Hope for humor in this campaign?:

http://wonkette.com/400246/john-mccain-and-mitt-romney-suddenly-best-friends#more-400246

Democratic Party Will No Longer Accept Washington Lobbyist Donations

"Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean and the Obama for
America Campaign today announced that the DNC will no longer accept
Washington lobbyist donations, making the same commitment as Barack
Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president."

http://democrats.org/a/2008/06/democratic_part_10.php

What a stark challenge to the entire Republican Party! This will give Democrats everywhere a powerful rhetorical talking point: "Our party isn't beholden to the money of special interest lobbyists, how about yours?"

Thank you nominee Obama!

Democratic Party Will No Longer Accept Washington Lobbyist Donationshttp://democrats.org/a/2008/06/democratic_part_10.php

This will give Democrats a powerful rhetorical talking point: "our PARTY isn't beholden to special interest lobbyists, how about yours?"

Thank you Obama.

Early electoral analysis by Chuck Todd:

And this being the second official day of the
general election, now's as good a time as any to see where we stand in
the McCain vs. Obama race. 

Base Obama: CA, CT, DE, DC, HI, IL, MD, MA, NY, RI, VT (153 electoral votes)
Lean Obama: ME, NJ, MN, OR, WA (47 votes)
Toss-up: CO, FL, IA, MI, NV, NM, NH, OH, PA, VA, WI (138 votes)
Lean McCain: AR, GA, IN, LA, MS, MO, MT, NE, NC, ND (84 votes)
Base McCain: AL, AK, AZ, ID, KS, KY, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, WV, WY (116 votes)

While both McCain and Obama get to 200 when
adding up their base and lean states, it’s clear to see that Obama has
an early edge with the map. Not only does he have a stronger base than
McCain does (153 votes vs. 116), but he also has more potential pick-up
opportunities.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/05/1115257.aspx

If this report via Bloomberg via CNN is true, then it shows that Hillary's hard rhetoric of late about staying in the race and pushing for FL and MI delegates must be the public aspect of a private effort to leverage herself into the VP slot:

The two Democratic campaigns are talking about ways for
Clinton, from New York, to drop her bid for president that may
include joining the Illinois senator's ticket, CNN reported.
Talks are in a ``very preliminary'' stage and are described as
``difficult,'' the network said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=apUvejwrj_bw&refer=us

Following Jim Webb's recent insightful and highly relevant comments about Appalachia and racial sentiments he really should be considered the top-tier VP candidate, as long as he passes a vetting process for skeletons.

Webb argues very well that

1. There is bias against black and brown minorities in Appalachia, creating a wall for Obama.

However, 2. It is not merely racism, but a feeling that the affirmative action programs of the 60s went beyond historical justice for African Americans to aiding other minorities and in effect at the expense of the socio-economically poor in general (e.g. whites also in poverty).

Therefore, 3. If Obama were to speak to this cultural group with this understanding in mind he would be able to reach them.

I have heard this idea floating around before (on Slate?) that perhaps one of the most dramatic, powerful things Obama could do to win the 'hearts and minds' of the vast mainstream of America would be to propose transforming affirmative action programs from being race-based to being purely poverty-based.

Of course this is a pivot that could meet resistance from the base, but who can disagree that it is a policy change whose time must come at some point anyhow?

OBAMA / WEBB '08

How great a pick would Jim Webb be for Obama's VP? Let us count the ways:

1. Brings a military background with gravitas on Iraq.

2. A Scot-Irish of Appalachian roots.
 
3. A swing-state office holder.

4. A former Republican (praised by Reagan when he became Secretary of the Navy) who has stated that it is now "time for Reagan Democrats to come home (to the Democratic Party)".

5. Brings the fresh, Washington-outsider perspective that Obama has staked his campaign on.

6. Ballsy, more-aggressive counterpart to Obama's lofty approach (what he'll need from VP on the campaign trail).

The only missing piece one could argue would be executive experience (does Secretary of the Navy count?).

CBS News/New York Times poll released May 4 points to a "rebound" for Obama:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/04/opinion/polls/main4069259.shtml

I'm not posting this (simply) to knock Hillary for her recent faux-outrage. Rather, this whole affair recounted at HP, and generally this recurrent challenge for the modern Democratic Party, is very interesting in itself. This is when Bill was really at his best in understanding the political landscape:

[Following the shock of the 1994 Republican take-over of Congress, enabled in great part by southern blue-collar Democrats...]

