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 that he's trying to "follow the high road." While I've had a few hints that he's not quite as high on that road as he claims to be, my real complaints have been regarding his supporters from whom I've read on the various sites I debate on... "bitch, c#@t, sl!t, whore, witch..." and so many variations on the Reich Wing's trick of telling me they know exactly what's in someone else's head I've already filled my toilet mentally several times trying to vomit them back out. I don't like it any more when "elite" is tossed around.

      But on to my singular example... Barack's most recent ad campaign ad during the Indiana primary has brought me to the point of seriously questioning just how much "change" he really wants, or if the claim that he wants to travel the "high road" is nothing more than pandering to those who would eat him up even if he slathered moose piss on him as long as he says he'd never do that.

       On NPR's Morning Edition, just before the primary, they were playing examples of recent political ads. They played Hillary's ad first. Basically it was another "I'm the better candidate and the most likely one to answer the phone." Every candidate says "I'm better," in one form or another. To be honest, it wasn't a very good ad in the sense of "effective," in my opinion. But Barack's, well it was damn strong and quite effective... and very damning. Ominous music. Snapshots of turmoil and tragedy. After mentioning 9/11, gas prices, the economy and the other various versions of eight years of hell the Bush/Cheney team has brought us, the tag on the end said that Hillary claimed she could do this better and then...

"Isn't it about time we had someone we can trust as President? Isn't it about time we had someone who will tell the truth as President?"

      Maybe you believe Hillary is always a liar and Barack will always tell the truth. Maybe you believe she can't, and Barack always can, be trusted: ever. That's you're right. Personally I would never even come this close to claiming either. But there's one simple and obvious fact: this ad is not in any way, "the high road."

      The ad underscores a possibility I've suspected all along: Barack's running a campaign while claiming to be on "the high road," while his supporters do the dirty work. Hillary does her own, with the help of Bill and friends. (I have found most: not all, of what Barack supporters claim to be less nasty than... oh let's say this piece which claims Hillary is intentionally courting racists. The responses are somewhat vile too.) In the mean time I find his supporters (not "all") sometimes feel free to follow the lowest damn road they can find. Anyone who thinks a candidate can't be held responsible for what supporters say is probably in for a pretty damn rude awakening come the Fall, just like Ms. Ferraro and Rev. Wright found out when their words were twisted into something they weren't.

      In other words: it's already happening and political vampires who greedily suck on such vile filth haven't even hit the main course yet.

      To be clear: I'm not happy with either, but I would never vote for McCain. There's far more going on here than Hillary, Barack or any nasty business between the two of them. I just wish Hillary, Barack, and their supporters would be more cognizant of that before they spew more accusations and hate.

-30-

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

More proof McCain is lying, and that he didn't vote for Bush in 2000.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/truth-alert-mccains-freud_b_101021.html

Hey, does anybody know if you can delete a blog? If I made a mistake, and then post it, I can't find any way to edit it or delete it. If you know of any way to edit a blog, please let me know! As you can see, I have been having trouble posting blogs! I am also on myspace, and when I blog there, I can go back and edit the blog or delete it at any time!
Thanks!

 McCain Can’t Help But Tell Truth

More Proof that McCain didn't vote for Bush in 2000:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/truth-alert-mccains-freud_b_101021.html

 McCain Can’t Help But Tell Truth

More Proof that McCain didn't vote for Bush in 2000:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/truth-alert-mccains-freud_b_101021.html

Andrew Sullivan identifies the really significant change in this election -  the growth of the grass-roots empowered  by the internet.  

 Non-Paul Republicans And The Web

 

As Ron Paul himself has pointed out many times, his campaign didn't do anything to organize support on the Internet.  That's not how it works. 

What happens is that millions of people independently come to the same conclusion that there is something wrong with the System and that it needs to change.  Then they start organizing on their own, and rally behind candidates who best represent their views.  The organizing is bottom-up, not top-down. 

Non-Paul Republicans can't tap into that because their entire political model is authoritarian:  "We report, we decide."  That model appeals only to passive-minded people, and passive-minded people aren't inclined to self-organize. 

I wonder if Obama's and Paul's amazing web success is a harbinger of a more libertarian and self-empowered political culture - because the web does not reward obedience, submission, or authoritarianism. It saddens me a great deal to see conservatism in America increasingly lean toward top-down, authoritarian, fear-based politics. In its best incarnation, conservatism is about self-government, individual freedom and hope-based politics. It's about trusting people, not corralling them. In  this, the web is the right's natural ally, and it's a very telling sign of American conservatism's decadence that it doesn't get the Internet as effectively as others.

Marc Armbinder looks at Obama's grass roots efforts:

Pay To Attention To Obama's Voter Registration Drive

The Obama campaign calls its "Vote for Change" voter registration drive a mere voter registration drive. Nothing to see here, folks, except for ordinary people helping ordinary people gain the franchise.

On election day, Obama might have more than a million individuals volunteering on his behalf. That should scare the beejeesus out of the McCain campaign and the RNC.

Both Ron Paul and Obama have raised huge sums from small contributors on-line. Their organizations have been able to attract small armies of volunteers (well, in Obama's case a rather large army) through the internet. 

This should scare the beejeesus out of conventional politicians and power brokers on both sides of the aisle.  The times, they may be a changing  indeed.
  

I think to understand the Obama campaign, one must truly see and hear the foundations upon which it is built.  This campaign, its message and its success are not new; they died 40 years ago at the Ambassador Hotel.  It's a bleak statement and rash generalization, but take a half hour and listen to Bobby Kennedy speak and I think you'll see better why America is so ready for this movement.

"Each time a man stands up for an ideal or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance."
Bobby Kennedy, University of Cape Town, South Africa (1966)

To think that race would not be a part of this campaign is to think that the civil rights movement was won and is over, that the millions of people who lived through that divisiveness have moved on and past.  But of course the civil rights movement never ended but expanded to represent the true diversity of this country, which in many ways drowned out its fundamental message, hope and understanding.  Many of those who lived through the 1960s find that experience to be fundamental to how they define themselves and how they view the world.  

In short, this country remains divided, but less so.  One of the big reasons for that was Bobby Kennedy, a man who, like Archimedes, lived by the words "Give me a place to stand and I will move the world." (BK Cape Town, 1966).  The message then, as it is now, was that empowered individuals who hope for a better future and are willing to work for it through learning and understanding and teaching can build that future that they dream of.  

For a brief campaign in a now idealized time, Bobby Kennedy brought this message to America.  If you want a snapshot of this time, take a look at this video from his California campaign: Bobby Kennedy - Fearless

Bobby Kennedy was a giant, a one in a million intellect, a man of honesty, and a man who devoted himself to the betterment of others.  I believe he developed from his brother the foundation of all great politicians, courage.  He was a man who could quote Aeschylus from memory to a large crowd, black and white, after telling them that Dr. King had been assassinated: "And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God."  He was a man who traveled to South Africa in 1966, spoke with the people and spoke out against Apartheid and oppression.  

But his message was always about hope.  That was what he told the black South Africans under the oppression of Apartheid; hope and understanding. Bobby Kennedy's hope was the exact opposite of how hope often gets characterized; it was active.  He defined it; "these men moved the world, and so can we all. Few will have the greatness to bend history itself, but each of us can work to change a small portion of events, and in the total of all those acts will be written the history of this generation. Thousands of Peace Corps volunteers are making a difference in isolated villages and city slums in dozens of countries. Thousands of unknown men and women in Europe resisted the occupation of the Nazis and many died, but all added to the ultimate strength and freedom of their countries. It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped." (BK, Cape Town 1966)

If you want to hear the entire Cape Town Speech, it's available on this website: http://www.rfksa.org/

Bobby Kennedy understood race in America better than any politician before or since.  He was able to speak about it directly, confronting injustice while promoting understanding.  He was able to get people of all walks of life to listen and think, something politicians ask us to do less and less.  

With Senator Obama's campaign, Bobby Kennedy's movement continues and grows.  But with that momentum and empowerment comes responsibility; responsibility to understand our past and our roots, responsibility to listen to each other and think for ourselves, and responsibility to ask more of ourselves than we ask of others.  

It is a lot to live up to, but it is and has always been that core idealistic premise behind our entire nation, that a group of us can get together, work hard, learn, teach, struggle and change the world.  It comes down to that; that's why we hope.  It's why our hope is not naive.  

Finally, we must also remember that while many people came away from the 1960s fearful and divided, others learned and built upon that time.  There are many voices out there who can speak about race and division and overcoming the hurdles that confront us; chief among them is Sen. Ted Kennedy.  I know because I've heard him do it in one of the most beautiful speeches of all time, his Eulogy of Bobby Kennedy.  I hope we hear from him soon.  

-- UPDATE --

After Sen. Obama's speech "A More Perfect Union," he told ABC:

And so, hopefully this is something that we have talked about, we've lifted up, it will spur discussion, like Robert Kennedy's wonderful metaphor, "ripples of hope." You know, you throw a rock into a pond and those ripples will go out. We don't know where those ripples will go. I have no idea how this plays out politically. But I think it was important to do.

Will the Hillary supporters who have vowed to vote for McCain in November if Obama gets the nomination be able to stomach that if his VP choice is a woman?

This originated as a comment to Billy Glad’s recent post (currently residing on the recommended list).  At the suggestion of another commenter and Billy himself I have retooled it slightly and am posting it here for all to ignore.  The question Billy asks (as mythical spokesperson for the Clinton campaign (would that their actual spokespeople did as good a job as he) is how can Obama win the race without the support of working class voters.  By framing the issue in a race-neutral manner, Billy, I believe, tries to avoid the fury of those in the Obama camp who have accused the Clinton campaign of exploiting racial divisions.  Bob Herbert in todays NYT charges the Clintons with “deliberately” trying to “wreck” the presidential prospects” of the nominee in such a way that has the potential to “undermine the substantial racial progress that has been made in this country over many years.”  Serious charges indeed.      

So while Billy’s effort to reframe the issue is admirable, it  beggars the real problem.  There are deep divisions in the Democratic Party, including class and education, but it blinks reality not to put race at the top of the list – as this primary season has exposed.  It's no secret that during the past several primaries, Obama has overwhelmingly carried the African American vote while Clinton has won whites by fairly substantial margins. It's also no secret that Clinton has done well among the so-called "working class whites." Thus follows the ballyhooed made-for-tv confrontation between Donna Brazile (who needs those white blue-collar voters and hispanics anyway?) and Paul Begala (you can't win with African Americans and eggheads).

You can't turn on the TV or pick up a newspaper without some commentator talking about Obama's difficulty connecting with working class whites.  Some may quibble with the extent of this phenomenon, citing polls that show Obama’s support among whites, but I’d say it’s hard to deny its existence altogether.  Others have said that Obama can redraw the electoral map of the past several elections that have turned, to significant extent, on these so-called swing voters, a/k/a Reagan Democrats.  I'd be very wary of this strategy.  Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Michigan are all critical if the Democrats are to win in November.     

Seen in this light, Hillary’s apparent success reaching out to these voters cannot be ignored.  Her strength among these groups may have made her a stronger candidate in the general election.  Unfortunately for her, she didn’t persuade enough primary voters/caucus-goers to her side. At this point, the only scenarios under which she could win the nomination would leave her so damaged it's hard to imagine her winning the general.  

I am not one to casually accuse the Clintons, who have done much to improve race relations in this country, of deliberately plying a “southern strategy.”  But I also must concede that in hyping this strength, particularly her recent clumsy (to be charitable) pronouncements tend to widen the divide.   

But Obama’s troubles broadening his base can’t be laid entirely at the feet of Clinton’s purported racial politics.  The question now becomes how can Obama fulfill his promise of attracting support across the spectrum.  How can he bridge the racial and class divisions that the primary laid bare?  In my view, there is no question he will need to do so to have any chance of defeating McCain in November. 

After all these observations, I don't have much in the way of solutions. A few are borrowed from Krugman.  A few I’ve thought up on my own. 

1. Let's start by not claiming that Clinton supporters are motivated by racism.  That’s just not a good way to win friends and influence people.   

2. On a similar note, it's not helpful to constantly heap scorn upon HRC - the media does a good enough job of that as it is. It also undermines Obama's post-partisan message.

3. Rather than race, I think Obama’s difficulty in reaching out to swing voters/working class whites has been that his message of reform doesn't connect.  For some, politics is about competing interest groups and the question of what are you going to deliver is paramount.  For this reason, I think Obama needs to focus on his economic message.  The economy looks to be the biggest issue of the election and potentially the greatest benefit to the Dems. Although in the primary, Obama talked about the economy under Clinton and Bush in the same breath, he needs to draw the distinction between the Democratic and Republican records.

