I've been pondering this whole McCain stunt. Wondering "what was he thinking"?

He needs to change the narrative of his campaign manager's association with Fannie/Freddie. This could be a story with "legs". And not a good story for McCain because it shows the sheer hypocrisy of his campaign and validates all that Obama has been saying about McCain's lobbyist ties.

So he pulls a rabbit out of a hat: I'm suspending my campaign to save America!!!

He cancels everything...well, not quite.

Letterman busts him with Couric and is pissed.

So, why did he bail on Letterman's interview to go see Katie? By now we've all seen, or at least heard of, Palin's disaster of an interview with Katie Couric. He needed to do damage control. He just never suspected he would get caught on national tv telling a blatant lie. This is bad.

So does he instantly return to DC to cover himself????.....no.

He gives a speech at Clinton's little brou haha the next morning while still in NYC. He spends nearly the entire day in NY. (but remember he's not  supposed to be campaigning).  So he's kinda hush hush.

When he gets to DC, 22 hours after saying the crisis was too urgent to wait, it looks like the critical players may be on the verge of an actual deal. What to do now? Go to the debate with my tail between my legs? If I don't go to the debate Obama gets a 90 minute free commercial with about
100 million viewers!!

This is where he opens his new chemistry set (read: how to get myself out of this mess).
He can't wait to get his hands on it and doesn't read the instructions. With absolutely no knowledge of chemistry   (the economy), he starts adding ingredients to see what will happen.

Suddenly the near-agreement is dead. Graham even proclaims it so.

Only now do  the chemical reactions start to show themselves to the unsuspecting new chemist. There is a collective gasp by anyone associated with the economy and Wall Street. "We're doomed" There is substantial hand wringing, and so much anxiety they're now out of Xanax at the pharmacy.

Uh oh. I didn't expect this, says the chemist. Now what do I add to reverse this reaction? Graham reappears and says we're not really so far from a deal afterall. Hopefully this keeps the markets aloft on Friday. Because if they tank now, it's over.

Now what to do about the debate? The chemist said he wouldn't play until he fixed the mess in DC. Now that he's totally botched the fix for an indeterminant amount of time, how does he get on that stage? Enter another inexperienced chemist. Bush comes out and says congress will overcome their differences and tells Wall Street the bail out will be substantial.

By late this evening McCain will be assured the progress is substantive enough as to allow him to leave to attend the debate.

Thanks for all your input Senator!

Okay, it's 1:45 in the morning. 

It is officially Mothers Day. I'm going to take a little liberty.

I've been walking a little lighter since last Tuesday. Each day seems more promising. Today was a banner day. The lead in Super-delegates!!  Every metric is now Obama's (ours)!

Every day since Wednesday I've been debating, when to buy that bottle of champagne? But I've been suffering this terrible feeling of trepidation. 

We are talking about the Clintons after all. I recently read somewhere that there are Obama supporters who are afraid to celebrate. The point being that we need the Clinton's permission. I think they meant me.

Which bring me to my title.

As mayor of the Munchkin City
In the County of the Land of Oz
We welcome you, most regally
But we've got to verify it legally
To see, to see
If she, if she
Is undeniably and reliably dead.

I can't quite bring myself to buy that bottle of champagne until she has formally conceded.    Cheers!

Much has been written and discussed about Hillary's "hardworking Americans, white Americans" comment.

Politics has long been divided by subsections of the population. That's why Mark Penn has a job. It's an unfortunate reality of pollsters. I'm sure there's a rationale for this. Although I can't claim to understand it. But it seems Americans are obsessed with labels. They give us identities of culture, a sense of belonging. But they also make it too easy to pit one group against another. What is ultimately wrong is the simplistic way this approach describes Americans.

I accept that people use these so called demographics as a monitor of public opinion and perception. I have not known a time when the media has not used these "classes" in political reporting. I would not have had a problem with Clinton using them in some form, but she took it one step too far.

The transcript of her statement to USA Today can be open to various interpretations. Listening to the audio narrows those interpretations considerably. Tone and inflection can make inferences not ascertainable in the written word. This is her mistake: equating hard working Americans as white Americans. This is insulting on so many levels it made my stomach turn when I heard her utter these remarks.

Currently there is more spin than a carousel on the subject. She was misquoted (hello, there's audio?), she was only quoting someone else (thereby removing any responsibility since they weren't her words), she was just being honest (everyone knows you can't win without these voters),
some surrogates say she didn't mean it that way (only to then go on to explain why it really is that way), lastly, she regrets it. This one is not very popular, although I did actually find a source for it:

http://sableverity.wordpress.com/...
Within this article is yet another source for her regret.

But her regret is for all the wrong reasons.

We are all far more complicated than these labels allow. Mr. Begala quoted two such groups on CNN: African Americans and Eggheads. Why are they mutually exclusive? Are minorities not "hard working Americans"? If you're educated and white and buy your coffee at Starbucks are you automatically elite? And by elite we mean snobby, which is not the true definition of the word but that's not the point.

