Want to make something very clear to Obama supporters.

What he has done, and is doing, is monumentally historic.

Most of all, I truly admire his physical courage in running for the Office of the President of the United States as an African-American in a still-racist country such as ours.

Even a man as patently courageous as General Colin Powell would not run for the Office, allegedly because his wife feared for his physical safety.

Win or lose, Barack Obama has shown that he is a man of supreme courage, as has, by the way, his opponent McCain.

Why any sane human being would seek the job as POTUS is beyond me.

But McCain, Hillary and Barack, especially Hillary, and even more so Barack, have shown flat-out, old fashioned courage in running for the Office.

I think they're all nuts, but I tip my hat to them.

MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspots.com

Following a week in which Barack Obama was both praised and attacked from the pulpit by Catholic Priests The Catholic League is now attacking Obama for which priests he associates with.  In the invocation at the New YorkState Republican Party Dinner, Monsignor Jim Lisante mocked Obama.  On the same day video surfaced of Father Michael Phleger preaching at Obama’s church mocking Hillary Clinton. Obama immediately condemmed the remarks and Phleger apologized, however the Catholic League sees things differently.

The Catholic League who is sort of the Catholic equivalent of the Justice League, but without superpowers.  “Why is it that of all the wonderful Catholic priests in the Chicago Archdiocese, Obama long ago chose Pfleger to hang with?” Catholic League President Bill Donohue said in a statement. “Truth be known, Pfleger has a very troubling history.”

With such a troubling history it almost seems like there should be some kind of authority that could discipline and remove bad priests.  Unfortunately, if you’re looking for discipline or a hierarchical structure the Catholic Church is the wrong place.

Members of the Catholic League also found it troubling that in his public life Obama has done nothing to tackle issues of Canon Law such as the ordination of women or married priests.  Obama likewise has a lackluster record on doing anything to prevent the church sexual abuse scandal of recent years.  Nor has Obama distanced himself from controversial church practices of the past such as indulgences, the inquisition, and perceived anti-semitism.

With Obama clearly unwilling to take on issues such as these which are important to Catholics there can be no doubt he will be stung hard by their votes in the Fall.  I have never been a big fan of Papists myself, but I find myself totally agreeing with them in this case.

Florida Congressman Alcee Hasting picked up his marbles and went home after hearing of the RBC's decision today.

As a matter of protest, I do not intend to attend the Democratic National Convention in Denver.

Damn shame, Alcee. Maybe you and Harold Ickes have a pity party while the rest of us roll up our sleeves and get to work. This reminds me of parents at a Little League game.

I'm off to donate a few more bucks to the next President. The deadline is tonight for the month of May.

I was able to watch most of the broadcast, and just thought I'd share some thoughts.

- I would hope that most of us are able to understand that the small subset of HRC supporters who acted inappropriately today are no reflection on the candidate herself.

- I'm not a Clinton supporter, but I've got to hand it to her that even as her candidate bleeds political capital by the day (and actual capital), she was not only able to get a significant number of delegates that were not supposed to have counted, but that she has convinced many people that she was wronged in the process.

- I get the impression that Ickes is right that the DNC can't assign the delegates the way they did (although it strikes me as a rather fair result.) If the race tightens at all, I expect to see a lawsuit.

- I really fear that Clinton has in the last month, intentionally or not, made Obama be viewed as the enemy by a large number of her supporters. I'm skeptical that can be overcome by November. If Clinton continues to go with her "us against the DNC" theme, we're going to be in trouble.

- It was encouraging to see the ethnic diversity and high proportion of women on the committee. It's nice to see the Dem's looking like the party of inclusion we claim to be.

Alright, there's my 2 cents.

    I am an Obama supporter, but I wanted to see the Clinton press release regarding the RBC decision, so I went off to HillaryClinton.com.  After reading the comments that supporters had made (which almost all talk about going to the convention and/or voting for McCain), I decided to make a post calling for party unity.  I didn't proclaim the race over or take sides, I just suggested that we all take the passion and resilience from the primary and move it into the general election regardless of the nominee, since we can't have 4 more years of the Bush agenda via McCain. 

My comment never showed up...  They apparently screened out my call for unity in favor of some of the other comments on the site.  I could sort-of understand if they were picky about their comments that they showed, but if you take a look, there is some crazy stuff (and just about only crazy stuff) being said.  You all should take a look here (but please be respectful).

I don't know what to make of this.  I would assume that there are many other people looking for unity, it just appears that they are making it a policy to screen out anything that doesn't mention either Denver, write-in votes, or voting for McCain.  If they are screening these out, hopefully it is the work of a campaign worker and not the tone that the campaign will take in the coming days. 

I may be making something out of nothing, but I was much more optimistic about the Clinton campaign doing the right thing until I saw this.  I urge Hillary and Obama supporters who hope to have a united Democratic Party, to be sure they have their voices heard and not to let the Ickes of the world speak for them.

In this Sam Stein article posted on Huff Post, Stein tells what it was like being surrounded by Clinton supporters. 

To summarize the piece, Stein recounts statements from Clinton supporters such as:

"[Obama] is a socialist! You know what the Nazi Party was before it was the Nazi Party? It was the Socialist Party."

Also: "Would you rather have a president who had an affair [Bill Clinton] or one who was a murderer [Obama]?"

Stein also said that he had conversations with some of the supporters who showed contempt for Obama and the media.  They went through a list of websites they have blacklisted, including Huff Post.  When he told them he was a reporter for the Huff Post, they stopped talking to him.  He went to eat he lunch, only to be serenaded by chants of "Huff Post sucks, Huff Post sucks!"  Later they chanted "Fox News fair and balanced, Fox News fair and balanced.

At the bottom of the article is video of a Clinton supporter who was kicked out.  If you watch the coverage, you may recognize her voice yelling about Iowa and New Hampshire.  She says that Obama is "an inadequate black man."

Any honest analysis of the election takes into account that the candidates act and react as the situation changes. Primary elections are fluid and dynamic. As a Californian, I am certain that Senator Obama would have done much better if our primary was not held on Super Tuesday, or if John Edwards had dropped out a week earlier. He chose to limit his campaign in this state and fight for delegates elsewhere, presumably in less expensive media markets.

Hillary Clinton won California with a large popular vote total and a moderate advantage in delegates. Barack Obama, however, won the most delegates on Super Tuesday. The rules and schedule dictated the strategy. IMHO, Obama waged a wiser campaign under the agreed-upon rules.

Current polling shows Obama has significantly more support in California than Hillary Clinton. All this retrospective MI and FL hogwash ignores the simple fact: the candidates waged their campaigns according to the rules and the schedule that were set before them. Different rules or different schedules would have meant different strategies.

For the past month, with the knowledge that his lead in delegates is virtually insurmountable, Barack Obama has brushed off most of the Clinton campaign’s attacks and focused his attention on John McCain. Undoubtedly, he could have spent more time in WV and KY and kept her popular vote numbers down. He chose to concentrate on building a general election campaign and has started visiting battleground states such as NV, MI and FL. If the popular vote were all-important, he would be waging a different campaign.

I feel this is obvious, but I get so angry at the goalpost moving that sometimes I need to restate the obvious.

Well, the RBC has spoken. To their credit, made a decision regarding both states and didn’t wimp out and defer decisions until the Democratic convention. Ickes and Flournoy released their pro-Clinton statement proclaiming victory in FL and reserving the right to challenge the MI decision. Did their statement serve as the official reaction of the Clinton campaign? The true test will come in the next two days. What will Wolfson’s/the Clintons’ response be? Will Clinton concede after Tuesday’s results? Will she continue the fight to Minnesota? Here are my thoughts. If she continues her fight for the nomination past June 6, she is essentially giving up any future political aspirations she may have. If she gives up her fight by this coming Friday and “plays nice” between now and the convention, Obama will offer her the VP slot.

Most of the right wing pundits, and columnists are all talking about re-branding the GOP. 
They distance themselves from Bush 43, like they did from Hoover, and Nixon and Bush 41. 
They have a brand that just doesn't last long. 
 The GOP says many things, but talk is cheap...as cheap as talk radio and cable news.

They destroyed the brand again. This time, they may have succeeded in committing suicide along with a drop in market share. They are not good at promoting positive human behaviors. 
The Republicans are letting the party die. 
Republicans are not too loyal to the values Lincoln had.

• goofticket's diary :: ::

 I can't see how this could happen, in 2008. 
Re-brand a political party?  What is that..a 'new & improved' form of neoconservatism?

You can change a party platform, like an issue, but not the identity of the party. 
Like a human, an identity is created over time, from experiences and actions. 
The GOP started out OK, with great values...but they hold none of those values today. 
They sold out, or betrayed each other, or something...but the end result is a party that is not trusted or repsected, as a brand. 
Morals and social values that are Anti-gay/black/yellow/orange/brown/science, anti-'think-about-it-first' is outright stupidity...and insulting to most Americans. 
Using religion to sell a political brand is really insulting, to the core American value of protecting religion from politics. The GOP has decided that was a great product to pop a label on. 
TV Evangelical theme park law schools, just doesn't seem like a viable product. 
Claim it's a bad idea..and you get the 'other white meat'. Hate, innuendo and 1,000 hours on FoxNews.

The GOP has failed to effectively sell it's post-FDR, Goldwater/Reagan brand. What they did was thrive on instilling doubt. Doubt in each other. 
Doubt that half of America had values, that mattered. 
What a stupid concept. 
  Values are not found in airport bathrooms, free enterprise is not supported with no-bid contracts, Presidential pardons to cover-up crime that risk national security, or values demonize a personal choice of lifestyle. 
  The GOP brand is behavior doubt. If you buy a Prius, for a logical reason to saving some money on gas, you are labeled a San Fransico liberal. If you son acts in the school plays, instead of taking steroids to play football, you are an elitist college educated liberal, who allows gays to have sex on your dinner table. 
You are less than patriotic if you support the arts instead of getting a bigger flag for your porch, or a brighter flag pin for your lapel. 
 The GOP succeeded in showing how the stupidity of past political failures can be revived over and over. 
The Soviets went broke, and Reagan had nothing to do with it.  The people in Russia still do the same thing we Americans do. Get up, feed the kids, get them off to school, come home and eat dinner and spend time wih our families. 
 The GOP branded itself, with the devine authority to decide what those choices would be for your family, if you agreed to a loyalty oath and met acceptable standards. 
Your kid could get it's picture on the packaging! Look Bush has twin girls! How cute. 
Until they showed up underage and drunk. Just like dear old dad.

They committed political suicide, all by themselves, and no drugs were involved.

After a couple of decades, the GOP has been consistient in one thing. Angry denial and finger pointing.

The sold the brand as we are better than them. Them not being an actual or contrived enemy...but better than your liberal un-American next door neighbor.

I know of no American, that actually believes this values party, or moral authority crap.

After decades of being Number 2, they got their chance in 2000. They won the trifecta. 
Then they screwed up, not a Newt Ginrichblowjo screwup. 
But a screwup that cost thousands of lives. And they got angry when America got angry. 
 They blamed Americans for everything that failed, especially the media. 
The TV news was running us like Manchurian Candidates, and the GOP made sure we felt guilty for questioning a President, or a party that branded moral values. 
 You had no morals if you questioned a President, a Republican President. A Dem was OK to question. 
They things got bad, and the bad got worse. 
Like Katrina. They screwed up, but it was the gay pride parades fault. So beacuse of that, the GOP didn't have to do anything. This week the last 648 families were kicked out of the FEMA trailers, yet the homes they had to leave are still full of flood remnants, mainlt mold and rot. 
 But the Katrina refugees, that weren't dressed for the gay pride parade, surely had to be illegal immigrants, drug dealers or worse. Why should Republicans take care of those people anyhow? They aren't real Americans.

Like fear mongering. The Dems will take away your guns. This one always made me laugh to the point of liberating my bladder. Yep, laughing till I peed. 
Finding 600 Million guns, in a door-to-door search and seizure, in the still of the night...is so bizarre, so incredulous, that even a five year old knows, nobody could come and take all the cookies in all the cookie jars, in all the houses in America.  How many people would have to be hired to collect all the guns, not in the Krystalnacht scenario of the NRA, but a real effort...say in a one year period? 
At least 50 Million people to go door-to-door. 
So I guess physically removing all the guns, is a pretty stupid concept. But stupid sells the brand.

The GOP had a good brand, in 1854. That ended with it's first President, and never returned. 
After Lincoln, the GOP successor did everything he could to recind all the rights the Civil War had won. 
That lasted what...10 years? It took another 100 years to get back to the concept of equality for all people.

So now the GOP still hates blacks. Not African American people, but the idea of discrimination. 
Today it's anyone and everyone that is not in lockstep with neocon mandated intolerances. 
Most people laugh those hot button issues as pretty stupid, Which they are. 
The circus side show aspects of politics, has become the norm for Republican ideology. 
If it can make one group look bad, then it is good for Republicans. Joe McCarthy is making his comeback.

Bush, Hoover, Nixon are the legacy since Lincoln, Americans are tired of the GOP brand. 
They traded in the Reagan's Philco B&W TV for a new iPod, 
We are cancelling Leave it To Beaver, we are afraid he'll get molested by the 'good' Senators. 
We have moral values, and they are ours to choose, personally and internally, not by the Committee to Re-Elect. 
Keep Your God out of My God's Face and we'll get along just fine. 
We are not afraid of our gay sons and daughters, in fact, we admire them a great deal. 
Dick Cheney does, he just can;t say it in public. A very strange moral. One that has to be hidden.

The GOP brand is in the Clearance Aisle. 
We have found a brand, that doesn't leave such a bad aftertaste. 
We no longer want the tainted faith-based dog food. 
We stopped buying the Contract with America, we went with kids health care.

The GOP got hijacked by itself, in a desperate move based on telling us we were less than patriotic, less than hard working, less than the highest standards. 
The GOP's 1995-2008 Era will, like all other GOP periods, be a model of what not to do, what not to allow and what not to support.

Republicans think they are terrified of gays, and immigrants and voter frauds, but eh truth is that Republicans live in fear of their own. They live like Joe McCarthy lives next door, ready to call in the FBI because you order communist take out Chinese food.