4. Obama needs to reach out to Hillary - yes, that's right, the devil herself - and she must actively support his campaign to reassure voters who are anxious about the relative newcomer.   His choice of VP who brings solidity and experience, someone who can "deliver," may go a long way here. 

Finally, let me add that I believe Obama has a better chance of attracting the so-called white working class vote than either Kerry or Gore because he conveys an authenticity they seemed to lack (as campaigners, I'm not talking about them personally) and because the Republicans are just so damned unpopular right now. Despite all the division, it's still the Dems' race to lose.

Disclaimer:  I have not spoken with a single working class white voter in the preparation of this entry. 

For those of you whop have been following the Siegelman case, there's a new article out on a previously unknown investigation into the case that was subsequently shut down by the Justice Department:

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Office of Special Counsel last year shut down a previously undisclosed investigation into the federal prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, according to an internal memo made public Wednesday.

The investigation was being conducted by a task force formed at the agency a year ago to pursue high-profile political investigations in Washington, most notably whether the White House played politics in firing U.S. attorneys. It began gathering information on the Siegelman case in September and was planning to request documents from the Justice Department in October before Special Counsel Scott Bloch ordered the case closed, according to the Jan. 18 draft memo, made public by the Project on Government Oversight, a watchdog group.

...at leaving on a sour note.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/10/opinion/10herbert.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

"I don’t know if Senator Obama can win the White House. No one knows. But to deliberately convey the idea that most white people — or most working-class white people — are unwilling to give an African-American candidate a fair hearing in a presidential election is a slur against whites."

Looks like we better brace ourselves....

  As our Presidential candidates head for the finish line in November, it behooves the voter to do more than just listen to speeches or watch the ever-changing polls. It is time to think.
  There’s a growing call for Clinton to quit the race because it is statistically well nigh impossible for her to win the nomination without very sharp and unacceptable tactics. But think:
  Why shouldn’t she continue to the end? After all, it can’t be disputed that lightning might strike, Obama might stumble, or votes in the 6 remaining state primaries might break 90-10 in her favor. It could happen.
  I think she has every right to continue in the campaign, so long as she runs an honorable race. Dishonorable might make me think again.
  The upside will be that Obama gets a lot more experience surviving nastiness while all the remaining states get to vote; the downside is inevitably that every one of her attacks on Obama is recorded by the Republicans for playback in the fall – but the Clintons should be aware that Obama is not the only one who could be hurt.
  Voices in the punditocracy opine loudly and often that the continuing Democratic struggle is giving McCain an advantage that might become insurmountable, totally ignoring three truths:
  First, the one who is not getting attacked always rises in the polls.
  Second, McCain can’t win because he is a terrible campaigner, whose entire basis for running is his military past.
  And finally, the word “recession” has entered the public discourse.
  John McCain? Bush policies to be continued? In the middle of a recession? I don’t think so.
  Which brings me to Barack Obama.
  There came a point last month when I thought I would explode; it followed a couple of days of reports that the Clinton campaign was arguing, mostly under the radar at that time, that Barack Obama “can’t win.”
  I didn’t see it coming, I have to admit, though I should have. It just hit me all of a sudden:  The Clintons have come to the point where they are running a racist campaign.
  All of this talk that voters in states with more electoral votes, or states that voted solidly Democratic time after time in the past, or states with more voters, were somehow likely to refuse to vote for anyone but Hillary Clinton, is just so much malarkey. And so this gambit is all the Clintons have left.
  Now, I don’t believe for a minute that either Clinton is a racist, but it sure looks like they think the American voter is, as they insist: “Obama can’t win. You know Obama can’t win.”
  That’s code, folks. You’re supposed to understand from this that a black man cannot be elected president of the United States.
  Well, let me tell you the upside in nominating Barack Obama.
  All over America, not-so-blue-state governors and members of Congress are supporting Obama in droves, in many cases because they know that if Hillary Clinton is at the head of the ticket her negatives and the resulting higher Republican turnout will hurt them “down ballot,” whereas an Obama-led ticket will bring in huge numbers of new and enthusiastic voters and independents, which will inevitably help them.
  The way I see it, this could bring about so many Congressional victories that even if McCain ended up winning, the Democrats would have such majorities in Congress that he wouldn't be able to do a doggone thing they don't like.
  The downside? If the Clintons are proven right and in the midst of a recession, with homes foreclosing all around us, joblessness on the rise and a bloody war without end in sight, the victor is a Republican candidate who offers more of the same, racism will have prevailed.
  If that happens, America will be the worse for it, and God help us.
  I believe in America, though, and my faith is strong that we are all we say we are and all that we wish for the rest of the world.
  So I’m rolling the dice. America, call it!

I have a theory.  I am no genius and have no special connections to either campaign or the DNC, so my theory is nothing more than my own interpretation of the same data available to all of us.  In other words, if it seems implausible to you, please do not think "on the other hand, he might know something that I do not."  I assure you, I know nothing more than you do, whoever you are.

I am, however, perplexed by the sight of a high-level Clinton surrogate floating a trial balloon concerning a unity ticket at a time when 1) Sen Clinton is obviously in such a weak state that such an overture cannot be understood as an invitation to a Clinton/Obama ticket and 2) Clinton is simultaneously still making arguments suggesting that she plans to beat Obama.  This is a strange and paradoxical state of affairs.  One does not ordinarily bid for the VP's slot by attacking the candidate with whom one hopes to run, and yet McAuliffe's "what a great idea" can hardly be seen as anything but a bid for just that.  What is going on?

Here is my theory: Clinton wants to be president.  This is hardly a shocking insight.  If she did not want to be president, she would not have run.  She is faced with a real difficulty in attaining that goal, however, by this point.  It is clear that she will not win the nomination in 2008, and it equally clear that she would fare no better as a 3rd party candidate than any other 3rd party candidate has ever fared.  As such, she has no realistic path left to the presidency in 2008.

2016, however, is a long ways off.  Countless precedents have shown that her odds would be long if she were to wait those eight years (remember Dick Gephardt?).  Far better if she could make another go of it in 2012.  Much talk has been given to the idea that she is running so as to weaken him enough to ensure his loss this time around, so that she might run against McCain in 2012, but this is rather problematic.  She would alienate a lot of people whose support she would need by adopting that strategy (even more than she already has), thus weakening, not strengthening, her present position.

What if, however, she could create a situation now which would ensure that Obama would have to choose her as his running mate.  If she could plant enough fears of a party schism in the minds of the remaining super delegates such that they would precondition their support of him on his taking her as his VP.  Because he would need her, instead of merely wanting her, she would be in a strong bargaining position.  She could use this position to insist on concessions from him.  The more dire the prospects, the more strongly the supers would insist and thus the more drastic the concessions she could extract - up to and including the concession that he agree only to run for the one term and then cede the way to her in 2012 and promise to campaign on her behalf.  This is the end-game which explains the paradoxical mix of full-throttle campaigning for the top of the ticket and overtures for the bottom position.

Why do I write this?  Well, for what else does the internet exist except to document the random musings of every nitwit's idle mind and (if lucky) engage feedback on the same.  So, what do you think?  Does this theory seem a plausible hypothesis to account for the observed data which we have at hand?  If you do find it plausible, does it fill you with admiration, or foreboding, or any other particular response?  I am interested to read what others think.

There is a great article on Daily Kos urging Senator Byrd to endorse Obama.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/8/122418/7805/806/511764
At the end of the article there is a link to write to Senator Byrd. I did, I hope you will too!
Bonnie

On May 7, Thomas Edsall, political editor of the Huffington Post, posted an article entitled Big Rewards Await Clinton If She Ends Campaign Now.

In the piece, Edsall stated: "One of the most inviting [rewards] is the near certainty that the Obama campaign would agree to pay back the $11.4 million she has loaned her own bid, along with an estimated $10 million to $15 million in unpaid campaign expenses."

Edsall's not an idiot.  He knew when he wrote that line that it wasn't true.  It's a clear violation of campaign finance law for Obama to pay off Clinton's debt.  So why did he write it?

According to the New York Times, Obama was asked about this in Woodburn, Oregon on Friday--probably in response to rumors that are now circulating among Obama's supporters.  Obama's answer was vague, unfortunately.  I suspect he will need to keep his answers vague for the time being, but it's clearly creating some anxiety among his supporters.

So what's is Edsall up to?  Is he a Republican, trying to damage Obama's fundraising capabilities?  A Clinton supporter?  A racist?

The Obama campaign needs to make a clear, unequivocal statement about this.  All they'd need to do is state that it would be illegal for the campaign to pay off Clinton's debt.  Edsall clearly has an agenda, and the Obama campaign needs to shut him down--quickly.

The Dems are still so divided over Obama-Hillary, even talk of a "unity ticket" doesn't appear to calm the storm.

I'd say this bodes poorly for the party in November, but a sense of excitement and unity would explosively boost turnout in the fall if BOTH Clinton and Obama were represented on the ticket.

Obama is the likely nominee and, hence, would be gracious to select Hillary as his VP. It would make the race almost without a doubt a Democratic win over McCain.

Although I think it's important for each of us to make up our own minds about who to vote for in November, few of us really have the time (and/or inclination) to learn every relevant factor about our voting options. A convenient shortcut is to find one or more groups that we agree with and look at their scorecards for the candidates in question. Along those lines, I'm including the scores from a few groups and encourage commenters to include those I've omitted.

League of conservation voters (lifetime): Obama: 96, McCain: 26
LCV (110th): Obama: 100, McCain: 29
NARAL: Obama: 100, McCain: 0
Planned Parenthood: Obama: 100, McCain: 0
National Right to Life: Obama: 0, McCain: 82
ACLU (lifetime): Obama: 82, McCain: 25
ACLU (110th): Obama: 89, McCain: 17
NRA: Obama: F, McCain: C
NAACP: Obama: 100, McCain: 7
NOW: Obama: 91, McCain: 13
Children's Defense Fund: Obama: 100, McCain: 10
National Education Association: Obama: 100, McCain: 0
National Farmer's Union: Obama: 100, McCain: 0
AFL-CIO: Obama: 93, McCain: 7
United Auto Workers: Obama: 85, McCain: 9

Note: Presumably most of TPM will be voting for Obama in November. This information is intended not just for your consumption, but also for sharing with your friends and family.

If you want to end this Democratic campaign right now -- you can!  By voting for Barack Obama.

While Hillary Clinton ran a hard campaign, she has lost barring some miracle.

Wasting your money and vote on her will not get her the nomination now.

Please for the Obama and end this thing now, so that Barack Obama can begin to really take on John McCain and win back the White House and more of the Congress.

Lets go Democrats -- Vote Obama

Those of you obsessing over exit poll data and using them to predict what the general election holds should read this John Ridley piece; and, I think, also quit micro-slicing and dicing the electorate a la Mark Penn. 

Placing folks into categories and assigning them monolithic characteristics based upon their income, the color of their collar, whether they live in urban or rural locations, their age, and etc is no different than assigning common characteristics to groups of folks based upon the color of their skin, their gender, or their religion.  It's bigotry.

John Ridley's "Spare Mr Your Exit Polls"

It's over!

The media needs to start treating Hillary Clinton like they did Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney at the end of their campaign runs against John McCain. IGNORE HER

This constant paying attention to Hillary, now that Barack Obama has gotten more delegates (he gained 7 yesterday), both in elected and super (ABC), the popular vote and he has won 32 (almost 33 lacking 1 pct in Indiana) out of 47 States -- is ludicrous.

Why they continue to treat her as though this race were 'close' or 'tied', is beyond comprehension.  Especially since all the 'experts' in the political pundit world have declared Barack Obama the Democrat's "presumptive nominee".
 
It's over. 

Barack Obama is holding a Florida fundraiser on May 22.  This is his second one planned.  Obama is running his General Election media.  According to Obama's campaign -- he'll have clinched the nomination on May 20th.

Unless by chance Obama should ask Hillary to run as his VP (I pray not) -- there is no longer a reason to give her a 'stage' to play on.

Just like Huckabee, Paul and Romney, she can continue campaigning but since Rasmussein is no longer polling her name -- the media needs to stop giving her the attention she no longer deserves.  The race is on.  Obama vs McCain!

There's been such a din about the unelectability of a black nominee that we forgot about the unelectability of a woman. And yet there are eerie parallels that spell doom for us as Democrats.

