electorate so much as through the media.

As a Jewish woman over 50, I have all I can do to contain my laughter listening to Pat Buchanan on MSNBC and his outrage at what he calls "hate speech" or "hate for our country".

I used to try and watch FOX news every now and then to see another point of view to my own progressive ideas. Now, I cannot even make it through five minutes of Sean Hannity without feeling physically ill. Not for the reasons you may think, but because it is watching a predator. It is seeing in action someone who, for money and money alone. is willing to lie, bersmeech, distort words and issues to serve his own selfish purposes. And his prey is the viewing public.

Does anyone truly think Barack Obama, a uniquely American story, is not a patriot? That he does not love his country?

"No, I don't think Obama agrees with Wright" Hannity says, this is about Obama associating with a "liar" and a "fraud" like Rev Wright.

"No, I don't think Barack shares those views", Buchanan says, but "how could Barack sit in church week after week and let his wife and children hear than hate speech".

In other words "How do you old a moonbeam in your hand?"

These people simply cannot understand someone who is open to hear all points of view and still have their own core in tact.

These people simply cannot allow that an "endless" loop of five-ten minutes edited from thousands of hours of sermons may not accurately portray a lifetime of service. They see Wright - is flamboyance - his clothes - his intonation and that's enough --

It is fear

The simple truth is Barack Obama scares these people.
When Obama says he is a "hopemonger" - he threatens the franchise of "hatemongers" everywhere.

So for different reasons, there are disparate groups trying to stop the Obama movement.

So while Hannity, O'Reilly and Buchanan may not be able to help themselves - think of is as a career move -- what about the Clinton campaign?

Pres and Sen Clinton have done everything to fan the flames of divisiveness in this election.They have not only showed their selfishness and blind ambition, they have showed their contempt for the democratic party by holding it hostage as their own personal franchise.

And the african american community in particular is rightfully offended by the "ownership" the Clinton frnachise felt they were entitled to.

The Hillary Clinton campaign has been retooled in late February, following the insertion of Maggie Williams as campaign manager, to a Rovian, win at all costs, yes "take no prisoners" campaign.

Admittedly, their only hope to win the democratic nomination is to destroy Sen. Obama. And that is what they are doing.

Sen Clinton has unfortunately shown her lack of leadership by not speaking out on the Jeremiah Wright issue. And Bill Clinton who does understand black churches and some of the inflammatory rhetoric he heard as a poor white southern boy, has chosen to be the lead attack dog on this.

Bill Clinton uses his own considerable rhetorical gifts and charm to get his points across - clearly - albeit subtly.

What the Clinton campaign is saying is "we agree" Obama can't be trusted-- look who he hangs aroung with -- so we are staying in the race as the democrat "insurance policy". Harold Ickes, Clintonista and mastermind of the super delegate DNC policy, gets across his point that - this is why super delegates were created -- to save the party from itself.

What they miss in all this - is that for the Clinton's to succeed, they have to pull the party from the people.

How much more effective would the Clintons be if Bill Clinton stood up and said- "Rev Wright was at the WH Prayer Breakfast in 1998. He has used inflammatory rheoritic- some of which I profoundly disagree with - to grow his congregation to over 8,000 people and help many poor and uneducated african americans understand their own responsibility to famliy and country"

How much more effective if Hillary Clinton had said "no" -- that's it -- just "no"; when Steve Kroft asked her on "60 Minutes" if she thought Obama is a muslim?

They can't help themselves.

We can go into explanations that Rev Wright was in fact quoting a Reagan administration ambassador, who in turn was quoting Malcolm X when he gave the "chickens coming home to roost" sermon?

We can list the poisonous inflammatory rheotiric of white preachers from Falwell to Hagee -- from Robertson to Parlsey --

We can read speeches from Martin Luther King, Jr decrying the Viet Nam war in far more "hateful" words to the US Government --

But what we cannot do is deal with fear

Institutionalized
Ingrained
Visual Fear

Because even though Jeremiah Wright has had videos of his sermons for years and thousands of people have seen him in person and on tape - seeing an "angry black man" in a dashiki has taken over all the hope and reason in many good people.

If we lose the moonbeam - the fault is ours.
--------------------
The Sound of Music Soundtrack Lyrics

the Nuns - Maria Lyrics

She climbs a tree and scrapes her knee
Her dress has got a tear
She waltzes on her way to Mass
And whistles on the stair
And underneath her wimple
She has curlers in her hair
I even heard her singing in the abbey

She's always late for chapel
But her penitence is real
She's always late for everything
Except for every meal
I hate to have to say it
But I very firmly feel
Maria's not an asset to the abbey

I'd like to say a word in her behalf
Maria makes me laugh

How do you solve a problem like Maria?
How do you catch a cloud and pin it down?
How do you find a word that means Maria?
A flibbertijibbet! A will-o'-the wisp! A clown!

Many a thing you know you'd like to tell her
Many a thing she ought to understand
But how do you make her stay
And listen to all you say
How do you keep a wave upon the sand

Oh, how do you solve a problem like Maria?
How do you hold a moonbeam in your hand?

When I'm with her I'm confused
Out of focus and bemused
And I never know exactly where I am
Unpredictable as weather
She's as flighty as a feather
She's a darling! She's a demon! She's a lamb!

She'd outpester any pest
Drive a hornet from its nest
She could throw a whirling dervish out of whirl
She is gentle! She is wild!
She's a riddle! She's a child!
She's a headache! She's an angel!
She's a girl!

How do you solve a problem like Maria?
How do you catch a cloud and pin it down?
How do you find a word that means Maria?
A flibbertijibbet! A will-o'-the wisp! A clown!

Many a thing you know you'd like to tell her
Many a thing she ought to understand
But how do you make her stay
And listen to all you say
How do you keep a wave upon the sand

Oh, how do you solve a problem like Maria?
How do you hold a moonbeam in your hand?

I am getting the feeling that, if Obama ends up being the nominee, Hillary may be inclined to follow Lieberman's lead and mount an independent candidacy.  After all, can she really sit by and let an inexperienced, anti-American candidate like Obama have a shot at winning when her good friend John McCain is a seasoned patriot and has proved his claim on the Presidency?

It is becoming clear that the Clintons, like Lieberman, have a disdain for Democratic Party voters, as well as the process itself.  It is also clear that she has next to no chance of winning without some kind of special action (I'm excluding the Super Delegates from this 'special action' since I think Obama is likely to win the majority of the SD's as well as the pledged delegates.  In addition the ability of the SDs to swing a close nomination is built into the process and is not, per se, a 'special action.')  Since she apparently feels McCain is a better candidate than Obama, she'll have little compunction about being a spoiler and throwing the election to McCain. 

The Clintons have crossed a line, in my opinion, and have entered a political purgatory I reserve for people like Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman.  Suggesting that McCain was more experienced than Obama was bad enough.  Questioning his patriotism is a "bridge too far."

"Mr. Richardson's endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic," Carville said.

Meanwhile, The NYT's reports on the financial problems that Clinton faces. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/03/22/2008-03-22_obama_campaign_up_20m_over_clinton_.html

I guess that we are close to that point if where somebody dragged a twenty dollar bill through a trailer park that Hillary would latch onto it for her campaign coffers.

Before this is done Hillary will be market branded a sore loser similar to Elen Sauerberry.

DNC: Iowa, NH, SC and NV will go before Super Tuesday.  Any other state that schedules a primary before the (already absurdly early) Super Tuesday Primary will be awarded no delegates.

Michigan and Florida: Okay, makes sense.  We're on board with that. 

Michigan and Florida: On second thought, we've now decided that we're more important than all the other big states that are abiding by the rules we agreed to.  We hate these small states because the always decide the whole thing. 

DNC: Please don't do that. You know we will not be able to award you delegates if you do that.  You agreed to those rules.

Michigan and Florida: F**k you.  You know you'll never impose those rules on us.  We're too big and important. 

DNC: Please, we're begging you.  We have to enforce these rules.  If we lose control of this process, the first primaries next time will be in July of 2011.  You are creating a nightmare scenario.  Please don't do this. 

Michigan and Florida: (Flip bird.)  Hah!  You wouldn't dare! We're too big and important to have to obey your rules.  You know it and we know it so just stop the posturing. 

DNC: Please, please, please don't do this. We're on our knees here. 

Obama: I'll support whatever the DNC says.

Hillary: I'll support whatever the DNC says.  But I'm going to leave my name on the Michigan ballot, just in case, but la de da, no need to worry. Doesn't matter anyway.  I would never, ever, ever, come back and try to act like an election where I'm the only person on the ballot and no delegates are at stake meant something. 

Michigan and Florida: Blah, blah, blah!  Rules are for chumps.

DNC: Don't do this. 

Hillary: Man, I'm really getting my ass kicked, here.  Y'know, that Michigan thing is looking really important.  And didn't that bad Obama guy break his pledge not to campaign in Florida by running ads on national cable TV?  (sotto voice aside: Goddammit, Patti, why aren't we running ads on national cable TV?  Patti?  Patti?  We do have enough money to run ads on national cable if we wanted to, right?) 

Michigan: Here we go. 

DNC: Don't say we didn't warn you. 