"Screw 'em," she told her husband. "You don't owe them a thing, Bill. They're doing nothing for you; you don't have to do anything for them."

The statement [...] was prompted by another speaker raising the difficulties of reaching "Reagan Democrats." It stands in stark contrast to the attitude the New York Democrat has recently taken on the campaign trail [...].

[...] Harry Boyte, the director of the University of Minnesota's Center for Democracy and Citizenship who was at the retreat, told The Huffington Post: "[Hillary Clinton] sees herself as the champion of the oppressed, but there is always a kind of good guy versus bad guy mentality. The comment before that was that 'the Reagan Democrats are our enemies and they weren't on our side,' and she was agreeing with that comment. She said we should write them off: screw them."

[...]

Perhaps even more telling than Hillary Clinton's proclamation, however, were the words from her husband that followed. As reported by Barber, Clinton "stepped in, calm and judicious, not irritated, as if rehearsing an old but honorable debate he had been having with his wife for decades."

Bill Clinton: "I know how you feel. I understand Hillary's sense of outrage. It makes me mad too. Sure, we lost our base in the South; our boys voted for Gingrich. But let me tell you something. I know these boys. I grew up with them. Hardworking, poor, white boys, who feel left out, feel that our reforms always come at their expense. Think about it, every progressive advance our country has made since the Civil War has been on their backs. They're the ones asked to pay the price of progress. Now, we are the party of progress, but let me tell you, until we find a way to include these boys in our programs, until we stop making them pay the whole price of liberty for others, we are never going to unite our party, never really going to have change that sticks."

If the tone and tenor of the above sounds familiar, it's because the message, Boyte says, is remarkably similar to what Obama was trying to convey in his now controversial remarks about small town America [...].

Full story:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/16/hillary-clinton-on-workin_n_97017.html

I'm not posting this (simply) to knock Hillary for her recent faux-outrage. Rather, this whole affair recounted at HP, and generally this recurrent challenge for the modern Democratic Party, is very interesting in itself:

<blockquote>
[Following the shock of the 1994 Republican take-over of Congress, enabled in great part by southern blue-collar Democrats...]

"Screw 'em," she told her husband. "You don't owe them a thing, Bill. They're doing nothing for you; you don't have to do anything for them."

The statement [...] was prompted by another speaker raising the difficulties of reaching "Reagan Democrats." It stands in stark contrast to the attitude the New York Democrat has recently taken on the campaign trail [...].

[...] Harry Boyte, the director of the University of Minnesota's Center for Democracy and Citizenship who was at the retreat, told The Huffington Post: "[Hillary Clinton] sees herself as the champion of the oppressed, but there is always a kind of good guy versus bad guy mentality. The comment before that was that 'the Reagan Democrats are our enemies and they weren't on our side,' and she was agreeing with that comment. She said we should write them off: screw them."

[...]

Perhaps even more telling than Hillary Clinton's proclamation, however, were the words from her husband that followed. As reported by Barber, Clinton "stepped in, calm and judicious, not irritated, as if rehearsing an old but honorable debate he had been having with his wife for decades."

Bill Clinton: "I know how you feel. I understand Hillary's sense of outrage. It makes me mad too. Sure, we lost our base in the South; our boys voted for Gingrich. But let me tell you something. I know these boys. I grew up with them. Hardworking, poor, white boys, who feel left out, feel that our reforms always come at their expense. Think about it, every progressive advance our country has made since the Civil War has been on their backs. They're the ones asked to pay the price of progress. Now, we are the party of progress, but let me tell you, until we find a way to include these boys in our programs, until we stop making them pay the whole price of liberty for others, we are never going to unite our party, never really going to have change that sticks."

If the tone and tenor of the above sounds familiar, it's because the message, Boyte says, is remarkably similar to what Obama was trying to convey in his now controversial remarks about small town America [...].
</blockquote>

Full story:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/16/hillary-clinton-on-workin_n_97017.html

I'm not posting this (simply) to knock Hillary for her recent faux-outrage. Rather, this whole affair recounted at HP, and generally this recurrent challenge for the modern Democratic Party, is very interesting in itself:

<blockquote>
[Following the shock of the 1994 Republican take-over of Congress, enabled in great part by southern blue-collar Democrats...]