The current Clinton argument for nominating her reduces to the following:

1. The United States is a racist country.
2. The majority race in the U.S. is white. For sad historical reasons, almost all presidential candidates of all parties have been white. Without exception, all U.S. presidents have been white.
3. Consistent with the foregoing, it is clear that a significant portion of the white majority is racist and will vote only for white candidates. Moreover, minority voters are accustomed to voting for white candidates and can be counted on to accept a white candidate. In addition, there is a strong racist strain in the Republican Party that plays to its advantage. We don't like these realities, but we must face them. That doesn't make us racists.
4. As a black, Obama can never win.
5. As a white, Hillary is the only remaining Democratic candidate who can win.
6. It would be a fatal mistake for the Democratic Party to take a chance on attempting to elect the first nonwhite president because racist forces in American culture are insurmountable.
7. Therefore, the Democratic Party has no alternative but to nominate Hillary.
8. Under the circumstances, superdelegates have a fiduciary responsibility to overrule any primary and caucus votes cast for a black candidate.

There is a parallel argument to consider:

1. The U.S. is a sexist country.
2. While the electorate is roughly half male and half female, sad historical realities have meant almost all presidential candidates have been male. Without exception, all U.S. presidents have been male.
3. Consistent with the foregoing, it is clear that a significant portion of the male half of the electorate is sexist and will vote only for male presidential candidates. Moreover, female voters have been accustomed to voting for male candidates and can be counted on to accept a male candidate. In addition, there is a strong antifeminist strain in the Republican Party, even among Republican women, that will play to the advantage of Republicans if Democrats nominate a woman, especially a woman who lacks enthusiasm for baking cookies. We don't like these realities, but we must face them. That doesn't make us sexists.
4. As a female, Hillary can never win.
5. As a male, Obama is the only remaining Democratic candidate who can win.
6. It would be a fatal mistake for the Democratic Party to take a chance on attempting to elect the first female president because sexist forces in American culture are insurmountable.
7. Therefore, the Democratic Party has no alternative but to nominate Obama.
8. Under the circumstances, superdelegates have a fiduciary responsibility to overrule any primary and caucus votes cast for a female candidate.

It is debatable which argument is more powerful. Clearly, the safe course for Democrats was to nominate a white male. Since the irresistible forces of racism and sexism in American culture leave the Democratic Party in a hopeless position, we blew it. We reinforce the hopelessness of our position every time a Democrat says the black candidate can't attract enough white voters or the woman candidate can't attract enough male votes.

Curiously, this is where the symmetry breaks down. We've only been hearing one of these messages from Democrats. This is true even though the leading Democratic male candidate has generally trounced our leading female candidate with male voters. In North Carolina, for example, Clinton got only 39% of the male vote to Obama's 58% - didn't you hear the networks talking about that all night long, reminding us that Republicans and independents tend to be disproportionately male? Telling us this could hurt Hillary even more than the tendency of Republicans and independents to be disproportionately white hurts Obama?

Perhaps we should accept the hopelessness of our position now that we've doomed ourselves to choose between a female and a black candidate. On the other hand, like typical Quixotic Democrats who think they can improve the world, we can attempt to break through the racist or sexist barrier to the White House this year.

But which barrier should we try to break first?
A modest proposal: We could let Democratic primary and caucus voters decide, not superdelegates saving us from one candidate's theory of unelectability.

An even more modest proposal: We could stop saying a black can never win over white voters in a McCain-Obama matchup, and continue to refrain from saying a woman could never win over Republicans, independents, and many working class white males in a McCain-Clinton matchup.

Or we could go on cutting our own throats, sparing the delicate feelings of the Republicans who usually perform the gruesome task.

After the surpisingly strong showing of Obama in North Carolina, I looked back over the various primaries and noted that there was a  side-issue from the very first contest in Iowa :  "We're not racist!" 

If you're an African American and you support Clinton, you may have been called an "Uncle Tom".

If  you're white and you support Clinton, you may have been accused of being racist.

There is a McCarthyist feel to this phenomenon and the vile tone of certain posts recalls the virulence of that period. 

This war has been so unfair to the people who have fought it. It reminds of learning about how people bought their way out of conscription during the civil war. Those in the National Guard and in the Reserves really paid the price...I feel that it should now be a requirement for any member of the House of Representatives or Senate that they have a tour of duty in any war where they approved any funding - age should not be a factor - it hasn't been for many of the people in the National Guard or the Reserves.

Boston Globe reports that Obama is nearly even with Clinton in superdelegates, according to latest unofficial AP tally, or has pulled AHEAD of Clinton by other counts.

Story here.

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.

This war has been so unfair to the people who have fought it. It reminds of learning about how people bought their way out of conscription during the civil war. Those in the national guard and in the Reserves really paid the price...I feel that it should now be a requirement for any member of the House of Representatives or Senate - a tour of duty in the any war where they approved any funding - age should not be a factor - it hasn't been for many of the people in the National Guard or the Reserves.

In case you needed a fix.

I'm reluctant to make reference to what the candidate may have considered a private moment, but because it's been reported elsewhere and I haven't seen any posts in this space on the subject...

CNN's Political Ticker reported that on a five-hour flight from DC to Oregon, Senator Obama joined one of the regular games of "Taboo", which they say is often played among his traveling staff and the press.

It is from that blog entry, the following paragraph was taken;

An interesting moment came when an Obama staffer was looking at the word "gap." His clue: a place where gay people shop. Before the word was accurately guessed, other reporters said they heard one staffer shout the store "H&M" and heard Obama say "Abercrombie & Fitch."

Now, I realize that the candidate didn't give the clue and it was just a friendly game (and it'll probably never happen again), but how is defining people by where they shop not applying a label which divides us?

Dear Sen. Clinton,

Like most Americans, I have witnessed your family's rise to the loftiest summits of American government. Like most Democrats, I have cast my share of ballots for the Clinton name. The service you and your husband have rendered to this nation and this party are immeasurable and worthy of our highest esteem.

The current campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination has been long, hard-fought and filled with both defeats and victories for its two remaining contenders. Surely a woman of such pragmatic and gifted political skills as you possess must now see that prolonging this nomination battle endangers the nation that only a Democratic president can heal, the party to which you have devoted your life, and the legacy that the Clinton name will represent to future generations.

By any mathematical calculation in accordance with party rules, Sen. Obama is all but absolutely certain to secure the nomination. By all analyses of experienced and dispassionate observers, there is no path for you to claim ultimate victory. By any measure of success, however, you have shattered the marble ceiling for all qualified women who will follow in your footsteps. This breakthrough is an historic contribution to our democracy. There are others I would urge you to make, as well.

By announcing the end of your candidacy in the coming weeks, you have the opportunity to serve your party, your country and your family's legacy in important ways.

You can serve by helping bind up the wounds this primary season has opened in the Democratic Party, help heal our hurt constituencies and strengthen our conviction that a strong, united party will compete to victory in the fall election.

You can make certain that the policies of our next president are the policies of a Democratic administration that you realize must not be delayed or derailed. Your courageous support is vital to Sen. Obama defeating John McCain. More important, it is vitally needed so that we may rescue our country from the specter of another Republican administration, which has vowed to continue the distraction of a war on the wrong enemy, the disaster of an economy that helps only the wealthy few and the distopia of permanent assault on our most cherished liberties.

Lastly, Sen. Clinton, you can restore the reputation of yourself and your family, now seriously tarnished by the protracted and divisive character of this primary season. Nothing short of your graceful exit from the race and your family's whole-hearted support of Sen. Obama will ensure that future generations of Americans will honor the Clinton name by saying "They loved the country more than self."

For all these reasons, and because I especially believe the last one is true, please consider your options and choose voluntarily to embrace the fate before you and the opportunities that come with it. How you answer your country's call in this hour is more important than at any previous time in your long years of dedicated service.

There was once a little ball.

It was round.

It fell on the ground.

And then it had water and dirt on it.

Things began to grow on it.

Things grew and grew...and just kept growing.

Some of those things thought they had brains...without really knowing what brains could do.

Other things on the ball felt that they should not have brains at all.

So they fought.

Until one day, everyone realized that they were just dirt on a ball.

And they stopped worrying about what kind of dirt they were, and started worrying about the ball.

They enabled their selves to jump up in sequence, and the ball bounced.

It bounced so many times that the dirt was thrown off, and nothing was left but the good things.

And the good things cheered, and embraced the ball, and loved the ball, and called it home.

The End.

McCain is going down this November like Bob Dole did in 1996, stumbling off the stage a campaign event.  Sounds cruel, but the country is better without either of them running it.  Maybe McCain can retain some millionaire self-sufficiency from his wife after losing the election by hawking ED pills on TV.

Think about it. This is 1996 all over again, except this time with ginormous historic significance for the winner. I further predict it will be a win well beyond 50+1 and the closest thing this country has had to a mandate in quite some time.  too big to steal or overrule.  some actual good shall come to pass to the benefit of the US and the world.

I dream

time will tell   

Top ten reasons I want none of my donation to the Obama campaign to be used to pay off the Clinton campaign debts:

10.  "He's not a Muslim, as far as I know."
9.  "Shame on you, Barack Obama!"
8.  "That's not change you can believe in; that's change you can Xerox."
7.  "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina, too."
6.  "The Michigan vote should count."
5.  "Obama has said he really liked the ideas of the Republicans over the last 10 to 15 years."
4.  "I've crossed the commander-in-chief threshold.  Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that.  You'll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy."
3.  "I have received more votes by the people who have voted than anyone else.”

2.  “Sen. Obama's support among hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening."
1.  Mark Penn.

904 Responses to “Onward To West Virginia”
hillaryis44.com
May 6, 2008

Berkeley Vox Says:
May 6th, 2008 at 7:07 pm

First? Give ‘em Hill!!! :D

JAS Says:
May 6th, 2008 at 7:09 pm

IN 6% Reporting

Hillary 59%

Obama 41%

Per CNN

#  moononpluto Says:
May 6th, 2008 at 7:23 pm

I hope the 58/42 holds. She’s increasing by the minute, 22K now.

#  Joe Friday Says:
May 6th, 2008 at 7:30 pm

ABC calling NC for Bambi.

#  HillGuy Says:
May 6th, 2008 at 7:34 pm

I think it’s fucking bullshit that they call NC this soon, and its SO OBVIOUS Hillary has won IN and they aren’t calling it. Bullshit.

#  Paula Says:
May 6th, 2008 at 7:36 pm

JAS, Exit polls tend to inflate Obama’s numbers. I think Hillary still may keep his margin in NC to single digits.

#  JAS Says:
May 6th, 2008 at 7:37 pm

Well here is some good news

IN 19% reporting

Hillary 127,561 58%

Obama 94,107 42%

Per CNN

#  djia Says:
May 6th, 2008 at 7:39 pm

Bcalling it without numbers in is BS!!! big time!!!……..but won’t they be sitting with egg on their faces when Hillary WINS NC :D

#  dot48 Says:
May 6th, 2008 at 7:48 pm

glad Fox is at least saying he won NC because of the AA.

If the whites had bloc voted for Hill .. we could have pulled it out.

#  rickroberts Says:
May 6th, 2008 at 7:51 pm

Those nancy boys at MSNBC are creaming all over themselves over NC and totally ignoring IN. I don’t care how impassioned a plea Hillary might put out to unite behind Bambi, I will never do it in a million years. Never.

#  Southern Born Says:
May 6th, 2008 at 7:52 pm

They keep saying that in the end Hillary voters will come home and vote for BO in the GE. Do you believe that? Is that wishful thinking? Where are they getting the stats for the BO support? Many, many of the Democrats we know are adamant. They will NEVER vote for BO.

Go Hillary in IN. Hope it is close in NC. They say that the black vote did it for BO in NC.
# JAS Says:
May 6th, 2008 at 7:53 pm

Well, now that the AA community has helped Obama, what will they expect Obama to do for them, like Rev Wright said, he will be knocking on Obamas door on Nov 5th.??????

# dot48 Says:
May 6th, 2008 at 7:54 pm

this is one WHOLE family who WILL NOT vote for Obama. NEVER

#  djia Says:
May 6th, 2008 at 7:57 pm

Dot

my family will not vote obama either !!

but let’s all relax…fl and mi will be solved one way or another even if its the convention
she WILL and DOES have the popular vote already!

she has a 10pt win so far in IN
and she will not loose by much in NC if she looses at all..yet to be known…..of course i would love to see another Gaum in NC :D
and it would be oh so lovely if she won it even by 7 votes :D

#  confloyd Says:
May 6th, 2008 at 8:01 pm

When BO was winning Republicans it was because they loved his ideas, now they say Hillary is winning them because of Rush, BUL&*S(&T! The republicans voting over on this side are a lot to do with Hillary being the better candidate. The audacity of spin!!

#  plural Says:
May 6th, 2008 at 8:04 pm

I’ll bet she got Republicans’ votes when she went on O’Reilly.

#  dedfg Says:
May 6th, 2008 at 8:13 pm

Actually I stopped watching cnn….let them talk …..that’s all it is….talk.