Obama: Sigh. Hillary's getting ready to break her promise not to campaign in Florida.  She's setting up venue and arguing that my running ads on national cable violates my promise not to campaign there even though I cleared the ads with IA, NH, NV, and SC. 

Hillary: Never, never, never.  He's just telling big fat lies like the big lying coke dealing Jessie Jackson-like man he is, SC.  But, la de da now that I've gotten my ass kicked much harder than expected in SC, for reasons I simply cannot fathom, I'm going to toddle down to Florida for a *wink*wink* fundraiser.  Oh, and I'm going to schedule a little victory party too, bucause I now think Florida's primary will show that people really really do like me (sotto voice aside: get Bill Nelson on the phone!) 

DNC: Okay, we warned you, we begged you and you did it anyway.  No delegates. 

Michigan and Florida: WAAAHHHH!!!!! THAT'S NOT FAIRRRRR!  YOU'RE DISENFRANCHISING US!  NOBODY TOLD US ABOUT ANY OLD RULES!!!!!

DNC: Calm down.  You still have time to schedule new primaries that will count. 

Hillary: I've decided that since my plans have gone to crap and I need those results as they are in elections where I was pretty much the only one running, I'm going to rush to the support of the sacred right of Michigan and Florida to break the rules.  I oppose a revote and demand that their delegates be seated. 

Florida and Michigan: See, see, Hillary will save us!  We don't need to schedule a revote because HIllary's on our side!

Obama: I'll support whatever the DNC says. 

DNC: Please schedule a revote while there's still time because we're not going to give you a pass on this. 

Obama: I'll support whatever the DNC says.

Hillary: No, no, no, millions already voted for meeeeeee!  They must be given to meeee!  There's a sacred totally not opportunistic reversal of a prior pledge at stake here.  

Florida and Michigan.  Yeah, what she said.  And, anyways, we can't afford a revote. 

DNC: Please schedule a revote while there's still time.

Florida and Michigan: Gulp.  Hillary's sure losing a lot of races. Maybe we better schedule a revote.  But we're still not paying for it, see?  This is all your fault, DNC.  We're not doing anything until you agree to pay us to clean up after ourselves. 

DNC: No.  We're kinda broke right now, but you could raise unlimited soft money to finance it.  But tick tock, people.  Schedule the revote while there's still time. 

Hillary: No revotes!  No revotes ever!  Those people voted for me and I must have their delegates.  It's an important principle at stake here.  Principle, principle, I say!

Obama: I'll support whatever the DNC says. 

Florida and Michigan:  Maybe we better look into scheduling a revote. 

Hillary: No.  Okay, maybe.  But only if it's set up in a way that favors me. No.  Wait, I mean yes.  If it's in favor of me. 

Obama: I'll support whatever the DNC says, but I'm not going to stand by and let Hillary rig the revote in her favor. 

Florida and Michigan: We can't afford this.  We squandered all our money on the vote in January.  We demand that you pay for a new vote or we're going to be very, very mad at you and we'll vote for McCain.  How about the campaigns kicking in some dough?

Hillary: Umm, errrr, ummmm. Ahem. Oh, sure.  We'll do it. We have plenty of money.  Lots and lots and lots.  Boy, we have so much coming in that we just have boxes and boxes of loose cash sitting around our offices.  (sotto voice aside: for God's sake get out there and round up some of our maxed out fatcats to fund the goddam thing before we have to admit we're broke!)

Obama: I'll support whatever the DNC says, but I'm noticing that we're kinda getting to the point where we may not be able to have a vote that doesn't create more problems than it solves. 

DNC: Look, here's a bunch of Hillary's fatcats who'll fund it.  Now submit a plan.

Florida and Michigan: We won't submit a plan until the campaigns agree in advance to support whatever we do. 

DNC and Obama: Tick tock, people. Cart before the horse. 

Hillary: We demand a revote in both states.  That's what we've always said.

Florida: Okay, we admit it.  We're can't hold a decent election under perfect circumstances and we're not capable of throwing one together at the last mintues that won't be a total disaster.  We give up. 

Michigan: alright, alright, here's our hastily thrown together plan.

Obama: We feel compelled to point out that the plan submitted by Michigan is likely to be invalidated on Constitutional grounds. 

Hillary: Obama's acting like the law has some sort of legal significance.  Obstructor!  Thwarter of the people's will!  I'm flying in to Michigan and I'm going to use my vast Clinton clout to push this thing through. 

Michigan: Geez, it looks like Obama is going to win this thing.  We don't want to be seen doing Hillary's bidding here.  And, anyway, our plan is totally unworkable.  Okay, we give up too.

Hillary: This is all Obama's fault!

Michigan and Florida voters: This is all the DNC's fault! 

MSM: Boy, that Obama sure is slick. Scuttled revotes in Florida and Michigan and isn't even getting blamed for it.  Chuckle, chuckle, chortle.

Hillary: WAAAAAAAAH!

I'm glad Josh put up the post from reader DT.  Because it brings to light an important discussion that needs to be had.  A comment on another post regarding this noted that there are hundreds of Obama supporters who have also said that they will vote for McCain or sit out the election should Obama lose the nomination.  

A few months ago, I said the same thing to my brother.  I thought about it for a few days after that, I realized how absurd that statement was.  

In November, whoever gets the nomination, I will happily and proudly vote for them. NO MATTER WHAT.  

Here's why: We all have to take a step back and remember to see the forest for the trees.

DT listed the reasons he is going to vote for McCain.  Not one of them is related is to the issues of the Democratic party.  

I am disappointed in the tactics of BOTH of the campaigns.  The list provided by DT of the tactics Obama has engaged in could easily be countered by a list of similar tactics the Clinton campaign has engaged in that Obama supporters are not happy with.  I'm not going to list them, but I will note that any list of that type can be argued by the "other side."  We can argue all day long about whether the statements on such a list are true or not.  The point is, it really doesn't matter.  The perception of the slights are enough to anger members supporting both sides.  I acknowledge that there is disappointment and resentment on both sides at this point.  Some of it is more legitimate than others (in my humble opinion), but the point is arguing over why we shouldn't be mad will get us nowhere.

Again, why we have to see the forest for the trees.These are the reasons I will be voting for whoever wins the Democrat, however it happens, regardless of the tactics engaged in on both sides:

1) Both candidates have a plan to improve the state of healthcare in this country.  Again, we can argue over which is better, but are they not BOTH better than McCain's?  McCain's answer is a tax-break.  And encouraging competition in insurance companies.  Cause that's worked so well so far.

2) The economy: I understand basic economics, and that eventually market forces will even out.  But in the meantime, thousands of baby boomers are entering retirement as their retirement funds are whittled away by the sinking stock market, the falling value of the dollar, etc  Families are being forced out of their homes, and the price of just about everything is ridiculously high.  John McCain, admittedly "doesn't know much about the economy."  He has proposed absolutely nothing to combat these serious problems.

3) War - wants to continue the war in Iraq with no notions of getting out anytime soon, to the detriment of our soldiers and our economy.  Refuses to even recognize the possibility that the surge isn't working, and is now sounding the drums of war with Iran.  This is perhaps, the scariest thought of all, because he has himself said he likely will be a one-term president, so with no concern for being re-elected, his policies on this will likely be radically frightening.

4) Education.  If you haven't, you should read the section on his website dedicated to this.  It's unbelievably scant.  No mention of improving teacher retention, education; no mention of broadening the focus of testing.  Nothing. His answer?  Basically school vouchers and allowing schools to "compete for the best teachers and resources."  I wonder which schools will get those....

5) The Supreme Court - This is huge.  4 of them are near-retirement, with one most certainly not making it another four years.  The equilibrium of the court hangs in the balance, and adding another "conservative" judge will have ramifications that last long past a McCain presidency. 

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that the reason any of us are supporting our choice of Democratic candidates has a lot to do with their positions on the issues.  If that's true, then I think we all will need to put our disappointments and anger beside for just a moment, and think of the bigger picture: the future we want for our children, our grandchildren.

Again, I don't want this to be about the democracy of caucuses, or the Michigan/Florida primaries.  I happen to think that there should be re-votes there, that it's just not right not to.  But some of my anger over that goes to all the candidates, for not speaking out against this MONTHS ago, for the Democratic leadership in those states for not recognizing the folly of their decision, for the DNC for being so pigheaded in the first place.  Ok, so I guess I just made it a little bit about that.  But seriously, I'm not arguing that everyone doesn't have the right and reason to be mad, disappointed, angry, resentful.  I just hope that our feelings on the serious issues we believe in can rise above all that...

Mr. Clinton helped elevate Mr. Richardson to the national stage by naming him his energy secretary and ambassador to the United Nations. And Mr. Clinton left no doubt that he viewed Mr. Richardson’s support as important to his wife’s campaign: He even flew to New Mexico to watch the Super Bowl with Mr. Richardson as part of the Clintons’ high-profile courtship of him.

But Mr. Richardson stopped returning Mr. Clinton’s calls days ago, Mr. Clinton’s aides said. And as of Friday, Mr. Richardson said, he had yet to pick up the phone to tell Mr. Clinton of his decision.

