J. Peter Scoblic, Editor of the New Republic, says Bush, McCain and other conservatives are on the wrong side of history when they dismiss Obama's foreign policy.
"Alas, John McCain accused President Clinton of "appeasement" for
engaging North Korea, instead calling for "rogue state rollback," and
now he dismisses the idea of negotiations with Iran. Given
conservatism's historical record, Obama's inclination to negotiate
seems only sensible. When will conservatives learn that it is 2008, not
1938?"
For the full article:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-scoblic17-2008may17,0,647492.story

Where O'Bama picked up another delegate


14.5

PLEDGED DELEGATES

needed for a majority

(of pledged delegates)



115

TOTAL DELEGATES

needed for the nomination



Sparks Tribune

Faced with a vocal crowd of Obama backers, Clinton all but
abandoned typical campaign rhetoric. He mentioned his wife's candidacy
only briefly, and instead focused his comments on a call for party
unity against the Republicans in November.


"Don't you forget why you came here. You did not go to all this
trouble to have an argument with each other," Clinton said. "The
argument is necessary so we can pick the best president and the most
electable one. Those are the only two things that matter. ... After
that, we have to get the show on the road, folks. We have a country to
change and a future to secure."

That's more like it!

Hello
This is the latest on the SDs
DNC Greg Pecoraro - MDMark Parkinson - Kansas
Nevada: +1 pledged delegate for Senator Obama - 1 senator Clinton 
DC: Jack Evans switched from Senator Clinton to senator Obama
Colorado Add-on: Federico Pena
So today +3 for Senator Obama and - 2 for Senator Clinton

From the Reno Gazette-Journal, as reported by The Field:

U.S. Sen. Barack Obama succeeded in driving more supporters to the Nevada state convention than his opponent U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, who had won the state in the Jan. 19 caucuses. Obama essentially reversed Clinton’s lead from the caucuses, capturing 55 percent of the state delegates to Clinton’s 45 percent.

The heavy turnout earned Obama one more delegate to the national convention, than previously expected based on the caucus results.

The final tally: Obama won 14 national delegates and Clinton won 11 national delegates. Under the caucus results, Obama was expected to win 13 national delegates to Clinton’s 12. Although Clinton won the caucuses, Obama out-performed her in rural Nevada and Washoe County.

Counsel,

This message is not intended as legal advice. It points you to specific emails showing DoD password coding issues. This information would help pinpoint whether there are or are not reasonable procedures in place to adequately access or not access the DoD email systems. By analogy, these password issues should have been resolved with the White House and DoD. Whether the White House and DoD, as part of their information warfare planning do or do not still retain the information on the Wecht Jury contents is subject to discovery.

The links show there is a back-up email system which DoD IT personnel were using. Here is a sample private email attached to the OVP legal counsel, which may be of interest on the rendition and FBI contacts with the Wecht Jury.

The Italian war crimes prosecutor has had some difficulty in getting US government cooperation on various email requests. There is also speculation that the White House email retention problems may have some relevance to the Wecht Counsel discovery and Congress.

This note is intended to guide you to specific evidence which may have bearing to the ongoing war crimes investigation and FBI contacts with Wecht Counsel

There is information showing private contractors with official US government addresses. The information below points you to specific evidence of the DoD password account software discussions. This would set a time-certain when specific, known IT personnel were or were not involved with specific problems. As with the DoD public affairs namies, the names of IT personnel in DoD should be known to the White House, DoJ, and civilian IT contractors.

The email shows us that there were specific people openly talking about password coding issues on a specific date. This means that those software personnel would have a specific contact within DoD, the IT industry, and other agency/community contacts within DoJ, DoD, and the White House.

If it is your intention to seek these back-up emails to the White House, and possible emails retained by private counsel on White House It issues, the discovery may wish to focuse on the key names, their trouble reports, and whether the now-reported email problems are or are not consitent with the supposed failure modes they originally handled during software development.

The information below may include specific points of contact of IT personnel who have direct knowledge of how the password software within DoD was or was not resolved; and how these lessons did or did not get applied to the DOJ JCON, White House, and other rendition-related software email system.

Here is some backup email information related to the data mining. You'll find a sample message showing the OSD password coding. Note the email includes a civilian contractor, but that contractor has an official OSD email address. That may shed some light on why some of the DOD emails were or were not deleted.

Here is the archive of that non-US government controlled email, which may or may not shed light on other OSD communications with the White House or DOJ on similar password, coding, or other issues involving access, trouble logs, and software stability. This information would shed light on whether the current White House/DoJ email retention issues are or are not consistent with the original coding issues and how they were resolved.

This disclosed password coding message shows us that civilians were using official US government email accounts, but assigned to contractors. This would be relevant when asking for specific DoD or DOJ emails related to contacts with the White House on the FBI's contact with the Wecht Jury members.

Also, when reviewing the White House software development, the issue should be broadly couched in terms of which emails did private contractors use sending non-White House accounts, but may have been assigned to DoD, DoD contractors, or other contractors linked with DoJ or the DOJ JCON database management.

Note the disclosed code includes DoD password coding information. This password information would be relevant when establishing the date-certain for specific White House, DOJ JCON, and FBI-US Attorney password access as connected with the planning for the Wecht Jury contacts. Key programmers would have discussed similar coding issues with the DoD, White House, and DOJ JCON databases.

This information would be useful in understanding what types of security protocols were in place; but whether someone unusual changed related to the dates key information related to Wecht went missing. Password access lists should have been formalized, tested, and well documented. However, if, despite this planning, there are no emails specifically raising the supposed failure modes the White House, DoD, or DOJ would have us believe exist, then we know there is a problem.

The IT account/trouble logs and software coding issues should track to the disclosed problems related to the email retention and access. However, if there was no issue during development, and this software problem (later disclosed) was never an earlier problem, then we need to understand why the software programmers' emails, related to that development effort, are not available. This comparison would show us whether the original troubles identified and resolved during coding do or do not square with the asserted failure modes linked with problems with the White House, DoD, or DOJ JCON database access.

Below that sample message, you'll find corrected links to the software development messages. These may be of interest when looking for the software coding messages send to/from OSD-connected software developers; and getting backup information from the IT-community of who was doing what on the White House emails.

Here is a sample argument, and outline for your discovery plan of the White House and DOJ JCON emails.

Here is a sample line of questions when reviewing the White House involvement with the contact of Jury members.

Here is the basis to question a presumption of good faith.

Here is a discussion of why knowing how the FBI obtained the names of the sealed jurors may not necessarily be relevant.

Here is a sample discovery plan of the DOJ JCON database, using an exception to the Attorney-client privilege as it would relate to Wecht-related emails.

