An Open Letter to Keith Olbermann

It seems to me that you owe it to your viewers, and to yourself, to make a special commentary Monday night regarding Sen. Clinton's speech today where she officially dropped out of the race.

I'm a long time fan of Countdown and I enthusiastically supported the two special commentaries you made in regards to Clinton over the course of these primaries. On Saturday afternoon, however, it seems that you misread her speech. Jeremy Gerard writes at the HuffingtonPost: "...Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews started spinning the speech. Their first words were concerned with the number of minutes Clinton spent 'patting herself on the back' before mentioning Obama, and whether her endorsement would be perceived as strong enough to send her supporters into the Obama camp."

Admittedly, I didn't see you or Mr. Matthew's commentary on the speech live. Immediately after it was over I was on the phone with my father talking about what a surprisingly wonderful speech it had been. "More than I had ever expected," my dad noted. "Perfect," I replied, "and impressive." I figured that everyone would agree with that assessment and, for the most part, I've been correct.

Then I read Gerard's piece and was shocked to learn that you had been so wrong during your initial commentary. I was shocked because I'm a huge admirer of your political instincts. I don't often think that you're wrong but in this case you clearly was. And I think you should own up to it.

A special commentary about this on Monday night, directed either specifically at yourself or a more general "pro-Hillary" commentary to thank her for her speech today, would go a long way in keeping my level of respect for you high. One thing I've always liked about you is that you've always been quick to admit when you're wrong.

Today, you were. Hillary gave a wonderful speech. I'm not sure I'll ever forgive her for some of the things she did during the course of this campaign, but before this speech I was certain I never would. Now I have to admit there's a chance I will. After speaking with pro-Hillary supporters the feeling seems mutual. They seem more likely, after this speech, to support Obama then they had been before.

In other words it was a successful speech, Mr. Olbermann. You and Matthews were wrong in your initial assessment of it. I think it'd be a wonderful thing if you aimed that special-commentary gun at yourself this time, or at least used it to give Clinton the thanks she deserves.

Sincerely,
jmk

P.S. If, of course, Gerard misrepresented your initial commentary after the speech (like I said I never watched it live) you should instead put him on your "worst persons" list. If you do that, though, make it the bronze.

I want to say that I've been an Obama supporter throughout this primary season.  I was blown away by Hillary's speech today.  It was everything it had to be.  I think, like a lot of Obama supporters, I was skeptical about what she would say today.  As an Obama supporter, and I don't mean this in a bad way, if she had given a speech like the one she gave today in Feburary, she would hands-down be the presumptive nominee.  I applaud her.  And the fact that she could go out and give the speech she did today, despite what has to be such a personally hard moment in her life, has really, really raised my opinion of her.

However, as an Obama supporter, I want to see her follow through on what she said today.  I thought I had a great idea, now I'm not so sure of it.  I am, however, still interested in what the people in the blog-o-sphere think of it.  If I were writting a thesis I would have titled it: 'How to bury the Republicans'.  Here it is:

Although they are considered junior Senators, both candidates carry exceptional weight in the party now, and they both currently have jobs as Senators.  My idea was this: that they should both co-introduce a bill to Congress that would significantly advance women's rights.  What that would be, I have no idea, and I would love to hear your comments on this.  BUT, they could use their new power to ramrod the issue through Congress and get every real Democrat in Congress to support it in both the House and the Senate (And give a real reason to alienate Leiberman in the process).  But the key is to make it something substantive, not some window dressing that could easily be discounted as political theater.  I'll detail the strategy later, but what got me thinking this wasn't such a great idea is that the Republicans would spin it as a wedge issue.  I'm sure it would be hugely popular with the Democratic voters, but we've just moved into a phase where we have to start thinking about wooing Independants (like myself) and Republicans.

So what is the issue that should be forced in Congress?  Upon my rethinking, the War in Iraq.  Congress had the power to grant war-time power to the President, it should have the power to take it away.  It doesn't always make the front headlines nowadays, but it is an issue that is on every voter's mind.  They should draft some legislation that would declare the war over and demand troop withdrawl in 90 days.

Why?  The President would veto it, I know, and it wouldn't get a veto-proof majority in either house.  BUT, the Democrats could point to the fact that they could pull in every Democratic vote in Congress (this is key to whatever issue the co-bill addresses).  Most importantly, John McCain wouldn't vote for it, thereby permanently fixing the albatross to his lapel.  That is the point.  By picking an issue that the broad general public cares deeply about, the Democratic Party could attach a 'Just Kick Me' sticker to McCain's back.

And yes, this proposal could pick up Republican support as well.  Off of the top of my head I can think of three Republican Senators that would support this: Hagel, Luger, Warner.  None of them are up for re-election this year.

In my eyes, this is a win/win situation (not just on this issue, but on the women's rights issue as well, or any other big issue).  If we get enough Republican votes, the Democrats can point to the fact that they can reach across the aisle and demonstrate that they can work with their colleagues.  If they don't they can point to the fact that they were thwarted by Republicans, they will have an avenue to currently, and directly, tie John McCain to Bush and it will diffuse the new McCain add.  "If you hate war, why are you supporting it Senator McCain?"  "If you're not like the President, why are you voting with him Senator McCain?"

In my mind this is a win/win.  If it passes the Congress, even though it will ultimately fail with a Bush veto, McCain will vote with Bush, thereby tying the two together.  If it gets a veto-proof majority, even with McCain voting against it (which we know won't happen because he hates war so much...Snark!), the Democrats can point, not to a vote that happened years ago, but to a vote that happen a couple of months ago.

My point is this, they should force something through Congress as quickly as possible.  But it has to be something substative, not some powder-puff political tripe.  But something that will resonate with the American people. 

Then the people can look back and say: And who made this happen?  Obama/Clinton.

Normally, I would balk at this type of sycophancy.  But it really isn't sycophancy if 80+% of the American people agree with it.  It's called listening, and changing.  Isn't that what our elected officials are supposed to do?   Isn't that what this election is supposed to be about?

Unity and then some.

I look forward to your comments

The contests between candidates for public office are often referred to as “horse races,” but the analogy seems kind of inapt.  I’ve never seen anybody vilify the horse they weren’t betting on or armchair quarterback the race and how the jockey should have run it.  No, we treat our candidates like we treat our football teams.  We pledge allegiance to them and start fist-fights at the end of the game, win or lose.

            My father is a reflex republican.  He chose his team and his haircut in 1952 and has stuck with both ever since.  I have every confidence he’s voted a straight ticket all his life. Yeah, he claims he voted for Wallace instead of Nixon, but he didn’t make that claim until after Watergate and he gets 1968 and 1972 confused, so we don’t really believe him.  A staunch union man in the IBEW, he strongly believes that all unions are part of the international communist conspiracy.  He refers to the local paper as the “red rag” yet he reads it everyday and clips articles and sends them to me.  He has nothing good to say about bible-thumping evangelicals except when they’re running for office with an R after their names.  He can’t help himself. It’s all reflex.  It’s his team, right or wrong.

            I’m not a sports guy.  I don’t watch games live or on TV.  I have all the ESPN’s blocked on my TV.  I’m also not much of a political junkie.  I have all the cable news channels and CSPAN channels blocked, too.  This whole “my team’s better than your team” BS eludes me and all the cheerleader chattering and “analysis” bores me to tears.

            And yet the “my team is better than your team” theme has been a constant in the Democratic primary.  Hillary fans complain about fouls from Obama’s Team while ignoring their own team’s transgressions and, likewise, Obama fans dis on Hillary’s team and engage in name calling and abuse that they won’t tolerate from team Hillary.  It’s turned what should be a discussion of ideas into a free-for-all about flag pins and pants suits.  It’s reflexive behavior that’s no different than my dad ranting about FDR while he stands in line to cash his Social Security check.

            When my wife first heard that Hillary Clinton was going to run for President, however many months ago that was, she emphatically stated that there was NO WAY IN HELL she’d vote for her.  I had just about managed to talk her down and we were both fully prepared to vote for her when Iowa happened.  Then the Race in America Speech happened. 

I have been a registered Independent since 1976.  I voted for Republicans; I voted for John Anderson in 1980; I’ve vote Democrat; I’ve voted Green.  But I’ve always steadfastly remained a registered Independent. This year I switched to the Democratic Party so I could vote for Obama in the Oregon Primary.  It wasn’t easy for me and I would not have switched for Clinton.

            I was never on the Hillary team, but I was never against her, either.  Her core values were close enough to mine that I could support her.  I was deeply disappointed in how the Clinton campaign was run, but I still like Hillary.  I enjoy watching her interact with people.  I am absolutely with her on health care and some of her other core issues.  And I respect a woman who can probably out drink me (and can, by all accounts, out drink John McCain).

            Ultimately we can’t let this be about team loyalty.  It has to be about the core issues.  It has to be about thinking versus acting reflexively.  We need to stop framing this as a friggin’ football game.  The metaphor is too distracting and doesn’t represent what’s really at stake.

Many of our once and future friends over at hillaryis44 (please note my opitmism) are making a fatal flaw.  There seem to be a number of 44ers that are angry about votes that weren't counted.  Many are upset about the sexism that Obama supporters have levied towards Hillary, and by extension, them.  And they are angry enough about the situation that they are willing to vote for McCain in protest.

What is important now is not the primary - the primary is officially over - but the future of our government.  The 44ers are placing more importance on the election than they are on the governing.

It reminds me of people who spend so much time and effort and money worrying about a wedding, that they never take the time to think forward to the marriage.

The wedding is over in a day.  The marriage lasts well beyond that.  Sometimes the marriage suffers when there is too much attention placed on the wedding.

Please, 44ers, look ahead to the marriage, because the wedding will be over soon.

Forget the previous post below. I'm embarrassed that I misread a release from the Democratic National Committee posted at Fox Business as if it were a Fox Business news piece.

The kicking of my own ass continues.

Let me start off by saying that I’m not here to excoriate die hard Clinton supporters. It was a tough and brutal campaign, chalked full of enormous symbolism for so many Clinton and Obama supporters and I understand why some people feel as passionately as they do. 

That said, I was really troubled by a quote I read in Slate.com today where a few (and I stress the word ‘few’) Hillary supporters attending her concession rally today.  When asked about Obama and their professed support of John McCain:

<blockquote>“He’s [Obama] a do-nothing.” But would she really prefer a McCain administration? “It bothers me a lot, but at least we can unelect him in four years.”</blockquote>

For those Clinton supporters who share this sentiment; I beg of you to think through the consequences of a McCain presidency.  

First, don’t be confident you can easily ‘un-elect’ McCain in 2012.  Defeating an incumbent president is extremely difficult.  In 2004, a large portion of the country clearly understood Bush was a moron; yet he got reelected.  Whether we Democrats like to admit it or not; Bill Clinton would have never been elected in 1992 without a major assist from Ross Perot.  When he won, he did it with only 43% of the popular vote.  If ever there were a president in a weak position coming into office, it was Clinton.  Once in office, he lost control of Congress, saw his major initiative (healthcare) fail spectacularly and was beset by scandal.  Despite all this; he was overwhelmingly reelected in 1996.

But let’s set this all aside and assume McCain is defeated in 2012; the four years between now and then could see him cause considerable damage to the values we hold dear.  Here are just a few examples:

1) IRAQ, IRAN & GAS PRICES

Let’s be realistic; withdrawal from Iraq is going to be difficult regardless of who is our next president, but McCain has repeatedly stated that he is committed to STAY in Iraq come hell or high water.  He may be unelected in 4 years, but how many more of our soldiers will have to die during this time?  How many families will be shattered?  How many children will grow up without a mother or father?  How many more innocent Iraqis will meet the same fate?  How many of our young people will return with horrible physical and mental scars which will never heal? 

Worse yet; McCain has given every indication he has no qualms starting another war with Iran.  Do I even need to explain why this isn’t a good idea?  Even if it were limited to air strikes and somehow avoided any type of ground war; has it occurred to anybody how this would like result in a full-blown Shia uprising next door in Iraq?  The place would explode and we’d be force to either flee with our tails between our legs, or reinstitute a draft and send 500,000 troops over there to brutally crush any type of uprising.  I think it’s safe to say that this option is – rightfully – unthinkable. 

We can’t ‘unelect’ this.

Wanna know part of the reason oil prices are so high?  Oil is traded based on ‘futures’, i.e. contracts to purchase and sell oil based on what analysts think oil will be going for at a set time in the future.  When the Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, recently stated he felt an attack on Iran was unavoidable in the near future; energy analysts speculated that this would result in a massive disruption of future oil supplies in the near future, so the price of oil continues to rise.  If Iran’s oil goes offline for whatever reason; HELLO $300 a barrel oil!  Hello $11 gas!  Hello working families who cannot afford to drive their cars to get to work!  Hello families in the Northeastern United States who cannot afford to heat their homes because heating oil has become prohibitively expensive!  Hello higher food prices (which hit struggling families the hardest) because distributors pass increased transportation costs onto consumers! 

You can’t ‘unelect’ this.

2) HEALTH CARE

 McCain has no plan to provide universal healthcare to Americans.  Can we really wait another 4 years (when the political climate may not be nearly as favorable as it is now) to do this?  How many families between now and 2012 will lose everything because they are uninsured but find themselves dealing with a major illness/injury?  How many single mothers will continue to work dead-end jobs and be unable to improve their family’s lot because they cannot risk losing insurance?  How many of these same single mothers will be forced to choose between paying the rent and taking a sick child to the doctor’s office? 

You can’t ‘unelect’ this.

3) THE SUPREME COURT

The Court is already 5-4 in favor of conservative justices.  Add another 2 or 3 and you can kiss positive rulings for progressive causes (including a woman’s right to choose) away for the next 30 years.  Our gay and lesbian friends may want to consider this when they ponder the future of any rulings vis-à-vis gay marriage. 

You can’t ‘unelect’ this either. 

I could continue this list all night and still barely scratch the surface (one of which is legislation supporting equal pay for women, which McCain has regularly come out against), but I think you see where I’m coming from.

You don’t have to like Obama – or many of his supporters for that matter – but I hope you will consider the true impacts of a McCain presidency.  I hope you will consider its affects on ordinary Americans and you will not support him – even if this means holding your nose and voting for Obama.  You may loathe him now, but he will fight to make sure we never have answer all the rhetorical questions listed above.   

Had just a few things during this primary turned out differently and Obama were the one giving the concession speech today; you would have found me pulling that lever for Hillary this November.  The stakes are just too high to give the Republicans another 4 years in the White House. 

John McCain is so out of touch with the reality of America's economic woes that even Fox Business, the business news arm of Fox News, is skeptical of his claims.

Today, new economic indicators revealed the jobless claims reached a 22 year high, and that the American economy has lost jobs every month this year. It was the latest in a string of reports showing that too many Americans are losing their jobs, paying more for basic goods and services, earning less and struggling to keep their homes. Yet, in the face of months of worsening economic indicators, John McCain continues to echo President Bush's claim that the fundamentals of the American economy are strong in just about every public event. As recently as April, McCain even claimed that the American people are better off than they were eight years ago.

As McCain saif less than two months ago:

"I think if you look at the overall record and millions of jobs have been created, et cetera, et cetera, you could make an argument that there's been great progress economically over that period of time. But that's no comfort. That's no comfort to families now that are facing these tremendous economic challenges. But let me just add, Peter, the fundamentals of America's economy are strong. We're the greatest exporter, the greatest importer, the greatest innovator, the greatest producer, still the greatest economic engine in the world. And, by the way, exports and free trade are a key element in economic recovery."

http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/democratic-national-committee---john-mccain-fundamentally-wrong-economy/

Isn't it nice to know that John McCain can assess our economy with the same clear vision that he used while dodging North Vietnamese SAMs? In both cases, he failed to recognize the potential for a tailspin until it was too late.

After a very long yet wonderful day in the park celebrating my son's 3rd birthday, I came home to watch Hillary's speech on Tivo. Although I would have loved a dig or two at Sen. McCain, I thought she hit it out of the park. I was proud to watch her and it reminded me of why I had been such a fan of hers before some of the nastier moments of this campaign.

make your pick.  I highlighted mine.

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas
Senator Jim Webb of Virginia
Senator Joe Biden of Delaware
Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska (he's a Republican)
Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico
Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York. (he's a Republican)
Fmr. Senator John Edwards of North Carolina.
Senator Hillary Clinton of New York

I deeply exhale before I write this.

Those of you who know me know that I was a Republican all my life, up until a few years ago.

Those of you who know me know that Iraq had a lot to do with my choice.

My Choice also had a lot to do with my choice.

My Choice was to have an abortion at the age of 41.  My first-ever pregnancy. 

My Choice was to do this because I felt I had no other choice. 

My boyfriend and I, at the time, were pretty much convinced that I was sterile.  I had given up contraception and tried to follow a rhythm method for ages.  I planned to get my tubes tied soon.  We were, even then,  nearing the end of our romantic relationship and moving towards what is now our friendship.  We did not foresee it coming.

I didn’t realize until two months in that I was even pregnant.  One month in, and I had a terrible sinus infection that required a 4-day dose of the new Super Antibiotic.  A week later, my doctor determined that the 4-day dose had not been enough, and she gave me another.  So when I missed my period, I thought that perhaps it had something to do with the powerful drugs I’d been given.  I had no signs of pregnancy at all, at that point.

The second month, and I was suddenly unable to stay up past 8 pm at night.  I was feeling queasy right after dinner and had to lie down.  I still didn’t know that I was pregnant, until I found that when I lied on my belly at night, my breasts hurt.  This was at the end of the second month.

One week into the third month, my boyfriend and I decided to buy a home-pregnancy-test kit.  We read the instructions together and decided we should wait until morning to take it.  That night before I took the test, we sat down and realistically tried to formulate a plan wherein we could keep the baby, or if not, let me carry it to term for adoption.

My boyfriend pointed out that I am not the healthiest of women.  I am overweight, and I smoke.  And, I was 41 years old.  We determined that the first two months were not the best act of acting towards a formative and healthy embryo, between my smoking and drinking beer and taking all the antibiotics.  We also determined that we live paycheck-to-paycheck and could not realistically afford to keep a baby and raise it.

Sure, my sisters, and his, would have gladly given their support, their hand-me-downs, their babysitting skills, their own children’s -- and grandchildren’s --  leftover strollers, cribs, car-seats, clothes. 

Sure, we sat there and daydreamed that we could do this.  We let ourselves get excited about the baby to the point where we pictured what it would look like.  We even picked out names.  We made plans and talked throughout the night about how we could work this out, and went to bed hopeful.

The next morning, when my pregnancy test proved positive, I was alone.  My boyfriend was still asleep. 

The next morning, looking in the mirror at my 41-year-old self, I said to my reflection:  How on earth can you be a mother when you still need one so badly right now, it isn’t funny?

I have a mother, but that’s beside the point.  Let’s just say that I’m sometimes my mother’s most beloved black sheep.

I had a boyfriend, but when he woke up to the news that we tested positive, he said first and foremost, “What we said last night was wishful thinking”.

In short, women in my position do not deserve a baby, nor need one.  Women in my position don’t make very healthy surrogates either.

So we made the appointment with our family doctor, and she referred us to the clinic, and I will always, always love my ex-boyfriend to this day for being so good to me that day.  He stuck by me, held my hand for as long as he could, and he took care of me when we got home.

But that’s not the end of the story.  Turns out, 2 weeks after the abortion, I’m still testing 80% positive as pregnant.  3 weeks later, I’m testing 70% positive.

I went to three different OBGYN’s and none could figure it out.  They did a sonogram, nothing to be found.  They did blood tests every few days, nothing to be found other than I was still pregnant, yet not.

Finally, a month later, and I’m only testing 11% positive, so they think everything is now okay and there’s no need for a second d&c.  The last doctor who spoke to me about it determined that there had been something wrong with the fetus in the first place.  It had not been normal, and therefore the abnormal and unexplained discharge and the continued positive tests.

It took me ages to get over all of this.  It still bothers me that I’m not woman enough to want a child.  It still bothers me that I don’t take enough care of myself to warrant having a child, let alone raising it.  I’m being honest.  I’m a woman with a difficult past and upbringing and very low self esteem.  I would not want to wish a child on me.  And obviously, the child I carried was not normal enough to wish me, or anyone else,  into being its mother either.