Time to call for Obama to drop out for losing Indiana!

#  HillGuy Says:
May 6th, 2008 at 8:15 pm

They better fucking call WV next Tuesday RIGHT AS POLLS CLOSE. Fuckers.

#  paddy4Hill Says:
May 6th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
So he loses OH, PA, IN. Not very good. Of course he does well in the black belt. He should. Favorite son. Not a winnable election strategy for November. Anybody with a brain and one eye (this excludes CNN, Dean, etc.) can figure this one out.

#  justmeinmountdorafl Says:
May 6th, 2008 at 8:36 pm

54-46 in Indiana - Hillary leading - what happened to the 15 plus margin??!?!?!?!

now its at 8 percent seperating the two!

63-35 in North Carolina _ Obama leading - WILL HILLARY CATCH UP???? IM SO FRUSTRATED

It's too late
tonight
to drag the past out into the light

We're one
but we're not the same
We've got to carry each other, carry each other

One love

I was just searching for a spot to chat on TPM about the current situation in Lebanon and it's all AP posts you can't comment on or offsite links, so I thought I'd try a little post here and see who else is interested and takes the discussion bait.  Perhaps this post will hit the TPM dustbin in no time, or perhaps it may live another day...

Anywho, I'm no expert on what's happening but I do have a news life outside of the daily political chatter and figured I might throw out some inflamatory stream of consciousness thoughts and see what others have to say.

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

No big fan of Hezbollah (not so progressive on women's or gay issues, rather fundamentalist, to say the least) but I still feel like "good for them" in the sense that they are trying to stand up for themselves as a people in a land hostile to them.  People have a right to self-determine, even if you don't like them, and there should be a certain softening of demands made to historically oppressed groups. 

Hamas was democratically elected, and yeah, they are hostile to Israel, but Israel has the ovewhelming upper hand, and imprisoning Hamas' elected leaders and cutting off gas and otherwise negatively controlling the Palestinian economy doesn't help.  Inevitably it's gonna piss people off.  Hamas took Gaza, demonstrating their popular support.  Only Abbas really remains on the other side and I'm not sure how long the West Bank will tolerate his ineffectiveness in making strides towards true Palestinian self-determination.

I'm anti-US imperialism.  We've completely taken the torch from the British when they dominated the area and I think it's time we stopped trying to force our will.  Our motivations over there tend to be rather craven and we usually get it wrong (arming Bin Laden and the pre-Taliban, empowering and later arming Saddam, installing the Shah, cuddling with the House of Saud to this day, unconditional support of Israel, ad nauseum).  One of my favorite all-time books on the subject of US foreign meddling since WWII is Rise to Globalism.  First read it in high school in the mid-80s.  Changed my life -- it, along with other contemporaneous rebellious movements, opened my America-Is-Disneyland eyes.  The true patriot works to make the country better, internally and externally, and has little use for flag pins.

Speaking of which, you know Hamas loves Obama, right?

Recently, there was the debacle known as the 2006 Lebanon war.  Sure enough, that's boomeranged into some new upheaval.

There's simply current day-to-day news in Lebanon where the Shiites (Hezbollah) take a Sunni TV station and then the Lebanese government declares Shiite media illegal.

I really just hope we don't fuck it up worse.  But, then again, I'm not holding my breath.

Damn

This is a good time to start thinking about how the 2012 Democratic Presidential Primary cycle should work.  We certainly should know that this year's cycle is not the best way to do it.  So, I decided to give it a shot myself.

First:  my complaints about this year's cycle.
Iowa and New Hampshire going first -why?
A 6 month cycle - why?
A mix of rules for caucuses and primaries instead of standardized rules.
Too long a "recess" between some elections.
No reason to allow individual states to schedule their own primaries.

My system will be a three month cycle, starting in March 2012 and ending with May 2012.  This means 50 primaries or caucuses in 13 weeks of Tuesdays.  To simplify this, assume all of the primaries will be on Tuesday.  I would break down the schedule to 48 weeks of 4 primaries per week, and one week with 2 primaries. And, no weeks off until they are all done.

There is no logical reason to hold the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary before any other state gets a chance at it.  But, I doubt that there would be support for changing this, so I would hold both of those events on the first Tuesday.

Each of the remaining Tuesdays would have a primary or caucus from four different areas of the country, with four different state delegation sizes.  For example, the second Tuesday could be New York, N. Dakota, Alabama and New Mexico.  The next week might have Texas, Vermont,  Missouri and Oregon.  And, on by fours to the end. 

This should greatly limit the pandering that now goes on when a candidate spends a whole month in one state promising the moon to try to win that state.  It keeps the voters interest involved throughout, or until someone has a majority of the delegates.  And, it eliminates the mad scramble of states to be among the first primaries.  Of course the schedule would change each election cycle.

Is there a better way to schedule the Primaries?  And, what about caucuses - should they even be allowed, and under what rules?

I believe there is a whole unknown underworld of mischief-making on Gmail.  For instance, there is a Representative named Rob Andrews who is challenging longtime Senator Frank Lautenberg for the Democratic nomination in NJ.  I clicked on a link that said, "Andrews 08: Learn more about Rob Andrews," and it went to a site detailing all sorts of terrible things about him, clearly designed by Lautenberg's supporters.  From what I understand, Lautenberg is better than Andrews on the issues, but this kind of tactic still seems somewhat less than fair.

I just saw a link that read "The Obama Campaign: The New York Times has the latest on the senator's run for president," and clicked on it.  Naive as I am, I just thought it was interesting that the Times was advertising itself by directing readers toward its coverage of Obama's campaign.  But what came up when I clicked the link?  A whole page of New York Times stories about Bill Clinton.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/bill_clinton/index.html?excamp=GGPOobama&WT.srch=1&WT.mc_ev=click&WT.mc_id=PO-S-E-GG-NA-CT-obama

Now, who do you think is responsible for that?  What is this meant to accomplish?

As self appointed TPM communications director for the Clinton campaign, I'd like to correct and expand on her comments to USA Today.

What Senator Clinton intended to say was simply that she believes Senator Obama has not connected with working class Americans in the way he needs to connect with them to win the general election in the Fall.

The vast majority of working class Americans will not vote for Senator Obama in the general election.

Usually, candidates don't win elections if they can't connect with a majority of those working class voters, but Senator Obama may be an exception to that rule.

It would be helpful if Senator Obama were to explain how he intends to win the general election without the support of working class voters.

From AmericaBlog: 

CLICK HERE

There is lots of speculation as to how Obama is finally going to lock up the nomination.  At his current pace of superdelegates, he's not moving quickly enough to clinch it before June 3.  He is rolling out the commitments at the pace needed to clinch it on the final day of voting.  If he continues to roll out about 2-3 per day, he will be in position to hit the magic 2025 number on June 3 when the final pledged delegates are elected.  This is the perfect scenario.  No single superdelegate will have to be the one to "end" it for Clinton.  She can keep her word and fight it to the end.  And in the end, it will be those "hard working, white" voters in Montana and South Dakota that will finalize the nomination for Barack.  I certainly could live with that scenario.

Unrelated, yes, I suppose.

But this week Myanmar has gained my attention.  Literally swept me away from thoughts of the US Presidential election.

Myanmar was hit by one hell of a cyclone and the people there were badly off before it even happened.  The fact that dead and bloated bodies are being left out in the open and food is trying to be dropped to these people only to be fought over by the strongest men in the area, leaving old people and kids to starve, really makes me feel angry that I am helpless to help.

It also makes me angry that until this week I didn't even know Myanmar existed.  It used to be Burma, which I could probably have been able to point to on a map when I was in school back in the day.  How and why it became Myanmar is beyond me, even after reading Wikipedia tonight.

I would love to help these people, but better and less geographically challenged American citizens than I who knew where it was and how to try to get aid there are already trying.  So far, to no avail.

For a clear picture of what's going on, all you need do is go to Yahoo and it's on the front page.

Also there is a new post by AP's Nedra Pickler about white voters in America.  As if this needs to be the hot topic tonight while people are devastated in a place where they can't get help because their own government won't let them get it, Nedra is pushing a story about working class American voters.

I don't know much about Nedra.  I tried to wiki her too, and found that she was born in 1975 and therefore is younger than me.  She jumped up into journalism very quickly and covered the 2000 and 2004 elections and was known to have not helped Kerry much.

I know she sure as hell doesn't help Obama much, because she's been writing crap about him for a year. 

I don't really have a point here, other than to say....I wish Nedra Pickler would go to Myanmar and cover the important story going on over there, instead of writing pithy little non-stories about what's going on over here.

    [apologies for length; it's hard to be brief trying address an idea that's this stupid on this many levels.]

I've been trying hard to get my head around the rampant speculation about Hillary becoming Obama's running mate.  Lately there've been broad hints from Hillary surrogates that they think it's a boffo idea, and incessant gossiping from the Villagers that her continuing campaign is an effort to secure the #2 slot.

The ways in which this makes no sense could fill dozens of posts.  First from the Obama perspective:  His whole campaign narrative depends on being the "turn-the-page", transformational outsider, promising to renew the country's political discourse by moving beyond old resentments and starting again.  What could undermine that more than using his "first Presidential decision" to partner with a living symbol of the divisions of the last 20-40 years, whose Gallup "unfavorable" ratings have stayed well over 40% for over a decade?  The nearest parallel I can think of would be if Bill Clinton had chosen Walter Mondale or George McGovern as a running mate in 1992.

What does Hillary bring to the ticket, exactly?  If Obama really thinks he needs to shore up New York, he's in much bigger trouble than any of us ever thought.  Meanwhile her presence on the ticket would be an engraved invitation for the Republicans to rehash nonstop every attack (including the race-baiting ones) ever launched at Obama by Senator Clinton, President Clinton, Terry McAuliffe, Mark Penn or any other surrogate over the last 6 months.  Not to mention it would signal his being too weak to resist political blackmail.

Still, the flogging of this idea among the villagers is no more inane than we've grown to expect from them.  What's harder to comprehend is the stoking of it by Clinton surrogates like McAuliffe; perhaps there's a Trojan Horse strategy at work here that's beyond my comprehension.  Because what, exactly, is in it for her? 

I thought Josh did well the other day in outlining her options.  She's already a Senator from New York, occupying what has to be judged one of the safest seats this side of Robert Byrd.  Her party looks likely to achieve a commanding majority, affording her growing power to influence legislation.  While this year's endorsements don't speak greatly for her popularity in the caucus, most reviews judge her to be an able and respected legislator who has grown into the job well.  Certainly important leadership posts and/or plum committee chairs beckon in the near future.  The Governor's Mansion in Albany is a strong possibility if she wants it.  And if, God forbid, Obama loses, she could still look toward a 2012 run on the "I told you so" platform.

And what should she give this up for?  Well, she could run as Veep and lose.  Many, many Dems would blame her for helping to lose in a won year.  Certainly she would go forward saddled with the Loser mantle that hasn't exactly helped Geraldine Ferraro or Joe Lieberman or even John Edwards. 

Or she could win... what then?  Recent history has inflated our opinion of the office of VP.  But certainly the role of a Vice President Clinton would be nothing like that of the svengali Dick Cheney or even the sympatico junior partner Al Gore.  There is, however, a fitting parallel: a primary runner-up chosen to placate the Party establishment:  George H. W. Bush.  Yes he eventually won the Presidency (just in time to take the blame for the bad policies and rotting institutions left him by Saint Reagan), but first he spent 8 years as an irrelevant joke, jetting off to third-world funerals and being ignored by the rest of the administration.  And Bush in 1980 was 5 years younger than Clinton is now; and nowhere near as well-known or powerful. 

Finally there's the simple question of temperment:  How can anyone who's watched either Clinton for the past 20 years see either one embracing or even tolerating the subservience required of a running mate (mates) or a Second Couple?

To correctly quote John Nance Garner, from Hillary's perspective the value of the Vice Presidency is indeed roughly that of a bucket of warm piss.  And her value as Barack Obama's running mate isn't much greater.

It seems that Blackwater is just another cog in the "Wheel of Fortune" for the Bush Administration and cronies. The apparent reluctance to charge Blackwater, criminally, in the killing if 17 innocent Iraqis, again shows the disrespect for human life. Our country's "publicity" around the world is a disaster.
How can we possibly expect terrorist organizations or enemy governments to abide by simple human rights for prisoners when Bush has no regard for others?
It is way past time to hold Blackwater, as well as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc. accountable for what they've done to the nation at home and around the world.
No matter which Democrat is elected President of the United States this year, it will no doubt take decades to re-establish ourselves as the "beacon of the world" in fairness and rule of law.