"History is not a procession of illustrious people. It's about what happens to a people, millions of anonymous people is what history is about"  James Baldwin

When I read this quote I immediately recall the Civil Rights movement. There are a multitude of unsung heroes and heroines of the 1960s, when the United States, after a one hundred year delay, had to come to terms with segregation and racism that had vicious grip and negative on the nation and country's claim to freedom for all. Though it still lingers today, I find stories like William L. Moore's story in Mississippi keeps me from the nadir of my despair.  Rarely do these small but important stories get the attention they so rightly deserve. They are pushed to the smallest nooks and crannies of American history. 

William L. Moore is a "what happens to a people"story which deserves greater attention than it ever received. It is stories like these which give me a cautious hope that this, my nation and country will live up to it's creed.

Hillary Clinton held a conference call with bloggers today to tout her case for the nomination. She says she leads by 50,000 votes in the popular count, of course including MI and FL.  She also says that she is beating Obama in the electoral math 311-217.  Looks like the goal posts have been uprooted to Moscow.

Here the link to the call with audio. 

For the past three weeks I've used data from Votemaster Andrew Tanenbaum's www.electoral-vote.com as input to simulations of the general election matchups. As Tanenbaum does, I use the most recent poll in each state, averaged with any other polls taken within 7 days of the most recent poll. I'm using a 4% margin of error for the polls, and then I run a Monte Carlo simulation of many trials for each matchup, counting which candidate wins overall, and also their average electoral vote totals. This week I ran 100,000 trials for both Obama/McCain and Clinton/McCain matchups. The results:
Obama wins 37.1%, averages 264.7 EV
McCain wins 61.3%, averages 273.3 EV
Electoral tie 1.6%

Clinton wins 99.0%, averages 290.7 EV
McCain wins 0.8%, averages 247.3 EV
Electoral tie 0.2%

This week is both the strongest Clinton has been, and the weakest Obama has been, since I've started running this simulation. When I first ran the numbers, Obama beat McCain a little more than half the time, and McCain beat Clinton a little more than half the time.

Since last week, Michigan shifted from a 2 point Obama lead to a 1 point McCain lead, and Obama's lead over McCain in Iowa dropped from 8 points to just 2, and a new Texas poll showed McCain's lead widen from 5 points to 13. Obama gained in Virginia and North Carolina, where leads of 8 and 9 points shrank to 3 in each state, but the big key was shifting Michigan from very likely in Obama's column to more likely in McCain's.

Michigan was also a key state for Clinton this week, but where Obama lost his lead over McCain, Clinton improved from a 9 point deficit to a tie. She also saw her leadin Oregon widen from 1 point to 6, and like Obama she also improved in North Carolina and Virginia, where double-digit deficits dropped to 3 and 6 points, respectively.

These simulations are not a prediction of the general election, but they are a good summary of what the current state-by-state polling shows. Both Democrats run stronger than the nominal totals might suggest, but as of now Clinton does do better in state-by-state polling, because she has big leads in both Ohio (10 points) and Florida (8).

Obama trails by just one point right now in several key swing states (Ohio, Michigan, Florida, and New Mexico), and he's just 3 behind in a number of traditionally Republican states (Virginia, Nebraksa, and both Carolinas), so it's quite possible that the map can improve significantly for him as this becomes a direct 2 person race.

While I personally favor Obama, the current polling data do suggest that Clinton is running stronger versus McCain. I believe once the primary fight ends, Obama will pull solidly in front as the party unites behind him. One indication of that is that on www.intrade.com, Obama is trading at a 57% chance to win the general election, while McCain is trading at 37%, almost the opposite of my simulation results today.

What this does show is that it is important for Democrats to unite for the fall, as it's quite possible that Obama could lose without the full support of the party.

Within the next few weeks, the Democratic party will (thank God!) resolve the dispute on the unsanctioned Michigan and Florida primaries.  At that time, the two state parties will probably spin that this vindicates their judgment in holding early primaries.  Don't believe it!  Their judgment has made a "dog's breakfast" out of the primary process.

The 2008 primaries and caucuses have been remarkable in that each state (district and territory) has had significant influence.  This is true whether the state voted in January, will vote in June, or voted anywhere in between;  and whether they voted for Obama or Clinton.  Every state EXCEPT Michida!  Florigan has selected no delegates, and any objective observer treats their results with a large degree of skepticism.

Consider what would have happened if they had waited their turn.  Had they voted on or after Super Tuesday, their results would have been highly significant.  Indeed, had they voted in Late March or early April, they may well have been crucial in determining the nominee.

The turnout in these states was pitifully small.  In only 5 states  -- Michigan, Florida plus the GOP strongholds of Utah, Arizona and Alabama (I'm not sure about Alaska), did more voters participate in the Republican primary or caucus than in the Democratic.  Had Florigan held sanctioned Democratic primaries, many more voters would have participated.

How many?  Well, consider that in the Great Lakes states of Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and Wisconsin, 18.1% of the total population voted in the Demo. primary.  Had this percentage turned out in Michigan, then 1.2 million ADDITIONAL voters would have appeared.  In the Outer South states of North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia, 13.6% voted Dem.  Had 13.6% done so in Florida, then 0.8 million ADDITIONAL voters would have participated.  While nobody can say how many voters would have participated in sanctioned primaries, 2 million additional votes is not an unreasonable estimate.

The politicians in Lansahassee held early primaries in order to increase their influence.  But, instead, they have had zero influence, have depressed turnout, and have given their party a royal headache.  Should any state parties in the future be tempted to follow their example, I hope they will consider the 2008 outcome carefully, draw back, and adhere to an orderly established process.

Caught stealing an antidepressant slogan (Effexor: the change you deserve), the Republicans need to steal a new one. A quick check in my medicine cabinet yielded these possibilities (if they want to stick with pharm slogans):

Theraflu: Good to be back.
Midol: Because your period's more than a pain
Alli (weight loss): Are you losing it?
Suboxone (heroin dependence): Embrace treatment; regain control.
Rogaine: Use it or lose it.
Chantix (smoking cessation): On the quitting road, it's all about getting there.
Cialis: If a relaxing moment turns into the right moment, you can be ready.
Anadin: When only fast will do. Nothing acts faster.
Aleve: All day strong. All day long.
Fougera (pharm company): Make no compromises.
Celebrex: Understand the risks, see the benefits.

I open the floor to stolen slogan suggestions, not limited to medicines.

This information does not relate to any person posting at TPM. For discussion related to Italian War Crimes prosecution in re rendition.
1. Released DoD emails show the President and others have been caught misleading the public and being unresponsive about information warfare and other programs he directed through the Attorney General and FBI against Wecht Jury Members and other court officials.

2. It is of interest to  war crimes prosecutors the President of the United States has been caught conducting illegal information warfare against the Wecht Jury Members. These issues have war crimes implications, and may be subject to review by the Italian War Crimes prosecutors.