If the Republicans had their way, I would’ve had no choice but to either go to an illegal clinic and break the law, or I would’ve given birth to a child that was severely malformed, if I and/or the child had made it that far.

Before you judge me further, can I just ask you this:  Do you know others who have made the same choice but for different reasons?  And would you wish on them the stigma of having broken the law on top of everything else?  Please tell me you wouldn’t.

Those of you who accuse me of being so radical a Democrat now, knowing that I was once a Republican, please don’t judge my move again.

Please look at those who need Democracy more than you do, and all that it stands for.

Please remember Roe V Wade and all that it means.

Thank you.

This discusses disclosed affidavits showing the President through White House staff affected prosecutions.

The lessons apply to the Wecht Jury trial and FBI agent tampering of the jury members.

In case you slept through it, via the JedReport:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DqR7zis99I

I tried to post this on the HillaryIs44 website, but dissenting opinions are not welcome there. Their echo chamber is well-guarded.

What you are doing now goes against everything Hillary stands for and against her lifetime of service to the Democratic Party and to women around the world. If you write Hillary's name on the ballot in November, you betray her, you betray the Party, but most of all, you betray yourselves. John McCain is the sworn enemy of women everywhere. He is disrespectful to women (he called his wife a cunt in public), he is disrespectful to America's soldiers, he is disrespectful to the Constitution, and he and his fellow Republicans want to make a party hats out of Roe v. Wade. You may not prefer Barack Obama, but he is a good Democrat and he is a fierce advocate for women's rights. And he treats his wife and his daughters with respect and with love.

Today Hillary has asked you to set your disappointment aside and work for the Party. Your voices have become powerful, and you may still choose to deny her request. You may even have it within your power to weaken Obama so badly that he'll lose in November. But if you refuse her, at least take her name and her picture off your website, because by refusing to help the Democratic Party in November, you dishonor her name and all of the work she has devoted her life to.

I know you don't want to hear anything from people you disagree with, and I know you won't publish this post. You've censored everything else I've written. But perhaps you'll consider what the candidate you claim to support has asked you to do. Perhaps you'll have a change of heart. Hillary is right: this election is far too important to allow the Republicans to get into the White House. As Democrats, you should know what is at stake. You have freely given your energy to Hillary and to her cause so far. Please don't refuse her now. Not after she's worked so hard for you.

The goal of the GOP is to distract resources attention from McCain’s plans to continue as Bush III. 

The comment below discusses an example.

Finally Hillary gave a speech worth remembering. Better late than never. She made all the right moves and said all the right things.  The Dems are in a good position now to make a winning run in November. It will be a close race, but the challenges even after a victory in November will be awesome.

America is heading for the worst economic recession since 1982. It's an FDR moment for sure. Screaming deflation is going to take everyone by surprise. You don't believe me?.

Stocks are down, gold is down, Real estate is down. Oil and all other commodities are next. This is a dangerous moment in US history, but also a great opportunity to create a new political coalition to replace the Reagan sham that has been with us since 1980 when the US turned into a debtor nation and the US middle class became pauperized.

Barack, Hillary, and every Democrat  must now unite. McCain is not the big  challenge. History is....

Onward

Michael

You knocked it out of the park. I would have loved to have heard you take McCain to task on a few things, but perhaps this wasn't the time.

I can't even begin to imagine how hard this speech was for you, but you put it together and gave the Obama campaign what it needs to move on towards victory.

Let's hope TPM Democrats can stop hating each other and come together.

If I were going to suggest a series of books that President Barack Obama and his administration read it would be three novels by Kim Stanley Robinson.  It is a tale set in a world with rapid climate change dominating the political, scientific and economic spheres and proposes some bold solutions to our most pressing problems.

I think this is perhaps the most visionary writing of my lifetime.

The series is too deep and covers too much territory to really disect in a blog, but I would be interested in anyone who read the series to share their thoughts about the world it envisions.  Did anyone else think that an involved American populace can help Barack Obama govern like Phil Chase?  Did anyone else think that an America where the president had a blog and actually incorporated his constituents ideas into his governing philosophy is actually more possible now that ever before?

Did anyone else finish this series of brilliant novels and think:  It's not too late.  We can actually use this generational shift in presidential politics and a governing majority to incorporate all of the book's reactive solutions into a proactive strategy for our American Renaissance.

Can we think creatively and sustainably and with a vision for seven generations? 

I think so. 

We really have no choice.

As someone who has always fully supported Obama, it is very difficult for me to understand exactly where Hillary Clinton's supporters have come from (though I do understand... admittedly, only to a certain extent). Hillary Clinton just conceded the nomination to Senator Obama in a speech I can only describe as heartfelt, inspiring, and genuinely honest. It was a side of Hillary that I had never really seen. But this post is not about me. It's about you, the loyal Clinton supporters who, against all the odds, supported her throughout the primary. I know there are probably few of you here on TPM. But even so, I would like to hear from you.

My question to you is, how has her speech, and her strong, unequivocal endorsement of Senator Obama, impacted you? Has it changed your perceptions of Obama? Has it inspired you to support him? If so, do you think other Clinton supporters will follow suit? Do you think it was the right thing for her to do? And, I guess, most importantly, do you think her speech and endorsement will help to unite the party?

I'm sure there are myriad other similar questions. It's up to you. But I'm curious. I would like to know how Clinton supporters are now feeling.

"When you hear people saying or think to yourself, “If only, or, “What if,” I say, please, don’t go there. Every moment wasted looking back keeps us from moving forward.

Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been. We have to work together for what still can be." -Hillary Rodham Clinton

Today Hillary Clinton did the right thing, and I think she did it mostly the right way. She was strong in defending her own accomplishments in thanking those who supported her, she was adamant about supporting Barack Obama and made it clear that any other choice would be a disaster. She even used the slogan, "Yes We Can!"

Hillary was also strong in her personal message about being a woman running for president. She talked about the struggles of those who came before her, including not only those of the women's movement but of the civil rights movement, thereby including Obama obliquely in the message. It was the most inclusive speech from her yet, and I look forward to more.

Hillary is a gifted speaker, but what marked this speech, and what seems to have been missing lately from her speeches, was the serious intent that I read in her face. There were no more wide-eyed smiles that exuded confidence and a sort of above-it-all passion. This was the real passion that came from her eyes and her face, which seemed in some ways to relax at the same time that it underscored the absolute conviction she felt. For the first time in a while, I saw a Hillary Clinton that I could cheer for. A Hillary Clinton done with rules and arguments over how to interpret them, done with fighting for dubious principles in even more dubious circumstances. It was a Hillary Clinton who had returned to the issues that mattered, and to the only way to effect the change everyone in that room (presumably) wants to see.

She started in a room that was divided, and I think she ended in a room united. It was the speech she had to make, and she did it, and did it well.

What struck me during that speech was that she did make a great impassioned speech about women making significant cracks in that so-called glass ceiling. I thought that so many women are sad that they will never see a woman be president. And then I thought about Chelsea, sitting there next to her former POTUS father, campaigning with her mother, always up there - a trooper just like her mother. If Chelsea enters the political arena, she's got the best start she could have, and perhaps she will break through that ceiling.

Anyway, she's got a ways to go, but I think it's safe to say that there will be women who follow Hillary Clinton and will one day win this office. And meanwhile, Barack Obama is the standard bearer for our hopes and dreams in November and beyond, and he, too, is making history and breaking through barriers that had once seemed impossible.

I think today's speech by Hillary Clinton was a win-win for us all, and I look forward to the future today with a brighter and more hopeful outlook than I had yesterday.

It was an eloquent speech.  Though a bit long and -- in the beginning -- self-serving, it ultimately struck the right balance between keeping Hillary in the limelight while making a sincere attempt to mobilize the sought-after support of her backers for Obama.  And there is nothing in her speech to suggest that the Clintons  will hold back if she doesn't get the VP slot.  In as much as she underscored the paramount importance of health care reform, I suspect that the deal struck in the recent tête-à-tête with Obama may very well be that she will be given a position of prominence in the forthcoming fight for universal health care  in Congress aimed at giving her a boost in any future run for the Presidency. Also noteworthy, was the deft way in which she acknowledged the legacy of "her husband" while keeping him visually in the background together with Chelsea on this momentous occasion.

Here. Not as bad as we thought.

Obama's won the long, closely fought primary season. He's been made a better candidate, I think, by having to fight so hard to get to the top.

Hillary did some regrettable things during this season, and I was as angered as anyone by them. I am NOT minimizing them.

Thing is, that's now past. Hillary has bowed out, and endorsed Obama, in terms graceful enough that we can now focus our efforts on McCain, Mr. Third-Bush-Term, Mr. 100-Years-In-Iraq, etc.

No more criticizing ANY Democrat (Lieberman excepted: maybe I should say, any real Democrat) until after the 2008 butt-whuppin' we need (and the country needs) to give the Republicans this November.

We need to come together.

"We must be friends. We must not be enemies," as Abe Lincoln said.

We have a huge task ahead of us: not only winning the presidential election for our guy, but winning enough congressional races that our progressive agenda can make, well, unimpeded "progress," especially during the first half of Obama's first term.

There is a massive amount of damage to clean up from the last 8 years. Iraq is a big damned mess; our country's fiscal situation is dire, and getting worse; the lower and middle classes are being squeezed in unprecedented ways; the climate crisis continues to worsen; peak oil necessitates massive action; etc. etc. etc....

Holding on to bitterness from a hard-fought primary season is, in the present context, emphatically NOT a luxury we can afford.

From a comment on Daily Kos:

I think those of us who want it to stop should just continue to say so and to reason with and/or critique the people who want to keep it alive. Some of them, honestly, are most likely McCain voters trying to stir up shit. Some are thoughtless, regardless it's important, I think, to support Hillary on this site and work for Democrats here, not some Democrats at the expense of others. I was really annoyed with the tone around here as people waited for Hillary to speak. It seemed like everything the Clinton camp has claimed about Obama supporters and it really disappointed me. I'm not, nor have I been, a Clinton supporter during this campaign, but I am a Democrat. I thought she did a fantastic job today. I'm a woman and she brought tears to my eyes. I am grateful to her for withstanding the heat and yes, sexism, that she has faced. It's time to move on, to forgive her the things we didn't like, and welcome her support.

Exactly so. Well put.

Obama is leading by example. Today's statement by Barack Obama concerning Hillary Clinton's campaign and concession:

Obviously, I am thrilled and honored to have Senator Clinton's support. But more than that, I honor her today for the valiant and historic campaign she has run. She shattered barriers on behalf of my daughters and women everywhere, who now know that there are no limits to their dreams. And she inspired millions with her strength, courage and unyielding commitment to the cause of working Americans. Our party and our country are stronger because of the work she has done throughout her life, and I'm a better candidate for having had the privilege of competing with her in this campaign. No one knows better than Senator Clinton how desperately America and the American people need change, and I know she will continue to be in the forefront of that battle this fall and for years to come.

"I don't wanna fly anymore, Doc.  I've flown 35 missions, but Cathcart's raised the number to 50 before you can rotate out."

"I can't ground anyone just because they ask me to."

"Can you ground anyone who's crazy?"

"Of course I can.  There's a rule that says I can ground anyone who's crazy."

"I'M crazy!"

"How do you know?"

"Ask anyone...They all say I'm crazy."

"I tell you who's crazy.  He's crazy.  Anyone has to be crazy to keep flying after all the close calls he's had."

"Why can't you ground HIM?"

"I can, but first he has to ask me."

"That's all he's gotta do to be grounded?"

"That's all."

"Then you can ground him."

"No...There's a catch."

"A catch?"

"Sure.  Catch 22.  Anybody who wants to get out of combat isn't really crazy, so I can't ground him."

"Okay.  Let me see if I've got this straight.  In order to be grounded, I've got to be crazy, and I must be crazy to keep flying, but if I ask to be grounded, it means I'm not crazy anymore and I have to keep flying."

"You got it.  That's Catch 22."

"That's some catch, that Catch 22."

"It's the best there is."
--Catch 22, 1970 movie directed by Mike Nichols, screenplay by Buck Henry, based on the 1961 bestselling novel by Joseph Heller.  In this scene, Alan Arkin's Yossarian is speaking to Jack Gilford's Doc Daneeka.


It was just an exquisite irony that our copy of Time magazine arrived in the mail on the same night that my husband got in the mood to watch the DVD of Catch 22.

On the cover was a Prozac capsule, and half of the capsule was camouflage green.  The headline was, "The Military's Secret Weapon," with the subtitle, "For the first time in history, thousands of U.S. troops are being given antidepressant drugs to deal with battlefield stress.  Is this any way to fight a war?"

The story, by Mark Thompson, can be found online here:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1811858,00.html

The article is about the terrible toll taken on our military fighting forces under the repeated demands of constant deployments, over and over again, to Iraq and Afghanistan.

How suicides in-country have skyrocketed.

How each successive deployment becomes harder and harder on the emotional health of our troops, how after they get back, they are suffering worse symptoms of post traumatic stress with each deployment. 

How, when they report symptoms--IF they report them--of anxiety, restlessness, depression, irritability and short temper, difficulty sleeping, nightmares, and other problems directly related to combat, the military in all its ancient wisdom responds by prescribing record amounts of anti-depressants, anti-anxiety drugs, and sleeping medications.

How, for the first time in history, soldiers and Marines are heading off to combat situations with up to a third of them taking these medications while deployed.

You see, before, if a troop was showing severe signs of stress on the battlefield, he or she would be medivacced out and given treatment at a hospital.  But the soldiers and Marines are stretched so thin right now that, increasingly, the military is relying on these medications to treat the soldiers, so that they can be kept in combat.

Understand--this is not a criticism of the military or of the troops.

I want to make that perfectly clear.

My family members have served a total of SEVEN tours to Iraq and Afghanistan, and they tell me how much harder it is to go back each successive time.  I can see for myself the problems they have readjusting.

I also do not mean to imply that these fine young men and women are not capable of performing their jobs magnificently under intense pressure--although studies have shown that repeated deployments, extended deployments, and less time at home--do lead to more mistakes being made and the greater likelihood that a troop will be killed or get someone else killed due to the fatigue and stress.

But the fact is that when you are in a combat situation, you do not have access to psychologists or even M.D.'s.  Many times, these drugs are provided for the guys on their deployments but there is nobody to monitor the dose, side effects, or even to provide a modicum of counseling for handling the stress that has provoked the need in the first place.

Our military is doing the best it can, under impossible conditions, to maintain a groaning level of troops without a national draft that could replenish the forces that are constantly demanded by our civilian commander in chief to fight his war the way he wants it fought. 

The troops are exhausted, their families unraveling, and stress symptoms skyrocketing.  They're stretched so thin that even if a troop tries to commit suicide while stateside between deployments, even if he or she is COMMITTED to a psychiatric facility, even if they're being treated for serious PTSD--THEY ARE BEING SENT BACK ANYWAY.

"Boy, it's really nice to have these drugs, so we can keep people deployed."
--remark made by an army doctor to Joyce Raezer of the National Military Family Association, quoted in the article.

In fact, troops who were blown up in a previous deployment and are undergoing physical therapy or surgery for their injuries ARE SENT BACK ANYWAY--sometimes just days following operations.  (A nephew to actress Mia Farrow was recently flown out of Baghdad to undergo surgery, then returned to the battlefield right after being released from the hospital, while still on a liquid diet.  He died in his sleep not long after, in Iraq.)

AND NOW, MY MESSAGE TO HILLARY SUPPORTERS:

According to Wired.com, angry Hillary supporters are starting up websites pledging support to John McCain.  The Republican Party is understandably salivating over this, and planning a ClintonsforMcCain drive.  Just in this past week, thousands have visited these websites.

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/06/angry-clinton-s.html

One website founder was quoted as saying, "People feel upset, and not listened to, and a lot of people feel they are being thrown under the bus."

And so, in their rage, they are planning to vote for John McCain.  Some are so angry they say they won't even vote for Obama if Hillary is on the ticket with him.

I assume that most of the men and women who are signing up on these angry websites are mothers and fathers.

So, from one mother to another, I am begging you.

Since 99.5% of this nation's population is NOT fighting Bush's War, then I must assume that 99.5% of the angry Hillary supporters DO NOT HAVE LOVED ONES FIGHTING in Bush's War either.

And since John McCain has pledged to continue that war for years and years, or until his vague and unspecified "victory" conditions are met, then I assume these same moms and dads, who DO NOT have to face the agony of sending their child away to die or get blown to pieces, not once, but repeatedly...have not actually thought about what that vote would mean.

Did you know that, in order to shield Americans from dead troops, the flag-draped caskets, which are often flown in the cargo holds of commercial airliners from Dover to their homes, are hidden in CARDBOARD BOXES?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/books/05maslin.html?ref=books

We treat our pets better in this country.

So I'm assuming that the angry Hillary supporters who feel "upset" and "not listened to" might then be able to EMPATHIZE with desperate military mothers who DO have to deal with these fears, because NOBODY LISTENS TO THE TROOPS--OR THEIR FAMILIES--EITHER.

How do you think THEY feel?

I am an Obama supporter but you better believe I'd have voted for Hillary in a HEARTBEAT over John McCain, I don't care how angry, or upset or vengeful and resentful I felt, because there is a whole helluva lot more at stake here than my hurt feelings, when it comes to men and women being given drugs to numb their anxiety about having to fight a third or fourth time in a war that might send them home in a cardboard box.

In her graceful and eloquent concession speech, Hillary Clinton, while urging her supporters to rally behind Obama, compared the Democratic Party to "a family."

I know that, in my own family, with my sisters and brother, we've had many fights, some bitter, some just annoying, but none of us have EVER done anything that might bring actual harm to another member of our family.  We would never dream of it.

Recently, I hailed a friend of mine at the bank.  Her son did a deployment to Iraq with the army National Guard, and had been home, and back in civilian life for two years now.  Everything was fine, but when I asked how she was doing, she said, "Well, my son is going to have to go back to Iraq this summer."  (The National Guard is being asked to replace returning "surge" units in order to maintain these pre-surge troop levels.)

I was shocked, and sorry, and she said, "I keep telling myself, he's going to be fine.  He's going to come back.  He's going to be fine."

And then she burst into tears.

A vote for John McCain is a vote for insanity.

It is a vote to continue this Groundhog Day Catch-22 war.

I am begging you.

BEGGING YOU.

Please, please do not let the emotion of the moment cause you to hand the reins of power over to a man under whose watch more and more flag-draped caskets will be flown home in cardboard boxes.


"You admit you have a persecution complex."

"I admit I'm being persecuted."

"By whom?"

"By THEM."

"But who, specifically, is THEM?"

"Who do you think?"

"I haven't any idea."

"Then how do you know they AREN'T?  Those bastards are trying to kill me!"

"You ought to get your head examined."
--Catch 22, the movie.  Remarks made by Alan Arkin's Yossarian to Martin Sheen's Dobbs.


I know that Hillary supporters are feeling persecuted.

They think that somebody is trying to kill them--psychically speaking.

But as a military mom, I can tell you that REAL PEOPLE are trying to kill MY FAMILY MEMBERS AND OTHERS in Bush's War. 

According to a recent survey in the Army Times, more than 60% of military families now think the Iraq war was a mistake and want it to end. 

In another survey done of junior officers, well over THREE-FOURTHS of the officers--close to 80%--disagreed with the way the war had been handled.  Most of them do not stay in the military--even though they want to--because they do not want to go back to Iraq.

WHO IS LISTENING TO THEM?

You don't have to like Obama or even do as Hillary asks, which is to put your passion and energy into putting a Democrat into the White House, even if it's not her.  But please, if you can't vote for him, stay home.

Do not put a man in the White House who will continue this insanity of a war.

Because THAT would be truly crazy...wouldn't it?

McCain has asked for a series of town hall debates with Obama. I personally like the Town Hall debate style so long as CNN doesn't plant questioners with trivial and demeaning questions they wrote.
However, Obama is a good debater both in town hall situations and in formal moderated debates. Yes, he had one bad debate, but that was the ABC moderators' obsession with trivia, not his performance itself. The thing is, McCain is only good in the town hall format. 
Clearly, Obama should insist on several forms of debate, not just the one that shows McCain in his best light. McCain, however despicable his policies, is someone that people find likable and engaging. He connects with people on a personal level in some way. In town halls, he seems frank and honest. In more formal conditions, he is ill at ease and seems at best, inauthentic. More importantly, he seems dishonest. 
Obama has no need to avoid town hall debates. He does well in them. Just don't let McCain shine at every debate by allowing them to be in the only format he can shine in.