The reaction of some of Mr. Clinton’s allies suggests that might have been a wise decision. "An act of betrayal," said James Carville, an adviser to Mrs. Clinton and a friend of Mr. Clinton.

"Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic," Mr. Carville said, referring to Holy Week.

Mr. Richardson said he called Mrs. Clinton late on Thursday to inform her that he would be appearing with Mr. Obama on Friday to lend his support.

"It was cordial, but a little heated," Mr. Richardson said in an interview.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-karel-bouley/get-over-it_b_92855.html 

The following is my comment in response to a blog entitled “Get over it.”

People do get over it by a process called grief.  It doesn't happen all at once and at the end of it one is not in denial but acceptance.   If someone has wronged you in the past it entails forgiveness.  If the wrong is still going on, you keep working to come to terms with it and find ways to channel your sadness and rage into a constructive course of action.  I'm visiting my 91-year old mother for Easter.  We lost my Dad on Christmas Eve of 2006 to cancer and Mom had her own bout with the disease a year prior to Dad's death.  She was brought up in the Methodist Church but for many years has found the affirming theology of Unity Church helpful.  This morning I had just finished the sentence about forgiveness when I put it down to have breakfast with Mom.  As is her protocol, she reads a passage from the Daily Word aloud before saying grace.  The word for Saturday March 22 was entitled “forgive.” 

“As I forgive I am renewed by the peaceful, life-giving energy of God.  My heartfelt desire is to always live in an environment of peace.  I know that forgiveness is vital to establishing and maintaining this peaceful, live-giving atmosphere.  So if I feel that someone has offended me or somehow disappointed me, I release the resentment I have been harboring and feel the relief that I desire.”  The reading ended with a Psalm:  “Make me to know your ways, O Lord, teach me your paths.  Lead me in your truth and teach me.”  Ps. 25:4-5.   Mom finished reading and commented, “It’s good when you can.”  Amen.

I'm reading Primary Colors right now. It's the book about the Clinton's  1992 campaign. It goes into how staffers can be either professionals or "True Believers," which are supporters who genuinely believe in the candidate to the point of overlooking all their faults. It struck me that both Democrats have followers that fall into the latter category. This is not a bad thing, unless it gets to the point of voting for the opposing party in the general election.  Frankly, I'm tired of either supporters saying how they will vote for the other party as a form of protest if their candidate does not prevail. If you agreed with the positions of the Democratic party, what good reason can you give for voting against all those platforms in the general?
If you're antiwar, why would you vote for a candidate who wants to stay in Iraq indefinitely? If you believe economic deregulation (as well as bailouts to the big companies) have gotten to the point of absurdity, why would you vote for their continuance?
I am an Obama supporter, and will vote for him in the upcoming primary on April 22. But that doesn't mean I won't vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election. She holds positions that I agree with, and that overrides any dissatisfaction I have with her campaigning. 
Here's another thing that bothered me. If Obama supporters were cultish, why are they willing to vote for Clinton in the general, as 90 percent have said they would. On the other hand, 25 percent of Clinton supporters have said they will vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee. Perhaps its many of Clinton's supporters who will not listen to reason. 
Perhaps the most important issue is the Supreme Court, which has 4 democrats close to retirement age (one is 85). Do you really want another Scalia or Thomas on the court? That's the sacrifice you'll have to make if you want to vote for vengeance. 

This was inspired by a song by Noël Coward, called "Don't Let's Be Beastly To The Germans." If you're curious about the tune, here's a link to the song on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wveW9Tw2JKE

Don’t let’s be beastly to the Clintons

Now it’s certain that Barack’s the nominee

We must offer them a tissue, to dry their crying eyes

Maybe offer some spare delegates as a consolation prize

Let’s be sweet to them and day by day repeat to them

They’re still our favorite corporate bourgeoisie

Let’s give them both a cabinet post to let them know they matter most

But don’t let’s be mean to Billary

 

We must be kind

And with an open mind

We must endeavor to find a way

To let the Clintons know that though their smears were awful

They are not the ones who have to pay

We must be sweet, and tactful, and discreet

And though they’ve suffered defeat we mustn’t let them feel upset

Or ever get the feeling that we’re cross with them or hate them

Our double house majority must not alienate them

 

Don’t let’s be beastly to the Clintons

Because we know it is Obama’s victory

We must treat them very kindly as we would a valued friend

Treat the whole campaign to dinner…well, maybe not Mark Penn

Let’s employ with them a sort of “strength through joy” with them

And not lambaste their noble DLC

Let’s let them feel they’re swell again and smear us all to hell again

But don’t let’s not be mean to Billary

 

We must be just

And win their love and trust

And in addition we must be wise

And ask their failed campaign to come join our hands to aid them

That would be a wonderful surprise

For many years, they’ve been in a flood of tears

Because the poor little dears

Have been so wronged and only longed

To game the party and maim the party

For what they are entitled

How we blame them now for being homicidal?

 

Don’t let’s be beastly to the Clintons

Because you can’t deprive a dradle of its spin

Though they’ve been a little haughty to the smaller states and such

I can’t believe those voters really minded very much

We should humor them, and help them spread the rumors then

Of Barack’s skin-deep electability

Let’s interpret wins in larger states as reason to capitulate

But don’t let’s be mean to Billary

 

Don’t let’s be beastly to the Clintons

There’s a certain charm in all that secrecy

To demand to see those tax returns shows a shameful disrespect

Should the man who asks those questions be the man we should elect?

Our country needs brand name again, or should else vote George McCain again

There are untold virtues in having monarchy

Let’s allow them hope to wish again, and give them votes in Michigan

But don’t let’s be mean to Billary

The question you see a great deal of on political websites, is this one: Hillary can't win, so why doesn't she drop out now?  Theories abound.  She's mentally unstable.  She needs the funding; her and Bill are broke. She's hoping that Obama falls ill, too ill to push on with his bid for the nomination.  Bill won't let her (it's Bill who's deluded, not Hillary).
And events, dear boy, events.  She knows how events can change a dynamic.  Even if it seems unlikely that any event of any kind would change the math, there could be something, God only knows what it is.  And she's come this far, why not take it all the way to Denver, hoping for a miracle along the way?
These are all decent theories.  I have one too.  It's a little vague but maybe that's best.  Suppose that Hillary has an ace up her sleeve with regard to Obama.  She knows something.  We don't need to speculate on what it might be, it doesn't matter.  We only need to make it big, something that will make Obama unelectable.   So she sits on it, and waits.  And waits and waits.  In the meantime, she goes around campaigning and taking in money. About a week before the convention begins in Denver, she asks for a private meeting with Obama, and gets it.  And at the meeting---Bill is there, too---she tells him what it is that she has on him.  It is, suppose, lethal.  As in: if it gets out, he's toast.   Let's make it something quite innocent that he either said or did but that nevertheless will effect  the electorate like a bomb.  (There are things like that in politics, innocent things that happen that, for all their innoncence, ruin people.  After all, Howard Dean was runied with one lone shout.) 
Now she gives him a choice: he can either be on a ticket with her, as VP, in which case she will never tell what she knows; he can simply withdraw, suddenly, giving some reason or other that sounds plausible, in which case she will never tell what she knows; or he can fight on in definace of her generous offer,  and she will expose whatever it is and that will finish him.
Question:  If she has something, why doesn't she use it now?  Or why didn't she use it months or weeks ago?  Surely, if she had something, she'd have used it as soon as she got it.  Right?
Answer: not necessarily.  She might, as suggested above, want the money, millions of dollars of funding.  But there is another possible reason: whatever she has, she wants to use it at the last possible moment, to ensure that he does not have time to recover.   She could wait until the last week, even the last three days, of the convention in Denver.  He would have zero chance of recovery, if she did that.

In my view, this theory is plausible.  Beyond it, I don't have an idea why Hillary doesn't just give up and go home.  The math's wrong, the pledged delegate count is wrong, the superdelegates are all over the place so that you can't make plans.  And still, she stays.  
Could it be that Hillary just wants to fight to the end in a democratic process designed for such fights?  Could  it be as simple as that?  That straightforward, and she has zero on Obama?  Yes!

<p>I hope DT cools down between now and November.  His/her list of grievances against Obama is a highly tendentious characterization of issues that are at best debatable and on which a dispassionate observer would find corresponding grievances against Clinton.  (Honestly, caucuses are undemocratic, and that's Obama's fault?  Michigan and Florida deliberately gave up their voting delegates, and that's Obama's fault?  Obama "threatened the party," "called [some]one a racist," said his voters are "better" than Clinton's voters, accepted a "bribe" from a Saddam Hussein loyalist?  This sounds like right-wing talk radio stuff.) </p>

<p>In any case, if DT's second choice is not the Democrat who is practically identical to Clinton on policy matters, but instead the Republican who is the polar opposite on matters of war & peace and domestic economic policy, then I guess Clinton has succeeded in her weeks-long campaign on behalf of McCain as against Obama.  Nice going, Hill.  It's not like there are any important policy issues at stake in this election.</p>

<p>(I'm assuming that DT is not just a right-wing troll.  The I-won't-vote-for-the-other-Democrat folks -- both Clinton's and Obama's -- are easy to confuse with such trolls.)</p>

 For some, Rev. Wright's Tuskegee Experiment and AIDS statement seems a bit far-fetched. I have read and watched many learned women and men roundly criticized him for his statements. I would have advise Americans to closely examine it past because it is ripe with examples of medical malpractice and experiments on black people. This is a review of Harriet Washington's "Medical Apartheid":


First, do no harm (to whites)
Reviewed by Alexander Zaitchik

Medical Apartheid
The Dark History of Medical Experimentation on Black Americans From Colonial Times to the Present
By Harriet A. Washington

If race is the haunted house of American history, Harriet Washington opens the door on the torture room in "Medical Apartheid," her blood-spattered history of black America's long and frequently nonconsensual relationship with experimental medicine. This room of horrors, as Washington details, contains skeletons predating the Republic. Indeed, the first African American encounter with Western medicine was the slave-ship quack, who would condemn sick passengers to the sharks. Once in the New World, slaves suffered a Southern medical culture that meant, at best, the application of "9 drops of essence of rawhide" as a cure for most ills. At worst, it meant being strapped to a board while a mad scientist with dirty hands and no anesthesia used cobbler's tools to crack and pry your skull bones into new positions.