Republicans have committed suicide, and what is really amazing is that they continue to do this every time they gain power. They never leave control, except after they completely screwed everything up. 
Not one Republican, except Lincoln, left the nation in better shape, and the Americans united.

I could go on for two or three pages about the whole Michigan and Florida issue, but instead, i will make this very short and to the point by simply stating all of the obvious.  I simply don't understand Hillary's argument.  I really need one of her supporters to explain it to me.  Before the primaries were held in both Michigan and Florida both Obama and Hillary agreed to the sanctions that would be imposed on the states if they broke the rules.  If you are a Hillary supporter please think about this for a few seconds.  Seriously, think about it.  That means that when the party told Hillary: "Hillary if Michigan and Florida break the rules, their delegates will not be seated."  For clarification, this means that they will not count.  Which means that no matter how many people vote in each of the two states, the delegates in those states will not be seated in the convention.  Which means that in a hipothetical situation, if Hillary Clinton gets 55% of the votes in one of those two states, the delegates will still not be seated.  If she gets 60%, the delegates will still not be seated.  And guess what, if she gets 100% of the votes, the selegates will still not be seated.  However, if she only gets 10% of the votes, the delegates will still not be seated.

Now, i may not agree with the nomination process.  Perhaps they should have all of the States vote in one day.  Maybe that would make more sense.  Perhaps they should punish states who move their primaries differently.  But regardless of what I think, the fact is that when Hillary was told what the punishment will be, she didn't mention how unfair that was.  She was not concerned about only counting 48 states and not 50.  She didn't mention that she believed that the punishment was too harsh.  But even if she did complain, what we know is that she agreed.  She agreed.  Think about that.  That means that when she was told what the punishment will be she said: "fine."  She agreed witht the punishment, which means that she understood that MIchigan and Florida will not count.  She knew that.  Knowing, as in, i know that my name is Hilary Clinton.  She agreed, as in, I agree with the punishment.  So Hillary agreed that the delegates should not be counted if the two states brake the rules.  She said, "Ok." as in "Yes."
So can someone please, please, explain to me how after Hillary agrees with the punishment she disagrees with the punishment.  How can anyone make the case that it is not fair, and therefore they should seat the delegates the way the votes were counted.  How?  How?!  Is that fair?

Could the Clinton supporters please explain what it is that is so off-putting about Obama? I mean that seriously — I am absolutely, 100% bewildered at why it’s so hard for some of you to get behind the candidate who will almost certainly be our party’s nominee.

As many admit, the platforms between these two Democrats are virtually indistinguishable, and yet many of the Clinton diehards are saying they’ll vote for McCain (directly by pulling the lever, or indirectly by sitting the race out) when his platform is across the board diametrically opposed to the Democrats’ platforms. How does it honor the Clinton campaign to vote for a man who stands for everything she opposes?

I’ve heard some say they’re disgusted at how Obama has “played the race card,” but I can’t think of a single instance in which he — not his more rabid online supporters, not the media, but the man himself and his campaign — have done this. If anything, his speeches and comments on race have been efforts to downplay the idea that he’s “the black candidate.” If you think that’s it, please point me to some specific examples, because I’m just not seeing it. If it’s not that, then what?

Seriously, help me out. Because these Clinton people saying they’ll vote for McCain — they sound like a vegan at a restaurant saying, “Oh, you’re out of the tofu and sprouts? Then just give me a bloody steak and a side of veal cheeks.”
I eagerly await any thoughts you might have. This is quite puzzling and I hope to get your honest perspectives.

Thank you!

Politico.com is reporting that the Obama campaign is going to spin the resignation from Trinity thus:  Barack did this to protect the church from the relentless media coverage it has been receiving, coverage which may be impeding the church from doing its "good works."

I've posted at TPM before about the cynicism evinced by Obama in wrapping himself in the cross, much as the far-right reactionary candidates of the past have exclusively done. With the arguable exception of Jimmy Carter, Barack is the first progressive Democrat candidate to adopt one of the vilest and most divisive tactics employed by the Right.

I have argued that deployment of religiosity by Obama was a grievous and gratuitous strategic error that would (and already has) come back to haunt him. 

His 20-year-too-late resignation from the church is preposterous on its face. Is he expecting the public to swallow the idea that only since the media shined its lights on Trinity has it been a sanctuary for anti-white sentiment? That, in his 20-years of alleged Trinity church going he never heard similar race-baiting comments coming from the pulpit?

He used the church membership as another line on his political resume; after all, how can anyone be elected president if he/she cannot plausibly assert membership in one church or another? Unfortunately for the candidate, he choose the wrong church and now, in the famous words of Rev. Wright himself, "the chickens are coming home to roost."

The Obama campaign is confronted with its first significant political dilemma. Either the candidate is an obvious hypocrite and was a church member in name only and didn't know or care anything about the church's ideology; or, he was deeply involved in church matters and at least implicitly condoned this church's ideological bent. Not a pretty choice.

He played the god-card when he had no need to do so; now he has to live with the consequences of that decision.

[Note: I take no joy in writing this; his achievements thus far have been monumental, as is his courage.]

MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com

Sad Sad Hillary Supporter have a angry racist  rant after disturbing the meeting and  being asked to leave.
VIDEO

I really think it is important  for the Clinton campaign to step up and denounce these things and tactics ASAP. These angry democrats are loosing focus. EVER candidate who come up short short is hurt and disappointed. But this is pathetic !!
John Edward at one of the debates told his supporters and the American people that he did not wan the votes of racists or sexists who would vote for him solely because he is
a white man. We never saw that grace from the Clinton camp.

According to Chuck Todd at MSNBC, Senator Obama actually had enough votes in today's Rules and Bylaws Committee Meeting to split the Michigan delegates 50-50.

However, since there were more votes available to the 69-59 split, he agreed to back that proposal instead.

I watched the Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting with great fascination. Although I actually feel sorry for the Clintonites.  They are so angry, feel so cheated, but why? I wonder how many of those angry Florida and Michigan voters rallied at their own respective state capitols to keep their legislators from moving up the date of their primary when the Democratic party told them it would cost them their delegates. I can’t find any articles about demonstrations in those states, not a one.

Obama’s spokesperson pointed out that conceding to the Florida election delegate distribution would gain Clinton as many delegates as her wins in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Congratulations Clintonites, you should be thrilled!

There was much shouting as the committee voted on motions about Michigan. The Clinton spokesperson wanted full seating with the votes as they were. The Obama camp wanted the delegates split 50/50. However, the Obama camp again conceded to a lesser amount favoring Clinton.

First, according to a memo cited in an AP article, “Democratic National Committee rules require that the two states lose at least half of their convention delegates for holding elections too early.” Second, Obama WAS NOT on the ballot. Yes, I heard the argument that it was his choice, but c’mon, everyone should be trying to be fair. Clintonites, don’t you believe 40 percent of those uncommitted votes were really for him???  Plus, there are 20 delegates and 29 super delegates that can take their half vote and support the candidate of their choice. I’m sorry, but I don’t see how going from no votes to full seating with half votes in two large states with Clinton getting the most is a loss.

Clintonites, why did you think any ruling today would suddenly put Clinton in the lead??? Ahh, your candidate and/or her spokespeople told you it was possible, didn’t they. Plus, there are plenty of so-called media pundits that are only too eager to use the Clinton talking points rather than keep reminding the public about reality. I have shocking news for you Clintonites. It hasn’t been a tie since after Super Tuesday. Then Obama won 13 contests in a row and some of them by very large margins. Check the AP wire stories from February and March if you don’t believe me. No one is hijacking anything in spite of her campaign manager Ickes’ rants and ravings.

Clintonites, please take off the Clinton branded blinders. While I don’t agree to understand fully why we have this process with delegates instead of straight votes, it is the game we have. It as a process with rules. As President Clinton kept saying a few weeks ago, if someone isn’t ready to play the game, they shouldn’t put on the uniform and run out onto the field. Well, she’s played a good game and seems to have found her voice in the last ten seconds, but Obama has already been way up on the score board. It really doesn’t help that she keeps claiming there are new rules and everyone else is cheating to keep her from winning! 

Clintonites, don’t be angry at the Rules and Bylaws Committee. They did the best they could to give a voice to the voters.

Hoo, boy.

Anybody remember a former Democrat named Lieberman?

The parallels are striking:

They both voted for the war.

They both lost a primary to a fresh, antiwar candidate.

They both ran a campaign under the assumption that they would win easily.

They both campaigned on experience. 

They both started to sound like Republicans as the process wore on.

They both tapped into well-established loyalties to continue past the point where normal candidates would have been forced out.

They both cried foul in the primary process (remember the website scandal).

Simply put, lets all hope that the similarities end there, because we all know what happened next.

<p>Bomb Bomb Bomb ...

Anyone with an internet connection can help implement Chris Bowers' brilliant plan for getting the ugly truth about <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/01/nation/na-mccain1">John McCain</a> to show up at the top of search engine pages.</p>
<p>But even more effective is to add your own page on your own website. For example, here's a <a href="http://www.timba.com/artists/news/index.asp?page=johnmccain.htm">John McCain</a> link site that I made:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.timba.com/artists/news/index.asp?page=johnmccain.htm">http://www.timba.com/artists/news/index.

asp?page=johnmccain.htm</a></p>
<p><blockquote><strong>ACTION ITEMS:</strong><br>

<ol>
<li value="1">click on the <a href="http://www.timba.com/artists/news/index.asp?page=johnmccain.htm">link</a> <br>
<li value="2">click on each link on that page<br>
<li value="3">do it every day from as many computers as you have access to<br>
<li value="4">get your friends to do the same</blockquote></p>

</ol>
<p>Click for Obama!</p>

<p><blockquote><strong>EXTRA CREDIT!:</strong> Make your OWN page and put it on any websites you have access to. Here's how to do the HTML:<br>

<ol>
<li value="1">go to the page that has the list of links<br>
<li value="2">in your browser, select View/Page Source<br>
<li value="3">copy the code and paste into your own web page<br>
<li value="4">repeat action items above for this new page<br>
<li value="5">get your friends with webpages to link to your page<br>
<li value="6">get your friends with webpages to make their own pages<br>
<li value="7">link to your friends' webpages</blockquote></p>

</ol>
<p>Post for Obama!<br></p>

<b>NOTE:</b> Don't link to Bowers' original article so the technique doesn't get over-publicized. Just click and post!

In the Michigan primary, Hillary Clinton devestated Barrack Obama by taking 55% of the votes on January 15th.  Obama did so poorly that his name wasn’t even included on the ballot.  Today the Democrat Rules Committee will be meeting to decide how many of Michigan’s delegates should be seated and how many should go to each candidate.

What is astoninishing is Clinton’s recent Michigan collapse.  It is possible that as her name was the only one on the ballot she took Michigan’s support for granted, but the newest numbers show that Obama’s support has grown by over 40%.  According to the latest Rasmussen Poll shows McCain beating Obama in the state 43-42 and with a 45-42 lead over Clinton.   Obama is viewed favorably by 50% of the state’s voters compared to 47% for Clinton.  48% of Michigan votes believe Obama is the stronger candidate while 41% believe Clinton in.

So the big question remains what happenned?  Senator Clinton’s collapse from the primary where she so thoroughly demolished undeclared led myself and many others to believe she was untouchable in Michigan.

Step 1: Tell the voters: Your Votes Don't Count

Step 2: Agree That the Voters Votes Won't Count.

Step 3: Keep your name on the ballot because you're worried about the opposition voter.  A presumptive nominee wants her voters to know that she still supports them, even though she knows the votes won't count. 

Step 4: AFTER the election, raise doubts about the valididity of leaving voters out.

Step 5: Start calling the elections as 'disenfranchising' voters even though you told them not to vote. 

Step 6: Count the votes.

We saw today that this only 'half' happened.  My friends in MI are PISSED! Most of them didn't vote, and two who would've voted for Obama, voted for Clinton because they wanted to vote (and, yes, they knew that if they wrote in a name it would be discarded).

Here's how you rig an election.  Not behind the scence where the international monitors can cry foul.  But in public, and you can cry "Democracy for all".

This whole spectacle today really makes me wonder.  A spade is a spade, whether you call it Democrat or Republican, they really follow the same rules, just in different fashion.  It really demonstrates why Democrats loose to Republicans.  Tell your constituents one thing and do another.

Oh, the Democrats are fools.  And I will continue to support them.  It's better to support a fool with ideas than a dictator.

Peeps: Help me out on this.

Peace, Love, Dove.

Chauncey Baker

There are 163 uncommitted delegates.

Before Rules and Bylaws Committee delegate counts.
Obama - 1984
Clinton - 1783

27 voted yes for Florida delegates being seated with 1/2 a vote each - unanimous

27 voted. 19 yes and 8 no to reinstate all Michigan delegates being seated with 1/2 a vote each. Additionally Clinton is given 69 delegates and Obama 59 delegates.

Delegate counts after Rules and Bylaws Committee.
Obama - 2050
Clinton - 1877

PR Primary - assuming Clinton win of 56%/44%
Clinton gains 31 delegates
Obama gains 24 delegates

Clinton - 1877 + 31 = 1908  
Obama 2050 + 24 = 2074

South Dakota and Montana Primary - split would give Obama 17 and Clinton 16 more delegates.

Clinton 1908 + 17 = 1925
Obama 2074 + 16 = 2090

So assuming no delegate endorsements before the last Primary, Obama would need 28 delegates to clinch. That is 17% of the remaining uncommitted delegates.

While 13 RBC members were declared Clinton supporters, she did not get all of them to support her position on FL/MI.

The DNC couldn't find the right path with a detailed map, a compass and an aerial photograph. They've opened the door to anarchy masquerading as forced compromise in subsequent elections. And worse yet, they now are fat targets for a Republican attack on Democrats for their inability to govern.

Why did they cave in to the Clintons' shabby bullying? They are afraid of the threats of disunity, because they have no reliable method for creating unity. They're lost, left to the Biblical device of splitting the baby in thirds--two to RHC. You could see all that in the chairs' faces. The media kept emphasizing the bullying, repeatedly mentioning how loud and demanding were the Clinton supporters in the room.