She hit every note and sang the song as well as it can be sung. She brought tears to these eyes as she spoke the truth from her heart. I can't say how impressive she is as a person, wife, mother, politician. A role model for us all. I am still hours since, in shock to how touching it all was. She would have made a great President. I am truely proud to say I supported her. Thank You Hillary Clinton.

At the bottom of the web page on while John McCain asserts his staunch determination to overturn Roe V. Wade, one also finds these words:

The Greatest Honor is to Serve the Cause of Human Dignity

There is no greater nobility than to sacrifice for a great cause and no cause greater than protection of human dignity.

Decency, human compassion, self-sacrifice and the defense of innocent life are at the core of John McCain's value system and will be the guiding principles of a McCain Presidency.

"To sacrifice for a cause greater than yourself, and to sacrifice your life to the eminence of that cause, is the noblest activity of all."

I have to say, I have no idea what he is talking about here, but it seriously creeps me out. In the context of talking about abortion rights, and considering that we have had people with very similar views on both abortion and sacrifice actually bombing clinics in the recent past, isn't this wording (to say the least) provocative?

Am I being paranoid here, or does anyone see what I mean? Can anyone come up with a plausible alternative explanation for just what exactly he IS suggesting with these words? Because I'm baffled.

[This is cross posted from my blog: http://obamalondon.blogspot.com/2008/06/john-mccain-really-creepy.html]

In an interview done on ABC news (video here) McCain recognizes Clinton's historic candidacy but doesn't give Obama credit for his historic candidacy. 

When he is asked about the Obama's historic candidacy and lack or recognition of it McCain says, "I congratulated Sen. Obama not because of any reason except that he has run a very effective campaign and he's done a very admirable job."  Even ABC's Senior National Correspondent Jake Tapper called this moment "awkward" in his blog. 

Considering McCain recognized Clinton's achievements and what they mean to his female family members including his daughter, why doesn't he recognized Obama and what that means for his grand daughter.  McCain's grand daughter whose dark skin get make her often mistake for African American is from Bangladesh and was adopted by McCain's daughter.  I always thought McCain would play this as a plus and show his solitary for racial harmony with his family as an example. 

A 1/2 first generation immigrant like Barack Obama getting the presidential nomination is very important milestone for his grand daughter.  People are voting for him not because of the color of his skin and actually thinking his internationality is a plus. 

While many may think this is this just an other example of his ungracious attitude (which I whole heartedly agree)  I think this also shows that McCain is not seeing the whole picture.  This may just be one example of it. 

If a man can overlook members of his own family do we really want McCain looking over our nation? 

Hi all,

Another poster started <a href="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/his-dark-materials.php">their own review</a> for a set of novels that they'd liked. I'd like to suggest a book from a different genre - academia.

Here's an <a href="">amazon link</a>, reference and the publishers description:

Tavris, C., & Aronson, E. (2007). <i>Mistakes were made (but not by me): Why we justify foolish beliefs, bad decisions and hurtful acts</i> (1 ed.). Orlando, FL: Harcourt.

<blockquote>Why do people dodge responsibility when things fall apart? Why the parade of public figures unable to own up when they screw up? Why the endless marital quarrels over who is right? Why can we see hypocrisy in others but not in ourselves? Are we all liars? Or do we really believe the stories we tell?

Renowned social psychologists Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson take a compelling look into how the brain is wired for self-justification. When we make mistakes, we must calm the cognitive dissonance that jars our feelings of self-worth. And so we create fictions that absolve us of responsibility, restoring our belief that we are smart, moral, and right—a belief that often keeps us on a course that is dumb, immoral, and wrong.

Backed by years of research and delivered in lively, energetic prose, Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me) offers a fascinating explanation of self-deception—how it works, the harm it can cause, and how we can overcome it.</blockquote>

I haven't finished the book yet, but from the first 80 pages, I think many readers may enjoy this topic, as several have expressed interest in response to the way modern politics and news coverage are often practiced.

From what I've been checking in the book's references, this is indeed well researched, and introduces the reader research base that the authors use to explore everyday behavior.

The writing is entertaining and open - sort of like S J Gould, Oliver Sacks or Lynn Margullis. My only (and growing) criticism of the book is that it lacks a bibliography and relies on endnotes. This makes it difficult to track down studies by a cited author because you have to check for the author's name in each chapter's endnotes. I doubt most readers will have a problem with this, but it is annoying.

If there's interest in this sort of book, please let me know and I'd be happy to suggest others on the neurology, psychology and sociology of belief justification and conceptual change.

Y'all been had!

Mr. Obama's Middle East - Editorial - Washington Post
After all, he doesn't see the region much differently than President Bush does.
In the heat of the Democratic primary campaign, some on the left were inspired to believe that Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) offered a far-reaching transformation of U.S. foreign policy, "the most sweeping liberal foreign-policy critique we've heard from a serious presidential contender in decades," as one particularly breathless article in the American Prospect put it. Yet, when Mr. Obama opened his general election campaign this week with a major speech on Middle East policy, the substantive strategy he outlined was, in many respects, not very much different from that of the Bush administration -- or that of Republican Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). That's not a bad thing; rather, it's a demonstration that there is a strong bipartisan consensus about America's vital interests in the Middle East and that the sensible options for defending them are relatively limited.
Liberal notions of a foreign policy shakeup sometimes begin -- and end -- with a cooling of U.S. support for Israel. But in his speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a lobbying group, delivered hours after he clinched the Democratic nomination, Mr. Obama was so forceful in backing the military, economic and territorial interests of the Jewish state that he later had to offer a clarification, pointing out that his endorsement of an "undivided" Jerusalem did not mean he ruled out Israeli-Palestinian negotiations over the final status of the city. READ IT ALL

 

(I) GE  Presidential 

(A) Obama "edict" requires Democratic National Committee to return $100,000; 

(B) Nonobvious "firsts" for Obama as nominee;

(C) McCain (1) not 'maverick' in close Senate votes,  (2) Opposition to Hurricane Catastrophe fund poses problems for McCain, (3) Neil Cavuto w/5 election tips for McCain;  

(D) VP -- Edwards reportedly rules out #2 spot;

(E) Obama statements on (1) Gay Rights, (2) Climate change bill;

(F)Ridgeway in Mother Jones on Obama and RFK; 

(G) Constituency analyses of Obama ... (1) and race in Wall Street Journal;  (2) (a) and white working class in USA Today, and (b) Gephardt predicts Obama will win working class in Nov;  (3) ... and, in LA Times  (a) discussion of his polling among Latinos, &  (b) Guy Rodriguez on latinos supporting blacks in elections;  (4) "Clinton Dead Enders and Crisis in the Women's Movement" The New Republic;

(H) GE presidential election prospects (1) Obama continues to heavily lead among bettors for winner of GE; (2) Guy Saperstein projects Obama in GE by a blowout; (3) Rasmussen (a)WV: McCain 45, Obama 37; (b) NC: McCain 48, Obama 45; (4) Electoral-Vote.com projects for today: 287 EVs for Obama, and 58 Dem Sen seats; (5) CNN--Opinion Research Corp nat'l:   Obama 47, McCain 43, Nader 6 ...

(II) Nonpresidential Elections:

(A) CA -- ballot measure for Constitutional Amendment requires only a simple majority, while any tax increase requires 2/3 supramajority;

(B) Al Franken faces election flaps in MN over past sex speech  (previous Dem might jump back in)

____________________________________________

(I) Presidential GE

 (A) Obama "Edict" for Democratic National Committee against acceptance of lobbyist money requires return of $100,000:  http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/07/obama-edict-requires-dnc-to-return-100000/

(B) Nonobvious Firsts for Obama as Democratic Nominee (Julianna Golman at Bloomberg.com): http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aaUIIClmEfwA&refer=home

(C) McCain

   (1)  Not maverick on close senate votes: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0507mccainvotes0507.html

   (2)  Opposition to Hurricane Catastrophe Fund, or "Cat" Fund a potential major issue in FL http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/05/lieberman-launches-grassroots-organization/ 

and 

http://thepage.time.com/obama-camp-release-on-mccains-opposition-to-national-catastrophic-insurance-fund/

   (3)  Neil Cavuto at Fox News offers five tips for McCain: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,364181,00.html   (D) John Edwards reportedly rules out #2 spot on Obama ticket:  http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/06/06/europe/EU-GEN-Spain-US-Politics-Edwards.php   (E) Obama statements on   (1) Gay Rights: http://www.queerty.com/obamas-gay-promises-20080606/   (2) Climate Change Bill:   http://thepage.time.com/obama-statement-on-climate-change-bill/   (F) James Ridgeway in Mother Jones:   "Seeing Bobby Kennedy in Barack Obama" http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2008/06/barack-obama-rfk-bobby-kennedy.html

(G)  Commentary on Obama and Constituency Issues   (1)  Wall Street Journal (Jonathan Kaufman):   "Race Issue Looms in Election With Sharp Divide in Some States"  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121271038571350377.html   (2)   (a)  "Obama Reaching Out to White Working Class" by Kathy Kiely in USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-06-05-Obama_N.htm   (b) Christopher Stern (Bloomberg): "Gephardt Predicts Obama Will Win Working-Class Vote in November": http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080606/pl_bloomberg/ax9lrscsqihg
(3)    (a) Analysis (Peter Wallsten) in LA Times of Obama's showing of enormous (eg 62% Obama t0 29%McCain) lead among latinos:  http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-latinos6-2008jun06,0,5793717.story   (b) LA Times' Guy Rodriguez in "Clinton's Latino Spin" analyzes track record of latinos voting for black politicians http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rodriguez28jan28,0,1688217.column   (4) Michelle Goldberg in The New Republic "3AM for Feminism:  Clinton Dead Enders and Crisis in the Women's Movement": http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=2c2ec3a8-e813-4d4e-b566-510e0f19eced

(H) Projection/Assessment of Voting Strength      (1) Obama leads heavily (over 60% odds) among bettors for winner in Nov GE:  http://www.intrade.com//?request_operation=main&request_type=action&checkHomePage=true and http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0430811720080605         (2) Guy Saperstein Project Obama Nov win by a blowout:  http://www.alternet.org/election08/87225      (3) Rasmussen statewide polls        (a) West Virginia:  McCain 45, Obama 37 http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/west_virginia/election_2008_west_virginia_presidential_election        (b) North Carolina:  McCain 48, Obama 45 http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php az=view_all&address=132x6309331      (4) (I may drop these soon): Electoral-Vote.com Obama winning electoral college (270 needed to win) w/ 287, Democrats w/58 senate seats (to current ~51-ish, depending on how you count): http://www.electoral-vote.com/

   (5) (Again, may drop these soon) CNN Opinion-Research Corp: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ijClHoidEl8XEJMJoUooHU1R_nmgD914PTMGA
(II) Nonpresidential Elections      (1) California Ballot Measures -- small tax increase requires 2/3 supramajority while Constitutional Amendment against gay marriage needs only simple majority: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-broverman6-2008jun06,0,4046123.story      (2) Al Franken in Minnesota facing tough time for past sex speech, even nonpublic:       (a) CBS News analysis of flap over Franken's Playboy article:   http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/05/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4158343.shtml       (b) flap over NEVER AIRED SaturdayNightLive piece, Ciresi considers jumping back into MN Senate Election as Democrat: http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2008/06/06/2144/frankens_campaign_veering_out_of_control_rumors_fly_and_ciresi_considers_jumping_back_in_the_race

(from tuesdaysblog.com)

11:44 a.m.

the clintons were just introduced over the public address system, and they're making their way through the crowd. the most interesting thing so far is that the announcer didn't introduce hillary as "the next president of the united states" as terry mcauliff did on tuesday night, when it was painfully clear she was not going to be.

she looks fantastic. she's wearing black. symbolic? the death of her campaign? the entire clinton family, bill, hillary, chelsea, and hillary's mother. they won't let her start. the crowd is cheering and cheering her. she's tried five, six times now, in earnest, to begin her speech. she's gonna cry. if she isn't already.

"this isn't exactly the party i planned but i sure like the company."

"thanks for the homemade signs. thanks for knocking on doors. thanks for arguing with your friends and neighbors."

one has to think, if this was the hillary clinton we'd all seen six months ago, we might not be having this event today. she seems proud, but sincere. the smile is genuine. she looks like a seasoned, albeit somewhat weathered, strong leader.

cnn reporter candy crowely has said several times, when you talk to people coming out of a barack obama campaign event, they say "he's inspired me, he gives me hope." people coming out of a hillary clinton campaign event say "she is just so, so smart."

she just said "gay and straight" in a list of groups who stood with her throughout the campaign. every time a politician says includes gays and lesbians in a speech (in a positive way) it gives me hope. you can think that's silly, but it's true. imagine if she said "thank you to all the middle age, white men who voted for me." wait...she did say that at one point, didn't she?

"the way to continue our fight now, to accomplish the goals...is to take all our energy and elect barack obama the next president of the united states."

she is very, very strong here.

"today as i suspend my campaign, i congratulate him, and endorse him, and throw my full support behind him."

she is now, seemingly, trying to control the small part of the crowd booing obama's name, as a few of them seemed to be doing. and it's working. each time she comes around to the line "and that is why we must elect barack obama," there is less booing and more cheering.

she is much better at this than she used to be. she's more comfortable, more passionate.

gay rights. she said it again. hope.

she smiles when she talks about herself.

"democrats have won three out of the last ten presidential elections. and the man who won two of those elections is with us today. " she smiles, and applauds him. it's a genuine, dear moment.

"...stretch the boundaries of the possible."

YES WE CAN. she uses obama's phrase. she's said this at least three, maybe four times: "we need to elect barack obama our next president." and she's said it strongly. forcefully.

again: "we must help elect barack obama our president." she's turning it into a catch phrase. hoping, i think, that the crowd joins with her. do they? they haven't yet. but the booing has stopped and now, when she mentions obama, there is nothing but cheers.

she now almost seems to be chastising the crowd. will we go forward together? or will we stall and slip backward?

if she's auditioning for the vice presidency, she's good. i can't imagine it, though. she would better serve this country elsewhere. back in the senate. governor of new york.

women. she's leading the women's cause. she's fucking tough. look at her. she's not smiling anymore. this is the woman who could have been president. sitting across from world leaders.

she just pulled out the phrase "my friends." i love her for co opting john mccain AND barack obama (one in a sly way, one in a smart way.)

always aim high, work hard, and care deeply about what you believe in.

"don't go there."

if she hasn't brought along her supporters to elect obama through this speech, i'm not sure what else she could do.

she has not once mentioned bush or mccain. not once. pundit after pundit said she would bask in the glory of her campaign and take potshots at bush and mccain. and she's stayed completely positive and above board and on message. for that, for her amazing campaign, and for this great exit, she deserves a heap of credit. i'm proud of her, and again, proud to be a democrat.

"Every moment wasted looking back keeps us from moving forward."

Hillary Clinton, in her concession speech Saturday, said the right things, did the right thing, and did more.  She set up the proposed future of the name Hillary Clinton.

She could have ended up a pariah, an unspeakable name that would have sent shivers and shocks down the spine of many Americans for generations to come. By using division and combativeness in the 2008 primary, she brought the Democratic party to the brink of collapse, by tearing it in two.  In her concession speech, she brought it back together, by rallying the great majority of her supporters to Barack Obama's side.  As if there were sides to be taken.  For years to come, she will be remembered as the person who tore Democrats apart, only to put them back together again.  And the wound still needs time to heal.

But Hillary Clinton did something else in her speech Saturday.  She set up her own future.  She let the crowd, and America, know what she would be up to for the rest of her life.  She wants to be a historical figure in the fight for women's rights.

A great majority of her speech was dedicated to what she has accomplished by fighting in the primary for so long – that it would no longer be remarkable for a woman to run for president in a serious way.  That there is no room for prejudice of any kind in the United States anymore.  That staying in the fight is a noble, and essential act.

We shall see, over the years that will come, if her future deeds in the fight for civil rights, against discrimination, and as a model for women's power will reform her name, and how she is remembered in the annals of history.  One thing is certain, she's set her game with this speech, and now she intends to play it.

Like so many women of her generation, she has shown the talent for deep, strong, and visible transformation. In twenty minutes, she went from a symbol of unyielding, divisive ambition, to one of compassion, patriotism, and women's rights. 

In order to be depicted on money at some point in the distant future, she needs now to make that transformation stick.  Without real action, demonstrated will in this new fight for equality and civil rights, for universal health care, and leadership in our country's own deep, visible transformation, the current impression of her will not fade.

Indeed, in order for it to be unremarkable for a woman to run for president again, she needs to act now in this new role, to do as much for equality as Al Gore has done for global warming.  She needs to show she can be cherished by history without the presidency.  And, knowing many people of her generation who were faced with the necessity of their own personal transformation, I know she can perform that magic now.

Sen. Hillary Clinton  just delivered the single best speech of her campaign.

If  only she had done this on Tuesday night, what a powerful message that would have sent. Instead it comes late and with not a little bit of awkwardness in its timing. But... better late than never.

Of course there are things in her speech that I would tweak. However, on the whole, she exceeded expectations. especially from those of us who expected the tricky, slippery triangulations of the Clintons of the past.

I hope that this is the Hillary Clinton we will see on the campaign trail ahead. (That said, I do not want  her as VP, but I think this speech certainly earned a cabinet post or Supreme Court nod, if she is interested.)

Cheers to Hillary for giving one hell of speech. 

I could not have asked for a better speech today. I could not have asked you for a better endorsement of Barack Obama. Whatever harsh feelings I have had for you, I am putting them aside. The genuine enthusiasm you displayed, not only for Obama, but for progressing forward through him, was heartfelt. For the first time since you announced your candidacy for President, I truly believed in what you were saying, and I felt truly inspired by your words. You made it clear that we must unite behind Obama, our Democratic Nominee, and win back the White House in November. I thank you for your honest and sincere committment to seeing this happen. I sincerely thank you for your words, Senator Clinton.

That was an excellent speech Clinton just gave. I was impressed and pleased.

I've been a strong critic of Clinton throughout this campaign, so I feel an obligation to give credit where it's due. So, good job. Thank you for your message, and thank you for all you have done for women in politics.

Keep this up, and hell, even I might get converted to the Hillary as Veep camp.

After going the entire campaign season without once uttering the word "gay" in public, Hillary managed to say it twice in her concession speech today. Once thanking her supporters, "gay and straight" and once in reference to "gay rights".

And it comes at the end of her campaign, when she has nothing left to lose. I'm sure its a coincidence though.

Looks like the party is unifying even before this speech:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows Barack Obama attracting 46% of the vote while John McCain earns 42%. When “leaners” are included, Obama now leads 48% to 45%. Leaners are survey respondents who initially do not favor either candidate but indicate their support on a follow-up question. One week ago today, McCain had the edge over Obama, 46% to 43%.

[skip]

Obama’s bounce is primarily the result of Democrats beginning to unify behind his candidacy. For the first time all year, Obama is supported by 80% of Democrats over McCain. In recent months, his support from Democrats has typically been in the high-60’s or low-70’s range.

McCain is supported by 84% of Republicans and holds an eight-point lead among unaffiliated voters. The bad news for McCain is that there are a lot more Democrats than Republicans. Obama’s party now enjoys a ten-percentage point advantage in terms of party identification.

There are other detail in the poll which is important, but this nugget seems appropriate today.

In a purely academic exercise, I found the perfect VP choice for Obama.  First, this choice should be female, to bring back all of the disenfranchised women.  Second, this woman should be a very strong and competent executive.  Third, she should be above bribery and financial need. Fourth, she should already have the love and admiration(and name recognition) of millions of women and men.  Fifth, She should be one tough negotiator.  And last, She should have compassion and love for her followers.  

No, it's not Hillary, it's(drum roll please) 

Oprah Winfrey!

Short review of a trilogy by Philip Pullman.

I kept hearing (mostly good things) about His Dark Materials for a long time; earlier this year I decided to finally bite the bullet and read the trilogy, all thousand pages of it. I even splashed on the hardcover edition.

The trilogy is billed as children's literature, but this is perhaps misleading. This is not another Harry Potter or Chronicles of Narnia.

