I realize this isn't exactly political news but it's related since the candidates are all talking about NAFTA.

I just watched the movie called Bordertown starring Jennifer Lopez, Martin Sheen and Antonio Banderas.

The film tells the true story of the numerous women murdered in Ciudad Juarez and the inquisitive American reporter sent in by her American newspaper.

The opening titles explain that American corporations are using the North American Free Trade Agreement by opening large maquiladoras right across the United States border. The maquiladora's hire mostly Mexican women to work long hours for little money in order to produce mass quantity products.

Lauren Adrian (Jennifer Lopez), an impassioned American news reporter for the "Chicago Sentinel" wants to be assigned to the Iraq front-lines to cover the war. Instead, her editor George Morgan (Martin Sheen) assigns her to investigate a series of slayings involving young maquiladora factory women in a Mexican bordertown.

Adrian runs into a young 16 year girl that had been raped and buried left for dead.  To try and find the guilty, Adrian volunteers to be a ginny pig at the factory to get her story.  She ends up getting partially attacked herself and almost killed.

She sends her story to her boss.  He refuses to print it because she accuses not only the Mexican government of covering it up, she accuses the American government of doing so too.  A new NAFTA agreement was also being put through and the 'bigwigs' didn't want any bad publicity.

Adrian ends up taking over the newspaper there in Juarez because the original, her friend, was murdered for his involvement of trying to get the story out there.

It was a violent, sad, and shocking story.  All true.

I recommend this movie to all.  NAFTA may be good for companies and governments, but it's creating slave labor and death down south.

Arizona Superdelegate Charlene Fernandez Endorses Barack Obama for President

PHOENIX, AZ — Today newly elected Arizona Democratic Party First Vice Chairwoman and Superdelegate Charlene Fernandez endorsed Senator Barack Obama for president.

“Senator Barack Obama is strengthening the Democratic Party by bringing in new voters, young and old, into the process. I believe Senator Obama has the best ability to win the White House in November and lead this country forward.”

Fernandez, who was elected as first vice chairwoman of the Arizona Democratic Party today,  is Senator Obama’s 241st  Superdelegate endorsement. Senator Obama is now 290 delegates away from winning the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination.

http://thepage.time.com/obama-release-on-arizona-superdelegate-endorsement/

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


Hopefully he can pick up a few more over the next few days and go into the NC & Indiana primaries with some "super" momentum.

These last few weeks, he seems to be missing.  Not literally, but his presence in the national dialogue has receded.
Now I'm not a Clinton troll.  In fact, I've been an avid Obama supporter since the beginning.  And I will continue to be.  
But all I see and here out there is an angry Hillary.A mad narcissistic Bill.  Both acting like they're  bigger and more important than their own party.   
I expected a defiant Barack Obama to challenge that notion.  I expect him to stand up for our party at a time when no one else will, or can.  
But all I hear is the rallying cry of Hillary and Bill, both of whom are a little astonished that the democratic party isn't rallying around them.
Both of whom are thinking "What in the heck is wrong with all you people?" as "all us people" are  thinking the same about them.  
So where is Barack Obama?  

I know he's busy in NC and IN working every day for every vote.   
I turn on the tv and listen to the pundits reciting Clinton talking points and questioning his electability, using old electoral models and Clintonian logic.  I don't know why they're so confident about their speculation.  They have yet to be right about anything this election.  
But where is Barack Obama right now as the corporate media walks all over him?
He's busy winning.  I got that.  
But he seems distant. 
He talks about a broken system in Washington philosophically, but it doesn't feel like his feet are on the ground, in the present, demanding that the Attorney General either take the lead in all these investigations,  or get out of the way.  Asking how in the world a bill that would ensure voters had a paper trail was stopped in its tracks.  Demanding that the EPA allow each state to set their own cafe standards.  

I'd like to see him step up a little right now and show a lot more fortitude.    
You can only rope-a-dope so long.  At some point, you have to throw an uppercut.

The Center for American Progress has done some number crunching on what John McCain's economic policies really mean

From The Field:

The news is exactly what you’d expect - tax cuts for corporations and wealthy Americans that leave struggling families behind.

More than half of Senator McCain’s tax cuts — $175 billion a year – go to corporations. Another $60 billion spent on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax goes to very high income taxpayers. And his gas tax holiday lasts only three months and expires before he takes office.

Senator McCain does propose one tax break that will benefit many middle-class families: doubling the personal exemption for dependents from $3,500 to $7,000. The proposal ill let parents earn $3,500 tax-free for each child they have. Its value is higher to
higher-income families:

• Families in poverty – who pay sales and payroll taxes, but usually not income taxes– will not get any tax relief at all. In the families shown in the table, the adults are working full time earning the minimum wage and yet they live in poverty. These families would not receive a tax cut from the McCain plan.
• Typical middle-class families – defined as those in the 15 percent tax bracket –would receive $525 per dependent.
• High-income families in the top tax bracket – who pay a 35 percent tax rate – would receive $1,225 per dependent.  
  

• No wonder John McCain didn’t want to get into specific proposals. It’s because his multi-day photo-op extravaganza is a complete sham. The Center for American Progress put together estimates of the effect McCain’s massive tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy would have on the poor, revealing the sort of grim reality a McCain presidency would offer to families who need the most help.

  Not only would the McCain proposed economic plan not provide any relief for the families who need it most, but that same economic plan could potentially strip programs that low income American’s depend on of 40% of their budget. Programs like Head Start, Title I and Pell grants would suffer. Head Start alone could see a 3.2 billion cut from its budget, meaning 340,000 children would be left with out access to early education.      http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/ 
  I'd add - check out McCain's education policy on his website.   Mumbo jumbo that prescribes - absolutely nothing.
  

I began my blog about four months ago, because I love politics and I think it's a great way to keep one's ideas focused.  Today, I am proud to say I completed my 300th post and reached more than 5,000 hits in the last four months.  So, for those few of you who have stopped by The Left Anchor to see what Big Blue has to say, I sincerely thank you.  I know it's not much, but it's nice to know that each of us -- through this wonderful medium of the interent, the most democratic form of communication in history -- can reach out to one another from great distances and bridge the divides of race, age, or class.  Many thanks to those of you who have been generous enough to follow along with me on this experiment.

But I'm not going to devote an entire blog post to something that likely matters only to me, so here's the real thrust of my argument today:

A couple of posts up yesterday over at Tapped (here and here) ponder over the writing portion of the SAT and why our students largely can't seem to put together strong, insightful, well-sourced essays.  (Admission: my girlfriend was a grad student who taught freshman English and I can testify to the unbelievably poor writing skills of America's youth).  So I thought I'd add my two cents on the failure of our education system to enhance our students' writing skills. 

Students don't write well because at both the high-school and college levels, the teachers are too willing to overlook poor writing. If you don't demand greatness, you don't get it. If a student can't put together a good argument in a reasonably structured way, then that essay deserves no better than a D. The fact is, though, that those essays consistently earn B's or at worst C's. That's just not enough of a punishment to encourage the students to perform any better.

Now, if you happen to be a good writer already, this dynamic puts you at a significant advantage, but at the same time, there's nothing worse than a professor giving you an "A" on a paper that you would personally rate a "C." But in my experience, that is what college is: a never ending process to encourage students to under-perform because professors are too lazy to challenge them. Whether this is from pressure to keep the GPA's artificially high in order to improve a college's ranking, I don't know.

What I do know is that every student would benefit far more by reading than writing. Ultimately, reading is the best way to learn how to write. You can be reasonably sure that if a text is important enough for you to read, then the writer is excellent at structuring an essay. The more you read, the better you become at writing.

If colleges pointed their students in directions that encouraged them to read books that were interesting to them (but within the bounds of course objectives) rather than texts assigned with no consideration to the fact that students don't read books that bore them, then we'd probably see a lot more students actually reading the texts instead of glossing them.  I'm not saying students should be able to design their own course, but a little added freedom in choosing at least some of the texts to be read during a semester would likely ensure greater investment on the student's part.

I might even argue that "glossing" over texts is the single biggest factor in contributing to poor writing among students. They don't write well, because they don't read well. They scan books, picking up the major points, but not the actual structure of the argument, then when they write their own essays, they aren't aware of how to adequately structure an argument. They work in broad strokes with little narrative flow and a near complete lack of nuance or genuine evidence.

One final point: topic sentences are for losers. They are a lazy writer's way of winning points. If a reader can't understand the point of a paragraph after reading it, then the author is a terrible writer and so-called "topic sentences" would merely serve to obscure that fact.  Not to mention those sorts of essays tend to be the driest, most boring essays imaginable.

The problem isn't with topic sentences or five paragraph format, it's with papers lacking a thesis to begin with and then lacking the ability to structure whatever argument they're making and failing to back up those arguments with sufficient or relevant evidence.

This inability to write lies in one place: the instructors at both the high-school and college levels who are too willing to look past poor writing.  It's a detriment to both the professors (who will continue to have to read such awful essays) and the students (who deserve better for the money their paying in college).

I'd be greatly interested in the opinions (especially of current students or long time teachers) on just what it is that serves as the greatest impediment to our childrens' writing skills.

Cross posted from The Left Anchor.

I have just watched the Movie  So Goes the Nation! About the 2004 election. I don't think that us dem's have learned anything,we are never on message. The Democrats donot repeat the same message over and over like the Right- Wing does. This Obama and the Terrorists thing, is the same message they conveyed about Sen. Kerry soft on terror. So Sen Obama must watch this movie, and learn that whatever McCain says about him or his so-called ties, Obama hits back.  The attack ad's are going to be relentless, they have Fox News on there side, Fair&Balanced  You got to be kidding!  The Democratic Party must not let the Republican Party  frame our  message  ,we dem's must  get out loud and clear,over&over. Not this time!

There's been much chatter over the course of this campaign about the Mark Penn theory of microtrends. It is widely assumed that with the growth of the Obama phenomenon, and the death of the Penn Strategy for Clinton, Penn was wrong: Macrotrends aren't over - they're just getting going again.  Penn argued that, "there is no One America any more... we are flying apart at record pace." Obama's campaign seems to have turned that idea on its head.

However, given the recent "deadlock" in the primary process (perceived or otherwise), there's been an increased opportunity to analyze the breakdowns and internals of polling and primary results. 

So my question is this: has Mark Penn been in any way proven right? I'm not talking about his attack strategy, but more specifically his data-driven, research-based targeting of subgroups. 

My take on it is this: Microtrends are "real". They're here, and they're growing and diversifying and subdividing with each passing minute. But Penn simply underestimated the extent to which these small trends would be able to fit into a larger macro-pattern, and the extent to which all of these microtrends could be linked by a couple of common factors: newness and change - whether you're left-handed and need a customized device, a health-freak and want to cut your hydrogenated oils, a blogger looking for somewhere different to read and share news, or a Starbucks customer who likes their latte with every conceivable add-on - there is one linking factor: they all want something NEW, and something DIFFERENT. 

This, in my opinion, has been the single major oversight of Penn's theory.

Remember the GOP's flag pin issue against Barack Obama and his not putting his hand over his heart?  Well, perhaps some of you noticed that just now during the National Anthem at the White House Correspondents Association Dinner, neither President Bush, Vice President Cheney or Mrs. Bush sang along with the song.  Reporters did, but they did not.

I think this video would be a perfect comeback whenever somebody pushes the flag pin issue.  Why didn't they sing America's song?

 - McAuliffe Praises Fox News for being fair and balanced.
 - Scarborough openly rooting for Clinton
 - Limbaugh Operation chaos aggressively trying to elect HRC and/ or weaked the Dem party (whereas many in the Dem party think its the best thing for us.. hmm..  Woops, I digress)
 - Kristol admiring the Machiavellian approach
 - Rovian tactics a frequent description of her campaign
 - Endorsement by the vast right wing conspirator Mr. R. Scaife

Agree with the above fairness or not, relevance or not, they are factual outcomes of the Dem campaign.

We all know politics gets ugly.  We can argue where the line of decency is.  But I must assume even the most ardent HRC supporter cringes when the likes of Fox News is the new BFF.

Most often these ugly facts are reconciled by the logic that she should fight hard for the nomination if she feels she is truly the best choice in an important nomination decision.

But the uglier outcome of that logic is this:  Now you understand, and legitimize, what the right wing has done in every election and on every day on Fox News and Limbaugh's program that I can remember.  The ends justify the repulsive means. 

HRC defenders lose the right to complain about a media bias in a Machaivellian justifiable world, they want ratings and you should understand the end justifies the means. 

Republicans may fear monger to get what they believe is a safer world, one controlled by them.  Again, since they truly believe in the ends, whether you agree or not, you must concede its only "right" to fight, smart to give it their all, without shame or excuse, with any weapons available, to achieve the more important outcome, whether there is agreement on the outcome- or means- or not.

Another argument is that HRC has shown restraint and done nothing repugnant.  Facts aside that her right wing fans have only become fans since she "threw the kitchen sink," I suggest that she has not.  The only restraint is defined by her nomination chances, IMO.  She could press harder perhaps, but risk alienating too many more potential voters.

Yes, she isnt the only one going negative.  But you must concede the Ayers and Wright and Bitter fiascoes bear much more resemblance to swiftboating than, say Ferraro's race comments.  And lets note that Ferraro's scandal was self inflicted, unapologetic, repeated several times by her in many media outlets and not just at a paid speech.  Bosnia, similar, self inflicted over many speeches, not digged up video out of nowhere.  They had a microphone in front of them!

Contrast to Obama's restraint.   I dont recall Obama in the debate saying Ferraro should be investigated further, or bring up Bill's WU pardons without provocation.  Obama has shown clear restraint (note:  restraint does not mean here all positive, it means holding back full assault).  Restraint to the point that Kristol and Carville agree he may be to weak, hiding behind skirts, as it were.

Finally, consider that she is vetted.  Perhaps more than Obama, but not yet swiftboated.  Anyone familiar with HRC and the Clintons knows there are MANY potential Ayers scandals in her closet, which run 24x7, which would hamstring her campaign.  The media and the ReThugs have backed off Bosnia not because it wont be an issue if HRC won the nomination, but because HRC is not the front runner anymore.

And thats why I am so appalled, and incredulous at the logic.  Her justification to do this is a red herring.  Beat him up and see if he can take another 15 rounder with those heavyweights, she says.  Why?  The heavyweights are going to throw their punches, and land them whether you are black and imperfect or a woman and imperfect.

Showing someone can be damaged by attacks, while you have yet to be assualted, is at the start a hypocritical, nonsensical justification.  No matter how much you hit Obama, and make gains on his hide, it says nothing about your ability to do any better.  Whether its patriotism or pathological lying, the swiftboats will come, and they will land punches, and we dont know where it will end up.

HRC has brought the swiftboats now, made Obama fight a two front war.  And the bonus?  Its free, a gift for the 527s.  This is HRC's bed, and her supporters defend it.  Sleep in it.  And enjoy your new right wing friends next to you.

A growing number of TPM posters have avatars - it's a trend I support whole-heartedly. It contributes to the sense of community here and creates continuity across threads.  Names alone are harder to process and remember.
If posters who consistently have productive, interesting things to say have an avatar, we're able to pick their comments out of the crowd more easily as we scan threads; if unproductive posters have an avatar, we can skip over their comments unread more easily (comments that are intended to disrupt will be less disruptive). 
Avatars are as varied as TPM posters themselves - face shots, baby pictures, animals, historical figures, cartoon characters, - I love them all.   
My heartfelt thanks to TPM posters who have avatars. To name just a few that come to mind, thank you to DF, Ben Hocking, articleman, rabbitsmorgasbord, bluebell, HusseinTenaX, astral66, littleblackpropaganda, Tom Wright, Genghis, clearthinker, Subliminability, jdw, Cville Dem, LizB, DancingBear, PaDem, lifelongdem, ondioline, Larry Geater, urbinato, Maria Gomez, Allsburg, Iowa Mike, Lookingin, FreeBubba, chautauquan,  hrebndorf, Morghan, Moose49, Billy Glad, donnerpass, whoffman, Wade Hussein Blazingame34, fabooj, roo_P, Slouch, demosaur, WorkinJoe, ergoquid, billysunday, Yvaughn, The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve, JohnDoe, AdAbsurdum, anna am, scofflaw, laurajordan, BionicSoy, clevomon, Liberal_Elite, mageduley, memoryaid, Phoebe Fay, Qwerty,  (just added) TM, Madden (?), the Smurf character, the fellow with the rocket, and all the others.
So, John McFadden, AmericanDreamer, liam, womanand57, tpmgary, kavitz, cscs, jweb271, Hilarym99, observer2, Connie Manes, LaBobsterofAnaheim, James Watt, JedReport, houlios1, idiotic - this means you - I look forward to the day when you all have avatars!
I hope TPM management focuses on adding and polishing other features that enhance the community-building potential here; we're going to need it in the days to come. Suggestions?

One struggle in Iraq is the struggle against imperial domination. The American system of governance is flawed. Other people have different solutions.

The American model is not well grounded in any religious structure. Rather than address the flaws of the American government, military, or belief system, the American military would like to export these flawed beliefs and impose them on others. Some reasoned military personnel oppose this domination and brutal imposition of raw military power on others under protection of the Church. Some have gone so far as to refuse to hold beliefs that support a religion or system impose that abuse of power.

The right to our freedoms does not end when we enter military service.  The current crew in the United States military appear to have missed the lesson on what freedom means: The right to be left alone, the right to be free from a belief, and the right to believe what one chooses.

Fundamental to our rights it the right to our religious beliefs. Beliefs are not provable. They are merely assertions of faith about our creator, our spiritual nature, and our relationship with our God or Gods.

The military is populated by people who do not like opposing religious views. This runs counter to the notion of American history. Contrary to assertions, the Founders did not advocate a religious nation, but wanted to ensure religion was free from government intrusion. No one can be required to hold a religious view. The Constitution expressly removes a religious test.

Our believes are not protected on condition that those beliefs narrowly meet an approved set of beliefs. Rather, it is illegal for anyone to require anyone to hold or not hold a belief. However, these are the types of retarded people Americans have defending them:

Another sergeant allegedly told Specialist Hall that as an atheist, he was not entitled to religious freedom because he had no religion.

It would be preferable if the American military showed as much respect for differences within its ranks as it says it hopes to permit others in occupied lands to enjoy. When the military commanders respect diversity within the ranks, the American public might believe the Joint Chiefs and Commander in Chief are serious about respecting foreigners.

Until the President and Combatant Commanders visibly show they are willing to support free choice of religious beliefs at home and abroad both within and outside the miltary chaings of command, no one around the globe should believe US occupation in Iraq is anything but a Christian-led effort to destroy Muslims.

The President must demonstrate he supports a diversity of religious views, otherwise the terrorists will exploit this abuse directed at American military personnel, and show they are willing to do things the President refuses: Stand up for those this President has openly attacked for their beliefs. This President's attack on religious beliefs at home and abroad must end. Otherwise, this President is helping the terrorist cause.

Alice Palmer is campaigning for Hillary Clinton inIndiana.Palmer is the former state senator.  In the '90's,  she selected Obama to be her successor.  But when she tried to reclaim her spot, B.O. got her kicked off the ballot.
The Chicago Tribune has the dirt on how Mr. Niceguy became state senator.
It isn't pretty.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070403obama-ballot,1,57567.story

Here I posted results of a Monte Carlo simulation I had done of the election, using polling data from Votemaster Andrew Tanenbaum's electoral-vote.com. My analysis then showed Barack Obama would win more frequently in a head-to-head matchup with John McCain than Hillary Clinton would, even though if you simply totalled electoral votes by who was leading the state, Clinton had a larger margin over McCain than Obama did.

The votemaster has updated with some newer polls, and so I've rerun my analysis. Again I've done 10,000 trials for each of a Hillary-McCain and Obama McCain matchup. Now Hillary wins against McCain little more often than Obama does:
Obama wins 45.25%, averages 269.8 EV
McCain wins 49.04%, averages 268.2 EV
Electoral tie  5.71%

Clinton wins 50.35%, averages 269.1 EV
McCain wins 46.19%, averages 268.9 EV
Electoral tie 3.46%

The headline summary of these results has changed from before: where earlier Obama won more often, now Clinton does. But the big picture really isn't that different. McCain is now one point ahead of Obama in Pennsylvania, whereas before it was in Obama's column. Hillary had previously led McCain by just 1 in Minnesota, but now she has a 5 point lead.

Interestingly, even though McCain wins more often than Obama, Obama has a higher average electoral vote total. This is largely because of Texas - in the modeling, Obama wins Texas about a third of the time, and swinging its 34 electoral votes to Obama pulls his average above McCain's. In fact, in my simulation Obama's average electoral votes are slightly higher than Clinton's, but for all practical purposes they're tied, both with McCain and each other.

My model is a simple Monte Carlo simulation: For each trial I add a random variable with a to the spread between the candidates in each state, assuming each state is an independent trial. Then I assign the state's electoral votes to the winner, and compute the overall winner of that trial.

This model is quite sensitive to the actual numbers reported by the poll: if you have a 1 point lead in the state, in the model you'll win that state about 2/3 of the time, with a 2 point lead, it you win about 85% of the time, and with a lead of 5% or more you win well over 90% of the time. Hence when Obama went from an 8 point lead over McCain (in the April 09 poll) to a 1 point deficit, the state swung from definitely Obama to probable McCain. My gut says Obama would still be a strong favorite to win Pennsylvania in November. But also, I'd say McCain is still far more likely to win Texas than the 2/3 the model projects from the current one point spread.

