<p>MSNBC correspondent David Shuster asked yesterday, &quot;Doesn't it seem as if Chelsea is sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?&quot;</p>
<p>This is offensive in so many ways, it's unbelievable. It continues the constant stream of vicious, demeaning, degrading, and crude anti-Hillary and anti-woman rhetoric coming out of the media.</p>
<p>Apparently &quot;Mr&quot; Shuster <strong><a href="http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/08/msnbcs_shuster_to_offer_onair_1.html">is going to apologize</a></strong> on the air at 6:00 PM EST.</p>
<p>I have to wonder: will &quot;Mr&quot; Shuster really apologize?</p>
<p>Here's what he had to say <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/08/msnbc-reporter-begrudging_n_85706.html">earlier today</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>To the extent that people feel that I was being pejorative about the actions of Chelsea Clinton making these phone calls, to the extent that people feel that I was being pejorative, I apologize for that.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Look at what he says there. He apologizes if people <strong>feel</strong> that he was being perjorative. He doesn't apologize for actually <strong>being</strong> perjorative. In other words, he's not sorry for what he's done, he's sorry that people feel bad about what he's done. He's not sorry for what he's said, he's sorry for getting in trouble about it.</p>
<p>Well, &quot;Mr&quot; Shuster, to the extent that you feel that you are being attacked about your idiotic, misogynistic comment, then I'm sorry for that.</p>
<p>Wait a minute, no, I'm not.</p>

TPM Café allows a very eclectic mix of writers and bloggers. We have the “front pagers,” those established writers who bring solid writing to the table, have the experience and expertise to put weight behind their arguments, and generate good discussions. Then we have the “reader bloggers,” those who have their own experience and expertise, but don’t have the name recognition or clout as the “front pagers.” These bloggers bring in a wide range of topics; with some good writing and some bad. You’re general proletariat of the Café. Then you have the “back-benchers,” those readers who generally comment often, and are on the site for the social aspect.

All three are really required to make TPM Café a great site. But, we’ve just gone through a major transformation. There are some great features planned for the site, including reader blogs on the front page, rotating recommended blogs, and integrated user profiles across the TPM Empire.

There are also some features that are either lacking, or broken. Tracking new comments are lost, there are some glitches with the Reply link, the Recommend This link doesn’t work, and the time-frame to update posts and comments are a little long. Most of these can be fixed, though. And when they are, I think people will be greatly pleased with the new site, and will forget about plans to leave.

My feelings of Barack Obama mirror my feelings of TPM Café. His message of hope and change definitely resonates with a significant portion of the American populace. He seems to transcend Democrats and Independents, red states and blue states. African-Americans are obviously pulled towards him, as he provides the best chance so far to break the political racial ceiling. And I offer a heartfelt congratulation to his recent Super Tuesday successes.

Here’s where I throw in the “but.”

But, I can’t offer my 100% support to him yet. There are a few things I would like to see him tweak first. He has a great interface, but his applications don’t necessarily match my presidential wants and needs. Here are a couple of upgrades that I would suggest:

Gay Marriage – Why should we support a “separate but equal” policy in the Democratic party? Why was Dennis Kucinich the only Democratic candidate (that I could see) who supported same-sex marriage? I understand there is a religious component to the argument, but we’re supposed to be moving away from religion in politics, especially after the Bush years. If you are unwilling to give same-sex couples the same equal treatment (including terminology) then I would suggest repealing tax benefits for married couples. Something, anything to give same-sex couples the same benefits, yet remove the “separate but equal” stigma.

The Environment – I understand that Barack supports a cap-and-trade system. So do I… when it has teeth. Europe’s system is in a shambles, and is nearly useless. Yes, make pollution more expensive, make gasoline more expensive (to meet with similar costs in Europe, for example). The problem is, we need more than that. These measures are all reactionary, and incur negative costs to companies. So, of course big business is going to be against them. Instead, reach into your message of hope and change, and offer something positive regarding the environment and energy. Sometimes he mentions this, but I don't think he voices it loudly enough. Push for more alternative fuel development, make it into a positive business model that will help grow the economy, not restrict business.