The three books are called Northern Lights (The Golden Compass in the North American edition), The Subtle Knife, and The Amber Spyglass. A powerful object of magical-like qualities ("compass", knife, spyglass) is central to the plot of each book.

The main character is a 12-year old girl named Lyra, inquisitive, uncontrollable, and more special than she knows. She lives in Oxford, but it is immediately clear this isn't the Oxford we know. For one thing, everyone has a daemon, a physical manifestation (in the form of an animal) of part of one's personality. For another, there's magic, there are witches, the Church is all-powerful. But at the same time, there is plenty technology in this world - firearms, airships, trains. Oh, and there are polar bears - fighting bears.

The first book's plot revolves about abductions of children, terrifying experiments performed on those children (not terrifying in the way you probably think of), and a quest to save them. There isn't anything all that special about the first book; it is well written and flows nicely, but its main function is to set the stage for the other two books.

The second book also starts in Oxford, with a 12-year old boy named Will Parry. Only this is the Oxford as we know it. Will gets mixed up in some sticky business and while trying to escape, he stumbles upon a pathway to a parallel world where he soon runs into Lyra.

Here the plot gets a lot more complicated. There is a number of parallel worlds and with proper equipment, it is possible to open pathways between them (but there is a cost...). Lyra and Will become, not unwillingly, pieces - definitely not pawns - in a grand game.

In the third book, yet more complexity gets thrown into the mix, with a healthy topping of religion and philosophy. Here the writing is much more for 'young adults' rather than 'children'. The events finally culminate in an Armageddon style of battle between good and evil. And no, I'm not telling you who won.

The trilogy is easy to read, but it's never dumbed down or predictable. I found it very enjoyable and even thought-provoking, fairly serious but never boring.

The books have provoked some controversy. The author was accused of being anti-Christian, which is something he does not exactly deny. The Church in the books is painted in an unflattering light; it's a parallel world, but there are enough similarities for the criticism to find its mark.

It is ironic that a book that isn't very nice to organized religion includes angels and even a god (but what's the point in believing them when plainly exist?), and the plot is clearly inspired by Biblical motives (Adam and Eve or Armageddon). His Dark Materials is an expression borrowed from Milton's Paradise Lost. In some ways, Pullman's trilogy is the anti-Narnia, set in a similarly magical world but drawing sharply different conclusions.

Pullman himself is an agnostic but his books aren't really against religion per se; what he criticizes is religious dogmatism and the belief that the ends justify the means (exemplified in the character of a padre who is an assassin).

All in all, His Dark Materials is a modern classic.

I'm interested in hearing what others thought about the books (or the movie, which I haven't seen). What similar books or authors have you read?

John McCain has a picture in his website where his teeth appear yellow, if you zoom in close enough.

Upon noticing this, Markos Moulitsas, also known as "Kos", quickly composed a diary about it.

Many Kossacks were not too pleased and pointed out that this kind of trivia was uncalled for in a serious website where policy and other important issues should reign supreme.

See the diary.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/5/115643/8150/700/530192

    I still need help finding my couple years worth of old posts here at the Cafe. I know they exist - I've seen some of them on here once. Andrew and Josh kept assuring me they are not lost and I would get them. So help me on my June 7th birthday - where are they? How can I access them?

The Iraq War is a classic exercise in the law of unintended consequences. The latest example: American citizens are dying in the "homeland" (hate that word) because of it. Follow the chain of causality:

1. The US Army scoops up every available pair of night-vision goggles, manufactured or planned, to use in Iraq.

2. None are available in the US for dometic purposes.

3. Although the National Transportation Safety Board has encouraged the use of such equipment since 2006 to reduce the risk of deadly nighttime crashes during emergency medical flights, air ambulance services have been put on waiting lists of a year or more in deference to the military's needs.

4. And thus, the dying:

> The shortage came into focus last month after a helicopter used by the University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics' Med Flight program slammed into a bluff, killing a doctor, nurse and pilot. The chopper had no night vision gear.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=759518

Check this out.   It's a super video of some teenage African American boys in a classroom talking with their teacher about what Obama's win means to them.

It's touching - and it illuminates Michelle's comment `for the first time in my adult life I'm proud...'

It's such a shame this videoclip won't be seen by everyone who took offense  - it would give them a new sense that
would take away the sense of insult/putting down America.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25004343/page/2/

McCain's latest attempt to woo Clinton supporters:

http://www.johnmccain.com/mccainreport/Read.aspx?guid=b9b8f2d2-2a47-4d45-8667-407cb744e9a0

Do you get the feeling that this isn't even a fair fight?

One of the terms often used on TPM and other sites is "echo chamber".  It is certainly an appropriate term, as many of our posts are essentially exercises in preaching to the choir.  Some of our better writers do get linked on other political websites, but we still often end up reinforcing or expanding beliefs we already hold.

However, the vast majority of Americans don't read this - or any - political website.  So, our carefully crafted arguments, biting ad hominem wit, and soaring rhetoric don't reach that vast majority.  This would not be a problem - except that a vote from those masses counts just as much as ours.

So, as we turn our sights to the general election, those Democrats and Obamacans among us should be asking this question:  "What can I do to help Barack Obama win in November?"

Well, I have a suggestion.  It requires some personal courage, a healthy dollop of active listening, and the willingness to detach yourself from the Internet long enough to exercise the courage and listening skills.  It's not the easiest thing to do - but if we all do it to some degree, I truly believe we can provide Obama critical electoral help that all the recommended blogs in the world can't give him.

What I'm talking about, and what I've written about before, is actually talking directly to undecided or hostile voters about Obama and the general election.

Now, this is not something that should be done lightly, or without significant preparation.  This is especially true if you're not immediately comfortable talking with people you don't know.  The good news is, you're not doing cold selling, telemarketing or anything like that.  Instead, to paraphrase Harry S Truman, I just tell people the truth about Obama, and the right-wingers think it's Hell.

I've developed ten "do-and-don't" principles for myself that I try to use whenever I'm talking to a non-Obamamaniac.  I'd like to share them here, and hopefully some of you might find them useful.

One prerequisite of this approach is that you be well versed in most things Obama.  This is an absolute necessity to do this kind of outreach, for reasons you will see as you read through these principles.

Principle #1:  This is not an exercise in street-corner evangelism.  You're not going out to put on a clapboard sign and hand out pro-Obama literature.  In fact, you're not going anywhere special at all.

Principle #2:  You must actively listen to conversation going on around you.  This election season has energized tens of millions of American voters, and we're just now starting to swing to the general election.  

When you listen to people talk around you, you can hear them often talking about the election.  And, more than any other candidate, they're talking about Barack Obama.  Good, bad, skeptical, indifferent - it doesn't matter.  He's the centerpiece of the discussion in most states.

This leads to Principle #3:  Do not, under any circumstances, jump in until you hear at least 15-30 seconds of discussion.  You want to listen for key buzzwords.  There's no definitive list, but start with things like "Muslim", "liberal", "criminal", "empty suit", and the like.  That's important, because then you know someone's badly misinformed.  This is a GOOD thing - because you're there to correct the misinformation.

However, Principle #4 says:  Always ask questions first!  This approach tells the listener that you're genuinely interested in their views and opinions, and it allows you to glean more information about the person or people to whom you're speaking.  A good starting point, I've found, is something like, "Excuse the interruption.  I was just wondering, were you talking about Barack Obama?"

People will often jump right in with both feet, and share their views on the subject.  

This is a critical point in the conversation.  If you try to "smack down" anti-Obama rhetoric now, you'll end up in an argument instead of a conversation.  Again:  you're not doing an alter call here.  You just want to help people understand the truth about Obama.  Why?  Because, once people get past the paranoia, fear, and rumor-mongering, they usually like Obama - and the more they see him without the blinders of fear and prejudice, the better they like him.  

So, you listen to the viral e-mail smears passing as "information":  "Wasn't he wearing terrorist clothes in that picture?" or "I hear his wife went off about "whitey" a while back" or "Didn't some gangster help him buy his house?"  At this point, you now have the person away from just generally hating on Obama to giving specific reasons why he hates him.  

This is where principle #5 comes in:  Remember your audience, and tailor your communication accordingly.  As an example, you generally won't be using snark in your discussions.  Remember, most people who don't gravitate to the blogosphere see snark as overtly rude and disrespectful behavior.  So, leave your acerbic Dorothy Parker witticisms at the dcor.

Once you've adjusted your attitude appropriately, you're ready for principle #6:  Tell ONLY the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.  This not only makes it easier for you to talk about Obama, but sincerity really shines through when you consciously conduct the conversation with complete candor - and that shining will reflect very well on Obama.

Principle #7 says:  Only try to correct one falsehood at a time.  No matter how many goofy things you hear at once, you deal with the first in full.  Eventually, someone has run out of objections, or starts to get angry.

So what happens if someone gets really angry?  This is covered in principle #8:  Know when to say "when"!  There will be times when there is absolutely nothing you can say or do, when someone is virulently anti-Obama.  At that point, you extricate yourself as gracefully as possible, and quickly go back to doing whatever you were doing. 

NOTE:  If you do this enough, you WILL encounter this on occasion.  It's very rare, in my experience, but it does happen.  You can't let it bother you.  Sometimes, when you're on an Easter egg hunt, you come across a few cracked ones.  You leave them be, and move on to more fertile ground.

When the person runs out of objections to ask you about, that's when you start talking about positives on Obama.  You can cite anything you want here, as long as it complies with Principle #6.  

However, don't forget Principle #9:  Do not ask for votes!  You are not selling Barack Obama.  You're only correcting some apparent misinformation about Obama.  When you start trying to pressure voting decisions, though, you turn people off.

Finally, there's Principle #10:  Never belittle the other candidates.  Your only job is to give people the information they need to overcome any anti-Obama falsehoods.  Then, encourage them to do some research on their own.  When they do, and they find your info is kosher, they'll be hooked.

There are risks in this approach.  Certainly, blogging is much easier than actually talking to someone.  It's also harder than phone-banking for Obama, because of the lack of anonymity.  Instead, you're coming face-to-face with people, and that can be scary.

However, I truly believe the risk is outweighed by the reward.  You're helping to proactively fight against swiftboating.  You're giving a 100% positive and factual view of Obama to someone who probably won't get that view anywhere else.  Finally, you're turning lower-information voters into higher-information voters - and the more information a voter has, the more likely they are to vote for Obama.

We're blessed with a candidate who naturally blossoms in the minds of the people, once the idea of Obama takes root.  I like to think of my approach as that of the constant gardener, helping people pull mental and emotional weeds out so the idea can take root and grow of its own accord in those minds.  

If you have questions about getting prepped to do this sort of thing, feel free to ask in the comments, and I'll do my best to answer.  I hope you'll toss on some work gloves, get out there and do some intellectual weeding with me.  Thanks for reading!

(Originally posted as a diary at Daily Kos.  Minor edits made for site consistency.)

Lifelongdem

Thank you for all the kind words.  Let me see if I can do some of your questions justice. 

Let’s first take apart the last 40 years of Elections.

2004
George Bush Def John Kerry
2000
George Bush Def Al Gore
1996
Bill Clinton Def Bob Dole
1992
Bill Clinton Def. George H.W. Bush
1988
George HW. Bush Def. Micheal Dukakis
1984
Ronald Reagan Def Walter Mondale
1980
Ronald Reagan Def. Jimmy Carter
1976
Jimmy Carter Def Gerald Ford
1972
Richard Nixon Def George McGovern
1968
Richard Nixon Def Hubert Humphrey
1964
Lyndon Johnson Def Barry Goldwater
1960
John Kennedy Def. Richard Nixon

Do you have an opinion of the extent to which Republican dominance in recent presidential lections traces to wrapping up their nominations earlier? At a glance, Republicans seem to have almost always settled things sooner and gotten behind the nominee. They've certainly won more often.

I think the reason that the quick wrapping primaries resulted in so many Presidents is because the Candidates were so good.  (For an analysis of this check out my the Blog  The History of Decisive and Devisive Primary Elections)

This is the first time in a long time there were actually two candidates in the same party that you wish were squaring off in the big dance.  It’s like last years NBA finals where the Spurs and Suns were playing to see who was going to whip the Cavaliers.  Barack is a great young voice with a vibrancy that has rejuvenated politics.  Hillary is a political superstar, she was legendary back in her Wellesly days, sadly though her best political years were served as First Lady to the President instead of the First Lady President.

Let’s take a look at a few of the previous losing candidates.

John Kerry wasn’t the most galvanizing candidate.  He didn’t turn out the black vote (which could have been the deciding factor in Ohio) and he was boring.  He ran a campaign that was more anti Bush than Pro John Kerry.  Can you remember even one slogan or anything that came out of that campaign.

Al Gore should have won in a cakewalk, but he pushed away his biggest asset, Bill Clinton.  The sitting President was still popular with his base and he was an excellent campaigner.   Gore was as boring as a bag of oats and I still don’t know any of his campaign messages.  His biggest asset was that he was the Vice President to Bill Clinton but he didn’t want to use that asset.  He lost the election practically on a technicality, but it should not have even been close enough for one county to screw him.  ALSO:  NADER EFFECT.

Bob Dole, Sacrificial Lamb.

George H.W. Bush was sank with one phrase “Read My Lips, No New taxes”  I still remember the Campaign slogans of the Clintons “It’s the Economy Stupid” and “Bridge to the Future”  Oddly enough, at that point, H.W. Bush was actually semi-popular because he won the war.  Many prominent Democrats stayed out of the race because they saw certain defeat if they ran against him.  Clinton also GREATLY benefited from Ross Perot who siphoned off the conservatives who wanted fiscal responsibilities.

Walter Mondale, Sacrificial Lamb

Jimmy Carter.  Was done in because he was going against “The Great Communicator” and he was burned by a series of images.  First at the Convention, Jimmy Carter running for the hand of Ted Kennedy who looked more like the nominee than the sitting president.  Then there was the infamous photo of him Joggin in black socks making him look like an old old man.  He was also dealing with a tense hostage crisis instead of campaigning.

Gerald Ford.  He was stuck in the Post-Nixon Cesspool where the Democrats swept through the elections because of universal distrust of the Republican Party.

The other thing to look at is on that list is how powerful is the Name Recognition Factor.  Bill Clinton and Carter were “insurgent” candidates.  Virtually unknown to the national electorate until they decided to run for office.  Look at the other winners:


G.W. Bush  -- Son of a former President
Clinton       --  Relatively Unknown
GHW Bush – Former Vice President and Head of CIA
Reagan      -- Famous Actor, and Ran in the Primary all the way to the convention of 1976.
Carter       -- Relatively Unknown
Nixon      -- Former Vice President, Televised Appearances  (Checkers, Kitchen Debate, Hiss hearings)
Johnson   -- Vise President
Kennedy   -- Senator, and  Son of the Prominent Joe Kennedy.  

Do you have a personal opinion about whether Hillary's concession, assuming she truly concedes tomorrow, will come in time?

I truly feel it has a lot to do with what she does, and more importantly what Barack does.  As long as no more scandals come forth he should be fine.  McCain is a weak candidate who can’t galvanize the support of his constituency.  No one is motivated to go and see him.  There aren’t people turning out in droves to Donate money to him.  They are to the Republican Party, but not to McCain.  That’s the important part.  

Barack has to have a very uneventful several months in order to win.  The Repubs will blast him on all these things that we already know about and as long as Barack stays on message and starts to slip a little more substance in his speeches he’ll win.  He has to let everybody know just because he has the best dessert in town (his speeches, and message) doesn’t mean he’s not going to serve quality meat and potatoes (Policies and Ways of making those policies come to light)  The reason that people are afraid of Barack is they don’t know him.   McCain has plenty of skeletons in his closet, but America knows him so they’re more forgiving.  

If Senator Clinton makes it perfectly Clear that she lost, it was her fault that she lost.  There was Sexism in the media that needs to be addressed but that wasn’t her reason for losing. Then either her or Billl make the comparison between Barack and Bill Clinton of 1992 (I’ll save that for another post) then he will be fine.

Late Update: Friday's posts on TPM (by subject matter):
---------------------------------------------------------
Edwards: 1 (7%)
Lieberman: 1 (7%)
McCain: 2.5 (18%)
Clinton: 4 (29%)
Obama: 3.5 (25% )
Undeclared:2 (14%)
--------------------------------------------
While early returns indicated a blowout for Clinton, the race tightened into quite a nail-biter.  With 8 precincts reporting, Hillary Clinton led with a commanding 50% to McCain's 25% and Obama slow out of the gate with 0%.  What followed was one of the most improbable events in TPM history: Obama was able to sweep the late Greg Sargent precincts on a straight run of 3.5 out of the next 4 contests.  Kleinfeld regions were a non-factor with only 1.5 precincts in play, these went Undeclared. 

Obama was poised to clinch a come from behind victory until the rules committee found that an out-the-door-to-happy-hour precinct had violated nomination rules by presenting a fictional analysis of a fictional rumor about a non-candidate being based on fiction without checking to see if the cafe already had a better analysis that didn't seem so fictional and was thus considered Undeclared.  Dark-horse entry Franken was also ruled Undeclared by the committee.  A bewildered member said: "Hell, we can't even believe he's [expletive] running for anything!  I just can't bring myself to assign him delegates.". 

In a final decision before adjourning the meeting, the committee found that the Undeclared precincts would be split evenly between the leading candidates to which Obama surrogate Rep. Waxman protested: "Sure, I understand why Obama should get his wife's, <i>they're married</i>, but giving Franken to Clinton just doesn't make any sense - what about the RULES?"  An infuriated Ickes jumped up and smacked Waxman with a rolled up newspaper and declared "If Obama can take his wife's precinct, do you think we can take Franken's?  You bet your ass we can."  He then jumped on a triangle-wheeled unicycle and thumped off into the sunset.

Have a nice weekend.

PROPOSAL FOR DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION 2012

1. Until December of the year before election year: Early campaigning, fundraising, debates
As before, all candidate declare their intentions, do fundraising as usual, and so on. Their focus is on wooing the superdelegates and stacking the polls, in anticipation of the convention. Candidates also agree not to raise funds for the general election — for primaries only. All general election donations must be made to the DNC at this point.

2. December Convention:
a.) Last debate of all candidates
b.) Candidates make closing 1-hour speeches
c.) Existing superdelegates publicly vote to narrow down candidates to 4 using approval voting, marking all that they are willing to support as the nominee.
d.) The top 4 candidates debate
e.) Existing superdelegates publicly vote to narrow down candidates to 2 using approval voting, marking all that they are willing to support as the nominee.

Superdelegate votes do NOT carry over.

3. VP agreement due
Both candidates declare their willingness to be on each other's ticket by December 31.  This is not an agreement to choose each other. It is just an agreement to be willing to be chosen. This agreement is binding and irreversible.

4. January 1 - June 15: Biweekly Debates and Primaries
DNC selects debate sites and formats before January 1 with the option to cancel them. Timetable for voting is completely up to the states. Only rule: Election year. Note that the process below makes late-voting states important — there is little incentive to move up the primary!

5. Ballot format.
In each state, the ballot shows four and only four options:

Choose 1 option below:
• No Preference between A and B
• Candidate A
• Candidate B
• Write-in ___________

6. Points for each state:
Each state is awarded 1 point for each 100,000 residents based on population of the state according to the last census. The U.S. population is about 3,050,000 now, so there will be roughly 3,050 points available. The nominee is the candidate with the most points.

7. Point Allocation in each state:
Candidates earn points based in proportion to the electorate. For example, Massachusetts has 6,349,000 people, worth 63 points. Here are hypothetical results:

50% No Preference = 16 points each
30% Candidate A = 19 more points
15% Candidate B = 09 more points
0.4% Blank = 0 points
4.6% Write-in = 3 points

Note: Rounding may cause the total points to be between 61 and 65. That's fine.

8. Party Unity Day: 7 days after final primary.
Preplanned celebration event organized by the DNC in which the loser endorses the winner. If s/he refuses, the event is canceled.

9. August Convention.
VP nominee due 1 week before convention. No votes for president needed since the delegates will have already done their thing. Only the VP vote is cast. Other typical convention events.

10. Withdrawal Clause
In the event that a candidate withdraws during the primary process, superdelegates will vote at the convention to confirm the remaining candidate. If a 2/3 majority is not reached, a new round of approval voting takes place, with the highest vote getter becoming the nominee.