The big picture remains essentially the same: based on the latest per-state polling, either candidate would be in a tough fight with McCain. At present, Clinton is closer to her ceiling than Obama is, but as of today's data, she's a little more likely to win.

Americans Not Obliged To Support Reckless Government

Are you tired of this reckless President, the lazy Congress, and a court-judicial system that refuses to investigate war crimes? The public is not required to remain complicit with this reckless abuse of power. We can write a new Constitution.

The current system of oversight of the US government is insufficient. It fails to inspire the Members of Congress, President, or Courts to fully do their job. They are not enforcing the law, but making excuses to turn a blind eye toward illegal activity and war crimes.

The longer the public believes this false notion that the choice is between the GOP or DNC, the longer we'll accept the unchallenged premise: Whether the US Constitution needs to be modernized to ensure this abuse of power does not happen again.

Bypassing the Amendment Process

The requirement to Amend the Constitution applies only to the government. Those legal requirements do not apply to the public. We can only discuss a new constitution, bypass the Amendment process, and lawfully impose a new Constitution on the United States government.

Facts Required To Support Candidates Plans As President

The three leading candidates are from the Senate. Neither of them has signed a plan as a Senator that they will support as President. These candidates must show they are leading efforts in the Senate to gather facts that will highlight the problems and solutions. Otherwise, they're promising as Senators to do something as President; and as President will keep the option open to point to the Senate for failing to provide an answer. These candidates needs to be challenged now: What is their plan as President and Senator to ensure this abuse does not happen again.

Until they answer, the public must openly discuss a new system of oversight for the US government. This new legal framework must discuss what will outside the US government ensure this abuse does not happen again.

Punishg DoJ OLC-connected legal counsel

There must be timely sanctions on legal counsel for their drafting illegal memoranda; and timely consequences on Members of Congress when they refuse to fully support investigations. This government would ask that it be re-supported despite its recklessness since 2001 in not fully enforcing the laws of war and US Constitution. The same system and people who escaped scrutiny in re Iraq WMD and Katrina demand we vote them into office. We need to redefine the framework that oversees them.

Constitutional Restructuring Required

This President and Congress have jointly shown they do not respect the written law, statutes, treaties or Supreme Law. Writing new laws isn't the answer.

They have jointly refused to enforce the existing laws. It is a waste to debate attempting to enforce the laws will not recognize.

Promulgating State Level Authority

The State AG's need to be challenged to enforce the existing Constitution against Members of Congress and the President; and the States need delegated power to timely act when Congress and the President jointly refuse to act to defend the Constitution from domestic enemies.

New Standards for Legal Counsel, Or Denied Access

We cannot be prevented from discussing a new system of oversight; nor in lawful methods to regulate factions in the federal government.  The American lawyers have shown themselves to be threats to the US Constitution: Lazy in their oversight, complicit with the illegal activity.

New oversight must ensure legal counsel are required to meet high standards, otherwise they are not entitled to command high fees. The public can require all firms doing business with any Americna lawyers certify that they meet higher standards, and are willing to be publicly audited. Without this agreement, American corporations should find other legal counsel willing to meet these high standards.

What do you think will be the official reason he'll decline?







- scheduling conflicts
- busy talking to voters
- (voters) tired of debates
- ?


Can't think of anything else reasonable he could say, unless of course he comes up with something funny like "preventing further divisions in the party" or would rather play hoops or practice bowling.

I’d like to get some opinions on whether ex-Senator Bill Bradley would be a good choice for Barack Obama to pick for his Vice President.  As you may or may not know, he currently supports Barack Obama for President and has gone on the political talk shows in support of Obama.  He continues to be a very good debater.

I went back and checked some of the Senator’s past.  I think from what I’ve read and if memory serves me right, he could bring a great deal to Obama’s campaign, but I want your opinion.

He’s an ex-senator from New Jersey but he was born and raised in Missouri.  He went to college at Princeton University, NJ.  He’s Rhodes Scholar, a member of the American Hall of Fame in Basket Ball.  He was the captain of the 1964 Olympics basketball team.  He played professionally in Italy and eventually with the New York Knicks. 

Bradley's basketball ability was enhanced by his unusually wide peripheral vision. While most people's horizontal field covers 180 degrees, his covered 192 degrees. Vertically most people can see 47 degrees upward; Bradley could see 72 degrees.  I mention his basketball career because that’s what made him famous early in his life and because basketball is Barack Obama’s first love.  Bradley is also left-handed, like Obama.

Bradley ran for President against Al Gore in 2000.  He was considered more liberal then Gore.  He got the blue color votes mostly.  As Senator he mainly worked hard for children’s health issues and relieving poverty.  He sometimes voted for with Reagan and the GOP.  He was best known for overhauling the tax code, campaign finance reform and reducing the deficit.  Bradley finished his presidential run coming in a distant second place during Super Tuesday.  A small tidbit for you, John McCain was running that year too.

Since that time he has worked as a corporate consultant and investment banker.  Oxford University awarded Bradley an honorary Doctor of Civil Law (DCL) in 2003, with the comment that he was "An outstandingly distinguished athlete, a weighty pillar of the Senate, and still a powerful advocate of the weak." Currently, Bradley serves on the Board of Directors of Superprotonic, a solid acid-based fuel cell technology development company. 

I read up on this company, here’s what they claim:  Superprotonic is dedicated to bringing this new technology to market and in so doing, benefiting our society by 1) decreasing overall fuel consumption, 2) decreasing overall pollution emissions, and 3) increasing the use of renewable fuels.

This claim alone should bring in voters that support the environment.

I know that New Jersey normally votes Democrat; but I believe its location is a good one.  His being from that area could reinforce Obama’s ability to win some red states like, Virginia, New Hampshire, West Virginia, North Carolina and even Ohio voters.  Hopefully with Obama being from Illinois, Indiana will go Democratic this year.  Obama might be able to sweep the whole mid-west and east coast with Bradley on his ticket.

Bradley being known for working for the ‘working’ men/women and his previous sports background  – might also reinforces Obama’s votes elsewhere.

What’s YOUR opinion?  You have any other good or bad Points?

 

What do you think will be the official reason he'll decline?

- scheduling conflicts
- busy talking to voters
- (voters) tired of debates

Can't think of anything else reasonable he could say.

They needed a second chance to finish first.

That's the tagline from the 1986 movie "Hoosiers"-
The story of the improbable 1954 Indiana High School basketball team than went all the way to the State Championship

And this is where we are today -- in the democratic primary race (okay the third chance - but you get the metaphor)

As in Pennsylvania when the democratic establishment ran the table for Hillary Clinton - Obama supporters need to help overcome this in Indiana-

Yes Sen Clinton has Evan Bayh - with deep family roots and as a former Gov as well as serving Senator but this is what Obama has going for him in Indiana

1: Proximity to Illinois
2: Open Primary
3: Under 10% African American population (read David Sirota theory - Obama won all states with African American population under 9% and over 20% - it;s that middle ground where he has issues)
4: BIG College population
and don't laugh
5: He got game

Obama needs to win both the NC and Indiana primaries on May 6th to give cover to the undecided (aka chickensh%#T) super delegates to give cover to the Reid/Pelosi/Dean group to push the supers and shut this thing down.

We need to help - this has to stop- the MSM has turned on Obama and have fallen for the fighter/populist Clinton new baloney -- Hillary as the new champion of the people

Listed below are the sites for the Indiana newspapers and blogs:

YOU WILL BE SHOCKED HOW SEN CLINTON HAS SO MUCH LOCAL PRESS AND SEN OBAMA SO LITTLE - we need to even that out

Let our voices be heard - write letters to the editors - write opinions - get the TRUTH out there

They were slow to start but the Clinton machine is in full alert

LET'S NOT FORGET WHO REALLY IS THE UNDERDOG IN THIS FIGHT

Obama will not get into the mud - it just is not who he is or who he wants to be-- BUT WE CAN

Obama -08 (otherwise we are looking at McCain 08 - we all know how badly the RNC wants Hillary)

PLEASE HELP!
-------------------------
NEWSPAPERS

Indianapolis Star

South Bend Tribune

Fort Wayne Journal Gazette

Gary Post Tribune

Blogs

• Advance Indiana
• Allen County Democratic Party
• Bilerico
• Blue Indiana
• Clark County Indiana Democrats
• Eye on Indianapolis
• Fort Wayne Observed
• Indiana Equality Blog
• INdiana Systemic Thinking
• Indy's Painfully Objective Political Analysis
   Kevin Rader's Statehouse Blog

• Left In Aboite
• Masson's Blog
• NewsTalk
• Pin the Tail
• Ruth Holladay
• Seasidetea
• Shakesville
• stAllio!'s way 
  Trifles from Anderson, Indiana

 

Cutting off your nose to spite your face is generally thought of as "an expression used to describe a needlessly self-destructive overreaction to a problem."

With Sen. McCain's recent--and borderline loony, comments that he will be "Hamas' worst nightmare;" it's becoming increasingly clear that John McCain will cut off America's nose to spite its face.

Sen. McCain made the comment while dishing out a little red meat on a conference call with conservative bloggers. The comment, made in the context of criticizing Barack Obama, is as follows:

All I can tell you is that I think it's very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States ... I think that people should understand that I will be Hamas' worst nightmare ... If Sen. Obama is favored by Hamas I think people can make judgments accordingly.

This statement is not just wrong-headed and foolish, but rather, incredibly dangerous and destructive. It's exactly the kind of foreign policy perspective that spends far too much time seeking to punish others for perceived slights and too little promoting our own bests interests.

Matthew Yglesias had an interesting, and what I believe should be the predominant, reaction to Sen. McCain's comments in his blog at the Atlantic yesterday:

As well as being kind of scumbaggy, this way of looking at the world reveals a seriously flawed foreign policy outlook. Consider Saddam Hussein. He's a bad dude. And which American president is his worst nightmare? Well, it's George W. Bush. Thanks to Bush, Saddam got booted from power and killed. Compared to George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, Dubya was a disaster for Saddam. But of course Dubya's Iraq policy has also been a disaster for the United States of America, whereas Clinton and Papa Bush ran policies that made us better off. International politics shouldn't be conceived of as some nutty zero-sum race to the bottom where our goal is to make Hamas cry -- the question is who are we trying to help and do we have ways to do it. Probably the worst thing that could happen to Hamas would be for it to be supplanted by some more radical group like al-Qaeda. But that wouldn't help Israel or the United States, any more than getting into a self-destructive conflict with Iran is a good idea just because it might make some bad Iranians suffer.

Unfortunately, Sen. McCain's loony comments seem to form the prevailing view over the past eight years. Everything is about retribution. It's about punishment. It's about taking an eye for an eye. What it's not about is taking actions that promote the long-term interests of the United States and its allies.

It's time for a little nuance. It's time for a little "turn the other cheek". What it most definitely is not time for, is John McCain's retributive views on dealing with the people that he doesn't like.

John. C. Reilly's police officer in movie "Magnolia" debates these issues aloud in a voice-over narrative near the end of the movie. John McCain could learn a thing or two from this statement:

And what most people don't see is just how hard it is to do the right thing. I have to take everything and play it as it lays.

Sometimes people need a little help.

Sometimes people need to be forgiven.

And sometimes they need to go to jail.

And that is a very tricky thing on my part . . . making that call.

Very tricky indeed.

Isn't it about time to turn the page on the needlessly self-destructive "lock 'em up and throw away the key" crowd? Aren't we long past realizing that this sort of hyper-macho, bring-'em-on posturing has been a disaster to the long-term prosperity of America? Do we really want another hot-tempered practitioner of sandbox diplomacy in the White House?

John McCain's foreign policy world-view, and domestic policy view for that matter, is a retribution-based folly that would only ensure this country's continued moral erosion around the world and make us all decidedly less safe.

John McCain is our worst enemy.

This is a repost from Democraticunderground.com . There hasn't been much discussion on it.
Remember how Edwards said he would call out Congress to give up their healthcare if they couldn't provide universal healthcare for Americans? Well, now that Edwards is no longer in the picture, look what Congress is concocting behind our backs. They take us for fools. Where is Edwards when we need him. Alternatively, I want to hear Obama and Hillary explain how they will handle Congress on this issue. Universal healthcare now. We cannot wait. This is the real crisis. Terrorism is also a crisis, but it people are not suffering from terrorism every day. Many Americans suffer from lack of access to affordable healthcare EVERY DAY OF THEIR LIVES. This is unacceptable. Who does Schumer think he is? Where is Edwards?

Congressional Democrats are backing away from healthcare reform promises made by their two presidential candidates, saying that even if their party controls the White House and Congress, sweeping change will be difficult.

. . . 
Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), a member of Senate Democratic leadership and a key Hillary Clinton ally who also sits on the Finance Committee, said he is “not sure we have the big plan on healthcare.”

“Healthcare I feel strongly about, but I am not sure that we’re ready for a major national healthcare plan,” Schumer said.

Schumer said he would focus “on prevention above all and cost cutting until we can get a national healthcare plan.”

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dems-hedge-on-healt... 

I'm puzzled by what seems to me a perfectly obvious flaw in Hillary's argument about her 'electability'.  It's not unlike the one in her 'experience' argument, and that makes it even stranger that no one has mentioned it.
It goes like this: "How electable ARE you when you start your race with terrific name recognition, all kinds of support from the party, plenty of favors owed you --and you can't beat a junior senator known only to the few who noticed his speech at a party convention some years back, a junior senator whose name is vaguely Islamic sounding?
What I mean, of course, is that Hillary's entire strategy, from day one (sorry couldn't resist the temptation), has been to accuse her opponent of her own weaknesses and to claim his virtues for herself.  
Although I am a Democrat and can only barely remember the last time a candidate for President I voted for actually took office, I am pretty sure this November the Democrats will win.  And, of course, if Hillary is the candidate I will vote for her.  
But why does this scenario remind me of the greatest mistake I ever made in my Presidential voting history: the time I voted for Lyndon Johnson because I was afraid Barry Goldwater (who seemed a decent enough fellow) was wrong for the country and Johnson, though obviously not a person you would want to play cards with (or just about anything else), was right for it?
Why, in a word, do I keep hearing Lyndon Johnson's drawl in my ears, saying "Ah won't evah send Amuricun Boys to daa in Veetnam!" even while he was meeting with the Joint Chiefs to plan precisely that?? 

Very interesting.  I wonder how Obama will dance out of this one.  Like usual he has nothing to gain from the debate, however if he declines, he'll be painted as a coward.  However he'd be going in with a disadvantage in that Clinton is looking to cut him down, whereas he has to play nice. 

I think he'll have to do it though, and I'll definitely tune in. 

AP has the story here.

For once, I'm not going to provide a summary. Once you read the story, you'll understand why…

The President has been implicated in supporting legal memoranda and decisions blocking the FBI and US Attorneys from independently reviewing US government war crimes.

Despite the fact that I think it highly unlikely that Clinton can actually pull off her magic numbers-based comeback and secure the nomination, the reality is that a continued battle between her and Obama is beyond the point of arguing good vs. bad for the party.  It's bad.  Very bad.  So how can Obama 'close the deal' as Clinton put it, and at the same time go on to win the Presidency in November?  
First, the major stumbling block for Obama at the moment seems to be the Clinton camp's assertion that he can't win over blue-collar workers.  Further, a major obstacle to overcome in the general election is the Clinton hardliner holdouts who will continue to harbor their ill will towards Obama and either not turn out in the fall or (moronically) vote for McCain.
The best way for Obama to overcome both of these hurdles at the same time is to give John Edwards the VP slot.  Obviously it's presumptive to declare a VP before a candidate wins the nomination, so that's out of the question.  However, a backroom deal with Edwards guaranteeing him the VP spot in return for an immediate endorsement and active support of the Obama campaign is perfectly reasonable, and should be highly attractive to Edwards.  
The Edwards endorsement and joint ticket would accomplish two things: 1) in the primary it would immediately give Obama more support amongst both blue-collar workers and the Edwards supporters who were very disappointed their candidate lost, and 2) be a strong ticket in the General that will help make up for the Clinton hardliner losses.  
In the primary, Obama has indeed had trouble winning over blue-collar folks in those large, election-deciding states.  Edwards was the most populist candidate and with his endless repetitions of the mill-working father would immediately help give Obama some amount of cred with those voters.  Granted, it won't be enough to win that bloc over completely, but all Obama needs is enough to keep those races close enough to keep his lead in delegates and in the popular vote, and the Edwards bump would be more than enough for that.  
In the General Election, it would have even greater effect.  For one, it would help balance the ticket by improving support in the Southern states.  Second, it would give the Obama/Edwards ticket the ability to be substantially more populist in message on the economy, a subject that will almost certainly play the single largest role in determining the next President (which is also a good side-effect for those liberals who wanted a more populist candidate like Edwards, but were left with Obama and Clinton).  Third, Edwards is an experienced and tested VP candidate who performed well in the last election where he held that role (although obviously against a very detested opponent).  Last and not least, it would at least somewhat help to  win over some of those hardliner Clintonites who otherwise would abandon Obama (remember, a substantial portion of the people supporting Clinton were originally Edwards supporters, and it stands logically that at least some non-zero percentage of the hardliners were amongst that group).  
Clearly in my opinion, Obama could make no smarter move right now than to sit Edwards down and make him an offer he can't refuse.  

I can't say I care much for the idea, but I'm beginning the think that Obama is going to have to offer Hillary the vice presidential slot, whether he wants to or not.

He has a real, unsurmountable lead in pledged delegates. It seems improbably that the superdelegates will overturn that. But he has not racked up the kind of victories that would make everyone acknowledge the he is the clear winner.

Whether you buy them or not, Hillary's arguments about the popular vote and victories in the big states have gained some traction. More importantly, her supporters believe them. A discouraging high percentage of them claim that they will not vote Democratic is Hillary is not the nominee. At this point, can we take the risk that they will not follow through on this threat?

I think Obama may have to publicly offer the slot to make peace in the party. Then it will be up to her whether or  to accept it.

I think she would accept it, because she really wants to be president, and history tells us that a lot of vice presidents have become President due to death. Furthermore, if a President Obama serves two full terms, his vice president would have front-runner status in 2016, and that would be hard for a 68 year old Hillary to compete with if the vice president is not her.

Making her the vice presidential nominee would cut the potential rebellion of her supporters off at the knees. Few of them would be willing to vote against electing the first woman vice president.

Her campaign has made me really dislike Hillary. But if it's a question of winning with her on the ticket and losing without her, I'd take her.

1) Say "I'm tough". Say it a lot. Also, use the word "fight" in every other sentence.

2) Promise not to quit. Ever. Consequences be damned.

3) Compare yourself to tough historical figures. Like Rocky.

4) Do not apologize. Tough people don't apologize. Rocky doesn't apologize.

5) Tell anecdotes of about yourself in tough situations. E.g. "We landed under sniper fire and had to run to our vehicles."

6) Play tough music. Examples:
 - Eye Of the Tiger (Survivor)
 - I Won't Back Down (Tom Petty)
 - Never Surrender (Corey Hart)
 - We're Not Gonna Take It (Twisted Sister)

7) Say tough-sounding things about what you'll do to the bad guys. Examples:
 - "We would be able to totally obliterate them."
 - "We're going to get him. Dead or alive, it doesn't matter to me."
 - "We will bury you!" [bang shoe on table]

8) Do not allow anyone to question your toughness or the value of toughness or even the meaning of toughness. Tough people don't take questions on toughness.

9) Win some primaries. This is the most important step. If you win, the media will conclude that you have successfully persuaded voters that you are tough and that your opponent has a toughness problem. They will talk about your toughness and your opponent's untoughness endlessly until the voters start to believe that you are truly tough.

Cross-posted from The Jed Report

::

There is no longer any question about whether or if Barack Obama will be the Democratic candidate for president. The question now is when and how he will be recognized as the party's presumptive nominee.

It will happen sometime before the Democratic National Convention, just as soon as he secures the 2,024 delegates it will take to win the nomination on the convention floor. When that moment is upon us, everything else that has happened in the campaign will be overshadowed, rendered moot in an instant.

Think of that moment like the final touchdown that puts away a football game for good. And in this football game, superdelegates control when and where that touchdown will occur. They have two options. They can try to score themselves, or they can hand the ball off to voters, and let the voters finish the game off.

Their decision won't change the outcome of the game. It will, however, change voter's perceptions about the winner of the game -- in this case, Barack Obama.

When Barack Obama is declared the presumptive nominee, it will be tremendously important that he be seen as having won on the strength of his electoral victories. To allow the formation of the unfair and absurd perception that an elite group of insiders handed him the nomination would be incredibly damaging to Democratic prospects in the fall.

::

Unfortunately, we now find ourselves in a situation where superdelegates run the very real risk of letting that happen. If they don't act soon -- before May 20, as I will show -- they will give Obama's political opponents all the ammunition they need to develop such a crippling narrative.

Fortunately, there is simple way for superdelegates to avoid this outcome. How? Before May 20, 99 of the undeclared or Clinton supporting superdelegates must either endorse Barack Obama, or commit to supporting the winner of the pledged delegate battle (becoming members of the so-called "Pelosi Club").

Let me explain why May 20, the date of the Kentucky and Oregon primaries, is so crucial.

(By the way, everything in this post is moot if Barack Obama wins both North Carolina and Indiana on May 6 and Hillary Clinton withdraws from the race. But the superdelegates can’t control that, so from their perspective, they should still focus on May 20.)