Education – Repeal “No Child Left Behind.” Don’t try to fix it, don’t try to amend it; just trash it. It doesn’t work, and it’s fundamentally flawed. We need a fundamental shift in the type of teaching we have in school. The current system is based on scanned tests and rankings. Is it any wonder that the quality of our schools continue to deteriorate? Teachers are teaching only to the tests, and not how the children learn best. There should be a higher focus on emergence and interactive learning – basically, the NAEYC model. State that you will focus on early childhood development, and actually provide funding.

There are some other, minor technical glitches that I would like to see changed in your campaign style and in your supporters’ dialog, but those are minor to me compared to the few I listed above. Change, or expand, your policy position on those, and I’ll be happy to sign off my user acceptance, and implement my vote in your favor.  I also think you’ll find an expanded user-base to include the front pagers, reader bloggers, and back-benchers of the American citizenry.

Just for a little break in the Super Tuesday madness...

Anyone have thoughts on potential running mates should Hillary get the nomination come the convention? How about Barack?

This is getting ridiculous. I know the media has a vested interest in the presidential elections. But it's getting blatantly obvious who they're pushing.

CNN, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, and FOX are all declaring Barack Obama the winner in the Georgia primaries. Let me rephrase that... they are predicting that Barack Obama is the winner based on exit polls.

But you wouldn't know that these are only predictions from their websites or reporting.

"OBAMA WINS GEORGIA" is plastered all over the web. Where are the numbers? How many precincts have reported? How many votes have been tallied? Is this official?

There are absolutely no numbers posted on any news websites as of 16:15 PM PST (19:15 PM EST). Maybe he did win. Maybe he didn't. But, no one would know, since there aren't any numbers up!

Knock it off, Media. Didn't you learn your lesson from Ohio in 2004, Florida in 2000? Let the officials do the counting and reporting.

Last night my daughter and I were walking towards the bus stop near her preschool, when my daughter bolted and ran up to this stranger standing at the bus shelter. Ever the over-protective parent, I ran after her; and in my most patient, sensitive, supportive male-role-model voice, kindly requested that she calm her body for the betterment of the whole.

"I wanted to tell that lady what I liked her makeup and cool boots," she said, standing next to her new fashion friend.

I chuckled.

"I like your makeup," my daughter said to the person standing next to her.

I chuckled again.

My daughter is five years old, and a pink freak. Ninety-nine percent of her clothes are pink. Her favorite color is pink. Her dolls are pink. Her comforter is pink. Pink pink pink.

Her new fashion friend? A totally decked out goth. Long, straight black hair. White face paint makeup. Over-painted black lipstick and black Cleopatra eyes. Black clothes, plenty of silver crosses and studs, and knee-high multi-buckle platform leather boots.

And he wasn't too happy about standing next to an uber-pink preschooler.

Which was why I was amused. I find it interesting that people who choose to put on an appearance for the express purpose of being different or being noticed can become so incensed when people actually notice them. If one put their appearance out there in such an extreme  manner, then don't be surprised if people notice and comment. Regardless of how extensive our attachments are to our own subgroup, family, or clique, we're not cut off from others in our own silos.

Whenever we choose to be different, to buck the trend, we put ourselves out there to be judged. Is it fair? Is it just a part of human nature? I don't know - maybe I'll write about that later. But, it does happen. And what I find most interesting, through my own personal experience, is that the louder the difference, the more incensed one gets at questions or criticism. I mean, this cultivated look or position must be appreciated by all! To question means you do not understand, you are ignorant, you are naive, a tool, a pawn, brainwashed, meat-puppet, whatever.

This extends well into the political sphere through war protesters, war promoters, Republican talking heads, Liberal talking heads, pundits, leaders, etc.    

Clinton and Obama supporters, too. More so than most, I'm afraid. Both sides throw out ad hominem attacks, dig up totally irrelevant dirt, use ALL CAPS TO MAKE THEIR POINT!!!111!, and generally find any way to make two similarly competent people seem the total extreme from one another.

And whoa be unto those who question The Supporter.

Don't be surprised if you get attention by choosing to be the political goth. Put yourself out there long enough, loud enough, and extreme enough, and you're bound to get noticed. Some of the comments will be positive, some will be negative, some will be highly ironic and miss your point entirely like with my daughter.

Just don't get upset at them for noticing your purposeful political extremism.