Josh, please pull <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/184931.php">TD's post </a> off your font page. On the front page of TPM, JMM posted TD's post. I find TD's post disingenuous at best

I got really emotional about it before I realized that I would vote McCain and a straight top to bottom GOP lineup if Hillary isn't the nominee and leave the party if Florida isn't counted.

This is not from a Democrat. This writer either has no convictions or is a GOP shill. Elections have rules, Michigan and Florida did not follow them, get over it. The elephant in the room is what will happen to the super delegates from Michigan and Florida? Those who sold us out? (I'm from Michigan).

Its not about winning anymore. Its about whether the Democratic party and its anti democracy is worth defending or if the most liberal GOP presidential candidate in decade is a better use of my vote.

It is completly about winning, has DT not been paying attention for the last seven years? McCain is not liberal, that may be a matter of opinion. The top to bottom crap is not. The GOP has institutionalized corruption, they need to be taken out. We need two strong parties, today's GOP is not one of them, that is what is ailing the country. My old district is as red sa can be but <a href="http://www.house.gov/ehlers/">Vern Ehler</a> is a man of integrity illustrative of what the GOP needs more of to rebuild itself; the exception rather than the rule.

Obama has done the following

1) Sat idly by as Jessy Jackson Jr called Hillary a racist and Wright likened what Bill Clinton did to Monica to how he treated Black people.

Clinton and McCain have done no worse?

2) Acted to avoid democracy both in caucuses and in Florida and Michigan

Uh, no. He has followed the party rules. Why were Hillary and Kucinich the only names on the ballot in Michigan?

3) Threatened the party both in terms of his voters not voting and in terms of his supporters often threatened rioting in Colorado if the rules are followed where super delegates vote as they please or with the majority vote not as the pledged delegates which are mostly determined by caucuses.

Hillary has done the same, as well as attempting to poach Obama's pledged delegates.

4) Called anyone a racist who challenged his 2 years on the national scene as not being enough experience for commander in chief

Please provide citation.

5) Minimized the connections with Rezko while refusing to answer questions about what appears to be a $600,000 bribe that likely comes directly from a Saddam loyalist.

We've heard more than enough about the Clinton connections throughout the 90's. What about McCain's  connection to Keating or Iseman. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/21/AR2008022101131_pf.html">McCain's campaign is being run by Charlie Black.</a>.  Please provide citation with regards to $600,000 fabricated bribe that the MSM is completely ignoring.

6) Claimed that his Independent and GOP voters are better than Hillary's Democrats.

Because they are; Democrates (unlike DT) will vote for whoever obtains the nomination. Obama wants to make the Democratic party a big tent party.

In a revolution words don't matter. Actions matter. I am at peace with my voting actions come general election.

Both matter, words lead to action. DT go shill for McCain on some right wing blog.

It has become clear that the Reverend Jeremiah Wright has become the Willie Horton of this election cycle. The facts don't matter. Obama's eloquent and nuanced explanation of Wright's role within the larger context of race and community are beside the point.  The right wing smear campaigners have footage of a scary black man to frighten people.  And unlike the case of Willy Horton, where they only had a photograph, they now have Youtube video. 

Obama predicted as much:

“ We have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle— as we did in the O.J. trial— or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina, or as fodder for the nightly news. 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 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.”

Of course that is the purpose of the exercise – preventing change.  The goal is to scare enough white folks with images of a scary black man so that change is impossible.  The only question now is - will the time-tested technique work this time as well?   Will American vote for their hopes or for their fears?

Let's for a minute reverse the names and the facts on the ground: Candidate Obama has won only a fraction of the number of states Candidate Clinton has won, is behind in both delegate and popular vote counts, and his campaign is almost in the red. He has won over only one Super Delegate in the last several weeks while losing others previously pledged to him. Meanwhile Candidate Clinton has $30 million in the bank, leads--and has lead for weeks--in the delegate count, popular vote, and number of states won. There has been a steady stream of Super Delegates coming out for her including two former rivals for the nomination.  Please tell me Democrats and the MSM would still be talking about a neck and neck race and not  about the folly of Candidate Obama staying in.  Just as everyone watched Huckabee in amusement while McCain assumed the mantle of his party weeks ago Democrats would have clearly been doing the same around their obvious candidate.In reality it is only the Clinton brand name that is now keeping her in the race and thus putting the Democratic party in turmoil and at risk.  Can you imagine the outcry that would be happening among Democrats if Candidate Obama was causing a potential Convention floor fight by stubbornly staying in?

I am a 60 year old white suburban grandma. I voted Nixon, Reagan, Reagan, Perot, Perot, Buchanan - and then stayed home.

I am voting Obama because the establishment is frightened of his candor. That makes him my guy.

I am voting Obama because the Jerusalem Post hates him. That means he represents the other 98% of the nation.

I am voting Obama because our government probably DID create AIDS as a weapon.

I think both parties forget how jaundiced the average American really is.  Rush spent a decade convincing us that the Clinton body count was over a hundred murdered. That same side tells us that Ruby Ridge, Waco, OKC and the TWA 800 cover up were criminal acts.

But now we are asked to ignore evidence that United stocks were shorted in the days before 9/11 - that at least one of the buildings was brought down by explosives - or that Bush/Cheney ordered the same stand down as Roosevelt on 12/7 - at Pearl Harbor.

I've had enough - frankly.  I want my country back.

Israel is not the 51st State, yet there is a lock down on any public debate on the subject. Muslims don't hate us for our freedoms - but for our support for the genocide of Palestinians - yet we are bombarded with news stories that Palis are evil - and Jews are saintly in their goodness.

Enough already. I think a Black Panther in the Justice Department would be the house cleaning we so desperately need. 

So if the pundits on both sides think they can smear Obama into oblivion - they are sadly too late.  Both parties have revealed themselves to be two sides of the same shekel.

George Bush was installed as president of the few over the many. He is and was an embarrassment to the office and the country.  He's destroyed our currency, constitution, and the prestige of our nation. He has defiled our reputation in the world as a beacon for justice and liberty.

I won't sit idly by as we replace one crime family for another. Washington needs a thorough house cleaning and Barack Obama is the best candidate for the job because he is reviled by the establishment.  Those are his credentials.

That's what tells me he hasn't drunk the kool aid. 

Without googling guess who this was from?

"God didn't call America to engage in a senseless, unjust war. . . . And we are criminals in that war. We've committed more war crimes almost than any nation in the world, and I'm going to continue to say it. And we won't stop it because of our pride and our arrogance as a nation. But God has a way of even putting nations in their place."

The writer then predicted this response from the Almighty: "And if you don't stop your reckless course, I'll rise up and break the backbone of your power."

(1)   With reference to the general election, in the states that are considered swing, and especially the large states that are needed, which is the more important constituency?   the combination of the college educated, the youth vote and African Americans or  the rural & blue collar vote/Reagan democrats and older women?
(2)  Anyone know where I can check out tv viewer political demographics?   ie what I really want to know is do many of the `Reagan Democrats` watch Fox?   (I've heard that Reilly claims a significant Democrat viewership.)
The thing is that  I'm concerned that the impact on the popular vote in the remaining primaries of the Limbaugh getting Republicans to go out and vote for Hillary will be massive (given that he managed to engender 10% of the total vote in Ms) and that that, in conjunction with the Fox channel's constants raves on Wright,  is going to have a disastrous effect the popular vote results, on momentum and perceptions of (maybe even actual) relative electability.

Please please, can we start an effort where anytime Joe has a guest on his show and goes in to his long winded, arrogant, dismissive rightwing rant and smear the guest responds to whatever half-wit allegation with the phrase "It isn't as bad if they found his dead secretary in his office, but..."

let's put it out there i'm an african-american female (although i prefer Basic Black Gurl) and i'm for Obama.

those of you with ears, an intelligence quotient higher than that of a goose and a resting heart rate below 187 should not find that particularly jarring.

