My mother occasionally babysits for her neighbor who has two young daughters, ages 7 and 9. The neighbor is one of those New Agey types, you know, the yoga, the incense, the wheatgrass, and tattoos type. She's also incredibly politically active  and is into the whole "grassroots movement." She's a huge Obama supporter and she's been keeping her two daughters engaged in the whole process in terms they can understand.
    So, today the neighbor was out registering voters for the Obama campaign and my mom was watching her two daughters. The girls are playing some sort of board game, they decide to modify some of the rules and they commence playing. About twenty minutes later my mom hears the younger girl indignantly accuse the older girl of cheating.
"No, I wasn't!" the older one yells back. My mother goes to check what's going on and hears the younger one shout,
"You're, you're being Hillary Clinton!"
    My mom watches incredulously for a couple of minutes as the older girl tries to defend herself from the accusation. Then she finally steps in and settles the matter. She called me to share the story that little children are using Hillary Clinton as the prime example of a cheater. I thought I'd share.

Every time an African American candidate for political office receives fewer votes than were predicted by pre-election polls, the poll errors are explained (in the media) by the "Bradley effect", which is an urban myth that white voters are reluctant to admit to pollsters that they are unwilling to vote for an African American candidate.
But there never seems to be any comment among these so-wise media types when an African American candidate outperforms pre-election polls.
In Indiana, pre-election polls had Clinton ahead by at least 4 points. She won by 2. In North Carolina, pre-election polls had Obama ahead by single digits only. He won by 14.
Can we finally lay to rest the idiotic, sensationalist, divisive, Rovian concept of the "Bradley effect"? 

Today we saw evidence of the DOD accusing Rajiv Chandrasekaran of a "liberal bias", by linking him with TPM.  Mark Kimmitt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for  the Middle East, characterizes Josh Marshall as a "Bush-bashing uber-liberal."  I'm with Dick Cheney on this one:  so?

Bias differs from corruption.  Bias is healthy, and corruption is sick.  Please indulge me in an analogy.

A scientist hypothesizes that the Earth revolves around the Sun.  He performs an experiment, and confirms his hypothesis.  Mark Kimmitt would accuse this scientist of a "Heliocentric Bias."

Another scientist also hypothesizes that the Earth revolves around the Sun.  He too performs an experiment, and it disproves his hypothesis (the experiment was flawed, what can I say).  He falsifies his research, and declares, in spite of the facts, that the Earth revolves around the Sun.  This scientist is corrupt.

Both scientists reached the same conclusions, and both had the same bias.  The difference between them is clear:  the first one was clean, and the second was corrupt.

The moral of this parable?  The next time you find yourself accusing someone of bias, first look to see if you can prove he is corrupt (evidence would help here, insofar as you are proving something).  Otherwise, that someone might just be doing his job.

Carl Bernstein says Hillary is going to fight her way onto the ticket.

Clinton "is trying to figure out how to land the plane without looking like surrender," a prominent figure in the Obama camp said Friday. This means bringing her campaign to a close in the next few weeks and trying to leverage her way onto an Obama ticket from a position of maximum strength.

A person close to her and to her campaign staff said this week, "I think the following will happen: Obama will be in a position where the party declares him the nominee by the first week in June. She'll still be fighting with everybody -- the Rules Committee, the party leaders -- and arguing, 'I'm winning these key states; I've got almost half the delegates. I have a whole constituency he hasn't reached. I've got real differences on approach to how we win this election, and I'm going to press the hell out of this guy. ... Relief for the middle class, universal health care, etc.; I'm Ms. Blue Collar, and I'm going to press my fight, because he can't win without my being on the ticket.' "

Another major Democratic Party figure agreed: "Obama has got a terrible situation. He marches to a different drummer. He won't want to take her on the ticket. But he might have to, even though the idea of Vice President Hillary with Bill in the background at the White House is not something -- especially after what [the Clintons] have thrown at him that he relishes. I believe she'll go for it."

I saw this in Politico.com earlier, and now see that Josh has picked up on it on the front page:

McCain convention chief quits after past ties to Burma revealed

I found it interesting, because the departure of Doug Goodyear follows fast on the heals of the removal on April 30, of Ali Jawad, a "known Republican donor and former Bush finance committee member," from McCain's Michigan Finance Committee:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/the-mccain-hezb.html

It turns out that Goodyear did a fair amount of lobbying for the military junta that is currently in control of Myanmar (or what the Bushies prefer to call Burma), and which is currently blocking aid efforts for the one million desperately needy survivors of the recent cyclone devastation.

Ali Jawad, a "well known member of the Arab-American community in Dearborn", seems to have been rumored to have ties to Hezbollah, and although appears to have been unfairly attacked because of it, was removed from McCain's campaign.

This all comes at the same time that a story from the Washington Post has resurfaced in which McCain was quoted as being critical of Bill Clinton for going after Osama bin Laden, in 1998, suggesting that it was an attempt to merely divert attention from his personal problems:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) stressed the importance of a strong U.S. role in foreign affairs, and criticized the administration for ignoring problems other than bin Laden, including Iraq dragging its feet on arms inspections, "North Korea building nuclear weapons," a stalled Mideast peace process, and "thousands of people being ethnically cleansed in Kosovo.

"This administration for the last seven months has neglected compelling national security threats besides this," said McCain, a member of the Armed Services Committee. "I cannot say that they've been neglected because of Monica Lewinsky, but I can say unequivocally that they have been neglected."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/react082198.htm

This all begs the question, are we really afraid to go up against this guy in the fall?

Anyone seen Vicki Isemen lately?

We started off at 9:30 at Obama HQ in Dallas and then split up into groups of 30 - 40 people that were sent to various parts of the city. Turnout must have been strong since it ended up only being a half day effort; I had been told to allow all day.  We then broke in teams of three and worked our route going door to door.  Majority of people were happy to talk to us and were Obama supporters.  We had a friendly conversation with a Republican who liked Obama, too. We also ran into a Clinton supporter who was friendly. One woman we caught in the driveway and started yelling at us before we could get past "Hi, we are volunteers...".  She did not want to talk about voting. We assumed she was for Clinton and "bitter".

Obama's trust in people is well placed, and how he is running is campaign reflects that trust. Our instructions were all about being respectful and friendly - nothing negative.  As a counterpoint, one of my  co-canvasser started with Clinton but has been very disappointed by both Hillary and Bill and the descent in their campaign.

What I saw and heard today leaves me very optimistic about November.  In our group of 30 - 40 that met in the parking lot before breaking into teams, there were black, white, hispanic, old, young, and middle age.  All people that want their country back.  All the pundit and Clinton campaign rhetoric about electability is just that. Like the story on Huffington Post, I think the only people who have to worry are the RNC and McCain.  I do trust that people will see that McCain 2008 is not McCain pre-2000 and may in fact be worse than Bush, once the general election ramps up and the MSM wakes up, as it is starting to do.