What do you think? Serious discussion only. Please be to-the-point, referring to steps/clauses by number for clarity.

... we dreamed, rather than a seat on The Ticket he gave her the first opening on The Court ...

A Democratic governor (the seat was safe).

An obliging majority in the Senate (because she campaigned hard).

A life time appointment (the impeachment failed).

An "enduring legacy".

 And over all, he garnered triple points for the "tweak" factor (which is why this didn't happen -- not with the first seat, anyway).

What more can one say other than this?

http://www.236.com/blog/w/ian_gurvitz/to_the_hillary_supporters_who_6998.php

In my many journeys around the intertubes,  I have lately seen the Michelle Obama "October surprise video tape" rumor cropping up in more and more comments threads.  Thus, I knew it was only a matter of time before some  newsmonkey picked it up and flung it, poo-like, to an audience eager for more Electiotainment (the surprise hit of the season, I'm told).  I hope that Greg Sargent and Eric Kleefeld are correct, and that the source of the rumor proves fictional.  But I'm hardly surprised that the rumor itself has gained traction.  As I've seen the virtual whispering campaign around Michelle's putative comments grow, I have hoped that nothing would come of this - that this rumor would fall in the "Obama's gay lover" class of rumors.  But after watching the rumors that have  gained traction over these last many months, nothing surprises me anymore. 

As someone who has spent some time researching each "Obama rumor" for myself - from "secret Muslim" to "unrepentant chain smoker," from  Rezko to Wright - I consider myself well-versed in Obama Lore.  I also think I'm quite good at discerning fact from fiction, and I'm pretty good at placing rumors on the spectrum that lies between those poles.  While I am an Obama supporter, I recognize that he is a human being, and a politician, and that with both of those conditions certain baggage comes attached.  This means that some "rumors" will, unfortunately, prove true, just as some will prove to be pure fabrication.  The hard part is predicting which will matter in the overall arc of his campaign.  

That's the part I'm not very good at.  I'm constantly surprised at the things that upset people, and maybe even more surprised at the things that don't upset people.  To me, a "whitey" comment isn't nearly as scandalous as an equivocation on the definition of "torture."  But I am apparently not your average hard-working white American.  So I'm pretty much constantly dumbfounded by, well, everything.

I really didn't think, for example, that "Obama is bestest buddies with terrorist Bill Ayers"would ever gain credible  press attention, because it just seemed like a "no there there" story to me.   I mean, I did a few hours of research using Google and LexisNexis, and I could tell that the NYTimes quotations were taken out of context, that Ayers and Obama were at best tenuously linked, and that there was absolutely basis on which to connect the radical activities of Ayers and associates during the 60's with the professional context in which Ayers and Obama became acquainted.  But I suppose that a few hours of research and a modicum of nuance are too much to ask in addressing a question of newsworthiness, as the "question of Ayers" proved weighty enough for a debate question regardless of its journalistic merit. 

So I can't say that I'm particularly surprised or scandalized that this one has hit the big time.  I am hopeful that there's no actual video, but after the Wright mess I've decided that the best approach is to expect the worst.  When I start seeing a rumor making its rounds, my practice now is to wait a couple of weeks, expecting that it will get covered in the traditional press as a legitimate "question" at some point.  It sucks, but I think we're better off accepting it now, because unfortunately, I think this is what we can expect over the next few months.  And I think the "electiotainment" drive is going to fuel what might ordinarily be "just politics" to keep the scandal-digging machines working overtime. 

These rumors aren't just generated by one political machine attempting to take down the opposing candidate, nor are they simply the reflection of a fringe group of bigots intent on smearing a minority candidate (as if anything about this election could ever be "simple").   These rumors are given room to grow because they are indeed treated like news.   Even when covered "as a rumor," the desire to gain or hold market share in the competitive - and I suppose, increasingly lucrative - world of electiotainment demands that no rumor go unmilled.  The nastier, the better.  If all you have is a story about a story - a rumor of a rumor of the potential for something bad to have possibly been said by someone, sometime, somewhere - then you make a story from the denial of the story.  After all, the networks have 24 hours of "news" programming to fill.

Obama so far seems to be meeting the Electiotainment Rumorters with an attempt to shoot their non-stories down quickly and move the focus back to the issues.  Sometimes this works, but as we've seen, some rumorters will cling to their "stories" till the bitter end.  Now that the primary is over, perhaps we will see a bit more substantive focus on issues amidst the electiotainment coverage, but this latest "rumor" coverage doesn't show a lot of promise.  As I've said more than once recently, I've never entered a summer so eager for a shark attack or a runaway bride to rivet the cable news networks' attention.  Perhaps then, we'll get to have an election.  You know, with candidates and issues and like, debates and stuff.  Wacky. 

In the meantime, I want to know how to address this on a more personal level.  Early on, I took the time to debunk and/or contextualize the rumors and "Obama Lore" that I heard repeated, saw in comments threads, got via email, etc.  But I've gotten jaded now and I typically just ignore that stuff.  I do wonder, though, what other strategies there are besides "ignore," "get pissed," and "explain for the 1000th time."  So I took the time to post this because I hoped that some of you might be able to help me.  I'm too young for total cynicism, and we've got five months left.  What else can we do when faced with the next "**** Whitey," "secret Muslim," or "Obama's neighbor gets her newspaper delivered by the son of a member of Hamas" story?

The gullible will be impressed with this little circus act by the Clinton Campaign with a "friendly" assist by comedian Rush Limbaugh:

Pro-Hillary Group Announces 25,000 Signatures For "Dream Ticket"

Liberals also are probably forgetting that Rush Limbaugh is still, STILL trying to prop Hillary up. He asked his listeners (there are 22 million according to his ratings) to fill out a form on the Hillary Clinton website urging her to stay in the race.

Al Giordano at the Field throws cold water on this gig - he points out that Rush Limbaugh is at it again, asking his "dittoheads" to give Sen Clinton "feedback" via her website:

Nice Try, Rush
One of the most lastingly significant developments of the late Democratic primary campaign is how, from March 4 to June 3, a nationally-syndicated right-wing Republican radio talk show host kept the Democratic contest alive. But all bad things must come to an end, and - if Senator Clinton does what she’s said she’ll do tomorrow at noon and cleanly exit from the contest - Rush Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos” becomes something for the history books.

Limbaugh made one last try at it Wednesday, the morning after Senator Clinton urged her supporters to advise her, via her website, on what to do now that the primaries are over. Limbaugh told his listeners:

"Well, as we all know, ladies and gentlemen, Operation Chaos continues. Mrs. Clinton did not quit. Everybody assumed that she was going to quit… Everybody is saying she’s getting closer to quitting, they’re trying to figure out what it is she wants and so forth. All this means is that Operation Chaos continues. Greetings, my friend, and welcome…

…the Drive-Bys and the Democrats, some of them are just beside themselves that Mrs. Clinton won’t get the hint and won’t get out; that she will not quit. I think this is perfectly understandable that the Clintons are behaving this way. Hillary can take this all the way to the convention if she wants.

...Oh, I was watching this last night, and I was going nuts, she’s burning down the house. Unity schmunity. Divided we are, this was Mrs. Clinton’s message last night. So she says she wants everybody to go to her website, HillaryClinton.com, and share your thoughts. Now let me tell you what this is about. What she wants, she wants to grab as many people on her website urging her to keep going, to stay in this, so she can show that to the Obama people. She’s talking about her 18 million votes which is as much, if not a little more, than he got. She’s still talking about the Electoral College states that she won that put her at a mythical tally of 267, when you need 270. So clearly she’s angling for something, and she needs public support in order to get it. Vice president, Supreme Court nomination, something along these lines. It’s going to be a real interesting thing to watch Obama deal with this. So as the commander-in-chief of US Operation Chaos, I would like to urge all of you who want to, to go to HillaryClinton.com and tell her what you think she ought to do. "

In any case, good on Senator Clinton for dropping her whole “tell me what to do via my website” effort to somehow stay in the contest through the convention in August. Because a very large percentage of the feedback she no doubt got via her website to stay in the race came from the Limbaugh chaos lobby, as are, frankly, many of the anonymous comments that transitioning Clinton bloggers are receiving now that claim to be from Clinton supporters urging votes for McCain or third party candidates.

...more at the link

 

Over at another major blog site run by Arianna Huffington, I've read several posts throughout the primary season by women (womyn?) writers like Gloria Steinem and Erica Jong to name two, who have repeatedly cried foul.

Hillary, they say, is the victim of unchecked, unreported, unbridled sexism. Ms. Jong, best known for the fictional sex-romp "Fear of Flying," wrote that she was pissed off that this was the last chance that she would ever have in her lifetime to vote for a woman. She begrudgingly said she would vote for Sen. Obama. I could just imagine her: shoulders slumped, scuffing her feet, rolling her eyes, monosyllabically mumbling, barely audible, like some petulant teenager.

Ms. Jong's reaction to Hillary's defeat is hardly different than that of the angry, vocal distaff segment of the 17 million or so persons who voted for Sen. Clinton. The reactions range from those tinged with racial bias ("I won't/can't vote for a black man") to defiant feminist ("I'll only vote for a woman") to those who will stay at home or those who vow to vote for John McCain.

This group of Clinton's core demographic -- white women -- is an interesting mix of what has been described as "second wave feminists" (the Steinem era bra-burners) most of whom are financially stable, past childbearing age, well-educated. The other end of the spectrum are the "working class," less financially stable, less educated, younger, more conservative, and less likely to describe themselves as "feminists."

It is puzzling to me that Hillary Clinton is seen as the "Great White Women's Last Best Hope" to put a woman in the White House. From a "feminist" perspective -- that is, from a perspective where the gender of a candidate is pre-eminent -- Hillary Clinton is one of hundreds of women who are fully capable of running the country. In fact, there have been women pursuing the nomination from both parties in recent years. Women who could have cracked the so-called glass ceiling if only their sisters had given them a leg up.

Every time Ralph Nader has run for President (and he is fast approaching if not overtaking Harold Stassen's status as perennial candidate), Nader has chosen a female running mate. The late former Sen. Eugene McCarthy (who famously ran against Hubert Humphrey and Bobby Kennedy in 1968 and again 1972) ran as recently as 1988 with a woman as his VP on the Consumer Party ticket.

Granted, running as an independent minimizes your chances of changing the locks on the Oval Office doors. But if issues are what drives your the polls, wouldn't a woman on the ticket be a motivating factor?

But let's take a look at the major parties -- Republican and Democratic. We know the history of Geraldine Ferraro as VP running mate to Walter Mondale in 1984. But did you know that there were 8 women running for Vice President on a variety of tickets that year?

Did you know that since 1964 there have been 8 women who ran for the Presidential nomination on either the Republican or Democratic ticket? From Margaret Chase Smith (Republican, 1964) who challenged Barry Goldwater to Carol Moseley-Braun in 2004 as a Democrat, onstage alongside John Kerry, Howard Dean, John Edwards, Al Sharpton and others.

Moseley-Braun could have been a two-fer had "feminists" supported her. She was the second African-American Senator elected since reconstruction (Edward Brooke, Republican of Massachusetts and one-time love interest of Barbara Walters, was the first. Barack Obama is the third.) But women did not rally around her candidacy. Here is a self-made woman, who did not rely on a resume written with her husband's accomplishments, who did not lean on a political machine built by her husband. A woman who is every bit as progressive as Clinton. A woman, a Senator, a candidate that the white feminist establishment ignored. Shame on them.

If a woman President is your goal, you also could have voted for Senator Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) in 2000. Ellen McCormack would have appreciated your support in 1976, and so would have Rep. Patsy Mink, Rep. Shirley Chisholm and none other than Rep. Bella Abzug in 1972.

So to suggest that Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton is the last best hope in your lifetime to see a woman President is silly hyperbole. And worse, it is damning evidence of unwillingness to really put your vote where your mouth is. Talented women have come forward to run, and women of both parties have failed to support them.

The undercurrent to this story is in part the continuing friction between white women and black women and men as competing political constituencies. As newly freed black men were struggling for political recognition, so were white women. The suffrage question was one that would not have been satisfied for black women: if black husbands were denied the vote in favor of white women, black wives were unrepresented by extension through their husbands.The suffragettes weren't fighting to extend enfranchisement to their black sisters. It was white women before black people.

There will be more women running for national office. They all will not be white women. But remember that if your goal is to put a woman in the White House, you need to support the women who run. All the women.

Not just a former First Lady.

I always record O’Reilly & Hannity in an effort to have some sense of the messages many people are getting.   It’s a repulsive process – utterly excruciating sometimes which is why I can’t bear to have to watch the whole thing.  (I frequently fast forward when I’m reviewing them and concentrate on the Democratic talking heads. )

What has me boiling this morning (yet again) is the way they keep saying Obama intends to nationalise healthcare.     

One thing I’ve extracted from the process is that it really is time for Obama to take on this `liberal` tag.   We need a major speech on his conception of what liberalism means for America:   take this GOP attack and turn it to his
advantage, turn it back on them.    Accept the tag and make it a `buzz`, rather than  a `boo` word.

He’s got to have Americans really seeing that it is McCain’s new vision for America that is ultra right wing, and that it is Obama’s  liberal vision that is moderate and realistic – that he is not for `big` government but for `better`.

He needs to tell America that it  was Adam Smith who, in the Wealth of Nations, understood and was the first proponent of public provision of education;   not Karl Marx.

Point out the contradiction in the extraordinary percentage of GDP expenditure on the military making America `safe` in a foreign policy setting when domestically over 16% - 47 million - Americans are constantly threatened by their inability to have healthcare.   What is the point of being the greatest superpower the world has ever experienced when 16% of the population -  47 million people - don‘t have health care coverage?  When the United States is ranked 41st in the world for lowest infant mortality rate and 45th for highest total life expectancy?   Those are appalling statistics.

He needs to focus on America’s children – not only hideous state of education and health but  the extraordinary deficit that is mortgaging their futures.  That McCain’s rampant capitalism is more dangerous then John Maynard Keynes’ demand economics ever was.

 That the challenge is to understand the mix – the constraints of supply side economics, yes, but the times when demand side is fully as essential.  He has to destroy the McCain myth that only the GOP will provide a positive business environment that provides jobs. 

 He could well use the international stats that back up his thesis, not McCain’s:  eleven countries are ahead of the US on the human development index:  these countries’ policies, whatever they are, are NOT predicated on the myth that all government is bad.

 (List of countries: 

1 Iceland   

2  Norway   

3 Australia   

4 Canada  

5   Ireland  

6 Sweden   

7  Switzerland   

8 Japan   

9  Netherlands   

10 France

11  Finland )

As a side note, how  I’d love to see O’Reilly’s face if you told him that France does better than the US.  LOL!)

BTW for people not familiar  with it, the HDI  is The Human Development Index  and it’s a comparative measure of life expectancy, literacy, education, and standards of living for countries worldwide.

I’d be very interested in other people’s views on what arguments work for Obama – how best to appeal especially to people who are so vulnerable to the standard GOP small govt/minimise tax rants.

 

 

 

Recommend please.


If there's one thing I've enjoyed doing on this site, it's tearing Hillary a new one.

But in recent days, I've had a change of heart, just as some Hillary supporters have had (e.g., Allsburg's apology;)
concerning Obama. You see, I love Hillary.

Well, wait, I don't really love Hillary.

Then again, I don't even love Obama. But he is the candidate I'm betting my jittery faith in American politics on. My last crumpled dollar of hope is riding on Obama to accomplish two little thing: Change the world and better my life.

And so, I believe it is, with Hillary supporters. She isn't a glowing goddess to most of them, any more than Obama is a knight in shining armor to most of us (though either would make a happier ending than Johnny Mac and his pirate crew).

Anyway, here's the point: Fellow Obama supporters, drop your guard for a moment and pretend to be neutral. If you think about it, Hillary captured the imaginations of a lot of Americans. Only a few of them are racists. Only a smattering are sexist old women.

What's left over are the majority of decent, white Democrats — the ones who supported the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act and just want to pay off the mortgage.

What's left over are the majority of Hispanic Americans, who struggle each day to provide for themselves and their families.

What's left over are a lot of women. And men, and gays and lesbians just hoping for a fairer shake out of life.

What's left over are the other American Democrats, ones that Hillary attracted to her candidacy because they placed their bets in the same crumpled currency of hope — on her — to do two things: Change the world and better their lives.

And every American who join us reminds us that we are both host and guest of the same wild party under one big tent. (Excuse me. I'll have a Tanqueray and tonic, hold the Armageddon.)

So, you got this far without puking, eh? Most of you, anyway? Well, hold onto your cookies, kids:

Hillary supporters, name one thing good about Obama. Same admonition. Obama supporters, name one good thing about Hillary.

Don't blow this, gang. (And Otto F: Don't even...)

Since I'm an Obama supporter, I'll start.

I Love Hillary because she has shattered the glass ceiling for women.
I Love Hillary because she cares about making people's lives better.
I Love Hillary because she is a fighter.

Your turn.

Thank you.

If you understand the reason for this sincere apology, I hope that you accept it.

Everyone else, please continue to talk amoungst yourselves!

Scroll down to the 20th paragraph or so in this Politico article. Once there you will bump into what Rep: Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) wants done about Obama's primary victory:

“I cried all night. I’m going to be crying for the next four years,” he said. “What Barack Obama has accomplished is the single most extraordinary event that has occurred in the 232 years of the nation’s political history. ... The event itself is so extraordinary that another chapter could be added to the Bible to chronicle its significance.”

..and it's not a cult.

The Last Inspector, Gerald Eastman speaks of his experiences as a Boeing Whistleblower, discusses why others have not also done the same and challenges those who should be whistleblowers to blow that whistle. (www.thelastinspector.com)

He muses over how he found himself one of the first few whistleblowers to stand up to his company and try to report fraud when he saw it, and the odyssey his path led him through leading through one mistrial in the trial The Boeing Company pushed through to try to silence him, and the threatened retrial Boeing and King County Prosecutor's Office still are deferring.

The fear he states that employees feel and the power that has over those employees is truly disgusting.  One can understand how whistleblowers are afraid, but eventually those with character and an understanding of the big picture of not reporting fraud and wrongdoing when they encounter it, should spur them on to do what is right.

If you saw someone, coworker, supervisor, mid or upper management, or CEO, committing an act of fraud or other wrongdoing against a customer, the government or the taxpayers in general would you report it?

Flyover_27

What is very interesting to me is even when Barack Obama's breaks the glass ceiling for African American's we are more focused on Women more than ever.  Make no mistake! This is a good thing!  This guarantees that women issues will be at the forefront of this election: an accomplishment that no one can take away from Hillary Clinton. 

Unfortunately, distractions from all angles have let this issue go unnoticed.  And I truly hope that the understandable disappointed doesn't overlook this fact either.

Hillary Clinton's candidacy has forced the news to address its own sexist tone and made people who thought "I won't vote for a woman" change their minds and say I was wrong. 

In my opinion stereotypes destroy our imagination.  The reason why people say I won't vote for a women, a black person, or other citizen of these proud United States is that our nation's collective imagination of what a woman is or person of African descent is stereotypical.  We think of a fuzzy collection of unexceptional human being with traits that are negative when they mention the other demographics of American's who have not been elected as President. 

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have given America a clear and concrete example of the brilliance, passion, and leadership the we as American's have been depriving ourselves of due to our own blindness.  Our own assumptions and lack of imagination have robbed us of gems, up until now.

Hillary's many strengths, which has been apparent for sometime is just now being recognized by friend and foe a like.  No one can deny her heroics that have and will continue to make her a leader.  These are traits that many of us lack, yet wish we had.  They are indeed admirable. 

As the media continues to say that this election is about Bush, the economy, or the Iraq War.  Hillary Clinton has been able to make this nation talk about what women want.  She has even made the man who called his wife a "C-nt & Trollop" (Nice vocabulary! I'm sure his 90+ year old mom is proud) in public and said women need more "training" (what does that mean?) instead of equal rights in the work place pay token tribute to women. 

This man is John McCain.  The same John McCain that has voted against multi-equality bill.  Even if there was a bill called "The McCain Women need more training not equal rights in the work place" John "change that he doesn't even believe" McCain would probably change his mind and vote against it like he has done on his  other bills and stances.  (i.e. campaign reform, immigration reforms, torture reforms, Bush Taxes, Telcom's Spying on us and etc.)

