In the recent uproar over The New Yorker's offensive cartoon of the Obamas I remember readers here discussing a cartoon of the McCains they'd like to see.  Well Vanity Fair has come up with one thats not too shabby.  It shows the elderly McCain using a walker while fist bumping Cindy who is holding a bunch of prescription pill bottles in her other hand.  It could be pretty satisfying, except for one thing.  It's a bit of a rip off of one drawn by David Horsey on July 15 for the Seattle P-I in response to The New Yorker's.  In Horsey's McCain is in a wheel chair but Cindy has her pills.  They both have a portrait of Cheney on the wall and the Constitution burning in the fireplace.

NewsBusters is calling Vanity Fair on it.

Today McCain made a couple of big gaffes and these are not being overlooked. One is McCain's statement that the surge allowed the Sunni awakening to take place. McCain states:

"Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening. I mean, that's just a matter of history"

Except that it isn't. The Anbar awakening, where Sunni sheiks revolted against Al Queda, took place months before the first troops of the surge arrived. That's a pretty major gaffe. Mr. Foreign Policy, John C in C, ought to be aware of the timeline leading up to the surge he pushed so hard for. After the Sunni/Shia, Sudan/Somalia, Iraq/Pakistan border confusions it's getting harder to discount them as easy mistakes to make.

Another gaffe was that he stated today while on the campaign trail that Obama "would rather win an election than win a war". This was just a cheap, ridiculous statement. This time these gaffes arent' being glossed over by CNN. Certainly Olbermann was on it but even the pundits on CNN agreed that today was not a good day for McCain. One of them (I'm forgetting his name) said that statement was "the most scurrilous thing said in a campaign" in years, particularly by a candidate as opposed to a surrogate. Could it be that the media is loosing it's love for McCain? Or is he just getting harder to spin?

Today a group of attorneys, reporters from The Nation, the ACLU and members of other human rights groups filed suit against FISA on the grounds that it is unconstitutional.  Anyone think that lawsuit has a cold chance in hell of getting anywhere?

Darcy is a true progressive running against a sexist douche bag in WA 8th Congressional district.  She is the author of a step-by-step plan to withdraw from Iraq and is a brilliant woman.  She narrowly lost to Dave Reichart (the douche bag) in the last election.  She needs to win this time.

Yesterday morning Darcy's house burnt to the ground.  She and her family got out just a short time before the roof caved in.  Saved by her 5 year old who woke her and her husband up in time to escape.  As a result she will need to take some time off from the campaign trail which will cost her in fundraising.  Please do what you can to contribute if possible and to spread the message.

Darcy's Act Blue page is here.

More info, links to other blog reports on this and a video of Darcy talking to the news media about her ordeal is here.

Please recommend this post if you will to keep the message up.

Thanks.

Poor John.  There is someone out there that isn't kneeling in his presence and kissing the feet he walks on.  Am I missing something here?  I've listened to that interview a couple of times and find nothing unreasonable.  As a matter of fact similar statements by Wesley Clark were examined in an interview he had on the Morning Joe show recently.  Here is a clip of that one.

I thought Clark did great on that show.  He was making the same point in the Face the Nation interview yesterday.  The point is that John McCain has not showed the judgement that is necessary in a CIC.  McCain happily singing Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran is just one of the things Clark points to in his explaination.  I didn't hear any major outcry there.  He was very effective.  But suddenly everyone is up in arms using terms like "ridicule" or "attacks his military record". 

Clark in no way attacked McCain's record as a soldier.  He acknowledged McCain's heroism.  But McCain is now crying bully.  McCain is playing the victim.  All the media is falling in line.  Didn't Clark get the memo?  NOBODY, BUT NOBODY CAN SPEAK OF JOHN MCCAIN AND THE MILITARY IN THE SAME SENTENCE WITHOUT PUTTING THEIR HAND OVER THEIR HEART AND SINGING GOD BLESS JOHN MCCAIN.

Wesley Clark is a four star General, former NATO Supreme Commander, wounded in action and a hero himself.  If there is anyone who can look at McCain and dispute his claims about how his military experience  makes him the best choice for president it's Wesley Clark.  He makes a good point and is pretty effective.  But the moment Johnny whines the media runs to lick his wounds and cry foul at Clark.

I'm not going to criticize Obama and Axelrod for poo pooing the comments.  Obama doesn't have a military background and as such should avoid any argument that makes a point about McCains record as it relates to CIC credentials.  But I'm getting tired of the teflon that the media keeps painting all over McCain.  The guy's got plenty of flaws.  This isn't a Hollywood movie.