The Department of Justice has an internal internet. It's called the Justice Consolidated Office Network (JCON). JCON contains emails, files, and DOJ calendars. DOJ Staff counsel use JCON to do legal research.

This is an example war crimes discovery of the JCON database. 

Leading Question Search Within JCON

Prisoners may provide interrogators with information the prisoner may
believe the interrogator wants, but it not reliable or accurate. A
"leading question" provides the POW within information about a
desirable answer. With successive interrogations, the "leading
question" can induce the prisoner to visualize asked-about-details of
an event, even though the event never occurred. You may ask for specific examples where leading questions were discussed, how concerns were resolved, and how legal counsel planned to defend at trial the use of information gleaned from leading questions.

Attorney Client Privilege Exception

Attorney client privilege can be trumped using the fraud-crime exception. This FOIA request relates to alleged discussions that were intended to ignore Geneva, and use unreliable information for other alleged illegal purposes.

The DOJ OLC memoranda and file notes to request relate to concerns about POW interrogations and unreliable information. Leading questions can cause problems, and confuse POWs.

Leading Questions In Re FISA Violations Against US Citizens

Ask for in the FOIA documents in the JCON database related to concerns "leading questions" would produce unreliable information. Ask for the concerns that information gleaned from a "leading question" was transferred to the NSA for domestic surveillance.

Ask for messages, documents, and evidence that DOJ OLC legal staff accessed databases and law material related to "leading questions". Review the planned exceptions under the rule of "necessity" to ask leading questions, use information gleaned from leading questions, and suppress evidence leading questions were used. Review the discussions DOJ OLC had with DoD General Counsel related to planted images; or the problem that POWs would, with enough isolation, hallucinate details related to the interrogator's leading question, not real events.

Documented Telecom Objections

Review how the telecoms raised concerns with the information gleaned from leading questions. Review why DOJ AG approved use of this unreliable information for alleged unlawful, subsequent uses.

I had an interesting conversation tonight with a journalist friend who works for the Georgia Informer.

It was interesting because it brought to light somethings that are subtly going on in African-american circles but have not been picked up by the mainstream media (MSM).

According to her, there is a growing movement in the circle to assess “their blind loyalty” to the democratic party and that the “Friend of Jackson” robocall was just a tip off. I learnt (and, this source is very reliable) that there would be unexpected repercussions if the nomination is “stolen” from Obama. Make no mistake, the African-american politicians up for re-election will be still be backed en masse, but the aim of the movement is to back other nominees (non democratic party nominees) who are on the ballot this November. For example, in Virginia’s 2nd district, the republican candidate Thelma Drake will be supported (African Americans make up 20% of her district). Others being targeted include Thomas Davis’ open seat, Deborah Pryce’s open seat, Steve Chabot’s seat, Robert Haye’s seat, James Saxton’s open seat, Jim McCrery and Don Cazayoux’s seats and Jim Marshal and john Barrow’s seats.

These are districts with high African American populations that will be won should Obama be the nominee and, if the plans goes on as planned, will result in a republican majority (if Obama is not the nominee).

While the details of this “operation” has not been finalized, it is certainly gaining momentum. According to my source, serious talks actually started last weekend in North Carolina and it is still being debated if a PAC should be started. All this depends on whoever becomes the eventual nominee. Note that most national figures (Jackson, Sharpton and, even, Obama) are not involved in this movement, which was started by some faculty members at UNC.

I’m trying to get more information and will keep you posted.

Much has been written and discussed about Hillary's "hardworking Americans, white Americans" comment.

Politics has long been divided by subsections of the population. That's why Mark Penn has a job. It's an unfortunate reality of pollsters. I'm sure there's a rationale for this. Although I can't claim to understand it. But it seems Americans are obsessed with labels. They give us identities of culture, a sense of belonging. But they also make it too easy to pit one group against another. What is ultimately wrong is the simplistic way this approach describes Americans.

I
accept that people use these so called demographics as a monitor of
public opinion and perception. I have not known a time when the media
has not used these "classes" in political reporting. I would not have
had a problem with Clinton using them in some form, but she took it one
step too far.

The transcript of her statement to USA Today can be open to various interpretations. Listening to the audio narrows those interpretations considerably. Tone and inflection can make inferences not ascertainable in the written word. This is her mistake: equating hard working Americans as white Americans. This is insulting on so many levels it made my stomach turn when I heard her utter these remarks.

Currently there is more spin than a carousel on the subject. She was misquoted (hello, there's audio?), she was only quoting someone else (thereby removing any responsibility since they weren't her words), she was just being honest (everyone knows you can't win without these voters),
some surrogates say she didn't mean it that way (only to then go on to explain why it really is that way), lastly, she regrets it. This one is not very popular, although I did actually find a source for it:

http://sableverity.wordpress.com/...
Within this article is yet another source for her regret.

But her regret is for all the wrong reasons.

We are all far more complicated than these labels allow. Mr. Begala quoted two such groups on CNN: African Americans and Eggheads. Why are they mutually exclusive? Are minorities not "hard working Americans"? If you're educated and white and buy your coffee at Starbucks are you automatically elite? And by elite we mean snobby, which is not the true definition of the word but that's not the point.

My 13 year old daughter asked me a question yesterday. "Do you think I'm preppy, or a Tom Boy? Or am I a girly girl?" I didn't blink an eye, "You're all those things, and more" I said.

We had a nice talk about it.  It got me thinking.

Labels. They define us, but divide us.  We ascribe ourselves to them, but ultimately they limit us.

What is lost is that all Americans have more in common than not.

This is what the politics of unity is supposed to be about.

Seeing that part of ourselves that we have in common when we see each other.

I read many political blogs on a daily basis and watch a lot of CNN. I am utterly amazed that some perfectly obvious(to me) questions are rarely asked.  For example, when Senator Clinton makes the assertion that she would be a stronger candidate in the GE because she would carry the "white working class vote," why doesn't someone in the media ask, "Since only one out of nine African Americans is currently supporting you, what argument would you make to this group to change their ways and back you in the GE?"I think her answer would be tortured in the extreme and very revealing of the devious campaign she is waging.  When a McCain surrogate makes a statement casting doubt on Obama's patriotism (and this will be happening more and more frequently), why doesn't someone ask McCain the simple question, "Do you think it is fair and honorable for your supporters to impugn the patriotism of your opponent?  If you agree that it is not, what moral persuasion can you use to stop these attacks?" To the argument that there are some whites who would never vote for Obama because he is black, why doesn't someone ask, "Well, you know, Obama is black AND white.  He is a part of both worlds.  His father was African but he was raised by WHITE people: his mother and his maternal grandparents." By always referring to him as the "black candidate," this very, very important fact is never put out there for voters to ponder.  To those pundits who insist on bringing up Rev. Wright's offensive remarks, why doesn't someone ask, "Do you think the Reverend is worthy of your forgiveness?  As a Christian, would you consider condemning the sins but not the sinner?"What I am suggesting with these questions is that the current political discourse could be framed in a way that would actually help voters appreciate complexity and become skeptical of biased labels and slogans.  Don't we deserve more?