Shrillarites, please depart now.

thank you.

now, it is increasingly nonsensical and disheartening to me the scores of people who are appalled by the idea of Jeremiah Wright's alleged notion that the AIDS virus could have been engineered to decimate the Black community.

have none of you heard of the Tuskegee Experiment?

i've copy-pasted the gist for you below (emphases mine):

**********************************

The Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male[1] also known as the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, Pelkola Syphilis Study, Public Health Service Syphilis Study or the Tuskegee Experiments was a clinical study, conducted [from] 1932 to 1972 in Tuskegee, Alabama, in which 399 (plus 201 control group without syphilis) poor — and mostly illiterate — African American sharecroppers were denied treatment for Syphilis.

This study became notorious because it was conducted without due care to its subjects, and led to major changes in how patients are protected in clinical studies. Individuals enrolled in the Tuskegee Syphilis Study did not give informed consent and were not informed of their diagnosis; instead they were told they had "bad blood" and could receive free medical treatment, rides to the clinic, meals and burial insurance in case of death in return for participating.[2]

**********************************

this is how certain people in the Black community find it remotely possible that AIDS could have been set up by the government as well -- after all the Public Health Service, the predecessor of the CDC -- was in full knowledge and support of the so-called experiment, a 40-year example of human sadism and depravity befitting only Dr. Mengele and his Nazi war crimes.

Josh

I have enjoyed your blog for a very long time, but I realized recently that the democrat crowd has already split between the far far left and the rest of us. When I could no longer find a safe and fair environment to share my hopes and views in your site, I dramatically cut down by online time with it. 

 

So many liberal sites have ran off into the nethers believing their own posts so much that, well, they forget to look back and see which brothers and sisters they have left behind.

 

Stop disenfranchising the Clinton supporters. You do so at your own peril. Perhaps that is why you received so few responses.

 

We are the ones who suffered on the left all during the Clinton and Bush years and toughing it through, did not need an inspirational speaker, a pied piper to see us through, but a smart reliable and fully understood candidate.

 

May the best man or woman win, but as we all know that does not always happen.

I woke up this morning to a loud sound. No, it was not my labrador retriever snoring on the floor next to me. It was my television set. The loud noise I was hearing was a crowd of over 12,000 people at a Barack Obama appearance in Portland, Oregon. But the man they were cheering was not Mr. Obama, but Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico.

Wiping my eyes to make sure I was really seeing what I thought I was seeing, it became crystal clear. . .the man who was a Clinton stalwart through two presidential terms and one of the most important Hispanic-Americans in politics today, had decided to follow Bill Clinton’s 2004 advice and to partner with the candidate of hope instead of the candidate of fear. . .he was endorsing Senator Barack Obama.

As endorsements go, I think that little comes of them, except for bragging rights for the candidate who receives the endorsement. But this endorsement is different and it matters a lot.

Bill Richardson ran for president this election cycle and in my opinion, was probably the most qualified of the bunch who began the run for the White House last year. He has extensive foreign policy experience as the US Ambassador to the United Nations. He has leadership experience as the Governor of New Mexico. He has a thorough understanding of the problems facing Americans and the pinch at the pump as well as the skyrocketing cost of heating and cooling their homes as he has also been the Energy Secretary. His only real fault that likely kept him from going further in the presidential sweepstakes is his inability to be eloquent enough to show others what was “under the hood”.

Here’s what the New York Times had to say about his choice of Obama over Clinton:

“I talked to Senator Clinton last night,” Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico said on Friday, describing the tense telephone call in which he informed Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton that, despite two months of personal entreaties by her and her husband, he would be endorsing Senator Barack Obama for president.

“Let me tell you: we’ve had better conversations,” Mr. Richardson said.

The decision by Mr. Richardson, who ended his own presidential campaign on Jan. 10, to support Mr. Obama was a belt of bad news for Mrs. Clinton. It was a stinging rejection of her candidacy by a man who had served in two senior positions in President Bill Clinton’s administration, and who is one of the nation’s most prominent elected Hispanics. Mr. Richardson came back from vacation to announce his endorsement at a moment when Mrs. Clinton’s hopes of winning the Democratic nomination seem to be dimming.

But potentially more troublesome for Mrs. Clinton was what Mr. Richardson said in announcing his decision. He criticized the tenor of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign. He praised Mr. Obama for the speech he gave in response to the furor over racially incendiary remarks delivered by Mr. Obama’s former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.

And he came close to doing what Mrs. Clinton’s advisers have increasingly feared some big-name Democrat would do as the battle for the nomination drags on: Urge Mrs. Clinton to step aside in the interest of party unity.

“I’m not going to advise any other candidate when to get in and out of the race,” Mr. Richardson said after appearing in Portland with Mr. Obama. “Senator Clinton has a right to stay in the race, but eventually we don’t want to go into the Democratic convention bloodied. This was another reason for my getting in and endorsing, the need to perhaps send a message that we need unity.”

In many ways, the decision by Mr. Richardson, a longtime political ally of the Clintons, was as much a tale about his relationship with them as it was about the course of Mr. Obama’s campaign.

Mr. Clinton had told his wife’s campaign that he had received several assurances from Mr. Richardson that he would not endorse Mr. Obama. One adviser who spoke to Mr. Clinton on Friday said that the former president was surprised by the Richardson endorsement, but described Mr. Clinton as more philosophical than angry about it.

Mr. Richardson looked anguished when asked in an interview if his relationship with the Clintons would withstand endorsing Mr. Obama. In doing so, Mr. Richardson was not only taking sides in the most bitter of political fights, but rejecting the candidacy of a close friend.

“There’s something special about this guy,” Mr. Richardson said of Mr. Obama. “I’ve been trying to figure it out, but it’s very good.”

Mr. Clinton helped elevate Mr. Richardson to the national stage by naming him his energy secretary and ambassador to the United Nations. And Mr. Clinton left no doubt that he viewed Mr. Richardson’s support as important to his wife’s campaign: He even flew to New Mexico to watch the Super Bowl with Mr. Richardson as part of the Clintons’ high-profile courtship of him.

But Mr. Richardson stopped returning Mr. Clinton’s calls days ago, Mr. Clinton’s aides said. And as of Friday, Mr. Richardson said, he had yet to pick up the phone to tell Mr. Clinton of his decision.

This was obviously a difficult decision for Governor Richardson. . .but in the end, he called Obama a “once-in-a-lifetime leader.” Unforutnately, but not unexpected, the reaction from Camp Clinton was typical. . .sour grapes for everyone. . .beginning with James Carville:

The reaction of some of Mr. Clinton’s allies suggests that might have been a wise decision. “An act of betrayal,” said James Carville, an adviser to Mrs. Clinton and a friend of Mr. Clinton.

“Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic,” Mr. Carville said, referring to Holy Week.

Mr. Richardson said he called Mrs. Clinton late on Thursday to inform her that he would be appearing with Mr. Obama on Friday to lend his support.

“It was cordial, but a little heated,” Mr. Richardson said in an interview.

Mrs. Clinton had no public schedule on Friday, and spent the day at her home in Chappaqua, N.Y. Her chief strategist, Mark Penn, played down the importance of the Richardson endorsement, suggesting that the time “when it could have been effective has long since passed.”

Richardson bristled at that statement, which he said was a stereotypical suggestion that he was only valuable in states with large Hispanic populations.

Mr. Richardson called Mr. Obama about two weeks ago to tell him that he was “99 percent with him,” Mr. Obama’s aides said. The announcement was delayed because Mr. Richardson had been scheduled to go on vacation in the Caribbean. Even though Mr. Richardson had promised Mr. Obama that his mind was made up, Mr. Obama’s aides said they grew worried that the furor over the racially inflammatory remarks made by Mr. Obama’s former pastor might lead Mr. Richardson to reconsider.

But Mr. Richardson, who had sought to become the nation’s first Hispanic president, pointed specifically to the speech that Mr. Obama gave in Philadelphia on Tuesday in explaining why he endorsed him.

“Senator Barack Obama addressed the issue of race with the eloquence and sincerity and decency and optimism we have come to expect of him,” he said. “He did not seek to evade tough issues or to soothe us with comforting half-truths. Rather, he inspired us by reminding us of the awesome potential residing in our own responsibility.”

He added: “Senator Obama could have given a safer speech. He is, after all, well ahead in the delegate count for our party’s nomination.”

Mr. Richardson said he was dispirited by the tone of the Democratic nominating fight, reflecting a sentiment that has been increasingly voiced by party leaders. Unlike many others, though, Mr. Richardson placed the blame on Mrs. Clinton.

“I believe the campaign has gotten too negative,” Mr. Richardson said, speaking to reporters in Portland. “I want it to be positive. I think that’s what’s been very good about Senator Obama’s campaign — it’s a positive campaign about hope and opportunity.”

Mr. Obama and Mr. Richardson appeared together on stage of the Memorial Coliseum in Portland on Friday morning. Mr. Richardson was still wearing the beard that he grew during what he called a period of decompression after leaving the presidential race.

And then, the New York Times makes my point:

On their own, endorsements in contests like this — with two such well-known candidates — do not necessarily move votes. Mr. Obama won a boost of publicity after he was endorsed by Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts; Mrs. Clinton, however, then won the state’s primary.

But the audience now is less primary voters than superdelegates — uncommitted elected Democrats and party leaders — whose votes will be critical in helping Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama get the 2,024 delegates needed to win the nomination.