Hillary Clinton has even forced Republican's to consider Condoleezza Rice to get the women vote.  I know a lot of people don't seem to understand how revolutionary it is that Republicans are considering a woman in the top office.  I want you to name prominent Republican Women legislators?  What about prominent Republican Women Governors? Can't name many, can you?  But Hillary has changed that. 

Women getting elected in the Democratic party is becoming more common place than ever.  Its almost a niche.  Look at Nancy Pelosi, who commands the respect from thousands of American's and world leaders a like.  She has become a voice of reason in a Washington still invested in "Bush-think".  She's even taken Bush to school a few times.  You go girl!

I truly believe that glass ceiling is now broken because of Hillary Clinton.  Thanks to her we can all know a Woman will be the president of the United States because Hillary Clinton has overcome sexism and won the male vote in many states, broke voting records, and made us envision her has a strong and competent President "from day one" (to steal a line from HRC).

Here is the bottom line:

If women are open minded to Barack Obama and make him work for the Women vote and hold him accountable for his promises and demand proof of his stances on Women issues the progress of Women in America will continue to advance.  If John McCain is given a free pass on the womans vote and is not put to the same standard he can undo the progress that we as Americans have accomplished together without consequence.  Hillary was right it takes a village!  Hillary Clinton was didn't become the chief of this village this time, but make no mistake this is still you and my village and nothing is going to change our great responsibly too it.

While I agree that Hillary's lack of grace in (delaying) conceding is problematic, attention to her is valedictory, honoring her historic accomplishment while also inevitably, noting her failure. It will/is soon to pass, within days. Of course, the best way to deal with either Clinton's problematic behavior is to put her in the Cabinet - if she becomes a problem, it's a lot easier to fire her than if she's his VP - which also puts a brake on her behavior.  Plus, putting her on a ticket has more negatives (e.g., among independents) than positives...

The mainstream, and of course the right-wing, media have seemed as of late to be jumping back on the Iraq-War-Is-Winnable train again.

The so-called Surge, merely an increase in troop levels long resisted by the Bush Administration and a temporary change in the tactical objectives of the US military presence, have produced some recent casualty numbers  indicative of a certain pacification in the Iraq theater.

Those numbers are: pre-Surge, Iraqi violent deaths had reached 3000 per month; current Iraqi violent deaths are running at 1000 per month. Better?  Yes.

But one simple arithmetic notion to keep in to keep in mind , one which gives more meaning to the "raw," absolute numbers that are cited is the following:

Iraq is (was) a country of 25 million people; the United States is a country of 300 million people. Our population is 12 times theirs. To appreciate what  casualty-rate in Iraq would "feel" like if that casualty-rate were duplicated in the United States, one must multiply each Iraqi casualty by a factor of 12.  So the rate of 1000 Iraqi deaths per month is the equivalent of the United States sustaining 12000 war deaths a month on our own soil. 

That formula should give anyone who thinks things are under control in Iraq pause to rethink his or her position.

MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com

Many female Clintonites who feel that the Senator was slighted by the “old boys club” in the Democratic Party (if blog commentary reflects public sentiment) are reacting by vowing to vote for McCain.

Before you pull the McCain lever in November, read the Carly Fiorina article by Elisabeth Bumiller in the NYT.. For those who won’t read the whole thing, here is the excerpt I read that caught my attention:

<BlockQuote>"[Carly Fiorina] said...that one of the biggest differences between her new life and her old is that "I’m not deciding."   That was clear on a recent morning on the McCain campaign bus, when the candidate summoned Fortune’s onetime "most powerful woman in business" to sing to him and an audience of reporters in the back.  The selection was "We’re Strong for Toledo," which Mr. McCain had heard from Ms. Fiorina at an Ohio fund-raiser the night before.  Ms. Fiorina, embarrassed but not at all shy, did as she was told.  "Now we know the secret of her success," Mr. McCain enthused when Ms. Fiorina was done with her serenade."</BlockQuote>

I showed the article to my wife. She (more so than I) thought that McCain’s behavior was sexist and appalling. She couldn’t believe he made such a power play at the expense of a woman.

Said my even-tempered wife, "If I were Carly, I would have chewed him [McCain] out and refused to sing. It was like he wanted to show people that he could make his German Shepherd put on a tutu and dance. What he did was sexist and demeaning to her and to women."

Disgruntled and angry Clintonites, please think twice before voting for McCain in the Fall.

The link to the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/06/us/politics/06fiorina.html

Hillary the Inevitable

Like the rest of us, Barack Obama learned from the media that Hillary Clinton will announce the suspension of her campaign for the Democratic Party's nomination for President this Saturday.  And while there is all sorts of gossip about what will happen next, for now the drama continues. 

Just last week, Bill Clinton complained that he'd "never seen a candidate treated so disrespectfully just for running."  Well look again, Bill.  Because your wife just succeeded in performing a 10-point-perfect double-dis against Barack Obama.  First she stiff-armed his historic claim to the party's nomination with her "victory" speech on Tuesday night.  Then the next day she ignores the most basic courtesy of telling her party's nominee she is dropping out of the race.  She even passed up the opportunity to do so in person at the AIPAC conference.  What a class act!

All's not well in Hillarywood.  The problem with this picture show is the "suspension of disbelief":

"In the world of fiction you are often required to believe a premise which you would never accept in the real world. Especially in genres such as fantasy and science fiction, things happen in the story which you would not believe if they were presented in a newspaper as fact. Even in more real-world genres such as action movies, the action routinely goes beyond the boundaries of what you think could really happen. 

In order to enjoy such stories, the audience engages in a phenomenon known as "suspension of disbelief". This is a semi-conscious decision in which you put aside your disbelief and accept the premise as being real for the duration of the story. 

Suspension of disbelief only works to a point. It is important that the story maintains its own form of believability and doesn't push the limits too far."
 

Hillary Clinton herself introduced the concept last September when told General Petreus that his Iraq progress report required "a willing suspension of disbelief."  But then so did much of her production of "Hillary the Inevitable", which regularly stretched the imagination to convince the media and public that she really had earned the nomination. 

For example, her suggestion that party caucuses are undemocratic, that caucus state voters don't count, or that popular votes including the unsanctioned primaries in Florida and Michigan determines the winner.  For five months we almost forgot that the story was all about delegates.  So we have to concede she put on a fine show.

Sure, there were those plot lines that just did not seem to work because the evidence was so obvious.  Like landing under sniper fire at Tuzla, or the policy on drivers licenses for non-resident foreigners, or the gasoline tax holiday.  But as always, the talented Clinton Producer-Director-Acting team gave us a performance that spanned the spectrum of emotions.  In fact, those scenes, from tears in NH to that distinctive laughter at the debates, will live on in memory long after show is over.

Sequel: Dream Ticket

Before we have even seen the last episode of their previous production, here comes the sequel, in which Bill and Hillary decide she would make the ideal Vice President.  But now the suspension of disbelief is really to be tested.

First item is the casting.  We don't yet know what part if any Geraldine Ferraro, who in the original production effectively portrayed the angry-older-white-woman with a hint of racist rage, will be allowed to play this time around.  It looks like Bill Clinton, who previously as the male lead pretentiously suggested Barack take the minor part as her running mate even though he was ahead by every measure, will have fewer lines and be assigned a far smaller role at best.  This is bound to make the entire story far less exciting.

BET founder Bob Johnson has already proven himself entirely miscast as the supplicant to the Congressional Black Caucus for Hillary-as-running-mate, which was just plain unconvincing.  And everyone will miss Terry McAuliffe (last seen doing shots of Bacardi with Mika Brzezinski, presumably on their way to rehab) and Howard Wolfson, both of whom should be way too busy selling their tell-nothing books in the months ahead.

However, the greatest challenge to the suspension of disbelief will be those plot lines we just skimmed over the last time around.  There is that little matter of being "fully vetted" and 35 years of experience.  For a start, the new script-writing team of Johnson, Kennedy and Holder will have to struggle with Hillary's first radical law work in San Francisco and the performance review of her part in the Watergate investigation.  And of course there are all those comments she made about Barack Obama over the past several months.

It's also not clear how the next episode will treat the problems hinted at by Vanity Fair.  Forget about undocumented sexual innuendo.  After Sex in the City and Larry Craig in the Minneapolis airport, that part is probably a sleeper.  No, I'm thinking of Bill's high-flying friends and library donors.  And those hints of influence peddling disguised as speaking and consulting fees on the joint tax returns.  Now those issues could be a real problem reconciling with Obama's political themes.  And if Obama adheres to the "no-drama" genre of inspiring documentary, the Clinton sequel could well be scrapped for a lack of both political and financial support.  Just stay tuned.

wizinit is the nom de guerre of a veteran diplomat who is a fan of the late columnist Art Buchwald and comedian Andy Borowitz.  If you would like to be notified whenever wizinit posts serious analysis or political satire, click here to join.

Well it's started.  The first repost of an anti-McCain screed held over from his first run at the GOP nomination.  The assessment: McCain's insane.  Well, duh - it even rhymes!

I'm just glad it isn't the "Songbird McCain" group's stuff.  They go so far as to call him a VC collaborator.  These guys are the original "Swiftboat Veterans for Truth".  They even have a similar name, the link to which I will not post here.

This is a general call for folks to avoid getting swept up in this stuff.  It is laying, like so much garbage, in the dark little nooks and crannies of the internets just waiting for some hapless fool to think:"FOUND IT!!!! THIS'LL SINK MCCAIN FOR SURE!".  Don't go there.

In fact, I'd like to encourage all democrats/Obama supporters to do their best to debunk this stuff.  There is no reason to attack the heroism of a man who can be so easily beaten on merit alone.  As important, if they feel his patriotism is attacked - this could easily become a rallying cry for the GOP base (in an amazing twist of irony).

Phillip Butler is a graduate of the US Naval Academy who went to school with McCain.  Later, he had the misfortune of being held in the same POW camp.  Mr. Butler gives a heartfelt and honorable assessment of McCain's fitness to lead, from such a position of authority and for all the right reasons.  I strongly believe that it should be used any time these types of assertions are found.

http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,164859_1,00.html

Anyhow, if you agree - keep the link handy.

The Bush administration is pressuring the Iraqi government to sign an agreement in which they will be trampled forever by American troops.

A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the U.S. presidential election in November. ... Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq.

The deal would give American forces the right to detain Iraqis at will, while Americans including private contractors would not be accountable for their actions under Iraqi law. How logical is that? Logical from the point of view of an occupying power dictating its own terms.

American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for U.S. troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government.

The Iraqi prime minister knows this deal will be hugely unpopular with the Iraqi people, but he depends on American backing to stay in power, so he is willing to sign it.

Mr. Bush is determined to force the Iraqi government to sign the so-called "strategic alliance" without modifications, by the end of next month. ... Iraq's Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is believed to be personally opposed to the terms of the new pact but feels his coalition government cannot stay in power without U.S. backing.

Like all good things, the deal is being pushed in secret by the office of Vice President Dick Cheney.

The Iraqi government wants to delay the actual signing of the agreement but the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney has been trying to force it through.

The agreement is, in effect, a treaty between two nations, which must be ratified by the U.S. Senate according to the Constitution. But it is being presented as something less than that, so that Bush can sign it on his sole authority without a Senate vote.

President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated. But by perpetuating the U.S. presence in Iraq, the long-term settlement would undercut pledges by the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, to withdraw US troops if he is elected president in November.

The final irony is that none of this is being reported in the American press, but by Patrick Cockburn in Britain's Independent.

Cross-posted at eatbees blog.

"In spite of Republican rhetoric, Democrats are not for "Big" Government. We are for Effective Government. We want a government that works." I think Obama could make a strong case for this in relation to education and services like road work and other infrastructure,.  I would like him to also say something like this: "John McCain is not for Smaller Government. He is for Intrusive Government.  John McCain would like the government all up in your business, reading your emails, listening to your phone conversations, but when citizens have a legitimate reason to call on their representative government for assistance, John McCain would say, "Sorry, can't help you."

I think a strong case for less intrusive government would help drive a wedge between McCain and the Libertarians. A strong case for more effective government would drive a wedge between McCain and, well, just about everybody else. John McCain's phoniness needs to be called out. My friends, what do you think?

I'm a little disappointed in TPM - Pop-up ads with sound?  Is it just my browser (firefox)?

.... wrote, sometime after the NH primary, that the nominee was eventually going to be Obama but that it would happen only after a series of "almosts" and then "backing off" -- like someone trying to get up their nerve to jump off the high diving board.  Go for it -- retreat -- charge out again, a bit further -- retreat again.  But he/she was confident that in the end the Democratic voters would summon up their nerve and actually DO it. 

I've thought of that often over the past few months, listening to folks say "why can't Obama close the deal?" and thinking "it's not him, it's us - it's frightening to do down such a new, different path --- but we really do want to, and there's still a chance."   I think it was the folks in IN and NC who finally summoned up the courage.  

It was probably someone in the NYT or Washington Post, because that's where I usually read the columns.  Does anyone recall reading anything like that?

Back in the days of the Monica Lewinsky mess, when I was…you know…actually talking to Republicans, I would warn my right leaning friends to be careful what they wished for.  Censuring Bill Clinton would probably work.  If they wanted to kneecap Bill Clinton’s Presidency, they would probably be successful, but if they want to kill it, it was going to backfire.  The rest is history.

Moral of the story?  Less is more.

(Boy, I wish I had some documented of this.  I should’ve made predictions for a living.  But you should remember, my NFL picks are terrible.  I’ve been picking the ‘Skins to go to the playoffs every year since 1994, and you see where that’s gotten me.)

The idea of less is more is something I’ve been thinking about in relation to Senator Clinton, but not so much about her past, but in relation to her future.  She’s been “offered” no end of potential jobs by the mainstream press.  They’ve talked about her for Veep, for Secretary of Health and Human Services, for Majority Leader, and even for spot on the Supreme Court.

There are some good ideas in there.  I’m not particularly fond of the idea of Vice President.  Added to that, I don’t think she’s too wild about it either.

Don’t get me wrong.  She will do it if asked, but she knows the score.  Despite the stereotypes about the job, Vice President is not co-President.  You’re on standby, the “just in case” President.  You go to State Funerals abroad.  You sit with the Speaker at the State of the Union (picture that should it be Obama-Clinton '08).  You tie-break in the Senate (and even that doesn’t happen every day).  Recent Veeps like Gore and Cheney have been given broader policy roles (in Cheney’s case ALL Policy), and Senator Clinton would be no exception.  But in the end, your agenda is not your own.

Though geared for her passions, HHS Secretary is, to be honest, a little beneath her.  It’s a real low-wattage Cabinet post.  She’s better than that.  She’s either one of the big four (State, Defense, Justice, Treasury) on none at all.

But there’s another possibility that I don’t think a lot of people are considering for her.

How about no job?  How about just being Senator Clinton?

Wait.  Wait.  Before the knives come out, hear me out.  I say this not to dismiss her, quite the contrary.  I’m suggesting now that she’s lost the nomination, she’s in a position to become more powerful than ever…or better still, more influential than ever.

The one thing on everyone’s mind, but rarely passes from everyone’s lips is the fact that we’re not going to have Ted Kennedy forever.  It’s more than likely he is going to survive his cancer, and his operation, but the idea of him retiring to focus on his health is not so far fetched.  Robert Byrd has had a scare with his health this week.  We’re going to lose these Lions one of these days.  Who’s going to take their place?

I hope by now, you can tell who I’m suggesting for that role.

Picture this.  A year or two into the Second Obama Term, we have President Obama calling Senator Clinton and asking “What’s the Senate thinking?”, and getting a no bull!@#$! assessment.  We can have Senator Clinton being able to call Chief of Staff Daschle, asking if she can get ten minutes with the President, and Daschle saying, “Senator, we’ll make ten minutes for you.”

Again, it’d still be the Obama Presidency.  It’d be the Obama Agenda, but never underestimate the power of having the President’s ear.

Heck, she might actually get more done in this role.

Of course, this hardly precludes the possibilities of being a Supreme Court Justice or Majority Leader.  And yes, I think confirmation to the Supreme Court would be easier than it’d be made out to be, the Senate rarely rejects its own.

But imagine a Hillary Clinton freed from her some of her weaker handlers and surrogates?  Imagine a Hillary who wasn’t running for something, and finally free to speak her mind without worrying about next week’s Rasmussen Poll?  Now imagine that Hillary on the phone with President Obama.  (Now suddenly, I’m imagining one of those hundred pound biographies of her twenty years from now with a title like “The New Master of the Senate”.)

For Al Gore, losing in 2000 might have been the best thing that even happened to him personally, even though it was the worst thing for the country.  He’s freer now, happier (he’s certainly eating like it).  He’s got his life’s work and his truest passion intertwined, and I don’t think you could ever talk him out of walking away from that.  John Edwards and John Kerry both seem equally liberated from the stifling atmospheres of their runs (though I wish their personal relationship hadn’t suffer).  The weight is off their shoulders.  The country isn’t better off, but their spirits are lighter, healthier.  When they’re back in the fight, either campaigning for Senator Obama, or championing the causes they believe in, we’re all better for it.

Of course, here I am playing speculation games with Senator Clinton’s life.  I mean, c’mon, I’m a schmuck sitting at a keyboard.  What do I know?  What she does next is up to her.  It’s barely been 72 hours since the hammer fell.  She’s going to need more time to get her own head together.  But for me personally, the idea of Senator Clinton turning into Ted Kennedy, the 21st Century conscience of the Senate is very appealing.  She’s young enough where she can remain in this role for a long, long time.  She can find a place for herself in Politics, wield real power, real influence, without a huge title in front of her.  In fact, her name is her title.

“Who was that on the phone?” some Republican Senator asked.

“Senator Clinton.”

“Aw hell.  What is she after now??” they’ll say with dread knowing that whatever it is, she’s about to get it.

Less can be more, people.

As you probably already know, our new leader of the Democratic Party - soon to be President Obama - has boldly set a new policy for DNC fundraising. Specifically, he says the DNC will no longer accept PAC or lobbyist money.

The good news: DNC-funded politicians, similarly to Obama himself, will now more firmly belong to us instead of special interest groups or big business.

The cost: We now need to put our money where our mouths are. Howard Dean has recently sent out an e-mail calling on us, private citizens, to fully fund this new way of doing business in Washington. Please, if you have a few dollars to spare, and are so inclined, speak your political mind outside the realm of TPM by donating today. Help prove to the DNC leadership and all our fellow Americans that Obama's new way of funding politics is not only viable, but correct.

Please recommend this shameless appeal so that it can remain visible as long as possible to the most readers we can get.

Many thanks.

Text of Dean's e-mail:
===============

Dear (Name Removed To Protect The Guilty ;)),

I wanted to drop you a quick note about a major policy change here at the Democratic Party.

As we move toward the general election, the Democratic Party has to be the Party of ordinary Americans, not Washington lobbyists and special interests. So, as of this morning, if you're a federal lobbyist, or if you control political action committee donations, we won't be accepting your contribution.

This is an unprecedented move for a political party to make -- one that has sent shockwaves through Washington and has turned the debate on clean campaigns upside down. We've unilaterally agreed to shut lobbyists out of the process, and are we're relying on people just like you.

Just imagine what hundreds of thousands of Americans donating $20, $30, or $50 at a time can accomplish together. Imagine the signal that it sends to anyone who looks at John McCain's political machine and the special interest money it needs to fuel every move it makes.

We have a chance to change the way business is done in this country, and we're taking the lead. Will you join us and make a contribution right now to help us elect Barack Obama?

http://www.democrats.org/nonlobbyists

I've written before about guys like Charlie Black and Rick Davis, lobbyists who are at the highest levels of McCain's campaign. But they're just the start -- John McCain and the RNC suck up lobbyist money millions of dollars at a time.

In May, McCain had his best fundraising month of the campaign, and it was directly because he refuses to shut special interests out.

But we did, and we need your help. This is an example of the kind of White House Barack Obama would run. Make a contribution to help elect him:

http://www.democrats.org/nonlobbyists

I'll be in touch later about our plans for the general election, but I wanted to let you know about our policy change right away.

Thanks,

Howard Dean

In Chicago there is a intra state baseball hate between WhiteSox Fans and Cubs Fans.  The same people who cheer for the Bulls, Bears, and Black Hawks are ready to kill each other every year when baseball season comes around.  The sad thing is it’s mostly a one-sided hate.  WhiteSox Fans HATE the Cubs.  Cubs fans don’t believe WhiteSox Fans exist.