May 20 is important because on that day Barack Obama will have finally surpassed the magic number of 1,627 pledged delegates, securing himself a majority of the 3,253 democratically selected delegates headed to Denver. At that point, he will become the nominee unless there is a coup by superdelegates against the voters. It would be the perfect day for Obama to become the presumptive nominee.

Let’s take a closer look at the math of May 20:

• Conservatively, Obama will have 1,650 pledged delegates (likely more)
• Add in his 234 superdelegates (as of April 25) and he’ll have 1,884 total delegates
• Factor in the minimum 33 add-on delegates he is certain to get and he’ll have 1,917 total delegates

Now, remember it will take 2,024 delegates to win the nomination. Based on current superdelegate totals he will have at least 1,917 total delegates on May 20, a difference of 107 delegates.

That means that between now and May 20, if Barack Obama can secure support from 107 superdelegates, on May 20 he will have won the 2,024 delegates he needs to be officially declared the presumptive nominee, ending the nomination battle.

(Remember that after May 20, just over 100 pledged delegates will remain to be selected, meaning Obama would ultimately need just 40-45 more delegates to hit 2,024. Again, the question isn't whether or if Obama will win. The question is when and how he'll hit 2,024.)

The interesting twist is that to hit the 2,024 number is that on May 20, Barack Obama doesn’t actually need all those 107 superdelegates to endorse him. They can also declare their support for the “Pelosi standard,” meaning they will support the candidate who wins the most pledged delegates. Moreover, it doesn’t matter whether those superdelegates have endorsed Clinton or not – a vote is a vote.

In fact, at this point there are already 8 members of the “Pelosi club” – so Barack Obama actually only needs 99 more superdelegates to either endorse his campaign, or announce their support for the “Pelosi standard.” This should be doable -- we are talking about just over two-fifths of undeclared superdelegates.

(Remember these projections are conservative. In all likelihood, he won’t even need 99 superdelegates – given Obama’s likely performance in primaries between now and May 20, that number is more likely to be 89 or 90. 99, however, would be a guarantee.)

::

Why should these superdelegates either endorse Obama now or agree to the Pelosi standard?

The reason is simple and it is profoundly important: by making their decision before May 20, superdelegates will allow Barack Obama to clinch the nomination on the same day he secures a majority of pledged delegates.

In other words, it will be the voters of Oregon who actually push Barack Obama across the finish line. If the superdelegates wait until after May 20, insiders will be the ones who push Barack Obama across the line.

From the standpoint of who wins the nomination, it makes no difference. Obama has it wrapped up. But if superdelegates “score the final touchdown,” Barack Obama's political opponents will try to develop a narrative about Barack Obama's inability to win the nomination by himself, making it seem like the party leaders helped him achieve what he could do accomplish on his own. (That would be an asburd storyline to make about the guy who won a majority of pledged delegates, but since when has that been an obstacle?)

It should be obvious how destructive such a storyline would be for Barack Obama, and how Republicans would seek to take advantage of that perception. Just ask the North Carolina Republican Party.

If superdelegates really want to help Barack Obama, the best thing they can do is endorse him or the Pelosi standard now, or at least by May 20.

If 99 of them do it, the voters of Oregon will make Barack Obama the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party on May 20.

Allowing the voters to end this thing would be the best possible outcome, given the current state of the race.

Just about everybody wants this battle to come to an end, and there's no longer any uncertainty or doubt about its eventual outcome. One option is for superdelegates to pick the winner in June. The other option is to let voters end it on May 20. Either way, we’re going to have the same nominee.

For the sake of the party, let’s let the people of Oregon end this thing. Let's let there be a celebration at the conclusion of this campaign. Let’s put the voters first, and let's let the healing of the primary bruises begin.

::

Also at The Jed Report

McCain's "Hamas" attack has Karl Rove's fingerprints all over it.  It's classic Republican divide-and-conquer/guilt-by-association politics.  It's worked well for them in the past, but it won't work this time.  The Republicans have created a monster, and that monster is going to eat them alive in November.  They have cultivated a base that consists of a bunch of ignorant, racist misanthropes, who the Republicans can easily drag to the polls every four years using fear and suspicion to cow them.  These are precisely the voters Barack Obama was talking about when he said that bitter Americans cling to guns and religion.  The Republicans have intentionally MADE these people bitter for precisely that reason.  They've being played like a bunch of goddamn hillbilly banjos.

One problem, though: their numbers are severely depleted this year, and McCain goes into this race vastly unpopular among these folks.  And in trying to appeal to them and win them back, McCain risks alienating the rest of America.  When he embraces Haggee--which he must do if he hopes to win the hillbilly demographic--he alienates Catholic voters.  And if he tries to distance himself in order to woo Catholics, he loses the base.

Crop rotation.  That's what the Republicans forgot.  You can't keep planting the same seeds in the same dirt all the time, because eventually the weevils take over.  And the weevils now RUN the Republican Party.

Go answer Greta's poll -- it's currently saying NO.  I happen to disagree, hope you do too.

http://gretawire.foxnews.com/2008/04/25/on-the-record-vote-vote-now-3/#comments

Sad that there were select quotes heavily publicized in advance of the airing of the Bill Moyers interview with Jeremiah Wright, but no real coverage or discussion afterwards.

It was an a sterling interview by Moyers, and by Wright.  Moyers drew out of Wright an excellent explanation of Black Liberation Theology, and of TUCC's motto "Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian."  And giving much more context to the "God damn America" sermon.

I was going to say "sterling performance," but that might be taken to imply something less than honest, while it was actually a frank, candid and intellectual discussion.  And Moyers wasn't in a rush to talk about Obama.

Similarly, the "he spoke as a politician" quote has been taken by some as Wright implying that Obama's speech in Philly was just political talk.  As with the other notorious sound bites of Wright, however, it sounds a lot different in fuller context.
________________

BILL MOYERS: So what blues are you singing right now?

REVEREND WRIGHT: Don't know why they treat me so bad....That, what man meant for evil, God meant for good....That's a quote from Joseph, in the bible, the Book of Genesis.

BILL MOYERS: And what do you take that to mean?

REVEREND WRIGHT: That Human beings, many times, do things for nefarious purposes. And God can take that and turn something- make something good out of it.... That those sound bytes, those snippets were taken for nefarious purposes. That God can take that and do something very positive for it- with it. That, in Philadelphia, in response to the sound bytes, in response to the snippets, in Philadelphia Senator Obama made a very powerful speech in terms of our need as a nation to address the whole issue of race. That's something good that's already starting. That because of you guys playing these sound bytes now what's getting ready to happen as something very positive, and something very powerful that God can take what you meant to try to hurt somebody to help the nation come to grips with truth. To help a nation come to grips with miseducation. To help a nation come to grips with things we don't like to talk about. To help a nation--

BILL MOYERS: You know, you mentioned Senator Obama. In the 20 years that you've been your pastor, have you ever heard him repeat any of your controversial statements as his opinion?

REVEREND WRIGHT: No. No. No. Absolutely not. I don't talk to him about politics. And so here at a political event, he goes out as a politician and says what he has to say as a politician. I continue to be a pastor who speaks to the people of god about the things of God.

BILL MOYERS: Here is a man who came to see you 20 years ago wanting to know about the neighborhood. Barack Obama was a skeptic when it came to religion. He sought you out because he knew you knew about the community. You led him to the faith. You performed his wedding ceremony. You baptized his two children. You were, for 20 years, his spiritual counselor. He has said that. And, yet, he, in that speech at Philadelphia, had to say some hard things about you. How, how did it go down with you when you heard Barack Obama say those things?

REVEREND WRIGHT: It went down very simply. He's a politician, I'm a pastor. We speak to two different audiences. And he says what he has to say as a politician. I say what I have to say as a pastor. Those are two different worlds. I do what I do. He does what politicians do. So that what happened in Philadelphia where he had to respond to the sound bytes, he responded as a politician. But he did not disown me because I'm a pastor.
_______________

It's sad that the sound bite of this discussion of the issue of the deceptiveness of sound bites is itself an illustration of the same point.

But at least you can easily watch the interview in its entirety on the web and make up your own mind:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04252008/watch2.html

Do yourself a favor and go watch the WHOLE interview between Bill Moyers of PBS and the Reverend Jeremiah Wright (Barack Obama's Pastor).

http://www.freewebs.com/coonsey/

Perhaps, I should ask TPM readers to forgive me for my blatant remarks about Barack Obama. My reason for going against Barack Obama is due to his reluctance to come to terms with the truth of the Iraq War. In my own name, I negotiated an end to this war in 1990. This was during a time, when the Bush Senior administration was continually saying that all "they" wanted was for Saddam to get out of Kuwait. Well, Saddam did agree due to letters and conversations we had with their government and it was the Bush administration in 1990 that lied! This war really ended in November 1990 with Saddam's agreement to Bush Whitehouse terms. The Bush administration reneged in an illegal effort to take our nation to war and many people including Democrats have REFUSED to come to terms with the truth behind this Iraq War.

Barack Obama would have been informed via our government's intelligence services as well as communications received from us, while he was a US Senator. We sent him about 8 to 12 letters, also, from the time he announced his candidacy.

Barack Obama, in so far as we know, is against international cooperation with China and against the true tenets of peace. he is against ending the Iraq War and against prosecuting President Bush, Vice-President Richard Cheney, Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Condolezza Rice, and a few others.

When people commit violations of US and international laws and murders two million Iraqi citizens, via an illegal war, a war that did not have to be fought, at a cost to taxpayers
 of two trillion dollars, these people should be indicted and the nation of Iraq compensated for the damage that we have done and for the innocent lives that our nation had fraudulently taken.

If America does not rectify this war, then it sets a poor tone for the future. Barack Obama and many other people, Democrats, especially those who are asking Hillary to step down have been responsible for this illegal war and the outright slaughter of two million innocent Iraqi citizens.

If Obama was more responsible and had better character, he would demand that America correct its mistakes. JFK was an advocate of this idea!

Saddam and the Baath party were the legal and legitimate power in Iraq and they kept law and order. Saddam's name was slandered by the US government in an effort to get people and nations to go against him. Outright lies were told as was distortions of the truth.

Even today Saddam's regime is the legal and lawful government of Iraq.

If Bush Senior had listened to us as well as to the CIA, we would never be in this mess!

We are known world wide and many foreign heads of state hold us in respect. letters to important people like Britain's Tony Blair, Iraq's Chief Administrator L. Paul Bremer, and US Secretary of State answer our letters and inquiries almost immediately. President Bush is negligent as is US Senator Barack Obama.

Important and relevant issues, Barack Obama does not want to deal with and the whole truth behind Obama and his sordid past should really be revealed!

The Imperial family of China is pro-west. We are not communist. Isn't this a good thing? To be able to have good allies abroad, friendly to the US and Western interest. To be able to have people who are American, also, leading other nations in the world righteously and by upright codes. Isn't this something very good, rather than to deal with an enemy and to have to deal with international terrorism?

Barack wants nothing to do with us, even if we are (/my family is) UCC Christians (I am a Methodist though). Barack does not listen to God and he does not adhere to Christian principles. Christ said that his followers (Christians) should have a brotherly love for one another. This is not the case with Barack Obama towards us. We are treated with more dignity by US Senator John McCain, former President Bill Clinton, and Republicans in the Nixon-Regan era as well as by the Bush family (George H.W. and George W. Bush).

From what we can see Barack Obama does have secrets and he just does not intend to be honorable and uphold the law with regard to the Iraq War.

There's no doubt any more: Bill is running for a third term

Dubbed the "Billification" of Sen. Clinton's campaign by some insiders, Mr. Clinton has become something of a strategist-in-chief in recent weeks. He has been pushing for harder and sharper attacks on Sen. Obama. While she has jabbed her opponent over his "elitist" tone and controversial statements by his former pastor, Mr. Clinton delivers his own slams on the stump, calling Obama ads misleading.

Mr. Clinton has placed several of his own aides at headquarters, including his former lawyer and a bevy of strategists. Known as a bad loser, Mr. Clinton privately buttresses his wife's drive to push on, telling her, according to aides: "We're not quitters."

On his own daily message calls, advisers say, he implores: "We've got to take him on every time." At the Clintons' Washington, D.C., home recently, these people say, he reviewed possible TV spots and told ad makers to be more hard-hitting, faster and harsher.

WSJ Piece

Has anyone seen the youtube video of Ed Rendell praising Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam in Philadelphia? Makes very interesting viewing.

Spokesman Jay Carson finally comments on the Anti-Obama ad:

"Even though they (Perdue and Moore) are supporting Senator Obama they are good Democrats, and this ad is wrong," Carson says, in a statement sent to ABC News' Eloise Harper. "It's exactly the kind of ad Republicans run every cycle to distract us from their failures and the real issues that face our country."

ABC News

"Even though"? 

The implication here is that the ad is wrong because it hurts Purdue and Moore by association with Obama!

The Clinton camp is not decrying the way the ad is framed.  Once again (we've seen it with Rev. Wright before),  Huckabee and McCain have more grace than the Clintons.

Ugh....

More than 70 top Clinton donors wrote their first checks to Obama in March, campaign records show. Clinton's lead among superdelegates, a collection of almost 800 party leaders and elected officials, has slipped from 106 in December to 23 now, according to an Associated Press tally.

"If you have any, any kind of loyalty to the Democratic Party, perhaps you need to rethink your strategy and bow out gracefully in order to save this party from a disastrous end in November," Rep. William Lacy Clay (Mo.), an African American Obama supporter, said in an appeal to Clinton.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/25/AR2008042503707.html?sid=ST2008042504037

There seems to be a good deal of posturing and threatening here [on TPM].  Of course the Democrats want black votes, the Clintons want them, believe it or not.  However, since Obama is getting practically all Black votes, what the heck do you suppose Clinton should do?  Oh, I know, give up, quit, go home, leave the playing field cause she cannot win, in the estimation of a solid bloc of voters who all happen to be Black.  Uh, seems like you might have more than a tad of presumptiveness going here, the campaign is clearly not over, all the comments by talking heads notwithstanding.

"The Clintons always cultivated the black electorate... fools, how could they realize that none of that mattered, as long as it became a race thing, well, they are White, it’s not much of contest.

"The bitter irony of those of us in the boomer generation who support civil rights, we find we just don’t get it, and we find that practically any attack on Obama can be seen by somebody somewhere as racist, we are marginalized, treated as defective racists by folks who ought to know better.

"Making threats and blustering is not a sign of confidence.  All this vitriol seems more pronounced the weaker Obama performs.

"How long has it been since Obama won a primary..not a caucus, but a real vote?  Is that all the fault of the mean, racist Clintons?  What a cartoonish view of the world.

"Racism exists, it walks the land, but lumping together folks who have stood for equal rights for a long time with the real racists, well, that pisses me off too.

"Perhaps I will get mad and threaten not to vote for Obama if he runs against Satan.  Perhaps if I shut my eyes and pretend I could convince myself of the scenario.

"In other words, don’t be like the GOP books about liberals under your bed, do not portray a racist under every bed.

 

Blackflag wrote this very insightful post this morning. I post it here so it is not lost in a thread:

There seems to be a good deal of posturing and threatening here [on TPM].  Of course the Democrats want black votes, the Clintons want them, believe it or not.  However, since Obama is getting practically all Black votes, what the heck do you suppose Clinton should do?  Oh, I know, give up, quit, go home, leave the playing field cause she cannot win, in the estimation of a solid bloc of voters who all happen to be Black.  Uh, seems like you might have more than a tad of presumptiveness going here, the campaign is clearly not over, all the comments by talking heads notwithstanding.

The Bell case recently decided by trial to the court in New York highlights a problem with our concept of justice and collateral consequences.

The trial judge found three police officers not guilty and in reporting his judgment stated that the carelessness and incompetence of the three officers involved did not amount to criminal conduct.  There is not reason to believe that the trial judge's findings of fact and conclusions of law are not adequately supported the evidence.

This case highlights a systemic problem with our justice system.  We do not have any way to hold public officials, other than elected officials subject to impeachment, accountable for careless and incompetent actions -- even actions resulting in death.

How can we hold persons acting in their official capacity to an appropriate standard of conduct -- one that requires greater care when their actions clearly have the potential to cause great and irreversible harm?

We do not seem to have found an answer in over 200 years -- so I really don't expect an answer.

April 5, 2008 - Clancy DuBos ( a well respected political commentator) commented on April 5, 2008.  WWL-TV Channel 4 10PM News ...

And I think this will be the first race since 1977—I’m dating myself—I covered that race—uh—that was Bob Livingston against Ron Faucheaux.  This will be probably the closest or at least most hotly contested philosophically since that race. And I think for the reasons that Gilda Reed pointed out.  She talked about how you have a chance to send somebody up to be the majority party and that will be her big card that she can play.  "I can make a difference because I’ll be in the party that controls things".  Whereas Scalise will say, "Yes, but I am more philosophically attuned to you guys."  And that will be an interesting contest—one candidate running on philosophy, the other one running on effectiveness.

Reed More

The following is tangentially related to clearthinker's recent post about US energy policy.

One of his points was that at $4 a gallon, gas is still cheap in the US. In Europe, gas prices are currently $8-9 a gallon, and there are no riots. There are multiple reasons for this, some of which I'll briefly explore.

One reason is exchange rate. In late 1990s, one Euro was only worth about 80 US cents. Now it's worth $1.60. So the fact that a barrel of oil costs north of $110 is mitigated by the fact that 100 Euro now buys lots more dollars than it used to.

The other reason is that gas has always been relatively expensive in Europe. There has been no sharp rise in gas prices, and in fact over the last 10 years gas prices haven't changed much. This is in sharp contrast with the US where gas now costs several times as much as it used to in the late 1990s.

There are important differences in European and US transportation systems and policies. These stem largely from their histories, and now there are many interconnected factors.

European governments have for a long time taxed gasoline fairly heavily. This gave them the ability to cushion sharp oil price rises by adjusting the tax rate. Europeans are also much less dependent on cars than Americans, which is in part precisely because gas has never been cheap.

In the US, the arrival of the automobile in the early 20th century coincided with an era of great expansion. US cities are designed around cars. The streets are wide and multi-lane, parking spaces are large, the highways and freeways in large urban areas are plentiful, cities are sprawling, and a driver's license is the most common form of ID.

A somewhat unfortunate side effect of this is that it's actually difficult to get around without a car in many cities. One exception is NYC, which probably has the highest concentration of people without drivers' licenses in the US; many people don't own a car, and there is a good public transport system.

In Europe, the history has been radically different. By the time the automobile became a factor, there were already many multi-million cities. In early 20th century, there were already fairly well developed public transport systems in large European cities - trains, trams, buses. By the end of the 19th century, most of Europe also had a very good rail network.

Most European cities are not car-friendly. The streets are narrow, parking places are scarce and small, congestion is a major problem. On the other hand, public transport tends to be a good and relatively inexpensive alternative, and cities tend to be much denser, so the distances to travel are much smaller (the opposite of, say, Los Angeles).

The upshot is that to most Europeans, cars have much lower value because they're both less useful and have more drawbacks. The average European is much closer to a New Yorker than to a Los Angeleno when it comes to transportation (and perhaps in other respects as well...).

I have some personal, purely anecdotal evidence for this. I lived in a smallish (pop. about 100,000) city in Northern California for several years. Before I found a place to live, I needed a car. I can't very well imagine living without a car there. It was pretty much a necessity. Public transport was close to nonexistent, and the city was built flat and wide.

Now I live in Germany, in a small town (more like a village) not far from a largish city. I don't have a car, and don't particularly need it. I work for a small branch of a large software company; most of my coworkers get to work either on foot or by bike, including some who own cars but don't always use them. The rail network is very good. Many prefer trains to cars for business trips because trains tend to be faster and one can get some work done on a train.

This is not to say that Europeans are happy about rising gas prices, they're not. But it's much less of a factor simply because cars are much less of a factor. The US transportation policy (or lack thereof) has been rather short-sighted, though of course that is not something specifically American. Many Americans are now in a difficult situation because cars are getting more and more expensive to run, but no less necessary. It will be interesting to see how the situation will develop further. In the short term there will likely be a major push towards alternative fuels, but in the long term, better public transport is probably the only sensible alternative. Cars are simply way too inefficient and wasteful. So last century.

And I bet Moyers kicked their butts in ratings tonight.

The biggest offense in the Wright tapes - when played in longer segments than Fox or ABC or any other outlet has played them - is no one has captured the sentiment around the words beyond the Noise Level. Wright is talking to a community that feels like America has left them behind - economically, politically, socially, demographically. As Jimmy Boegle put it, "Why do you think it's impossible to love your country, yet still be ashamed of it?" Which a poster on Reddit added "I remember Trent Lott saying something like "It's possible to support troops while opposing the president." Which are variations of exactly what Wright was saying in the 'God Damn America' speech.

Why the media chose to add fuel to that fire, I can only file under racism. Even ratings and profits don't excuse such reckless coverage.

Following are some of what I've found to be significant articles on the web on this topic of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and the campaign of Barack Obama. They reflect how this became a media circus, who was a user, who was seeking clarity. Hopefully you can use something on it to support both of these people.

And while you're at it, make a donation to PBS. Let them know it's for Bill Moyers' Journal.