Oh, BTW, did you hear McCain confused Somalia with Sudan today?  Didn't think so.

Many of you aren't going to like this post.  As such I feel the need to preface by saying that my support for Obama is unwavering.  I have contributed what I can, have an online fundraising page, will attend a fundraiser today and will be hosting one myself next month (house parties across America being organized by TPM readers Ghengis and California Paige).  My inclination is to just say fine to the FISA bill as it stands now because my candidate supports it as is if necessary.  I hear the progressive argument that this is a cave and it sets a bad precedent for our right to freedom from unwarranted searches.  So I've been holding off on deciding how I felt about it and looking a little further into what's involved.

I just want to put a little perspective on the retroactive immunity portion and why it scares the shit out of me.  We aren't talking here about Bush going to some telcos and saying "here is a list of 5,000 names, we think these people are suspicious and want their phone records without a warrant".  The wiretapping goes so way far beyond that.  It's astounding really. What we do know is that at least one large carrier, Verizon,  provided a MASSIVE circuit that was dedicated completely for the use of the NSA to indiscriminately listen on ANY call (and text messages and Internet activity) they felt necessary by ANY of their subscribers.  Doesn't that put at least a little chill in your freedom loving bones?

Here is a little info on what was discovered by whistleblowers.  From a Security Focus article

The consultant, Babak Pasdar, stated in an affidavit that during a job
securing the network of a large, but unnamed, cellular
telecommunications carrier in 2003, he came across evidence of a 45
Mbps network tap referred to as the "Quantico circuit" that had
complete access to the company's network and on which the company did
not want any monitoring. The third party, about whose identity Pasdar
did not speculate, likely had access to the cellular providers
fraud-detection system, text messaging system, Web applications and
Internet communications coming from or going to any of the provider's
mobile phones, Pasdar stated in the affidavit.

The unnamed carrier above is Verizon.

Here is some info on what AT&T provided:

These revelations mirror those of
AT&T whistleblower Mark Klein, who revealed that the super
secretive National Security Agency had been given access by AT&T
management to install "splitters" for the Agency hard-wired to an NSA
"secure" room in the company's central office in San Francisco.
According to Klein,

"In short, an exact copy of all
internet traffic that flowed through critical AT&T cables--emails,
documents, pictures, web browsing, Voice over-internet phone
conservations, everything--was being diverted to equipment inside the
secret room. In addition the documents reveal the technological gear
used in their secret project, including a highly sophisticated search
component capable of quickly sifting through huge amounts of digital
data (including text, voice and images) in real time according to
pre-programmed criteria.

It's important to understand that the
internet links which were connected to the splitter contained not just
foreign communications but vast amounts of domestic traffic, all mixed
together. Furthermore, the splitter has no selective abilities--it's
just a dumb device which copies everything to the secret room. And the
links going through the splitter are AT&T's physical connections to
many other internet providers (e.g., Sprint, Qwest, Global Crossing,
Cable & Wireless, and the critical West Coast Internet Exchange
Point known as Mae West). Since these networks are interconnected, the
government surveillance affects not only AT&T customers but
everyone else--millions of Americans.

I also discovered in my conversations
with other technicians that other "secret rooms" were established in
Seattle, San Jose, Los Angeles and San Diego. One of the documents I
obtained also mentions Atlanta, and the clear inference in the logic of
this setup, and the language of the documents, is that there are other
such rooms across the country to complete the coverage--possibly 15 to
20 or more." (Mark Klein, "Reject Amnesty for Telecoms," Electronic Frontier Foundation)

I don't seem to be able to get out of blockquote mode here but the remainder are my words.  Just about everything goes over AT&T lines, regardless of the telco because AT&T built the national network back when it was a monopoly.  So even though Qwest refused to release records their subscriber's data was tapped in transit when traversing AT&T lines.

We will never know to what extent this was used without being able to sue for information.  We can't opt out of our contracts, even though the terms were violated, without paying the fine.  We can't request any refunds for the same reasons.  I'm not particularly concerned about refunds and fines but I do want to know what was gathered, how it was analyzed and what was done with the information.  I want the communications providers involved to know that it is illegal and there should be consequences.  I want the known entity.

