Reader Posts

June 1, 2008 - June 7, 2008

Olbermann Special Comment Needed Monday Night

avatar

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.

How to put meat on Hillary's speech today

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


Of football and primaries

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.

The Primary is Only the Wedding

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.

Ripper Befuddled by Intertubes

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.


Things to Consider Before Voting for McCain This Fall

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. 

Even Fox Says McCain Befuddled on Economy

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.

Winning isn't everything. But I still think we'll win...

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.

It's Vice Preisdent VP Veep Time! for Obama!!!

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

Roe V Wade and Obama V McCain and My Choice

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.

About That Michelle Obama Video....

It's been a stressful few weeks for all of us.  Most of us are passionate about politics and take it very seriously.  I think many of us could use a drink or just a good laugh or hell, maybe even a good cry.  And believe me when I say that I would like nothing more than to post something to lighten the mood....

I hate to be the one to post this but I am a seeker of the truth, no matter how painful.  Allegations have been made on other blogs recently about a racial slur that was uttered by Michelle Obama.  Most people think it's unsubstantiated gossip or perhaps even a work of fiction.  With no actual proof it's been dismissed as merely a ruse meant to hurt the Obama campaign....

Well, sadly, there is a video.


Affidavits Strengthen White House Link To Wecht Jury Tampering

avatar

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.

McCain Promises Bottled Hot Water for Dehydrated Babies

In case you slept through it, via the JedReport:

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

An Open Letter To HillaryIs44

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.

American President Subverts Justice In British Court

avatar

GOP Continues Information Warfare Against State Attorney Generals in re FISA Violations

avatar

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.

Whew! It's a wrap....Onward to the next Phase....

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

Bravo, Senator.

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.

Forty Signs of Rain

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.

Hillary Clinton: Inner Thoughts

Hillary Clintons' endorsement speech today was well delivered and it certainly left no chance for the record to misinterpret her stated commitment for Obama.

While others are talking about how it was "all about me", I had a different impression:

She has never talked so much about running as a woman in such a concentrated form.  I have been on record here as saying that Obama was running as an American while Hillary was running as a woman.

But that was from a more large perspective.  Today, we saw her wrap up her candidacy as if the very reason for running at all was to prove that a woman could be president.

From this sense, her campaign may well be viewed as a gender-breaking campaign in the way that Jesse Jacksons 1988 run was a racial-breaking campaign.

There was a little lip service paid to those who are down-and-out, of course, but for the most part, Hillary surprisingly reduced the scope of her campaign to that of a woman running.  Of course, this speech was not meant for 18 million people, but her core demographic:  women.  In that sense, maybe it's not so surprising.

I can't help but wonder, however, if these were thoughts she has wanted to get out for years, but couldn't in terms of the campaign (for fear of making gender the central issue of her run).

A skillful, political speech, no doubt.  It was absolutely required of her to do this type of speech to maintain any relevance in the larger Democratic inner circles going forward.  Her core advisers and party elders probably have indicated to her that the need for rehabilitation of her image must commence immediately if she is to have any political career at all.

Given Hillary's overwhelming advantages in 2007, had she been able to keep this tone after IA and through 5 more months, she probably wouldn't have had to give this particular speech at all.  This thought, along with these remarks from a former president, form a valuable lesson for those aspiring politicians out there. 

A Genuine Question for Honest Clinton Supporters

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

Chelsea Clinton for President

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.

Hillary's concession speech

avatar

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.

The Whitey Tape!!!! Michelle Obama Exposed!!!!!

Here. Not as bad as we thought.

Time to Come Together

avatar

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.

HILLARY SUPPORTERS: FROM ONE MOTHER TO ANOTHER, I'M BEGGING YOU

avatar

"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?

Obama - McCain Debates

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.

What a beautiful Speech.

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.

John McCain: Praising Abortion Clinic Suicide Bombers?

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]

Proof that McCain is Racist?

avatar

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 daughterMcCain'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? 

Book Recomendations

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.

WP to progressives voters... Sucker!

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

Hillary Clinton Is Finally Mobbed Out


Democrats in Washington began flooding Hillary Clinton with conference calls immediately after she won the South Dakota primary, and they finally mobbed her out of the race for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.


All those bozos who turned majorities in both houses of Congress into a rubber stamp for funding the war in Iraq decided that the race ends whenever they say it ends, wherever they say it ends, and the rules of the Democratic Party don't really matter except when they favor Barack Obama.


We are the deciders! The Democratic establishment in Washington has learned a lot from George W. Bush!


It's obvious that "party unity" requires Hillary Clinton to drop out, and it has been obvious to the Washington establishment ever since March. Get lost, Hillary!


But it wasn't obvious to the voters, and every poll indicated that a majority of Democrats outside Washington wanted Hillary Clinton to keep running, and she did, and she defied the party establishment every step of the way ever since Iowa.


Super-delegates were invented to make sure that the nomination wasn't completely d