My 13 year old daughter asked me a question yesterday. "Do you think I'm preppy, or a Tom Boy? Or am I a girly girl?" I didn't blink an eye, "You're all those things, and more" I said.

We had a nice talk about it.  It got me thinking.

Labels. They define us, but divide us.  We ascribe ourselves to them, but ultimately they limit us.

What is lost is that all Americans have more in common than not.

This is what the politics of unity is supposed to be about.

Seeing that part of ourselves that we have in common when we see each other.

Every now and then I find myself discouraged with the state of the nominating process. The side issue distractions, the polls, the surrogates, the media coverage, etc..

I have to remind myself of the big picture. In reality the nomination has been settled for some time.

Super delegates are just trying to figure out how to address this fact without alienating voters, supporters and contributors. So many news sources have been portraying  this race as still a close contest, many are unwilling to admit even the possibility of defeat. It's understandable.

It can be easy to succumb to the petty and just plain wacky political coverage.  Just when I'm ready to throw up my hands in indignation I come across something honest. This has happened to me twice recently. Today it came in the form of this article:

http://www.slate.com/id/2190556/pagenum/all/#page_start

An honest assessment of the state of the race was just what I needed after a long and tiring week.

Sorry for the multiple post. For some reason this keeps showing up in the Cafe but not in Election Central. IMHO this is important.

Hillary would have to change  the Democratic Party rules (several of them) to win the nomination.  The media is contributing to this "delusion" remarked a MSM newscaster:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwsZ4xwjQLc

Hillary would have to change the nature of the primaries, along with the Democratic party rules (several of them) to win the nomination.  The media is contributing to this "delusion" remarked a MSM newscaster:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwsZ4xwjQLc

Hillary would have to change the nature of the primaries, along with the Democratic party rules (several of them) to win the nomination.  The media is contributing to this "delusion" remarked a MSM newscaster:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwsZ4xwjQLc

She actually just admitted she lied.  Of course she didn't use the word lie.

Oops, sorry, she just rationalized it.

Hillary must really be desperate. She actually listed her web site in opening remarks? Uggggh

Pay no attention to the woman who says the small States don't matter.

We all know it the small towns that do.

I'm hoping supporters of all sides don't ignore this based on preconceived notions, so I'm not going to express my personal preference.

If you want to see the real Obama, take the time to watch this:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=cFmV6j6ULEc

When I first heard the snippet, I was surprised by the phrases. But then I listened to the whole recording from San Francisco. His choice of wording was way off.  I could see people being offended. They could easily have been misinterpreted. When I saw the response from Obama it took another context.

In my humble opinion he was trying to say that people do not trust Washington to change their economic situation. So, instead of voting on economic promises and issues, they vote (cling) to the issues they think they can trust Washington to do something about: gun control, trade, immigration, and issues based on their religious beliefs.

Now everyone can see it differently. That's what great about America. I'll probably be referred to as a "blind" Obama supporter. But if Hillary Clinton can "mis-speak" and her supporters can overlook it, then why can't Obama have put something wrong and her supporters can't do the same? Senator Obama could have pounced on any number of gaffes by the Clinton campaign. He chose not to exploit a fellow Democrats shortfalls for his gain.

Furthermore, why is it wrong to say people are bitter about being made promises during a campaign that get forgotten as soon as that politician is voted into office? If you can't trust Washington to address economics, why is it wrong to say you turn to other issues to base your vote on?

He wasn't saying people pick up a gun, or suddenly get religion, or are against the American dream for immigrants because they're bitter. He's saying people turn to the issues they feel Washington can be trusted with. He is saying that because we already are religious, believe in the second amendment, believe in the American dream and the right of all it's citizens to prosper; that we turn to those issues because we are comfortable with them, because they speak to the values so many of us hold dear.

Senator Obama should run an ad with the video of his first response. If you look at the crowd behind him they are middle class americans. In the beginning of the speech their faces show a bit of skepticism, but a willingness to listen and "size this guy up", so to speak. By the end, they were on their feet. They related to his honest assessment of where American stands today and how it is affecting real citizens. He was mad too. Mad enough to fight for his positions without pandering to the lowest common denominator. He showed us  how he respects people, understands them and how he'll represent us. We work hard and yes, we're bitter about the status quo in Washington. We're angry that both parties make promises that they don't follow up on.

We're ready for a new kind of politics.

When I first heard the snippet, I was surprised by the phrases. But then I listened to the whole recording from San Francisco. His choice of wording was way off.  I could see people being offended. They could easily have been misinterpreted. When I saw the response from Obama it took another context.

In my humble opinion he was trying to say that people do not trust Washington to change their economic situation. So, instead of voting on economic promises and issues, they vote (cling) to the issues they think they can trust Washington to do something about: gun control, trade, immigration, and issues based on their religious beliefs.