Mr. Richardson is the 62nd superdelegate to endorse Mr. Obama since Feb. 5, compared with fewer than five who have moved into Mrs. Clinton’s column since then.

The move by Mr. Richardson could give license to other superdelegates who had been holding back, at the request of the Clintons. His endorsement could prove particularly potent with this group because of the way he chastised Mrs. Clinton for the tone of the campaign, and his call for the party to unify around one candidate.

It also came at a moment of vulnerability for Mr. Obama, in which he was dealing with questions about his former pastor. Mr. Richardson’s decision to step out was a signal to primary voters and superdelegates that he did not believe Mr. Obama had been hurt politically by these events — or at least that he was willing to use whatever influence he has in the party to limit the damage.

At this point, the number of Democrats whose endorsements could shake the race is down to Al Gore, the former vice president and presidential nominee; John Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina who dropped out of the race last month; and Nancy Pelosi, the House Speaker. Aides to Mr. Edwards and Mr. Gore said that they did not expect either man to endorse anyone in the immediate future, if at all. Aides to Ms. Pelosi said she was unlikely to endorse at all.

The couple of wheels left on the Clinton campaign are beginning to wobble and are in danger of falling off. Is it possible she could still win? Maybe. But it just got a whole lot harder after today.

We have all heard, maybe too often, in the last few days about the incredible and historic speech given by Sen. Obama. And it certainly was incredible and historic.
But God damn, America (note the comma) is this really the most significant discussion on race in this country in the last 40 years?
God Damn, America (again, please notice the comma) It seems unbelievable to me that all of a sudden we are realizing that there may, somehow, somewhere be some some sort of racial tension in this country.
We have seen the clips played again and again.
Isn't it time we started asking ourselves why? Why has it taken this amount of time to begin this discussion? God Damn! This is America!
It is hard to believe that any thinking person can believe that there isn't a serious problem with racial tension in this country. It is unbelievable that we have not had any sort of serious discussion on race in this country, be it through the media or politics. 
I won't single the United States out on this issue either... it is all over, but we are the country that supposes itself to be above all of this.
And the amazing thing is, we are.
We are on the verge of taking on this issue that has plagued us, and the world for so long, We are on the verge of seeing ourselves as one people.
There is not another country in history that has had such a monumental election. We are on the verge of being the first Western Nation to ever vote for a minority as a head of state.
God Damn, America! Way to go! 
This is something we can be proud of. This is something we should think about and talk about. This is a chance to be proud of this country again.

Yes, it will be an all-out brawl!

To Politico, DailyKos, Tweety, MSNBC, TPM and everyone else who lives on the planet called "Twisted Logic": it's not your decision whether or not Clinton should drop out.

The Politico article is nothing but a regurgitation of Obama talking points.

1. Obama can not win the nomination without superdelegates.

2. If popular vote doesn't matter, then the argument that superdelegates should support the will of the people is a joke.

3. If popular vote does matter, then there has to be a solution to FL/MI.

4. If the amount of states won is a valid argument, then any related metric applies, not only lead in pledged delegates.

5. If the lead in pledged delegates is the overriding argument, then see point 1.

The lead in pledged delegates is not what decides the nomination. Total delegates does.

Why? Because it is a close race, Obama has not won it.

The argument that it's over for Clinton is spin and a lie, pure and simple.

Obama has Wright, Clinton has momentum.

By the end of this process, Obama can only get the nomination by denying MI and FL. And that will be illegitimate, because it's so close.

And it should cause an all-out brawl in Denver.

So if you are a supporter of Clinton, you know what to do (includes a click and forward).

Typical white person, also known as Lalo35adm

It just hit me and it is so smart for McCain.  He is not going to choose Romney or Huckabee, niether one expands his base and Romney is not someone who he gets a long with.  McCain is going to pick Joe Lieberman as his running mate, make the strong bipartisan arguement and try to peel off the jewish vote from the dems.  I honestly cannot think of a better VP for him that would bring in more votes.

Obama and Clinton need to wrap this up and get focused, this election will not be a dem cakewalk.

So President Bush is shooting off his mouth again, falsely stating that Iran has stated their intent to acquire nuclear weapons. This shouldn't come as a surprise to those of us used to hearing this administration's falsehoods, but it did seem like a good reason to revisit a certain missed opportunity, which represents one of the great failures of the last seven years: the White House's failure to engage Iran in diplomatic talks in the aftermath of 9/11. Coincidentally, the Columbia Journalism Review took on this very story in their most recent issue, and by their account the failure was two-fold. One failure on the part of the administration to engage the Iranians, and the other failure by the media's lack of curiosity about the story.

There does appear to have been an opportunity [negotiation] that, with little notice in the media, was passed up not by Iran but by the Bush administration.

In the fall of 2001, U.S. attention was focused on Osama bin Laden and rooting out Al Qaeda from Afghanistan. At the same time, something else was happening in Afghanistan: Iran was cooperating with the U.S. to a degree that hadn’t been seen since the days of the Shah. It was, as Ray Takeyh, author of Hidden Iran, put it, “the underreported story of the first episode of America’s war on terrorism.”

Before the U.S. began its air strikes against the Taliban in October 2001, U.S. and Iranian diplomats started to meet and coordinate on Afghanistan. (Iran had long opposed the Taliban, whose Sunni extremism brands Shia, Iran’s state religion, as heretical.) Iran invited the U.S. to use its airbases for emergency landings and offered to conduct rescue operations for lost American pilots. Tehran’s diplomats apparently also stepped in to save a U.S.-proposed power-sharing deal that the Northern Alliance initially opposed. Indeed, Iran even offered to help train the nascent Afghan Army—under U.S. supervision.

Mid-level contacts between Tehran and Washington continued in fits and starts. In May 2003, Iranian leaders appear to have made a last-ditch effort at a deal. They may have been motivated by the speed with which the U.S. toppled Saddam Hussein’s regime. After all, Iran had fought an eight-year war with Iraq that ended in a stalemate; the U.S. march to Baghdad took three weeks. Whatever its inspiration, Iran’s offer put nearly everything on the table, from support for Hezbollah to Iran’s nuclear energy program. It has since been dubbed the “Grand Bargain.”

The sincerity of Iran's offers during this time might be questionable to those who believe it to be an irrational actor on the world stage, but one thing is clear: regardless of the ultimate efficacy of these possible negotiations, the administration failed to even pursue them. The compounding of this error came when the media failed to pursue the story. The story of the "Grand Bargain" appeared in the media, but usually as a smaller part of a much larger story. The media never fixated on the story in a way that might have compelled the appropriate political actors to pay attention at the time.

Few other reporters seemed interested in the evidence of Iran’s apparent peace overtures and the U.S.’s recalcitrance. The first headline about any of this in a U.S. paper wouldn’t come for another year and a half, nearly three years after the Financial Times first revealed those overtures. (That story was published in February 2006 by a freelancer, Greg Beals, in Long Island’s Newsday.)

This is yet another perfect example of how cautious or careless reporting, combined with an administration with limited concern for the truth, can cost the country greatly in the form of lost opportunities, or -- as is the case with Iraq -- imprudent and ill-informed action. The press is happy to cover Rev. Wright's remarks nearly 24 hours a day for a week straight, but on the substantive issues, our media continue to fall short. The one news organization that CJR reserves praise for is McClatchy, which took over for Knight Ridder and continues to be the first place to go for sober analysis and good old fashioned muckraking.

As always, more news and commentary available at The Left Anchor.

Last week the CDC released the results of its first-ever study of Sexually Transmitted Diseases in teenage girls. The results were deeply disturbing. One in four teenage girls has an STD. For all African-American teenage girls that number is double. The most common disease found was the human papillomavirus. A virus linked to cervical cancer. The very same virus evangelicals and other "conservative" types don't want to vaccinate their daughters against for fear they'll go all mad promiscuous.

These uptight sexist bastards want our daughters and sons to know as little about sex and nothing about how to prevent STDs or unplanned pregnancy. From Bush on down, they preach abstinence only as the only option. This unrealistic approach puts our teenagers unnecessarily at risk. Plus there's absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever that it works! Actually, the new CDC study provides additional strong anecdotal evidence that Bush's abstinence-only crusade is an abject failure.

We knew this already. Last November, a study* (PDF summary) by the non-partisan National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy concluded:

At present there does not exist any strong evidence that any abstinence program delays the initiation of sex, hastens the return to abstinence or reduces the number of sexual partners (among teenagers).

These dangerous crackpots are not content to vehemently deny our children basic information to protect themselves. They cannot abide by any program that does. Without any supporting evidence, abstinence-only advocates claim such informative programs do more harm than good. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Last November ABC News reported:

The study found that while abstinence-only efforts appear to have little positive impact, more comprehensive sex education programs were having "positive outcomes" including teenagers "delaying the initiation of sex, reducing the frequency of sex, reducing the number of sexual partners and increasing condom or contraceptive use."

"Two-thirds of the 48 comprehensive programs that supported both abstinence and the use of condoms and contraceptives for sexually active teens had positive behavior effect," said the report.