This commentary by Roland Martin is pretty much what I'm talking about with regards to my last post.

The editorial addresses the hypothetical of either Clinton or Obama being the running mate of the respective candidate if nominated. It is full of just plain conjectures to make Ms Clinton look like an over-reaching egocentric power-grabber.

1. Clinton will not be overshadowed by an underling.

First off, really? How do you know that Roland, have you asked Ms Clinton? Second, do you really know that Ms Clinton views Mr Obama as an "underling"? Mr Obama doesn't work for Ms Clinton, he's not necessarily junior to her. So why use the classist, and (with Mr Martin's past tendency to make racial mountains out of molehills) racially charged terminology of "underling"?

Sure, their attacks on one another are what you expect in a campaign, but it has gotten very personal. Obama says she is a return to the "politics of old," and that doesn't bring a smile to her face. The race-baiting Southern Strategy used by former President Bill Clinton and the surrogates of Sen. Clinton have absolutely angered Obama's camp. There is too much blood on the floor, and you just don't forget that.

Notice that Roland doesn't discount the Obama attacks on Ms Clinton ("that doesn't bring a smile to her face")? Yet, he lets loose with the racial charges, as well as voicing strong sentiment from the Obama camp ("have absolutely angered Obama's camp"). Why unbalance the responses like that?

4. Being No. 2 is unthinkable for Clinton.

Again, how do you know that Roland? This paints Ms Clinton as a power-hungry player. Why not also say "Being No. 2 is unthinkable for Obama." I mean, afterall, I'm sure that's just as true with Obama as it is with Clinton.

Now, as a way out, I would expect to see these two on a ticket only if Clinton is the nominee and they run the numbers and determine that the best chance of winning would be with him. She wants to be president that bad and would discount the bad blood. Then, they would hope he accept it.

See, Roland talks about how impossible it would be for Obama to accept Ms Clinton as a running mate for VP, because of all these negative things about Ms Clinton. Mr Obama is so pure and ideological that he would apparently eschew his chance to be on the ticket if Ms Clinton was the nominee. Yet, Ms Clinton, ever the cold-hearted power-broker, would certainly put "bad blood" behind her, because "she wants to be president that bad..."

It's ridiculous, and obvious, the double-standard associated with Ms Clinton. Even though I don't support her presidency, I certainly don't support this vilification.

Reading some of the comments on Andrew's TPM Cafe upgrade thread reminded me of my thoughts on Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama, and the general discourse within the Democratic Party.

We have apparently lost the Tracker feature, as well as some comment functionality with the new modules. And, as predictable, there were a few "No tracker? I'm outta here!" types of complaints.

It's that either/or type of decision that irks me. Because of one (or a few) features are no longer available, readers will move away from a site never to return. A site with great commentary, a site with good people, a site with plenty of potential. Nah, screw all that, we lost the Tracker. People would rather complain about the site and drop reading it.

The same thing is going on between Hillary and Barrack. Obama is surging in the polls. He's putting out some great speeches, and he's getting some amazing endorsements. He's definitely the driver for change (although, I still would rather have voted for Edwards).

But does that mean the vilification of Hillary is justified? Of course this is a political race, and only the best should rise to the top. Of course other national leaders will be just as hard-hitting in their criticism of the next American administration. But, are Democrats really about the either/or? If Barrack is good, then Hillary must be bad? Or, are we better than that?

Do Hillary rejectors really believe she is an evil woman? That she has not done anything positive? That she is a racist, sexist, opportunistic power-monger? That she's in the same league as George Bush?

Do we really need such negative hyperbole?

This is what I see in the Liberal blogosphere.

As much as I don't like some of Hillary's politics (including the vote to authorize military action in Iraq), I simply cannot see myself attacking her for the purpose of painting her a villain or Republican. She's still a Democrat, and the Democrats are supposedly the part of inclusion. Let's address Hillary and her campaign as informed conversationalists; not as Democratic Rovian wannabe hatchet-men.

And with the site... Yeah, I'm bummed we lost the Tracker functionality. There's plenty of other things to like about TPM Cafe, though. Read the excellent articles, reader posts, etc. Do what you can with the social aspects of the site. Voice your concerns, though. That's what webmasters are for. Just don't give up on it wholesale. It doesn't have to be an either/or decision.