Now everyone can see it differently. That's what great about America. I'll probably be referred to as a "blind" Obama supporter. But if Hillary Clinton can "mis-speak" and her supporters can overlook it, then why can't Obama have put something wrong and her supporters can't do the same? Senator Obama could have pounced on any number of gaffes by the Clinton campaign. He chose not to exploit a fellow Democrats shortfalls for his gain.

Furthermore, why is it wrong to say people are bitter about being made promises during a campaign that get forgotten as soon as that politician is voted into office? If you can't trust Washington to address economics, why is it wrong to say you turn to other issues to base your vote on?

He wasn't saying people pick up a gun, or suddenly get religion, or are against the American dream for immigrants because they're bitter. He's saying people turn to the issues they feel Washington can be trusted with. He is saying that because we already are religious, believe in the second amendment, believe in the American dream and the right of all it's citizens to prosper; that we turn to those issues because we are comfortable with them, because they speak to the values so many of us hold dear.

Senator Obama should run an ad with the video of his first response. If you look at the crowd behind him they are middle class americans. In the beginning of the speech their faces show a bit of skepticism, but a willingness to listen and "size this guy up", so to speak. By the end, they were on their feet. They related to his honest assessment of where American stands today and how it is affecting real citizens. He was mad too. Mad enough to fight for his positions without pandering to the lowest common denominator. He showed us  how he respects people, understands them and how he'll represent us. We work hard and yes, we're bitter about the status quo in Washington. We're angry that both parties make promises that they don't follow up on.

We're ready for a new kind of politics.

When I first heard the snippet, I was surprised by the phrases. But then I listened to the whole recording from San Francisco. His choice of wording was way off.  I could see people being offended. They could easily have been misinterpreted. When I saw the response from Obama it took another context.

In my humble opinion he was trying to say that people do not trust Washington to change their economic situation. So, instead of voting on economic promises and issues, they vote (cling) to the issues they think they can trust Washington to do something about: gun control, trade, immigration, and issues based on their religious beliefs.

Now everyone can see it differently. That's what great about America. I'll probably be referred to as a "blind" Obama supporter. But if Hillary Clinton can "mis-speak" and her supporters can overlook it, then why can't Obama have put something wrong and her supporters can't do the same? Senator Obama could have pounced on any number of gaffes by the Clinton campaign. He chose not to exploit a fellow Democrats shortfalls for his gain.

Furthermore, why is it wrong to say people are bitter about being made promises during a campaign that get forgotten as soon as that politician is voted into office? If you can't trust Washington to address economics, why is it wrong to say you turn to other issues to base your vote on?

He wasn't saying people pick up a gun, or suddenly get religion, or are against the American dream for immigrants because they're bitter. He's saying people turn to the issues they feel Washington can be trusted with. He is saying that because we already are religious, believe in the second amendment, believe in the American dream and the right of all it's citizens to prosper; that we turn to those issues because we are comfortable with them, because they speak to the values so many of us hold dear.

Senator Obama should run an ad with the video of his first response. If you look at the crowd behind him they are middle class americans. In the beginning of the speech their faces show a bit of skepticism, but a willingness to listen and "size this guy up", so to speak. By the end, they were on their feet. They related to his honest assessment of where American stands today and how it is affecting real citizens. He was mad too. Mad enough to fight for his positions without pandering to the lowest common denominator. He showed us  how he respects people, understands them and how he'll represent us. We work hard and yes, we're bitter about the status quo in Washington. We're angry that both parties make promises that they don't follow up on.

We're ready for a new kind of politics.

I've never blogged before. But I wanted to share an opinion.

When I first heard the snippet, I was stunned. But when I listened to the whole recording from San Francisco. I went from stunned to concerned.
His choice of wording was way off (read: cling). I could see people being offended. When I saw the response from Obama it took another context.

In my humble opinion he was trying to say that people do not trust Washington to change their economic situation. So, instead of voting on economic promises and issues, they vote (cling) to the issues they think they can trust Washington to do something about: gun control, trade, immigration, and issues based on their religious beliefs.

Now everyone can see it differently. That's what great about America. I'll probably be referred to as a "blind" Obama supporter. But if Hillary Clinton can "mis-speak" and her supporters can overlook it, then why can't Obama have put something wrong and her supporters can't do the same?

Why is it wrong to say people are bitter about being made promises during a campaign that get forgotten as soon as that politician is voted into office? If you can't trust Washington to address economics, why is it wrong to say you turn to other issues to base your vote on?

He wasn't saying people pick up a gun, or get religion, or are against the American dream for immigrants because they're bitter. He's saying people turn to the issues they feel Washington can do something about. He is saying that because we *already are* religious, *believe* in the second amendment, *believe* in the American dream and the right of all it's citizens to prosper; that we turn to those issues because we are comfortable with them, because they speak to the values so many of us hold dear.