Yes, the but the key word in "abstinence-only" is "only." More ABC News:

The study, conducted by Douglas Kirby, a senior research scientist at ETR Associates, also sought to debunk what the report called "myths propagated by abstinence-only advocates" including: that comprehensive sex education promotes promiscuity, hastens the initiative of sex or increases its frequency, and sends a confusing message to adolescents.

None of these was found to be accurate, Kirby wrote.

Instead, he wrote, such programs improved teens' knowledge about the risks and consequences of pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases and gave them greater "confidence in their ability to say 'no' to unwanted sex."

Even a 2007 study contracted by Bush's own HHS Department reached the same conclusions. Furthermore, it found under abstinence-only programs, teenagers are “less likely to report that condoms are usually effective at preventing STDs and more likely to report that condoms are never effective at preventing STDs.” Heckuva job Bushie!

He can't help himself. Not unlike the Iraq War, Bush has long committed himself to obliviously ride this train to its destination, a ruined bridge. Salon's 2004 Bush's Sex Fantasy recountss how George Bush "lobbied for and promoted abstinence-only" early in his tenure as Texas Governor. The article also notes how "the teen pregnancy rate in Texas remains one of the highest in the country, despite the abstinence-only policies Bush pushed as governor."

You would think all of this would be enough to bring the abstinence-only gravy train to a grinding halt. Au contraire. This new CDC report on the prevalence of STDs amongst teenage girls was met with a kind of rejoicing amongst hard-core evangelicals. Breaking Christian News had this breathless bulletin:

President Bush's 2009 budget proposal includes an important increase in funding for Community Based Abstinence Education (CBAE).

In light of a disturbing report from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention which came out this week—and revealed that 1 in 4 teenage girls have a sexually transmitted infection (STI)—the President's urging for abstinence education is timely and obviously needed.

Linda Klepacki, sexual health analyst for Focus on the Family Action, stated, "With 3 million teen girls infected with STIs, safer sex in adolescents does not exist. For the current and future health of teens, we must teach them how to have strong relationships not based on sex."

Again the willful misperception and implication that "safer sex" does not exist and any form of sex ed other than abstinence will lead teenagers to have weak relationships that are based only on sex.

Next up, in Bush's Abstinence-Only Crusade=Big Money For Religious Right, we learn "abstinence only" has less to do with the sex and than it does with money.

-AF

Cross-posted at Andrew Sullivan Is A Fraud

*ETR Associates, a non-profit non-partisan organization “dedicated to developing and disseminating evidenced-based programs and best practices”, conducted this particular study. ETR Associates markets teen-targeted pamphlets, posters, DVDs and other materials emphasizing health education and sexuality to both sides of this debate. Their publications cover everything from abstinence and safe sex to substance abuse and violence.

Problem # 1 Hosts of the New Shows

If you expect any of the major cable news shows to take the lead in the national discussion on race challenge laid down by Barack Obama, you will be sorely disappointed.

There are several factors that will inhibit any serious discussion on race on cable news among them are: the hosts of the new shows, they selected guests, the public, and of course management and the advertisers

The Hosts
As an African-American, I take special note that none of the “brand-name” hour-long new shows that focus on political discussion and commentary have African-American hosts. The morning and evening cable news shows are all anchored by Caucasians.

Worsening the situation even more, most of these Caucasian hosts have a Conservative or Centrist bias.  The viewpoints of a significant number of African-Americans never get a full hearing.  I realize that there are frequent African-American guests when the Black-White debate arises.  However, it is always the Caucasian anchor directing this discussion.  The African-American guest never gets to pose questions to the Caucasian anchor.

It also has to be noted that many of the so-called pundits are viewed as somewhat damaged goods from the standpoint of many African-Americans.  During the Don Imus situation, for example, many well respected pundits sided with Imus.   Despite the power of  the cable news anchors being All White All Night, many pundits argued that the National Association al Black Journalists were playing the race card by stating their objection to the Imus show.  These powerful pundits were somehow being oppressed by the black journalist’s organization, an absurdity. The Caucasian punditry is not thought to be an unbiased participant in any discussion on race.

Further complicating the issue is the fact that the punditry relishes conflict, but is incapable of handling conflict resolution.  Placing the national discussion on race in the hands of the usual characters who host cable news shows would be folly.

We need a more diverse gallery of hosts of new shows who are tapped into more diverse communities.  The existing punditry is ill-equipped for any serious discussion of race

Future posts will deal with other aspects of cable news as it is currently constructed  that makes any serious discussion of race highly unlikely. Perhaps, we can find solutions that will make the racial debate more possible.

 

I note that some anti-Obama corespondent has notified Josh Marshall that he prefers a liberal republican (John McCain) to Barack Obama.  I don't suppose we should be terribly surprised that in every election some supposed members of each party vote in the other.

However, the idea that there is such a thing as a liberal republican, or assuming that there is, that John McCain would fit that mold is bizarre.  What we are presently selecting from is an extremist warmongering republican, a rightwing, but not extremist, democrat (Clinton), and a mild democrat (Obama).  There are no liberals of any sort in this race.

The benefit of Obama, to the degree that there is one, is that he takes matters seriously rather than manipulating his position to best mirror whatever he guesses will best please just enough voters to get himself elected.  He has, on several occasions taken the risk of losing voters rather than adjusting his positions.  This is the behavior that recommends him.

Clinton has made the double mistake of adjusting her positions to get elected and> being wrong about those adjustments.  Stupid in her deceptivity.  What kind of "leader" is that?

So "DT" will vote for McCain over Obama.  Sayonara, DT.  We hardly knew you.

One big fact has largely been lost in the recent coverage of the Democratic presidential race: Hillary Rodham Clinton has virtually no chance of winning.

Her own campaign acknowledges there is no way that she will finish ahead in pledged delegates. That means the only way she wins is if Democratic superdelegates are ready to risk a backlash of historic proportions from the party’s most reliable constituency.

Unless Clinton is able to at least win the primary popular vote — which also would take nothing less than an electoral miracle — and use that achievement to pressure superdelegates, she has only one scenario for victory. An African-American opponent and his backers would be told that, even though he won the contest with voters, the prize is going to someone else.

People who think that scenario is even remotely likely are living on another planet.

As it happens, many people inside Clinton’s campaign live right here on Earth. One important Clinton adviser estimated to Politico privately that she has no more than a 10 percent chance of winning her race against Barack Obama, an appraisal that was echoed by other operatives.

In other words: The notion of the Democratic contest being a dramatic cliffhanger is a game of make-believe.

It's been clear to some of us for over a month that the race was over.  The Politico article covers some of what we've been talking about for some time, that by just about any measure the race is decided, and that the only way Clinton can win is for Obama to be destroyed and for her to benefit from his destruction.  

When asked yesterday if her campaign was pushing the Wright story, Hillary Clinton herself wouldn't deny it, and didn't declare it off limits for her campaign staff.  I've been told that the campaign's talking points for surrogate calls to superdelegates urges the callers to question Obama's electability by emphasizing the Wright controversy.  And even in public, as Chris Bowersreported from his local Dem meeting, Clinton staffers are pushing the Wright story:

Well, I just returned from my ward meeting tonight in University City, Philadelphia, and two Clinton staffers made an appearance. When one spoke on behalf of Hillary Clinton, he specifically listed Jeremiah Wright as an example of why Obama would be less electable in the general election. The context of his argument was that the Wright story demonstrated that Obama had not gone through the rigors of a presidential election before, and it was possible that more damaging stories like that would come out as the campaign progressed. Aka, the Wright story is demonstrative of how Obama is less electable.

According to The Politico article, it's sort of a last gasp attempt to derail Obama's nomination, but it doesn't seem likely to succeed:

Her advisers say privately that the nominee will be clear by the end of June. At the same time, they recognize that the nominee probably is clear already.

So, you might be asking, why the heck won't the traditional media report what most of us see, that the nomination is settled and there's no way other than destroying Obama or dividing the party that Clinton can win the nomination?  

The real question is why so many people are playing. The answer has more to do with media psychology than with practical politics.

Journalists, for instance, have become partners with the Clinton campaign in pretending that the contest is closer than it really is. Most coverage breathlessly portrays the race as a down-to-the-wire sprint between two well-matched candidates, one only slightly better situated than the other to win in August at the national convention in Denver.

One reason is fear of embarrassment. In its zeal to avoid predictive reporting of the sort that embarrassed journalists in New Hampshire, the media — including Politico — have tended to avoid zeroing in on the tough math Clinton faces.

Avoiding predictions based on polls even before voters cast their ballots is wise policy. But that's not the same as drawing sober and well-grounded conclusions about the current state of a race after millions of voters have registered their preferences.

The antidote to last winter's flawed predictions is not to promote a misleading narrative based on the desired but unlikely story line of one candidate.

There are other forces also working to preserve the notion of a contest that is still up for grabs.

One important, if subliminal, reason is self-interest. Reporters and editors love a close race — it’s more fun and it’s good for business.

That's right, reporters and editors are unable--or unwilling--to report the race accurately because they're having too much fun, and maybe even making too much money.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/how-will-hillarys-bosnia_b_92844.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/how-will-hillarys-bosnia_b_92844.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/how-will-hillarys-bosnia_b_92844.html



"In the end, maybe one lie shouldn't matter. Perhaps this doesn't reflect on how Sen. Clinton would govern. In our political system, however, it does matter ... but only if the media choose to make it matter. Had Obama been caught in a lie of this magnitude, his campaign might well be over."