With Barack Obama's recent victory in North Carolina, and his virtual tie in Indiana's primary, it is time for me to get off the fence.  Having traveled back in time to the era in which the Star Trek television set of series aired, which is a remarkably frequent occurrence given the impracticality of time travel, I, Lieutenant Worf, from television's Star Trek-The Next Generation and Star Trek-Deep Space Nine, am now ready to declare who I support in the 2008 Presidential Campaign.  I announce today my endorsement for Senator Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) and urge you to vote for him in the fall.
 
You may ask what about Senator Obama speaks to me, and causes me to endorse at this time.  Is it biography?  Surely, I am moved by the story of his humble origins, his absent Kenyan father, his mother working to make ends meet, and growing up without his father in an environment where his racial identity was unclear.  After all, I, Lieutenant Worf, am a Klingon by birth, but raised by Caucasian humans, the Rozhenkos, on the farm world of Gault.  So I know a little bit about absent fathers, and being a dark-skinned man, looked upon as an alien in a white world. 
 
It was clear when Obama became the first African-American President of the Harvard Law Review that he might be someone special.  This is much as it was for me.  While undergoing the Rite of MajQua in the lava caves of No'Mat, the vision of the original Klingon warrior Kahless appeared to me, prophesying that I would do what no other Klingon had done.  Obama's time at Harvard showed his potential for leadership and bridge building, not unlike mine at Starfleet Academy.  People trash the graduates of such "elite" programs, but my time at Starfleet has served me well, and taught me about other species and their cultures.  I believe that a President Obama would capably lead an increasingly diverse America, though you will not have need for his innate ability to connect with alien species, since your world will not know warpdrive until the late 21st Century.
 
Speaking of diversity, you may have noticed that in Starfleet, Caucasian humans are still in charge of most spaceships, for no evident reason.  Yet just as twenty-fourth century humans began to move beyond that narrowness by placing Captain Benjamin Sisko in charge of Deep Space Nine, and Captain Elizabeth Janeway in command of Voyager, so are you finally learning in your primitive century that women and nonCaucasians can rule your societies.  Good for you.
 
People have attacked the depth of Obama's grasp of economics, and also his religiosity as a Christian.  I've heard that tune before.  People said I didn't understand the Ferengi rules of acquisition, but I proved time and again that I do.  And while my friends have thought me secular, well, I have a healthy respect for Bajoran beliefs concerning their prophets.  Given our deep personal connections, I think the critiques of him hold no more water.
 
But there is more that I see in him.  Just as the transcendental challenge of your time is Moslem extremism, so in my future it was the Borg.  The Borg are as alien to us as bin Laden is to you.  And if I, a Klingon by birth raised by Russian farmers, can command the Defiant in Admiral Hayes' fleet against the Second Borg invasion and fight off the Borg's would-be temporal sabotage, then I think Obama, with whom I have so much in common, can lead the fight against Islamofascism to a successful conclusion.
 
In conclusion, I urge you to vote for Senator Barack Obama.  And since I'm from the future, and know the outcome, I'll be putting fifty thousand of your dollars on his winning, and taking "the over" at Vegas on the proposition that he will this year attain 51% of the popular vote in the American election.  So please remember, g'hay'cha ("Damn it"!), vote for President Obama.  I mean, Senator Obama, forgot the Stardate, sorry.

For the past two weeks I've been running Monte Carlo simulations of the general election using polling data from Votemaster Andrew Tanenbaum's www.electoral-vote.com.

When I first did this simulation, both Clinton and Obama were quite evenly matched with McCain, although Obama was doing a little better. Last week both Democrats pulled significantly ahead of McCain, this time with Clinton running stronger than Obama.

The results this week (again I've done 10,000 trials for each election):
Obama wins 53.2%, averages 272.5 EV
McCain wins 46.2%, averages 265.5 EV
Electoral tie 0.6%

Clinton wins 87.0%, average 278.1 EV
McCain wins 10.4%, averages 259.9 EV
Electoral tie 2.6%

Now Clinton still has a big lead over McCain, and while Obama also leads, his lead is much smaller.

The big change from last week is a new poll in Texas, which now gives McCain a 5 point lead over Obama, rising from a 1 point lead in the prior poll. McCain now also leads in Wisconsin by 4, compared to an Obama 4 point lead last week, and McCain also widened leads in North Carolina and New Hampshire. Obama's big lead in New York grew even more, and he closed a little in Missouri, although McCain still has a significant lead there.

McCain went from trailing Clinton by 1 in Missouri last week to a two point lead this week, which explains her slipping a little compared to last week. Clinton actually improved her margins in most new polls, but in all those states the leads are still at or beyond the margin of error, so it had negligible impact on the simulations.

This is a snapshot based on the most recent polls in each state, not a prediction of what I'd expect in November. I'm using the standard 4% margin of error as the only variability in the model, assuming the recent poll reflects the true voter sentiment difference between the candidates. That is, for state in each trial, I'll generate a Gaussian random variable with sigma of 2.0, and then add that to the current margin between the candidates in that state. I then sum electoral votes across all states and count how often each candidate wins, and I'm reporting both the winning percentage for each candidate and their average electoral vote total.

Recently, Clinton has done better in this simulation than Obama. Both Obama and Clinton are clearly electable, as the current data suggest either would be at least a mild favorite against McCain. So while based on current polling Clinton may match up a little better against McCain, the claim that Obama can't win in November is simply not true. Obama not only can win, but he's favored to do so in each of the weeks that I've crunched the numbers.

David, please don't give these rightwing kooks the satisfaction  of agreeing with their hate-filled diatribes. Noonan states the obvious about the Hillary dilemma, but she does it with prose soaked in hate, characterizing Democrats as cowardly, craven and racist while she makes her point.      
    No matter how disappointed we might get with Hillary, she is not the person the wingnuts call her. Even if they say something that sounds like it's true, their motivation is totally different from Democrats. Don't give them any credit or retroactive validity for their screeds against her.

She deserves better from us.

<i>Never Thought I'd Say It

05.09.08 -- 8:55AM
By David Kurtz

How far off track is Hillary's campaign? It's so bad even Peggy Noonan is making sense, painful as that is to say.<./I>

The week of May 12-16 will be an anxious one for government bureaucrats.  That's when whistleblowers and government watchdog groups will
gather on Capitol Hill to reveal new scandals and shed fresh insights on past scandals.  Speakers will describe the immense challenges in reporting corruption and abuses of power - challenges that urgently require new legislation to protect truthtellers. 

A schedule of events is available on the website of the International Association of Whistleblowers, the organization coordinating the conference.  Muckraking journalists and interested citizens are invited to attend, free of charge.  Organizers say, "Pay no attention to the website's request for a registration fee," but please register in advance, if you can.

Event Schedule

Below is a summary of the schedule, plus last-minute details not available on the website.