I understand that we must not loose this election.  I understand that if Obama fought the immunity portion McCain will try to use that to portray him as soft on terror.  I'm not going to rail against him and his decision here but I'd like to point out that many who voted for the war did so primarily because they were concerned with being portrayed as soft on terror. 

Lets hope this is the last time that argument will work.

Perhaps I'm a day or two late with this but since I just received a link to the David Brooks article from a friend and wrote up a rebuttal in reply I thought I'd post it here as well.  In response to David Brooks I say:


- On voting present:  This is something that is an option in IL but not
most other states.  It is a common practice to vote present on a bill
that you think is ultimately unconstitutional or in general is OK but
has specific provisions that you don't agree with.  For example if the
main point is something you agree with but the writing of the bill
pushes in some added provision that is objectionable then the strategy
is to vote present because you don't agree with it on a whole but don't
want to vote against it since the major aspect of it is a position you
agree with.  In 8 years he voted present 128 times, out of thousands of
votes.  It's a criticism that is always waged against an IL politician
because they always have present votes on their record since its the
way they do it there.

- On throwing Rev. Wright under the bus:  Ridiculous.  He went on the
national stage during the height of the Rev. Wright continuous coverage
and explicitly did not throw him under the bus even though it was very
risky to do that.  It was only until later, when Rev. Wright came out
and in a display of extreme narcissism held a press conference where he
totally embarrassed himself and Obama.  It was an act that appeared
intended to hurt Obama and was arranged by a devout Clinton
supporter.  I'd have done the same thing - he was dissed big time after
going out on a limb.

- Could have been a workhorse senator:  Why stay in the senate if you
have a serious shot at the presidency?  His time is now and  because of that he won the
nomination.  He will get more done in the Whitehouse than he can as one
member of the senate.



- On townhall meetings:  Obama has expressed an interest in doing them
and may well do some open debates like that with McCain.  He won't do
it on McCain's timetable and shouldn't.  He shouldn't let McCain
dictate the way Obama's campaign will go.  McCain wanted to do 10 of
them in 10 weeks - Obama shouldn't just jump on and say OK dude,
whatever you say.



- On public financing:  Obama's campaign is financed in large part by
ordinary citizens contributing small amounts, he is financed by the
public in that sense.  Also how much support does public financing
enjoy amongst the American people?  Only about 1% check that little box
on their tax return to contribute to presidential races.  Obama does
have a fundraising advantage and doesn't want to give that up.  I am
100% certain that McCain would do the same.  McCain has flip-flopped on
this issue in the past.  Personally I enjoy the
opportunity to contribute to the Obama campaign and feel like my small
contribution actually means something. 


Another point on the financing is that currently Obama is at a
disadvantage with media coverage.  The media is very hard on Obama yet
we hardly hear about these sorts of things:


-McCain's long list of flip-flops (torture, abortion rights, offshore drilling, ethanol, gay marriage, 100 years in Iraq)

-His direct misrepresentations with regard to how things are in Iraq
(e.g. the "flack jacket" lie - on video and worse that Hillary's Tuzla
yet unexamined). 

-Nobody asks McCain why he won't release his military record.

-Nobody asks why they won't release Cindy's tax returns even though it
is the vast majority of their income, could there be conflicts of
interest?,

-Why did he intervene and support the Pentagon's awarding the air
tanker contract to a foreign firm as opposed to Boeing which will send
many jobs oversees and outsource the building of our military
equipment?  BTW the man who lobbied for Northrop Grumman, the firm that
won the contract was the director of McCain's campaign finance committee
until that was exposed and he had to get rid of him.



Obama needs to use his funds just to compete with the unbalanced media coverage.

Barack Obama has made Change the overriding and unwavering theme of his candidacy.  I occasionally hear people say “I know he stands for change but what does that mean?” To me it is a ray of hope on my disillusionment with Washington.  For many years now it appears that the interests of the well monied individuals, groups and corporation are honored by our government often at the expense of the interests of us little guys.  But by not taking lobbyist money Barack Obama has shown that us little guys with our little bucks, when pooled together give us a big voice.  Our collective voice has echoed down the halls of power, turned heads and now is changing the course of our future for the better.

 On his second full day of being our nominee Obama has come out forcefully and let us know that we will not be doing “business as usual”.  Along with Howard Dean he has announced that not only his campaign but also the Democratic National Committee will NOT be taking lobbyist money.  Says Howard Dean:

"The DNC and the Obama Campaign are unified and working together to elect Barack Obama as the next president of the United States. Our presumptive nominee has pledged not to take donations from Washington lobbyists and from today going forward the DNC makes that pledge as well."