My alternative would involve calling their bluff. You want McCain? Go for it. I refuse to play. You want to go to the convention and fight. Bring it on. Stand up to them. They're freaked and need someone to tell them to get a grip. Enough stick.

The carrot has got to be a large meeting with all of the most rabid Clinton supporters, including Ickes, Ferarro, and the cast of, well, loud people who were at the DNC meeting today or some such. Let 'er rip. Let 'em face him. Challenge them to attend. Bring up all their negativity. Prepare with all his paper proofs of all the salient issues re. which they're beating him up.

Now that the Democratic Party's rules committee has given both Florida and Michigan half of their delegate votes at the convention, I can now comfortably say that Hillary Clinton has done a great job of trying to cheat her way to a win. Of course, she's going to lose, but she still cheated. She's insisted since February - when it became more apparent that she'd lose - that Florida and especially Michigan should count in full. Alas, that's not what she originally said or promised. And had she been far ahead of Obama by the end of February, I'm going to venture a guess and say she'd be mum on the whole issue.

Before any primaries were held, all the Democratic candidates, including Clinton, signed this letter stating that no candidate

shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as “campaigning” is defined by rules and regulations of the DNC.

Hillary Clinton indeed signed this document. I've seen it myself on MSNBC. For those who don't believe it, Clinton's own Web site still has her pledge posted in her press release section.

We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process.

And we believe the DNC’s rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role.

Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar.

So basically what we have here is someone who promised not to campaign in a place where she campaigned and has been crying foul because the DNC hasn't been letting her get away with it - but now it kind of is. That's called cheating.

Now that the Democratic Party's rules committee has given both Florida and Michigan half of their delegate votes at the convention, I can now comfortably say that Hillary Clinton has done a great job of trying to cheat her way to a win. Of course, she's going to lose, but she still cheated. She's insisted since February - when it became more apparent that she'd lose - that Florida and especially Michigan should count in full. Alas, that's not what she originally said or promised. And had she been far ahead of Obama by the end of February, I'm going to venture a guess and say she'd be mum on the whole issue.

Before any primaries were held, all the Democratic candidates, including Clinton, signed this letter stating that no candidate

shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential
election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa,
Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as “campaigning” is defined by
rules and regulations of the DNC.

Hillary Clinton indeed signed this document. I've seen it myself on MSNBC. For those who don't believe it, Clinton's own Web site still has her pledge posted in her press release section.

We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process.

And we believe the DNC’s rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role.

Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar.

So basically what we have here is someone who promised not to campaign in a place where she campaigned and has been crying foul because the DNC hasn't been letting her get away with it - but now it kind of is. That's called cheating.

I seriously would like to know how taking 4 delegates from ones side and adding 55 unearned delegates to them, and packaging them like a nice early christmas present--How Does This Bring Party Unity?!?!

This committee couldn't see the forest for its trees of rules.

If they had given Hillary the Michigan votes even at 1/2 and not given any of the uncomitteds, he still would have been able to "claim" his victory sooner than later.

But now....

A legitimate reason for her supporters to push to Denver....

Obama supporters I think you lost this one even while winning.

Thousands of Hillary supporters flocked to Florida in order to influence the voting by the committee on the Florida and Michigan primaries.

These people support the candidate who stated, "If this were the republican primary, I would have already won."

After listening to the yelling and chanting of these protestors at today’s meeting, the parallels to November 2000 and the angry hordes of Republican operatives sent to Florida to disrupt the recount seem to me uncanny.

Is there any doubt now that Hillary and her supporters represent the old, dare I say it, republican politics?

I hereby nominate Harold Ickes.  In a meeting stacked with Clinton supporters, Ickes claims the election is being "hijacked".

Harold Ickes: worst loser in the world?

Is there anything preventing a 25-25 split (50-50 at half strength)?

"Mrs. Clinton has instructed me to reserve her right to take this to the credentials commitee".

Ickes made it clear in no uncertain terms he's going to fight on this issue - the Clinton campaign apparently will oppose the resolution of the RBC for Michigan, because the Michigan Democrats' compromise proposal would give 4 delegates that would have gone to Clinton had the vote on January 15th alone been used to allocate delegates to Obama instead. In addition, the proposal currently considered would give each delegate just a half of a vote.

Ickes used quite strong language in arguing against the proposal, and in the end, he said he was acting based on instructions from Senator Clinton.

I don't see an early withdrawal now. This may not be going "nuclear", but it sounds like Clinton is laying the grounds to fight well past next week's contests.

What do you do when you can't get your way in a sensible discussion, you result to showing your rear-end as Harold Ickes has just done at the DNC meeting.

It showed a lack of real leadership and shows the American people exactly why you really don't want Hillary Clinton and her supporters running this country.  I purposely omitted leading because with respect to the definition of the word "lead", I don't think the term applies.

Hilzoy provides a report at Kevin Drum's blog on some lunatics at the protest near the Marriot hotel in D. C. where the Rules and Bylaws Committee is meeting.

A note for those with a propensity to project onto entire groups the actions of one or a few, I am passing this on for your entertainment and in no way do I suggest, or believe, that the lunatics amongst the protesters represent the Clinton campaign, or are characteristic of Clinton supporters or of all the protesters.

Watching the greater part of the RBC proceedings, I think, other than a few rude folks in the audience, both Clinton and Obama supporters have conducted themselves admirably.  

Alice Huffman, a ardent Clinton supporter, in fact, has just lectured the rowdies in the audience to "act like proper" men and women and to not interrupt and to accept the decision of the RBC.

   Lanny Davis got into a shouting match with John Ausman at the DNC rules committee meeting today. Huffpo has the story here. Here's a nice piece of it

Ausman: [My proposal] is very generous, because Obama was initially fighting for a situation where Clinton would net 6 delegates, now it's 19.

Davis: Don't say you're being generous.

Ausman: I can say we're being generous.

Davis: But you're allowed to and I'm allowed to disagree...

Ausman: But I'm the one who's on the petition...

Reporter: Ok ok, why don't we --

Ausman: Are you a representative of Clinton?

Davis: No, I'm actually just a person...

Ausman: Are you a designated representative of Clinton?

Davis: I am not a designated representative.

Ausman: Then why don't we have a designated representative speak for Clinton and you be silent?

Asked about the exchange with Ausman, he said: "I'm f-ing angry."

I'd love to see video of this Lanny meltdown. This all fits in nicely with Josh's post on the front page.

Early in the morning, you gather the family to attend worship services. You put on your best attire, hop in the car and head down the road.

Approaching an intersection, a pair of fatigue-clad individuals armed with automatic rifles signal you to stop. They size you up, ask a few questions with a foreign accent, and finally wave you past. But not before handing you a coin.

Unfortunately, this coin has no monetary value.

One side reads “Where Will You Spend Eternity?” The other side quotes John 3:16.

No, this isn’t a case of overly aggressive Jehovah’s Witnesses terrorizing the townies. It happened in Iraq.

As the McClatchy papers reported, “The U.S. military has confirmed that a Marine in Fallujah passed out coins with a Gospel verse on them to Sunni Muslims.” The Marine was removed from duty and reassigned, and the incident is currently being investigated.

Naturally, McClatchy continued, the act angered many residents who were already displeased with the US “occupiers,” who felt that the troops were now becoming “Christian missionaries.”

This isn’t good.

In no way should this be construed as a commentary on the armed forces, or even the Iraq war itself. Candidly, a college buddy was a Marine involved in the fierce early battles in Fallujah.

No, what matters here is that this Marine was an ambassador of the United States who interacted with everyday civilians.

That this happened at a military checkpoint and not a street corner is disturbing because it is the apotheosis of a “captive audience.” If someone proselytizes in an open street, you generally have the option of “tuning him out” and ambling past. You don’t have that luxury at a mandatory stop.

For now, we’ll assume it was one individual behind the engraved religious coin operation. (I may revisit the issue with a “conshpeeerashy” angle after fashioning my tin foil hat). The point is this:

Dispensing oppositional religious coins at military checkpoints was at best a misguided altruistic act, and hopefully a limited one as well. But the damage to the image and credibility of the U.S. as a “hands-off” peacekeeping force is disconcerting to any reasonable observer.

Yet here the McClatchey story is, on page A16.

Al-Qaeda’s PR wing could not have fabricated a better anecdote. This is precisely the type of catalyzing event that generates interest in the Insurgency.

Many Americans are proud of their religious tradition, and hold it dearly. But even the math (five times a day versus once a week) lends credence to the suggestion that religion plays just as large a role, if not more so, in the daily lives of many Iraqis.

My hunch is many Americans would not view Jehovah’s Witnesses in the same light if they were suddenly armed while making their conversion pitch. If, after more than five years of daily interaction, they leaned into car windows with a finger on a trigger while making a religious pitch, some people might become resentful. On the other side of the coin and on the other side of the globe, we have a lone U.S. soldier clouding his assigned mission with actions more fit for a Christian soldier during the Crusades. Let’s just hope that the residents of Fallujah are not as predisposed to violence as a solution as we seem to be.

Stories like these on page A16 go a long way in explaining why the stories on page A1 read the way they do.

This just up on CNN: Barack Obama has resigned from Trinity UCC...

It's now almost two hours since the RBC was supposed to resume after the lunch break. Still no sign of them.

My wife says that, in her time at the UN, they would hold committee meetings in the morning, cut all the deals at lunch time, and come back for "public debate" as a mere formality.  Could be that the same is happening here.

You wanted to know what the hell the DNC was thinking when it gave waivers to NV and FL and let IA and NH go early?  Here's a summary of the 2006 decision:

Some highlights of the 2008 Rules:

The Party recognizes the need early in the nominating process to broaden participation to reflect the Party’s rich racial, regional, and economic diversity by including 2 additional states. Twelve states applied to conduct early primaries and caucuses. We believe that shows the energy and excitement for opening up the process.

The addition of 2 states early in the process will also open up the dialogue to engage a broader range of people to talk about a wider variety of issues. This will enable the Democratic Party to choose the strongest candidate to be our Presidential nominee.

Translation:  It's time for states with significant non-white populations to matter for once.  In other words, boxed in by IA and NH first-in-nation laws, but wanting to address the unfairness of minimizing the meaning of states with hard-working Americans who might not be white, they picked two of a bunch of states that applied for waivers.

Under this reasoning, it makes sense to give anyone other than MI and FL an early vote.  MI, at least, has an overwhelmingly white population.  Florida certainly has a number of Hispanic voters, but it's another East Coast state, and the West is becoming increasingly important to Democratic hopes--at least as much as NH, which as gone red as often as not.

I don't expect a lot of recommends.  I'm just sayin' that just about everyone on TMP is missing a significant part of the point in the MI/FL fiasco.

CNN's reporting that Obama has resigned from Trinity Church (CNN got it from a blog).  If it's true, I'm not sure how I feel about it...sounds like he's putting power over principle.  Anyone else?

If some compromises must be made in order to get past this Michigan and Florida brouhaha, then so be it.  But personally I think that no matter which of the various compromises that are being floated about are concluded, the result is going to be long term damage to the Democratic Party.

There are all sorts of arguments to be made, pro and contra, about the decisions the DNC made last last year.  These arguments have various degrees of merit.  But the fact is, those are the decisions that the DNC did make.  And subsequent to those decisions, all of the candidates made their own decisions about how to conduct their campaigns based on an understanding, presumable authoritatively handed down by the DNC, about the rules according to which this nomination contest would be conducted..

Now those rules are going to be changed in some way, after almost the entire primary contest has come to an end.  No matter which compromises are accepted, the DNC has weakened itself and undermined its own authority.  I predict utter chaos in 2011 and 2012.   States are now going to feel free to jockey aggressively for position and set their own rules outside the party structure, gambling that no penalties imposed by the DNC will actually be enforced come convention time.  Today's meeting and the decisions it produces are might seem like just the last hurdle that needs to be cleared to end this nomination battle.  But I predict we Democrats are going to rue this day.

As another fine example of how the mainstream press constantly shills for people while pretending to be fair and balanced, Wolf Blitzer spins McClellan's revelation on Bush's "I don't remember" on cocaine: "Why revive an allegation that has long been dormant?"

Uh, let's see, Wolf - how about

1) McClellan just published a book - a kind of memoir. Generally that's what we do in memoirs is bring up dormant stuff, especially on a sitting President. In bygone eras, this was considered "news".

2) The press dismissed the cocaine story as unprovable or not true. McClellan provides a Bush statement saying "I honestly don't remember, I went to some pretty wild parties in those days", which can lead one to say pretty definitively that he did do it (it didn't take much to insert a $20 bill in your nose in the 70's, and it's not like Bush is expressing revulsion to the concept). And

3) it supports the major issue of McClellan pointing out that all the press and Bush's press secretary regularly lied and distorted the truth to further the ends of the few - that includes *YOU*, Wolf. For the guys who were happy to sift through Bill & Hillary's undies drawer, you were only too happy to ignore any evidence of Bush's transgressions on anything, including your whole coverage of the war and your daily prime time encouragement of lies posing as evidence.

For your shilling, you can expect a pay raise and a summer cottage on the cape at Martha's Vineyard. Failing upward is the norm for the press - go read Daily Howler for years of confirmation.

Caucuses are blatantly undemocratic:

1. Many people can't participate due to health, job or other concerns;

2. Support below a certain threshold, typically 15%, is treated as 0%.

Despite this, many people defend caucuses because they reflect the will of the most committed voters.

Who's more committed than the voters of Florida & Michigan who voted despite the fact they were told their votes wouldn't count?

They shouldn't be punished.

They should be rewarded.

Double 'em and add your age.

but I have been saying this since last October - and I still think it is has a high probability of happening:
OBAMA/CLINTON '08.
Because the near-perfect analogy would be:
KENNEDY/JOHNSON '60.
Now I may be crazy - but behind the much-subdued actual Clinton/Obama verbiage directed at each other since early May, I am more convinced than ever that most of what we have seen has been carefully scripted and planned for - and that they will come together for the public and their political bases in the end.