Monday, May 12

The conference begins at the Stewart Mott House (122 Maryland Avenue, NE) with an opening plenary (8:30 am) followed by panels on domestic surveillance (9:00), aviation safety  and security (10:00), and scientific freedom (11:30).

At 1 p.m., at the Dirksen Senate Office Building (Rm 342), there will be a Congressional forum, "Congress at the Crossroads for Your Rights," describing recent gains in whistleblower rights and the rights that must yet be won.  Staffs or members of 12 Congressional officers are expected to attend. Following that will be a workshop called "Saving Public Hospitals" and a presentation by the Semmelweis Society, an organization of medical whistleblowers.

At 6:30 p.m., there will be a book signing and live music by a guitar duo, "The Senior Lifeguards," at The Warehouse Arts Center, 1017 Seventh Street, NW, (across from the Washington Convention Center).

Tuesday, May 13

This day's events begin at 9 a.m., at the Washington Court Hotel. They include forums on the Office of Special Counsel, judicial oversight, and a series of events sponsored by Taxpayers Against Fraud, an organization that works on "qui tam" cases.

TAF will have a luncheon with Mike Bhen, TAF Whistleblower Lawyer of the Year, followed by a Mentoring project (1:10), the presentation of a lifetime achievement award to Ernie Fitzgerald (2:00 pm), Successful Qui Tam Relator Workshop (2:00 pm), and a presentation, "The Good, the Bad & the Ugly," at 3:00 pm. The day concludes with a book signing by John Schilling of his book, "Undercover."

Wednesday, May 14

The Alliance for Patient Safety will have a forum and award ceremony at a time to be announced.

Thursday, May 15

A Citizens' Forum on Judicial Accountability starts off the day at 9:30 a.m., followed by a Judicial Accountability Debate. Next, there is a presentation by the Government Accountability Project, "From Immunity to Impunity:  Whistleblowers at International Organizations."  Judicial accountability testimony will be held at 1:15 p.m., followed by a workshop on lobbying in support of whistleblower legislation," and an IAW planning session for 2009.

Friday, May 16

Friday morning (time and place to be announced), there will be a presentation on the Whistleblower Archive Project, a whistleblower's retreat, and a session called "Blowing the Whistle on Mortgage Fraud."

The conference is foremost an opportunity for whistleblowers to network, to share their experiences and to use them to promote honest, efficient and cost effective government. As such, it is also an opportunity for concerned citizens to get a behind-the-scenes look at the workings of government. Without those insights, it is difficult, if not impossible, to evaluate the proposals offered by the Presidential candidates and various reform-minded groups.

Other diarists and bloggers are invited to pass along word of the event (and may quote as much of this diary as desired).

Obama's response to his opponents' attacks would be more effective if he spoke directly to the point. He has not yet learned to answer attacks with effective sound bites. 
On Reverend Wright, he should simply have stated, "I respect Reverend Wright as a man of God, but I disagree with much of what Reverend Wright says. I believe in America."
On Clinton's race baiting, he should simply state, "No one American voter is worth any more or less than any other American voter. I value every demographic, every person in this country."
On McCain's absurd statements about Hamas, "Hamas is a terrorist organization. I oppose recognition of any terrorist organization. Hamas will not be pleased with my administration."
A fellow law student at Harvard commented that as President of the Harvard Law Review, Obama could dwell on a point at great length, to the frustration of those around him, before getting around to a conclusion, and a decision. Hopefully he will be able to sharpen his rhetoric over the next few months. These "controversies" about his views and associations grow quickly because he does not answer attacks quickly and effectively enough - here he could learn a few lessons from the Clintons.

Hillary Clinton now has no “metrics” left to claim a lead – not popular vote, not number of states, not popular vote, not elected delegates, and not “super”, “automatic”, or “magic fairy dust” delegates. Maybe ignorant white racist rednecks, and feminists who will vote for any woman over any man. 

Five months ago I didn’t care who got the Democratic nod. I thought we had two great candidates who would be equally great presidents.

Here’s why this liberal turned against HRC.

First of all, I wanted a President who would not embarrass us when speaking in public. Eight years of Bush sounding like somebody trying to explain things, and not very successfully, to a slightly dim six-year-old was plenty. I want an articulate President, who can explain, persuade, relate a political position. Narrow victory to BO on that one.

Second, I actually preferred HRC’s health care positions: Yes, we can all be covered; a tax-funded baseline health care plan (with the option for employers or private insurers to add to it, for additional premiums) is the best way to go.

On Iraq, neither one said what I really want to hear: We got in for stupid reasons. Bush/Cheney/Rice/Powell/Rumsfeld lied to the people and to congress, misleading us into an un-needed war and botching the aftermath. Anybody remember Yugoslavia? So here we are, trying to rebuild the mess we made and keep the country from disintegrating into civil war. The real problem now is how can we get out, bring enough factions together to make a semi-stable country, and keep the Iraqis from killing each other in a bloodbath to rival Bosnia, Somalia, Rwanda, and Darfur put together. And without handing the country over to Iranian surrogates. It’s a tough nasty issue.

No, what turned this liberal into an Obama supporter was the sad truth that HRC learned too well from those factions that worked so hard to destroy her (and her husband) a decade ago.

Unfortunately, the lessons of the “vast right-wing conspiracy” and the “politics of personal destruction” were too deeply seared into the Clinton consciousness. As soon as the “inevitable” aura dissipated, the HRC campaign began to get nasty. Anybody who can experience what had to be the intense pain of being beaten on so unfairly, and who can then turn and inflict the same treatment on someone else, gets no love from this guy.

OK, Pastor Wright said some nutty things. If you had to address them in the primaries, perhaps a saner approach might have been to ask if you agreed with those statements. (Thus allowing equal comparison to the lunacy of Hagee, Robertson, Falwell, etc.) But instead, the HRC campaign moved directly to guilt-by-association.

Stupid pandering – bowling, beer, pick-up trucks, etcetera – is part of politics. But for one Ivy-educated multi-millionaire to accuse another Ivy-educated millionaire of elitism? Because he can speak articulately? Sheesh. Somebody in this race earned his street cred on the street, when he could have been an elitist and turned his back on the people who shared his ethnic/racial, if not cultural, African-American roots. 

Finally, HRC moved from “not my favorite candidate” to outright  “I don’t like her” when the ambition for her own career began to blind her to the difficulty of getting the nomination and she turned to outright attacks worthy of Richard Nixon, Lee Atwater and Karl Rove. If she’d started in on McCain with that kind of tactic, back in March, I might have thought “This is a fighter, she’ll whup his butt in November, maybe Obama is too soft.” The Republic party (drop the last syllable, they do it to us) knows better than to pull this stuff on their own kind, at least openly. I always thought that no politician needed to resort to irrelevant character attacks unless s/he thought that there was no chance of winning on the issues. And somebody in the Clinton campaign made that decision.