3. The Italian war crimes prosecutor continues their work, and the war crimes trial continues against American personnel. War crimes prosecutors in Italy are encouraged to work with allied counsel to secure the documents confirming these planning activities from within the Department of Justice's JCON database.

EVIDENCE

4. The DoD doctrine fully shows how FBI and law enforcement would be used to conduct information gathering iii

5. The President's link with the CIFA information warfare was established in the DoD memoranda at 82

6. American citizens with access to this information are believed to be at risk of continued intimidation, with threats of prosecution for discussing this illegal activity. The President working through outside counsel identified specific persons who accessed databases containing this information. The outside counsel alleged the information on this illegal activity was illegal obtained. This was a ruse to obtain access to electronic records.

7. Allegedly involved with this illegal efforts are the data mining and translation contractors connected with the Department of Justice. It remains to be understood when the Attorney General will testify about this DoJ-connected information warfare against the Wecht Jury members.

8. The DOD documents show at 119 the White House was involved with information warfare against civilians. The President and others disagreed how that information warfare would be couched.

9. At least one attorney from the State of Texas is allegedly involved. Their name is linked with what appears to be a front organization whose members on the surface appear DNC Lawyers. However, the organization appears to be connected with the Republican Party.

10. The President's legal advisors are in a panic. They did not anticipate this effort would be linked with the DOD information warfare program, one of many expanded after the Sept 11 attacks.

11. Chart 1

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

President

FBI

USA

DoD

Information warfare

Wecht Jury

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

12. Originally, the President denied any link between the White House and the FBI interviews.

13. Chart 2

This shows the original ruses to break the link between the FBI and improper conduct.

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

White House  - -  Deny

FBI Interview

 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

14. What the President did not anticipate was the FBI would be linked to him through the DoD information warfare documents. 

15. Chart 3

This shows the White House is connected with information warfare.

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

White House  -- DoD Documents

Information Warfare

- - - -- - -

16. The President was forced to admit the DOD email substantially confirmed not just the DoD-White House connection, but the White House-FBI connection on information warfare.

17. Chart 4

This shows the implications of the DoD-released Email: FBI is part of information warfare, and connected with the White House.

- -- - - - - - -

White House            - admitted, failed to deny

FBI Information Warfare

-  - - - - - - - - - - -

19. To recover, the President made an inconsistent denial. By failing to deny the White House connection with the FBI information warfare, the President was unable to reconcile his previous statements.

20. Chart 5

- - - - - - - - - -

This shows two groups:

A. White House and FBI

B. FBI and Wecht

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

White House           - Did not deny

...............................................--------------

FBI Information Warfare

----------------------------------........................

Wecht Jurors           - Accepted Qualification

 

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

21. Note Charts 2 and 5 do not reconcile. There is no way to deny a link between the FBI and President (Chart 2); but then substantially confirm a connection (Chart 4), but not explain the basis for the original opposition at (Chart 2)

22. His original responses in Chart 2 were made without considering Chart 3.

23. The President and the United States government has been discredited.

24. Outside counsel affiliated with the White House suspect their in-house legal communications have been monitored. They fear these transcripts are available to war crimes prosecutors. In response, counsel have transitioned some electronic efforts to computer platforms not obviously linked with the law firm. This change in work location is not to protect bonafide, lawful communications, but to thwart legal oversight of the war crimes related message traffic.

25. It is unknown whether these lawyers are directly working for the White House and have provided misleading information about their partisan status to create this front organization, or what information warfare training they received in Virginia. One of the contracts appears to be linked with information warfare activity out of Quantico, and other domestic intelligence activities arranged in New Mexico.

26. Information warfare does not narrowly include only media messages, but also unreliable legal information given to other branches of government. The President viewed as lawful information warfare against the Judicial Branch when FBI agents misled the FISA court, and the President provided Congress with legal argument to ignore the Judicial Branch of government. The aim is to provide legal arguments, information, and other data to Congress, deny the Congress a fair chance to independently review that data, but accelerate timelines to force Congress to comply with illegal activity.

27. One of many fatal errors was agreeing with the original assertion of the White House connection, without substantially expanding their opposition to that reporting, nor demanding the original information be redacted. Their demands were misdirection. Their original opposition evaporated for an illusory reason, showing the entire argument was a House of Cards, waiting to fall over.

28. Counsel associated with the White House participating in this effort are also allegedly linked with the ongoing investigation in Italy, subject to subpoena or arrest for alleged rendition-related war crimes. It is unclear what plans combat forces have to enforce these arrest warrants against named US legal counsel.

29. Legal counsel have materially changed their position, originally asserting the alleged war crimes were issues which could not be discussed. However, they then went on the record to discuss in detail the information gleaned through these programs.  Outside counsel has been linked with alleged financial fraud on major stock exchanges, providing financial services to the commercial entities involved with supporting POW movements.

30. Part of the information warfare against American civilians has been managed within the Department of Defense, NSA, and Department of Justice. What is not well understood is how non-US government entities do wage this illegal warfare against their fellow citizens. Their public loyalty is to one set of laws. Their real loyalty is to hide evidence of war crimes, create the illusion of investigations, and delay public awareness of government inaction.

31. The contractors allegedly complicit with this illegal information warfare are not just located in the United States, nor narrowly related to the telecoms. Overseas entities, which appear to be in opposition to the United States, work hand in glove with domestic, non-government contractors to support this information warfare against American citizens. These entities operate independently, and do not appear connected with the United States government. These entities are known to Members of Congress to have been created, but are not adequately overseen.

32. The evidence behind the President's illegal plan to affect a jury outcome hinged on many fatal errors, spanning the country and circling the globe. The evidence linking the President, DoD, and outside counsel to these efforts did not just surface. These connections have been developed over the years through various DoD installations, conferences, and telecom relationships between private industry and the telecommunications industry.

33. There was some discussion about the White House involvement with war crimes planning. There were concerns the White House was involved with the FBI Wecht Interviews.

34. Legal counsel and close advisors to the President are worried about war crimes implications. The jury members of the Wecht Trial were contacted at home. These home contacts raise substantial questions about the Untied States' ability or interest to conduct independent judicial review on issues of Geneva.

35. Key players failed to adequately explain their connection with outside counsel, or their involvement with contractors not directly or obviously tied to the Republican Party or President.

Contradictions

36. Originally, the dispute was over whether the FBI interviews were or were not proper. They were not. (Chart 2)

The Inconsistency

37. The White House changed the basis for their opposition from (a) whether the White House was or wasn't involved; to (b) whether they did or didn't agree the FBI interviews were or were not information warfare.  That misdirection failed. (Chart 5)

38. The President, not just the White House got caught on this narrow point.

Attached To Evidence, Original Denials

39. When the White House connection was established through the DOD emails, the White House could not change its position. It attempted to plant the seed that the opposition continued.