Be well,

Jim
Progressive News Radio
 

This article from Dana Milbank at the Washington Post is a must-read. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/08/AR2008050802999.html?nav%3Dhcmodule&sub=AR

Evidence that either the Republicans hate motherhood or are willing to engage in the kind of petty political shenanigans that have made so many voters hungry for change this year.

Here's the link to find out how your member of Congress voted.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll275.xml

I helpfully forwarded this link to my local paper so they could ask my representative just what he has against his mom.

A few days ago Wayne Madsen at the Wayne Madsen report said there was a plan afoot to provoke trouble in Lebanon so that Cheney's neo-con cabal could use it as an excuse to bomb Iran. So now I see that there is trouble in Lebanon, we are blaming Iranian backed Hezbollah, and the US is considering a response. Am I being paranoid or is Cheney going to launch the attack on Iran that he has long wished for so that he "gets it over with" before he leaves office 256 days from now.

If Clinton aired anything like this, she would be crucified.It's just a taste of what is to come, if Obama actually moves from presumptuous state of entitlement to elected (or appointed) candidate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7Yd80tXs_4

Looks like Clinton has been Hanging With the Hard Working White Folk in Oregon. Here a little something from the shallow end of the gene pool:

“I think it’s just great that she’s staying in,” Frisby told me. He isn’t a big fan of Obama. He’s heard Obama won’t sing the national anthem, that he considers it a war song. “How good an American could he be if that’s his way of thinking?” Frisby asked. “His patriotism goes one way—that’s his way.”

How did Frisby hear about Obama’s dislike of the national anthem? You guess it: By email.

And these people are Democrats.

In a gallup poll conducted from April 1 to April 30th found Obama beating McCain by a large margin of 61% to 34%. This is based on Democratic and non-Democratic Jewish voters.

Most of us have seen this by now, but look what's coming down the pike:

Title Slide:  Hillary Clinton: A Bridge in Brooklyn

Slide 1: (Appropriately beflagged and logo'd:)

       Hey Buddy...C'mere a minute

          - Hillary Clinton wants to talk to you.
          - You look like a smart good-lookin' go-getter.
          - I wanna show you something. It's this way.

Slide 2:
   
       Ain't that a beauty?

          - More non-college-grads get from Manhattan to Brooklyn using this bridge than all the tunnels combined.
          - The same is true of people going from Brooklyn to Manhattan. In fact this bridge won Brklyn to Mnhtn non college-grads by 34% if you don't count 9/11 and the blackout.

Slide 3:

       All this could be yours...

          - Wouldn't a wise investor like yourself be remiss not to get a piece of this sweet, sweet, profitable foot-traffic?
          - What if I threw in a drive-thru Starbuck's at each end?
          - How much would you pay now? $2300?

Slide 4:

       Hillary Clinton is a legitimate businessperson.

-----

Still, she was great against Rick Lazio.

Coming next: HRC's 3rd PowerPoint: Quarter For the Bus

I can't remember the name of the poster or the title of the post but when I check an hour ago the guy that posted a "test" post and couldn't delete it was #3 on the most recommended post list.  Please tell me you didn't take it down?

We lost the last two elections by one state. Which one can we win this year?

Close Losses

Ohio (big one last time)

Nevada (we will need two small states)

New Mexico (Richardson for VP)

Iowa (a real possiblity)

Florida (close in 00, not so in 04 and probably out of play this year)

Must Hold On to:

Pennsylvania (lose this and we can't win)

Michigan (lose this and we can't win)

Wisconsin (moderately instead of acutely critical)

Minnesota (moderately instead of acutely critical)

New Hampshire (pick up an Ohio and this one won't matter as much)
 

Missouri lawmakers this week are working to rush legislation that would prevent up to 240,000 Missourians from voting. The proposed legislation would make Missouri one of the toughest states in the country for eligible citizens who want to vote by requiring voters to present a government-issued photo ID at the polls. If passed, these changes could be in place by the November general election.
Joint Resolution 48 passed the Missouri House yesterday on a party-line 88-69 vote and now awaits action in the Senate. If passed, it would place a referendum before the voters in August which, if approved, would go into effect for the November 2008 election.

This resolution is superfluous for Missouri, where proponents have yet to show a single case of voter impersonation from recent elections, yet imposes high burdens on eligible voters to comply, as noted by Denise Lieberman, a lawyer and voter protection advocate with Advancement Project in Missouri.

"Missouri already has a voter identification law that ensures that eligible voters are who they say they are on Election Day. Even if photo IDs are provided free of cost, obtaining the underlying documents needed to prove your identity costs money and can be difficult or impossible to obtain. No Missourian should be deprived of the right to vote because government bureaucracy will not provide them a copy of their birth certificate."

Lillie Lewis, St. Louis resident, knows that frustration.

"I have tried everything to get a copy of my birth certificate," says Lewis, "but Mississippi says they have no record of my birth."

Although she believes she was born in 1935, the social security administration says her year of birth was 1936. Because she is not able to obtain a birth certificate and because of the confusion surrounding her birth, Mrs. Lewis may not be able to vote under the proposed voter photo ID law.

Statistics on Proof of Citizenship
A survey by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law found that 52 percent of married women don’t have a birth certificate in their current name, and 17 percent of citizens age 65 and over don’t have access to citizenship documents. That translates into 600,000 Missouri women and 17,000 Missouri seniors.

Further, a February Rock the Vote survey also showed that 19 percent of citizens age 18-29 do not have their current address on their ID. Establishing these rigid documentation requirements could keep hundreds of thousands of Missourians from casting a vote at the polls this November.

A Taste of What’s To Come?
At Tuesday’s Indiana primary twelve nuns were turned away from the polls because they lacked the needed government-issued photo IDs to vote. When Sister Sandy Schwartz of the Franciscan Sisters of Mary in St. Louis heard the story, she did an informal survey of 35 nuns in her convent. Fifteen did not have state-issued photo IDs.

"This may sound like a good idea at first," stated Sister Schwartz, "but once you stop to think about who would really be affected, this is going to keep a lot of our loved ones from being able to vote."

Sister Schwartz and others are concerned that strict documentary identification requirements would create hardships for Missouri nuns and other senior citizens.

Taking Action
Missourians for Fair Elections, a coalition of voting rights groups that includes the League of Women Voters, AARP and others, convened in St. Louis yesterday to encourage the Missouri State Senate to vote the legislation down. Supporters included Secretary of State Robin Carnahan and citizens who would not meet the law’s strict documentation requirements.  

If you would like to know what you can do about this issue, contact Laura Egerdal, Missourians for Fair Elections at 314-363-5571.

I find the condition of my heart changed since Tuesday.  My step’s a little lighter.  My smile’s a little brighter.  There is joy coming from the center of my chest.  It feels like sunshine.  I’ve known for some time that Barack Obama is going to be the Democratic Nominee for some time, but now my heart knows it, too.  And as God as my witness, I never thought I’d live to see the day.

 

I’m African-American, born after the time of Malcolm and Martin, part of the black middle class that has emerged thanks to the efforts of those two men.

 

No, I haven’t forgotten LBJ.  He was a part of it, too.

 

My parents were a different matter.  They both grew up in Texas, one too close poverty, the other in a “Negro” middle class being choked off by segregation.  But it still, it wasn’t Malcolm or Martin, or even LBJ’s Voting Rights act that changed their lives, and mine by extension.

 

It was a date: 17 May 1954.  That day changed everything.

 

My father was just about to enter High School when Brown vs. the Board of Education, Topeka Kansas was settled.  Instead of fighting it, his small district decided to comply with the Court’s order.  As a result, he was able to attend a desegregated High School in Alice, Texas (don’t worry, they haven’t heard of you either).  While he was there, his skills in Mathematics caught the attention of one of his Teachers.  That teacher recommended him to his teacher, who was able to help him get into Rice University in Houston, Texas.  He’s a Professor of Mathematics now, former Chair of his Department, on the verge of retirement.  The world intended for him to be a Postal Carrier, or in the Army, or maybe a Teacher of a small “colored” only school…maybe, if he was lucky.

 

Instead, he contributed to his science.  He taught and produced other black PhDs.  He sent a child to college himself.  That’s how one day, one momentous decision, can change everything.

 

Another such day is coming, but alongside the joy and yes, hope, I feel, I also feel sad, sad for the untold numbers of African-Americans who lived and died to make this day possible, but aren’t with us anymore to see it come.

 

I feel sad my Mother is not here.  She died five years ago after being married to my father for 36 years.  They met on the front lines of the Civil Rights movement, testing lunch counters in Houston, Texas.  She deserved to see this day, even though she somehow knew it would never come in her lifetime.

 

I wish Medgar Evers could’ve been here, shot in his own driveway by a racist fanatic (is there another kind?)  Who knows where he would have ranked in the pantheon of Civil Rights Leaders had he lived.  He paid for this day in blood.

 

I wish Jackie Robinson could be here.  Arguably the most important black man in American History, because taking the field when he did, under as much pressure as he did changed how African-Americans were viewed everywhere across America.  He changed the discussion.  He made so many points moot.

 

I wish Thurgood Marshall could be here; my personal vote-getter for the most important black man in American History.  He made a lot of this possible, and I don’t want his contributions forgotten as well.

 

And I certainly wish Malcolm could be here.  We didn’t agree on everything, but I think the day to come would have surprised him.

 

August 28, 2008 is going to be another one of those days.  It’s the day Senator Obama is going to take the stage in Denver to deliver his speech accepting the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.  We’ll be cheering and applauding that moment, but the air will be thick with ghosts hanging over the moment, watching over him and us.  I think the moment bring forth so many smiles, and many tears…why?

 

Because August 28, 2008…will be the 45th Anniversary of Martin Luther King’s speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial calling forth the better angels of our collective nature, setting forth a chain of events that will make Senator Obama’s taking the stage possible.

 

How’s that for a dream coming true?

I found an article on Reuters today referencing a statement that Arianna Huffington, of The Huffington Post, claiming that John McCain told her he did not vote for George Bush in 2000.

She said on The Huffington Post -- www.huffingtonpost.com -- this week that McCain told her at a dinner party shortly after the 2000 election that he did not vote for Bush.

A New York Times story about the spat noted other guests at the party said they also heard McCain's comments.

McCain says it never happened and he was loyal to Bush.

Although McCain is denying is (which is not surprising), I find it interesting that this story is being covered not only on The Huffington Post, but also on Reuters and in the New York Times. The fact that the New York Times apparently corroborates the story only adds fuel to the fire.

I just wonder what the implications of this may have on McCain's campaign.

Original Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN0841830720080509

I find the condition of my heart changed since Tuesday.  My step’s a little lighter.  My smile’s a little brighter.  There is joy coming from the center of my chest.  It feels like sunshine.  I’ve known for some time that Barack Obama is going to be the Democratic Nominee for some time, but now my heart knows it, too.  And as God as my witness, I never thought I’d live to see the day.

 

I’m African-American, born after the time of Malcolm and Martin, part of the black middle class that has emerged thanks to the efforts of those two men.

 

No, I haven’t forgotten LBJ.  He was a part of it, too.

 

My parents were a different matter.  They both grew up in Texas, one too close poverty, the other in a “Negro” middle class being choked off by segregation.  But it still, it wasn’t Malcolm or Martin, or even LBJ’s Voting Rights act that changed their lives, and mine by extension.

 

It was a date: 17 May 1954.  That day changed everything.

 

My father was just about to enter High School when Brown vs. the Board of Education, Topeka Kansas was settled.  Instead of fighting it, his small district decided to comply with the Court’s order.  As a result, he was able to attend a desegregated High School in Alice, Texas (don’t worry, they haven’t heard of you either).  While he was there, his skills in Mathematics caught the attention of one of his Teachers.  That teacher recommended him to his teacher, who was able to help him get into Rice University in Houston, Texas.  He’s a Professor of Mathematics now, former Chair of his Department, on the verge of retirement.  The world intended for him to be a Postal Carrier, or in the Army, or maybe a Teacher of a small “colored” only school…maybe, if he was lucky.

 

Instead, he contributed to his science.  He taught and produced other black PhDs.  He sent a child to college himself.  That’s how one day, one momentous decision, can change everything.

 

Another such day is coming, but alongside the joy and yes, hope, I feel, I also feel sad, sad for the untold numbers of African-Americans who lived and died to make this day possible, but aren’t with us anymore to see it come.

 

I feel sad my Mother is not here.  She died five years ago after being married to my father for 36 years.  They met on the front lines of the Civil Rights movement, testing lunch counters in Houston, Texas.  She deserved to see this day, even though she somehow knew it would never come in her lifetime.