By the time it came to the Gas Tax Holiday Pander, I was tired of HRC. And contempt for experts? Contempt for economists on an economic issue? Sheesh, again.  Desperation. Stupidity. It wasn’t long after that I started writing “The Speech”, and didn’t put in a commitment to a candidate until after the IN/NC primaries. (Read the first few paragraphs carefully, I probably should have titled it “The Speech Hillary Can’t Give”.)

Now? It’s simply time for somebody – anybody, whether it’s Nancy Pelosi, Bill, Chelsea, or for crissake Socks, to say,  “Please, stop embarrassing yourself and hurting your party”

Please? 

 

New Hillary Ad Stars Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame

How'd you like to be the last people to appear in a dying campaign's ads.  It's a waste of political capital.

It sometimes helps me to take a deep breath and remember those words. AMERICA IS BETTER THAN THIS.

We are better than the kneejerk Racial Responses that many have stirred up in the Democratic campaign. Obama himself, in "A More Perfect Union," notes that we cannot ignore either racism or reverse racism--but can we not acknowledge it without FEEDING it? I think that, in America, enough of us can to make a difference.

We are better than Feminist fears that putting a woman into the White House is more important than putting the right leader there. As long as we define people primarily by their gender, we will continue to be sexists. Of course women must continue to fight--that is what has given us female Supreme Court justices. That is what has given us a female Speaker of the House--2nd in line to lead the country! But we cannot fight blindly, because we are better than that.

We are better than the Fear Mongering that has come from our own leadership, which is its own kind of terrorism and has done far more damage to the United States of America--to our Constitution, to our long-held checks and balances, to our very sense of well-being--than was perhaps done even by the terrorist attacks of 9/11. And I admit that the those attacks were a terrible, tragic blow and lost far too many good, good lives. But a healthy being learns to recover from tragedy, not to define oneself by it, and America should be healthy again. 

America is better than the aggression that not only Republicans have been putting out in the news--sabre rattling and bluster, invasions and excuses.

America is better than the economy that twenty years of "trickle-down economics" have left us with. We are better than our health crises and mortgage crises and employment crises would show us to be.

America should be--IS--better than politics that focus too much on "gotcha" and not enough on real issues. We are smart enough to hear the truth, and strong enough to take some responsibility for our own salvation.

I don't know about you, but sometimes--when I start to get really frustrated--it helps me to remind myself of this. And, more and more often, to act that way.

You?

More good news: 
After  Krisin Dummin from Utah 
1 SD from Ohio
2 from the Virgin Island
Carole Burke and Kevin Rodriquez from Virgin Islands
so the latest is Obaman: 275 to 272.5 to Clinton

The Clinton's are multi millionaires 100 times over.

It is elitist and juvenile for the Clintons to expect other people to pay their debts.

Clinton spent millions of dollars trying to destroy Obama. Why should that behavior be rewarded?

Furthermore, Hillary has the arrogance to campaign when there's no way she can win, and further accrue additional debt?

Clinton is done and needs to bounce. If she makes threats on her way out the door, Obama should send her packing and tell her,  "Let the door hit ya' where the good Lord split ya'!"

If Hillary's base starts acting up, all Obama has to say to Hillary's middle-aged white women supporters is, "Look, if you like Roe V Wade -- for you or your daughters --  and you know whats good for you, you better vote for me. Because it's history if John McCain gets in. Hear me? HISTORY!"

Obama should say to white racists, "White racists, this country was run for the last several decades by smiling white folks just like you. And those smiling white folks did not hesitate to ship millions of YOUR jobs overseas when it served their immediate interests. So if you want a job, you better vote for this Black dude. Because McCain is not giving out any jobs that I know of. Believe that shit."

"McCain wants to stay in Iraq until no more Americans are getting
killed, no matter how long it takes and how many Americans get killed
achieving that goal--that is, the goal of not getting any more
Americans killed. And once that goal is achieved, we'll stay."

My
friends, John McCain would be a disaster, my friends.   Here, courtesy
of my lunch break and some serious bookmarking over the past few
months, are some links which demonstrate why.  Please forward.


prerequisite watching for any American planning on voting:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/#


http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/04/scary-stuff.html

"I don't think McCain knows much about economics. I see no sign that he
cares to learn about it. That would be scary under any circumstances.
Right now, though, it's terrifying."

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/23/mccain-dismisses-equal-pay-legislation-says-women-need-more-training-and-education/

"McCain dismisses equal pay legislation, says women need more 'training and education."



http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=why_john_mccain_wants_you_to_give_up_your_health_insurance#corrected

"When he says, "we have the highest quality of health care in the
world in America," he is speaking as a man who has enjoyed a lifetime
of government-run care [due to his life in the military, and then the
senate].  But now John McCain is seeking the presidency as a
Republican, and a
healthy distaste for government-run health care is de rigueur. "I am
convinced," said John McCain at Miami Children's Hospital, "that the
wrong way to go is to turn over your lives to the government and hope
it will all be fine. It won't." Spoken like a 71-year-old whose
government health coverage has kept him healthy enough to run for the
presidency."

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_militarist

"The neocons' first choice may have lost the primary in 2000, but
through Bush we've had the opportunity to observe seven years of
neoconservative high drama and higher causes, and most people don't
like it very much. Most, that is, except for McCain, who gives every
indication of wanting to shift neoconservatism into higher gear. He is
the foremost proponent of an imperial conception of America's role in
the world since Teddy Roosevelt, the most persuasive advocate of
"national greatness" in practical politics, and the most loyal adherent
of neoconservative ideas in Congress. And possibly the next president
of the United States."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/184135.php
"But his record actually shows he's one of the most dangerous people we
could have in the Oval Office in coming years -- not just because he's
a hothead in using the military, but more because he seems genuinely
clueless about the real challenges and dangers the country is facing.
He's too busy living in the fantasy world where our future as a great
power and our very safety are all bound up in Iraq."


http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14763.html (this one is especially good)

"With this in mind, for the first time in months, I thought now would be
a good time to update the list of John McCain's Biggest Flip-Flops.
There have been some key additions since the last time I did this (in
November)."

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=mccains_delusional_tax_plan

"Depending on your perspective, McCain's agenda is either empty or
terrifying. It is empty in the sense that McCain offers an array of
budget-cutting gimmicks that dwarf Reagan's magic asterisk. But McCain's tax cuts are terrifying because, as Jared Bernstein has argued in these pages,
they would eventually trigger a budgetary crisis that transforms deep
spending cuts from unthinkable to inevitable... McCain's strength as a
candidate is rooted in his claim that he is a
man who talks honestly and stands up to special interests. But now, on
the central issue of this election, he has an agenda that does neither.
With corporate giveaways and phony freezes and scrubs, McCain's tax
agenda undermines his core political appeal."

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=02&year=2008&base_name=the_pete_rose_of_politics#104506

"I don't think it's an exaggeration to say this is a promise to
perpetuate a fraud on the American taxpayers: if he no longer intended
to seek the presidency, he made a legally-binding promise to pretend to
remain in the race just long enough to collect public money to repay
the loan... There's a reason no one's ever done anything like this. It makes a
travesty of the choice inherent in voluntary public financing, between
public funds and unlimited spending. I've said it before, and I'll say
it again: Legal or not, it should bring to an end whatever tiny thread
of credibility John McCain still has as a straight-talker or reformer
of the political process."