Hillary was insulted from the pulpit of Obama's church. It was a racist and sexist insult. When something like that happens, it is not only the speaker who needs to apologize. It is the person in charge. When an American soldier rapes a 15-year-old girl on Okinawa, the President or Secretary of Defense apologizes to Japan, even though neither did the raping. Obama is not the person "in charge" at his church, but he is the most prominent member and the insult was made in support of his candidacy. He is the appropriate person to apologize. That's my thinking on it.

On a practical political level, there were already a lot of people shaken up by Rev. Wright's foolishness. Now this new clown. The Democratic delegates would not be wrong to wonder, "Jeez, what is it with this Trinity Church place? Is everybody there totally wacko? Even if they believe they are correct, do they not realize that they would best serve Obama if they just shut up? How many more Trinity Church eruptions are we going to have between now and November?"

Obama needs to put some distance between himself and the wackos. ASAP.

Also on a political level, I'm not sure how divisive this campaign has been, but the talking heads keeping saying it has been. Obama needs to reach out to Hillary. He needs to say, "I'm sorry that my own home church allowed this sort of ugly attack. I found it as offensive as you did." And he needs to do it publicly, for the sake of the Hillary supporters.

If he fails to do it, it will be the second opportunity Obama has squandered to reach out to Hillary and her people. (The first was his failure to come to her defense on the RFK assassination comment.) He can't keep doing this. He has got to give her a place of honor in the Democratic Party.

Obama should seriously consider Congressman Wexler as a VP candidate. He did an excellent job presenting Obama's case before the RBC this am.  He is well respected here in FL and would certainly help with Jewish votes, especially in this important swing state.

It seems to me that the entire Michigan debate is missing the point...

The claims about the primary results being a valid election: in an election we choose between candidates, not between one candidate and nobody in particular.  In addition to the lack of candidates, the "election" was known in advance to have no impact on the party's choice of candidate... which that no doubt kept voters away, no matter who they would have supported.

Each candidate wants to see Michigan seated in some fashion, to avoid ticking off MI voters for the general.  But seating any delegates at all will not favor the "will of the people", since that hasn't been expressed. 

That means any solution to seat traditional delegates - those who stand committed to one candidate or the other - is flawed from the beginning.  It won't be the will of the people, but the will of the DNC speaking for what they think the people might have wanted - if they'd actually been given a fair chance to make their collective voice heard without spin and political posturing. 

So my suggestion: seat all the allocated delegates - but choose those delegates by lottery from the pool of all those voters who cast a ballot in the last democratic primary.  In effect, create a random sample with the same powers as the superdelegates.

It's perhaps the only shot at actually knowing who the people of Michigan might actually favor.

After sitting patiently thru all the arguments back and forth about whether the Michigan election was flawed or a legitimate election, the woman whom I admire more and more each day, cut to the chase.  Donna Brazile said her mother always told her that ["If you change the rules in the middle of the game or at the end of the game, it's called cheating"].

So whether it's a game of spades, horseshoes, or checkers, the same principle should apply when determining the best solution for Michigan, don't tolerate cheating.  So Donna Brazile, I applaud you for continuing to be unafraid to say that a naked emperor is not wearing any clothes even when others tolerate such nonsense with their silent.

Donna Brazile was just booed (presumably by Hillary's supporters) for saying that her Momma taught her to play by the rules.  She was booed.  Which tells you how Clinton's supporters feel about the rules.  And Brazile was booed for stating that trying to change the rules is cheating.  And God bless her for saying it clearly, and God bless her for pointing out once again that the goal here is party unity.  Party unity.  What a concept.

If either Clinton or Obama wins today, the party will not have been well served.  Every Democrat should come away today with the feeling that they've given a little.

I'm watching some of the hearings on delay, and I noted Harold Ickes asking Levin about his briefly mentioning the credentials committee at the end of another set of questions.

Even when being told repeatedly he was out of time, Ickes slipped the question in. When Levin's overall response, which answered why their proposal would give Clinton fewer than the 73 delegates she would be awarded were the Michigan delegation seated in accordance with the voting, failed to mention the credentials committe, Ickes pressed him again on the line, asking him to expand on it.

Levin's stance was that they strongly believed Michigan's full delegation should be seated, but that there might be reasonable disagreement over their allocation - Obama's camp wanted an even 64-64 split, Clinton's camp wanted 73-55 (Levin is apparently ignoring Lanny Davis's proposal which would award Clinton even more; technically Davis is not affiliated with the Clinton campaign). Levin backed a 69-59 split, but in response to Ickes's repeated question about the "credentials committee", he said that if there was agreement that a full delegation should be seated, but that the allocation of that delegation were still at issue, then that should be taken up with the credentials committee.

The importance of this could be that if there is still dispute over allocation of Michigan's delegation today, the Clinton campaigm may feel justified in continuing to take this point to the convention. Ickes himself wasn't directly saying he should take this to the credentials committee, but he did succeed in getting Levin to say that could be an option.

Did I miss the "live blogging"?

Or were we supposed to be live blogging on our own?

Of course that would be hard because there is no edit function so we would have hundreds of one sentence posts...

Or was someone supposed to start a "live blog" comment thread?

Or should we just blog a live blog and then post the "stream of consciousness" blog after we're finished live blogging?

Turn up the music, pour me some Krunk Juice, I'm fixin' to do me some bloggin'.

In case you hadn't heard, this was Hillary Clinton's response when asked about the Michigan primary early on in the process. A time when she felt very secure on her way to her deserved presidency.

It is a fair, reasonable, and just statement of the situation. A position that was agreed to by all candidates before the primaries began.

But since then, Hillary has not sounded so reasonable. Now she is adamant that votes cast in an election that she agreed would not count, be counted. She says she is concerned that "all voters be heard".

She has also indicated that pledged delegates are free to vote for whoever they want, regardless of the vote in their district. And she is more than happy to take the votes of super delegates, even if they help her defeat a candidate who received more pledged delegates, because she is more electable.

How anyone can look at all this and not see someone willing to win at any cost is beyond me. She wants everyone to heard alright, as long as they are voting for her. The rest should be overturned by "right" thinking super delegates.

Can't get more elitist than that.

Maybe i'm just in a grouchy mood today, but listening to this Florida Challenge is making me hate the people making the challenge.

I now know why so many floridians back Hillary-she, like them, loves playing the victim.

Well...Florida is not a victim. Florida democrats did not oppose the legislation to move the primary to January 29. And now they want to blame the "republican legislature"??? Please. Is that why the bill passed UNANIMOUSLY? WITH NO DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION???

On May 3, the Florida House unanimously passed HB 537, which moves the presidential primary from March, to one week after the New Hampshire primary. Since the New Hampshire primary is expected to be January 22, that would mean a January 29 date for Florida.

Man up. You guys broke the rules. You have to face the consequences.

And Bill Nelson really is a piece of work...god...these people are pissing me off....

For most of this election cycle I've been convinced that the average Obamabot was a mindless lemming, blindly following an empty-suited avatar of "change".  I've also thought they are an extremely nasty lot, practicing the worst sort of "Do as I say, not as I do" hypocrisy.

Now, however, comes this:  http://bp2.blogger.com/_VSjdKAQpeMw/SDif8np2tWI/AAAAAAAACVM/erG1SQiIGBI/S249/untitled.bmp

That gargage comes from the charmingly named website, "The Field Negro" (http://field-negro.blogspot.com/).

Filth.  Absolute, utter, mindless filth.  And these idiots don't have the sense to understand the stupidity of bringing this kind of racist shit into their camp.

Congratulations, 'bots.  Your Dear Leader certainly <i>is</i> the candidate of "change" isn't he?

What's the message here, guys? Does TPM have some kind of Drudge or Huff Po crush? Are the bad photos of the candidates meant to reflect the ever-lowering quality of the posts here in the Reader Comments section? Are some members of the TPM staff hoping to move up to positions at the New York Post?

Just wunderin'

It's time for another summary of the Votemaster's state-by-state polling data. I've been doing this weekly for quite a while now, running a simple Monte Carlo simulation of the general election using the most recent polls from each state (averaged with any other polls taken within 7 days of the most recent).

I repeat that this is not a prediction of what will happen in November; at best it's a summary of current state-by-state polling (and some of the most recent polls are quite old). "Mystery Pollster" Mark Blumenthal does a good job outlining the many grains of salt with which one should take such simulations.

Here's this week's results:
Obama wins 82.0%, averages 283.3 EV
McCain wins 13.8%, averages 254.7 EV
Electoral tie 4.1%

Clinton wins 100%, averages 334.1 EV
McCain wins 0%, averages 203.9 EV

In terms of how often Democrats win simulated matchups, there's virtually no change from last week, although Clinton's average electoral vote total went up, and McCain's chances of beating Obama dropped, with the change mostly going to an increased chance of a 269-269 tie.

The big gain for Obama this week is taking the lead in Wisconsin, and he's also widened his lead in Iowa beyond the polling margin of error. Balancing that, most recent polls in Michigan show Obama dropping from 1 point back to 4, and a week-long Quinnipiac poll in Ohio showed Obama trailing McCain by 4, whereas the most recent Survey USA poll showed Obama ahead by 8. Also notable (but not yet affecting the simulation) is a poll from Mississippi showing Obama down by just 6.

Clinton took a 9 point lead in Kentucky (compared to a 12 point deficit before), showing a huge post-primary bounce, and she's also now leading in Nevada by 5 (the prior poll, from April, had McCain up by 11). She is also polling better in Mississippi, now trailing by 10 instead of 20, although it's premature to consider that state "in-play". Travis Childers's recent win is providing "reverse coattails", boosting the Democrats' standing in the state.

I still believe Obama would be at least as strong a general election candidate as Clinton. I would attribute his trailing now in current polling to the nature of the campaign right now: both Clinton and McCain are fighting Obama, whereas Obama is fighting only McCain right now. This suggests Clinton is basically not being attacked right now by anyone, and that would clearly change if she wins the Democratic nomination.

Both Democrats are currently in good shape, but the winning percentages especially can be quite volatile. Clinton's map is the more traditional Democratic map, and she's currently winning previous key states Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania. If she holds her lead in North Carolina, she could afford to lose two of the other big 3 and still win. By contrast, Obama is also ahead despite trailing by 10 in Florida, and leading by just 1 in Ohio. He can plausibly win despite losing both states.

Just an idle weekend thought here. I should say first that I loved Bill Clinton's administration, I only thought he let the team down when he couldn't keep his fly zipped. As stupid as it was to make it a political issue it was a political issue.  Bill's issue, very graphically, became our issue and then probably Iraq's issue because of the election backlash.  Now, among all the other reasons that I have supported Obama all along, a sobering vision of the future appears.  Imagine Bill free to roam the White House, chat with interns, joke with the staff, when he has nothing else to do. Bill will always have time for a cup of coffee or a quiet chat on the back porch with an intern, while Hillary will be busy most of the time in meetings that Bill won't be allowed to attend.  This is a scandal waiting to happen people and the Republicans will have all the ammo they need for another eight-year-long Clintonian witch hunt.  Will Bill's lack of self-control rise to the occasion and produce yet another issue in Hillary's White House?

I'm all for light to no moderation. A decent community is largely self-policing and will take care of itself - see TrollCritic 3K/4K.

Unfortunately, there's nothing the community can do about blatant spam by posters (professional spammers) like this one. I'm calling on the TPM powers that be to take care of this infestation.

It might make sense to have those "report abuse" buttons/links on blog posts. A sort of anti-recommendation. After a certain number of anti-recommends, a cleaner in authority could be notified, and would then evaluate the situation and take appropriate action. That way, no one needs to babysit the blogs but spammers can be booted off when necessary.

As a Michigan Democrat, I find the whole delegate situation preposterous.

Levin was at the heart of this enitre fiasco. He should be punished for indirectly disenfranchising the votes of millions of people. Egos and money got in the way.

At this point, however, it makes no difference, because even with the Michigan 69-59 split in delegates, Hillary still can't win against Obama. In the words of George Stpehanopolous in 1992, "it's mathematically impossible".

Furher as some people have suggested, it's completely even absurdly why-are-we-even-arguing-about-this unfair to give Hillbag 69 delegates according to 55% of the vote, when
 
a) SHE broke the rules by having her name on the ballot,

b) Obama didn't break the rules and

c) he didn't have his name on the ballot, so how could people have voted for him?!

I am an Obama supporter, but his name was not on the ballot, so I couldn't vote for him. I STAYED HOME, AND SO DID HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS.

To count "uncommitted" for Obama is also wrong, because how many of those uncommitted voted for someone else, like John Edwards? In MI, you had Dodd, Gravel, Kucinich, Clinton and Uncommitted. The fact that 238,168 people were moitvated enough to get out there and vote for "Uncommitted" tells me that HRC would have LOST this state handily.

I think BHO made a big mistake by not allowing a re-vote here. Give her Florida, fine -- full of paranoid old people and GOP'ers anyway. The recent mob scene in Grand Rapids and upcoming one in Troy proves that BHO has HUGE appeal here in Michigan. And Detroit is Chocolate City -- 80% black. 

What should have been done in FEBRUARY is that there should have been re-elections. But Howard dumbass Dean forgot that this was politics, where all rules are neogtiable, and decided not to. Pretty incredible.

At this point, HRC doesn't deserve jack. BELIEVE ME, if it were the OTHER WAY AROUND, she would be doing everything she could to stop BHO from getting the nomination. EVERYTHING. It's about no one but HER, as her flawed, psycho campaign has more than made evident. It has nothing to do with "the people's voice being heard". Give me a break -- Who's Zoomin Who? She cares ONLY about herself.

Side note: I'm not saying BHO isn't a narcissist either, but by my lights, and the majority of the public's lights, far less so than the Billary. And people get this on a gut level. For some reason, we don't expect women to be narcissistic -- we expect them to be nurturing and other-centered. And I think women are generally worse at faking being caring. But I digress.

Under the overturned lute with its
One string I am going my way
Which has a strange sound.

This way the dust, that way the dust.
I listen to both sides
But I keep right on.
I remember the leaves sitting in judgment
And then winter.