Media Relations

40. There was no dispute the FBI had been involved with the interviews, improper contacts, or the post-trial home visits.

Inconsistency

41. There are several different lines of evidence, from different conversations showing the White House approved an apparent change of position, while they privately worked to strengthen their position.

42. The evidence of the White House involvement relates to the subsequent communication with legal counsel.

43. The original concern was the White House was portrayed as being involved with this indisputable, improper conduct. (chart 2)

44. Yet, based on no new information, the White House reversed its position, belying their assertions and original concerns. (Chart 5)

Other Communications

45. Subsequent communications confirm those original disagreements (chart 2) were illusory and unrelated to the real concerns.

Inadequate Denial

46. The White House and legal advisors connected with outside counsel did not adequately include a full denial. (Chart 5)

47. The White House, by refusing to adequately deny, substantially agrees it was involved with the FBI interviews. (Chart 5)

48. In error, they failed to continue their original opposition to the points they supposedly had a concern. (Chart 2)

Failure To Deny

49. The ruse surfaced when the White House and outside counsel agreed with the change in reporting (Chart 5), but failed to continue their denial of the original White House connection to the FBI interviews (Chart 2)

50. Once the White House and outside counsel voiced their approval to what appeared to be an illusory change in reporting (Chart 5), they did not adequately explain the basis for their original opposition (Chart 2).

51. If their concerns were true, the White House should have consistently pressed with original concerns (Chart 2), but it did not.

Media Ruse

52. As long as there was no direct mention of the President's link with the information warfare against the Wecht Jurors, the challenge evaporated (Chart 5).

53. However, they reworded their opposition making it appear as though they've agreed to the change in the reporting. There was no change, only the illusion of a change (Chart 5).

54. The change has nothing to do with whether the reporting was or wasn't accurate, but how the reporting framed the White House connection.

Expectations

55. Looking back, the White House opposition to the connection should have continued, not yielded, and demanded answers.

Inadequate Explanations

56. Despite winning a an apparent qualification in the characterization (Chart 5), the White House was unable to explain why it was no longer concerned with the original information it requested or points of disagreement (Chart 2).

57. The President cannot explain why he and others originally opposed any suggestion the White House was involved with the FBI interviews (Chart 1, 2), but then reversed the basis of their opposition to the reporting of that White House connection (Chart 3,5).

58. The White House was unable to explain why there were concerned with reporting which casually mentioned the White House DoD effort (Chart 3).

59. The President's Press advisors have not adequately explained their original denials of their connection with this illegal information warfare effort against American civilians (Chart 2), not just jury members.

Failure To Deny

60. The White House and outside counsel failure to adequately continue with the original demands shows those demands were illusory (chart 2), but an excuse to intimidate and dissuade reporting of the White House connection to the illegal White House effort.

61. Personnel involved with the information warfare did not adequately deny their connection with non-US government entities or work centers not directly connected with the Department of Justice.

White House Information Warfare

62. The White House persisted with opposition to public reporting. As with excuses to retroactively explain the FISA violations, the White House sought new reasons to explain away the White House connection with that illegal information warfare against the Jury Members.

63. The original opposition was not over the suggestion the White House was connected, but whether jury contact was or wasn’t permissible. (Chart 1) Yet, unable to convince the public the FBI interviews were valid (Chart 2), the focus shifted to whether the White House was or was not directly linked to that illegal activity.

64. The error was when the White House shifted its opposition, but received no new information (Chart 5). The White House originally opposed to any suggestion the White House was involved (Chart 2). Once the DoD data mining was disclosed (Chart 3), and the White House connection proven, the White House appeared to score points, despite failing to understand its defeat (Chart 5).

65. The White House failed (Chart 5) to adequately continue the original opposition (Chart 2).

66. With the changes (Chart 5), he White House failed to satisfactorily explain why it originally objected to reporting about the White House connection to the FBI interviews. (Chart 2)

67. Subsequent reporting shows the opposition continued, despite an apparent change in position. The change was not real (Chart 5), as were the original points of disagreement (Chart 2). The goal was not to gather information, or clarify any issue, but to dissuade examination of war crimes evidence, and the role of the President and outside counsel in information warfare against American civilians and jury members.

DoD Email Problem

68. The White House was connected to DoD information warfare (Chart 3) immediately before they failed to adequately deny (Chart 5). Once the DoD emails were released, nobody could credibly argue the President was not involved with information warfare (Chart 3, 4).

69. The President was stuck with a problem. He and others had originally argued there was no connection between the President, White House, and FBI agents conducting interviews (Chart 2).

70. The DoD email reversed the problem. Suddenly the President was stuck with a problem. He had disputed the wrong assertion (Chart 2). He should have disputed, originally, that there was no FBI role in information warfare, But he couldn’t do that because he knew the public documents showed the FBI had a role in domestic information warfare (Chart 3).

71. The President had originally argued that there was no connection between him and the FBI (Chart 2). The DoD planning guidance shows this to be false (Chart 3). Information warfare guidance expressly includes the FBI under the umbrella of the President.

72. The President was stuck with several problems:

 

A.  He had agreed to a disinformation effort that sought to explain away the concerns about the FBI contacts.

 

73. Subsequent reporting shows the FBI contact was illegal, not permitted by the court, and known to the US Attorney to be outside what the US Attorney Ethics standards permitted.

 

B.   He agreed to disinformation that sought to break the link between him and the FBI (Chart 2)

 

74. Subsequent reporting shows the DoD information warfare guidance destroys this argument (Chart 3). The guidance expressly includes the FBI, establishing the link the White House wanted to sever.

 

C.  He failed to explain why he and others did not adequately oppose any suggestion that the White House had been implicated with this information warfare (Chart 5)

 

75. They thought they won a victory by qualifying the reporting, but this qualification only changed how the FBI interviews were or were not characterized as information warfare (Chart 5).

76. The President and others thought they scored a victory, but failed to realize they failed to deny something, nor continue with opposition on their original, illusory concerns.

77. The White House is stuck with a pile of inconsistent arguments, denials, and agreements. These statements fall apart because the White House did not anticipate the timing of the DoD disclosures relative to the information warfare discussion, FBI interviews, and collapsing Wecht Trial.

Fatal Problems

78. There were several fatal problems in the White House plan. The US Attorney assigned to the case first asserted she was directing the FBI, yet did not adequately explain where she received that authority to direct non-US Attorney Office personnel. The authority for the FBI to interact with judicial branch sealed information did not come from the Attorney General, but the President.

Confirmations

79. Non-US government connected personnel, linked with this information warfare effort also substantially confirmed electronic connections, discussions, and coordination. The public disclosures in the DoD FOIA substantially undermine the Presidents original assertions he knew nothing about the military analyst planning.