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/02/mccain-sells-bi.html

You read that right: in exchange for a loan, John McCain gave away his right to decide for himself whether or not to stay in the race for the Presidency. And he did so in order to use his eligibility for future matching funds, rather than the funds themselves, as collateral.


http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/02/the-other-mccai.html
"Whether or not this violates the law -- a law McCain authored -- I have
no idea, but it is certainly an attempt to wriggle out of its
requirements, and it ought to put paid, once and for all, to the idea
of McCain as a straight-talking man of principle."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/179368.php
"Explain to me how this guy gets out of the gate attacking anyone else
about honoring pledges tied to the campaign finance system."

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/the_mccain_enigma.php

"John McCain has engaged in some pretty astounding policy meandering over the years in a way that makes it absurdly hard to tell what he would actually do as president"


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/opinion/06rich.html?hp
"We're succeeding," Mr. McCain said
after his last trip to Iraq. "I don't care what anybody says." Again,
it's the last sentence that's accurate... The difference between the
Democrats and Mr. McCain going forward is
clear enough: They want to find a way out of the morass, however
provisional and imperfect, and he equates staying the disastrous course
with patriotism. Mr. McCain's doomed promise of military "victory" in
Iraq is akin to Wile E. Coyote's perpetual pursuit of the Road Runner,
with much higher carnage. This isn't patriotism. As the old saying
goes, doing the same thing over and over again and hoping you'll get a
different result is the definition of insanity."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/22/us/politics/22diamond.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

"Donald R. Diamond, a wealthy Arizona
real estate developer, was racing to snap up a stretch of virgin
California coast freed by the closing of an Army base a decade ago when
he turned to an old friend, Senator John McCain."

Kristi Dumming from Utah is endorsing Barrack Obama...
According to FoxNews (Note I don't care for Foxnews) is .05 away to surpass Senator Clinton.
272.5 Senator Clinton272 Senator Obama
Please note he is ahead in terms of SD according to ABC news...
Have a great day
Note that 

So? Will the power go to his head Or is he really what we see?

As the results from the National Day of Voter Registration start to come in - the photos, the numbers of people who came, the process laid out, the high energy, the belief - I have been thinking about the power accruing to this inspiring man.  

As part of that I have been reading a bio of him by David Mendell, Obama from Promise to Power.  Mendell has been covering him since he started to run for state Senate in IL. for the Chicago Trib.

Mendell tries to show as many sides of this person as he's given access to.  He shows Obama grumpy, shows him unsuccessful and trying to figure out why, shows him happy, loving, caustic, tender, guarding his privacy, thinking things through.  But always from the distance of a newspaper writer without full access.

So for me, an enthusiastic supporter, there's still the question of whether this guy is who he appears to be.

And that has a lot to do with just how much of a liability it could be for him to consolidate so much power.

When I consider what's gone on for the last 5 months since the primary season began and those who really don't pay a lot of attention to politics have started to become aware of Obama, I'm deeply impressed by the things that Matt Stoller has explicated here http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5637

Obama's oratorical skill 
his forging of a new path to organizing people (using the new media, finessing Fox News, raising so much money in little amounts, binding his fans together through the site) 
his dogged insistance on taking the highest road he can find even in the face of the Clintons' so-called kitchen sink strategy 
his distancing himself from the party (so much so that for a long time now it's seemed to me that he is not part of the party at all) 
his committment to the 50-state Strategy and campaigning in all the states (reaching out to the mob and the little corner pizza place)

But as these tactics succeed, and the mob gets bigger, it gets harder to control.  And those who don't get it resent it.

Control of the entire thing is clearly part of the Obama script.  The further some person or group is from being willing to accept his being top dog, the further he wishes to distance himself from them.  The blogosphere is too hard to bring under control, cannot be counted on to hew to his party line.  Jeremiah Wright was uncontrollable and way too close to keep at arm's length and therefore was a liability.

So the real question is: what will he be with all this power?  Just how strong will the Republicans have to be to keep that power from doing something seriously wrong for the country - even defining seriously wrong in progressive terms?  Just how strong will we have to be to be part of the control?  Will he be able to maintain his mediating skills once it's too easy to get enough to go along?  Will he look outside his own box when he's infatuated with his own ideas?  

Who will be there to keep him on track?

In  a startling revealation today it was reported that the Democrat's Presumptive Nominee, Sen Barack Obama is  at least 1/2 white. Reliable sources confirm that Obama's mom was indeed white. He was brought up with help from his (white) grandparents and often attended school with (white) children. Obama attended an Ivy League school (white folks). In a conference call Clinton spokesperson Howard Whiteson insisted "Obama can no longer count on the Black Vote, The White Vote,The Guilty Liberal Vote, or the Always Wanted The Cool Black Friend Vote now that the truth about his whiteness has been revealed". It'll be interesting to see how Obama handles this potential "game changer".

Those who are pointing to West Virginia as any kind of example as to why Obama is unelectable should take heart in reading the lovely sentiments of the West Virginia demographic Hillary is holding up as one of her last remaining cards. Sounds like Obama won't be getting the endorsement of the West Virginia Coon Hunters anytime soon:

Hand-lettered campaign signs promoting Democrats running for family-court judge and assessor cluster along Hardy County's winding roads. There are only a few signs for either Obama or Clinton, but in one yard, a placard with a red slash on it mocks, "Osama, Obama and Chelsea's Mama."
The sign belongs to Eric Hardy, 38, a former Democrat who works at a woodworking plant. Now a die-hard Republican and president of the West Virginia Coon Hunters Assn., Hardy opposes any Democrat "who wants to go after my guns."
Obama "takes the cake," he said, "because of, you know, who he is." He suspects Obama for his "Muslim name," and comments by his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., rankle him. "He's just a mistake any way you look at him," Hardy said.
How could anyone possibly think that this is about racism or bigotry?

Meanwhile, the bitter people don't agree that they are clinging to their guns, after all, they know what an American name sounds like:

"I've got 50-some guns, and I wasn't crazy about Obama's talk about small towns," said Sam Vetter, 64, a farmer and lifelong Democrat who regrets voting for Bush in 2000. "Besides," he added, "Obama just doesn't sound right for an American president."

Fortunately, we can look with hope towards the children of West Virginia to help build a brighter future:

Neil Gillies, an Obama supporter who runs a local environmental nonprofit group, glumly recounted the gibes that his wife, a schoolteacher, hears regularly from her students. "They're convinced [Obama] is a Muslim, a terrorist, a guy who's coming to take away their guns," Gillies said. "It's just sad."

As goes West Virginia, so goes the nation:

"There's a lot of bigotry in the country, not just West Virginia," See said.