 

I wish Medgar Evers could’ve been here, shot in his own driveway by a racist fanatic (is there another kind?)  Who knows where he would have ranked in the pantheon of Civil Rights Leaders had he lived.  He paid for this day in blood.

 

I wish Jackie Robinson could be here.  Arguably the most important black man in American History, because taking the field when he did, under as much pressure as he did changed how African-Americans were viewed everywhere across America.  He changed the discussion.  He made so many points moot.

 

I wish Thurgood Marshall could be here; my personal vote-getter for the most important black man in American History.  He made a lot of this possible, and I don’t want his contributions forgotten as well.

 

And I certainly wish Malcolm could be here.  We didn’t agree on everything, but I think the day to come would have surprised him.

 

August 28, 2008 is going to be another one of those days.  It’s the day Senator Obama is going to take the stage in Denver to deliver his speech accepting the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.  We’ll be cheering and applauding that moment, but the air will be thick with ghosts hanging over the moment, watching over him and us.  I think the moment bring forth so many smiles, and many tears…why?

 

Because August 28, 2008…will be the 45th Anniversary of Martin Luther King’s speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial calling forth the better angels of our collective nature, setting forth a chain of events that will make Senator Obama’s taking the stage possible.

 

How’s that for a dream coming true?

TPMM has a new requirements that conduct must comply with internationa law. One obligation on TPM bloggers is to enforce the Geneva Conventions. Because of these new blogging requirements on TPM, this information may assista you in understanding your legal obligations as an American citizens under the Geneva Conventions. This is for discussion purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice.

Vows To Keep Hopping Until Convention Senator Clinton immediately after the leg-chewing incident.
(This fake news/ satire is re-posted from www.richieville.com)
Richieville News Service – SHEPHERDSTOWN W.Va As a crowd of  supporters in this West Virginia town looked on in horror this morning, Senator Hillary Clinton, her pantsuit caught in the door of her SUV as she arrived for a rally, quickly turned around and bit off her own foot. She then proceeded to hop unaided to the podium in front of the local VFW hall, where she grasped the lectern and defiantly addressed the stunned  gathering. "That's the type of candidate I am, and that's the kind of president I'll be," she said, while Secret Service agents frantically tried to staunch the bleeding from her self-inflicted wound, "I won't let anything stand in my way, not even my own extremities!"   The throng of several hundred mainly white, mainly working class, mainly gun-toting, mainly beer-swilling women over 65  responded to this unprecedented show of grit with wild, almost ecstatic cheers. The candidate, clearly enjoying the outpouring of enthusiasm, added, "I told you I was a fighter. Well, I have news for you - I'm a biter , too!"
Although the moment was almost certainly unscripted and seemed to catch her staff off guard, by the next campaign stop they were already prepared with visual aids, distributing mannequin feet to the crowd for Ms. Clinton to autograph, much as she had signed boxing gloves at previous rallies. Her supporters had apparently heard of the incident and were clearly relishing it.
"That's what I love about Hillary," said Elmira Worthington, 72. "She knows how to take a punch – or a severed limb. She's suffered through so much abuse. That's why she'll make a great president."  
In Washington, long-time Clinton advisor James Carville amended an earlier comment he had made about Mrs. Clinton's toughness. "When I implied she had three balls, I was clearly wrong," he said in his characteristic Cajun drawl. "She must have like a dozen. Now that's  what I call a stump speech." The senator renewed her fighting stance at every campaign stop in this state, the site of the next of six decisive Democratic primaries. At one point, while knocking back eight pints in a row at a local union hall, she seemed momentarily overcome with emotion. "It's so hard to be so tough," she said, with a slight tremor in her voice. She put down the shot glass in her hand in order to wipe away a tear. "All the boys gang up on me. That's why I have to obliterate them."
The largely white, largely conservative, largely blue-collar, largely latte-hating demographic which forms her base seemed to relish Clinton's increasingly aggressive, red-meat rhetoric. In nearby Clarksburg, Mary Janowicz waited patiently for the senator to arrive. She had brought along her two daughters,  age 11 and nine, to catch a glimpse of someone who might possibly be the first woman president of the United States.  "I just wanted them to see this," she said, "because Hillary is such a great feminist role model. She's what I want them to grow up to be – a man with balls."

I recently overheard a young man criticizing anti-war folks for opposing war even though, “those people don't have the slightest clue what is going on over there.”

Well, perhaps that's true. But I would venture to guess that if more people truly knew, not just the events that occur in Iraq, but the contexts of rampant corruption with no accountability surrounding these events, this would in fact embolden war critics' opposition to the current situation in Iraq.

With Progressive Future, I have been working to get the word out about the frequent and inexcusable abuse and corruption of private contractors hired by the government to outsource the war's dirty work. Every scandal that surfaces further emphasizes the need for the American public to cry out in protest against these atrocities going on in our name. Things like soldiers dying of electrocution due to contractors' faulty wiring, a brigade of mercenaries opening fire in a public square and killing innocent Iraqis, contractors forcing our troops to shower and brush their teeth with water contaminated with larvae, bacteria and sewage because they neglected to carry out the chlorinated decontamination process.

But thinking further on the young man's comment, I have to wonder about the lack of outcry. And, sure, isolated incidents that crop up regarding instances of contractor abuse get reported, but I think it has to do with the quality of the reporting that allows us to emotionally remove ourselves from a situation that should induce pure outrage.

Today, Robert Koehler posted a column on the Huffington Post that provided some revealing insight as to why the nature of the current news coverage displaces the shock and indignation that should be a natural reaction to these stories. It's all about the context. The mainstream media does not report on the latest KBR scandal as a problem endemic in the way the administration decided to treat the destruction in Iraq as an open market ripe for profiteering. These incidents are reported with as little historical context and human experience as possible:

“The Los Angeles Times, for instance, in its May 4 story about the investigation of the Nisoor Square massacre, doesn't trouble us with references to other Blackwater shooting sprees; much less the larger context of invasion, mission accomplished, and five years of occupation in which more than a million Iraqis have died; much less the ample testimony of returning vets that "the hadjis" of occupied Iraq are routinely belittled, mistreated and dehumanized. If it had done so, the massacre in question would suddenly be a piece in a far larger picture that would make almost all Americans recoil in shame.”

So when I met Rachel, a formerly deployed Iraq veteran who was a primary witness in the scandal surrounding KBR's provision of contaminated water to the troops, I realized that the only way for us Americans to get a glimpse of the corrupt and destructive context surrounding the war was to share her firsthand testimony.

In my interviews with her, Rachel was so insightful and forthcoming with the stories of what she saw in Iraq, I decided to share her experiences in the form of a five-part blog series, “Who's Supporting Our Troops?” which will be posted in segments on the Progressive Future blog from Monday through Friday of next week. These entries will provide actions to help you become involved in the outcry against these egregious practices. I hope you will tune in next week for this special series.

It's about time to think about practical, specific steps Obama should take to reach out to Clinton supporters and voters.  So, I humbly submit my two cents.
1) He should not offer HRC a veep spot.  Their styles simply do not mesh.  He should however, ensure that she has a strong voice in the party and leadership positions are open to her, whether that be in the Senate or NY Governor.
2) He should promise that half of his cabinet will be female.
3) He should think seriously about choosing a female veep, such as KS Gov. Kathleen Sebelius or even a Clinton supporter like Feinstein.
4) He should offer to pay off her campaign debt, but not the money that she put in from her own pocket.  I know this is a touchy topic, but I think we can reasonably make a distinction between her personal debt and other debt. I'd be willing to have the money I gave Obama be used to build the party, distasteful as the means might be.
5) He needs to spend at least one week in MI and FL apiece before the convention.  The Democratic campaign apparatus in those states is far, far behind.
6) He needs to be honest about his learning curve in speaking to working class voters.  But he can learn to speak the lingo without pandering.  Really, his message needs to be that he feels their pain, comes from their world, and thus will NOT pander to them.  Examples: insist that some kinds of manufacturing will not come be coming back to the rustbelt, but that rejuvenation of their communities is his administration's top priority.  Promise that even though corn ethanol subsidies need to go, other types of ethanol manufacturing will be located in the Midwest.  Insist that subsidies will heavily favor new solar plants in the rustbelt.  Emphasize that universal health care will make working class voters much more mobile and relieve some of the nastiest economic downward pressures.  Ultimately: no more sociology, much more specifics that articulate his vision clearly.
7) Something has to be done about the age gap, but I don't know what.  I don't understand old people and their goofy biases.
8) Openly endorse Dean's 50 State Strategy and get serious cash flowing into red states to make McCain play some more defense.  He can't make up the white working class vote gap unless they are part of the party across the nation.  Targeting swing states only won't work this time.

    The GOP is trying its hand at web 2.0 with the site www.canweask.com. If you haven't seen it, I strongly suggest it. Its not much more than a bad attack ad with a youtube twist of user generated content. Unfortunately for the GOP, I don't think I'm alone in my assessment that the internet is very much our terf.

Here's my call to action-
Let's swamp canweask.com. Post video, text questions. Do it from multiple e-mail addresses. Get your friends to help. Do it with wit, do it with snark, do it until they can't possibly be able to monitor their own content. Let's embarrass them.

Can we bring down canweask.com?

Yes we can.

Earlier today, Eric Kleefeld, posted <i>In a further sign of political decline for Hillary Clinton, African-American Congressman Donald Payne New Jersey has now switched his allegiance from Clinton over to Barack Obama. "It's time now for us to pull our party together," Payne told the Newark Star-Ledger. ... Obama has also picked up Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR), while Hillary has gotten freshman Rep. Chris Carney (D-PA).</i>  Please note that Rep. Peter DeFazio is not preceded with "White" or "Italian-American."

I strongly denounced his use of African-American Congressman to identify Donald Payne, and a very very large number of readers strongly agreed. This is a throwback to less progressive times. Eric later added <i>"Later Update: Just to clarify a certain point, Payne's switch does beg the question of whether Hillary's statement about winning more white voters has alienated her in any way from black supporters"</i> If this is an attempt to justify the AA identification it doesn't.

A 5:10 pm google search of the term <i>African-American Congressman Donald Payne </i> yields one result -- TPM. I got 31 hits with <i>Congressman Donald Payne</i> Eric has so far refused to edit the post. I thought this was a progressive blog.

Every since I heard Lieberman announce that he "has personally checked Senator McCain's bearings..." I can't get this image out of my head.

I'm fairly certain that Joe was going for a "under the hood" analogy. But, what I'm hearing now is more bellow the belt, as in Joe saying to John:
 "cough"
"yep, bearings still intact"
"my goodness, those are some big bearings!"
"are these brass ones?"

Joe, I know you thought it was cute, but you've seriously ruined my morning coffee break.

Actually, this is not the truth about Jonathan Taplin.  Everything I'm going to write is factual, but it's not really the truth.  I'm just going to subject Taplin to the kind of innuendo that Taplin subjects his political opponents to in his posts.

This is Taplin, Taplinized:

Jonathan Taplin is a corrupt businessman who has absurdly claimed in court that his company, Intertainer, has a patent on the technologies that Apple, Google and Napster use to distribute digital media content on the Web.

Though Taplin started Intertainer in 1996, other companies like Real Networks were distributing digital content online way before Taplin filed for a patent in 2001.

In 2002, Intertainer flamed out and 80 people lost their jobs.  Taplin blamed the film industry and sued the five studios behind rival Movielink, claiming that they were colluding on prices to put him out of business.  The studios settled the lawsuit but a subsequent investigation by the Justice Department in 2004 found nothing amiss.  Did Taplin try to hide his failure with a nuisance lawsuit?

In 2005, the US government granted Taplin's company a broad patent for distributing digital content on line.  Two years later Taplin sued Apple, Google and Napster.  Amazing, earlier this year, Apple settled, but neither side will say for how much.  They probably just wanted Taplin to go away.  The only question that remains is whether or not Google and Napster will cave and pay Taplin some token "walk away" settlement.

So that's Jonathan Taplin, a failed businessman who bothers big companies with baseless lawsuits and who then profits when those companies settle.  Has he even thought to share his lawsuit winnings with the 80 people who lost their jobs because he mismanaged Intertainer?

***

Like I said, all of that is true.  I just put the least charitable spin on it that  I could.  I don't believe that Taplin is really corrupt or a failure or dishonest.  But he has proven himself willing to insinuate that the Clintons are corrupt, rather than just people who have run a misguided campaign so I figured I'd turn his own odd mirror on him.

[It’s the middle of the night—the usual time.  A bedside phone rings in a rustic motel in a small town in Kentucky.  Hillary Clinton answers.]

Genie:  Is this Hillary Clinton?

HC:  Yes…yes, I am.