I remember the rain with its bundle of roads.
The rain taking all its roads.
Nowhere.

Young as I am, old as I am,

I forget tomorrow, the blind man.
I forget the life among the buried windows.
The eyes in the curtains.
The wall
Growing through the immortelles.
I forget silence
The owner of the smile.

This must be what I wanted to be doing,
Walking at night between the two deserts,
Singing.

 WS Merwin

As a 60-year-old woman I have traversed the spectrum from joy at the availability of great choices for the Democratic nominee to just plain despair about who Clinton has shown herself to be.  I have threatened at times not to vote for her, but I am asking everyone who is threatening a protest vote or non vote this year to take a deep breath and open your eyes.

Take a good look at McCain. The MSM has labeled him a Maverick. He is given an easy pass on his actions because of it. Usually the line runs like this:  Well, yes, McCain HAS lots of lobbyist working for him but he hates them in principle and only uses them because political circumstances force him to do so.  This the-devil-made-me-do-it schtick is McCain's stock-in- trade way of appearing devoted to high standards while in reality being anything but. Look at his actual record. If you think his saying his hero is Teddy Roosevelt means he will be a reformer himself you are wrong. His actual actions and voting record should make any Democrat cringe. Think about who has become his BFF.  Is Lieberman the kind of Democrat you want as our model going forward? Do you like his DINO politics? These two represent a kind of politics that make even Bush look truthful.

Obama supporters are holding on to the hope that we have found in him a candidate who is our last chance to rise above the huckster politics of someone like McCain who is merely the newest front for everything we have come to detest from the Republican side. (Never EVER trust a politician whose favorite tag line used ad naseum is “my friends.”) We are also Democrats who have watched in horror as Hillary decided she wanted the presidency so desperately she became willing to walk through the deepest swamp of political necessity to get it not caring how mucky she became doing so. Of course she frequently praises McCain. They are both slogging along the same path.

So I am asking everyone who is considering a protest vote for McCain or Nadar or even not voting if Hillary is or is not the nominee to think carefully about your throwaway vote. I truly believe we are at a tipping point. We are like a car hanging over the edge of a precipice. Don't give us the final push.

This is terrific news.   Thurman is a Clinton supporter and was a prime mover on the Florida delegation demands.
Not only has she written to the Rules Committee saying they'd be happy to support a 50% delegation, but also that it's time to move forward and unite the party.

You can read her letter at The Field.
Florida Party Chair: “It Is Time to Unite and Move Full Speed Ahead”http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/

Ok, so I am sure everyone heard the pfleger comments.  I would first like to point out that I think it's unacceptable and inappropriate for a church forum.  I also wish that Obama's church would just go away for about six months.

So with my objections to the comments made I will say this.

This man was trying to be funny.  It was a totally inappropriate place for this type of humor, however I have to admit....

If he had been Chris Rock,...  and that had been on comedy central I have to admit I would be laughing my ass off.  Just like I laugh my ass off when Stephanie Miller "onion belts" Mcain on Air America, and yes how I laughed when Saturday Night Live did the pillow for Barack sketch.

I know I will get some flaming for this post, however I think my main question is, when did it become so offensive to make fun of candidates.  (and I am not talking about when preachers do it because that is offensive but when comedians and television personalities do it everyone gets uptight.  I don't remember people getting uptight when Bill Clinton was portrayed stopping at a Mcdonalds in the middle of his jog for a bag of cheeseburgers.  What's changed here?  We as a culture have always lampooned and ridiculed our elected officials.  It's kind of the American way.)

Along the lines of a an office superbowl pool, but with nothing at stake other than bragging rights.... Bonus credit for entering a prediction prior to the barely-polled/wildcard PR primary.

When will Clinton (or, in the event of a strange twist of fate, Obama) concede the Democratic nomination?

Register your vote here.

I know, this whole idea is a little silly... Ah well. Whatever. It's been a thrill-a-minute ride, but I'm ready for this primary business to be over.  And I hope that means we'll see some resolution soon.  It's time.

 

May 30, 2008 (LPAC)--Over the next months, LPAC will be releasing a series of policy memorandums for use by the entire Democratic party. We present the first one, today, "LPAC Food Policy Memorandum: Kill the WTO; Double Food Production", which is available here, in PDF.

http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/05/30/lpac-food-policy-memorandum-kill-wto-double-food-production.html

More than a third of the Democratic Party committee charged with deciding the fate of Michigan and Florida delegates have donated to the campaigns of Clinton or Obama, a USA TODAY analysis shows. Most of the money -- more than $23,000 -- has gone to Clinton, who wants the delegates counted to boost her uphill presidential bid, the analysis shows. Obama has received nearly $6,000. Eight of the board members have given to the Clinton Campiagn, while two of the board members have given to the Obama Campigan. 13 of the board members are strong Clinton supporters while 8 of the barod members are strong Obama supporters and 9 are uncommitted, but two are leaning towards Clinton.


Could this work in Hillary Clinton's favor tomorrow????? Blog members, what do you think????

What do I have to say? Good question. Thank you .

I believe that Sen. Barak Obama is our best, perhaps last hope. For the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country. Sound familiar? It should. It's true for so many of us. Be completely honest, yes, you too feel that way. But don't avoid it - proclaim it.
Explain it to others. This country has not been worthy of our pride for at least seven years. That cannot be overstated since our lives were so changed on September 11, 2001. What better reason could there have been to embrace our fundamental values and Constitutional rights? To set ourselves apart as the truly great nation that we are?
Instead, we had a knee-jerk reaction and allowed our President to steal our legacy. We allowed our Congress to say "yes" to dangerous territory. For highly UN-Constitutional reasons.

Posted by barefooted
May 31, 2008 1:15 AM | Reply | Permalink

This occurred to me, after my diary in one of the "progressive" blogs was received as most pieces are supporting Hillary Clinton:  Spat at and taunted by the usual paid Obama operatives, and I was called a Troll about 50 times.  And 90% of my posts were made invisible, just from spite.

These Obama operatives are the new Republicans

Al Gore, 2000.  Just wanted the votes counted to see who won the election.
Jeered at by the media, Overwhelmed, made to look foolish and narcissistic. . .

Fast forward to two states with citizens who voted honorably in our primary.
Given the draconian punishment of having their democratic rights as citizens removed, because their state primary was moved up.  That was the premise, anyway.  The actual reason is the party was hijacked for the purpose of making one candidate the democratic nominee.  Best accomplished by blocking votes from being counted.

And one candidate fights against a revote.  DOES NOT WANT THESE VOTES COUNTED.  AND HIS SELF PROCLAIMED PROGRESSIVE FOLLOWERS BACK HIM ON SUSPENDING DEMOCRACY.

And this candidate's proposals are to the right of the candidate who will suffer when and if the voters are disenfranchised.

It is 2000 all over again.   
Cult democrats have hijacked our party from the majority.  
And most surreal of all:  The head of our DNC, the "TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY" candidate.  My hero for 4 years. Howard Dean.  Appears to be a perpetrator in this coup.

This piece will be followed by all the Freeper style taunts and jeers.  Same people, aping each other. Filled with blind hate.  I repeat BLIND hatred that we were so contemptuous of in Wingnuts.

Go into Dailyi Kos. Write something positive about Hillary Clinton. Count the hours that you are troll rated off. Just like Free Republic.

The whole damned thing is inverted.  

Howard is the new Katherine Harris. Obama is the new George Bush. Hillary Clinton is the new Al Gore.

What a mind fuck.

I hope a break from the usual political conversation to talk about  the NBA’s Western Conference finals is OK.  The Lakers beat the Spurs 4 games to 1 to become Conference Champions.  However, this injustice must not be allowed to stand.  The NBA needs to award the Western Conference title to the Spurs because they have the best chance of beating the Eastern Conference Champs.  Furthermore, if David Stern and the NBA do not let the Spurs represent the West I will not watch the finals.

1.  The Spurs have more experience in the finals - The Spurs have been in the finals in 3 of the last 5 years.  They know what it takes to win.  The Lakers will have to learn how to win.

2. The Lakers rely on a running game - The running game is a fickle style which is usually not successful in the playoffs.  The Spurs have a better half court game.  ESPN acknowledged this in picking the Spurs to beat the Lakers 4 games to 2 http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2008/columns/story?page=ScoutingSpursLakers

2.  All fouls should count - At the end of Game 4, Brett Barry of the Spurs was bumped by the Lakers Derrek Fisher and no foul was called.  After the game the NBA apologized for the non-foul.  The Spurs lost the game 93-91, but if the foul had been called Barry is an 82% free throw shooter.  He would have made the shots and the Spurs would have won.  This game must be awarded to the Spurs.

3. Spur fans will not support the Lakers - Los Angeles is a team with fans all over the country.  These fans love basketball and will watch the finals no matter who is in it.  The Spurs are from a smaller city in Texas, if the Spurs are eliminated their fans will not watch the finals.

In the interest of fairness, the Spurs must be crowned Western Champs.  I hope David Stern will act before things get ugly. Anyway, that’s my sport rant.  Now I can get back to discussing politics.

How the campaigns managed their positions in regards to FL
and MI is irrelevant to how RBC should decide on the seating of FL and MI delegates. I believe what is critically more important is our respect of democratic right of each individual to have his/her vote counted. That is far more an important consideration than some party leaders violating some party rules.

The FL case is particularly vexing if their full rights are not
restored because it was the GOP-led legislature and Governor who advanced the date. Nevertheless, voters in both states are being denied their rights through no fault of their own. They did their civic duty and followed state law by coming out to vote.

In the case of MI, it’s unfortunate that Obama withdrew his
name. What difference did it make when his name in FL was on the ballot? The import of his withdrawal pales in comparison to the voting right of each voter in considering restoring the voters full rights.

In Michigan, candidates were not under any obligation or pledge to withdraw their names on the ballot. Obama chose to and that was a bad choice. He signaled to the MI voters that he didn't value their votes. All he cared for was not to go down in defeat since the polls showed Hillary far ahead. But what about his voters wish to be heard? Obama made a political choice and he lost (so did his voters who voted uncommitted instead since Obama's campaign campaigned for them to vote uncommitted).

The Goerring indictment at Nuremberg may offer a useful template for war crimes prosecutors. Perino is reported to have substantially confirmed a key connection with the alleged war crimes.

White House counsel Gillespie is reported to have said Perino is present at key decision making sessions and has input to policies.

This could implicate Perino with alleged war crimes.

Perino has made important, fatal assertions about her alleged complicity with war crimes, propaganda and other Geneva violatonis.

Raw Stpru"

Ed Gillespie, a White House counselor and one of Bush's closest advisers, tells the Associated Press that Perino is "at the table on everything that's done here."

That means Oval Office access as well as participation in top-level meetings to debate and make decisions about policy, planning, legislative strategy and other matters, the AP reports.

"I don't want for attendance or invitations," Perino told the AP. "And on the rare occasions I have not been `on a list,' I've been able to appeal."

I find it remarkably symbolic that Hillary Clinton is "putting the chips down" in South Dakota.  If she had a goatee and a buckskin pant suit, she could just go stand at Little Big Horn in Montana for full karmic effect.  Slate.com's Hillary Deathwatch has her at 0.4 percent chance of getting the nomination.   I think General Custer had a higher chance. 
Meanwhile, TMPer Armchair Guerilla lays out terms of surrender for the former-first-lady-turned-senator which is brilliant which should be expected with such a stellar avatar. 
The anniversary of George Armstrong Custer's last stand is in June.

Republican vs. Democrat
Right vs. Left
White vs. Black
Men vs. Women
Straight vs. Gay
Low Income vs. "High Class Elite"
Red vs. Blue (equals purple?)
Etc., Etc., Etc., Etc.

Suppose we just talk....to each other

Scott McClellan is a possible war crimes witness. His book may represent records of contemporaneous notes.

There are exceptions to the hearsay rules. The Congress is not required to wait until there is a criminal conviction before acting or investigating.

Rather, with these damaging disclosures -- of possible war crimes -- the Congerss would be reckless not to immediately convene a committee inquiry to look directly that the war crimes issues.

McClellan's book represents a record of someone who personally witnessed key meetings, events, conversations, and other documents. It is irrelevant that his information is or isn't admissible to a court. The issue is whether his book will or will not mobilize the public to examine the problem in the legal profession: They have recklessly failed to enforce the laws of war for seven [7] years.

Shame on America's lawyers. Shame on the US Attorneys.

Thank you C-SPAN for rebroadcasting the DNC meeting on 25 August 2007 in which the party set forth the rules which govern the current Democratic campaign. Thanks for letting us the voters see who said what and when they said it.

Hillary Clinton said in an interview today that the super delegates will <i>"start"</i> making up their minds after June 3. Later in the same interview she was asked, "if someone brought a challenge to the convention would she support it?" She said yes, because she feels "strongly about this" (Florida and Michigan being seated.)

So in a variation on the popular poker game, let's play Denver Hold 'Em!

Place your bets: Will Hillary mount a challenge in Denver to seat the entire Florida and Michigan delegations and who will lead that challenge? (The person must be a delegate to the convention.)

Bet: NO, or YES and Who

I start us off with: 

<b>YES, and Stephanie Tubbs Jones</b>

Mi casa, su casa.

I thought that, tonight, which could be the last Friday night of the Democratic Primary Election, it would be fun to let our hair down (more than usual - ?) and share our spaces with one another.

I know it's posted on my profile page here at TPM, but I just updated my myspace.com's sassy self, and I would like to share with you my latest videos and song. 

Please feel free to click away at the blog links, the videos, all the fun whistles and bells, but please respect the privacy of my friends whom I don't display on my home page, that's all I ask.

I would love to see other TPMers' public myspace pages too, so if you're willing to share your space here, please do so.