Let it be known that the Democratic party is not for sale and will not be bullied by powerful people wielding heavy billfolds.  Now there’s some Change back from your dollar.

 Speaking of bullying it has been reported that influential Clinton supporters are trying to pressure Obama into putting her on his ticket as VP.  Again he has come out sensibly and forcefully to let us know that he will not be pushed and that he will show due diligence in making his decision.  He has appointed an excellent team to consider and vet the potential candidates.  He has also let it be known that the next time we hear from him regarding his VP it will be when he announces who he has chosen.  Anything in between now and then can be disregarded as rumor and not coming from him or his campaign.

 There’s a new sheriff in town people and this one won’t be taking any crap.  We can expect that he won’t be selling us any crap either.

On Fox News this weekend contributor Liz Trotta openly and laughingly wished for the assassination of US Sen. Barack Obama.  In discussing Hillary’s Friday remarks referencing the assassination of RFK in June Trotta says

 And now we have what, uh, some are reading as a suggestion that somebody knock off Osama, um uh, Obama, well both if we could (laughs)

 Where am I living?  How is this in any way acceptable in our country?  This is our mainstream media, albeit with a right-wing bias, and they are publicly musing about the murder of a high ranking member of the US Government and a presidential front runner.  Exactly what empowers these people to assume that a statement like this in any way or under any circumstance appropriate?

 I am outraged that anyone would assume they have a significant audience for airing this type of thought on television.  I cannot even imagine hearing that in someone’s living room.  This is way beyond unacceptable and it’s way beyond just complaining to Fox News.  I strongly urge you to file a complaint with the FCC.  You can go to the form for a general media complaint here.  It is a brief form and will only take a minute or two to fill out.  We have to speak out and let it be known that as a people we have standards and we will not stand for this type of callous and sinister message to be perpetuated over our media channels.  Also please make a complaint to Fox News here there is an email feature there and also a text box to enter news tips, their phone number is 1-888-369-4762.

Enough with this already.  It’s time for us to stand up and be heard.

After reading some headlines this morning I’m thinking that
the giddy speculation on Obama’s VP nominee over the last few weeks may have
been in vain. Today Hillary Clinton made
it clear she is willing to take her quest for the nomination to the convention
in Denver if FL and MI are not resolved to her satisfaction. Those upcoming negotiations are sure to offer
a compromise to seat at least a portion of those delegates, but Hillary’s
contention is that they should be seated as is.
Since that would be unfair, by any measure other than her own, it won’t
be happening that way. After all Obama
wasn’t even on the ballot in MI. This
leaves an opening for Hillary to take it to Denver. Most politicians, pundits, and perhaps voters
too, believe that a Denver battle will almost certainly kill any chances for a
Democratic president in 2008. The threat
of going to Denver sends a chill down all our spines.

Why would Hillary want that kind of destruction? It’s been postulated that Clinton may be angling for 2012 and prefer Obama loose the general if nominated. This is a hollow strategy but it’s pricked up the ears of a subset of her supporters who are angry, feel that she has been treated unfairly by the media, and want to throw the general election away from Obama. To date she has not made any statements to discourage this group from organizing. Her current accusations of sexism in the media are also being interpreted by some supporters, including the fledgling 2012 group, as also saying the Obama campaign has been sexist. In a recent Fox News appearance the ladies attempting to organize that movement were pressed by Bill O’Reilly for specifics on how Obama’s campaign has been sexist. They were unable to come up with one example, however their contention remained unchanged. A 2012 strategy would be doomed to failure. She would alienate scores of dems and be branded as a spoiler. We wouldn't forget that, hell I'm still pissed at Ralph Nader and will probably always be so. No one can predict what's on the horizon 4 years from now so I don't think that's her strategy here, it's too unknown. It’s unlikely that she will ever get any closer to the White House than where she ends up in this election whether Obama wins or not. The clamoring from the bitter of her supporters best serves as a chorus behind her arguments for FL, MI and a presence on the ticket.