Genie:  I’m with Genie Local 9, a hard-working, white, American local of the Genie National Brotherhood.  Getting involved in politics is against our rules.  But every rule has an exception.  We have been moved by your pleas to the Democratic Party Establishment to allow the voices of the good citizens of Michigan and Florida to be heard.  We will grant your wish.  The Florida and Michigan delegations will be seated based on the results of the outlawed primary elections.

HC:  Wow, that’s just great!  [Laughs, perhaps giggles.] Bill will be so tickled.  He’s had a rough couple of weeks.

Genie: [In a deep, distant voice.]  However, I must warn you, there is a catch.  There is a limit to genie power.  We cannot change the past.  Your pledges and commitments to the DNC to discount the primaries in Michigan and Florida will stand.  So when you are elected president, your name will carry the Barry Bond Asterisk.  Every almanac and encyclopedia in the Land will mention that in order to receive these delegates, you went back on your word and misled the DNC, the other candidates, and the American people.

HC:  Politicians do this stuff all of the time.  Bill was just telling me the other day about his…..

Genie:  Wait, there is more.  My brothers and I can see into the future.  Since you will be the first woman president, young girls and women–who will look to you as a role model–will know that you are The Asterisk President.  They will know that you became president by, uh, cheating.  And little girls all over the land will follow your lead.  They will start by handing in schoolwork that is not their own.

HC:  But they will know that I am a fighter, and fighters use what they can to win.  So I say, yes, yes, I can do this.

Genie:  OK.  I will stay on the line.  You don’t have to say “yes” again.  I will count to ten.  If you say nothing, I will take it that this is your wish.

[The sound of silence, and then, ever so softly, Hail to the Chief fades in.]

Exeunt all.

http://msa4.wordpress.com/

Last week or so, we've heard about the Clinton campaign readying a "nuclear" option to use against Barack Obama. The author of the article at Huffington Post and similar other articles around the political watercooler all suggested that "the option" would center around a Clinton-framed "electability" problem that would convince super delegates from breaking to Obama. They hinted it might come in some "October surprise" that needed to be revealed right away, to prevent the party from making a terrible mistake in electing (notice I didn't say "awarding" or "handing") Obama as the party's nominee. They hinted it would be some terrible smear, another guilt-by-association "scandal" that would leave us all breathlessly heart-broken.

We misread the signs.

The "nuclear option" the Clinton campaign is employing is the Race Bomb. To wrest the nomination out of the hands of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton is willing to strap herself to the Race Bomb and ride it all the way. (Sadly, it seems that "all the way," is unilateral self-destruction. If it means "totally obliterating" the Democratic Party, well that is the price she is willing to pay. 

Now in truth, the Clintons have been testing this "weapon of mass destruction" throughout the campaign. Sometimes stealthily: casual, sly allusions to stereotypes about black people made by low-level surrogates like Billy Shaheen before Iowa and New Hampshire. (Did Barack Obama ever sell drugs?, he mused.) Sometimes it was delivered in the coded and twisted and superficial: surrogate former Sen. (and New School president) Bob Kerrey waxing poetic about how wonderful that Barack's middle name is Hussein and how great he was educated in a madrassa, or could he be the Manchurian Candidate?. (Of course we know none of that is true. But it added to the notion of being different -- not "white" enough.) 

Come Nevada and South Carolina, and the campaign was ready for more extensive testing: Bill and surrogate Robert Johnson among others dropping smaller, less potent versions to see how they work. ("Good" was the report: it galvanized that core of white voters who needed a reason to go with their guts and vote against the black man. The downside is that it also galvanized the black vote for Obama.)

Since Super Tuesday, the Clintons made a strategic -- not tactical, but strategic -- decision to stop competing for the black voters that propelled Bill Clinton in to White House (in a three-way race). They made the motions for a time (sending Bill to black churches) until opting to stop diluting the message they were sending to white voters. Geralding Ferraro went even further, deliver the now infamous "lucky to be black" storyline.

At each step, the anti-black message grew more and more apparent (if only we had really been wanting to believe what our lying eyes were telling us): Hillary on Barack as closet Muslim ("as far as I know") to the Rev. Wright controversy. Let us pause and examine that (once more briefly):

Although frantic posters had been clogging the blogworld for months with messages about "Obama's racist church" and such, the MSM didn't pick up on the storyline (it had been effectively beaten down by lib-blogs) until paid Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal gave it big play in his emails to influential news organs (ABC) and blogs like TPM and Politico. Now we have the newly "marginalized" "black" candidate with an "angry, scary, lunatic, unpatriotic" black "revolutionary" minister with "connections" to Louis Farrakhan (remember how Clinton had forced Obama to "reject and denounce" Farrakhan (another scary, angry, revolutionary black man) during one of the myriad debates?) and thrown in for good measure one of those white, long-haired radicals (with associations to other '60s radicals like the Black Panthers), all designed to raise the prickly little hairs on the red necks of those "hard working Americans, white Americans."

Rev. Wright (a medium-sized bomb) did not derail Obama. With the math working decidedly against her, and after the trouncing  she took in North Carolina and the razor thin win in Indiana -- a state she fully believed she would win handily (and not by coming from behind as she claims) -- it was time to go all the way.

Message testing proved the Race bomb could work; it had been effective in small doses elsewhere. With the black vote solidly in Obama's corner, she has nothing more to lose there. There is no "October surprise" in Obama's background. (Rezko trial is over. Nothing there. Wright-gate over, nothing more there. "Bitter-gate" over. (In fact, Clinton is banking on those very people and describing them in even more negative terms.)) 

In politics there are many things described as the "third rail." Social security, taxes, war, healthcare and of course, race. Clinton's decision to grab hold and not let go -- to take it to a level not seen since the days of George Wallace running for President is striking. It appears to be her decision to blow herself up in the process of deploying her nuclear option.

Which leads us to the question: What does Hillary gain? In her mind, the answer is only framed as "What does Obama not gain?" Early in this primary season, a number "anonymous" sources spoke of the conversations held inside Clinton's Arlington headquarters. Much of that discussion was about the "audacity" of Obama to think he could "steal" Hillary's turn to be President. Real dislike of him developed and festered. In recent days, that dislike has bubbled to the surface in Brazile/Begala fight televised on CNN.

Hillary must now feel the only way to stop Obama is arming, launching and dropping the Race Bomb. She's gone nuclear. 

This Hamas thing is absurd. McCain is claiming he can't help it?  Clinton had to raise the dirt because the Republicans would eventually do so.  McCain has to raise dirt, even if unfounded, because it's a fact that is of interest to the American people?

You know, if you're going to be a bastard, as least own your bastardry.

Worth noting that when McCain got hit with the "100 years" TV ad that used his own words, he wasn't so crazy about it being "true" and "of interest to the American people."

Just a short blog to congratulate Josh Marshall on the birth of his new son Dan.

He seems like a good kid so far!

How scary is it that two examples this week of trenchant analysis of the failed Clinton campaign came from Time Magazine and Charles Krauthammer?

In general, for someone who believes in the r/evolution of the netroots and who desires change from the nonsense of the past decade, this feels like a great moment.  Let's hope Obama doesn't screw this up.

BTW, in regards to Kevin Drum's question of whether the netroots is plural or singular, I'll observe that "grassroots" is not usually used as a noun today, while "netroots" always seems to be used in that manner.

From the OED: 1912 McClure's Mag. "From the Roosevelt standpoint, especially, it was a campaign from the ‘grass roots up’. The voter was the thing."

It's damn fascinating to watch a fully matured specimen of the postmodern warrior caste - fierce, yet coddled - flare out and burn as slowly and painfully as Hillary Clinton in the closing days of her primary run.

For all her never-give-in, win-at-all-costs thunder, she's smacked into the soft reality of American democracy: Seemingly puffy and insubstantial as a Chee-to, the steely center of the system becomes apparent as the last desperate option has gone to turf. It's win or lose. And, most of the time, the quietly desperate masses, poking at their voting machines... rule.

Hillary's one, flailing shot at overturning destiny is intervention by the super delegates. If she can convince them of Obama's "inelectability", she believes, there is still an outside chance for her to become the first American President to look truly smashing in heels.

But that option's darkside is it's inescapably bust-out seaminess. If they fall her way and hand over the candidacy, this will be victory by proxy, and mom-and-pop Democrats won't be pleased that their horse is picked via backroom chumminess and deal-making. A super-delegate reversal of Obama's narrow primary win is the opposite number of his populist appeal, and few in the hinterland see the party's insiders and hacks - as well as our prostituted Congressional delegation - as adding up to anything more than a Pinkie-Ring Mafia, a clearinghouse for contract skim, hush money and whore wrangling.

This morning, both Rahm Immanuel and erstwhile candidate John Edwards called Obama the presumptive Democratic candidate. Appearing on "Morning Joe" on MSNBC, Edwards gently prodded Clinton, saying he bowed out in late January - before the much-vaunted Super Tuesday - because he felt it was good for the party.

The superdelegates are Hillary's only hope. For the rest of us, hope rests on super delegates, including the still-balky Edwards, to declare for Obama now, and end this pointless tap dance.

 

 

OK, I hesitated posting this YouTube video because of the potential disrespect to Hillary supporters (most of whom I actually do respect and like), but this spoof is too funny and clever to pass up. Now, before you view the video, I have to post a disclaimer: in no way am I agreeing that Hillary = Hitler, and I also don't agree with the homophobic statements in the video (there, I think I've covered what I need to). Anyway, enjoy! ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6Lstkiexhc

And no, this has nothing to do with the Democratic primary, or even Amy Winehouse. A post on pacifism at James Wolcott's blog has me thinking - if Obama is our next president, where and when would American military intervention be used?

I think this will be one of the most difficult and gut-wrenching issues for a potential Obama administration, even more so than a potential withdrawal from Iraq. There is no question in my mind that Americans are increasingly turning away from considering the military response as the reaction of first choice in a crisis, particularly after Iraq. And it will also be true that Obama is going to have to dance with them what brung him, some of whom seem very vocally pacifist.

But will President Obama - or any future president for that matter - really reject all military responses unless the U.S. itself is attacked first? Or will future presidents also continue to define when and where a military response is appropriate? 

Another issue that brings this to mind is the terrible situation in Myanmar - like Afghanistan under the Taliban, Myanmar-Burma suffers under a brutal and wildly delusional authoritarian regime. The fact that the Myanmar military junta is unwilling or unable to help the victims of the recent cyclone is bad enough - that they also are preventing outside help from getting to the people that need it most is truly unconscionable. Is this a case where a military response - an overthrow of the junta accompanied by massive humaitarian aid - would be appropriate? I really don't know enough about Myanmar to say yes or no. As with any military intervention, it would complicate things tremendously in the area, and undoubtedly rile the very powerful Chinese, so it's not cut and dried for me.

Beyond the humanitarian scope, and certainly getting beyond the campaign tough talk, what about Iran? What if the Mahdi-blessed nutjob running that show does decide to attack any other nation under Obama's watch? Would his current supporters back a military response, or would they unleash pacifist fury even against Obama if he did pusue a military option?
 
Strict pacifism is a lovely thing, but I for one do not think it makes viable foreign policy. The only question I have is, after eight years of our own homegrown nutjobs bombing everything in sight, I'm afraid we will have a hard time in the next administration returning to a suitable balance between idealism and pragmatism when it comes to military power.

John Edwards, where have you gone? What is admirable about her continuance to divide the party? What is admirable about saying that Im getting the white vote, and he cannot, and what is hard about that? What is it that you are celebrating, her dividing your party all the way to Denver? This mixing of fighting with delusional behaivor has got to stop. Let's just write the headlines now, that she is a fighter, Obama is not a fighter like she is. What is that you are congratulating her for, continuing the new math? I dont get it, am I smarter than people that have a (D) after her name. She cannot get the nomination, so her choices are continue to beat up a member of her team with hope and anticipation, well....She can't get it so what the hell is she saying, and why are people other than the (Idiot Pundits) looking at her behaivor in glowing terms! Your enabling her behavior John Edwards. How could I have been so wrong about you Sir! Its embarrasing for me!

    This is going to be a very short post.  But a positive post.  And to my knowledge this is a new topic and a new insight.

    Let's try positive reinforcement.  We know it works better than negative reinforcement.  Till now the message has been a negative call for a certain candidate to "drop out."  Naturally, that call sounds like a call to eat something awful.  And we should not be surprised that it doesn't seem to be working.

    So let's refrain from negative reinforcement.  And try a positive message instead:

Dear Hillary,

Please stay in the Senate!

Thanks!