"Screw 'em," she told her husband. "You don't owe them a thing, Bill. They're doing nothing for you; you don't have to do anything for them."

The statement [...] was prompted by another speaker raising the difficulties of reaching "Reagan Democrats." It stands in stark contrast to the attitude the New York Democrat has recently taken on the campaign trail [...].

[...] Harry Boyte, the director of the University of Minnesota's Center for Democracy and Citizenship who was at the retreat, told The Huffington Post: "[Hillary Clinton] sees herself as the champion of the oppressed, but there is always a kind of good guy versus bad guy mentality. The comment before that was that 'the Reagan Democrats are our enemies and they weren't on our side,' and she was agreeing with that comment. She said we should write them off: screw them."

[...]

Perhaps even more telling than Hillary Clinton's proclamation, however, were the words from her husband that followed. As reported by Barber, Clinton "stepped in, calm and judicious, not irritated, as if rehearsing an old but honorable debate he had been having with his wife for decades."

Bill Clinton: "I know how you feel. I understand Hillary's sense of outrage. It makes me mad too. Sure, we lost our base in the South; our boys voted for Gingrich. But let me tell you something. I know these boys. I grew up with them. Hardworking, poor, white boys, who feel left out, feel that our reforms always come at their expense. Think about it, every progressive advance our country has made since the Civil War has been on their backs. They're the ones asked to pay the price of progress. Now, we are the party of progress, but let me tell you, until we find a way to include these boys in our programs, until we stop making them pay the whole price of liberty for others, we are never going to unite our party, never really going to have change that sticks."

If the tone and tenor of the above sounds familiar, it's because the message, Boyte says, is remarkably similar to what Obama was trying to convey in his now controversial remarks about small town America [...].
</blockquote>

Full story:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/16/hillary-clinton-on-workin_n_97017.html

As an Obama supporter, the most disturbing news to me so far is the PA advertising backlash reported in one of the recent polls.

I am frankly concerned too about his ability to recover among die-hard Hillary supporters, and also in general his ability to win blue collar whites.

However, no matter how much these concerns get to me, I can't understand the bitter resentfulness of people like "Marginal Player" against his success.

In my most sober assessment, he is an excellent candidate who nevertheless may be vulnerable to some of the notorious cultural traps in American politics. Obama is successful because of his positive personal attributes, not because of illusions (though there may be) among his supporters.

On the other hand, the Clintons have created a tragedy of their own. I was an enthusiastic Clinton supporter since casting my very first vote for Bill in 1992, but Hillary has now made herself unacceptable to me in the way she has handled this campaign.

The list of low-ball, appalling, Rove-playbook tactics she's used recently has grown too long. I wish she hadn't gone this route, but she has. And she seems determined now to damage Obama enough to position herself for 2012.

What to do?

Potentially major intra-party problems now loom for either Obama or Hillary as nominee.

I think the best one can hope for at this point is that Obama will have a chance to turn a fresh page after this primary mess gets settled.

Casey could make a good VP for Obama: a fairly conservative Democrat, pro gun rights, pro life, Catholic, popular with blue-collar white Dems, from PA, etc. I like Jim Webb better myself, but whoever it is they will probably need similar quality to both of these guys.

This video shows what his hopefully just the beginning of an effort to
show that the Jeremiah Wright controversy is based only in the
amplification of some very narrow slices of the man and his church:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anpI-BKp5cg

It's interesting that neither the Status Quo Left nor Right, neither Bush, McCain, nor the Clintons, seem able to categorize Obama adequately for their tactical purposes. Is it because he represents a genuinely new in the political arena?

It is notable that while many of Obama's policy positions are conventionally Democratic, what seems most attractive about him as a candidate (for those who are so attracted) is that he exudes a civic libertarian ethos of individual freedom in and personal responsibility for society. And this is what seems to cut against the paternalistic sense of governing authority given by Bush and Hillary - each of whom personifies the old adage about the 'Daddy' and 'Mommy' parties we must always choose between.

Would I prefer governmental authority run by Hillary over Bush? Of course. But a vote for Obama is a desire to try a civic libertarian course.