Both teams had Long Losing Traditions(Until 95 when the Sox won the World Series).  The Cubbies are referred to around the nation as “The Lovable Losers.”  They are revered no matter the performance of the team.   The Whitesox only have national relevance when they have prospects of winning.  Which is why they have so much anger and resentment towards the Cubbies and their base.

Richard Roper, a Suntimes columnist and WhiteSox fan, once said If the Cubs and the Whitesox faced each other in the world series and The WhiteSox won the Newpaper headlines would read  “Cubs Lose!”

Barack Obama is the Hardworking Anonymous Southside team that had to fight for everything they’ve got.  Hillary is the breezy Northside team that sells out the stadium while not having sniffed a playoff run seemingly once a decade.

Barack EARNED a hard fought win in the Primaries and his fans want a little respect.  Hillary owned the Primaries until she decided to not campaign in Iowa and now she owed her moment.  

This entire week has been about Hillary wanting the VP slot and Hillary finally Conceeding, and Hillary’s Sarrogates putting pressure on Barack, and Hillary telling them to Back off, and Hillary’s angry Women, and Hillary’s 18 million Voters.  As Barack fans, when do we get a chance to Celebrate our World Series Win?

I'm no economics expert, far from it, but I read recently that the entire rise in oil prices tracked the fall of the American dollar vs the Euro.
But why would that matter, I asked, since oil is still traded in American dollars?
Well,  if the price of gas tracks the American dollar,  then WE pay more at the pump, while all other countries based on the Euro, pay relatively little more in Euros (or local currency based off the Euro exchange rate) at the pump that they did before the dollar's fall and the subsequent price rise of oil vs the US dollar.
So, for a given exchange rate of US dollars and Euros:
US Euro barrel of oil US barrel of oil Euro1.00 1.00 $139 $1391.00 1.10 $139 $1261.00 1.20 $139 $1151.00 1.30 $139 $1071.00 1.40 $139 $99.31.00 1.50 $139 $93
So, if my math and interpretaton is correct, at today's price of oil of $139 and today's exchange rate of 1.55 euros per dollar, people on a Eruo economy are paying less than $90 Euros per barrel.
Which could explain why much of the rest of the world isn't screaming as loudly as we are: for them, the price of oil hasn't risen  much compared to what we pay. Their price will have been relatively steady while ours has been shooting through the roof.

This will be a nice legacy piece, even if obama will have nothing to do with it.

The oil market is being driven up by speculation, there is so much excess money out in the market right now and it is being dumped into energy and metal commodities.  Here is the thing, there was so much cash tied up into the mortgage backed securities (MBS) that had high yields on what was thought to be rock solid returns.  The cycle began, returns were good, so more money went into the system, increased home sales, which led to offer more MBS with riskier loans, which led to high yields.... and so on.  Right up unitl the mortgage crash.  Now no one is buying MBS, so all that money that floated the housing boom is being shifted over to commodities, mainly oil.  It is producing high yields and huge profits for the hedgefunds invested in it.  Considering inflation and dollar weakening, yields have to be above 5% to stay even with the decrease in buying power. 

Oil is not really worth 139/barrel.  This bubble will burst as did the housing and dot com bubbles.  There is a lot of excited money out there looking for a safe haven, and provided that oil producing nations do not cut production drastically, oil should begin falling in the next 18-24 months. 

Obama is going to be seen as a financial wiz, even though he has very little to do with this, especially if his presidency eases tension in the middle east. 

Just a prediction.

People are writing as if the General Election had just concluded and the winner must reach out to members of the OTHER party to unite the country behind him or her (the Winner.)

This is the Democrat Primary we're talking about now. There were and are virtually no POLICY differences between Barack and Hillary.

The only differences were cosmetic and personal, and a few trumped-up non-stories by the salivating media.

HRC supporters aren't dummies. They're not going to suddenly decide that a man--McCain--and a party--Republican--is a better choice for them simply because Obama defeated their favorite daughter (in contrast to favorite son.)

And, without a doubt, Hillary herself is not about to switch parties, go find her Goldwater Girl paraphernalia, and tout republican policies that she has opposed all her adult lives.

Clinton's supporters are natural supporters of Obama, of his position on issues. For Walsh to portray them emotional fanatics is an insult to HRC loyalists.

MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com

People are writing as if the General Election had just concluded and the winner must reach out to members of the OTHER party to unite the country behind him or her (the Winner.)

This is the Democrat Primary we're talking about now. There were and are virtually no POLICY differences between Barack and Hillary.

The only differences were cosmetic and personal, and a few trumped-up non-stories by the salivating media.

HRC supporters aren't dummies. They're not going to suddenly decide that a man--McCain--and a party--Republican--is a better choice for them simply because Obama defeated their favorite daughter (in contrast to favorite son.)

And, without a doubt, Hillary herself is not about to switch parties, go find her Goldwater Girl paraphernalia, and tout republican policies that she has opposed all her adult lives.

Clinton's supporters are natural supporters of Obama, of his position on issues. For Walsh to portray them emotional fanatics is an insult to HRC loyalists.

MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com

One way to choose a running mate is the Electoral College calculation: What state or states, that could go either way, would the VP candidate add to the ticket? I'll leave that to the professional political consultants out there.

Another way to decide is based on issue-analysis.

Whether accurate or not, we have one candidate--McCain--who still seems to be perceived as a foreign policy/national security guru. (That perception's validity can be discussed at a later time and place.) The other candidate--Obama--has some holes in his resume in that policy sphere, holes that McCain may be able to exploit.

On the other hand, McCain is generally perceived to lack both knowledge and interest in domestic/economic affairs, and has not as yet done or said anything of substance to disabuse voters of that perception. Though not an economist or businessman, Obama's domestic policy credentials have not been questioned, though some of his specific policies have been challenged on their efficacity. But his interest in domestic affairs is beyond dispute.

For the Dems, who has been and currently is the undisputed, most knowledgeable and most articulate foreign policy/national security spokesperson the party has? It's good, ole, charisma-lacking, but gravitas-dripping Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware.

Obama himself has enough charisma to fill Yankee Stadium many times over. McCain has as sort of pathetic charm that comes across occasionally, but is as charismatic as a tuna sandwich.

Biden's expertise in the Iraq adventure, his towering stature as an (almost) non-partisan expert on the issue--remember, even the Bush Adminstration privately sought his counsel--makes McCain's "shoot-from-the-hip" approach look dangerous, unthought-through, simplistic and confused, which it is.

Also, Biden has a long resume of speeches and talks that he has given on the Iraq subject. Never has he misspoke, and although Bush supporters may have disagreed with Biden's conclusions, he was never subjected to any type of discrediting based on lack of knowledge or partisanship. In other words, just the kind of teflon VP, Iraq expert running mate Barack needs.

McCain obviously needs a running mate with domestic policy credentials. Observing today's US economy, no one in the Rep Party jumps out as a likely choice.

MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com

Via my local NBC news affiliate:

A payday loans industry group is considering a November ballot issue that would ask voters to repeal a new law that limits the interest rate charged by such lenders.

Columbus lawyer David Paragas is representing the Washington-based Community Financial Services Association in its fight against the bill signed by Gov. Ted Strickland on Monday.

It would cap annual interest rates at 28 percent, down from as much 391 percent charged currently.

If state elections and legal officials decide a petition is in order, backers would need to get signatures from 241,366 voters by Sept. 1 to put the repeal before voters.

Sounds like a great strategy to me. I'm sure voters would love to pay 391% interest as opposed to 28%.

Seriously. In what universe do these people live where they think voters will willingly force themselves to pay unconscionably high interest rates?

Today's Business Headlines:

Oil Prices Skyrocket, Taking Biggest Jump Ever
Unemployment Rate Hits 5.5% - (biggest increase in more than two decades)
Dow Plunges 400 + Points


Suicide watch at the RNC and McCain Headquarters.

(from my fake news blog, www.richieville.com)

Richieville News Service – KENNER, LA

Seeking to distance himself even further from George Bush, Senator John McCain delivered a major address here today and vowed that the mistakes made in response to the destruction of hurricane Katrina would not be repeated under his administration. The candidate went on to propose a multi-billion dollar hurricane defense system consisting of long-range missile installations around the Gulf Coast and Caribbean. The system would, as the senator put it,"fight hurricanes and other low pressure systems and never give up, not ever."
It was not immediately clear how missiles armed with multiple warheads would be an effective defense against hurricanes or if the countries of the area, several of whom have strained relations with the U.S, would agree to the placement of the weapons on their territory.

Martin P. Thackery, a climatologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, was asked if such a system would be useful in stopping or at least mitigating the effects of massive tropical storms. He replied. "No." Other climate experts seemed to be in agreement with his assessment of the senator's plan. 
In spite of this, Senator McCain vowed to press on with his plan, saying, "The only way to oppose force is with force. My opponent will tell you we can't win the fight against hurricanes like Katrina, that it's time to surrender. But I can look you straight in the eye and tell you this will work. And I plan to keep at it, even if it takes a hundred years."

The real world is not the blogosphere. The beauty in this microcosm is that we can express our deepest and darkest thoughts and beliefs in the comfort of our homes. We'd never talk this way in real life.

We're all too afraid of what people will say to us or about us. Don't be mistaken, this election isn't about the people who write on these blogs, its about the people who's job it is to lead this country.

The Obamabots (me) are a bit, boisterous. In our real lives we are the Dilberts strapped in our cubicles, we are the students who do workstudy and watch rich kids coast to class, we are the guys who are smarter than our boss, but he's been there longer.

The Clintonites are of similar ilk, except you've been there longer. You've waited your turn only to be passed up by the hot shot with the degree. You are the women who's unheard ideas always end up right.

This campaign has worked to Divide us. I work as a fundraiser for several Left wing organizations including the DNC, Emily’s List, Naral, the ADL,  and over the past several months the tone of the calls have changed. It went from, "I wish they would run together on a ticket" or "I like Barack, I just wish he'd wait his turn." To "I'll vote McCain" or "I don't want to see a dime go to (him/her)."

On these pages we're Clintonites or Obamabots but for the next 4 years, remember, we're Democrats.

1. Get rid of superdelegates

2. Get rid of caucuses

3. Get rid of the "tradition" of IA and NH coming first. -- they can pay for their own straw poll like of systems and have them one day after the previous election if they want.  Any other state has this choice as well.

4. Set up regions of states for holding Primaries in rotating orders.

5. Once someone has enough delegates to win - call off the rest contests

Agree or Disagree?

I've joked about the resemblance in the past, but after watching his "Green Screen" speech from this past Tuesday, I am absolutely convinced that McCain is living a double life,

Check out the following pics and tell me if you don't see a frightening similarity between these two:

Pic A

Pic B

This should have us all extremely worried, especially because you just don't know what sort of schemes he'll cook up to take back Castle GreySkull - I mean, the White House.

There is a blog post called  “Hysteria Aside, Hillary Clinton's Concession is Speedy by Historical Standards” by Joe Perez.  It's a good read, but it doesn’t give a results oriented look at when opposition has called off their campaigns.  

Let’s take a look at the primaries in recently that have been taken nearly to the Convention and their results.

88 Democrats
Michael Dukakis versus Jesse Jackson
Loss

84 Democrats
Walter Mondale versus Gary Hart
Loss

80 Democrats
Jimmy Carter versus Ted Kennedy
Loss

76 Republicans
Gerald Ford versus Ronald Reagan
Loss

72 Democrats
Hubert Humphry versus George McGovern versus George Wallace
Loss

Here's a blurb from Wikipedia in regards to that election:

In the end, McGovern succeeded in winning the nomination by winning primaries through grass-roots support in spite of establishment opposition. McGovern had led a commission to redesign the Democratic nomination system after the messy and confused nomination struggle and convention of 1968. The fundamental principle of the McGovern Commission—that the Democratic primaries should determine the winner of the Democratic nomination—lasted throughout every subsequent nomination contest. However, the new rules angered many prominent Democrats whose influence was marginalized, and those politicians refused to support McGovern's campaign (some even supporting Nixon instead), leaving the McGovern campaign at a significant disadvantage in funding compared to Nixon.

In a separate note, 1968 was gearing up to be a convention battle when tragedy struck the Bobby Kennedy. The feel good atmosphere that a party usually wants to convey from a party convention was marred by the antiwar rally and police brutality outside the convention. Resulting in a Loss for the Democratic party.

Before 68 the systems for picking the President seemed more like a combination of primaries, and backroom deals. Candidates could be “drafted” to run as Adlai Stevenson hoped he would be in 1960. Not all states had primaries so the system was a bit more politician friendly.

Let’s look at this years Republican Fight.

Mitt Romney could have raced a while longer with McCain, and probably won some states but he dropped out to consolidate the party. Huckabee ran a campaign that was designed to give the "Conservative Base" a voice. When it became apparent that he wasn't going to win he ran his campaign in a fashion to be Pro-Conservatives but not Anti-McCain.  He announced that he was staying on not to win but to give voice to those people.  Then there’s Ron Paul who announced that he was running but hasn’t run much of a campaign.  But his new book is selling like crazy.  

If you look at all of the winners of the past several elections there was a sort of a clearing of the field and inevitability when it became clear who was going to win. The other candidates looked at their chances of winning and decided to help in the effort for their party to take the White House.

Let's look at the resent Presidential Winners:

George W Bush 2004 -- Ran Virtually Unopposed
George W Bush 2000 -- McCain Dropped out after he was beat in 11 out of 16 primaries.
Bill Clinton 1996 -- Virtually Unopposed
Bill Clinton 1992 -- Tsongas suspended his campaign calling Clinton the presumptive nominee and said Clinton was in the driver's seat. Interestingly enough Tsongas had a great showing three weeks later in New York and decided to remain out of the race. "To hope that I will re-enter is a false hope," he said. "I will not re-enter. Preserve the message, yes. But we must heal the party as well. Both are noble purposes and I hope to be part of bringing both into reality."

The only other Challenger to Clinton was Jerry Brown the Governor of California. When he saw the inevitable he pulled back. There was a California Primary that he surely could have won (Being that he was the popular, 2nd term Governor of the state), but he didn't campaign and didn't advertise so that Clinton could win in a landslide and have the "Fairy Tale" ending in his campaign.  At that point Clinton hadn’t received the Magic Number of Delegates but mathematically he was going to victory.

George HW BUSH 1988 -- Ran against Pat Robertson and Bob Dole. Both dropped out Shortly after Super Tuesday.

Ronald Reagan 1984 -- Virtually Unopposed
Ronald Reagan 1980 -- George HW Bush dropped out of the race in May and became the Vice President.
Jimmy Carter 1976 -- Jerry Brown entered the race late and only garnered 10% of the delegates. George Wallace who that year wasn't a very serious contender didn't concede until June. But unlike the previous Conventions this one was about party unity.

In reality, the best case scenario for the Obama Campaign would have been for Hillary to put away the attack dogs (Bill and Geraldine) and turn off the Fire Hoses and step aside for the mathematically difficult to defeat Obama (racial implications intended) after her string of 11 loses.  She could have run a Pro Hillary, Pro-Feminist campaign, raised awareness about the issue and been a beacon of hope to women everywhere.  Obama would be in a cakewalk to the General Election by now and Hillary or Kathleen Sebelius or Claire McCaskill would have been perfectly set up to be Vice President and Certain Nominees for 2012 or 16.

 There is a certain power of language with people.  If you say the same thing enough times, people believe it.  If you say that Obama has a problem with working class whites, enough times they start to believe it.  If you say I won the popular vote enough times people believe it.  It’s a variation of Munchausen Syndrome.  There have been experiments where a person was repeatedly told they looked depressed by several different people.  The person soon started to develop symptoms of actual depression.

I don’t think the main problem that people had with Hillary is that she kept running.  It was that she decided to run a race that Was Anti-Obama instead of Pro-Hillary.  Time after time after time, she continued to yell about the weaknesses of Obama instead of citing her own strengths.  That’s where the main gripe about her campaign lies.   

All in all, the polls indicate that Obama will have a difficult campaign for the Presidency, but these are the same polls that said Obama had an impossible campaign for the Democratic Nomination.  We all know how that turned out.

<blockquote>http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/05/
hillary-and-obama-sneaking-around-at-night/</blockquote>

I admit that I feel somehow dirty and soiled even to go to a Fox News (sic) site, but this headline just pissed me off enough to see what idiocy it was spouting.

So here's the thing. This story itself is innocuous enough, and its headline is not much worse than dumb, but aren't we just about done with this Murdock atrocity calling itself news and enjoying the privileges of a news organization?

I think we should start a petition - certainly not the first - to have Fox stripped of its news credentials and forced to name itself something honest - like Fox Right Wing Propaganda For Sale.

What do you think?

Must read by The Termite:

Conservative NRO blogger Jim Geraghty asks why the apocryphal Whitey Tape bears such an astonishing resemblance to a plot point in the 2006 political thriller novel The Power Broker, by Stephen Frey:

[skip]

If there was any lingering doubt as to whether this tape actually existed, this should drive a stake right through its heart. Not only was this a hoax; it was a poorly conceived hoax, designed by people with the brains of a garden slug and the morals of a nose hair trimmer.

Larry Johnson is a boil on the ass of the body politic. May he rot.

(my emphasis)

Love that last line. 

All I can say is, get thee to a therapist, Larry Johnson.  You are ill.

Censorship.

It's an ugly word, isn't it?

I would argue that self-censorship is not only not ugly, but desirable. Otherwise, we might as well be suffering from Tourette syndrome.

Nevertheless, I've read from other posters here about how trying to be nice to others (or heaven forfend trying to avoid using vulgar language) amounts to self-censorship and is implicitly therefore a bad thing.

Yet, anyone who has studied child psychology can tell you that self-censorship is a skill that is a vital part of growing up.

That doesn't mean you can't cuss. It doesn't mean you can't be sarcastic. It definitely doesn't mean you can't speak to harsh truths. It does mean you should be mindful of what you write, and possibly even re-read what you write before pressing the Submit button. (If I did that more often, perhaps I'd have fewer spelling/grammatical errors in my comments.)

Preachy rant over, for now.

Our country is facing numerous foreign and domestic challenges in the years ahead.  Much of the work to be done will be in undoing the work the current administration has done.

The presidential election of 2008 is offering a very clear choice; the candidates have presented two very distinct visions of the America they intend to lead and the course for which they will lead it.

The democrat, a liberal, promising to change the way business is done in Washington and an agenda to reestablish America's greatness at home and around the globe. 

The republican, a maverick(?), who has systematically and transparently adopted nearly all of the failed policies of the current administration, embraced nearly all of the right-wing fanaticals that have offended decency themselves, and has promised American citizens the continuation of a war that most believe was a mistake and has cost America too much!

Apparently this will still be a contest!  Are there so many Americans content with the course we are on that John McCain could win the presidency?  Share your voices TPM. 

According to a new Rasmussen poll, Obama is down by just 8 points to McCain in West Virginia:

John McCain begins the general election season with an eight-point advantage over Barack Obama in West Virginia. The first Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of this general election match-up shows McCain attracting 45% of the vote while Obama earns 37%.

Neither man is terribly popular in the state. McCain earns favorable reviews from 48% and unfavorable ratings from another 48%. The numbers for Obama are 40% favorable and 57% unfavorable. Those figures include 26% with a Very Unfavorable opinion of McCain and 35% with such a negative view of Obama.

[skip}

While President Bush won 56% of the West Virginia vote in Election 2004, just 27% of the state’s voters now believe he is doing a good or an excellent job. Most—58%--say the President is doing a poor job.

By a 59% to 32% margin, West Virginia voters say it’s more important to get the troops home from Iraq than to win the War. Forty-five percent (45%) say victory is at least somewhat likely if John McCain is elected President. Just 20% say that victory is that likely if Obama is elected. However, 48% believe a President Obama would be at least somewhat likely to get the troops home within four years. Just 35% say a President McCain would be likely to do the same.

8 Points.  

EIGHT.

So much for the idea that Clinton's 41% "blowout" would mean Obama would be crushed as the nominee.

I suspect as more & more polls come out in the various states that Hillary beat him in by double digits (while claiming he wouldn't win in the GE) be be shown to be a campaign meme  by a desperate candidate who knew she had lost the the delegate race in just after Ohio & Texas.

