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.

I spent the day in the lobby area of the massive Marriott on Conn. Ave, NW, DC today where the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee convened its meeting on the fate of MI and FL. I was here as a member of a Maryland Democratic Central Committee delegation, but also as a career policy analyst, specializing in health and science policy, with an emphasis on reproductive technologies and military and veterans health (I know an odd combo). I did not get a ticket to the inner chamber but watched much of the proceedings on CSPAN or MSNBC in the lobby, as most of you did. But I was able to watch what was going on in the hallways. There was a fierce and aggressive Clinton force here today. I know there were Obama supporters but they were restrained and civil. I am baffled as to why the Clinton supporters were so combative and nasty--to everyone in sight. It was extremely uncomfortable and unpleasant. But the thing that got me through the day was being able to log on to TPM and see what people were saying. I only joined the TPM community a few months ago, and I am proud and happy to have found so many smart and funny people, regardless of who their candidate is. So, this is my feeble way of saying thanks to all of you for being so smart, and so concerned, and so involved, and caring so much. It has meant a lot to me. Now, let's go slay McCain!

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 prete