Information Warfare

80. Information warfare uses many people to attempt to discredit those with information about the President's connection with this illegal activity.

81. Multiple people were involved. This information warfare was highly organized. The DoD doctrine well explains how the Attorney General, President, and DoD warfighters planned information warfare.

Illusory Fact Finding

82. One ruse was to create the impression that there were active investigations. These have not started and were unrelated to any bonafide oversight. The Attorney General has not responded to these information requests.

Ruses In Official US Government Explanations

83. Another ruse was to pretend that court documents disclosed the ingoing investigations against the US Attorney. These court documents did not adequately demonstrate the Pennsylvania Bar with any investigation.

Inconsistent Opposition

84. They changed their opposition to whether or not they would agree the FBI interviews were or were not part of a later information warfare effort.

I wish I had a dollar for every time I've heard Terry McAuliffe say Barack Obama made a "political decision" not to campaign in the Florida and Michigan primaries in order to satisfy Iowa and New Hampshire, but if Obama made such a decision, so did McAuliffe's candidate, Hillary Clinton. This, from the September 2, 2007 NY Times:

“We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process,” Patti Solis Doyle, the Clinton campaign manager, said in a statement.

The pledge sought to preserve the status of traditional early-voting states and bring order to an unwieldy series of primaries that threatened to accelerate the selection process. It was devised to keep candidates from campaigning in Florida, where the primary is set for Jan. 29, and Michigan, which is trying to move its contest to Jan. 15.

Today Hillary is sending out an email urging her supporters to tell the DNC to "count every vote." The real political decision is Clinton's appeal for a do-over, something she would never do if the candidates' delegate counts were reversed. 

By the way, the next time McAuliffe makes his "political decision" statement, it would be nice if somebody—anybody—in the media challenged him on it. It took me all of 30 seconds to find the quote above. 

Recent cases of violent veterans like the one who killed the coed in Alabama a few months ago and the one in this story:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080517/ap_on_re_us/canyon_carjacking

are the "tip of the PTSD iceberg" that our country has in its future.

Diagnosis and treatment has come a long way since the Vietnam war but it still has far to go before it is adequate. 

Of course, ideally, the errors of our current leadership would have been prevented by less arrogance and incompetence and there wouldn't be veterans who have served FOUR tours in Iraq!  But since we can't turn back the clock and give the Bush administration competence, we're going to have to deal with the consequences for decades...  or generations.

The VA and the American people must find the compassion to expand diagnosis and treatment of this horrible affliction.   If adjustments aren't made, this is just the beginning...  the tip of the PTSD iceberg.

http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/
Oh Hell No.

We've discussed the impending sense of anxiety those sympathetic to white supremacy, white hegemony, white superiority--whatever you want to call it, feel when they look at a brilliant and successful black person who succeeds despite the odds and puts the lie to their very faith (and white supremacy is more a matter of "faith" than anything else) but you have to be stunned by the unbelievable ignorance of Kathleen Parker's latest column for the Chicago Tribune, even if you read that gay-baiting mess in the Post today.


The fact that Parkers is syndicated by the Washington Post Writers Group shows how utterly mainstream nativist white thought is--you would never see Louis Farrakhan with a nationally syndicated column, the backlash would be enormous. Yet here is Parker, lauding the virtues of "full-blooded" Americans.

Full-bloodedness is an old coin that's gaining currency in the new American realm. Meaning: Politics may no longer be so much about race and gender as about heritage, core values, and made-in-America. Just as we once and still have a cultural divide in this country, we now have a patriot divide.

The answer has nothing to do with a flag lapel pin, which Obama donned for a campaign swing through West Virginia, or even military service, though that helps. It's also not about flagpoles in front yards or magnetic ribbons stuck on tailgates.

It's about blood equity, heritage and commitment to hard-won American values. And roots.

Some run deeper than others and therein lies the truth of Fry's political sense. In a country that is rapidly changing demographically—and where new neighbors may have arrived last year, not last century—there is a very real sense that once-upon-a-time America is getting lost in the dash to diversity.

We love to boast that we are a nation of immigrants. But there's a different sense of America among those who trace their bloodlines back through generations of sacrifice.

[...]

Yet, white Americans primarily—and Southerners, rural and small-town folks especially—have been put on the defensive for their concerns with "guns, God and gays," as Howard Dean put it in 2003. And more recently, for clinging to "guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them," as Obama described white, working-class Pennsylvanians who preferred his opponent.

Steve Benen has already discussed this and pointed out that Obama's grandfather served in World War II but I want to further challenge the very premise that there is such a thing as a "full blooded American". What she means by this of course, is "white Americans". She makes this plain in that last paragraph.


What Parker needs is a history lesson. (PAUSE Let's not forget about Native-Americans. PLAY) There are white men on our dollar bills, yes, but that doesn't change the fact that black men bled on battlefields in the pursuit of American independence. Before our ancestors were more than three-fifths of a person they fought to share a dream that would be denied them for hundreds of years later, that promissory note MLK talked about. They fought to preserve the Union even before Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation. Our ancestors fought in World War I only to come home and be lynched in uniform. We fought in World War II, despite the fact that units were still segregated, and we were still treated as second class citizens under the law.


Full blooded? This nation's history is full of the blood of our ancestors and their sacrifices, and the only reason I can't "trace my bloodline" back to prove it is back then we were listed next to pitchforks and lanterns as farm equipment. Full blooded? How could we be full blooded anything? That choice was taken from us--we wear that reality in our skin tones and hair textures. You may have forgotten but we haven't.


Make no mistake, racists at every level tried to prevent our ancestors from fighting, because the very act of sacrificing for this country made it as much ours as it did theirs, despite the centuries they would spend trying to deny it. Those denials continue.


So Parker wants to play Patriot Games? Let's go. No one loves this country more than we love this country, because we loved this country even when it didn't love us. Nobody can say that like we can say it. This isn't about Obama's father being from Kenya--Parker's racialized understanding of what is "American" is as exclusive as possible. No one was talking about "full-blooded Americans" when Joe Lieberman was running for Vice President; she is talking about any American who does not share the color of her skin.


I said more than a year ago that this election would be an argument over what we define as American. Parker and her "conservative" friends want American to mean "white". What I forgot, and what they don't realize, is that history has already settled everything.

Welp, Hillary's at it again. A new round of email pleas came out today, urging her supporters to contact the DNC to make the "right" decision about MI and FL. I am sure she'll get plenty of sympathetic folks who care about Clintonocracy to respond, so I think it's important for the rest of us to weigh in ASAP. I did not follow the link in Hillary's email, for fear it would somehow be counted as a vote of support (one can't be too careful these days), but the DNC contact link is http://www.democrats.org/contact.html

Thanks for being the voice of reason.