Obama's Pastor: God Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11 http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=4443788

Obama’s Spiritual Mentor May Put Church in Hot Water http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/12/obamas-controversial-pastor-puts-church-in-hot-water/

Chickens... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Peck

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/18/11139/2312/916/479110

Are they still the dumbest things? http://www.abcnews.go.com/print?id=4535600

Hope & Anger go hand in hand http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/04/obama-hope-and.html

To disown Reverend Wright http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=4472576

Obama's Church Blames Media http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/obamas-church-b.html

Limbaugh plays 'Barack The Magic Negro' http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/50979/
 http://stormbear.dailykos.com/

ABC did not mention Obama disowned remarks http://mediamatters.org/items/200803130008

A Candidate, His Minister and the Search for Faith. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/us/politics/30obama.html?scp=1&sq=a+candidate,+his+minister&st=nyt

Obama's HI-Tech Lynching http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/18/03825/9580/92/478933

Wright off campaign http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/14/obama.minister/index.html

The Audacity Of Hope - JW - http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/for-the-record.html

Abe Foxman on Obama, Wright and Louis Farrakhan http://staging.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/print/2008022720080227obamafarrakhandebate.html

Obama denounces Wright http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/15/us/politics/15wright.html?_r=1&ei=5088&en=7e53dc65d7989b84&ex=1363233600&oref=slogin&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

Obama says Wright is 'contrite' http://apnews.myway.com//article/20080328/D8VMMVMO7.html

Press turns on Obama (sorry HuffPo. this is March...where were you?) http://tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=66c00dd4-824d-44f6-a865-9603ad1cab86&p=2

Obama invokes RFK http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/obama_invokes_rfk_in_distancin.html#comments

Obama, race and time to squirm http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/obama_race_and_time_to_squirm.html

Rev Wright in a different light http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-oped0326trinitymar26,0,7378432,print.story
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-oped0326trinitymar26,0,2414760.story
chicagotribune.com

Clinton backer to Obama, explain Wright http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/09/clinton-backer-to-obama-explain-unanswered-wright-questions/

Ferraro unhappy she's compared to Wright http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/20/ferraro-i-am-no-jeremiah-wright/

Modern black church shuns King's message http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/06/mlk.role.church/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Wright cancels appearances http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/26/obama-pastor-cancels-scheduled-appearances/#comments

Wright controversy shakes Obama http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/19/obama-wright-controversy-has-shaken-me-up/

Photo shows Clinton and Wright http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/21/photo-shows-president-clinton-controversial-obama-minister/#comments

Roland S. Martin on the 9/11 sermon http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/21/the-full-story-behind-rev-jeremiah-wrights-911-sermon/

About Sean Hannity and Me - Hal Turner http://www.halturnershow.com/

Are Some Hillary Supers With Wright's Church? http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/25/22354/6315/805/484306

Dear Sheddhead... http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/10/153247/919/902/493362

Rev. Wright like Jesus http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/7/6543/06534/725/491505
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?videoId=1fd1c0cf-5c80-4d75-996f-bd53b2461ae0&sMPlaylistID

Clinton former minister defends Wright http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/25/212524/330/863/484264

Newsmax backs off http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/17/161724/906/381/478644

Pat Buchanan on slavery http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/22/83758/9895/1022/482071
 http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/23/12332/7137/421/482656

Reverend Wright writes the NYT http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/22/163534/625/759/482318

Sean Hannity's chickens http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/23/124350/407/408/482677

White people can talk, blacks can't http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/16/18111/1059/899/478102

Chasm between races http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/040808dnmetwrightchasm.442a11fb.html

What would Martin say http://www.ebonyjet.com/culture/literature/index.aspx?id=6813

End of Racism? http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1346

The Brand called Obama http://www.fastcompany.com/node/754505/print

Barack Obama Linked to New Controversial Preacher http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,339770,00.html

FOX News Poll: More Than Half Believe Obama Doesn't Share Views of Pastor Wright http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,339949,00.html

Wright lynching http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/23/in-eastor-sermon-trinity-united-pastor-compares-rev-wright-to-jesus/

Martin Luther King, Jeremiah Wright and Hollywood http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,347349,00.html

Obama Condemns Pastor’s ‘Incendiary Language’ http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/18/obama-condemns-wrights-rhetoric-but-defends-ongoing-relationship/

Sticking Up for Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,346391,00.html

The Choice of Reverend J. Wright's Church Defines Obama's Character http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_031708/content/01125106.guest.html

White Backlash Against Rev. Wright and Racist Accusations http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=860
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,347969,00.html    

Sean Hannity Confronted Over His Relationship With Neo-Nazi Hal Turner http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/23/sean-hannity-confronted-o_n_92961.html

Hannity's Soul-Mate of Hate http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050620/blumenthal

Neo-Nazi Recruitment on ABC's Flagship. http://www.fair.org/extra/9506/grant.html

King still silenced http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-cohen/40-years-later-the-late-m_b_95043.html

Blacks Injected with Syphillis? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-mills/blacks-injected-with-sy_b_92896.html

Different Standards for Black and White Preachers http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/different-standards-for-b_b_92337.html

Flashback: Wright's Letter To NYT About Obama http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/27/flashback-wrights-lette_n_93820.html

Fox News Publishes False "Black Panther" Endorsement Of Obama http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/20/fox-news-publishes-false-_n_92526.html

Is Wright Right About Racism? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/is-wright-right-about-rac_b_93924.html

Obama's Minister Committed "Treason" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/obamas-minister-committe_b_91774.html

Poll: Fifty-Six Percent Say Wright Makes Them "Less Likely" To Vote For Obama http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/17/poll-fiftysix-percent-s_n_91901.html
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/people2/just_8_have_favorable_opinion_of_pastor_jeremiah_wright

What If There'd Been Fox News or CNN During Slavery? http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/04/7902_rev-wright-prophetic-model.html

The Internal Black Debate over Obama http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/04/7861_glenn_loury_pos.html

King's Legacy an Incomplete Picture http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080120/D8U9PS180.html

Obama would have left if Wright stayed http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080328/ap_on_el_pr/obama_wright

The race is now about race http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/01/15/EDQ9UFKJL.DTL&type=printable

Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0115-13.htm

Fear overwhelming the Democratic party http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=469409

Uncle Jeremiah http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjE3NDc3YTU0ZGM5NGEzZTdkNjcyZjBiNDVjMjU5MGQ=

Does Obama Want to Lose? http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTRlZDEwZjgzYmZjNGU4ODA5NjEwZWVjMTE3N2QxY2M=

Clinton team explains Wright decision http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/26/811896.aspx

Hannity Denies Past Association With White Supremacist But Evidence Suggests Otherwise http://www.newshounds.us/2008/03/20/hannity_denies_past_association_with_white_supremacist_but_evidence_suggests_otherwise.php

Think Barack Obama’s Pastor Reflects Badly On Him? Take A Listen To Sean Hannity’s Former Neo-Nazi/White Supremacist Pal http://www.newshounds.us/2008/03/27/think_barack_obamas_pastor_reflects_badly_on_him_take_a_listen_to_sean_hannitys_former_neonaziwhite_supremacist_pal.php

Putting the lie to the Rev. Wright's 'truths' http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-oppay235622351mar23,0,4554227.column

Is the Media Biased.... Against Obama? http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/03/06/is-the-media-biased-against-obama/comments.aspx

Did Wright Create Obama's "Where's the Beef" Moment? http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/000978.htm

Clinton aide: Obama pushing Wright photo "pathetic" Politico.com

Clinton's Wright dilemma http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Clintons_Wright_dilemma.html#comments

Defending Rev. Wright http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Defending_Rev_Wright.html#comments

Facing the Issue of Race in America http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/341451.aspx

Howell Raines says Bill Clinton playing race card http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0408/Howell_Raines_says_Bill_Clinton_playing_race_card.html

McCain campaign crosses signals on Wright http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/McCain_campaign_crosses_signals_on_Wright.html#comments

Obama's church accuses media of character assassination http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=B8BC2AF0-3048-5C12-00FF5C4D53743024

Pushing Wright? http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Pushing_Wright.html#comments

Wright on film http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Wright_on_film.html
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/12/obamas-controversial-pastor-puts-church-in-hot-water/
http://www.foxnews.com/index.html
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Wright_head_on.html
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Wright_not_quite_viral.html#comments

The difference between Jeremiah Wright and radical, white evangelical ministers http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/03/17/wright/index.html

How far black America has come http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/06/EDE1VVFSH.DTL

"Why Jeremiah is Wright" http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=3695FC3C2CCA3B34
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/why-jeremiah-is-wright.php

Why do White People Think Wright Scarier than Hagee? http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/why-do-white-people-think-wrig.php

Wright: Is the HIV Remark Also Misrepresented? http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/wright-is-the-hiv-remark-also.php

A Nagging Wright Question http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/03/20/an-unresolved-wright-question.aspx

Obama and Wright http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/03/15/obama-and-wright.aspx

Native Son http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/03/31/080331taco_talk_packer/?yrail

Project Trinity. The perilous mission of Obama’s church. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/04/07/080407fa_fact_sanneh?currentPage=all

A House Divided http://www.theroot.com/id/45095

Lest We Forget: An open letter to my sisters who are brave. http://www.theroot.com/id/45469/output/print

Our Jeremiah http://www.theroot.com/id/45301

‘Wrighting’ the Wrongs: Media Coverage Doesn’t Cut It http://www.newuniversity.org/main/article/127

Obama’s Mr. Wright http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_04_07/feature.html

Obama's Minister Problem http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120770107738700007.html

Obama and the Minister http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB120545277093135111.html

Obama Repudiates Preacher’s Statements http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/03/14/obama-repudiates-preachers-statements/?mod=googlenews_wsj

Another Angry Black Preacher http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/20/AR2008032003021_pf.html

I should have known better. I should have known that this was a media created event. I took the bait. I know better. I sincerely and solemnly apologize to Rev. Wright and his church for calling his words crazy talk. I know the neighborhoods Rev. Wright preaches in. I know the black men, the black women, black people he is trying to reach. I have seen the lives of many black people fall apart because they didn't have to support they need to survive in this world.

Thank you, thank you, thank you Rev. Wright for mentioning Carter G. Woodson's the Mis-education of the Negro.

It's time for the Super Delegates to do their job and stop the gratuitous blood-letting by the Clinton campaign. Surely our party leaders understand that if the first African-American to get the majority of pledged delegates is denied the nomination the Democratic Party will become immersed in a battle royale from which it is unlikely to recover any time soon.

Hillary is now a Ralph Nader within the party. Her candidacy, at this point, is nothing but that of a spoiler regardless of the fact that she was a strong candidate. Her whole plan of action is to do everything she can to damage Obama between now and the convention so she can attempt to convince the Supers that she's the only remaining electible candidate.  This isn't just conjecture, it's widely known.  Indeed Rush is now gleeful over the prospect of the potential of possible riots that could ensue in Denver if party leaders and elders actually did take the nomination from Obama. 

Now that Clinton has climbed in the gutter it is time for the supers need to act like the party leaders they are supposed to be and end this by letting her know that they will be voting for Obama at the convention. Nothing will be gained by further delay whereas potentially everything, at least from the perspective of the Democratic Party, may be lost.  

Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama’s pastor and the focus of right-wing inflamed controversy smears, including death threats, was on Bill Moyers’ Journal tonight in what will surely be Moyers’ top-rated show for some time. Wright overall was pretty good, and especially with the “God Damn America” sermon, Moyers did a nice segue/setup. That said, while Moyers was certainly a sympathetic, and knowledgeable, interviewer, he didn't give Wright a 100 percent pass on his relations with Farrakhan or what he noted Wright mentor Martin Marty called Wright's “rough edges” and “abrasiveness.” Here are some other observations of mine. First, I now know more about where Wright gets his “black Jesus” ideas from. Early in the show, a clip from Wright’s church showed him claiming almost all the Bible takes place in Africa. WRONG. The Fertile Crescent/Middle East are in Asia. Indeed, “erev” and “assu” or similar are old words in Hebrew and related Semitic languages, and are of course the roots of “Europe” and “Asia.” (The Greek myth of Zeus and Europa was lifted from the Fertile Crescent.) Wright was right, in many ways, about the “prophetic voice.” I’ve heard preachers both white and black have a voice like that for this-world prophetic justice. Beyond that, as for the church’s slogan, “Unashamedly black and unapologetically Christian,” Wright had the quote of embracing Christianity without abandoning Africanity. That said, the motto was adopted under the pastor before Wright. “Bad,” and more seriously from my small American minority point of view, came back, though. Wright, as with Arianna Huffington, whom I blogged about earlier this week, though not so explicitly, seemed to indicate religious belief was necessary to find meaning in and give meaning to life. WRONG. And, that’s not just a white atheist guy saying that. Meet The Infidel Guy, Reginald Finley, arguably America’s top black atheist. I know he would have the same condemnation. Anyway, Wright then spoke in more detail about the “God damn America” book. First, getting back to that prophetic voice, the voice of people like Amos and Hosea, or the blessings and curses (or conDE/AMNnations, if you will) of Deuteronomy, he said religious leaders are supposed to, per their tradition, challenge government. Of course, politically and socially conservative white evangelical churches are clueless about that in the pews, in large part from preachers who refuse to engage in such condemnations, unless it’s the hot-button issue of abortion or gays. But, Wright spelled out the results of that.

When you start confusing God and government … you’re in serious trouble. (It’s like), ‘My government, right or wrong.’

The sermon clip was complete enough to show Wright explaining how the Roman government of Jesus’ time and the British Empire of a century ago both failed, then making a segue to the failures of American foreign policy before coming to the “God damn America” line. I have a linguistic hair to split, though. Wright would have been better saying “God damnS America” to make that point clear. Moyers also had Wright talk through the sermon he gave the Sunday after 9/11, where he used Psalm 137 as his text, the famous “By the waters of Babylon” psalm, for those of a Judeo-Christian background. It is called that from its opening line, which sets the words of the psalm on the lips of Jewish exiles in the Babylonian captivity under its King Nebuchadrezzer (the actual name of the biblically misrendered “Nebuchadnezzar”). Anyway, here’s the last line of that psalm, Wright’s sermonic cornerstone:

O daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us — he who seizes your infants and dashes them against a rock.

Wright told Moyers he was speaking to the people of his church who, like many other Americans, wanted revenge after 9/11. He said the psalm showed they had biblical precedent for feeling that way, but that the Bible called people beyond that to growth. But, one problem, not just of Wright, but of about any Christian minister or Jewish rabbi. The psalm itself ends with that as the last verse. Before a “bible,” or an Old Testament/Tanakh, or even a book called “Psalms,” or even one its five original separate books, was assembled, that psalm was read alone. As a cry for vengeance. Later on, Wright mentioned racism in all sorts of holy books, not just the Bible, but also places like the Babylonian Talmud and the Hindu Vedas. (And he’s right.) He also mentioned problematic passages, like the Levite of Judges 19 who has a concubine then abandons her to be gang-raped to death. But, he ignored something like the holocaust Yahweh himself expressly commanded in I Samuel 15, in talking about Psalm 137. No, Rev. Wright (and 99 percent of other preachers), your God was originally understood and embraced as a God who wanted vengeance. The author of that psalm understood that. So, Wright did a pretty good job of selling his theology. And, by that, I mean Christian theology, not just black Christian theology. But, that “prophetic voice” has some devil’s tritone clarion calls.

Rep Clyburn of South Carolina reports  that the Hillary Clinton campaign has a problem with Black voters. The perception is that Clinton is race-baiting. Many Blacks feel that since Clinton can't win, she is trying to damage Obama so much that the Superdelegates will give their support to Clinton. The other effect of the Clinton strategy is to make Obama so damaged that he will not be able to beat McCain if he survives to  the General Election.  Clinton will then be the frontrunner for 2012 after a one-term McCain Presidency.

Many African-Americans are dismayed. Blacks supported Bill Clinton during the Monica scandal. We were his firewall. The behavior of the Clinton campaign is felt to be the ultimate insult. Following Clinton, we were strong supporters of Al Gore and John Kerry. The support was so strong that about 90% of the African-American vote went to the Democratic Presidential candidate.

The only voices raised in objection to the size of the African-American vote going to the Democratic Party came from Conservatives in the GOP. Repeated arguments were made that African-Americans were being taken for granted by Democrats. All Democrats loved the high percentage of Black support, until  the support  went to Barack Obama.  Now African-Americans are voting only based on race. The Conservative warning seems to have a kernel of truth.

The  Conservative voices were muted by the fact  that the GOP had become the home of the Dixiecrats, Barry Goldwater's States Rights and the Southern Strategy.  Blacks, who had been strong members of the Party of Lincoln prior to the arrival of the Dixiecrats, were ushered out of the GOP so that Republicans could gain favor in the South.

Parts of the Democratic Party did not welcome Blacks with open arms. LBJ relied on Northern Democrats and the GOP which was mainly Northern and Eastern to pass the Civil Rights Bill. Southern Democrats were resistant.

Fannie Lou Hamer and the Mississippi Freedom Party are names well known to Black voters. The group was formed in opposition to a racist Mississippi Democratic Party. We had to fight our way into the blocked doors of the Southern part of the Democratic Party.

Simultaneously, as Blacks moved from the Democratic South to the North, they found easier entry into the Northern Democratic Party. We represented votes.

It is important to note that Affirmative Action was ushered in by Richard Nixon and African-American Conservative Arthur Fletcher. As the Republicans sought to gain Southern votes, Blacks became a lower priority. Eventually, the GOP became more hostile. The new GOP destroyed Nixon's Affirmative Action.

Blacks became expendable to the GOP. Black Americans were depicted as an American threat. The Willie Horton ad appeared in limited release, but it's effect was powerful. MSM helped spread the message. We had achieved the attention of the GOP. The message, get out.

The Democratic Party is now at a crossroads. There appear to be some pockets of voters who will not vote for an African-American candidate. There are pockets who will not vote for a female candidate. Blacks represent 10-12% of the country. White women represent 51% of the population. Calculations are being made. Obama  did not win in Ohio or Pennsylvania.  There is concern that Obama can't close the deal in large states. Do Primary loses mean General Election loses?  Will the Primary rules set down by the Democratic Party be changed to give Hillary a victory?

African-Americans sense some race-baiting behavior coming from the Clinton campaign. Clinton is running a Karl Rove campaign. Clyburn's observations will most likely be dismissed by a large segment of White Democrats.
 
There is a concern among African-Americans that once again a political party will find us expendable. The party hierarchy may decide to throw us under the bus in an appeal to Independents and "Reagan Democrats". This is a scenario that we know all too well. Been there done that.

The final question is do Democrats want African-Americans?

Is it imperative that the Clinton campaign forcefully address concerns of African-American Democrats? Will we only hear dismissive comments from Clinton and her surrogates. Is it time for Senator Clinton to give her own speech on race?

Are African-American concerns going to be taken seriously?
Is the party going to work to keep our votes?

Just ran on PBS an hour or so ago. I'd love to hear your thoughts on it.

[Jeremiah Wright on Bill Moyers Pt 1]
[Jeremiah Wright on Bill Moyers Pt 2]

   Watching Jeremiah Wright on PBS, I'm struck by how intelligent, godly and patriotic this man is. This man was a marine, he was in the military medical corps where he helped his fellow Americans. He obviously cares deeply about others, black folks as well as white. I think his criticisms of the US government is perfectly valid, criticism can be a sign of patriotism. He's right when he talks about Dr. King was vilified for his criticisms of the policies of the government in Vietnam and the plight of poor people in the US. I'm really impressed with Jeremiah Wright and Bill Moyers, what a great interview.

Superdelegates "have every right to overturn the popular vote and choose the candidate they believe would be best equipped to defeat John McCain in a general election," DNC Chairman Howard Dean told the Financial Times.

Said Dean: "If it's very very close, they will do what they want anyway... I think the race is going to come down to the perception in the last six or eight races of who the best opponent for McCain will be. I do not think in the long run it will come down to the popular vote or anything else."


http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/04/25/dean_says_nominee_will_be_chosen_in_last_races.html

She said this in a speech today and it occurred to me that, should we take her at her word, that nullifies her Health Care argument.

Hilary Rosen is a longtime, vocal Hillary supporter and by far the most appealing Clinton surrogate. She's just been made the Huffington Post's political director. Frankly, this gives me the creeps and amps up my general suspicion of the leadership at HuffPo which set in motion the single worst crisis of the Obama campaign. No, Clintonites, it's not that he didn't say what he said, he said it, but reporting what's said in a closed event is as unethical as it is the great big Gotcha opportunity this particular reporting proved to be. In any case, the Rosen appointment is a surprising choice for a site supposedly in the bag for Obama, a site which today ran articles about how down on Obama and up on Hillary the MSM has become.

I didn't feel that Obama's Bitter Blather comments in San Francisco were condescending, as many working class voters have said in person-on-the-street interviews. He did not, as practically all his opponents have said, say that people hunt and go to church because  they're hurting economically and see no hope. He only said that they "cling" to their life preferences when they're hurting. The point was, as he more extensively said in his interview with Charlie Rose in 2004, they find refuge from an uncaring political culture.

There's a huge difference. The former discredits their life preferences, as though those preferences were not satisfying and meaningful on their own merits. The latter discredits no one. But Obama is condescending in ways that haven't been pointed out.

In dealing with the attacks against him, one of his primary techniques is to name-call the attacks as "negative." Often, he slips into a joking kind of ridicule of his critics. He seems to think that he's only pointing out the obvious and rallying the troops to resist negative campaigning. But look a further under the hood of this technique.