Meantime, enjoy my new Moveon.org "Bush and McCain Challenge" (it's in my Television section), Bob Cesca's excellent and beautiful mash-up video of Barack and friends serenaded by Roger Waters, and the amazing and gorgeous wunderkind toddler who sings "Hey Jude" and really feels it.

http://myspace.com/lis64

Peace and happy Friday,
Lis

http://www.twincities.com/ci_9430640?nclick_check=1

On your marks...get set...and get loaded for bear!  Don’t you think it’s time to find something about McCain to object to other than his lobbying staffers and stupid posturing?  If so, the L.A. Times'  Edward Humes has some great talking points for you the next time your Republican neighbor or family member confronts you about Obama's support for the troops:

McCain's Attack on Vets

Humes starts off with a very detailed critique of McBush's opposition to the new bipartisan GI bill, which would have restored meaning to subsidized education for veterans.  However, although I often roll my eyes at long quotes, I'd like to highlight some great talking points, laid out with such clarity that even I am shameless enough to include this:

. . . . From 2004 to 2006, the Disabled Veterans of America gave him [McCain] annual scores ranging from 50% to the most recent 20% when it comes to supporting the group's legislative priorities. The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gave him a grade of "D" in its most recent analysis of voting records. The American Legion says he is dead wrong on the GI Bill, as does the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

When Obama (who has averaged an 86% rating from the Disabled Veterans of America) criticized McCain on the GI Bill, the Arizona senator angrily suggested that Obama's status as a non-veteran rendered his opinions on military matters worthless (an odd stance, as this standard would also discount the opinions of 85% of American men, 98.8% of American women and two-thirds of Congress). Then he invited a look at his own record by asserting, "I take a back seat to no one in my affection, respect and devotion to veterans."

So let's take McCain up on his invitation. Here is how he has stood on recent legislation supported by major veterans organizations:

* On Webb's GI Bill, he expressed opposition, and he was AWOL when it was time to vote on May 22.

* Last September, he voted against another Webb bill that would have mandated adequate rest for troops between combat deployments.

* On a badly needed $1.5-billion increase for veterans medical services for fiscal year 2007 -- to be funded through closing corporate tax loopholes -- he voted no. He also voted against establishing a trust fund to bolster under-budgeted veterans hospitals.

* In May 2006, he voted against a $20-billion allotment for expanding swamped veterans medical facilities.

* In April 2006, he was one of 13 Senate Republicans who voted against an amendment to provide $430 million for veterans outpatient care

* In March 2004, he voted against and helped defeat on a party-line vote a $1.8-billion reserve for veterans medical care, also funded by closing tax loopholes.

I love our troops.  I worry about them every single day.  Every death hits me, every story of PTSD, brain injury, mayhem and the ever-increasing suicides.  I don't for one minute think we're going to be able to ship them home tomorrow, but the fact that they are abused and neglected when they do return is outrageous. 

So this is the kind of thing I plan to keep on my computer desktop and feed to my family and friends, drop by savory drop.  Link to it, share it, recommend it, I don't care; I'm starting to get pretty excited about how thoroughly the Dems are going to pulverize this imposter.  I hope you guys start in on him too.

One question for ya'll, though: what are Hillary's ratings with the veterans' organizations?

I continue to support Barack Obama, but what's right is right. Much as it pains me to defend a woman who repeatedly has manipulated sympathies of gender and race throughout this campaign, basic intellectual honesty compels me to side with her on this one.

Father Pfleger's now-famous remarks in a guest sermon at Obama's Trinity United Church of Christ were out of line. (You look them up. I'm too tired.) Pfleger spoke in terms that were racist, sexist and ignorant. He acted every bit as much the fool as Rev. Wright did before the National Press Club. What's worse, Pfleger's point was purely political, purely without redeeming merit and purely designed to play to the house, those faithful who have endured Hillary's own style of insult, months of media caricaturizations and anonymous death threats. They were ripe for a little anger, and Pfleger happily, blithely, unthinkingly supplied the bread and circuses of division that have become the staple of this primary campaign.

No candidate deserves a public roasting, especially at the hands of a daft and earnest clergyman. Hillary didn't deserve it. If anything (and church is not the place), she deserves only a fair critique. She deserves credit for being human and having run a helluva campaign.

Hilary wasn't the only one who got the short end of Pfleger's sharp stick. Trinity didn't deserve to have its pencil-sketch caricature made into a perverse Norman Rockwell painting, but the image may endure just as indelibly, now that another pastor has washed that congregation in the pastels of fury and resentment.

Obama didn't deserve it. His ability to take the high road, more often than not anyway, should have been an inspiration and example for those he knows personally. It should not have been an excuse to counter-attack Clinton in a low and despicable use of mockery and oversimplification.

If we Obama supporters are to believe that our cause is just, that our candidate is superior and that our vision of the future is deserved, we have to stop making excuses for those who tarnish all that we and Obama say we stand for. We cannot suffer fools in our midst to erode the basis of our claims. Just as Wright before him, Pfleger has hurt Obama's chances to fully unify the party and to fully earn the trust of the total American electorate. Pfleger doesn't add to Obama's Wright problem; he compounds it.

It is Pfleger — not Obama — who owes Hillary an apology. But Obama might want to think about apologizing, as well — if not for the vicious remarks, then for his propensity for keeping poor company.

Scott McClellan discloses the problems of the US-UK illegal invasion of Iraq: It was unnecessary, and a war crime.

In response, former Prime Minister Tony Blair claims Bush's illegal war in Iraq was a "good faith" effort.

Wrong. "Good faith" would not require deceptions, as Scott McClellan claims the President and Prime Minister engaged. The Downing Street Memos establish the UK Prime Minister was part of this deception to fix facts.

The DoD emails establish US personnel in DoD and the White House well knew of the Downing Street Memo. At 7524 Blair is not an independent observer, but implicated with the alleged war crimes. The UK ministers were well told in the Downing Street Memos that there needed to be an "excuse" to go to war. This does not meet the Geneva requirements.

Blair's problem is that he's confusing the idea of "good faith negotiations" with "good faith compliance with Geneva." Negotiations with the enemy, by definition, when they deal with matters of war, are based on deception.

However, a "good faith" effort to justify an invasion cannot create the illusion of an imminent threat. One cannot in "good faith" falsify evidence or use deceptive propaganda to meet Geneva legal requirements, as McClellan says happened.

McClellan's disclosures about the US President's Propaganda efforts attach to Blair: They were part of the same invasion planning and knew, or should have known of the deceptions. The DoD emails show Doug Feith was connected with the President's propaganda through the White House Iraq Group.

Saddam may have been opposed to the United States, but that opposition does not meet the legal burden of an imminent threat. An imminent threat means a country has no time to discuss the issue, and must act immediately. The fact the President and others worked to deceive the Congress and UN through propaganda shows they had time.
 
Contrary to Blair's assertions, Al Queda would not be a threat in Iraq had the Untied States not illegally invaded, prompting the locals to support opponents of the illegal invasion.  The American invasion helped fuel the problem Blair says justifies the invasion. That is convoluted logic. Blair is asking that we believe an subsequent condition was really a pre-condition.

Blair's statement shows a lack of contrition and poor understanding of the Geneva Conventions. That is not a defense, given his legal advisers well discussed the potential war crimes adjudications.

Bush and Blair jointly ignored the Geneva Conventions. American citizens are not obliged to continue supporting this President, the GOP, or the continued illegal, reckless occupation and military action in Iraq.

When the dignitaries arrive Monday at the gleaming new 10-story $250 million NIH laboratory building in

This is rather amusing, methinks.

http://blip.tv/file/942863/

I have remained silent until this point, but I feel compelled to speak up.

When Bill Clinton was running for president the first time, I wore an "Elect Hillary's Husband" button.  When the conservatives pilloried her for refusing to stay home and bake cookies, I stood up for her.  When Bill got caught with his pants down, "We elected the wrong Clinton" I stewed.  When people said Hillary was only running for congress as a step to the White House, I said "Good for her!" and voted for her as my senator.  When people said the country was ready for a woman president but that Hillary would never get elected because she was too divisive, I was spitting mad that they could be so afraid of this smart, driven woman that they would hold her back.  I was overjoyed when she announced she was running.  When Barack said he was running, I said he was too inexperienced, that Hillary was clearly the best choice.

Then I began listening to him.  And I heard something I wasn't hearing from the other candidates -- a new way of doing business, a rising above the petty everyday politics.  I made my decision a week before Super Tuesday -- I would vote for him in the primary and would be happy to support either of them in the election.  What a great situation, I thought -- especially after the last election where Kerry left everyone bored -- how exciting to have to force myself to choose between two such exciting candidates.  I was looking forward to the months ahead.

And then Hillary went negative.  Bill's comment in NC about Jackson, Hillary's continual spinning, her exploitation of the Reverand Wright situation.  And I held my breath and hoped she would give up the politics as usual.  She didn't, and I began to see what her detractors had been saying about her for years.  My opinion is not based on media commentary (which I take with a shaker of salt), blogs (which I rarely read), or Obama's comments about her.  My new opinion is based purely on her own behavior.

Hillary, your negative behavior has let me down, and I'm angry.  I'm so angry that -- if by any chance you get the nomination -- you have lost my vote in the general election.  And despite Dean's confidence that we'll all come together, I promise that I'll vote for Nader as a protest vote before I vote for you.  And, if you don't get the nomination, if you come up for re-election as my senator, I will vote against you or stay home rather than support you.

I'm sorry to have to say that.  I'm sorry that I'm not able to support a smart, strong woman who had an opportunity to break the glass ceiling and blaze trails for the rest of us, those of us who don't have your courage or determination.  And I'm sorry that you were so focused on winning that you weren't able to look at what is best for the rest of us.  You brought this on yourself.

As McClellen's recent releases indicate, we need a president who is not "willing to do anything to win" (to quote your own words).  You are clearly not prepared to be that president.  Stop blaming others for your own failure.

Letter to Undecided Superdelegates

Letter to Undecided Superdelegates

I have mixed feelings aout workers coming into the country from Mexico. One hand, these people are being used as cheap labor (remember slavery?). On the other hand, the workers being displaced are American-born workers on the lowest rungs of the economic ladder.

Raising fuel costs may create a situation where the cost of shipping products overseas or by air from foreign countries with cheap labor is higher than manufacturing the product in the US.

Obviously that would require sustained increasing fuel prices over a sustained period. If that situation does occur and manufacturing jobs return to the US, what would happen if companies attempted to use non-US citizens as the manufacturing workforce.? In my opinion, the foreign workers would be out of luck in access to those jobs.

As manufacturing jobs increased in the US, foreign workers may face less pressure US born workers who feel more economically secure. Another possibility is that US born workers without the skills to find employment in manufacturing may be angered as they see fellow citizens gaining as they remain stagnant or fall behind.

Those unskilled US workers may demand that foreign born workers be shown the door and press the government for stricter enforcement of immigration laws.

If  manufacturing jobs are not available to foreign workers and the government has to address the concerns of US born citizens who feel left behind economically as fuel prices rise, illegal aliens may face even more pressure than they do now.

The question will be what fuel price will serve as the tipping point to ignite US based manufacturing.

117 United States Army soldiers committed suicide during 2007!

That statistic was announced today and is the highest number of soldiers to take their own lives in a single year since the army has kept records.

As shocking as that number is, it is probably lower than the actual count would be without the Pentagon and the administration manipulating such statistics. 

Just like the PTSD statistics, those two entities make every effort to keep the truth from the American people.  The new diagnosis being used to reduce the number diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is "Adjustment Disorder."  This ridiculous term was chosen to describe "those having a difficult time adjusting to civilian life after serving in a war zone."

Sound familiar?  Our illustrious leadership in the executive branch and the military-industrial complex redefining things so they sound more acceptable to the average American.  You know, like "collateral damage" instead of dead human beings.

If there were 117 "official" suicides among army soldiers during 2007, doesn't it make you wonder how many deaths that were actually suicides were attributed to other causes?

George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell and the rest of the arrogant, incompetent leadership who lied our country into this shameful war should be forced to look into the eyes of the families of each of these suicide victims before they are allowed to move on with their own lives and forget the horror they created.

117 suicides in 2007 alone!  4083 dead from combat in Iraq!  Hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians!  Each and every one of the souls who are no longer here for their families are the direct responsibility of the Bush/Cheney cabal.

"We The People" MUST begin to take our country back from the monsters who have stolen our Executive Branch. 

I'd be laughing if this weren't so serious.  Our ports are STILL not secure, seven years after 9/11.  Neither are our chemical plants.  Those Air Force guys that sent nuclear-armed B-52s off across the country accidentally last year?  They just failed their Department of Defense nuclear security inspection. 

What we mostly got from our souped-up Homeland Security dept are color-coded terror alerts and instructions on using duct tape.

But ah, our fearless FBI agents will protect us from the forces of evil, right?  By infiltrating vegan potluck dinners:

Carroll, who requested that his real name not be used, showed up early and waited anxiously for Swanson’s arrival. Ten minutes later, he says, a casually dressed Swanson showed up, flanked by a woman whom he introduced as FBI Special Agent Maureen E. Mazzola. For the next 20 minutes, Mazzola would do most of the talking.

“She told me that I had the perfect ‘look,’” recalls Carroll. “And that I had the perfect personality—they kept saying I was friendly and personable—for what they were looking for.”

What they were looking for, Carroll says, was an informant—someone to show up at “vegan potlucks” throughout the Twin Cities and rub shoulders with RNC protestors, schmoozing his way into their inner circles, then reporting back to the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force, a partnership between multiple federal agencies and state and local law enforcement. The effort’s primary mission, according to the Minneapolis division’s website, is to “investigate terrorist acts carried out by groups or organizations which fall within the definition of terrorist groups as set forth in the current United States Attorney General Guidelines.”

Carroll would be compensated for his efforts, but only if his involvement yielded an arrest. No exact dollar figure was offered.

“I’ll pass,” said Carroll.

They never learn, not even after law enforcement got caught planting a mole in a Quaker Church group. 

A lot can hinge on the meaning of 'is'.  I think it was Bertrand Russell who said that most philosophical problems are confusions of the 'is' of predication, the 'is' of identity, and the 'is' of existential quantification.  The mining of such careful logical and grammatical distinctions that began with Frege and matured with Russell flourished in Wittgenstein's thinking with the idea that there are no real philosophical problems, only logico-grammatical confusion.