And this is Hillary's argument as to why she is more electable?

As desperation kicks butt big time, Hillary is unveiling her real self. And it is ugly, very ugly. She shows herself once and again as someone who goes against the grain of my values.

A few months back, I realized that it would be extremely difficult (impossible?) for me to vote Hillary in the GE if she won the nomination by "stealing" it.

The longer she stays in this race for the nomination, the more she shows her deep uglyness. Not because she has long run her course, but because of the strategies she is willing to use to hold on.

And holding on she is... Now that it is clear (even to the Media!!) that she could grab the nomination only by stealing it, she keeps trying.

Is it just me or do others understand why I could never vote for her? And that I don't want her in the ticket?

(PS: I could never vote for McCain either. If she was to steal the nomination I would be left with what choices? This Two(All-Powerful)-Party System sucks, doesn't it? Yeah!! Long Live Capitalism!!)

(PS2: In reference to the Supreme Court and the Iraq War, I have no reason whatsoever to believe that Hillary would do what is right.)

loved your strength last fall
winter came, you turned evil
spring is here: please leave

     This edition of Inspection has been updated since the first draft to include my observations regarding North Carolina and Indiana.

     I've been pondering a region; a gulf; a canyon so deep; so wide, that the Grand Canyon would be a skunk's footprint in comparison. How fitting to use a skunk: because this same divide is far more odiferous and seems set on permanent spray mode. I, of course, am referring to the O'Bama/Clinton divide that still lingers despite cries of, "It's over..." which have been spouted practically since the first caucus.

     At least they're a little more reality-based right now. Well, a lot more.

     I know, its all BillHillaryGeraldinesWrightsBaracksupportersBlacksWhites fault. If you wish, take whatever simplistic slice you want out of that non-word and go ahead... cast your slimier than fish bait blame. Then leave me alone, because I find simple answers only satisfy simpletons with big egos and empty peanut shell minds. Truth is usually far more complex than this "evil vs. good" meme' which seems to thrive inside the human cortex.

      Do I really mean, "Go away?" No, not really. Some wonder why I go on debate sites and engage those I deeply disagree with; or even defend those who I am not that fond because I believe it's the right thing to do. I enjoy it, I really do. Kind of like being on the receiving end of an old fashioned bully beating... only to be able to spin around and slam my toes into some far less than "intellectual" ranter's exposed crotch.

     If you haven't guessed it by now, I've always hated bullies. Some might claim I should be frothing at the mouth about Hillary then, but frankly... as you will see, I feel "bully" would be over statement at best. But if "bully" fits, then Hillary is just more in your face. Barack is more "let others do it for me."

      Indeed: and this will enrage some, I don't think "bully" fits at all in any sense. While I have had a few minor problems with what has been said by her and those in her campaign, I have actually found the reaction more problematic: far over the top in relation to what was actually said. Indeed I have come to the conclusion that anything said will be turned into the most horrific construct possible by adding words, phrases and concepts poured straight out of the fertile imagination of the accusers. Yes, and I do mean the kind of fertilizer for the imagination: if it could be used for crops, would make you roll up the car windows if you were passing by a farmer's field.

      Since I enjoy such abusive banter one of the most happier times I have spent; net-wise, was on a site called Political Pulpit that changed names and, eventually, went dark. (Maybe a lighter shade of grey since its creator: David Allyn, still prowls the net attempting to at least respect other opinions, if not offering an actual home to them. Like all of us: he succeeds... sometimes. Surely these days of Barack vs. Hillary he probably feels his task with me is approaching Job-ian.) At the Pulpit: a meeting place for unlike minds... which if you think of it is all we really have, I learned and grew as much as I debated. This is a process that started in my family who drove Mom crazy arguing, but still getting along after the debate temporarily dies down. ("Can't we have a peaceful meal once?" We eventually just read at the table and, when she complained, "What, would you rather hear us argue politics?" She usually got real quiet after that.)

      Now I do most of my debating over at Volconvo.com. Except as of late I find myself giving off the image to some that I'm defending someone I'm not the biggest fan of: Hillary. Let me clarify. It's not that I find her to be the vile piece of human waste, or some conniving wench who will say or do anything. That's a cartoon image that only satisfies those who think cartoons are anything but a slight representation of reality. Like any human: especially politically driven ones, she has big problems. Anyone who has that much drive, and is willing to be a punching bag 24/7, certainly has some problems underneath it all. How they deal with their problems: take it out on those they disagree with, or pour it back into their work; and then endeavor to do better, makes the person, and the politician... and then affects the nation. Hence the Clinton administration. Hence Bush II. I'll leave it up to you which one fits in which category, though I'm sure regular readers know my opinion.

     It's more all about the kind of candidate I prefer. My historical heroes, politically, are Eugene McCarthy and Barry Goldwater. They both said what they believed and were shot down for it. It's probably best my kind of guy, or gal, has never attained office in my lifetime: they'd never get a damn thing done.

     Those who might claim either Hillary or Barack are that type of candidate, well... sorry, I disagree. They're both very talented pols in some ways, in other ways not. They are both alter what they say, and how they say it, and even their goals, according to conditions and who they are talking to. Any Barack supporter who would claim otherwise must have had their headphones on Heavy Metal, and high, as Barack squirmed around the Wright issue. I fear that non-controversy made soap opera has yet to come close to "final episode."

      But even if they were "my kind of politician": that is not what we need this election cycle. We desperately need anything, anyone, who has a chance of winning and will start running, walking or even baby stepping away from the all the precedents set during the last eight years. How much; how fast, which ones first, are almost unimportant. Even a little bit; turtle crawl speed, is better than staying where we are or going further down this dark, bleak, death and torture-filled road we are on. We desperately need someone who, when hit, will hit back: hard... even if the hit has to be out of bounds and unfair. In my opinion we have been run by an administration of bullies deluxe; headed by one of the worse bullies in recent U.S. history: and McCain has abandoned his straight talk express to follow same the yellow stained, crooked road, of Bush. You can't win by just talking: as John Kerry proved. Being a better talker isn't the answer. The most crucial thing here is winning: nothing else is more important.

     Do I think one has a better chance of winning than the other? No, I don't: mostly because of factors that have nothing to do with either of them like stolen elections and the media who seems content to enable the worst on the Right. Doesn't really matter how many skeletons either have in the closet, or how much they're hated... what isn't there will be made up by Swifties. So let's just leave it at I'm more than very nervous about November.

      I was a Dennis supporter. Neither Barack, or Hillary, tickle my brain cells in the sense that, "Oh, boy I get to vote for..." Once again I'm stuck with voting for the less annoying, the less bothersome and the somewhat more palatable: a common experience I think most Americans loath... but I feel is simply a sign the process is flawed, and probably always will be; and has been, to some extent.