Contact CNN
Demand them do their jobs.
http://edition.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form1.pt.html?50

Contact MSNBC, FOX. All of them.

I had a great time this morning at Barack Obama's rally in Portland, Oregon!  It's easy enough to view the speeches by Barack Obama and Bill Richardson, so I'm passing along some of what I observed before they took the stage -

- Oregon Congressman Earl Blumenauer spoke for approximately ten minutes, saying that Oregon's primary "matters for the first time  in forty years", "Barack Obama can bring the country together again", and that Barack Obama can "clean up after the mess that George Bush created."  The three statements were met by roars from the crowd.

- Soul music (Earth Wind and Fire's Shining Star, for example) played through the PA system.  The crowd's cheers between songs were reminiscent of the lead-up to a concert.

- OH-BA-MA chants periodically broke out.

- "Vote for Barack" graphics appeared on arena's the four screen gondola.

- A crowd "wave" circled the arena eight times.

- An Obama campaign representative took the stage to appeal for volunteers, followed by another who waked audience members through how to subscribe to Obama campaign cell phone text messages.

- will.i.am's "Yes We Can" video played on the gondola's screens, which brought up a cheer from the crowd.  The line, "There's never been anything false about hope" brought out a roar.

Never have I been in an audience so large (over 12,000), so enthusiastic,  yet so polite.

This is the sermon where Pastor Wright is accused of damning the United States of America. While his tone was in fact harsh and vitriolic at times, nothing he said was factually incorrect. While many simply hear "damn America" it is quite obvious he was damning America's bad actions. We all love our country. We must love it enough to identify its faults which in fact would then allow us to improve. Click here for the sermon.

It is shameful how Fox News and every liberal and conservative news organization have caricatured Reverend Jeremiah Wright's sermon on the 9/11 tragedy by displaying small snippets that make him look unpatriotic or vitriolic. Many do not realize that many statements including the "chickens coming home to roost” statement was him addressing what Ambassador Edward Peck said on Fox.

Ultimately this sermon is a very Christian sermon that urges self-examination as opposed to retaliation which breeds more violence. Listen to the speech in its entirety and America will sure see some wisdom in it.

While Pastor Wright have a tendency to use raw hyperbole, I simply cannot view him as racist. You be the judge. Click here for the full sermon.

<i>It will be an all out brawl!</i>
That's what a Hillary supporter is quoted as saying, on the front page of TPM.
Think about that. The idea of an "all out brawl" between Obama supporters and Hillary supporters is considered to be a <i>good</i> thing by Hillary supporters. 
<i>The superdelegates [were created] to make the educated decision that voters sometimes can't.</i>
Think about that.  From the perspective of a Hillary supporter, mere voters can't be trusted to make good decisions.  Oh, no.  The elite superdelegates sometimes have to step in and save the poor, ignorant voters from themselves.
This is the sort of point of view needed to be a Hillary supporter these days: a preference for divisiveness, and a disdain for the preferences of mere voters.  
(Trying this again from a different browser to see if that fixes the HTML problems.  Sorry for the double post.)

So what is Hillary thinking?  After reading the Politico article on the chance of her pulling it off, it made me wonder.  Clearly she is no dummy, so why drag this out.  Well maybe she is thinking beyond this election, maybe she is looking at 2012.  She must realize this one is lost, but if she can destroy Barack, and help McCain win, then she will still have a strong shot in 2012.  If Barack wins the Presidency then realistically she is looking at 2016 (2020 if Barack's VP runs strongly) which in political terms is forever.  So my question is, Does Hillary want McCain to win?

Is the retired Air Force general and Obama aide over-sensitive, or was this comment by Bill Clinton a dig at Obama's patriotism? From the AP article:

'CLINTON: 'I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country,'' Clinton said. ''And people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics.''

[retired general] McPeak learned of the remarks while at an Obama rally in Salem, Ore. Afterward, he called Clinton's statement horrible and compared it to McCarthy, the Republican senator from Wisconsin who held hearings on suspected Communist sympathizers in the 1950s.

I unfortunately wasn't able to find a transcript of Bill Clinton's entire talk, but the Clinton campaign isn't claiming the quote was taken out of context, so I think it's fair to examine as is.

Also unfortunately, I wasn't able to find a way to get out of this block quote. TPM, throw us a bone here.

Supposedly, Bill Clinton was musing about a Clinton/McCain match-up when he said this. Which, if true, is a pretty clear dig at Obama's patriotism because he is talking about a conditional state that does not yet exist ("it would be a great thing").

If Bill Clinton thought McCain, Hillary, and Obama were all equally patriotic, then he would have said somethng along the lines of, "It is a great thing that we have an election year where the remaining candidates love their country..." (which would lead one to ask, "What election are you thinking about where one of the candidates didn't love his or her coutnry?"

Alternate interpretations? Any Clinton supporters want to explain Bill's thinking in a more charitable way?

<i>It will be an all out brawl!</i>
That's what a Hillary supporter is quoted as saying, on the front page of TPM.
Think about that. The idea of an "all out brawl" between Obama supporters and Hillary supporters is considered to be a <i>good</i> thing by Hillary supporters.
<i>The superdelegates [were created] to make the educated decision that voters sometimes can't.</i>
Think about that.  From the perspective of a Hillary supporter, mere voters can't be trusted to make good decisions.  Oh, no.  The elite superdelegates sometimes have to step in and save the poor, ignorant voters from themselves.
This is the sort of point of view needed to be a Hillary supporter these days: a preference for divisiveness, and a disdain for the preferences of mere voters.  

Now Hillaryis44.org is particularily known for its "frothing at the mouth" brand of hatred of Barack Obama, but I think they outdid themselves on this one.

They dub their little piece on Obama "Barack Obama: Unelectable Bigot, part 1" (So I suppose we have more of this vile dreck to look forward to)

[quote]Barack Obama never stops with the politics of distraction and distortion and division.

Barack Obama is tied to “Pastor” Wright for 20 years, tied to Antoin “Tony” Rezko for 20 years, and attempts to expiate these close relationships by releasing 20 second robo-photo pictures of these dastards with Bill Clinton. Barack Obama has slimed Hillary and Bill Clinton with racial smears, has slimed Geraldine Ferraro with racial smears, slimes his own grandmother with racial smears, disenfranchises the voters of Michigan and Florida, and continues to change his version of every story continously all the while talking unity.

Instead of answering questions about his own bigotry, Obama distracts and distorts and divides. Like Felix The Cat, Whenever he gets in a fix, he reaches into his bag of tricks.

This not so wonderful Chicago cat reached into his bag of tricks and pulled out a batch of racial smears to get himself out of his latest fix. Today it is fake outrage over a passport. Bill Clinton had his passport files investigated back in 1992 so now Obama and his Big Media protectors are using a similar situation to divert from Obama’s dirty dealings.

It won’t work. Voters will not be distracted by Obama’s tricks.

Voters are asking, What kind of man, what kind of person would slime his own 86 year old grandmother for political profit? The answer is, a man eager to distract and divide and distort from his own failures of judgment. Such a man would throw grandma off the train.

The beauty of a speech is that you don’t just give the answers, you provide your own questions. “Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes.” So said Barack Obama, in his Philadelphia speech about his pastor, friend, mentor and spiritual adviser of 20 years, Jeremiah Wright.

An interesting, if belated, admission.[/quote]

I can't really bear to even touch on the rest of the article, but it's even worse than what I pasted above.  And if you think the ARTICLE is bad, look at the comment section!

The

It has been a fascinating experience to blog.  My second and probably last time.  I was a fan of yours for two years and open minded to any of the democratic candidates (Biden in particular).  After watching your site and readers,
 I realize their is a lot of hatred out there. 
The war is a great concern and probably my biggest reason for getting out there and trying to find an alternative to the current lack of leadership.  Unfortunately, with your support of hate speech from a pulpit and your refusal to recognize that Wright is a bigger issue than you wish to address, I now know that there is a dishonest bent to your reporting that quite frankly scares me to death. 
News is news, would you allow your children to hear that hate, should that church pay taxes (as I feel Hagee, Dobson and the deceased Falwell's churches should) when he is politically active?  Would you choose to go there regularly?  Would you seek counsel from someone full of so much hate?
As much as I despise the war, I cannot trust Obama.  So as all of you Obama worshippers have fun with your attacks on Hillary, watch McCann get the vote and the vote of many of my centrist friends despite our hatred of the war. 
The democratic party is the only party that could be given an election and select a ticking time bomb as your nominee.  Your words will help this occur.  But words will not be enough in a general election.  In middle america, we love our country and while we do not like the war, we do not want a leader who will regularly attend a church (with children in tow) who seeks words of hatred.
 Rejoice in your attacks on Hillary and on your way to the Obama altar you will see losses that repeat the absurd losses by the past eight years.  Hillary did not deserve this from you.  Shame on you and I believe you will not receive a lot of responses as you noted not because people do not care but because you are most disappointing.