In most cases, however, the meaning is clear enough.  We even have different forms of 'is' to make the meaning clearer if we need to.  The plural form of 'is' is 'are'.  The future tense of that form is 'will be'.  When you say 'are' it means now not later.

So, outside of the philosophico-linguistic puzzles that vexed the likes of Frege, Russell, and Wittgenstein, there's very seldom any confusion about the meaning of 'is' and its conjugates.  That is why Bill Clinton's infamous utterance "it depends what the meaning of 'is' is" has come to symbolize Washington double-speak, because when someone wants to start parsing 'is' you know that you're either not getting straight talk or you're getting a Wittgensteinian deflation of a philosophical conceit.

So, I'm just wondering whether anyone else noticed that Mr Straight-Talk(tm)'s campaign invoked a defense that is emblematic of double talk today when they issued a missive threatening to parse the tenses of 'is' to explain McCain's ignorance about troop levels.  The McCain camp is saying that McCain didn't mean what he plainly said because he might have had a different meaning of 'is' in mind.  Gotta love that straight talk. . .  though it shouldn't take mastery of the Tractatus Logico Philosophicus to comprehend.

Hey, didja year? The Democratic Rules & Bylaws Committee is meeting tomorrow (5/30) to decide the outcome of their previously decided sanctions on Michigan and Florida. Hillary Clinton supporters have vowed to stage rallies and carry signs to make their presence known (although the WomenCountPAC have vowed to make this a positive, fun rally without disruption. Really). In the meantime, Obama has asked that his supporters NOT picket the committee, in a quest to maintain order.

I like his chutzpah--the idea that the RBC will make the most reasonable decisions, for the best of the party without a lot of drama. On the other hand, I worry about the fact that the RBC may be hearing significantly more from the Clinton supporters than the Obama supporters.

So, while I'm agreeing with Obama's request, I thought it might be fun to post what we WOULD put on my sign, or WOULD chant at RBC members going by, if there WERE a big Obama contingent in DC this Saturday.

Any takers?

I have been engaged in a long-running debate over who is more "electable", Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. I am the Obama supporter in this relationship.

I used numbers from the web site FiveHundredThirtyEight.com (highly recommended for political sabermatricians) to break the states into seven categories. The first category is "Solid Blue": these are states that either Clinton or Obama would have at least a 90% certainty of carrying. There are 7 such states (CA, NY, MA, RI, VT and DC) with a total of 112 electoral votes (e.v.). The next category, "Solid Red", is for the states neither Clinton nor Obama can carry more than 10% of the time. This group contains 12 states (TX, GA, AZ, LA, AL, OK, KS, NE, MS, UT, ID and WY), and also has a total of exactly 112 e.v.

The remaining states are "in play", in the sense that either Clinton or Obama (usually both) have realistic chance to win, as well as a realistic chance of losing. I broke these states into five groups. There are 7 states (with 109 e.v.) where Clinton is a lot stronger than Obama, where "a lot" is defined as having at least a 20% greater chance of winning. These include many of the crucial "swing states" of recent electoral history, and they form the basis of Clinton's best arguments that she is more electable. Clinton is indeed a lot stronger in FL, PA, OH, MO, TN, KY, WV and AR.

Obama is a lot stronger than Clinton in 6 medium-sized states with a total of 58 e.v.: VA, WI, WA, CO, OR and IA. So far, the analysis seems to favor Clinton, as the states where she clearly runs better than Obama have almost twice as many e.v. as the states where he is clearly stronger (109 > 58).

However, there are also states where either Clinton or Obama has a real, but not decisive edge (an advantage of more than 5%, but less than 20%, in the candidate's chances of winning the state). Obama is somewhat better than Clinton in 12 states with 83 e.v. (IL, IN, MN, MD, CT, NM, HI, ND, SD, DE, MT and AK). Clinton is somewhat better than Obama in just 3 states with 24 e.v. (NC, NV, and NH).

That leaves 3 states with 40 e.v., that are at least nominally "in play" where neither Clinton nor Obama has a clear advantage over the other: NJ, MI and SC. Of course, NJ and SC lean strongly, blue and red respectively. MI is the only real swing state where Clinton and Obama are on an equal footing.

Overall, Clinton has an advantage over Obama in 11 states (with 109+23=132 e.v.); Obama has the edge in 18 states (with 58+83=131 e.v.). He is unlikely to win a few of the states where she is better: notably AR, WV, KY, and even FL.

* * * * *

To get to the necessary 270 electoral votes to win, Obama would need to carry:

• The Solid Blue states (112 e.v.)

• IL (21), NJ (15), WA (11), MD (10), MN (10), OR (7), CT (7), HI (4), RI (4), DE (3). All these are safe states for Obama. (92 e.v.)

• PA (21), WI (10), CO (9), NM (5). All of these are swing states where Obama currently leads McCain. (45 e.v.)

Those states get him to 249 e.v. He needs 21 more, from among:

• OH (20), MI (17), VA (13), IN (11), NV (5), NH (4). True swing states for Obama (70 e.v.)

• FL (27), NC (15), MO (11), ND (3). "Reach" states, where Obama could run up the score in a blowout win (56 e.v.)

* * * * *

To get to 270 e.v., Clinton would need to win:

• The Solid Blue states (112 e.v.)

• NJ (15), AR (6), RI (4). These too are safe states for Clinton. (25 e.v.)

• FL (27), IL (21), PA (21), OH (20), WA (11), MD (10), MN (10), CT (7), OR (7), NM (5), WV (5), NV (5), HI (4), DE (3). All of these are states where Clinton currently leads McCain. (156 e.v.)

Those states get her to 293 e.v., more than enough to win. And she could realistically get more, from among:

• MI (17), MO (11), IN (11), WI (10), KY (8), IA (7), NH (4). True swing states for Clinton (68 e.v.)

• NC (15), TN (11), CO (9). "Reach" states, where Clinton could run up the score in a blowout win (35 e.v.)

* * * * *

To summarize, either Obama or Clinton could reasonably win the Electoral College using these numbers. Clinton could win with just the states she has now, whereas Obama can't say that: Advantage Clinton. On the other hand, Obama's base of safe states is significantly larger than Clinton's (204 e.v. > 137). But all in all, this level of Electoral College analysis does favor Clinton's electability over Obama's.

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

Am I entirely persuaded? No, I'm not, for several reasons. For one thing, it's much too early to look at polls to determine who is going to win in November. Also, it has been several weeks now that Obama's attacks have been primarily directed against McCain. Ever since North Carolina and Indiana, Hillary Clinton has been running pretty much unopposed, which I think tends to inflate her polling numbers beyond what they would be if a real nomination contest were still underway. Finally, I am convinced that if Clinton was somehow able to persuade the superdelegates to wrest the nomination away from Obama, the result would be a disastrously divided convention. I do not think Clinton could win in that scenario.

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

If I don't believe Clinton can win, then what, I hear you asking, is the point of this exercise?

First, I want to acknowledge that Clinton people can do math, and that there is some genuine substance to Clinton's electability arguments. (I went into this little project thinking that there was less to her arguments than I now believe there is.)

Second, I want to point out how crucial a swing state Michigan is, especially if Obama is the nominee. I'm quite afraid Hillary Clinton is going to be tempted to demagogue the Michigan primary results, vetoing any reasonable compromise, to the point that it will seriously hurt Obama's chances of winning that state. She shouldn't do this, for her own sake as well as the party's. The party will not forgive her if she is seen as the Ralph Nader of 2008 -- the person who, for the sake of her ego, cost the Democrats the election.

Third, I want to focus my fellow Obama's suporters on the highly solvable but crucial problem of getting Obama past 270. That is going to mean working long, hard and respectfully to bring Clinton's supporters on board. Please, let's save the victory laps for November. It's going to mean we can't simply dismiss as "old politics" anything anyone tells us that we'd rather not hear. It's going to mean doing everything we can to win in Ohio and Michigan, the two most winnable big swing states for Obama. And I know a lot of my fellow Obamaphiles don't want to hear this, but I believe it's going to mean naming a Clinton loyalist to the ticket.

Let's all try to remember the salutory example of Karl ("You have your math; I have the math") Rove. Let's not kid ourselves -- we're going to have to be smart and realistic, as well as idealistic, if we're going to win in November.

Scott McClellan's book has sent some shivers down the spine of the White House and DOJ OLC legal counsel. They have a war crimes problem, and McClellan's put that in writing. The laws of war require investigations, prosecutions, impeachment, and adjudication of these war crimes.

The US Attorneys have refused to act. This refusal to enforce the laws of war may be adjudicated as a subsequent war crime, punishable by the death penalty.

Congress has no excuse for continued inaction on these alleged war crimes discussed in McClellan's book.

Either the US Attorneys enforce the laws of war; or they may be lawfully arrested and adjudicated with war crimes. It is time for the 90+ US Attorneys to choose between their legal obligations under the Geneva Conventions; or their continued illegal rebellion against the Conventions. They cannot lawfully claim they were following Presidential orders. That defense failed at Nuremberg. These Presidential orders are illegal.

There is no statute of limitations for war crimes. Legal counsel, prosecutors, civilian policy makers, and policy advisers to the President may be adjudicated  with war crimes for, among other things:

- Failing to enforce the laws of war;
- Actively supporting war crimes;
- Refusing to remove themselves from war crimes policy making;
- Providing material support to war crimes policy makers; or
- Suppressing, destroying, or not safeguarding war crimes evidence.

1. FOIA: DoJ Staff Counsel Emails On McClellan's Book

War crimes prosecutors have a foreseeable interest in reviewing what DoJ Staff counsel did, said, or failed to do once McClellan's book was known to the DOJ Staff and US Attorneys. Our job will be to work with leading civilian legal counsel to request through the FOIA process copies of all emails, messages, and other notes DOJ Staff and US Attorneys exchanged after McClellan's book was first disclosed last year.

This information is important because it will show who on the DOJ Staff knew or should have known about the war crimes implications of the information contained in McClellan's book. This information will assist war crimes prosecutors in deciding which US Attorneys, DOJ OLC legal counsel, and DoJ Staff knew or should have known they had legal obligations; but took no action, as required, under the Conventions to enforce the laws of war.

- Which legal team plans to take the lead on requesting through the FOIA process copies of the DOJ Staff, US Attorney, and DOJ-based data in the JCON data base?

- What assistance does anyone need to identify the specific contractors who provide the IT support for DOJ to require DOJ and the President ensure this war crimes evidence is secure and ready for war crimes prosecutors?

2. Arrest Warrants for US Attorneys

The United States' NATO ally Italy has no confidence in this attorney general or the US Attorneys in enforcing the laws of war or Geneva Conventions. Italian war crimes prosecutors have continued their war crimes trials against US personnel allegedly involved with illegal rendition, prisoner abuse, and unlawful kidnapping.

Our job will be to work with the State and local prosecutors to review what US Attorneys did not timely act to enforce Geneva; and draft indictments and arrest warrants for the 90+ US Attorneys. They are alleged to have followed illegal orders to not enforce Geneva; have blocked or not started war crimes investigations; and/or they've not fully asserted their oath of office to enforce the Geneva Conventions through prosecutions. Vermonters voted to draft an arrest warrant against the President.

- Where does the Executive Office of US Attorneys (EOUA) stand on ensuring safe passage of US Attorneys after their arrest to the nearest foreign consulate or embassy?

- What assistance is required to issue these arrest warrants against all US Attorneys?

- Does anyone have any evidence that their efforts to serve these lawful arrest warrants against any of the US Attorneys has been thwarted?

3. Member of Congress Written Memos

McClellan's revelations show there is a war crimes problem. Congress has not acted. Members of Congress and Committee Staff counsel must immediately draft memoranda and letters showing their views of McClellan's book in the context of Geneva; and request in writing to the Office of Special Counsel, DoJ IG, and Office of US Attorneys appointment of a special counsel to conduct a war crimes investigation.

The charges include alleged illegal war crimes, unlawful decisions not to enforce Geneva, and US Attorney malfeasance in failing to enforce Geneva. Nuremberg and the Justice Trial are precedents for adjudicating staff counsel with the death penalty for failing to enforce the laws of war.

- Where are the Member of Congress and their committee staff counsel on reviewing McCellean's book?

- What evidence can be developed through lawful sources showing which staff counsel and Members of Congress have purchased McClellan's book; and know or should know the war crimes implications of McClellan's book?

- Where are the memoranda from the Majority and Minority Staffs to the Department of Justice Attorney General, Office of Special Council, the Executive Office of US Attorneys, DOJ OPR, and DOJ IG on these alleged war crimes; and a reminder to the DOJ AG the requirement for the Department of Justice to enforce the laws of war through prosecutions?

- Where is the grand jury that should have been empaneled to review the information in McClellan's book and begin issuing subpoenas to White House legal counsel and US government officials for the war crimes-related indictments?

4. JCON Data Retention Plan

This Administration has a problem retaining data. The Attorney General must issue a letter in writing certifying the war crimes-related evidence in the JCON database has been safeguarded. All notes, memoranda, and other things related to DOJ OLC communications with the White House on any information related to McClellan's disclosures is foreseeable war crimes-related evidence, and must be safeguarded.

- Who has the Attorney General appointed as special master to ensure the JCON war crimes evidence is secure, and available for war crimes adjudication?

- What is the Attorney General's plan to work with foreign war crimes prosecutors to ensure this JCON data related to McClellan's disclosures is available to foreign war crimes tribunals?

5. State Level Investigations of DOJ-Assigned US Prosecutors

State Attorney disciplinary boards have a job to do: Ensure legal counsel assigned to their state are fully qualified and are doing their job. Each of the US Attorneys working in DOJ are required to meet the local-state standards. Each of the 50 states has jurisdiction over the 90+ US Attorneys. The States need to now outline their plan to disclosure what they plan to do to review McClellan's book; and start disciplinary investigations against DOJ Staff counsel and US Attorneys assigned to their jurisdictions.

Copies of these state-level plans must be provided under seal to the Italian War Crimes prosecutor. Until the Italian war crimes prosecutor receives assurances that the States plan to enforce the laws of war against state-regulated legal counsel, the Italians have full support to expand their war crimes prosecutions beyond the rendition issues.