Clinton is planning on being nominated at that convention one way or another. If she will not be on the top of the ticket then, by cracky, she’ll be on the bottom. Her two biggest cheerleaders have begun to initiate plan B. The day after Hillary’s loss in NC and underperformance in IN Terry McAuliffe spoke about how great he thought she would be as a VP candidate. He said he hadn’t discussed it with her, but I find it hard to believe that the chairman of her presidential campaign would go public with that without checking with her first. Today the Huffington Post reported that Bill Clinton is also pushing for a VP spot for her on the ticket behind the scenes, and in a poll the majority of voters selected Clinton for preferred VP. On the stump the shift of negative attacks away from Obama and towards generalized sexism serve to set the background for her next major move.

In recent times the presumptive nominee was apparent at an earlier stage in the primary and had the luxury of having a significant control over the vice presidential nominee selection. Not this time. Hillary has a large minority of the democratic primary votes, has managed to whip up a frenzy of resentment and can threaten to almost hold the party hostage. The seeds of Plan B have already been planted. Given the fact that the VP is nominated by election at the convention and not simply selected by the presidential nominee I’d say that we will be seeing Hillary’s name on the general election playbill. Perhaps Jim Johnson’s time would be better spent vetting food tasters.

I’m waiting for you to convince me that I’m wrong. For that I will be grateful.

Like many TPM readers I’ve been entertaining myself by tossing around VP ideas.  The person Obama runs with should bring qualities to the table that serve to round out his candidacy.  Things like executive and/or military experience come to mind.  Also an appeal to the regular, working class folks would help counter the “elitist” misnomer.  A woman candidate would appeal to the die hard Hillary feminists.  Several names are being thrown around as VP hopefuls, all of which have some of the qualities above.  Upon looking a little closer a firecracker of a guy popped out at me.

Gov. Schweitzer (D. MT) is an intriguing character.  Although the state doesn’t bring much for electoral votes Schweitzer is popular in the mountain west and represents a new breed of Democrat that is rising there.  He has a folksy and authentic appeal.  <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/08/magazine/08governor.html&amp;OQ=_rQ3D1&amp;OP=1e699b86Q2FQ7BQ3DvwQ7BUQ5B_mRQ5BQ5BQ5EQ7DQ7BQ7DbbNQ7BQ3FbQ7Bb)Q7BjTVTQ26cIvQ7Bb)VQ5B0vRIQ5BRBdQ5EjY">Mark Sundeen writes for NYT in 2006: </a>
<blockquote>As soon as Schweitzer was elected in 2004 — the same night that George W. Bush carried Montana by 20 percentage points — pundits began declaring him the future of the Democratic Party…………No fewer than four recent books by Democratic strategists have mentioned Schweitzer as the kind of guy Democrats need to win back rural America.</blockquote>
Several of Gov. Schweitzer’s positions dovetail nicely with Obama’s.  He didn’t take any PAC money for his campaign and enjoys going toe-to-toe with lobbyists.  He also spoke out against the war from the start.  Other qualities round out the package.  He’s more of a centrist and as an executive has a track record of lowering taxes while building a surplus.  He opposes gun control while being a strong proponent of alternate fuel sources.  And he reached across the isle by choosing a Republican as his running mate.

And then there’s the intangible.  He’s just plain likeable, campaigns well and doesn’t take any crap.  He cut’s to the chase and speaks in terms the sound bite crowd responds to.

“Schweitzer has the ability to reduce a complicated issue to a few sharp lines, reframing it with themes of patriotism and underdog know-how” says Sundeen.  When asked if he was sufficiently tested in his first session Schweitzer told the reporter
<blockquote>It was my first day on the job, and I was working with lobbyists and legislators who’d been there for years. We had a State Assembly that was deadlocked. But I pushed through the most progressive legislative agenda in the country. It was not easy. I took on the lobbyists. I wrestled them to the ground, and now I’m kicking them in the ribs.</blockquote>
There’s another quality he has that brings to mind Obama.  From the article:
<blockquote>"I’m just a rancher who ended up governor of Montana,” he likes to say. But Schweitzer is not a politician only in the sense that the young Cassius Clay was not a boxer; by the time his opponent realized he’d been hit, he was already on the mat.</blockquote>
Take a <a href="http://bademus.wordpress.com/">look for yourself</a>, I think your gonna like this guy.

Poking about online I stumbled across an article from March in The American Conservative.  The title is “The Right Choice:  The Conservative Case for Barack Obama”.  It’s an interesting narrative about how the neocons are conning conservatives into believing their values are being tended to while in actuality their actions are only self serving.  It goes on to point out how a vote for McCain would be bad, on several levels, and how a vote for Obama is a vote to end the war and reverse foreign policy mistakes.