     I actually am not quite sure which one of the two I find fits the "less evil of the two" profile... yet: although I came a tad closer after Indiana/North Carolina. Still the difference between the two is, and always has been, for me slight in this sense. If Barack had more meat on him due to being on the national stage as long as the Clintons, maybe I might. Anything previous to "national stage" is interesting, but doesn't prove much. One can do a lot of marvelous things on smaller stages one cannot do: should not do on a big one. I know both aesthetically, and professionally.

     But still the accusations flow... and not out of just one camp, or one group of supporters...

      This week, on a thread over at Volconvo, I once again read that; because she was "the only one on the ballot," Hillary claiming Michigan as a win is a lie; an example of dirty slime-filled tactics... well, I could go on with the usual barrage here but either you agree with them or, like me, you say, "Wait a damn minute..."

     So I did a simple Google.

     I shouldn't place all the blame on the posters at Volconvo. I heard the same point I just mentioned being slathered over ears of listeners to Sirius Left, on the various sites I write for, and in other... more mainstream, media. Mike Feder was sub-ing this past week on Sirius Left and they: host and callers, were going on and on about her being the only one on the ballot in Michigan, and how the Dems were to blame for Florida. I called and explained that "the only one on the ballot" simply wasn't true and that, in Florida, it was the Republican legislature who broke the rules: decided the primary would be early. (Yes, unfortunately, they do get to decide that in Florida. No one I know of has ever claimed that since Jeb ruled the state hasn't been royally screwed up when it comes to elections.)

     A caller to the same program later claimed I was only half right, but somehow never got around to explaining what half was "wrong." Well, unless you accept "Democratic Party operatives wanted an early primary too for a while" in any sense proves my points "wrong." If saying "for a while" the Democratic Party "wanted" anything means we should punish them, this nation would be throwing people in detainment camps/prisons for doing nothing wrong except maybe; possibly; according to others "wanting" something, and nothing else.

      Gulp. Maybe I'd better back off from that point.

      Gulp, maybe Barack supporters should back off from that point too least they become too much like the reprobate they hope Barack will replace.

      The caller didn't even bother to address the fact: absolute fact, that Hillary wasn't the only one running for the Dems in Michigan. Maybe he didn't know: after all Barack supporters have repeated this "no one but Hillary was on the ballot" fiction so many times I think they believe the lie is true.

     "Lie?" This brings up a valid point here... since we know that is wasn't "nobody," but Kucinich, Dodd and Gravel too, how could I respond to those who claim so? Well, I could respond like this...

"Why are Barack supporters lying to us? Why is Barack sitting back and letting his supporters: his surrogates, lie to us? Is this the plan, to lie about Hillary and destroy any chance she has? And what about Barack... to let others lie for him... How filthy, how cowardly. It's worse than Nixonian, it's Rovian, It's..."

      I think you see where I'm going with that nonsense. I'm actually referring to how we frame the debate here: frame those who are in our way. Such framing has little to do with truth and far more to do with partisan agendas. Intra-party it can be pure poison, and please don't write back pretending I think Hillary hasn't done it too. She has. She just doesn't claim to be following some "high road" while supporters do it for her.

      Then we could go all minister on him. What, so many years and not even hear a whisper of "God damn America?" Not one hint heard that it had been said? Hell, I could even support to how his supporters seem, and I do mean "seem," to serve as attack dogs while Barack" framing him as a "coward," stays above it all. Has to be intentional, right? I could go on the web and blog, somewhere...

"Why that vile piece of human waste, at least Hillary and Bill have the decency to do most (Please remember: "not all.") of their own attacking!!!!!!!"

     Yes, using these examples, and many more I'm positive I could dredge up with a circus like "greatest of ease," I could start screaming, moaning and accusing along with the worst of the Barack supporters. Since one poster started his comments out with "your bitch is going down," wouldn't be fair for me to use the same phrase only add "n" to it, if that kind of attack is "appropriate?"

     But, you're right. No, it isn't. And way too many in the Barack support community... (I keep typing "Barach" instead and correcting, so an odd mix of notes from Bach and Burt Bacharach's This Guy's in Love with You keep swimming in my head, musically. I desperately want to drown either so I can listen to just one.) ...don't understand their over the top rhetoric serves their cause, and their candidate, poorly.

      Now, here's what I think is really happening...

      We have spent so many years under the thumb of these tactics we have forgotten civility, we have forgotten how to fight and disagree without becoming Rove, Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly... Even under the other Clinton: Bill, we had to put up with it because it was the same tactics used against him.

      To make myself clear: no one is "pure" here. Not Barack. Not Hillary. Not the supporters. No one. And playing a game of "who is more pure" loses elections.

      I don't want anyone to switch from Barack, or Hillary... though I'd sure love if people would switch from McCain, that's not the purpose here either. Of course, once again... many are dancing on Hillary's grave and going as far as claim this to be "the end of the Clinton era." It's most likely the end of her bid for the White House in 08, and probably beyond. No matter what happens she's still a senator and someone Barack or McCain will have to work with.

      Maybe that's the whole point behind this edition of Inspection. It's a plea for all sides: please step back. Neither side has been saintly: and it's always far too convenient to think your side is. Please think about the rhetoric you and your fellow supporters are using. And, yes, think about the rhetoric your candidate is using too. But, most of all, think more rationally about the rhetoric the other candidate is using: don't attempt to do whatever one can to turn it into what it isn't, or may not be. We will get through this. Whether we're damaged to the point of four more years of disaster isn't really up to either Hillary or Barack, no matter what either, or their supporters, says or does. It's up to us, for now: we still have six months: in politics that can be a millennium.

      Once we're past election time it will be too damn late. All of this "it's BillHillaryGeraldinesWrightsBaracksupportersBlacksWhites fault" won't mean a damn thing: except we're all screwed.

Barack's Big, and Hillary's Tiny, Win

      I've never been someone with a lot of friends, and often people take a disliking to me for no apparent reason. Some days I wonder, "Do I smell bad, is there a curse on my family name, or some do I have some fatal character flaw I'm unaware of?"

      Then, some days, I realize that last nugget is true except "unaware" and that I don't view it as "flaw;" as much as being as honest and fair as I feel I can be in any given situation. Being human I would never claim I'm always correct in my assessment, but of course neither is anyone else. Taking that position in life can be hell when political correctness amongst those who are close to you politically, theologically, or just "close," runs amuck.

      For instance: after the last primary cycle I have come to the conclusion that I'm pretty sure I really don't trust, and possibly don't like, Barack O'Bama... and perhaps even less than I trust Hillary Clinton: someone who has never been the highest on my list in that regard. Oh, I'll vote for him, but that's all. And expect criticism to keep flowing from the various PCs I visit, and my home Mac, however long he remains this high on the national scene. Despite my misgivings I do hope he attains his goal and far, far more important than that: I hope he proves me wrong. One thing is perfectly clear: any option other than O'Bama is pretty much off the table. That's mostly just fact. The reasons why it's "fact" I could, would debate: and have debated, with Barack supporters. But this is not why I'm typing this into this library screen right now.

      To explain myself I'll provide one: quite recent, example...

      Barack and his supporters have kept claiming