Unfortunately, to the voter who is sincerely worried that Obama might be a closet radical or unfeeling toward working class people, this technique is condescending. Calling an attack or an attacker "negative" is like berating a jury member in a trial for at least initially agreeing with the prosecution. Instead of arguing his side of the case, Obama is not only putting down the prosecutor and the jury but appearing defensive in the bargain. Not good. 

Obama's negative label does make a reasonable point, but he makes it in a condescending way. There's a non-condescending method he needs to incorporate.

He can explain that guilt by association attacks are difficult for all of us, including him. Our entire country was deceived by Joe McCarthy, so it's no sin to be tricked by these attacks. After all, some accusations prove to be true, as in the case of President Clinton's affair and Senator Clinton's puffery about her visit to Bosnia; politicians do unfavorable things and lie about them. That's part of what makes it so difficult for the average, non-junkie voter to figure out what's true. That's an empathic view of the kind of voter I have in mind.

Another name for empathizing is "getting on the side of." Once on the side of this kind of voter, Obama can explain that he's been trying to understand the power of guilt by association attacks and that he realizes why they are so effective. It's that these attacks are, except in the case of extremists, expressed in somewhat polite ways. For instance, Hillary said, "I would've left that church." She didn't say, "He's a closet black radical." She didn't have to, because of guilt by association. But that extreme, hidden accusation, I think, works on people's minds even though they may never bring it out. Accordingly, Obama never addresses the more damning implied criticism. He never challenges people to find any bit of evidence other than his few associations that prove that he is a closet radical. It's as though a powerful subliminal message is flashed on our TV screens whenever a guilt by association attack is made. We don't fully realize that we're in the grip of it, and Obama's failure to bring it out and address it abandons us to the accusation's power.

This kind of empathetic thinking would solve the problem of condescension I've outlined. It would, ironically enough, make people feel that he is in touch with them much more than attendance at a tractor convention or a cheese steak diner.

What many people think the voters want is a pal, which is itself a condescending view that has run riot in America. We've devolved to a shuck and jive approach to selling oneself, truly believing, I think, that voters are stupid and insensitive. But I can tell you from years of working with parolees and working class and very poor people, that my education and erudition haves never gotten in the way of forming viable relationships with them. They call me, "Doc," as a paean to my unhidden sophistication. They respect my intelligence when they see how a clever insight can free them. What keeps us together is not my ability to chug a beer or get down in the mud at a tractor pull, but my consistent enough empathy and genuine encouragement of them. Obama has that to give aplenty, but he needs to deepen his commitment to his natural, mother-given feeling for people and rely on it rather than less.

I'm ready to fly to Denver to meet that drugged-out fat prick, along with his friends, the Hitler Youth.  Who is with me?

==========================
"One of the things that both Dem campaigns are always nervous about is defectors. In particular, Clinton is more vulnerable to this problem since she's the candidate that is trailing. Well, NBC News has learned that a major fundraiser for Hillary Clinton, former Amb. to Chile Gabriel Guerra-Mondragon is leaving the campaign to join up Barack Obama's campaign."

Things like the above will not happen, if the media published the truth about Barack Obama!

==========================
China's Emperor: H. Reid, N. Pelosi, H. Dean May Intervene Dem In Primary
http://www.topix.net/forum/news/2008-presidential-election/TIAMMAVI5OK6GCD1G
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/24/harry-reid-nancy-pelosi-h_n_98459.html

As I am writing this posting, I am listening to music written by Jason Mraz and John Mayer. Sometimes, music helps give us a calming peace even for a newspaper article or Internet posting. In relationship to the 2008 Presidential election, Barack Obama, and the Iraq War (an 18 year war that has not ended, due to the criminal actions of the Bush administration), Howard Dean, chairman of the DNC, has received many of my correspondence concerning this illegal war. Barack Obama has received information, so he can know and make judgments about the real truth of this war. Yet, Barack Obama has REFUSED to deal with these issues out of a fear of losing voter support and campaign contributions.

It is imperative, therefore, for Hillary Clinton to be given every chance to therefore win this nomination! (1) This war has been illegal from its onset and the Bush administration should be indicted, not impeached, but indicted, for criminal wrongdoings against the Constitution and against the people of the United States of America for high crimes and treason. (2) That Barack Obama has himself has committed many crimes prior to and during his Presidential run. Barack Obama is too inexperienced and immature and has in the past made poor judgments, where if he were elected today he will get our nation into another war far greater, than what we have now seen under the collective Bush administration. Bad judgment and no real leadership qualities make this man a real threat not only to our nation but to the security of the entire world.

(3) The truth should be made know and the guilty should be punished, correcting the wrongs of our nation and rectifying things so our people will be able to see the light and real truth as to what is going on in our nation, behind the Iraq War, and with respect to Barack Obama and what his candidacy will mean for our nation.

Without truth, our people will not be able to make a qualified judgment on the 2008 US Presidential election. It is wrong for these "so-called" responsible leaders of our nation to ask superdelegates to violate a constitutional mandated right and freedom! Reid, Pelosi, and Dean should lose their jobs for their poor understanding of this issue and for statement that Hillary Clinton should resign for the good of the Party!

One of the persons that I confided in with respect to Bush's illegal war was Howard Dean. With the knowledge that I gave him, he should be against Barack Obama's candidacy and illegal past as well as present dealings, Barack's indifference and lack of qualified leadership ability. Dean should have been instrumental in the indictment of Cheney, Bush, and others!

I most certainly wish that correction takes place in our nation and that I will be allowed to return home to China with the blessing of God as well as the blessing and love of the American people! To bring democracy and freedoms to China.

Hillary is the one who should be your President in 2009. Ask the media why, Ask Howard Dean why, or ask me and all three should be able to give an honest and as to why she should be our next President. Giving honest and truthful answers to the American people!

With criminal indictments coming down on Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Rumsfeld, and with Barack's faults and flaws exposed, the people of our nation will be in a better position to make the right choice for President in 2008 ...and can then and thereby make an informed choice! Our media NEEDS to publish the truth and NOT PANDER Barack Obama.

Congress needs to act in prosecution of this illegal and murderous Iraq War and I am open to a media story, as well as to scrutiny, on all of the above issues as well as my part as a negotiator in the 1990-91 Iraq War.

http://www.topix.net/forum/us/TQNVUHJ7CO4843OCK http://peacenegotiator.blogspot.com http://www.geocities.com/zhouclan/chia_pu.html http://www.topix.net/member/profile/himyaosui http://www.myspace.com/centerkingdom http://www.topix.net/member/profile/lchow http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=PluckPersona&U=0b58438e90dc4968a07c9a7fd9ed22ea&plckUserId=0b58438e90dc4968a07c9a7fd9ed22ea http://lchow.webvis.net/temp.html http://chinatownhawaii.com/flags.html Security concerns: http://chinatownhawaii.com/archive/ 22. JFK Blows The Whistle on Secret Societies! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnkdfFAqsHA&feature=related

A copy of this posting will be sent to President George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, RNC, and DNC, today, via fax. I think that the time for these people, above-mentioned, to own up to their crimes is long, past, overdue!

As usual, Hendrik Hertzberg hits it right on the money with his new blog post <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/hendrikhertzberg/2008/04/after-pennsylva.html">AFTER PENNSYLVANIA (1)</a>. This and Tom Hayden's <a href="http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080505/hayden">Why Hillary Makes My Wife Scream</a> puts to rest any idea Clinton would be immune from right-wing attacks.
The Clinton campaign sees itself as doing the Democrats a favor. By destroying Obama with Wright, bittergate, and Ayers, they're saving the party from itself. Under the guise of "toughening Obama up," they're trying to prove he's too far to the left to get elected in this country. In their mind, Clinton has been attacked so much any attack made against her has already been made. The question is, has it? The answer is no. In both 2000 and 2006, the GOP fielded joke candidates against her for her Senate seat. The national Republican Party had other priorities than to try and win a Senate seat in blue-state New York and she got off relatively easy. However, given that "Hillary Clinton" came up only second to "Ronald Reagan" in the GOP debates in 2007, it's safe to assume they've been preparing for a bloody fight with her. Among the items Hertzberg and Hayden bring up are her 1971 internship at the Oakland law firm of Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein. To give you some facts: <blockquote><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/hendrikhertzberg/2008/04/after-pennsylva.html">Treuhaft (Robert Treuhaft, husband of Jessica Mitford) had left the Communist Party thirteen years earlier, but Walker (Doris Walker) was still a member, and the firm was a pillar of the Bay Area Old Left.</a></blockquote> <blockquote><a href="http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080505/hayden">Hillary went to work for the left-wing Bay Area law firm of Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein, which specialized in Black Panthers and West Coast labor leaders prosecuted for being communists. Two of the firm's partners, according to Treuhaft, were communists and the two others "tolerated communists".</a></blockquote> This is just the tip of the iceberg. If Clinton is the nominee, Drudge is going to have a field day by leaking the cases the firm was involved with, the various statements of Doris Walker regarding the proletariat and making it seem Clinton was an integral part of the Black Power movement in Oakland. That Clinton has the naivete to believe she can get help from Richard Mellon Scaife and expect it to last until the general should be enough for any superdelegate to conclude she's not capable of being the nominee (on Olbermann, Clinton laughed off his concerns about Scaife and, in an obvious mock of Obama, said she was <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/21/hillary-clinton-on-olberm_n_97884.html">bringing people together</a>). The reason the right-wing noise machine has been friendly to her recently is because they share the same goal-to beat Obama. Once that is done, their alliance is null and they will go after her. Besides Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein, there are plenty of other attacks. There is the rumor about her having a <a href="http://www.wallstreetfighter.com/2007/11/hillary-clintons-lesbian-affair-story.html">lesbian affair</a> with staffer Huma Abedin. There's Bill Clinton and the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?_r=1&oref=slogin">Kazak Mining Deal</a>. And, even after 15 years, Vince Foster still generates <a href="http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=Vince+Foster&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8">430,000 hits on Google</a>. What Clinton, her campaign, and her supporters need to understand is any Democrat will be smeared by the right. Nothing is sacred to them (Max Cleland and John Kerry can testify to that). They will take something, lie, exaggerate, blow it out of proportion and make even the most hard-working patriotic American look like an anti-American, Christian-hating terrorist. That's how they operate. By becoming there echo chamber (as the Clinton camp has done), you do yourself no favors and harm the Democratic party as a whole. Can Obama survive their attacks? It is true he has made mistakes. However, the New York Observer put it the best: <blockquote><a href="http://origin.observermediagroup.com/2008/g-o-p-just-doesn-t-get-obama">But Mr. Obama, in his life story, in his words and in his general bearing, inspires more voters than not to believe the best about him, a rare and potent trait that almost always separates the winners from the losers in presidential politics.</a></blockquote> People genuinely believe Obama. That's why he won more delegates and move votes than Clinton. That's why his negatives are lower than hers. While he is not perfect-by his own admission-he knows how to take a hit and how to fight back. The right will always question the patriotism of Democrats. They will always call Democrats elitist. They will stop at nothing to push their radical agenda. The way to beat them is not to prove you are as cruel and ruthless as they are. The only way we will defeat movement conservatism and bring about a better America is by putting forward our own agenda and by setting the tone of national dialogue. The best candidate to do that is Barack Obama.

<i>Crossposted at DailyKos:</i>
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/25/182540/882/520/501888

Being older and from NW Indy I hope and pray that southern Indy comes through for Obama and don't let the media cloud the issue with 24/7 soundbites about "white people are bitter and clinging to their religion and guns", I'm a Black mother of 4 and in the early 80s I was newly divorced and suddenly US Steel was locking us out and shortly thereafter permanently closing plants and down-sizing, costing thousands of jobs, economic hardship and devastating a tri-county area, "BITTER", I was bitter plus, my income was suddenly a severance package and unemployment. Thank God for savings! But making withdrawals and no deposits, hmmm, "bitter" sounds about right. In Lake County and the surrounding area there were NO jobs -until- the casinos and the area by then was devaststed and still haven't rebounded. Already being faith-based, I naturally clung tighter to my faith and church, doing much praying for strength and a job. We all know I couldn't cling to guns, in the inner city the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply that's my ticket to clinging to some jail bars. People please, regardless of who is the nominee we MUST vote Democrat. May God bless us all.

Says in interview with the Financial Times that he, Pelosi and Reid agree to an end of June deadline for getting all supers to declare their support, says it’ll take at least two months for supporters of the losing candidate to get over their “grieving” and unite.

Also says that the party’s supers have every right to overturn popular vote and pick based on electability if that’s what they want since there’s nothing in the rules that prevents it.

“I think the race is going to come down to the perception in the last six or eight races of who the best opponent for McCain will be. I do not think in the long run it will come down to the popular vote or anything else.”

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3d03a310-12f7-11dd-8d91-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1

Just a heads-up to be aware of the symptoms of Phony Outrage Exhaustion, or POX, a common malady that generally strikes anytime a deep cable pundit gets up on his/her high-horse and starts bellowing about non-issues in mock anger. And, as we know, in an election year "anytime" is "ALL the time." These early symptoms include feelings of deep frustration accompanied with listlessness - followed in short order by sweaty, spasmodic compulsions to kick in the front of your television set (i.e., the screen).

Untreated, this condition can advance to the sometimes fatal (to your sense of hygiene) SeanHannitis.

This year, there is a subtle strain of POX circulating in which this characteristic, embarrassingly fake anger is replaced with stealthy insinuation. Just this morning, John McCain was asked by "Today's" Meredith Viera whether his inability to quash that race-baiting anti-Obama ad in North Carolina indicated "weakness" on his part. Regardless of your opinions about McCain (my own: he'd make a nice county clerk, but what's with that bulgy JAW?), any sensible person would suggest an answer along the lines of: "No, Meredith, I've met with the North Carolina State Republican Committee and we all agree - your ASS IS TOO DAMN FAT!"

His actual, on-air answer, oddly, was more subdued and boot-licky.

At any rate: Be watchful.

HILLARY (daring) :
- You tell me, Barack, how would you beat McCain, I mean really, when the Republican machine hits you hard?

OBAMA (casual) :
- The exact same way I am beating you right now. I was the underdog, remember? (Pause) It's over, Hillary. You know it. And you're still convinced that you should have won... But something happened, the society has evolved and quick. Would you aknowledge this mere fact, that you would concede now. This has become a fruitless fight. You can rest now. I'm ready.

Markos Moulitsas has just put up a killer quote from Terry McCauliffe's book "What a Party!"   Besides the shocking revelation that someone may have read at least parts of that book -- although it evidently took a long time --  the book contains a rather awkward passage:

"I'm going outside the primary window," [Michigan Sen. Carl Levin] told me definitively.

"If I allow you to do that, the whole system collapses," I said. "We will have chaos. I let you make your case to the DNC, and we voted unanimously and you lost."

He kept insisting that they were going to move up Michigan on their own, even though if they did that, they would lose half their delegates. By that point Carl and I were leaning toward each other over a table in the middle of the room, shouting and dropping the occasional expletive.

"You won't deny us seats at the convention," he said.

"Carl, take it to the bank," I said. "They will not get a credential. The closest they'll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules. If you want to call my bluff, Carl, you go ahead and do it."

We glared at each other some more, but there was nothing much left to say. I was holding all the cards and Levin knew it.

[Source: McAuliffe, Terry. What A Party!, p. 325.]

http://www.dailykos.com/

 

Now I know I'm going to take some flack for this, but bear with me.  And in full disclosure I am an Obama supporter.  But I ran across and intersting article in Slate today entitled 'Drop Out, Obama' by Chris Wallace:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/04/24/drop-out-obama.aspx

Yes, at first blush the whole premise made me infuriated.  But then I thought about it.  It's not such a crazy premise and, as Wallace suggests, it would fit perfectly with Obama's argument that he is a new kind of politician.  The basic argument is that, since surrender is not in Clinton's vocabulary, Obama should quit.

The following 'backlash' is as follows:  Obama supporters become furious and indignant.  McCain wins.  But Obama is perceived as a politician would would fall on his sword for the good of the party.  The Democratic backlash, from the voter perspective, will fall on the current leaders of the Party, Pelosi, Reid, Dean, etc. for not being able to force Clinton out of the '08 primary race.  Obama will become the defacto head of the party and work to install people loyal to him.  Keeping his eye on the ball, Obama will run in 2012.  After four years and a little thinking, his supporters in 2008 will flock to him in droves.  Plus new voters who can't vote in this election 14-17 yr. olds (and a multitude of others).  He wins the election hands down and unites not just the Party, but America.

Now, I don't want to wait four years for an Obama Presidency.  Nor do I want to go through four years of McCain.  But after my blood stopped boiling and I simmered down, if he actually did that, I can tell you there is absolutely nothing I wouldn't do for that man.  I would no longer see him as a politician, I would see him as a man of vision and principle and character (not that I don't view him that way already), but he would have actually done what he thinks best to heal the Party in the short-term, and America in the long-term.

All I'm asking is that you think about it.  A Presidential candidate that would rather save his party than become President?  Unheard of, and probably genius.  I think you would see his "Trust" polls go through the roof.

Anyway, this won't happen.  Particularly after today's news that he's running ads in all 50 states and joint fundraising with the DNC.

Oh, I know this is a bit snarky, and I'm going to look like a shill for Slate, but they also have something called the Hillary Deathwatch.  The name alone suckered me in.  And now, I can't wait for Clintons chances to sink lower because I get to watch a charicature of her slip closer to the water on a sinking Titanic.  Mean? Yes.  Immature?  YES!  And I love every minute of it.

Finally, I've been thinking about Clinton's 'Electability' argument.  And I was thinking seriously about why that argument should hold water.  It's not like Clinton really has much more experience politically.  I'm sorry but I don't buy the First Lady garbage.

Then it hit me like a ton of bricks.  We're in America and Obama is black.  THAT'S why he's not 'Electable'.  I've thought about this and there can be no other explaination, particularly when you compare thier legislative experience.

I just have two more things.  The first, that I get really mad when people say, because I am a man and don't support Clinton, I am a mysoginist.  This disgusts me.  I don't support Clinton simply because I don't believe she has America's interests at heart.  She is divisive, largely because of her husband, and she can say whatever she wants but I don't think she will get any meaningful legislation passed and will probably not add Democratic seats in the house and Senate.  And yes, I base this solely on her attempt to get her healthcare bill pased in the 90's. 

The second, the veiled racism in her electability argument.  I don't assume that people who vote for Clinton are racist.  I honestly believe that the people who support her, support her because they believe in her issues and her ability to support them.  But I just can't get away from the fact that 'Electability' has become the new term for 'Black'.  This is coming straight from her mouth and not some demented serrogate (read Ferraro).  And we can blame the media for this (not surprisingly).  We hear over and over about Rev. Wright. who uses provacative language, but is essentially speaking truth to power.  But that racist pig Ferraro is long forgotten.  It's sickening to me.

In closing, I would like to apologize to the African American community that this stupid white boy didn't figure it out sooner.  To Clinton supporters, I think you support your candidate based on issues, and I completely respect that.  But perhaps you could try insist (insist and demand?) that you're cadidate chage her talking points.

Obama '08. 

Chauncey Baker
Lafayette, IN (yes, I'm going out caucusing this weekend for Obama)

Cheney is coming to town to raise money for 'get out the vote efforts' in NC. Or is that 'get certain votes out of the total? 

Cheney's office also wanted to make it clear that Cheney is not raising money to pay for the N.C. Republican Party's latest ad linking Democratic gubernatorial candidates Richard Moore and Beverly Perdue to Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Numbers, numbers, who’s got the numbers?  The Votemaster, that's who.  I confess to finding the digested information at the widely-discredited DailyKos.com, but they jive with my rough addition of the Votemaster's maps.  And the Votemaster doesn't lie.  I think.

Electoral-vote.com maintains daily maps showing general election matchups by state, rated by strong, weak and slight support for the Democratic ticket.  Apparently Hillary's folks have been touting these numbers as proof that Obama loses to McCain in the general. 

Clinton's version of E-V’s April 23rd maps:

Clinton v McCain:
McCain: 239
Clinton: 289
Ties: 10

Obama v McCain:
McCain: 254
Obama: 269
Ties: 15

E-V’s rated breakdown for the same map:

                        Obama  Clinton

Strong Dem         67        74
Weak Dem         144        98
Barely Dem         58     117
Tied                    15      10
Barely GOP         76      13
Weak GOP          44      89
Strong GOP       134     137

Basically, the Clinton camp provides us with unweighted totals.  But Clinton doesn’t look nearly as great when you break the numbers down.  She does indeed have more strong Democratic support.  But if you add strong and weak, it’s 172 Clinton vs. 211 Obama.  Worse, 117 of Clinton's electors are in barely-Dem states, vs. 58 for Obama.  

Now, I know DailyKos has fallen hopelessly in love with Obama, but the Votemaster's numbers seem to reflect the range of current polls reported on TPM, and you can add up the electors yourself if you think Kos is lying. 

Hit 'recommend' if you find this interesting, and then hack away at will.  I know my avatar is ugly, but I'm not.  Really.

This question is for the anybody with knowlege of media strategy.

Election central tells us Obama is buying air time in VA.  If he is planning to run a 50 state strategy (as he claims and I believe he is), why would he be buying local time anywhere?  Why not make cable and national buys?  Would that not be cheaper than buying local time in ever market in the country?

Think FL and MI are bad?

Go to:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9841.html

HR 2239 and S1980

Info:
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id=5037

Im trying to track down who voted no. 