- What is the plan of the State Attorney General's to organize a single focal point to ensure the Italian War crimes prosecutors have the information they need to make an informed declination decision?

- Who needs help remind the State Attorney Generals, State officials, or State legal counsel of their obligations to enforce the laws of war against DOJ staff counsel and US Attorneys assigned to their state?

Action Alert

Let others know if you have any problems discussing these issues; or attempting to get responses from the US government, AG, or US Attorneys.

A. Share this information with your friends;

B. Take action on this information; and

C. Remind your friends: (a) the Department of Justice has a war crimes problem; and (b) Scott McClellan's book is important information they should discuss with their friends, Members of Congress, and local officials.

Did you send money to MoveOn.org? Did you sign an online petition to the Super-delegates? Bill Clinton is making a list and he is checking it twice to find out who was naughty and who wasn't nice to his spouse; he says she was pushed aside from the Democratic nomination by organizations like Move.On who floated an online petition to Super-delegates in this process. Is your name on this petition?

Seriously, I believe organizing online petitions like the one which supported him during his Impeachment is the highest form of democracy. We the people have the right to organize and petition our government where we see fit. The superdelegates are government officials right?

How dare the citizenry of the United States take their role seriously in our democracy.

Dear Super Duper Delegates:

I am writing to let you know that I should be the winner of the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.

I have the unanimous support of the people who matter most in this campaign: the people who voted for me. I have campaigned in all the places that matter most to Democrats: the DailyKos, TalkingPointsMemo, Politico, the New York Times, the Washington Post, TIME, Newsweek, Huffington Post, and more. At the beginning of this race, I spent a lot of time in the newspapers of Des Moines Manchester, Las Vegas, Columbia, SC and more.  (Note that I abided by the ban against campaigning in Michigan and Florida.) 

And now after some 50-odd contests, I am happy to report that I have received favorable notice in all of the places I campaigned and lead among the people who think like me who also voted like me. 

This election is about more than a popularity contest. But if you want a popularity contest, I won that too. I am the most popular among the people who think I am popular. 

Let's talk about the issues: I can make change. I have made change since I was 5 years old. I can make change in foreign currency. I can make change you can believe in, because I know how to add. That makes me the most fiscally responsible candidate you can select. Plus for this campaign I have spent exactly ZERO dollars. I have raised exactly ZERO dollars, too, but that is beside the point.

I don't go to religious services regularly so I have no crazy pastors, rabbis, priests, ministers, reverends , imams, mullahs, bishops, or other spiritual leaders. However, I do subscribe to some radical magazines. But I read them only in the bathroom while soaking in the bubbly tub.

As a matter of full disclosure, sometimes I do feel bitter, and sometimes I'm clingy. I'm especially clingy when I forget to put fabric softener in the wash. The only guns I know how to shoot are cap guns. I prefer making a gun shape with thumb and forefinger and going "BANG BANG!" I can make machine gun sounds too. However, I only do that when playing GI Joe beats up Ken and takes Barbie out for a steak dinner and gets angry when she doesn't put out as advertised. But I believe that Barbie does have a right to say "no." As for hunting, I like to hunt for bargains.

Sometimes I drink. Sometimes it's Kool-Aid, sometimes it's juice or soda (also known as pop, cola, soda pop or "a soft drink). I also enjoy hard drinks too. But not too excess because I don't want end up on an infomercial called "Cougars Gone Wild on Spring Break." When I bowl, I use the bumpers to avoid those embarassing gutter balls. I don't know why I mentioned that other than when I drink the hard stuff, I sometimes go bowling.

I am in excellent health if you don't take into consideration all of the things that ail me. If you do take those into consideration, then I'm lucky I'm not on life support this week.

As for the issues, I am for them. Well, except for the ones I am against. I try to stay open-minded so that if my position on an issue changes, you'll never know it because you don't know whether I was for it or against it in the first place.

I believe in reaching across the aisle to the other side. Especially if they have popcorn or chocolate. I am bipartisan. It is important to have parts on both sides, and I do. Mostly I have parts in the middle.

A lot has been made in the race about color. That is a good thing. But we should not fixate on just white or black, but blue, green, red and yellow among other colors. That is why I support make-up. Should I make it to the top, I will create a new cabinet position, Secretary of Lookin' Good. I know this is not an original idea, but good ideas and slogans should be stolen from your opponents.

Finally, as your nominee it will be important to challenge the Republicans during the fall campaign.I know the Republicans will use 527 groups. We should have more than that. I think we should have 1054 groups. Which is twice as many as the Republicans. I will practice my schoolyard taunts ("I know you are, but what am I") and will practice rapid-fire deliver of "the dozens" ("you wanna play the dozens? the dozens is a game... the way I'll talk about yo' momma is a dirty rotten shame. yo' momma's feet stink so bad they make limburger cheese smell sweet) because we have to hit back and hit hard.

Well, I think I have outlined the reasons why you should select me as the Democratic nominee. I earned it and only I can beat the Republicans in the fall, All of the polling I have done tells me so. I polled myself three times in the last hour, and with every poll, I do better and better against John McCain. I am a winner. 

So when you meet tomorrow, you can avoid a stalement and pick me as your Democratic Unity candidate. 

Thank you and good night! 

A lot of us are having fun with "watching Scottie grow" with little sympathy for an honored recepient of the ‘doing a heck of a job’ presidential distinction award but I think his appearance and tell all represents a tectonic shift in the power grids of our nation. Some of his comments, written and on broadcast, have potential as actionable items for those seeking presidential impeachment. McClellan is not a crusader, as his history clearly demonstrates. He is speaking out now, one might assume, to create “space” between those who have been and are yet in power, the Republican Corporate Party, and those who have represented that power, namely George W. Bush. We all hope and pray that the Democratic Corporate Party will set things right, as Obama’s recent comments on constitutional law clearly promise. However, this move of McClellan’s needs to be taken seriously. I’ll wager it is being much more soberly received in the White House than Dame Perrino and the other RNP attack dogs are feigning.

Quite an interesting piece from Donna Brazile...

The end of the Democratic primary season is within sight. With three primaries remaining in Puerto Rico, Montana and South Dakota, the race between Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton will be decided by which candidate has won the majority of delegates to the Democratic convention. Perhaps those voters in Michigan and Florida, if the party's rule committee can come up with a fair solution, might have some representatives attend the party's convention in Denver. So where do the Democrats go from here?

Clinton has shown she's no quitter and will fight for every last pledged delegate and any superdelegates who are uncommitted. Since 2001, women like me have lived with the prospect that Clinton might one day seek the presidency. Given her name recognition, intelligence, ability to raise money and the party's hunger to win back the White House, many of us waited with bated breath for the last, highest and seemingly unreachable stained-glass ceiling in politics to be shattered. She may not break it, but some of us see the cracks.

Throughout this long and drawn-out campaign season, I have not wasted any opportunity to advocate for Clinton to be given every chance to achieve her goal. I never counted her out, but after June 3, I will count the delegates to see who is ahead and by how much.

There are some media reports suggesting that Clinton is now willing to extend the primary fight beyond the last set of primaries. That's just awful. No matter on which side of the fence Democratic primary voters have decided to stand, a convention battle is not in the party's best interests. Read more here.

I am sick and tired of the Hillbots bully moves...!

Letter to Undecided Superdelegates

Thought many of you would be interested in this:
http://www.demconvention.com/credentialed-blogs

Recommend this so others will see it.

Mark Murray at First Read posts some of Obama's planned remarks from an appearance tonight in Montana.   Suggests another pretty good pummelling -- rating 3 out of 5 on the "Oh, Snap" scale -- is coming the way of the presumptive Republican nominee, who can take solace in knowing he has only slightly more five more months until he can return to the cushy and placid life of a well-regarded, rich-spoused, minority Senator.

There are honest differences about how to move forward in Iraq, just like there were honest differences about whether or not we should go to war. * * * John McCain was for the invasion of Iraq; I opposed it. John McCain wants to continue George Bush’s war in Iraq indefinitely; I want to end it. So there’s going to be a clear choice for the American people this November.

But that’s not what John McCain’s been talking about the last few days. He’s been proposing a joint trip to Iraq that’s nothing more than a political stunt. He’s even been using it to raise a few dollars for his campaign. But it seems like Sen. McCain’s a lot more interested in my travel plans than the facts, because yesterday – in his continued effort to put the best light on a failed policy – he stood up in Wisconsin and said, 'We have drawn down to pre-surge levels' in Iraq.

"That’s not true, and anyone running for commander-in-chief should know better. As the saying goes, you’re entitled to your own view, but not your own facts. We’ve got around 150,000 troops in Iraq -- 20,000 more than we had before the surge. We have plans to get down to around 140,000 later this summer -- that’s still more troops than we had in Iraq before the surge. And today, Sen. McCain refused to correct his mistake. Just like George Bush, when he was presented with the truth, he just dug in and refused to admit his mistake. His campaign said it amounts to 'nitpicking.'"

Well, I don’t think tens of thousands of American troops amounts to nitpicking. Tell that to the young men and women who are serving bravely and brilliantly under our flag. Tell that to the families who have seen their loved ones fight tour after tour after tour of duty in a war that should’ve never been authorized and never been waged.

HELENA, Mont. - Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday she expects uncommitted superdelegates to begin making the choice that will decide her marathon Democratic primary race against Barack Obama soon after the Tuesday's primaries.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080530/ap_on_el_pr/clinton

Could it be?

The Sioux Falls Argus Leader today had a story about voter registration figures for South Dakota.  Here is a link to the entire story:  http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080530/UPDATES/80530048   In short:  Registered Democrats in South Dakota have increased 5% since 2006, while Republicans have increased less than 1%.  Meanwhile, registered Independents have increased 10%.   In real figures instead of percentages, registered Republicans still outnumber Democrats by 40,000 voters in South Dakota.  However, the nearly 76,000 registered Independents comprise 15% of the state's voters.    Key figure:  Democrats + Independents together outnumber Republicans by 35,000 in South Dakota.  That's out of a total of 508,000 registered voters.   Just food for thought, especially in an election where Independents are very much up for grabs.  Possibly it won't mean anything in the grand scheme of swinging South Dakota from "red" to "blue."  However, with that many Independents in play, and with public sentiment generally unhappy with Republicans, it's a stat that shouldn't be ignored.   Also, don't discount the number of South Dakotans who are dissatisfied with the war, and who personally know someone who has been sent on repeated tours of duty, or who has been killed or maimed.  South Dakota is a small state, and the war has had a disproportionate impact here.  Not even all the Republicans are eager to vote for four more years of Bush policies in the form of John McCain.  I have yet to see a single McCain campaign sign, but I've seen dozens of Ron Paul signs.  Again, that's not a firm indication that people will do anything more than register a "protest" vote in the primary, but it bears watching.

Although the odds of Hillary Clinton surpassing Barack Obama in delegate count is virtually nil, she is banking on some miraculous emergence of revelations sufficiently damaging to Obama to render him unelectable, thus enabling her to reposition herself as the electable alternative. Obviously she is counting on a chance that is unlikely at best under ordinary circumstances. But these circumstances have been transformed by the Clinton surrogates for an opportunity for a ''foul play'' aimed at concocting and engineering some scandalous and damaging material. Everybody knows that these surrogates have frequently---at opportune moments---distributed into the internet a fairly large trove of damaging material on Obama. Its a miracle that Obama is still standing, thanks to the American people. They are mature enough than they are given credit for. Furthermore the most recent ''revelations" in the form of Rev. Pfleger's rants are the latest proof that these malevolent surrogates will stop at nothing until Obama is put completely out of action. You ain't seen nothing yet.

At least at the time of posting.

http://weather.yahoo.com/forecast/USDC0001.html

In the uproar over Sen. Clinton's ill-advised use of the a-word, I got to thinking about the many tired words and phrases that have become the victims of overkill this campaign season. So I decided to start a list of the ones that, come November, I hope never to hear again in my lifetime:

* "Under the bus"
* "-gate" (in describing a scandal or gaffe: Bittergate,  
    Snipergate, et al)
* Gaffe
* Disenfranchise(d)
* "My friends"
* Nuance(d)
* Reagan Democrat
* Working-class (with the unspoken implication that what the
   speaker really means is white working class)

Feel free to add the ones that really get under your skin . . .

    This is an open thread on who you think Obama should have for V.P. besides Hillary Clinton.  I know there are many discussions on why she should be V.P.  They are not hard to find.  Please refrain from them here.

The purpose of this thread is to see who the other contenders besides Hillary are.  So please post on who you consider to be the best choice and why.  The more information the better.  If you like Hillary perhaps you could discuss who your second option would be or what Hillary supporter you would consider for the position.

Some considerations for what makes a good Vice President:
--Debater/public speaker/attack dog: the primary function of the V.P.  in the campaign season.  How well do they speak of Obama?  Defend him?  How well will they attack smears and GOP talking points and positions?
--Are they vetted?  Any skeletons in the closet?
--Would they make a great President?  Are they Presidential?
--Good relations with the Senate?  Senate leadership? 
--Diplomatic?  They may have to break ties in the Senate.
--Are they too influential in their current position?  They may not want to the day to day duties of the V.P.  Funerals, etc.
--Appearance and manner.  Unfortunately in this day and age you have to look relatively good and have a pleasant or appealing image. 
--Are they media savy?  Are they good a good communicator?  Pleasant voice?
--Geographic and demographic concerns:
          --Region/state:  Can they offer a win in a key swing     state or key region?  key demographic appeal in a region(s)?
          --Demographics to consider:  race, religion, ethnicity, class or income level they might appeal to.
          --Also important, by taking the VP role will it leave an important vacancy that may need to be filled or cannot be? 
--Issues.  Do they offer experience on a key issue?  Or if not, could they offer experience on an issue that is not currently talked about but that could become a winner? 
--Do they line up well with Obama on the issues?  You do not want a counter-intuitive stance on the issues.
--Have they endorsed or supported Obama through and through.  We cannot have a candidate for VP that has talked smack about Obama or other wise damaged his credibility.

I'm sure there are other considerations as well.  However, I think that's a pretty good start.

What are you waiting for?  Weigh in on your choice right now: