I'm glad Josh put up the post from reader DT.  Because it brings to light an important discussion that needs to be had.  A comment on another post regarding this noted that there are hundreds of Obama supporters who have also said that they will vote for McCain or sit out the election should Obama lose the nomination.  

A few months ago, I said the same thing to my brother.  I thought about it for a few days after that, I realized how absurd that statement was.  

In November, whoever gets the nomination, I will happily and proudly vote for them. NO MATTER WHAT.  

Here's why: We all have to take a step back and remember to see the forest for the trees.

DT listed the reasons he is going to vote for McCain.  Not one of them is related is to the issues of the Democratic party.  

I am disappointed in the tactics of BOTH of the campaigns.  The list provided by DT of the tactics Obama has engaged in could easily be countered by a list of similar tactics the Clinton campaign has engaged in that Obama supporters are not happy with.  I'm not going to list them, but I will note that any list of that type can be argued by the "other side."  We can argue all day long about whether the statements on such a list are true or not.  The point is, it really doesn't matter.  The perception of the slights are enough to anger members supporting both sides.  I acknowledge that there is disappointment and resentment on both sides at this point.  Some of it is more legitimate than others (in my humble opinion), but the point is arguing over why we shouldn't be mad will get us nowhere.

Again, why we have to see the forest for the trees.These are the reasons I will be voting for whoever wins the Democrat, however it happens, regardless of the tactics engaged in on both sides:

1) Both candidates have a plan to improve the state of healthcare in this country.  Again, we can argue over which is better, but are they not BOTH better than McCain's?  McCain's answer is a tax-break.  And encouraging competition in insurance companies.  Cause that's worked so well so far.

2) The economy: I understand basic economics, and that eventually market forces will even out.  But in the meantime, thousands of baby boomers are entering retirement as their retirement funds are whittled away by the sinking stock market, the falling value of the dollar, etc  Families are being forced out of their homes, and the price of just about everything is ridiculously high.  John McCain, admittedly "doesn't know much about the economy."  He has proposed absolutely nothing to combat these serious problems.

3) War - wants to continue the war in Iraq with no notions of getting out anytime soon, to the detriment of our soldiers and our economy.  Refuses to even recognize the possibility that the surge isn't working, and is now sounding the drums of war with Iran.  This is perhaps, the scariest thought of all, because he has himself said he likely will be a one-term president, so with no concern for being re-elected, his policies on this will likely be radically frightening.

4) Education.  If you haven't, you should read the section on his website dedicated to this.  It's unbelievably scant.  No mention of improving teacher retention, education; no mention of broadening the focus of testing.  Nothing. His answer?  Basically school vouchers and allowing schools to "compete for the best teachers and resources."  I wonder which schools will get those....

5) The Supreme Court - This is huge.  4 of them are near-retirement, with one most certainly not making it another four years.  The equilibrium of the court hangs in the balance, and adding another "conservative" judge will have ramifications that last long past a McCain presidency. 

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that the reason any of us are supporting our choice of Democratic candidates has a lot to do with their positions on the issues.  If that's true, then I think we all will need to put our disappointments and anger beside for just a moment, and think of the bigger picture: the future we want for our children, our grandchildren.

Again, I don't want this to be about the democracy of caucuses, or the Michigan/Florida primaries.  I happen to think that there should be re-votes there, that it's just not right not to.  But some of my anger over that goes to all the candidates, for not speaking out against this MONTHS ago, for the Democratic leadership in those states for not recognizing the folly of their decision, for the DNC for being so pigheaded in the first place.  Ok, so I guess I just made it a little bit about that.  But seriously, I'm not arguing that everyone doesn't have the right and reason to be mad, disappointed, angry, resentful.  I just hope that our feelings on the serious issues we believe in can rise above all that...

I know Zogby has been notoriously unreliable for polls AND that in general, polls for the general this far in advance are pretty much meaningless, but I have to vent about this nonetheless.

Zogby is the only poll I can find that has included Nader in the race.  I was curious to see what effect he might have.  Upon his entering the race, many people noted how he's had increasingly smaller portions of the popular vote over the years, but still....

Zogby's poll shows McCain winning in matchups against both Clinton and Obama when you factor in Nader.  

McCain beats Clinton by 6 points.  Guess Nader's percentage?  6.  

McCain beats Obama by 5 points.  Nader?  Yep.  5 points.

Granted, there's 11% undecided, but still.  

And I know all those things about polls now meaning absolutely nothing, but this still BOTHERS me.  I had to vent a little.  Nader: Seriously dude, you're not helping.

It appears there are some left.  

CNN did a "report" on the protests in NY on the 5th anniversary of the war.  


You can watch it here, as well as read Josh Silver's opinion on the piece.


I happened to be flipping through the news channels and saw this when they ran it.  I was confused at first, at what seems to be the main "character" of the segment.  A woman, shouting "Shock and Awe, Shock and Awe!" "The Surge Is Working!"  It took me a minute to recognize that she was actually a pro-war protester.  Or advocate.  I'm not sure on the accurate word for that.


It struck me as so odd.  I know there are people in the country that still support the war, but I guess I was surprised to see people actually come out in public to do so.  I won't pretend to be unbiased about this.  


So I was trying to understand why people still support the war.  I don't know I'll find many here who are currently in support of it, but if there are any, or if you know someone who does, can you let me know the reasons?


All I can come up with is that some people may still support it for any of these reasons.  (Reasons I'm sure my bias will vividly color.) 

1.  Lack of understanding of what's actually happening, and the fact that even the highest of military officials have acknowledged that it is not a problem that can be solved militarily.

2.  A desire to "win", or not "lose".  I was not alive for the Vietnam era, but I know that a lot of people have mixed feelings about America "losing" that war.  Perceptions of that perhaps color their feelings about the Iraq war?  

3.  The belief that now that we are there and have made this mess, we have to help clean it up.  I kind of agree with this maybe a little bit, but to what cost?  And I recognize that it's not something that can be done with military force alone.  This is evident by all this talk of "the surge is working".  Militarily, maybe, in decreasing the still pretty high levels of violence.  That was supposed to create space for political solutions, which hasn't been done.  


I'd like to make an honest effort to understand their reasons, but from what I see in the media and government much of it is colored by a lack of recognition of the actual situation.  I mean, here's an example.  This has to start with remembering that the goal of the surge was to create "space", through increased military force" for the Iraqis to make some political progress.  That hasn't happened.  Yet in a debate, when Russert asked McCain about this, what was his answer?  "The surge IS working. The surge IS working!"  Angrily, I might add.  That's your solution? To deny reality?  I guess my point is that if your support of the war is colored by a misrepresentation of facts, I can't recognize that support as a rational choice. 


So back to this woman.  Shouting "Shock and Awe!  The surge is working!"  Maybe it's my rationalization to say she must be misinformed.  I don't know.  A simple google of "Shock and Awe" doesn't turn up much good.  For example, here's the description of how we intended, back at the beginning of all this, to employ that shock and awe.  

The US intends to shatter Iraq "physically, emotionally and psychologically" by raining down on its people as many as 800 cruise missiles in two days.

Jeez.  Well you can call me a weak, naive, pacifist, Democrat, but that doesn't sound like something I'd go outside and speak out in favor of.  This wikipedia article describes some of the discussion over to what extent America employed that "tactic."

It occurs to me that perhaps the whole problem now is that we were successful in that.  We "shattered Iraq physically, emotionally, and psychologically" and now we're trying to pick up the pieces.  Yeah, Saddam was a bad guy, but how can anyone really advocate shattering a country?  A culture?  Another group of human beings?  I'm not defending the extremists or terrorists here, but it's no secret we've also destroyed the lives of millions of civilian Iraqis.  


I don't know.  I just don't get it.  I can usually at least understand other people's points of view even if I vehemently disagree with them, but this I just don't get.  I'd love to hear your opinions....

April 23, 1991On Larry King Live, McCain says, "I'm not sure...we could tell a Shiite from a Sunni, even from a Kurd."   And that's not all he says.  Read the rest of it immediately.  It's no less than terrifying.

February 28, 2008At the Baker Institute in Houston, he says: "But Al-Qaeda is there, they are functioning, they are supported in many times, in many ways by the Iranians."
March 17, 2008On the Hugh Hewitt radio show: "As you know, there are al-Qaeda operatives that are taken back into Iran, given training as leaders, and they're moving back into Iraq.  I think Americans should be very angry when we know that Iran is exporting weapons into Iraq that kill Americans."
March 18, 2008Press Conference in Jordan: "Well, it's common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran.  That's well-known, and it's unfortunate."  Now, on Keith Olbermann last night he gave the impression that this quote was actually in response to a reporter questioning him on the first time he made the assertion.  If anyone can find the full video, please share.  
March 19, 2008In a WRITTEN statement published by McCain: "Al Qaeda and Shia extremists -- with support from external powers such as Iran -- are on the run but not defeated."  And now they are not even pretending it was a mistake - they are now saying there is "ample evidence"  that forces in Iran are doing so.  

It's become quite clear that he did not make a mistake, did not have a "senior moment," or a slip of the tongue.  This is now a repeated incident.  I see now that the media is tending toward one of two possible reasons: he has a poor understanding of the situation and the groups involved in the Middle East; or, he's deliberately making misleading statements.  But he's now claiming that there is "ample evidence."
Hmm. Ample Evidence.  Sounds so familiar.  September 7, 2002: "President Bush and Tony Blair said Saturday there is ample evidence that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction..."

Those who have pointed out his "gaffe" as they call it, have suggested it is either because he doesn't understand the situation and groups involved in the Middle East; or, he is deliberately making misleading statements.
If we learn only one thing from our current President, it is that you can lie and be incompetent AT THE SAME TIME.
I will note that there are problems with Iran.  It is a concern.  But I will not have one more President in office who lies to get us into a war they don't have the understanding to lead.  If something is to happen with Iran, I want a President who will come out and tell us the truth.  We will go into this with our eyes open this time.  But I will not put up with one more saber-rattling, dishonest, inept, imperialistic person in office.
McCain is looking an awfully lot like that guy right now.  Add all that onto this comment that he made back in that Larry King interview in 91, and the prospect of a McCain presidency starts to really scare the crap out of me.
"One more point - real quick. I want to get rid of Saddam Hussein. There's a few other dictators I'd like to get rid of, too. And I hate to use the phrase 'slippery slope,' but if we've got to get rid of this dictator, which ones do we take on next?"

"It is just as racist to vote for Obama because he's black as it is to vote against him for the same reason! We are learning that racism is not the exclusive domain of white voters."


This was a letter to the editor at Philly Daily News.  I know this is a view that has now been expressed by many, so I'd like to examine it for a moment.  


First I'm going to say that we can also extend such a statement to say that to vote for Hillary because she's a woman is as sexist as it is to vote against her for the same reason.


These statements are neither true nor false.  Historically, sexism and racism grew out of the belief that women and blacks were inferior to white men.  I'm not saying all white men believed this, but it was the general view.  Blacks were owned by whites, and through marriage women were subject to the authority of their husbands.


In the 219 years since George Washington took office, we have had 43 white men.  At least as far as presidents go, I think we can agree that's been the status quo.  


So, here's the thing.  We probably will never know how many voters are voting because they are driven by racism or sexism.  It all goes to intent, something notoriously hard to prove even in criminal cases.


But if you are voting for a woman because you believe it's the ultimate cracking of the glass ceiling, as a symbolic victory for women's rights and gender equality and proof of how far we've come,  I don't think that's sexist.  If you were voting for a woman because you thought men were generally inferior, that would be sexist.  


So by extension, if you are voting for a black man for the same reasons, because it's again, a symbolic victory for racial equality and again, proof of how far we've come, I also don't think that's racist.  If you are voting for a black man because you think whites are inferior to blacks, that would be racist.


So we can't make the blanket statement that voting for a black man or a woman just because they share the same attributes as said voter is "reverse racism or sexism".  It's the difference between voting to change the status quo and voting to maintain it.


I'm a 27 year old woman.  Feminism, to me, means that men and women should be judged equally.  I take offense when my friends confront me and tell me I should be voting for Hillary b/c she's a woman.  That's not what it means to me.  But I can understand how maybe some older woman might be inclined to do so.  I can't fault them that.  It's just not my personal beliefs.  I would hope we would all vote as if we were color- and gender-blind, choosing the candidate we felt was best qualified and whose ideals and positions matched our own.  I know that's not always the case.  


My point is, I don't think it's just as racist to vote for Obama because he's black as it is to vote against him for the same reason.  Same goes for sexism and Hillary.  Without knowing the intent and reason the individual voter has chosen that path, you simply can't jump to that conclusion, because for so many it will be a historic and symbolic moment when either of the now Democratic candidates get the nomination.  Saying you're going to vote for the white guy because he's the white guy carries with it a much larger possibility of actual racism, because there's no symbolic victory, it represents nothing new as far as equality and rights.  Another white male president just isn't historic.  (Unless you get into his age and ageism, which I don't find necessary here.)  It's because of this that it narrows the scope of the possible reasons, the intent by which you would be making that decision.  (If you actually stated you were voting for him BECAUSE he's white.)


I'm also not saying that if you vote for McCain, it's either racist or sexist.  If you think he's the better guy for the job (although I hope you don't!), by all means, vote for him.  


I hope I said that all right.  It's just once again a lot more shades of gray than simple black and white.  (a phrase which has now become a constant pun.)

I am an Obama supporter, but I have to speak out against this headline I now see.  I'm not surprised, but once again disappointed in our media.


HuffPo now has a piece up titled, "Hillary's First Lady Schedule Shows She Was Home when Bill had Initial Encounter with Monica Lewinsky."  It's also an Associated Press piece.  


This type of garbage belongs, well nowhere really, but one would expect to see it in the pages of such reputable publications such as Star and the National Enquirer.  


As this has absolutely zero impact on the election, the world and countries problems, or her effectiveness as a possible President, this is not something any respected outlet should report on.  Of course, not many media outlets are respected anymore, and this is a classic example of why.


All this does is serve to drudge up old junk from a time I'm sure the Clintons would rather forget.  And not just because of the impeachment, and the scandal, etc, etc, but because it hurts the same way it does in regular families, with regular people.  The spotlight only makes it worse. It was a betrayal, and I'm sure Chelsea need not be reminded of this unimaginable time for her.  


The schedules should be evaluated only from the perspective of evaluating the experience she gained from her time as first lady, as well as to back up the claims she has made about her activities at that time.  That's it.  As an Obama supporter, I'm saying right now I do not want the discussion to devolve into what room of the White House she was in, I want to focus on where we are in Iraq, how we can get out; how to fix the economy that's tanking; how to make our schools better and achieve health care for all.  I'll engage in arguments about electability and even "scandals" that may influence that electability.  I will not engage in this.   We should all, media included, respect each of the human beings who may one day be the leader of our nation enough not to meddle in their personal family affairs if they are in no way affecting their ability to lead.


Engaging in this ridiculous conjecture and nosiness is the exact opposite of what Lincoln meant when he summoned the "better angels of our nature."

I've never watched 30 Rock, but I hear it's pretty funny.  I've never been a huge fan of cable sitcoms, though.

The Daily Show, on the other hand, I watch regularly and usually laugh out loud quite often.  

I saw this on HuffPo - Tina Fey, in an interview with Reader's Digest:

RD: "What pleases you more, applause or laughter?"
Fey: "Laughter. You can prompt applause with a sign. My friend,SNL writer Seth Meyers, coined the term clapter, which is when you do a political joke and people go, "Woo-hoo." It means they sort of approve but didn't really like it that much. You hear a lot of that on [whispers] The Daily Show."


I also tried to watch SNL a few weeks ago after all the ruckus over the first skit they did coming back from strike about the media being in the tank for Obama.  It was actually kind of painful to watch, so much so that I ended up fast forwarding through parts.  (Gotta love DVR.)  
For the sake of a light discussion in the midst of all this seriousness, am I really the only one laughing?  Does no one else laugh out loud during the Daily Show?  I kind of figured that's why it's had such great success...