We really need a comeback on this slur, right away.  Now that perhaps the L word is losing some strength, it is obviously the goal of the Republican party to brand Democrats with this E word.

I think we tend to shrug and groan-- David Brooks thinks someone besides him is an elitist? -- etc.

But it is really potentially toxic for the Democrats, and I haven't seen much of a good comeback on it. 

(I'm not really wanting this thread to feed into the Clinton-Obama insanity; I have no doubt that while she is using this Right wing talking point right now, it will be turned against her the second she wins the nomination, if she does.)

What follows are some thoughts on this topic off the top of my head.  I'd love to generate a conversation that would push this discussion a lot farther than my preliminary attempts, which I don't think go very far. 

I can think of several grounds for labelling someone an elitist.

1) People who are very rich and thus shielded from the struggles of day-to-day economic life.  The Republican party has far more of these than the Democratic party.  (And of course, nearly all of the commentariat is in this category, cf, Charles Gibson and his question about a cop and a professor earning $200k.)

2) People with more education, and thus quite likely jobs that are professional, managerial, etc.  Not run of the mill "workers".  One of you numbers-wonks tell me how Ds and Rs break out on this.

3) People who just simple believe they know more and better than other people.  Now my opinion on this is that the Right Wing has far more of these people than the Left does -- you have to get pretty far Left to be doctinaire and ideological.  So many liberals are unclear exactly what they stand for -- we can't be both unclear about our values, and trying to cram our values down other people's throats, eh?

4) People who are part of the group that determines the "dominant culture".  Perhaps this is the category that is really making the Right crazy-- they think progressives dominate the media and entertainment industries and dominate the field of education.  Part of what this means is that we have won some of the culture wars of the past several decades-- women are working outside the home, everyone is recycling, gays are out of the closet, etc.  But the Right has to take this loss and inflame and infect it with their version of class warfare -- what those elitists who hate America are doing to destroy our country.

I don't know that the Right is using elistist in a consistent way-- it is just a useful weapon for beating anyone who is not with them over the head.

But do we have a consistent comeback, a put-down, a ready response??

And of course, one more thought, I think part of the reason the MSM loves to feed this stuff is their unspoken guilt about how much they are nearly all part of the elite themselves. 

Your thoughts?

On a personal level I reject dualistic thinking.  It serves a purpose no doubt, and occasionally it is required for survival, or at least basic self interest.  Having said that, there is a dualistic filter which I apply to political and in particular foreign policy considerations: does this process lead to genocide?

It is of course, the “nuclear option” of philosophical consideration.  Applying it to domestic political policies such as education, or taxation, or civil liberty, is an exercise best left to times of quiet reflection and meditation, and not open discourse.  However; on foreign policy matters it is a question that must at least be posed at the ideological level.

 Douglas Feith’s ideological input to “P.N.A.C.,” and his role in the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and his role (and the role of those influenced by his ideology) in the ongoing U.S. foreign policy issues vis-à-vis Iran and North Korea demand a public definition of his ideological end game.

On a pragmatic level there are only a few obvious matters of self interest that must be addressed with regard to Middle Eastern foreign policy:

-- Energy policy

-- The historic and ideological support of the existence and continued/improved health and security of the state of Israel

-- Economic policy, as it relates to energy policy, but also as it relates to global security and normalization of global trade

--Domestic and Global security

The last point (security) is of course the poisoned fruit of foreign policy considerations.  The adjustment of sensibilities that has been opportunistically forced upon the public since 2001 has made a pragmatic discussion of (inter)National Security impossible.  National security is a magical hammer that can be used to torture logic, reality, budgets, and prisoners with equal effectiveness.

And so it is that I pose an open question to Douglas Feith et al:

What ideal ending of the Iraq war that does not result in (more?) genocide do you propose?

What ideal outcome of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict that does not end in (continued?) genocide do you propose?

What ideal ending to the “Global War On Terror” (terror the tactic having been replaced by terror an ideology?) do you propose that does not end in genocide (nb: collateral damage does not differ from genocide to those that are defined as collateral)?

Will you consider that, even in ideological terms, a failure to identify an end point to all of these endeavors is to embrace a long term policy that leads inevitably to genocide?

So much obliterating, so little time.  
Let's start with Iran.
Now that the Joint Chiefs Chairman and the Pentagon are preparing military options against Iran, it's not surprising that Hillary has jumped on the bandwagon.  (I wonder if the word "obliterate" tested better than "attack".)
She is beyond hawkish now.  And she's distanced herself from the imaginary sniper fire in Bosnia fable.  
Actually, Hillary has been distancing herself from so many things her whole life it's surprising she's still within broadcasting range. 
So what or who else is on her obliteration wish list?  Well, David Shuster was for saying it was like the Clintons were "pimping out" Chelsea, but she only achieved suspension with him, not all out obliteration.  
The Democratic party is in Hillary's line of fire.  It's a big target so she divided it in half and is picking off one democrat at a time.  She assigned Bill Richardson to James Carville so that she could focus all her energy on Barack Obama.  And the DNC election rules.
So we'll see how all this turns out.  If she doesn't get nominated,   her job prospects look good. 
She's got a hell of a career as a wrecking ball.  

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080425/NEWS0502/80425056

Questions about Obama's "electability" never fail to raise our hackles and we go beserk in his defense. We feel an intense connection to his person and his message and disagree viscerally with his critics. I want to blog this, however, from my head rather than my heart - despite being ahead in delegates, Obama is still not winning significantly more than half of the electorate, and that's just the Democratic primary. If we really want him to win the White House, we have to face up to his weaknesses and vulnerabilities, and Obama has a little time from now till November to address them. He has to be unblinkered, objective and brutally honest in assessing himself and his opponents, both strengths and weaknesses. It means he has to win over those who have not voted for him, and who do not plan to. Not us. The ones who are concerned that rightly or wrongly, he doesn't love his country enough, that he may be an elite out-of-touch snob, that he is an inexperienced empty suit. That's been Hillary's fatal flaw - instead of wooing the Obama voters, her campaign insults, dimisses and derides them. It's her Achilles heel since the days of "Screw 'em!" to Southern Democratic voters who turned Republican. This is a mistake we must learn from - although we won't win over all the ones voting for Hillary or McCain, many are blinded beyond redemption (about 29% from the looks of Bush's approval ratings), we must win *enough* of them over. How can Obama win them over without pandering like a phony cardboard butter fingered bowler or Royal Crown-in-the-ass duck hunter? All those millions spent on ad blitzes that saturate and blanket airtime prove limited in their opinion-changing effectiveness. He has to remain authentic and truthful but it is time he talks about all these other things that the other half of America are concerned about. He certainly has to change his message, and if we care enough about sending him to the White House, we have to accept that his campaign might change its tone or direction. He has to prove himself to all these other groups by articulating his vision in a way that includes them. Someone as empathetic as him would be able to reach out and speak to them without condescension, that I'm assured of. I first thought of this because of a Peggy Noonan column blogged by PaDem: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/obama-and-america-is-there-a-p.php Let's be open-minded to constructive criticism and good advice about what the other half of the electorate think and feel. Instead of getting mad at Hillary, let's learn our lessons well from her. The ABC debate was a horrible debacle, but it served the function of exposing all the potential vulnerabilities to be addressed.

Go here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/25/george-mcgovern-still-bac_n_98599.html

How much time have you spent "offline" today? Try it? Start with an hour today and work your way up over the next few weeks. Don't let this campaign turn us all into zombies with bluish tans from the glow of our computer screens.

Dogwoods are blooming in my yard, and azaleas. Two Robins were bathing in my birdbath yesterday.  What about where you live?

Just up on MSNBC First Read:

From NBC's Chuck Todd
One of the things that both Dem campaigns are always nervous about is defectors. In particular, Clinton is more vulnerable to this problem since she's the candidate that is trailing. Well, NBC News has learned that a major fundraiser for Hillary Clinton, former Amb. to Chile Gabriel Guerra-Mondragon is leaving the campaign to join up Barack Obama's campaign. Officially dubbed a "Hillraiser," Guerra-Mondragon raised nearly $500,000 for Clinton's campaign, according to some estimates. He has been informing people inside Clintonworld this week in what's been described as some tough conversations. A formal announcement of a role for Guerra-Mondragon on Obama's national finance committee will be made next week.  Guerra-Mondragon was appointed Amb. to Chile by Pres. Clinton in '94 and served until '98.

Among the reasons for Guerra-Mondragon to defect, according to one informed source, was he was uneasy with the tone of the Clinton campaign and was beginning to worry about what this would mean for the general election.

It's unclear if this defection will lead to others; the Clinton camp has been particularly effective at getting folks to keep their powder dry. For Obama, this comes at a time when his campaign is trying to re-convince insiders that the math indicates he has the nomination virtually wrapped up. In addition, Guerra-Mondragon's defection could serve as a tipping point with some key Hispanic Democratic leaders that Obama is ready to start making a bigger effort to court Hispanics.  


http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/25/946650.aspx

 

With the 2008 Olympic Games just a few months away, I can’t help but find some startling similarities between the events surrounding the 1936 Berlin Olympics and the upcoming Beijing Olympic games.

The 1936 Olympics was meant to be a coming-out party for Germany.

Germany had rebuilt since the disastrous First World War and Adolph Hitler had declared that the games would not only be a showcase for the new Germany, but for the superiority of the Aryans…. the Master Race.

In preparations for the Olympics, Adolph Hilter oversaw a massive public relations campaign:

* Anti-Jewish signs were torn down

* Newspapers were ordered to tone down their attacks on all minorities, including Jews, Blacks and Gypsies.

* Berlin’s Gypsy population was rounded up and interred in a detention camp on the outskirts of the city.

* Berlin’s citizens were commanded to tone down their personal attacks on minorities or anyone who looked like a minority.

* Though many countries threatened to boycott the Olympics, every nation invited showed up.

* In the United States where there was strong opposition to the games, Avery Brundage of the Olympic Committee was sent to check things out. Brundage came back with a report that news of Nazi oppression was overstated and that America’s athletes, including Jews and Blacks, would be warmly welcomed. As the head of the International Olympic Committee, years later, Brundage would call for the continuation of the Munich Olympics following the massacre of Israeli athletes.

So, the games went on. No country boycotted. The Germans won more medals than any other nation.

Mission accomplished.

Three years later, they were marching on Poland.

Fast forward to 2008.

Preparations are well under way and the Chinese propaganda machine is going full tilt.

Like 1936 Germany, China is using the Olympic stage as a coming out party. These games are designed to showcase China as a major and modern superpower.

Like 1936 Germany, China has had some issues with their minority groups. Like Germany, China is trying awfully hard to whitewash those issues in preparations for the Games.

* China has already displaced 1.5 million people as they have built facilities for the Olympic Games. Most were given little advanced notice and were sent away from family and friends to housing that was not on a par with what they had previously enjoyed.

* China has spent $40 billion on construction, while a large percentage of the population remains in abject poverty.

* Citizens are being re-educated to put a better face on the country. Public spitting and shoving, all common in China, have now been criminalized.

* To show that even the weather is perfect in China, the country has developed a massive “weather modification” program for the Olympic fortnight.  Utilizing both aircraft and twenty artillery and rocket-launch sites around Beijing, the Chinese  will shoot and spray silver iodide and dry ice into incoming clouds, thus keeping the skies rain free.

* Protesters in China have been silenced and incarcerated.

  - Falun Gong members, whose faith has been banned in China, have been subject to torture and imprisonment.

  - Pro-Tibet activists have been similarly jailed, beaten and tortured.

  - Any mention of China’s role in the tragedy of Darfur is banned.

China seems to believe its own propaganda. They seem truly shocked that the procession of the Olympic Torch around the world has been met with protests and violence. Virtually every country where the Olympic Torch has traveled to has seen major protests over China’s civil rights violations.

Here’s the Chinese Foreign Ministry reaction:

“We express our strong condemnation to the deliberate disruption of the Olympic torch relay by ‘Tibetan independence’ separatist forces regardless of the Olympic spirit and the law of Britain and France. Their despicable activities tarnish the lofty Olympic spirit and challenge all the people loving the Olympic Games around the world.” 

It’s not like the protests will change how they do business in China.

The games will go on. No country will boycott. China will win the most medals.

Mission accomplished. 

Tony Zirkle, a Republican candidate for Indiana's 2nd District U.S. Representative seat, addressed a gathering in Chicago of the American National Socialist Workers Party last weekend. The occasion was a celebration of the 119th anniversary of the birth of Nazi leader Adolf Hitler.

Photos on the white nationalist website overthrow.com show Zirkle at the podium in front of a massive portrait of Hitler, flanked by an American flag on one side and a Nazi flag on the other. Swastika banners hang on the wall, and other head-table guests are wearing swastika arm bands.

An account of the gathering on www.Overthrow.com says "Zirkle spoke on his history as a state's attorney in Indiana, prosecuting Jewish and Zionist criminal gangs involved in trafficking prostitutes and pornography from Russia and the Zionist entity."

During a news conference Monday afternoon, Zirkle said he accepted an invitation to address the group to spread his anti-pornography message. Zirkle said he feels misunderstood. His real mission, he said, is to rid the country of pornography, and that's what he was saying at the ANSWP gathering. 

So how did his comment about Jews fit in? "Most of the male porn stars were Jewish at the beginning," Zirkle explained. Now the male porn stars are mostly black, he claimed, and the women who appear in pornographic works tend to be "young, white, Christian women."

The Chicago event was not the first time Zirkle has raised controversy on issues of race. In an interview in early March with the Kokomo Perspective, Zirkle raised the idea of segregating different races in separate states.

http://www.southbendtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080422/News01/804220396/0/SPORTS

Is there any other way to read this than as an implicit announcement that Obama is the nominee?

It will be interesting to see if the Clinton campaign makes a similar arrangement.

As you know the slum, landlord Tony Rezko has bubbled up into the 2008 presidential campaign.  It's come up because of Obama's sorted links and friendship with the man who is the slum, landlord for many residents of Sen. Obama's former district as a state senator in Illinois.  Rezko even helped Obama purchase his million dollar plus home where the Obamas now reside.

It's come up that Obama's ties to Rezko may go deeper, including to an Iraqi billionaire Nadhmi Auchi.  When pressed, Obama said he has "no recollection" of meeting him.  However, it's come out that Obama was not only at a party with Nadhmi Auchi, but he made a big welcome and a few toasts for Auchi, the guest of honor at a fundraiser for him.  http://www.suntimes.com/news/sneed/896844,CST-NWS-SNEED16.article

It's also been discovered that evidence linking Auchi to visits to Chicago when Obama was running for U.S. Senator has been erased from the internet.  Coincidence?  Probably not.  http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Rezko_friend_scrubs_evidence_of_2004_0130.html

I wonder if Obama really doesn't recollect meeting this billionaire from Iraq?  For my part, I think it makes his claim to have no recollection seem a bit dubious.

Tony Zirkle, Republican candidate for

Damned if she is, damned if she isn't.

Hillary made a big mistake the other day on Inside Edition when she said, in regards to her husband's Weather Underground pardons, "Well, I didn't know anything about it."

Oh, reeeeeeeeeally.

I'm glad to see that Josh is diving into this story, because a response of "I didn't know anything about it," just begs reporters to prove her wrong.  Any sort of flat denial like this raises more questions than it answers, because a touchstone of Hillary's campaign has been the implied assertion that she was something of a co-president or at the least a trusted adviser during her husband's tenure.  Hilariously, any time a current issue becomes unpopular (NAFTA, pardons), Hillary seems to have been magically absent from those White House discussions or was, even more amazingly, "secretly" lobbying against it.

Simply put, Hillary put her foot in her mouth big time in the Inside Edition interview.  If she would have instead just obfuscated or ducked the question, I'm sure she'd keep skating for a few more weeks.  Instead, she flatly denied knowledge of the pardons and pricked the ears of journalists around the country.  Bad move.

The fact is, Bill's pardons are a huge deal and they are going to be a big issue in a general election should HRC get the nod.  And so it comes down to: either she knew about them or she didn't.  If she knew about them, and I think there's ample evidence that she must have known about most of them and possibly even lobbied on behalf of some of those who were pardoned, then she needs to explain herself.  On the other hand, if these were all done without her knowledge, let alone without her consultation, then it raises serious questions about how much of the White House operated on a level above Ms. Clinton's head.

To sum: either she knew about the pardons and is outright lying, or she didn't know about them and her claim to have been a major player in the White House should be seriously questioned.

So, which is it, Hillary?  Are you lying to us, or have you been exaggerating your role in the White House?  You can't have it both ways.

McCain didnt support equal pay for women.

The AP quote, 4/23:

"McCain stated his opposition to the bill as he campaigned in rural eastern Kentucky, where poverty is worse among women than men. The Arizona senator said he was familiar with the disparity but that there are better ways to help women find better paying jobs.

"They need the education and training, particularly since more and more women are heads of their households, as much or more than anybody else," McCain said. "And it's hard for them to leave their families when they don't have somebody to take care of them.

"It's a vicious cycle that's affecting women, particularly in a part of the country like this, where mining is the mainstay; traditionally, women have not gone into that line of work, to say the least," he said."

They need education and training.  What an idiot.  But what an outrage.  Imagine if he had said that about Hispanics, for example.  Where is the outrage? 

And darn it, where is Hillary on the vote and the quote?  Why is it a liability to speak up for half the country and your base during a campaign? 

There is a second KBR rape trial going on, the first was disgustily dismissed by a KBR arbitrator, she never got a jury of her peers, no jurisdiction in Iraq for civilians (see Blackwater murders), no jurisdiction on KBR employees, who must sign away rights to sue in court for employment (as does more than 15% of the Fortune 500).  Why is no one championing these women's causes?  This is political safe ground, isnt it?

There are other reasons a woman as president is exciting to think about (not this year of course, also for other reasons).  But one important one is the ability for a woman to fight for politically inconvenient minorities, and fight for majorities (women) even when she may be painted as "weak" in the face of difficult decisions.

As the first woman, dis she need to play it safe, paly it even hawkish?  Does she need to soften the tone to get elected, the ratchet it up?  More tone now would help.  It helped when Obama gave me some insight into the tenor of his campaign.  He didnt play it safe, being the first real black candidate, and its served him well.

Here is Krugman's latest bait:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/25/walter-shapiro-gets-it/

"But if he is the nominee, and runs this way in the general election — if it’s about the candidate’s awesomeness, not about why progressive policies make peoples’ lives better — it’s a formula for defeat."

Now maybe Paul hasn't heard Obama hitting McCain on the economy, healthcare, jobs, foreclosures, poverty, and tuition. But, I suspect he has and just wants to hear more of it. I think all of us would, but for some reason we don't seem to be able to focus on McCain and the real issues as much as we would like.

Hmmmm, what could that reason be? Could it be, perhaps, Clinton?

I'm really not trying to be Church Lady and I don't think Hillary is all that bad. She's doing what she thinks she has to do to win the nomination. But, if Krugman is really concerned about our chances in the General Election maybe he should consider his own candidate's negatives in the off chance she gets the nomination.

The following appeared in Time back on January 25, 2007:

Hillary vs McCain
"the four leading contenders all have some work to do: Obama in making himself better known, Clinton in making herself better liked, McCain in matching Giuliani's appeal to Democratic voters"

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1582130,00.html

This was way back when Obama was an also-ran, but now he is clear favorite. While Hillary has only become less liked.

Whether or not you think Obama has gone negative too, she's the one being hurt by it most. Are we not right to worry about her electability with regard to this? Isn't there risk the fear card (9/11, Iran, 3AM) will backfire on her?

Here is Krugman's latest bait:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/25/walter-shapiro-gets-it/

"But if he is the nominee, and runs this way in the general election — if it’s about the candidate’s awesomeness, not about why progressive policies make peoples’ lives better — it’s a formula for defeat."

Now maybe Paul hasn't heard Obama hitting McCain on the economy, healthcare, jobs, foreclosures, poverty, and tuition.  But, I suspect he has and just wants to hear more of it.  I think all of us would, but for some reason we don't seem to be able to focus on McCain and the real issues as much as we would like. 

Hmmmm, what could that reason be?  Could it be, perhaps, Clinton?

I'm really not trying to be Church Lady and I don't think Hillary is all that bad.  She's doing what she thinks she has to do to win the nomination.  But, if Krugman is really concerned about our chances in the General Election maybe he should consider his own candidate's negatives in the off chance she gets the nomination.

The following appeared in Time back on January 25, 2007:

Hillary vs McCain
"the four leading contenders all have some work to do: Obama in making himself better known, Clinton in making herself better liked, McCain in matching Giuliani's appeal to Democratic voters"

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1582130,00.html

This was way back when Obama was an also-ran, but now he is clear favorite.  While Hillary has only become less liked.

Whether or not you think Obama has gone negative too, she's the one being hurt by it.  Are we not right to worry about her electability with regard to this?  Isn't their risk the fear card (9/11, Iran, 3AM) will backfire on her?

Q: I'd like to welcome David Plouffe. He is the campaign manager for Barack Obama. Welcome.

Plouffe: Thanks, Linda. Thank you for having me.

Q: Thank you for joining us. Let's talk a little bit about what seems to be "Topic A" among Democrats, and that is Barack Obama's electability. It is the thing that many Democrats are talking about -- journalists as well. Obviously, concerns have been raised, strong concerns, because for the second time in a row in a big state, he's lost with whites, blue-collar voters, Catholics and, of course, those older voters as well. But with respect to the base of the party -- the white blue-collar Catholic in a certain sense -- why shouldn't the Democrats be worried about this?

Plouffe: Well, we're happy to have a conversation about electability. I'd start with this, which is, if you look, we've had 46 contests now and Barack Obama has shown real appeal in all segments of the electorate. And I do think if you look at some of the voters that are voting for Senator [Hillary Rodham] Clinton, you know our favorable/unfavorable, our internal traits are very strong, and it would be like suggesting somehow all the Democrats voting for us wouldn't vote for her if she were the nominee. The lion's share of Democrats are going to be supporting the Democratic nominee.

The real question is, who can appeal to independents against a candidate like John McCain whose got unique appeal for a Republican candidate against independents. Who can bring out younger voters? Who can create a favorable turnout dynamic? This doesn't have to be a radical exercise. Let's look at where the general election matchups stand now. In Oregon, in Washington, in New Mexico, in Nevada, in Wisconsin, in Iowa, in Minnesota, in New Hampshire, in Maine, in any number of states that we either have to win or we have to put in play -- Virginia, North Carolina -- we are performing more strongly than Senator Clinton. So I think that there is a lot of navel-gazing about this going on. I think if you look at what the election is likely to be with only a Democratic nominee, a Republican nominee -- McCain adopting all of the Bush policies -- the Democratic Party voters are going to vote in huge numbers for the Democratic nominee. The question is, who can turn out more of them, and who can do best amongst independents and moderate Republicans, and we think undeniably that's Senator Obama.

Q: Well, you've talked here about why he is electable. Obviously, the Clinton campaign and Clinton herself are making strong arguments about why he is not electable, pointing to this base question that I just asked you, pointing to the fact that she's done better in the big states. What kinds of arguments are you going to be making to superdelegates about her electability?

Plouffe: Well, let me just on the big state question -- you know, they point to California, New York, Massachusetts. We are going to carry those states comfortably. Yes, she did win Ohio and Pennsylvania in the primary. If you look at polling matchups of McCain versus Obama and Clinton in Pennsylvania, we perform roughly equal. We've won a lot of big battleground states -- Colorado, Wisconsin, Washington state, Iowa, Virginia. North Carolina, by the way, is going to be a big battleground state in 12 days, so I guess by their definition they need to win there. So this is kind of a ridiculous argument that, you know, they are trying to latch on to.

I mean, I think her electability issues are the following: she's got a high unfavorable rating. It would be the highest unfavorable rating for any presidential nominee in recent history. Fairly or not, the majority of voters don't trust Senator Clinton. Those two points are related, obviously: her unfavorable rating, and the sense that voters do not find her honest or trustworthy. And I do think she has limited appeal with independent voters. A Democratic nominee has to be competitive with independent voters. Ideally you'd win them. John McCain has unique appeal with independent voters. Senator Clinton has difficulty matching up with him with independent voters. She's got less appeal to Republicans, and I also think she's not going to create the kind of turnout that we will in the African-American community and with all voters under 40.

So I think she's got real limited range here, and we think that we will be just as strong as she will be in the core battleground states like Pennsylvania, like Ohio. But the question is, in Iowa, in Wisconsin, in New Mexico, in Nevada -- these are states that have always been very close, that a Democratic nominee has to carry. And we're doing much better than she is against John McCain.

Q: Well, one of the things to which some Democrats point -- the Clinton campaign has not said this publicly at least, but one certainly hears it in talking to supporters in more of a background way. Look at the racial polarization in the last several contests -- Pennsylvania, Ohio, Mississippi -- is that going to be a problem? Is race going to be a problem for Barack Obama in the general election?

Plouffe: We really don't think so. I mean the vast, vast majority of voters who would not vote for Barack Obama in November based on race are probably firmly in John McCain's camp already. And I think if you look at the Democratic voters who are voting for Senator Clinton in some of these states, when you sort of look beneath it and you project how this is going to happen, Barack Obama is going to be the Democratic nominee. He is going to be articulating policies and ideas that they believe in. They won't agree with John McCain on issues like the economy and health care. And so I think that we are going to get the vast, vast majority of Democratic voters.

And, you know, I think if you look at -- we have won white voters, particularly white voters under 60, in a lot of states. We've won white men voters in most of the states we've competed in, and, you know, again, if you look at our favorable/unfavorable ratings and the characteristics and the traits with some of these voters that have voted for Senator Clinton in recent primaries, you know they are strong and they are going to be supportive of us in the fall.

Now, listen, this is a heated contest. So our supporters, the Clinton supporters -- this question of will you vote for the other person in the election in the fall -- you know, there's hard feelings. So a lot of people are saying no, but we seem to forget history. There's always hard feelings, and then the party comes together. And I think everyone ought to take a deep breath here and understand that the Democratic nominee is going to get the majority of Democratic voters. The question is, who can do best with independents and moderate Republicans, and who can create the best dynamic for turnout. If Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee, I think turnout amongst African-Americans, turnout amongst all voters under 40, and our ability to register new voters is going to be a very important piece of the puzzle.

Q: You've heard Hillary Clinton's advisers say that if she loses Indiana, it may well be over for her. If Barack Obama should somehow lose North Carolina, would he then have a problem?

Plouffe: Well, first of all, we assume this contest will go through June 3. We're already campaigning actively in all the contests through Montana and South Dakota. So, you know, we have no control over what Senator Clinton does or does not do. We're just going to campaign as hard as we can and get as many votes and delegates as we can. And we look at these as a body of contests. You know, I said this after March 4. There's 10 remaining contests. Some of them she'll do well in, some of them we'll do well in, but we look at it at the end of the day on June 3, where does the race stand?

Our record right now is 30 to 16 -- it's a pretty good record. Won a lot more delegates, which is the measure. That is the strategy. We built our strategy around the acquisition of delegates because that's our rules. So did Senator Clinton. This popular vote is kind of a red herring. I mean, if this was about popular vote, we would've campaigned harder in Illinois to drive up our numbers. We would have campaigned the entire 10 days before February 5 in California and New York to drive up our numbers. But what we did was campaign in a lot of states and a lot of congressional districts to try and get delegates, because that is what this is about. So, you know, they are very creative about establishing new metrics.

So we're just going to fight as hard as we can, and see where we are the morning of May 7. We'll see where we are the morning of June 4, but we don't think the fundamental structure of the campaign is changed, and we think, on electability, we have a terrific story to tell and a case to make, and we're going to make it as aggressively as we can. Because we think that Senator Obama gives the party the best chance to win the presidency and also the best chance to have good downballot atmospherics for the rest of the candidates.

Q: OK, well, thank you so much, David Plouffe, campaign manager for Barack Obama. I really appreciate your joining us, and I hope you'll come back on the program again one of these days.

Plouffe: Thanks, Linda. Have a good afternoon.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/no_20080425_7012.php

Even when times are good, it's hard to believe that corporate CEOs can look you in the eye and tell you that they've truly earned their outrageous $10 million, $50 million, $100 million or more pay packages.

And right now, times aren't good.

But this week I saw another round of stories on corporate CEOs getting multi-million dollar "bonuses" even as their companies lose millions of dollars.

This is just another outrageous example of a corporate culture that is out of control and out of touch with most Americans. These corporations fight any kind of regulation designed to protect workers, the environment, or public health, yet when their irresponsible behavior bites them in the ass, they come crawling to us begging for a bailout, while continuing to lavish hefty paychecks on their top executives.

Who are these CEOs earning unfair millions and making our economy less secure? I didn’t have to look far or wide – I found one in our hometown of Denver.

The homebuilder M.D.C Holdings’ Larry Mizel last year pulled in a $2 million bonus - on top of a substantial multi-million-dollar pay package – despite driving down his company’s share price and depleting returns for shareholders like public pension plans. If that’s not enough, overbuilding of homes by M.D.C. and other homebuilders is a major cause of the current housing and mortgage crisis that’s threatening American jobs and the economy. In Colorado, many of M.D.C.’s houses are now vacant and in foreclosure.

It's time average citizens whose lifestyles have been effected in big ways by the waning economy speak out against this economic climate that favors the already well-off. That's why Progressive Future has launched its "Give It Back" Campaign, focused on targeting poor-performing CEOs who nonetheless receive exorbitant bonuses, and asking them to take these bonuses and give them back to the community. Our supporters emailed Larry and asked him to donate his undeserved bonus to a local homeless shelter, and Mizel responded by de-activating his email address.

We have since changed tactics to a petition, which will be delivered to his offices in person. Sign Progressive Future's "Give It Back, Larry" Petition, and fight for the economic security of everyday Americans, not the coddling of wealthy corporate bigwigs.

When this election began, Sen Cinton was an inevitable candidate. Media pundits told us she is going to win and Sen. Obama can't.

Then Sen.Obama started winning and everyone including Sen. Clinton's campaign said its a race for pledged delgates.

Once it was obvious Sen.. Clinton can't win with the pledged delegates argument, narrative was changed again to big states, popular vote, swing states.

Let's talk about now.

Most pundits say that Sen. Obama will be the nominee. But they are also pretending there is real race they are covering and its a close election. All Ivy league educated ( and should I say elite?) pundits on TV come across as shallow and sometimes nonsensical.

Does gallup national poll showing either 10% difference or 0% different between between Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama really make a difference now?

Is Indiana or NC really make or break states as the media says its? Really?

Does anyone really think Super Delegates can take away the nomination from someone who won the pledged delegates? ( which was the metric everyone was told that would count in the beginning of the process). Can you imagine the reaction from the people who voted, newspapers , media the day after the nomination was handed over to some who is trailing in (pledged) delegate count?


I can't take anymore the punditary of why Sen. Obama can't win white voters, he is not one of us, we can't have beer with him, he is out of touch, he can't close the deal etc etc.

Enough of this shallow and nonsensical shows.

Can we start talking about issues?

Remember Iraq? economy, education?

Something occurred to me today in looking at all the media coverage of Obama's supposed inability to woo white working class voters and its potential drag on his so-called "electability."

That's all well and good -- white working class voters are an important constituency, and the both the Republican and Democratic candidates are going to work like gangbusters to court them.

Much of this coverage is spurred by the Clinton campaign, who are crowing that their constituency is the one that the Democrats will need to win. But there's a question of equal or even greater importance that isn't being asked about Clinton's so-called "electability" -- does she have an "African American problem"?

It goes without saying that African Americans are one of the critical pillars of the Democratic electorate, and no Democratic candidate can hope to win without their support. Yes, Clinton has been beating Obama amongst working class whites, but Obama has been trouncing her amongst African Americans.

He got over 90 percent of the black vote in Pennsylvania. 90 percent. Given the obsession over Obama's "white" appeal, and given James Clyburn's recent comments about the Clintons and race, this is a question that should be asked.

But it isn't being asked. No one seems interested. Everyone takes it for granted that Obama will dominate among African Americans, but its held up as an electoral triumph when Clinton wins working class whites by lower margins. It's almost as if everyone just assumes that African Americans would fall in line behind Clinton should she wrest the nomination away from Obama.

But is that an assumption that can be made? Can it be taken for granted that the Clintons will enjoy overwhelming African American support after consistently losing black voters to Obama by 8-2 and 9-1 margins?

Most commentators fault Obama for not being like Hillary, not as steeped in policies and programs as she. They think voters want to know what the candidates will put in place after they're elected. That conclusion has some merit, but that's a small picture view. The big picture, as Obama knows, the two parties have been stalemating each other for at least since the Nixon Administration. Neither one can form a consensus long enough to create lasting, viable change. So the overarching problem in America is entirely a process problem.

The problem is, How do you form a consensus to create the kind of progressive changes both candidates envision? To be more precise, How do you take your left of center base and unite it with the Far Left and the 20 percent in the middle to create a 60 percent majority?

It does seem that process really is the most important issue at this point in our history. Were I Obama, I would be pounding the above analysis and conclusion every time I spoke. I agree that it's a difficult point to make, especially with people who don't study process and use it in their work.

The particular difficulty he's having is that his process--his style of creating coalitions--is unfamiliar to most people. The old style, power politics as advocated by Lyndon Johnson, one of Clinton's heroes, is to slap together a package of pork and arm-twisting along with straightforward appeals to enlightened self-interest of the stakeholders. The emphasis is, as Hillary has so frequently said, on being a "fighter."

Of course, she never answers the question, What has your style of fighting gotten us? It can be argued that, if she had Obama's method of solving problems, she could have gotten universal health care approved during the first years of her husband's presidency. She fought. She excluded her opponents from the proceses, which polarized them. Fighting really is the cause of the debilitating stalements from whch we've suffered for decades.
 
Obama relies more on empathy. However, despite long-standing and deepening reliance on it among clinicians and, more recently, experts in international relations, empathy still seems, at best, a reed in the wind of special interests and, at worst, a capitulation. But many of us who have studied and used it for many years know that it truly is the difference that can actually bring people together, as Obama demonstrated in his speech on race.

Of course, he didn't solve the racial divide and said he had no expectation of some huge change in the racial tensions in this country. But he did create lasting change, however small. He enabled people on both sides of the issue to temporarily understand each other and feel for each other enough that they could begin reconsidering their positions.  One can readily imagine how that process could develop over four or eight years to create more substantial progress.

In most political struggles, people take positions and pound them. And they degrade the opposition. From his work as a community organizer helping to build coalitions to create change, Obama knows better than any well known politician that beating up the people that initially oppose you can only destroy any chance you have of uniting enough people to make a change. And he knows that you can't fake empathy. It has to be intellectually credible and you have to be reasonably consistent in expressing it. My only concern is that he lacks the underpinning of professional and academic consensus on empathy as the most powerful influence for betterment. So he is vulnerable to losing his empathic stance at times and being swayed into making disempathic statements. But this failing shouldn't distract us from his fundamental core, his genuine feeling for even the people who oppose him.

Obama's genuineness is easy to prove, most notably because his mother had a solid reputation as an amazingly genuine respectful person. He means what he says about white middle class men when he says that they are understandable and have a real beef against the PC movement that trashed them for being racist. I hope he comes back to that message, because that's not just his strength. It's what America must have to solve the devastating problems that threaten to destroy our heirs' future. 

    Every four years Americans engage in the ritual of deciding which Historical Moment looks the most like our own.  Is this  McGovern in 72  or  Carter/Kennedy in 80 ?  Is Obama Stevenson?  Seldom do the analyses extend back far enough to be really useful (the period from 146 - 122 BCE might yield valuable insight).  Seldom, too, does analysis rise to quite the level of poetry and insight as   Steve Fraser’s post on the Gilded Age at TomDispatch.


Well, look out your window, because it is 1852.  In that year the Whig party was shattered, and by 1854 it had ceased to exist.  Likewise, in 2008, the Republican party is dead.  And every Republican knows it. 

You can see it in the inability to raise money for candidates, in the number of Congressmen and Senators who have announced their ‘retirement.’  (Let’s face it, there are three reasons for an elected representative under the age of 95 to ‘retire,’ they have lined up lucrative lobbying deals, an indictment is eminent or they are sure to lose.)  You can see it, too, in the quality of the candidates they are fielding.  In reflections on the wild possibility that there will be a Democratic sweep in the Senate races. 

But there are three sure signs that the Republican Party is over.  Rupert Murdoch formed and alliance with Hilary Clinton in 2006, Richard Mellon Scaife backed Hilary Clinton in 2008 and Hilary Clinton raised $10M from 100,000 individuals in 24 hours  after the Pennsylvania primary.  That money didn’t come from a pent up well of Democratic fence sitters.

In the period from 1852 - 1854 the collapse of the Whigs gave rise to two political movements, the rabid anti-immigrant American Party ( known as the Know-Nothings) and the anti-slavery and pro-business Republican Party.  That Anti-immigrant sentiment is gripping the Republican Party today is a no-brainer, that it is driving people away from the party is less obvious, but it is a loser in the long run.

The Republican Party is dying for three reasons, which I may elaborate later:

    It has proven remarkably incompetent to govern.
    It has no record of  positive achievement to point to.
    Its animating philosophy has proven to be wrong on every point.

In short, they have no answers. 

It really doesn’t matter that the Democrats don’t look to have answers either.  And it doesn’t matter that the Democrats are fighting each other tooth and nail, or that there is little party unity.  The thesis isn’t that the Democrats are beating the Republicans, it is that the Republican Party is failing  without respect to the Democrats at all.  The Democrats are irrelevant. In fact there have been two times when one political party in America failed.  The Federalists in the period immediately after the War of 1812, and the Whigs, which I have referenced here.  In neither of the earlier cases did the Democrats (or Democratic-Republicans) really bring about the demise of the other party, they died of self-inflicted wounds.

People tending to see this new political landscape as ‘a new Progressive Moment,’ or the flip-side of Karl Rove’s generation of Republican Party domination are also missing the underlying reality.  Immediately after the failure of the Conservative parties (the Whigs, or the Federalists) the Democratic Party itself shattered in disarray.  In the aftermath of the Federalists came the Jacksonians, in the aftermath of the Whigs came the Republicans, and the end of slavery.  America is not about to become a one-party state, it is about to enter a period of transition, with two new parties, with new alliances and goals.  One of them will probably be called the Democrats, whether they are the left or the right is unclear, the name endures even if the party principles and platform are unrecognizable.  The other party, who knows - Federalist is possible, but I don’t think Whig will test very well.  Libertarian?

The present is always a poor guide to the future, the past is more reliable, because it is more pliable.  The fact that we have all grown up thinking that the two party system is the foundation of our political stability is really just a reflection of  successful marketing by the two parties. The apparent long durability of the Republicans (since 1856!) disguises the fact that they, too, nearly failed - in the period after 1929.  In fact the whole notion of a two party state is ahistorical.  There have been other periods of flux, where political movements rose up in the absence of action by the two national parties.  Some of those movements were quite strong.  The Democrats, themselves, would probably have failed without the reliable whip of racism in the South to keep the party going through its dark days (they bear a heavy burden for Secession and Civil War).

In any event, I think you may get more mileage viewing America as a lot of one-party states (precincts), rather than two big national parties.  If the Republicans are to survive it will be because these one party states manage to hold on long enough to overcome the opprobrium that the current leadership has brought down on them.  Or they will change their names- they won’t morph into Democrats.  Where I live (NJ) you can’t get elected as a Republican, but you can as an Independent, so maybe they become Indys.


 As an amusing tie-in: the election of 1852 put Franklin Pierce in the White House.  Pierce is widely credited as one of America’s worst Presidents.  He was a lawyer from New Hampshire with a deep attachment to alcohol and an admiration for the South and the institution of slavery, and it was his pushing of the Kansas-Nebraska act that undid the Missouri Compromise and split the political parties (both Whig and Democrat) into Northern and Southern factions, rent the nation in half.  Some things do run in the family, George Bush is related (distantly, not directly) to Franklin Pierce through his mother, Barbara Pierce.

"Senator McCain served this country with honor during his time in the military. But he has proven time and time again that he is the wrong politician for the job when it comes to protecting America.

"Now Senator McCain is telling right-wing bloggers that I'm the favored candidate of Hamas. In an election season, politicians will say anything to get votes, so it's not surprising that Senator McCain is playing this game. It's disappointing, it's not surprising, but it is wrong.

"I have made it clear that I, and America, will always support Israel's right to defend itself from aggression. Despite Senator McCain's smear attempts, Americans and Israelis know that I believe in, and as President will work for, a peaceful Middle East in which Israel is safe and secure, and in which the threat of terrorism is no longer the animating concern of peaceful people. But the same cannot be said of Senator McCain.

"I have gone on record, despite opposition from Senators McCain and Clinton, as saying that I will pursue Osama bin Laden and his al-Qa'ida terrorists wherever they try to hide, that I will use our military might to pursue, to find, and to kill those who threaten American safety. But George W. Bush and Senator McCain have turned their back on the terrorist threat, instead wasting time, blood and treasure in Iraq.

"When I told America that I would, upon receipt of actionable intelligence, authorize military action against Osama bin Laden wherever he might be, Senator McCain accused me of threatening to bomb Pakistan. Now, Senator McCain brags that he would follow bin Laden to the gates of hell, but he evidently won't follow bin Laden to the borders of Pakistan.

"Senator McCain is evidently unaware that the CIA has already carried out Predator-based airstrikes in the Pakistani frontier provinces against al-Qa'ida operatives. Evidently Senator McCain would hobble the CIA to score a political point against his electoral opponents. But in a war against a transnational terror group that still seeks the destruction of innocent American lives, we cannot afford to play political games, and we cannot afford to loan our freedom to fight to foreign nations that have other interests. We must say to Senator McCain that we will not give Pakistan a veto on killing bin Laden.

"Where Senator McCain is too fainthearted in pursuing al-Qa'ida, he is also too reckless in Iraq. Senator McCain has already said that he's willing to keep American troops in Iraq for a hundred years. Now, he defends this by saying that he'd keep troops in Iraq as long as it was like Korea. Thirty-three thousand American soldiers and Marines died in the Korean War. How many Americans will die in Iraq under John McCain? How many Americans will die to protect an Iraqi government that invited Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Baghdad?