Early on in this Democratic primary it was noted that Hillary was trying to paint Barack Obama as “the Black candidate”.  Now all I am hearing is “can The Black Candidate get the White vote?”, so apparently she was successful in that regard.  It’s interesting how once race comes to the forefront the need to look further disappears.  Take Rev. Wright for example, the complete fixation on that never looked beyond to any wider context.  Now we have the White Working Class demographic polls.  Hillary performs better there.  She is White and Obama is “The Black Candidate” so it must be a racial issue right?

Barack Obama is a multicultural figure.  As a bi-racial man he was raised in a White family with a focus on multiculturalism.  He later immersed himself in Black American culture because as a Black man in America it’s a significant part of his being and something that a White family can’t really give him.  An important part of his appeal is that he has a unique perspective on and identity with many different facets of our country’s cultural makeup.  But currently all this is overshadowed by a preoccupation with race and an assumption that it trumps all when it comes to a voter’s decisions.

John Kerry polled similarly amongst blue collar Whites when he was at a similar stage in his nomination.  I don’t think this related to any blackness in him.  There are other reasons that Obama might not be resonating with these folks as well as Hillary has been.  There is a familiarity factor where she is concerned.  Perhaps that group is more comfortable because she is more of a “known”, he does do much better once people get to know him.  Maybe those blue collar workers are more resistant to change, after all changes in the recent past haven’t benefitted them much.  Perhaps once they hear that the necessary change will involve worker retraining and a focus on job creation here it will gain a wider audience.  There is also the “elitist” factor.  Obama has a certain elegance about him which Hillary lacks.  That could make it easier to sell the elitism accusation.  Once people come to accept his humble beginnings and dedication to working class citizens throughout his career the elitist label will fade away.

Our country as a whole wants deeply to move beyond the divisions we have.  Obama is a figure that will lead us in that direction.  We should not be pulled back by destructive forces that obsess about racial divisions.  We should not listen to the voice that’s been given to it by Hillary’s campaign and the media.  If you still wonder whether the Clinton campaign is playing the race card you need look no farther than your own hand.  Put that card down.

There are certain instances when I don't believe she's even touching on racist behavior.  For example, the MLK vs. LBJ comments weren't about race, but were nevertheless both insulting and inaccurate. She wasn't dismissing MLK because he was black, she was dismissing the Civil Rights movement in favor of the presidency.

When she said Obama wasn't Muslim, as far as she knew, why did she have to add the qualifier?  One can attribute it to the usual political strategy of always leaving wiggle room, but does she think he's going to turn out to be secretly Muslim after all?  I'm not sure she intended to make the suggestion, but she sure didn't try to clean it up later either.

Bill's comments in South Carolina about Jesse Jackson may have not been meant racially, but they were dismissive enough to count as such.

It's when you look at all of these comments together.  When you misspeak or just express yourself in a way that can be taken in a negative fashion, and you do it again and again over the course of months, when does it stop being simple misunderstanding?  Maybe it's just their defensiveness.  Maybe it's the way Bill tried to claim the race card had been played on him.  Maybe if they showed the slightest sensitivity to the aftermath of their actions, they might not be in this trouble.

But since they seem incapable of thinking of anything other than personal victory, I guess it's hard to tell what might have been.  I suppose we'll all kiss-and-make-up.  A tiny part of me, the vengeful part, would like to see the Clintons pay a price.  I guess not winning is punishment enough.  God knows we'll need 'em for the general.

Ok, well I want to write a rambling message on the last week and where I hope this race is going, so brace yourselves for this one....


I've been volunteering most of my free time in the last week for the Obama campaign in Durham.  It has been one of the coolest and most satisfying experiences I've had in a long time, especially in the doldrums of this ridiculously long campaign.  If you've never gone door-to-door for something that you truly believe in, its most definitely something that you need to do in your life (assuming you can find something that you feel strong enough for to do so).  On Thursday, Friday, and Monday, I did evening canvassing shifts after work, and on Saturday, Sunday, and Tuesday, I essentially spent most of the daylight hours knocking on doors for Obama.  Throughout the course of this, I met so many interesting people and travelled through neighborhoods that I would probably never venture into otherwise.  I went canvassing with friends and strangers (a young academic woman working for Duke's Environmental School, a middle aged African American woman working for Blue Cross, a late-middle-aged, white-bearded, white man, and even a couple of elementary-school girls).  This campaign is not about young and black people supporting Obama and white middle class folks  supporting Clinton (as much as the media would like to cleanly split this down racial lines).  Obama's coalition encompasses every demographic, and will only continue to grow as this becomes a national general election campaign.

A couple of interesting anecdotes from the streets:

- On Thursday, we went into one of the most urban neighborhoods I've ever been to.  Everyone that I talked to was extremely supportive of Obama (not surprising), but were also super supportive of us taking the time to come to their hood and campaign on his behalf.  Some were incredulous that we were even there.  One guy that my buddy talked to came up to him and said "how the hell did you get this neighborhood?  You should probably get out of here at dusk (it was getting dark)."  He continued, "Shit, even I'm getting out of here when it gets dark."

- Even in these low income, 99% African American neighborhoods, a bunch of well-to-do white kids were welcome.  Often, people would crack the door open with an angry look on their face (thinking that I was trying to sell something or confused at a young white be-'froed jewboy at their door or who knows what).  Once I explained that I was a volunteer for the Obama campaign, the door would swing wide open and a smile would replace the glare and we'd chat for a minute about Obama, and I'd be merrily on my way.

- On Monday evening, I went to a suburban subdivision, middle class, mostly African American neighborhood and once I got about two houses in, two young black girls, Alexis and Shauntel, age 9 and 10, riding on their bikes, started following me around.  They wondered why I was in their neighborhood knocking on doors and once I explained I was from Obama's camp, they were like 'oooh we love Obama!'  I told them  I'd be at their houses soon, but they kept following me around.  I told them they could help me out knocking on doors and they were super excited.  I told them what to say when someone opened the door and got them ready to do their first canvass.  These two super rambunctious and talkative girls knocked on their first door and completely froze up.  They became super shy and tried to recite their lines like they were written in stone.  But by the end of the day, they were fighting over who's turn it was and if they could be the one to say the lines.  They also added a nice touch at the end, whispering '1, 2, 3' and then together saying 'Go Obama!' with a fist pump when we were about to leave.  So great.  I gave them stickers and buttons at the end of the day and told them they had just done more for the future of this country than they realized.

- Evidence that canvassing works:  North Carolina polls closed at 7:30 pm.  At 6:45 me and a partner reached our final turf, where we had given up on the targeting lists and were just running (literally) from house to house, knocking on doors blindly and encouraging anyone that hadn't voted yet that they had another 45 minutes to get their voice heard.  During those 45 minutes two things happened.  The first door I knocked on, holding my big Obama flier to make it obvious who I was, was answered by a happy man holding the same flyer, explaining that someone had already come to canvass there.  I said that was great, have you voted yet?  He said, no, but I'm about to, "I'm just gonna go do it on the internet."  I almost shit my pants.  He was holding a flyer that explained exactly where to go and what to do to vote, but he thought you could do it on the internet.  I was like "NOOO!  Get in your car now!!! Go to the polls!"  He laughed and promised me he would make it in time.  Later on, at around 7:20, we decided it was time to head back, as it was unlikely that anyone at their home would have time to get in their car, and get to the polls in time.  Just as we were walking to our car, a jeep speeds up to us and the driver flings the door open and says "OH my god I forgot to vote!!!"  We ran over to her and said 'close your door, heres a flier with the address of your polling place, GO GO GO!'  She peeled off - hopefully she made it in time.


Last night, all the volunteers finally finished our jobs and met up at a bar to unwind and watch the returns come in.  When Obama began to speak, everyone was silent and listening to him make a speech on what will likely be seen as a huge turning point in this campaign.  He thanked his volunteers for delivering a resounding win in NC (14% win here!!!) and I nearly choked up.  His speech sounded like an acceptance speech, his tone was strong and presidential, he was back on his message and his game, and the media has finally realized that he is now the presumptive nominee.  This was an historic moment in this campaign and I'm so excited, elated, and honored to have played a part in it.  I'm walking on air today.


As far as my commentary on the future of this race - I've always been one of the few that has believed that while this campaign has been lengthy, stressful, and at times really dirty and sexist and racist and pander-ific, that overall this is a great thing for the Democratic party.  We had record turnout of Dems in states that are most definitely in play in the general election (NC and IN to a lesser extent).  We have put into place an infrastructure of extremely charged up volunteers who are ready to go back to work for the campaign as soon as we are needed.  And we have expanded the rolls of voter registration to unprecedented levels (to the likely satisfaction of DNC Chair Gov. Dean's 50-state strategy).  Now that there are only a handful of states left, and a handful of delegates left, the math is solid.  There is no metric that Clinton can cite as a path to the nomination, but I DON'T think she should get out just yet....  hear me out here...

Lets say she gets out today (not happening, but lets go with it).  Next week is the West Virginia contest which she is likely to win by huge margins.  This would be enormously embarrassing for the presumptive nominee to lose a contest a couple days after he has been given the nomination.  What I believe should happen (and this is more of a dream than a likelihood) is this:  Clinton stays in the race but uses whatever scraps of resources (we just learned she has loaned her campaign a total of $11+ million so far...) she has to sharpen attacks against McCain.  She stops running against Obama and lets these races run their course.  On May 20, Oregon and Kentucky have their say, and Clinton is likely to win KY and Obama OR.  On that night, Clinton and Obama should appear on the same stage (real pipedream), and Clinton should congratulate Obama for a great campaign and cede the nomination to him on that night.  This would go miles in reuniting the party and the media would eat this up for breakfast, lunch and dinner.  They would declare that the party is back on track to unification, and it would give Clinton a way to very classily and gracefully step down from this nomination while still remaining an indispensable superpower in the party and could quell a lot of the animosity between the most partisan of supporters.  Clinton would be guaranteed to remain extremely influential (as she should be) - no one doubts that she will, as the second place finisher, be absolutely essential to a Dem win in November.  She can't be kicked out, she can't go out fighting, she can't be pressured out by Obama or his supporters, and she can't let this go to Rules Committees and Credentials Committee - it has to be an orchestrated exit so as to lend utmost legitimacy to Obama's victory in this close contest...  And it will also allow Obama to end the primary with a 'confetti night.'  This is also essential to the perception of victory to the media and the country.  It's mathematically feasible that, should Obama get enough superdelegates to commit between now and May 20, that the delegates earned that night could put him over the bar as the official nominee.  This would be a much better-perceived victory than having him gain some extra superdelegate on a random Monday afternoon that finally puts him over the top.



So there, thats what I would do if I were the omnipotent puppetmaster of the Democratic Primary race.  It appears as though this is also the plan of the Obama campaign (save the Clinton/Obama same stage victory speech) - they have been sending out memos to the media and to superdelegates saying that they are looking at May 20 as the end of this primary campaign...


By the way, just to address this as well - the Michigan and Florida problem now does not matter anymore.  Obama now is assured to have a majority of pledged delegates, which translates to a majority of members of the Rules and Credentials Committee (including Howard Dean's loyally selected members, who will undoubtably defend the rules as they are now), which will decide the fate of the delegates in MI and FL.  And moreover than that, even if you accept the delegates as they (unfairly, and unsantioned-ly) currently stand, Obama still is ahead by all metrics.  So this issue becomes moot and will be sorted at the meeting on May 31 of the Rules Committee.  The delegates must be seated, but they will do so in a compromise deal that makes everyone happy...


Ahh, I feel good!!!  YEEAAA!


Sorry for the breathlessly long post... I had a lot to say, but I appreciate you reading (assuming you are still reading at this point)


Fact Nugget of the Day - Obama's acceptance speech at the DNC convention will come exactly 45 years to the day after Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his "I have a dream" speech.

Awesomeness - Durham County was the most pro-Obama county in NC - he won 75% of the vote here!!! WOOOO!

Cheers.

Hillary Clinton's recent reference to "hardworking Americans, white Americans" is not just offensive for baldly injecting race into the campaign, it also sets up a very unfortunate dichotomy: hardworking white Americans versus lazy blacks.
I am sure she did not intend this, but when someone says  "hardworking Americans, white Americans" it is hard not to think about the opposite. What do you come up with when you think of the opposite of "hardworking Americans, white Americans"? I suppose you could come up with lazy foreigners (another lovely thought), but in the context of this presidential race, I don't think that is the first thing to come to mind. 
This is Hillary off her game. I don't believe for a minute she would say something like this if she were not exhausted and in deep trouble. To me, this is more evidence that it is time to go.

This is rather alarming. Apparently, the "electability" powerpoint that Clinton sent out to House Dems was a decoy. Select uncommitted superdelegates obtained a very different pointpoint. I've managed to obtain a leaked copy and posted it here. Please check it out, and forward it to your friends