I missed most of Morning Joe this morning, so if you've already seen this forgive me, but Huckabee's comments on the whole Wright/Obama/Speech drama are definitely worth a watch.  Coming from a preacher, Republican, and former Pres. candidate, I was a little surprised.  I guess I shouldn't have been - I always liked Huckabee, even if we agreed on nothing.

And side note, a cool diary over at Kos about watching the speech.

As you might note, the headline on TPM right now is surely evidence that the surge is working.  

Today, yes today, Cheney: Dick Cheney offered a positive assessment of the war today and called last year's troop surge a "major success."

"On the security front, I think there's a general consensus that we've made major progress, that the surge has worked. That's been a major success."

When asked about how that jibes with recent polls that show about two-thirds of Americans say the fight in Iraq is not worth it, Cheney replied, "So?"

"The issue of economics is something that I've really never understood as well as I should. I understand the basics, the fundamentals, the vision, all that kind of stuff,'' he said. "But I would like to have someone I'm close to that really is a good strong economist. As long as Alan Greenspan is around I would certainly use him for advice and counsel."

Allow me to remind you that yes, McCain said that.  Now, of course, as all Presidents would hopefully do, they can surround themselves with others more knowledgeable on certain topics than themselves.  Of course, this will likely be the same campaign that will attack the Democrat for not having military experience, accusing them of a lack of foreign policy understanding, etc.  Sure, that's politics, you attack your opponent often for the very faults you yourself have.

It's becoming increasingly evident that the economy will be the most important topic heading into November.  Maybe Bush will save the day, but I'm not holding my breath for that.  

His big thing is cutting down on wasteful government spending through earmarks.  Now, I'm not of the opinion that there should be no earmarks, as I recognize that is often how senators get funds for issues that are important only in the state in which they serve.  McCain, from his website: "John McCain will veto every pork-laden spending bill and make their authors famous."  I happen to agree with Obama on this, who says he will require the names of the legislators requesting the earmarks to be published, along with written justification, 72 hours before they can be approved.  This prevents the last minute earmarks which are the biggest problem.

He proposes by the money saved here, he can cut taxes.  This of course, is always the rallying cry of the GOP, it's the most direct and emotional statement they can make to a country who is feeling the crunch.  Teeny problem: Experts say that's not going to cover the cost of the tax-cuts.  

In fact, they say that his budget doesn't add up at all, with some even going so far as to say, "This is one of the most fiscally irresponsible plans we've seen by a presidential candidate in a long time."  They of course noted that none of the candidate's proposals really add up, that most presidential candidates don't, but that McCain's are the worst.   

McCain's solutions for the economy, in traditional GOP form, lies in two words that hold great weight in our national psyche: "tax-cuts".  Here's another example where I agree with the old McCain and adamantly disagree with the new McCain: In 2003, McCain stated that "in a time where we are also facing growing deficits and must also pay for the cost of the war, what the conferees did in the interest of 'getting a deal' was the height of irresponsibility." As he did in 2001, McCain also decried the targeting of the 2003 tax cuts toward the wealthy, saying of "this so-called growth bill": "The only thing growing will be the tax breaks for the wealthiest citizens of this country."  Now of course, he supports those tax cuts.  

All this while continuing a war that has already cost us $500 billion, is costing at least $2 billion a week, and possibly up to $12 billion a month.  I might add that many have pointed to the Iraq war as one of the major factors in the state of the economy.  For example, here and here.  

Here's my point: I refuse to let the Republicans once again commandeer the label of fiscal responsibility.  Our current President has been anything but fiscally conservative or responsible. As McCain's economic policies and war policies are completely in line with Bush's, there's absolutely no reason to pretend like he can assume the title of being the fiscally responsible candidate.  

I'm still musing over this so-called "slip of the tongue" by McCain about al-Qaeda and Iran.  I realize now it's because I'm having a serious case of deja-vu.  

While I certainly think it is incredibly disturbing that the "national security" candidate doesn't seem to have an accurate grasp of the details of the conflict in the Middle East, the bigger picture might even be more disturbing.  