    Edwards and Obama certainly looked very good together out there on that South Dakota stage, didn't they. Two young, vigorous, attractive, enthusiastic politicians, capable of a long hard campaign.  Illinois/North Carolina. However, Edwards says he doesn't want to run for VP again (yes, I know he also said he wouldn't endorse anyone) and it wouldn't exactly send a fresh, new message to voters, would it?. Plus, he would pull Obama in the wrong direction on trade policy, immigration, medical malpractice reform and probably a few other issues.

But I think it would be a serious mistake to ask Hillary.  Not because she isn't qualified or because of her views, which on all important matters are very close to Obama;s. And she would be a big asset in the campaign, unifying the party. Problem is not the campaign, it's the governing. Yes, I know politics makes strange bedfellows, witness JFK and LBJ.  But to have a VP who is constantly thinking "I should be in your chair" AND WHOSE HUSBAND IS AT HER SIDE THINKING THE SAME THING? It would be a huge problem for Obama, and I think he's smart enough to see it.

Richardson is certainly a possibility.  All kinds of international and Washington experience, well-regarded Governor, came out for Obama early, could be counted on to obey orders loyally.  Terrible campaigner at the beginning, but he got better as he went along.  Certainly would help with the Hispanic vote.  Not to be written off.

But it seems to me he almost has to choose a  woman.  Any male, even Edwards, would antagonize further millions of women voters who supported Hillary as a matter of justice and fairness. But who?  There are five female Democratic governors; one (Gregoire) is running for re-election this year.  Of the remaining four, Sebelius is the most mentioned and from a variety of perspectives most logical.  However, she did a terrible job responding to the State of the Union speech, and did not strike me as someone who could do a great job on the stump.  That was Gore's mistake: picking someone who seemed logical but could not in fact add to the campaign.  Plus, no Governor (except Richardson) could compensate for Obama's relative lack of Washington or foreign policy experience.

There are of course plenty of female Senators and Representatives to choose from.  But wouldn't it be great if he picked somebody who isn't a politician, but is a great speaker with proven leadership skills and international experience?  I have no names on the top of my head, but I'm sure some could be found.  You'd have to go back to Eisenhower and Wendell Willkie to find a precedent, and they were not only male but in the Other Party.

In any event, a few early thoughts.

A year ago, illegal immigration stood out as the issue many of us feared would dominate the presidential campaign of 2008.  First, there was Congress, where fiery speeches and anti-immigrant rhetoric soared in a fierce debate on whether illegal immigrants should be allowed access to public housing.  Democrats pulled out all the stops to kill this Republican motion.  While the GOP plan was defeated, the back-and-forth voting was so controversial that the chamber had the atmosphere of a near riot.   [Congressional Record]

We had presidential candidates, early on, who blasted illegals  [YouTube] and, as a result, the climate for immigrants, legal or not, became a fearsome one. 

Our federal government was well on the way to building a non-stop wall between the United States, a land of freedom, and the United Mexican States, our poorer neighbor to the south.  And self-styled ‘Minutemen’ patrolled the border "doing the job the federal government will not do".   [BBC News]

Unfortunately, the trend in Europe continues in that direction with the recent election of Italy’s fiercely anti-immigrant Silvio Berlesconi.   [Reuters]

And there's the continued influence in Russia of Vladimir Putin, who was quoted last year as saying his decision to ban immigrants from food market stalls will “ease tension on the labor market and make it more civilized.”   [New York Times].

Mercifully -- thanks to the immigration reform policies of John McCain and Barack Obama -- immigrants, particularly Latinos, won’t be bashed at the national level.

While the GOP presidential field did have an aggressive anti-immigrant player, U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., his defeat in the primaries, and the failure of anti-immigration rhetoric at the polls, demonstrated that “candidates with a hard line – ‘close the border and kick them all out’ -- fared worse than those in favor of more nuanced reforms.”   [Reuters]

State action is another matter.

And Virginia stands out as among the worst.

The Washington Post reported May 11 that Loudon County, Va., public schools have experienced a markedly slower enrollment growth in English as Second Language (ESL) courses, those provided for children who know little or no English.  The Loudon Board of Supervisors last July passed a resolution to limit illegal immigrants’ access to county services.  [Washington Post] 

While decrease in construction activity in Northern Virginia was noted as a possible cause of the slump, Alessio A. Evangelista, supervisor of Loudoun's ESL program, said, “"I suspect the decrease in [ESL] growth also has to do with the general appearances’ that Loudoun has become less friendly to immigrants.”  [Washington Post]

On May 7, the voters in the town of Herdon, Va., re-elected their mayor and town council, all of whom backed a policy that removed the city’s job center for day laborers.   [Washington Post]

The most anti-immigrant jurisdiction in Northern Virginia, Prince William County, April 30 revised its October “check immigration status of all ‘suspects’” policy  [Washington Post] and put in place one that allows county police to question the citizenship of arrested persons only.  The motive for the change was described as giving the county “better protection from potential racial-profiling lawsuits” at the suggestion of its County attorney. 

But, when asked if this move was a change in Prince William’s vicious anti-immigrant stance, County Board Chair Corey A. Stewart responded, "We have not rolled back or repealed any portion of it."  [Washington Post]

Other examples of anti-immigrant policies include:

North Carolina, where the state’s Attorney General, Roy Cooper, “advised the [state’s] 58 community colleges to return to a 2001 policy that prohibited illegal immigrants from degree classes.” [Raleigh News & Observer]; and 

Postville, Iowa, where, on May 13, according to the Des Moines Register, “federal agents conducted what they're now calling the largest raid of its kind in the nation's history” and arrested and detained 390 workers alleged to be illegal immigrants.  [Des Moines Register]  

The local school superintendent spent the day trying to help more than 200 immigrant children find out what happened to their parents. [Education Week]

Aren’t those of us who are ‘white’ lucky?  We don’t have to go through the day wondering if the authorities will suddenly burst in and deprive us of our freedom.

While the presence of illegal immigrants from Latin America may be the most openly-expressed reason for these anti-immigrant policies, the unspoken reason could be a nationalist fear of the growing numbers of persons in the U.S. of Latin American descent.  According to the U.S. Census, Hispanics are the nation’s fastest-growing minority, whose children are now one in four of all children under the age of five.  [Washington Post]

Of course illegal immigration is a problem.  But the way to handle it is to develop a “path to citizenship,” as Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain have proposed.  [US News].

Looking at the origins of our nation, you have to agree that among our founding ‘fathers’ were persons who came here with no legal right to displace native peoples.  They sailed into Massachusetts on the Mayflower and occupied what they chose to call “New England,” where native peoples already lived.  They invaded Virginia and set up their own ‘illegal’ settlement at Jamestown.  They conquered the West and Southwest with their invasion from Spain, illegally taking land from the Incas and Aztecs and well-established native nations of the area.  And they illegally claimed all of the middle of North America in the name of the King of France, naming ‘their’ misbegotten land Louisiana.