The truth is, Democrats will come home to the Democratic nominee. 

Those who don't are those who never intended on voting for Obama in the first place - they include the hardcore racists that Hillary so enjoyed inflaming and the rethugs who only voted for her to keep her in the race to either cause trouble for Obama or with the hopes she might pull of the nomination and they could then run aaginst her (they're dream since 2000).

I don't know how we respond to this, but I remember seeing Sen. Clinton give this speech and thinking, "Well, there's your first RNC ad!"

http://www.gop.com/DVO/

How do we hit back on this one? I can't imagine Clinton is going to give a retraction...

Hillary might end up the vice presidential candidate , or not, but there remains the question of Bill Clinton's new place on the campaign trail. When put to good use he can help Obama with his campaign. When she does not get the vice presidential nomination i came up with a great task for this ex-president.
 
The Obama campaign is proposing a new kind of politics and can't be seen swiftboating People around Mccain. But with types like Senator Liebermann there is a need for a senior figure that apears to be not to close to the campaign that can respond to these types with a powerfull rant. This is a perfect task for Bill. He has it in him, that we've seen these last few weeks, but when advocating Obama he will probably be able to keep his anger in check a bit better then when it concerns his wife. This way replies to people like Lieberman will get the needed media attention but the campaign will keep its hands clean.

I've decided to start a thread that keeps track of the Bush legacy so we all can remain focused on what is really at stake with this election.  McCain will definitely promote and continue many of Bush's policies.  I think this is a good way to remind ourselves just what those policies have done to this country we all love so very much.

Everyone is invited to post whatever they want.  Rant.  Swear.  Scream.  Shout.  Let everyone know how angry you are about what has happened over the past 8 years.  Let everyone know we are aware of what he has done.  Let all hear these words: "Never again!  Never again!"

The following is an email reprinted at Marc Ambiner's blog at The Atlantic online.  Comments?

To the George Washington University College Republicans Chairman, Brand Kroeger

Greetings,

My name is Daniel Boehmer and I am a member of the College Democrats here at George Washington University. I additionally served as a member of Nicole Capp's cabinet as Assistant VPJLA to Andrew Salzman and on the Joint Elections Committee (JEC) this past year. A long time supporter of Sen. Hillary Clinton these past 16 months of her campaign, the selection of Sen. Obama has placed me, like many other Democrats, in an odd position. For me however, the debate between 'loyalty' to my party and voting based on my conscience was quickly settled. I determined that my support would, in lieu of Sen. Clinton's nomination to the Democratic Party, be given to Sen. John McCain. In light of this development, I believe that the GW College Republicans community finds itself with a certain measure of responsibility with regards to the members of the Democratic Party who wish to support John McCain in the Fall. Providing these individuals with some form of organizational support, in my opinion, is a valuable step towards weakening the sway of Sen. Obama's supporters on campus and would ultimately lead to John McCain seeing more support on campus and in the Washington community at large.

First, let me say that I regret to admit that I myself will be unable to actively participate in such a venture as much as I would like, as a result of the fact that I will be studying abroad in the Middle East this summer and this coming fall semester. With this in mind, these words come more as a suggestion than a pledge of an ability to participate at GW in this effort, though I certainly know of individuals more able to help coordinate this effort.

I suggest that either 1) under the auspices of the CRs or 2) by means of the formation of a separate student organization "GW Democrats for McCain" or 3) under the auspices of the organization "GW Students for McCain" the CRs orchestrate the creation of a Democrats for McCain chapter at GWU. Such an action, I believe, is perfectly justified this year because of the large number of supporters of Hillary Clinton who should be compelled to vote for John McCain over her underqualified former opponent, Sen. Obama. It is of course up to the discretion of the CRs which action they might want to take on this matter; however, I highly recommend providing a means for Democrats at GW to support John McCain as a candidate in the Fall. I myself would certainly encourage many of my fellow Hillary Clinton supporters to do the same.

Although I do not have the ability myself to be fully responsible for such an organization, I still felt the need to put forward my recommendation that it be created. Whatever course of action you may take in further John McCain's candidacy this fall, I wish you success.

Good Luck in November,

Daniel A. Boehmer

 

 

I used to bash Hillary when I thought it was warranted. No more.

From this point forward, I will make no post and recommend no post that airs a past or present grievance against Sen. Clinton. It just doesn't advance any cause I'm interested in.

Am I saying I won't comment? No, but I'm likely to tell you to lay off Hillary if your post is all about "Can you believe Hillary did this?" or "Hillary did that." And if you sound like an anti-Obama troll for McCain, I'll probably let you know in no uncertain terms that you're a doofus in sheep's clothing.

Am I saying Hillary will be such a perfect person that I will never feel aggrieved by her future actions or inactions? No, but I'll keep my grievances to myself. Whatever she does or doesn't do, it will be what it is. No amount of complaining, no precision of logic, no moralizing will have any effect but to further alienate her longtime supporters. And the fact is, they've been through a lot, just as Obama supporters like me have. I can't force unity. But I won't reopen old wounds, either.

That's my pledge. If you agree to these terms and wish to make it your pledge also, please comment in agreement.

1. Stay in Iraq While Troops Are Dying 2. ???
3. Stay in Iraq With No More Casualties for 100 Years!

I find it quite disingenuous of you to point out that the VoteBoth movement has gathered over 25,000 signatures without also recognizing that Rush Limbaugh and various other conservative pundits are urging their 20 million+ listeners to essentially sabotage the signature list.

I know it's not something that is verifiable, but your breathless "Late late updates!" in which you cite different people calculating the importance of the number of signatures is just really shameless when the verification of the signatures is completely suspect, and especially after a number of commenters alerted you to the fact the signatures list is being freeped by dittoheads.

At the end of the day I realize it's not that big of a deal, but your reputation should be at least relatively important to you, and by disingenuously omitting the fact that there is a huge push by conservative media to continue the candidacy of Hillary Clinton sort of undermines the neutrality of opinion you attempt to maintain.

A majority of Democrats think Barack Obama should select Hillary Clinton as his running mate, according to a new national poll.

Fifty-four percent of registered Democrats questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll out Friday think Obama should name his rival as his running mate, with 43 percent saying no. The poll is the first national survey conducted since Senator Obama (D-Illinois) claimed the Democratic presidential nomination Tuesday night following the end of the primary season. Senator Clinton, D-New York, is expected to suspend her campaign and back Obama in a scheduled address Saturday.It seems men and women don’t see eye to eye on this question, with 60 percent of Democratic women saying Clinton should be named as Obama’s running mate. Only 46 percent of male Democrats agree, with 51 percent of them saying no.“What do women want, Sigmund Freud famously asked. The answer appears to be Clinton on the ticket. It’s pretty clear that many Democratic women are miffed and that Obama has to be very careful how he deals with Senator Clinton,” says CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider.

If Obama names someone else as his running mate, 24 percent of those polled say Clinton should try to override that decision at the Democratic convention in Denver in August, with 75 percent saying no.

"Democrats would like Barack Obama to choose Hillary Clinton as his running mate, but they seem to recognize that it is his choice to make," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "Some will be disappointed if Obama does not pick Clinton, but not disappointed enough to want a floor fight at the convention."

The survey also found that the economy remains issue number one in the minds of Americans. Forty-two percent of those polled say that the economy will be the most important issue in the decision on the presidency. Iraq remains in second place in importance, at 24 percent, with health care at 12 percent.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted Wednesday and Thursday, with 921 registered voters, including 435 registered voters who describe themselves as Democrats or independents who lean Democratic. The sampling error for most results is plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.



When posted on CNN offical website.


I am hoping for a obama/clinton ticket:)

            My wife consistently expresses a fear of clowns.  There is, for her, something profoundly frightening about the cadaverous white face, the fixed, artificial smile and the in your face neediness that just freaks her out.  Watching John McCain give his so called pre-emptive speech on Tuesday brought that whole fear of clowns thing in to sharp relief for me.

            John McCain has a problem and it’s a problem that started for him when he ran for president back in 2000.  He doesn’t understand why he ever appealed to voters.  In 2000, his appeal to moderates and independents was only evident when he stood next to George Bush.  He wasn’t so much appealing because he was John McCain, but because he wasn’t George Bush.  The marketing geniuses who were running the Bush campaign saw this, and re-branded John McCain.  They did the same thing with Al Gore and John Kerry.  They didn’t change their candidate, they changed the opponent.

            John McCain is now stuck with a Republican imposed stain among core Republicans that requires one kind of re-branding and that contradicts the “I’m not George Bush” brand of 2000 which was more of a lesser-of-two-evils thing anyway.  The net result is that McCain has become an amorphous blob.  He has no clue what he needs to say to bring back his halo.  He believes he’s the same guy he was in 2000 and doesn’t understand why people can’t just love him and vote him the way they used to.

            One could argue that the same thing happened to Hillary Clinton after Iowa.  She and her handlers couldn’t figure out why the “Hillary is inevitable” strategy was failing.  They attempted to re-brand her and she became a shape-shifter, a say anything candidate.  Any way the wind blew- that’s the direction she went.  She couldn’t figure out why so many refused accept her inevitability and finished whining about how nobody understood her.  Nobody understood her because she went out of focus.

            John McCain appears to be heading this direction as well.  We see McCain and his marketing staff flailing around, looking for a way to sell him.  He can’t run as McCain2000 and keep the Republican base.  McCain is losing moderates and independents, because they’re looking for contrasts and finding Ron Paul (among others) more satisfying.  He’s tried channeling Ronald Reagan, but he has no on-camera charisma and comes off like the crypt-keeper.  He’s tried channeling the no-nonsense toughness of Dick Cheney, but he can’t pull of the scary “I don’t give a shit” cruelty that Cheney uses to such great effect.  McCain comes off as a grumpy, but needy grandparent who you know won’t follow through when push comes to shove.

            So, lately his handlers have got him channeling his opponent, Barack Obama- except we already have an Obama running.  McCain is beta-testing an “I’m just like him- only safer” campaign.  There’s no way he can pull this off, not with the extra baggage he’s accumulated.  And the more nebulous John McCain becomes, the harder it will be for people to see him as President.

When this TPM post about VoteBoth's numbers was initially posted, it included this line:

Those are very good numbers, it can't be denied. The group yesterday announced that former Hillary adviser Lanny Davis had joined the effort.

I'm not against the editorializing inherent in "it can't be denied;" this is a blog, for heaven's sake.  I am against the fact that no more than an hour later that line (which I placed in bold type) was quietly removed, with no record of it ever having existed, and a "Late Update" was added that included this:

25,000 signatures on a petition is really not that impressive.

It took an hour to discover that, yet at first the reporter thought (independent of any investigation whatsoever, it seems) the number was undeniably large.

Keeping a record of what a post said from the beginning using strikeout text or footnotes allows the readers here to evaluate the bias and the integrity of the individual reporters.  Not including that record and trying to hide it with sneaky edits is fundamentally dishonest in a news organization.

Early on the morning of June 6, 1968, our nation suffered a terrible, tragic loss.  Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, fresh from winning the California Democratic presidential primary, was gunned down by Sirhan Sirhan.

This loss was made all the more poignant by the Kennedy family history of tragedy.  The nation watched live as President John F. Kennedy had his head blown apart by an assassin’s bullet in 1963.  Years before that, Joseph P. Kennedy Jr., son of the famous Kennedy patriarch, died while serving his country.  Many believe that he may have been the greatest of the four Kennedy sons.

And yet, the loss hurt for many more reasons than that.  Just two months and two days before his own life was snuffed out, Bobby Kennedy was about to give a campaign speech in Indianapolis, Indiana, when he was given the shocking and saddening news of Martin Luther King’s assassination in Memphis, Tennessee. 

In a moment often overlooked by historians, Kennedy pulled himself together and delivered the news to a largely Black audience.  Then, in the only known public instance where he ever talked about Jack’s assassination, he gave a short, but very personal, account of his anger and sadness about his brother’s murder.  He then pleaded with the emotional and furious crowd to remain calm, and to not riot in the streets, as was happening in other cities all around the nation.

That night, more than any other, was emblematic of the leader America had snatched from it 40 years ago today.  For that night, April 4, 1968, Indianapolis remained quiet – because Bobby Kennedy asked its citizens to stand down.

So much has changed in the last 40 years – mostly for the better.  However, many Americans who lived through the political and social violence of the 1960s, and had to endure watching so many great men and leaders gunned down in the name of intolerance and bigotry, are still scarred from those times.

Gandhi once said, “First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.”  Many Americans forget – or don’t know – just how many people died in that turbulent decade as the last vestiges of institutionalized, overt racism fought with every breath, bullet and noose in its arsenal. 

John Fitzgerald Kennedy.  Martin Luther King, Jr.  Malcolm X.  Medgar Wiley Evers (assassinated on the same night that President Kennedy delivered his famous civil rights speech).   James Chaney.  Andrew Goodman.  Michael Schwerner.  Emmett Till.  So many more that weren’t written about or eulogized or mourned en masse as this nation struggled in that decade to live out the true meaning of its creed.  All of these people were slaughtered in the name of preserving the ugly stain of racism on this nation’s fabric.  Let them never be forgotten.

And yet, despite the history and histrionics of hatred, we see that Gandhi’s final phase is coming true in our continued racial evolution.  For three days ago, a Black man was able to say, “I will be the Democratic nominee for President of the United States of America” – and have a standing-room-only crowd of mostly white people cheer for him with every breath they had.

Today, though, is a day to remember a good man who, but for senseless hatred, could have become a great man.  America is becoming the country you thought it could be, Bobby.  The only shame is that it took lives such as yours in the process. 

Thank you, Robert Francis Kennedy, for all that you did – and all that you wanted to do.

Following Hillary Clinton's defeat in the primaries it has become irrefutably obvious that the liberals are an indispensably critical base of the Democratic Party, without whose support a candidate in the presidential primaries simply would'nt make it through. The demise of Hillary's candidacy bears this out with stark clarity. Because from the very outset she believed---like everybody else, except me---that the primaries were has to lose, she sought to project an aura of inevitability which,for good or evil, conditoned not only her mindset, but also her actions. A case in point, she adpted centrist positions early on in the campaign, without having first ensured that the liberal base of the Democratic Party was consolidated behind her. She defiantly refused to apologize for voting for the war. That was probably the main bone of contention between her and the liberals who were also offended by her centrist votes in the senate that crystallized her fatal effort to prematurely straddle to the center, even to the right for that matter. In short, she was running a general election campaign because in her mind a "primaries victory" was a foregone conclusion. Hence, her sense of entitlement got the better of her. This should serve as a lesson to politician: Never take voters for granted whoever you are. They are smarter than you think.

(Reposted from my fake news blog www.richieville.com)
Richieville News Service, NEW YORK, NY The New York City Police announced today that contrary to earlier reports, the two men who scaled the outside of the 52-story New York Times skyscraper in Manhattan were not publicity-hungry thrill seekers. Instead they were the first of a group of Times staffers who are climbing the building as an act of penance for their failure to challenge the Bush administration's rationale for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Today, other groups of current and former reporter-penitents were engaged in similar symbolic acts of contrition.

"We just feel so guilty," said former reporter Judith Miller as she dangled by her fingertips from the building's exterior curtain twenty-seven floors above Eighth Avenue. Ms. Miller was the author of several front page Times stories that made the administration's case for the war. She struggled to talk as she inched her way up the side of the building. "I know that my propagandistic cheerleading paved the way for the biggest foreign policy disaster in U.S. history. I'm hoping this will purge me of the terrible feelings of self-reproach that have plagued my every waking moment since then."
Down at street level, columnist Thomas Friedman readied himself to begin his own ascent of the building. He paused with his hands on the horizontal ceramic rods that form a ready-made ladder for those seeking to expiate their sins. 

"I've been trying to run away from my sense of shame with all this, 'the Earth is flat,' nonsense," he said, referring to his recent book about globalization.  "I thought if I changed the topic I could erase the memory of my self-indulgent and intellectually dishonest efforts to give a liberal cover to what was really just a naked act of aggression. Alas, no. I only hope climbing this building without a safety harness will  finally give my soul some peace."

Times publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr. an avid climber, waited his turn behind Mr. Friedman. "Maybe it was the McClellan book," he said, explaining the sudden urge for repentance. He was referring to former Bush press secretary Scott McClellan, whose recent book accuses the press of being too soft on him. "When a weasel like Scott McClellan accuses you of being a weak, ineffectual lap dog, then you really start doing some self-examination."
The dramatic act of atonement, with dozens of reporters, editors, publishers, fact-checkers and proofreaders all waiting their turn to climb the sides of the building, seemed to have pricked the conscience of journalists in other media outlets. Blocks away, at  Rockefeller Center, anchor Brian Williams was explaining his decision to wear a hairshirt during all future broadcasts of the NBC Evening News. 

"Climbing a building feels a little lacking in the proper humility to me," he explained. "Sackcloth and ashes or a hairshirt, something that induces quiet and constant suffering, that's the way I hope to remind myself of our terrible failure to tell the American people the truth."
Meanwhile. at CNN headquarters in Atlanta, Wolf Blitzer spoke in favor of self-flagellation. "Mortification of the flesh is the only way to go," he said, as he tested the heft of several different whips and scourges. "I must feel pain to atone for the pain I have inflicted." However, Mr. Blitzer did express a wish that the period of mortification, penance and contrition not last too long. "I want to get through this so I can get back to reporting," he said, selecting a heavy birch branch. "I'm doing a piece on John McCain - he's such a maverick."

This meeting between Hillary and Obama.  First, am I the only one who thinks that this "secret" meeting with just both of them in the room is kind of going against the change that Obama wants to deliver?  He always stresses "transparency," and although some may argue that this is one of those meetings where the world doesn't need to know what went on, I sure do want to know what happened in that room.  Is it possible that it was Hillary doing most of the talking in that room?  And is it possible that what she said was along the lines of..."Obama, if you don't want me to take this to Denver, here's what I want, 1) VP 2) Money to pay off my debt 3) (you can fill the rest)"  The point is that I definitely do not see this meeting as being a meeting where Hillary congratulates Obama on becoming the party's nominee, and tells him that she is willing to do whatever he thinks will help him win the presidency.  If that were the case, this would have not been a "secret meeting."  All I’m saying is that this surprises me a little bit, and being a huge Obama fan, I am a bit disappointed with this "secret meeting."  Does anyone see where I'm coming from?

Despite the fact tomorrow is a Saturday, and therefore a no-news day, it will end up being a very important day for the Democratic Party. Here's why.

If, like me, you've been monitoring pro-Hillary blogs and websites you'll have noted that while many Hillary supporters have accepted she has lost the nomination, there seems to be a determined minority of die-hards who refuse to accept Obama as their nominee. Many of these die-hards will never change their minds no matter what. Some cancers cannot be cured. But Hillary has the opportunity tomorrow to convince most of them to accept Obama and heal the party.

The key thing to remember is that the more hard-core a Hillary supporter is, the more likely it is they will be paying attention when she formally concedes. They'll want to watch the end even if the ending is something they hate. Even on a Saturday.

Hillary can do a lot to make up for her gigantic blunder Tuesday. She can truly unify the party and bring even her most anti-Obama supporters to his side. But she has to want to do this. She has to tap into their anger, perhaps acknowledge it, and then swing logic over to Obama's direction. She has to show a side of her we haven't seen before. A humble side, a self-depreciating side. If she chooses to do this in an open and honest way, her die-hards will note her sincerity. And they may just come around as a result.

But it has to be about her. Despite what others have written, tomorrow has to be all about her. After acknowledging that the better candidate won she has to focus on why she was the lesser candidate. She has to convince her die-hard fans that she is not Jesus Risen, that she is not infallible. She has to convince them, and perhaps herself, that Obama is the best person to lead the Democratic party. If she cannot or will not accept she was the lesser candidate then her supporters never will.

Tomorrow is Hillary's chance to redeem herself and unify the party. The question is, does Hillary Clinton possess the required amount of humility to pull off such a feat? Despite all suggestions to the contrary, I think she does.

Then again, what do I know? I was stunned by her speech on Tuesday. Perhaps I'll be stunned again tomorrow. Either way, her speech on Saturday will definitely be important. Not only for the future of the Democratic Party, but for the future of the United States.