On McCain:

“For conservatives to hope the election of yet another Republican will set things right is surely in vain. To believe that President John McCain will reduce the scope and intrusiveness of federal authority, cut the imperial presidency down to size, and put the government on a pay-as-you-go basis is to succumb to a great delusion.”… ….……"Above all, conservatives who think that a McCain presidency would restore a sense of realism and prudence to U.S. foreign policy are setting themselves up for disappointment. On this score, we should take the senator at his word: his commitment to continuing the most disastrous of President Bush’s misadventures is irrevocable.”

On Obama:

“Yet if Obama does become the nation’s 44th president, his election will constitute something approaching a definitive judgment of the Iraq War. As such, his ascent to the presidency will implicitly call into question the habits and expectations that propelled the United States into that war in the first place. Matters hitherto consigned to the political margin will become subject to close examination. Here, rather than in Obama’s age or race, lies the possibility of his being a truly transformative presidency.”

It’s quite an interesting read.  The article is at :
http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_03_24/article.html

Never underestimate the clever creativity of McCain's campaign gurus.  They have come up with the antidote for Obama's Change message.  It's called "The Change You Deserve".  Has quite a nice ring to it really, perhaps you have heard it before.  It just happens to be the registered slogan for Effexor EX, you know the anti-depressant, anti-anxiety/anti-panic attack drug.  Perhaps one of them forgot they had read it on their box at home.  God knows this administration has produced lots of anxiety and we seem to be headded towards a depression.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/12/gops-new-slogan-already-b_n_101376.html

Early on in this Democratic primary it was noted that Hillary was trying to paint Barack Obama as “the Black candidate”.  Now all I am hearing is “can The Black Candidate get the White vote?”, so apparently she was successful in that regard.  It’s interesting how once race comes to the forefront the need to look further disappears.  Take Rev. Wright for example, the complete fixation on that never looked beyond to any wider context.  Now we have the White Working Class demographic polls.  Hillary performs better there.  She is White and Obama is “The Black Candidate” so it must be a racial issue right?

Barack Obama is a multicultural figure.  As a bi-racial man he was raised in a White family with a focus on multiculturalism.  He later immersed himself in Black American culture because as a Black man in America it’s a significant part of his being and something that a White family can’t really give him.  An important part of his appeal is that he has a unique perspective on and identity with many different facets of our country’s cultural makeup.  But currently all this is overshadowed by a preoccupation with race and an assumption that it trumps all when it comes to a voter’s decisions.

John Kerry polled similarly amongst blue collar Whites when he was at a similar stage in his nomination.  I don’t think this related to any blackness in him.  There are other reasons that Obama might not be resonating with these folks as well as Hillary has been.  There is a familiarity factor where she is concerned.  Perhaps that group is more comfortable because she is more of a “known”, he does do much better once people get to know him.  Maybe those blue collar workers are more resistant to change, after all changes in the recent past haven’t benefitted them much.  Perhaps once they hear that the necessary change will involve worker retraining and a focus on job creation here it will gain a wider audience.  There is also the “elitist” factor.  Obama has a certain elegance about him which Hillary lacks.  That could make it easier to sell the elitism accusation.  Once people come to accept his humble beginnings and dedication to working class citizens throughout his career the elitist label will fade away.

Our country as a whole wants deeply to move beyond the divisions we have.  Obama is a figure that will lead us in that direction.  We should not be pulled back by destructive forces that obsess about racial divisions.  We should not listen to the voice that’s been given to it by Hillary’s campaign and the media.  If you still wonder whether the Clinton campaign is playing the race card you need look no farther than your own hand.  Put that card down.

OK, here’s my prediction.  Hillary will continue to campaign through the end (hopefully not going negative) allowing all votes to be cast with a sense of genuine participation.  Meanwhile the supers will pile on for Obama at a bit faster rate.  By the end of the month, when it comes time to sort out FL and MI he will have enough votes, delegates, states to split MI 50/50 – which I think all will agree is OK since he wasn’t on the ballot – and give her all of her votes/delegates in FL and still have no threat to his nomination.  This will give the folks in those two states a sense of having a voice and being counted while also addressing that particular argument of the Clinton campaign.  Those two states will be important in the general so must be addressed.  

This all hinges, however, on Hillary eventually coming around to face the inevitable. If she stays in a "post-reality" world and continues to go negative the supers might have to be more abrupt.  That wouldn't play out as well for the party so hopefully it can be avoided.  Let the healing begin!