So, who are the illegal immigrants among us?  Ellis Island was established in 1892, long after these earlier invasions and occupations.  [Bowling Green State University].

You see, we are not as ‘legal’ and ‘pure’ Americans as we would like to think.  And those who also come here ‘illegally’ yearn for no more and no less than those who landed on this multi-nation continent prior to 1892.  Imagine what emotions must tear at Native Americans when they hear us sing, “This land is your land; this land is my land.”  It is?  Really?

I was really lit up inside when I saw video of Obama's speech in that quaint farm setting in South Dakota. He fired up the crowd of 2,000 supporters, and looked very much like a Nominee.

He was wearing his American flag lapel pin for what must be a record fourth straight appearance, and looked sharp in a dark blue suit and striped blue tie. His remarks, condemning the attacks from George Bush and John McCain, were spoken with what sounded like sincere conviction, rather than "partisan" ranting as the Republicans later claimed.

By media acccounts of the speech, Obama comes out looking like a tough fighter of a campaigner, a proud Democrat and American, and someone who could stand on a global stage and denounce terrorism with authority.

I was personally invigorated by his robust posture in speaking. His authoritative voice and empassioned words speak to many people.

We all hope that Ted Kennedy has a quick recovery. It is sickening to watch CNN exploit his illness to pimp 
for Obama. Obama is in almost every video of Kennedy. 
All of the videos shown are Kennedy stumping for
Obama.  Bill Schneider just stated that Kennedy's endorsement
of Obama was a milestone in American history. Earlier in the primary, CNN must have celebratedDr. King's birthday 15 times.  The latest media ploy is to give Clinton no coveragewhatsoever, despite that she has the majority of votes. Without a doubt, if Obama is the candidate, CNN willdrop the tears of beatitude and busy themselves with finishing him off.,

OK,  so you've figured out I'm a huge boxing fan. So this is about a
brilliant boxing analogy that can be drawn to the upcoming general
election?

Obama represents former world heavyweight boxing
champion, "Real Deal" Evander Holyfield. Holyfield had just gone
through three grueling, drag-out fights with former champ, Riddick "Big
Daddy" Bowe, as represented by Hillary Clinton. All the while "Iron"
Mike Tyson, as represented by John McCain, has been sitting in jail
stemming from a rape conviction. Well Mike Tyson (McCain) eventually
gets out of jail. And he immediately  starts fighting bums. He gets
quick first-round knockouts. And the press quickly touts that  "Iron"
Mike Tyson/McCain "is back!"

Yet, what folks don't realize is, 
while "Iron" Mike Tyson/McCain was sitting in jail ostensibly getting
"soft" -- Evander Holyfield and Riddick Bowe (Obama and Clinton) have
been engaged in an all-out war.

So when Mike Tyson and Evander
Holyfield eventually do meet in the ring, one is battle
scarred and bruised, but he's in tip top fighting condition. The other is heralded by the media as a formidable beast,  but
in reality he is a mere shell of his former athletic self.

So
what happens in the actual fight? Evander Holyfield wins the fight by a vicious
TKO in the 11 round over Mike Tyson-- and goes on to become the most
heralded heavyweight boxing champion of the last two decades.

And if the  analogy holds true, Barack Obama will win in a methodical,  late-round stoppage over John McCain.

One thing though .. if there's a rematch, Obama has to make sure to protect those big ears.

Remember 2004? When the incumbent Senate Democratic Leader was beaten when he was running for reelection in South Dakota? The first time the Republican  Senate Leader Bill Frist broke one of those so called DC "gentlemen's agreeements" of not actively campaigning against the leader of the other party?

You want that to happen again in 2010?

No? Then follow me below the fold to see what you can do NOW to stop the Republicans from beating Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in 2010!

<strong>Why help Harry Reid now:</strong>

The Republican party in Nevada is as much in dire straits as the national party. However, that doesn't mean they won't put up a fight to defeat Harry Reid in 2010. Harry Reid once survived a very close race after against now Sen. John Ensign only after a recount (1998). In 2004 he won by a more than comfortable margin. However, that was <em>before</em> he was elected the leader of Senate Democrats. Because of his new leadership role his approval ratings in Nevada have suffered and Nevada Republicans have no greater goal but to topple Harry Reid in 2010.

Now, this is not about whether you like Harry Reid and his actions as the Senate Majority Leader. I've personally been very critical of him on several occasions. No, this is about whether you want the Republicans to once again take out the Democratic Leader in the Senate. And Republicans, in Nevada and nationally, will be itching for a fight in 2010 if they lose the White House and more seats in the Senate and the House. And who will be the most prominent target in 2010? Harry Reid.

<strong>Potential opponents:</strong>

Republicans already suffered pretty badly in 2006 when they lost four out of the six statewide constitutional offices. The only statewide incumbents right now are Gov. Jim Gibbons who is scandal plagued and currently divorcing his wife who has barrickaded herself in the Governor's mansion. He's lucky if he won't either have to resign before 2010 or be primaried.

The other is Lt. Gov. Brian Krolicki who seems to be more likely to succeed Gibbons than Reid.

The other top Republicans in the state are Sen. John Ensign who obviously can't run against Reid and Congressmen Dean Heller (CD2) and Jon Porter (CD3). In 2006 Dean Heller barely managed to get above 50% in this open seat against Democrat Jill Derby. Porter barely won his reelection campaign in 2006 against Democrat Tessa Hafen. Hafen was a Reid staffer who received major financial backing from Reid. A sign that Reid thought Porter to be his strongest and most likely opponent in a future Senate race.

Once you're done with the most obvious opponents, you have to search in the State Legislature or the local level to find a possible opponent for Reid. You might find one, whether it would be a strong and credible one is highly questionable as the Democrats are only one seat away from a 2/3 majority in the Assembly and just one seat away from getting the majority in the State Senate.

So, the two most likely opponents for Harry Reid are Congressmen Jon Porter and Dean Heller (in that order).

<strong>What you can do now:</strong>

In one sentence: help defeat Porter and Heller this fall.

Both are vulnerable. Currently, <a href="http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000002878000">CQ</a> rates CD 2 as Republican Favored and CD 3 as Leans Republican. However, that's mostly on the basis of the Republicans current financial advantage. After serving as Nevada Democratic State Party Chair for the past year and preparing the state for the caucus in January, <a href="http://mysilverstate.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=577">Jill Derby announced another run</a> against Heller in late February. By the end of the first quarter filing deadline she had raised $144,000.