"Senator McCain thinks that US troops are safe on the Korean DMZ. But fifty US soldiers and over 500 South Korean soldiers have been killed by North Korean soldiers along that 'safe' DMZ. We keep our troops on the Korean DMZ to deter North Korea from further adventurism. But if the current Iraqi government continues to refuse political reconciliation with Iraqi Sunnis and anti-Iranian Shi'a, then American troops in Iraq will be hostages, not peacemakers, and the real border will not be between Iraq and Iran, but between an Iranian-backed Iraq and the rest of the Middle East. That is what five years of war under George W. Bush, and at least four more years of war under Senator McCain, means: not a stable Iraqi ally of America, but a repressive Iranian satellite, purchased with American blood, and an Arab Middle East seeking new and possibly nonconventional arms in a race that seems destined to slip towards total war.

"Senator McCain has already proven that he can't tell the difference between the warring factions in Iraq. He's already shown that he doesn't understand that the Iraqi government George W. Bush supports was handpicked by Iran: created in Iran, trained by Iran, funded by Iran, and supported by Iran. And if we do not force a political reconciliation while we can, then Iran will reap the benefit of our troops' blood and effort. But Senator McCain thinks that we should seek permission to fight al-Qa'ida while allowing the Iraqi government to recklessly spend American blood for Iranian aims.

"Such a foreign policy would cripple America, embolden terrorists, and strengthen Iran. And I am running against Senator McCain to stop that from happening.

"Thank you all

"North Carolina in Every Respect the Opposite of Pennsylvania: On the day Pennsylvania Democrats vote in a primary that has seen opinion polls fluctuate wildly on how big her possible win might be, North Carolina Democratic Primary voters are steady-steady, and not with Clinton on top, but Obama. Obama's advantage has fluctuated imperceptibly, or not at all, in four tracking polls conducted over the past 90 days. Today, 14 days till NC votes are counted, Obama leads by 9 points. In five previous tracking polls, going back to before the Michigan Primary, Obama's lead has been 4 points, 10 points, 8 points, 10 points. NC men are stable. NC women are stable. Voters under age 50 are stable. Voters age 50+ are stable. Black voters are stable. White voters are stable. Charlotte voters are stable. Moderates are stable. Registered Democrats are stable. Unaffiliated voters are stable." 
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=7e1ed059-9ef0-4a2c-a2a6-3cbef8ca9803


In NC the AA vote is expected to be over 40 percent.
In NC the 18-34 vote is expected to be higher then the 65+ vote, very different then PA.   
The amount of voters who have college education in the democratic primary in NC is also much higher in NC.  There has been a large increase in voter registration in the last few months, mainly with AA and the youth vote.   
Many polls are showing Obama running just slightly under Hillary with white voters overall. 

So with High AA and Youth and Educated = Obama wins, it also helps that pretty much everyone has endorsed Obama in NC.

Former senator and Democratic presidential aspirant George McGovern says he sees some striking similarities when it comes to his run at the White House and that of Sen. Barack Obama. But ultimately, McGovern argues, Obama has organized a much wider political coalition and thus a greater chance of electoral success.

"I think that is his strength," McGovern told The Huffington Post. "He has very broad appeal. He certainly is going to galvanize the black vote. But he has strong appeal to voters of all kinds. Some of the old buckaroos out here in South Dakota are for him."

In recent days, following Obama's loss in the Pennsylvania primary, concern has been raised in Democratic circles that the Illinois Democrat could not expand his political base beyond African-Americans and college students -- a limitation that stunted McGovern's candidacy.

But McGovern, who lost the 1972 election to incumbent Richard Nixon by landslide margins, doesn't attribute his defeat to merely the contours of his political base. Indeed, he argues that his candidacy was damaged more by the infighting that occurred within the Democratic Party even after he had secured the nomination.

"After I had the nomination won and everything except the crowning at the convention, the other candidates that I had defeated in the primaries and the caucuses ganged up on me and spent the next month just bad mouthing me around the country," he said. "And, of course the Nixon people used some of the quotes and threw them back at me in the general election."

It is in this regard -- not necessarily his general election defeat -- that McGovern worries history could end up repeating itself. Noting that Obama seems poised to be the eventually nominee, though believing Sen. Hillary Clinton should stay in the race, he called for a more civil discourse between the two candidates.

"That is the one minus," he said. "I think there has been a little too much negative backbiting. And that is the one negative that concerns me because it is what happened to me in '72... I had to go into that convention exhausted, instead of spending the last few months carefully and systematically picking a running mate and getting my convention organized. We can't have that again."

This, however, is not the only similarity McGovern draws between his run for the White House and the current process. In '72, after he won the California primary and clinched the nomination, McGovern's Democratic opponents argued that the delegation should have been rewarded on a proportional basis, rather than winner-take-all. It was, McGovern says, a changing of the rules in mid-game that resulted both in the weakening of his campaign and his limping into the convention. Thirty-six years later, he sees parallels with the Clinton campaign's push to count the results of the non-DNC-sanctioned Florida and Michigan primaries.

"We can't overturn those rules now that the counting is over," he said. "I think Barack didn't even enter one contest [Michigan]. Those states knew what the rules were, all the candidates knew what the rules were, and to change it now I think is wrong."

It's not the only process issue on which McGovern, who has endorsed Clinton, finds himself at varying odds with the New York Democrat. On the topic of superdelegates, which were created as a concession to the primary reforms that McGovern initiated, the South Dakotan argues that these party insiders must take into strong consideration the pledged delegate tally.

"Yeah, I think that is important," he said. "It also reduces the frustration we would have if the candidate with the most pledged delegates was rejected. There is going to be some frustration anyway. There always is. I just hope it doesn't result in the kind of back-fighting I had to face after I secured the nomination."

Despite these differences, McGovern is not backing away from his support of Clinton. He deems her "one of the most talented, articulate and well-informed people in the country," whom he has known for 35 years, since she worked on his campaign in Texas. And he expects her to stay in the race at least until the last primary commences in his home state. But in the interim, he hopes, the tone and tenor of the campaign will be ratcheted down a notch,

"I don't want to see Hillary or Barack giving McCain ammunition in the general election," said McGovern. "It is more important that we not have another four years of Bush government."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/25/george-mcgovern-still-bac_n_98599.html

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


This is great stuff. Discuss!

I'm sure the comparison has already been made somewhere-
In  a recent re-watch of the Lord of The Rings movies I couldnt help seeing Hllary's face on Gollum.  She believes the nomination is hers.  Nasssty Obamas stole it and she wants it beck, oh yesss.

    I as my name says am a centrist, and have been staying out of the democratic primary discussion to let this play out.
Well it has played out and Hillary lost.
The truth is that her last shot was to win REAL BIG in Pennsylvania and she only won by %10. She needed to be at %17 to %20 to have a chance to win the pledged delegates.
And don't believe the miss information out there, in the land of the free and the home of justice and fairness it is  the person with the MOST pledged delegates who wins.
That person is Senator Barack Obama. I believe in facts and the facts of the math say that Obama has won. Of course people who want to can try to change, manipulate, and outright lie about how the game is played but in the end the rules are the rules and under the rules Obama has won.
I admire the tenacity of Clinton, she is a fighter and I hope she will continue to fight for the American people as the Senator from New York. But this time, in this race, the writing is on the wall and it says Presidential Candidate for the democratic party is Illinois Senator Barack Obama.
Now turn to November and beyond because it is our duty as Americans to restore our good standing in the world and regain the high ground as the beacon of hope for all.
 

Hillary says she’s ahead in the popular vote. Yeah, yeah, it's nonsense. Hey, even Hillary thinks so! 

Hillary on Delegate Count

Republican Strategy:  (1) help Hillary Clinton secure the Democratic Nominee; (2) McCain to actively try to win over African Americans that the Clintons have alienated, so that they will vote for McCain in November!  So that is why you see McCain actively seeking out the support of African-Americans now, hoping to woo them back into the fold of the Republican party while, they smile in glee as the Clintons alienate them by their kitchen sink strategy.  The Republicans in their plan to help Hillary make Barack look unelectable through their surrogates, Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchanan and others, continually ask their watching public to sow doubts, "do we really know who this guy is?" (ever after Barack wrote two very personal autobiographical books); they ask: "why can't this guy seal the deal?",  then they  continually bring up Rev. Wright, as if Rev. Wright's statements were Barack's.  Do they ask of Clinton, "Was it not Rev. Wright you called on for prayer and support after the Monica Lewinsky scandal and invited him to the White House?"  No, they rather ask with  indignance, "why did he Barack) sit there for 20 years" though Rev. Wright's 9-11 comments were not 20 years ago but five. Then they praise Hillary -- saying how smart she is, how tough; how she can attract blue-collar white workers and dismiss all of the white support Barack gets in every election.  They even praise her for her ability to drink down shots and for her acting ability to turn herself into a working-class girl who can shoot ducks behind a cottage (possibly another Bosnian fabrication) -- in otherwords for her performances and lies.  Chris Matthews calls it impressive!  In otherwords, they do not reward truth and authenticity in our politicians but how well they can act which has nothing to do with the true governing of a society.    Their plan and plotting is to get Hillary elected Democratic nominee, then unleash the "arsenal of weapons" they have against her and Bill, for they have been Planning this for a long time; then defeat her in the Fall with the very help of African-Americans that the Clintons have alienated and that McCain is so eagerly trying to impress at this time; -- beautiful though Machiavellian!   Let's be clear, Barack is fighting a Two-headed Giant: the Clintons as a unity for they are one, the Republican Party: McCain, Cable Television: Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchanan, Wolf Blitzer Rush Limbaugh (we need to have Barack bloodied up) & Fox News -- a Mighty Giant indeed.  Hillary actively seeks their support to help her beat Barack but they will turn against her like a mighty sword if she was to become the Democratic nominee come fall. It is not easy to overcome this Mighty Giant of Special Interest Money & Corporate Greed, but what we can do, is to identify who they are and not give them anymore Power.  Turn off TV shows which are disingenuous and have their own political agenda that is not in keeping with the welfare of the people, stop buying their books or newspapers, write more articles about the ways they try to divide us and fool us, write/call and email them and their producers our objections to the way they are reporting non-news, gossip, and trying to brainwash us for their own continued domination of the masses.  Maybe we will have to write their sponsors and complain -- hit them in their pocket book.  We all have to get involved in this effort.  We can no longer let them distract us or divide us.  We too have power! This effort by the people, for the people, is the one kink in the armour of this Mighty Giant.  We the people are finally waking up and seeing through their lies, distortion and domination, and we will nominate Barack Obama, the People's Champion.  I say people because there are some disinfected Republicans and Independents who are finally waking up to the fact that under Republican rule this country has suffered, while big business and big money has prospered. And, in truth, we are all one, we all share the same Red blood.  It is a sad fact, that we cannot recognize America anymore.  They have hi-jacked our television with exploitation of sex and violence to our children, then they want to try them like adults, when they are only children and are trying to find their way.  Dispicable!  People are waking up to this and they are ready to get their power back, their jobs back, their very way of life back, which is the American way: peace, brotherhood, prosperity for all, not just a special few.   Then we have the Clintons , who were once the bedrock of the Democratic Party, or so we thought, who we have since learned that they will bed with anyone (Rush Limbaugh, Richard Mellon Scaife), say anything, do anything (fuel a racial and gender divide and push us back 50 years), put on any kind of Act to achieve their power again, it seems for powers sake!   Does anyone really believe that Mark Penn is not vitally active in their Campaign though publically they say otherwise and does our corporate Media expose this myth?  Sadly not!  Unfortunately, the Clintons have lost their way, blinded by power and ambition.  -- This is not the kind of Political Couple we want to lead America to a more holistic place, as we can no longer trust them to be truthful or authentic or have the best interest of the people at heart!

Obama needs to realize that his "new" politics platform requires him to drop out and form the Democratic Party of 2012...

...Hillary Clinton won Ohio & Pennsylvania because of Race, according to exit polls.... lets compare those two states to Indiana.....

There are more Caucasians in Indiana then there were in Ohio & Pennsylvania which favor Clinton, also Indiana has more Hispanics too which favor Clinton, more asians  which favor Clinton and there are less African-Americans in Indiana then in Ohio & Pennsylvania...about 8% to 9% are african-american which with that little number does not bold well for Obama.... Also....

Hillary Clinton has the backing of the following:

Evan Bayh, Current State Senator and former governor
Joe Andrew, Former DNC Chairman
Phoebe Crane, DNC member
Dan Parker, DNC Member
Bob Pastrick, DNC Member

She has more endorsements in that state in Obama... Also, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and Chlesea Clinton have visited that state over 50 times...way more than Obama.

Polls show a tight race before Clinton won Pennsylvania....what will they show leading up to May 6.

Anyways, Indiana is for Hillary Clinton to Lose.

In fact, it's going in Barack Obama's direction.

From Rasmussen:

                          Clinton   Obama
4/25                     42%            49%
4/24                     42%            49%
4/23                     43%            48%

This really isn't surprising:

Three detectives were acquitted of all charges Friday in the 50-shot killing of an unarmed groom-to-be on his wedding day, a case that put the NYPD at the center of another dispute involving allegations of excessive firepower.

Just like the police were acquited in this case too:

 

The case brought back painful memories of other NYPD shootings, such as the 1999 shooting of Amadou Diallo — an African immigrant who was gunned down in a hail of 41 bullets by police officers who mistook his wallet for a gun. The acquittal of the officers in that case created a storm of protest, with hundreds arrested after taking to the streets in demonstration

Let me ask this question: How many cases have there been where the police use overwhelming deadly force because they thought they saw a gun or a suspect reached for his wallet? More than a few, right?

And in how many of those cases were the police officers convicted?

Why? Because the system puts cops above the law. Of course, in theory no one is above the law. In practice, however, things are very different.

Ask yourself this question: If those men hadn't been cops, would they be convicted? Of course they would have been. If i had shot an unarmed man 50 times, i'd either be on death row or serving a life sentence.

But judges and juries are always reluctant to convict cops in cases of excessive force. Why is that? Because they don't want to set a dangerous precedent that might make a cop hesitate. A cop might think twice about shooting somebody 50 times if they think they might actually go to jail for it.

But what if its somebody who deserves to be shot 50 times? And the cop hesitates and he ends up dead instead. If it comes down to a choice between a man in blue, who the city spent hundreds of thousands of dollars training, and a dark-skinned suspicious looking guy, who do you think society values more? Who do you think would be expendable in that situation?

So in the interest of public safety, juries and judges allow cops the benefit of the doubt on issues like these. Because if they don't, they think cops might hesitate to do their jobs.

It's not fair. Its not just. It's just the way it is. And until we start holding police officers accountable for their actions, it will happen again and again.

Race is what helped Hillary Clinton win Pennsylvania & Ohio....Race is what helped Barack Obama win South Carolina, Georgia & Virigina.... based on exit polls.


When Comparing North Carolina to South Carolina & Georgia, there are less African American's in the state of North Carolina, The state has more Caucasians, Hispanics & Asians then South Carolina & Georgia had, which seem to favor Clinton....If Clinton can get the Caucasians, Hispanics & Asians to turn out in Huge numbers, she might be able to bring Obama down to single digits or take the state away from him....however, if you compare Virginia to North Carolina, Obama has already won it and here is why..... North Carolina and Virigina are tied when it comes to the amount of Caucasian's that live in North Carolina, also they have the same amount of African-Americans(1% more in North Carolina) and North Carolina has less Hispanics and Asians then what Virginia had...... Some polls have Obama winning by double digits but there are a few that have the race tight, with him winning by single digits.... how will the people vote, will they vote more like Virginia or more like South Carolina and Georgia...... time will tell..... Please give me your thoughts????

We must come to terms with this: there is no going back to a 90's brand of peace and prosperity. That peace and prosperity came only because we procrastinated on  meaningful solutions to problems we knew were festering. We won't get anything close to that prosperity again without first INVITING a period of sacrifice and long term, structural change, both in ourselves and in our government.

This really is a change election, but in more ways than you may think. There is an awakened electorate, yes. A realization that American politics and policies are broken, and have already accelerated our long predicted decline. But also required is a willingness to change ourselves. That we need a little more fight in us. That we need to unlearn some of the comfortable truisms of the past 20 years. Just look at the housing market, or the geo-political chaos, or the consequences of unchecked globalization, or global warming and energy inflation stemming from our voracious demand for cheap Chinese goods.

We've been had.

John McCain thought that the stated preferences of terrorist organizations were important campaign issues until Osama bin Laden posted a video on the internet late today.  In the video, bin Laden declared his endorsement of John McCain for President of the United States.  McCain's responsed by criticizing the Democrats for legitimizing Al Qaeda by insinuating that this endorsement means anything.  A reporter then had to remind Senator McCain that he felt it necessary to bring up Hamas' stated preference for Obama at a campaign event just the day before.

It’s so clear to me now that women are just jealous of me, and wish they could look like me.  You’re probably jealous of me too.  Sound familiar?  I’m sure you’ve known at least ONE person like that over the course of your lifetime.  If you thought THAT attitude was lousy, hang on.   There’s now an intellectualized "prom queen" defense being offered to explain why Hillary Clinton hasn’t been able to ‘close the deal’ in getting ALL women to support her.  According to Susan Shapiro Barash, women are either jealous of Hillary Clinton and threatened by the power she’s achieved, or  we’re all doing the master’s bidding and we’re all too confused by the male patriarchy that keeps us held down to know any better.

Barash, referring to the PA primary, states that:  

This victory represents a long needed turnaround in female thinking, and the hope that women are coalescing, recognizing that our country needs and deserves the chance for female leadership.
...
When Nora Ephron pointed out in her Huffington Post piece that "white men will still decide who gets to be president," it drives home how important it is for women to band together. Yet contrary to conventional belief that female solidarity is alive and well, the exact opposite has been evidenced in the reaction of many women to Hillary.

If we take it a step further, what exists is a "limited goods" theory. Instead of being expansive toward other women, we believe in a "magical theft," as if somehow Hillary's ascension connotes another woman's lost opportunity. The shame here is not only in this profound lack of support, woman to woman, but a false sense that our fate is to miss out when another woman wins.

The irony?  That a feminist didn’t recognize the patronizing argument that there is such a thing as a prototypic woman.  Hillary Clinton is supposed to represent the best interests of women, and why?  Because she IS a woman.  Alan Keyes is an American of African descent.  So am I.  He’s a bright man, even if I find his policies a little bat crap crazy, from a progressive’s perspective.  Did I OWE it to him to support him when he ran for President?   His ideas about what moves us forward are FAR different from my own beliefs.  He’s anti-choice. Should I have put that aside and supported him?  

Clinton has shown, me at least, that she responds to what is most politically expedient and that she hasn’t been a feminist in a very long time – if ever. I ‘owe’ her no more than I ‘owe’ Alan Keyes.  I find her and her hawkish views as equally offensive as I find Keyes views about women’s rights.  Why hasn’t it crossed Barash’s mind that it’s ‘The Clintons’ Democrats have become tired of (and that Republicans despise)?  That’s not a gender issue.  Why wasn’t the essay one that explored the LEGITIMATE reasons why so many women have difficulty supporting Clinton?

I’m fed up with being told that not supporting Clinton, when you’re a woman, is a sign of weakness or self-loathing.  I have to wonder if some feminists who are supporting Hillary aren't trying to rationalize their support for her by creating a false narrative that she's under attack because of her gender, and that they need to 'protect' her.  It may make them feel better about supporting Clinton’s anti-feminist emasculating taunts of Obama – yes, men who are sensitive, smart, and pro-woman are ‘too weak’ to run the country.  How is it possible that women who support Obama are ‘tools of the man’, while those who support Clinton’s ‘the better man’ campaign’ are true feminists?  Why hasn’t Barash discussed Obama’s platform and that he’s a pro-feminist candidate – the only one who doesn’t need to be ‘one of the boys’ in order to connect with the American voters?  Keep supporting that pandering Clinton ideology, sisters!

It may please you to know that  Marie Wilson is asking for help writing ‘The Gender Speech’ – one similar to that of Sen. Obama’s "More Perfect Union’.  What I find interesting is that feminists supporting Clinton have never asked why SHE didn’t think to write that speech already.  She’s been more than content to ask women to stand with her and to support her – she’s been doing it for quite some time now.  ("Ask not what your gender can do for you, ask what you can do for your gender").   My response to Marie Wilson’s request:

Senator Obama's speech on 'race' included people like me, black women who are at the intersection and have been negatively impacted by RACE than gender.  I'm always offended when feminists discount that to push the Clinton angle. I know, I know, in 1972 Shirley Chisholm said that she was more negatively impacted by sexism than racism.  I have yet to read the use of that Chisholm quote from a feminist who wasn't trying to make the case that Sen. Clinton has been far more disadvantaged than Sen. Obama.  As Clinton is supposed to represent all women, Chisholm's '72 statement is supposed to be representative of all women of color.

The Clinton name, Clinton machinery, MSM compliance and support, tapping out big donors early because of the structured campaign run by experienced pols ... SHE’S disadvantaged?  

Since he began his campaign, I’ve watched Sen. Obama pull this nation together. HE didn’t use race, or gender, orientation, or class status as wedge issues.  His focus was on ONE America, where the rights of all were to be respected and upheld.  I’m sorry that the Clinton camp has decided that "balkanizing" the Democratic Party is the only way to go.  I’m sorry that Penn’s colleague, Doug Schoen, has decided that Clinton should continue to go negative and would be winning if she’d gone negative early on.  I’m sorry that it’s not already June 3rd, so that we can focus on what nominee Obama needs - as well as our down ticket candidates.  I’m not sorry that I’m a woman who isn’t supporting Sen. and President Clinton’s bid to return to the White House.  In fact, I’m quite proud of it.

Crossposted at Dailykos