It is a pointed attempt at tying Iran directly into the War on Terror, making the emotional link between al-Qaeda and Iran, and overall general saber-rattling.  

He recently responded, when asked about U.S. strikes on Tehran, ""At the end of the day, we cannot afford having a nuclear armed Iran."

This is nothing new for McCain.  He's been saying this for quite awhile, as you can read about here, here, here, and here.  Not to mention his rousing rendition of "Bomb Bomb Iran."  

Oh, and here he is talking about how he prays every night for no war with Iran.  Call me crazy, but I would hope that a presidential contender has a little more in his bag of tricks than prayer.  I'm not knocking the power of prayer, but if that's his foreign policy plan, I'm to say the least, slightly concerned.  
And finally some of his latest and greatest: he fears Iran is conspiring to tilt the election against him.  I don't even know how to interpret that one.  Maybe he's just trying to conjure up fear, that if they polls don't show him way ahead in say, October, they're going to attack?  And that completely ignores the fact that just about every major pundit and most people seem to think that if there were another terror attack, that would actually tilt the election in his favor?  
Even if I agreed with McCain on every single other issue (which I adamantly do not), I don't think I'd want this guy near any phone ringing any time of day or night.  Especially since his buddy Lieberman won't be around to remind him which ones are the "evildoers".  

In all the ruckus today over "The Speech", I almost missed this.

The Washington Post reported on this this morning.  McCain announced that it's common knowledge that Iran is training al-Qaeda, which are of course, Sunni.  Our old buddy Lieberman kindly whispered to him that he had it completely wrong, upon which McCain immediately corrected himself.  

A mistake?  Slip of the tongue?  Perhaps.  But considering our current President was not aware of the differences between the Sunnis and the Shiite before we invaded Iraq, you'll have to forgive me if I'm a little touchy on this subject.

Oh, and then there's this:  In an interview with neocon radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt, yesterday, he said:" As you know, there are al Qaeda operatives that are taken back into Iran, given training as leaders, and they’re moving back into Iraq. I think Americans should be very angry when we know that Iran is exporting weapons into Iraq that kill Americans." Naturally, Hewitt didn't correct him, and his buddy Joe wasn't around to remind him.  
I'm sorry, but if your whole thing is national security, if you've admitted to the world that the economy is "not your strong suit", then you better d@#$ well get it straight when you are talking about ANYTHING having to do with this mess in Iraq.  I may have given him the one time, but two?  I don't think so.  
Let's not let this get lost in the midst of all the ongoings on the Democratic side...

I think this is probably a speech that has to sink in a bit.  I had to walk outside after I listened to think about what he said for a minute before I could listen to Wolf immediately try to splay it open.
That said, the first results:CNN - "We can move beyond racial wounds." (was originally the line about the constitution being stained.)
FOX - Obama Condemns Pastor, but won't "Disown" Him
MSNBC - Obama: Racial Anger is "Real"

From various Pennsylvania news outlets:Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: Obama confronts racial divisions in major campaign speech
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: Obama delivers speech on race
Philly.com (Inquirer and Daily News site): Obama on race: America can change
Scranton Times Tribune: Obama Confident that Ideas, not Race, Will Matter
Centre Daily Times (State College and area): Obama: We Can Let Race Divide Us or Say "Not This Time"
KDKA: Obama: Race Not an Issue We Can Afford to Ignore
Local Philly NBC10: Obama confronts U.S. Debate on Race

At this point, it seems like the local headlines in Pennsylvania would be more favorable to Obama.  Or rather, they are headlines I think the Obama campaign would prefer.  FOX and MSNBC's headlines are ones I'm sure the Obama campaign could do without, but we'll see where this is all at when primetime news starts.  
At the very least, it's interesting to watch how exactly the press shapes the outcome of this speech.  Kind of like an experiment in reality and perceptions.

Politico's Ben Smith is reporting that Senator Obama is to give a major speech on race tomorrow.  
Can't find any details yet on what time, but I'm sure there will more more info forthcoming.
If anybody knows any more details, let me know...