In CD 3 a lot of Democrats were mentioned as possible challengers last year. In the end Clark County prosecutor Robert Daskas was the candidate backed by most in the Democratic Party. He was added to the DCCC'd red to blue list in March. However, everyone was shocked when Daskas dropped out this month just two weeks before the filing deadline. Local Democrats, the DCCC and Daskas' primary opponent Andrew Martin soon rallied around Senate Minority Leader and 2006 gubernatorial nominee <a href="http://mysilverstate.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=636">Dina Titus</a>. However, six months before the election Titus is at a serious fundraising disatvantage.
<strong>
Why Jill Derby and Dina Titus can win:</strong>

So, both of our candidates are way behind in fundraising. Why, then, can they still win?

Jill Derby ran a hotly contested race in 2006 for a seat that Democrats have not seriously contested since Gov. Jim Gibbons first ran in 1996. While everyone pronounced this seat unwinable for any Democrat, Jill Derby ran a strong campaign and won 45% of the vote and kept Heller at 50%. One reason, Gibbons was even a serious contender for Governor and eventually won in 2006 is that Democrats never seriously contested his seat after his first election in 1996.

Two years later, the situation for Jill Derby is much better. She has new DC and national connections due to her time as State party chair during the caucus (which will help with fundraising), the caucus led to an increase in registered Democratic voters and Heller now has to run on his two year Bush rubber stamp record. The race has gained attention from national Democrats as Derby was endorsed by the Blue Dogs in Congress. Yes, I know, none of us are two fond of the Blue Dogs. That said, I'm happy about any help Jill Derby will get and this is after all still a pretty conservative district. When Derby talks about joining the Blue Dogs in Congress, she's mostly talking about fiscal conservatism. Yet, she's progressive on other issues, announcing her campaign at a green architecture form, has made health care and supporting SCHIP one of her main campaign themes (Heller voted against SCHIP). Also, her campaign will be managed by the former head of Americans Against the Escalation in Iraq in Nevada. Subsequently, she also endorsed the Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq.

As for Dina Titus, she has actually already won in CD 3. In 2006 she won here by two points against Jim Gibbons in her run for Governor. Additionally, the district is trending Democratic as the registration advantage now is at 43% Dem, 37% Rep. Plus, Porter only won by 4,000 votes in 2006.

<strong>All Jill Derby and Dina Titus need now is the money to be competitive.</strong>

You can do three good deeds today:

You can help two great Democratic women get elected to Congress.

And you can help beat two possible opponents of Harry Reid.

All you need to do is give as much or little as you can and <a href="http://www.actblue.com/page/mysilverstate?refcode=TPM">contribute through the My Silver State ActBlue page</a>.

<strong>Links:</strong>

<a href="http://jillderby.com">Jill Derby for Congress</a>

<a href="http://dinatitus.com">Dina Titus for Congress</a>

<a href="http://helluvaheller.blogspot.com">Helluva Heller</a> - local blog with more information.

<a href="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/10/10/16338/800">Mcjoan</a> on Jill Derby in 2006.

<em>Cross posted from <a href="http://mysilverstate.com">My Silver State</a>.</em>

OK,  so you've figured out I'm a huge boxing fan. So this is about a brilliant boxing analogy that can be drawn to the upcoming general election?

Obama represents former world heavyweight boxing champion, "Real Deal" Evander Holyfield. Holyfield had just gone through three grueling, drag-out fights with former champ, Riddick "Big Daddy" Bowe, as represented by Hillary Clinton. All the while "Iron" Mike Tyson, as represented by John McCain, has been sitting in jail stemming from a rape conviction. Well Mike Tyson (McCain) eventually gets out of jail. And he immediately  starts fighting bums. He gets quick first-round knockouts. And the press quickly touts that  "Iron" Mike Tyson/McCain "is back!"

Yet, what folks don't realize is,  while "Iron" Mike Tyson/McCain was sitting in jail ostensibly getting "soft" -- Evander Holyfield and Riddick Bowe (Obama and Clinton) have been engaged in an all-out war.

So when Mike Tyson and Evander Holyfield eventually do meet, one (namely Holyfield/Obama) is battle scarred and bruised, but he's in tip top fighting condition. The other (Tyson/McCain) is heralded by the media as this formidable beast,  but in reality he is a mere shell of his former athletic self.

So what happens in the actual fight? Evander Holyfield wins by a vicious TKO in the 11 round over Mike Tyson-- and goes on to become the most heralded boxing champion of the last two decades.

And if the  analogy holds true. Obama will win in a methodical,  late-round stoppage over McCain.

One thing though .. if there's a rematch, Obama has to make sure to protect those ears.





 

From Politico.com:

Mike Allen reports:

The schedule still says 'TBA.' But barring a last-minute change, Sen. Obama plans to be in IOWA on Tuesday night when he clinches a majority of available pledged delegates. This is a red state he's hoping to turn blue, so the intended message is that he's getting to work on the general – NOT taking a victory lap. Political Geographer Jonathan Martin says the Hawkeye State appears to be Obama's BEST chance to flip a state that went for President Bush last time. In 2004, Iowa went Bush 50, Kerry 49. In 2000, it went Gore 49, Bush 48, Nader 2.

Iowa does feel like a long time ago.

Guys, this is a post of mine just up yesterday over at the HuffingtonPost.com's Off the Bus politics page, where I analyze what I see is the deciding factor in this political race, within both parties, and overall in our society:  that it's not a matter of racism or sexism--although there has been plenty of that for sure--but that what we are undergoing right now is a transition, a titanic changing-of-the-guard between baby boomers gripping tightly to power, and the "Millennial" generation--those who came of age in the 90's and the turn of the century--coming into their own.

One commenter pointed out something that I'd tried somewhat clumsily to mention in the post, that it's not just a matter of young people as it is a matter of WIRED people--those who are hip to the Internet, to online news sources and opinions, and to the vast organizational and fund-raising capabilities available there that only Barack Obama seems to have caught and fully implemented the earliest.

But I also see this generational changeover occurring in the military, the civil rights movement, the women's movement, and other spectrums of our society.

It's a long piece for a blogpost, but worth it, I think, and the comments have been great.

Come join us over at HuffingtonPost, and be sure and leave comments.  I'd love to hear whatcha think:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deanie-mills/not-my-g-g-generation_b_102069.html

Look forward to seeing you there!

Deanie

As I'm watching the breaking news on Sen. Kennedy with concern,  I can't help thinking about his important contribution to Obama's campaign for president.

Clinton may have been the "first black" Pres., but Obama will be the first black Kennedy.

We wish you well, Ted Kennedy. "The dream never dies."

Breaking news on MSNBC:

Sen. Ted Kennedy was just airlifted to Massachusetts General Hospital with an emergency "undisclosed illness."  His press office is not returning calls at the moment.

Can someone at TPM please get on this story?

EW