This is a gem of a challenge to a Faux News hack producer of the O'Reilly Factor who is desperate to push the smear campaign against Obama as hard as he can.

Why can't Democrats challenge Faux News like this minister? Brilliant stuff. That'll learn ya!

Watch here.

USA Today reports:

The comedian and actor — whose full name is Sinbad Adkins — owes $2.1 million to the state of California, according to the California Franchise Tax Board. The IRS filed a $416,870 tax lien against him in 2006. Other tax liens against him date to 1994, when he starred in The Sinbad Show on the Fox Network. His recent gigs include performing at last year's Wal-Mart shareholders meeting and Saturday at the Hilton Casino in Atlantic City. Sinbad declined to comment.

Come on Sinbad, comment.

I am an Obama supporter 100%, but after reading about Obama's lama problem, I can see how this juicy tidbit will fit into the Fox and Rove "Obama is a Muslim thug enemy of freedom, patriotism and Israel" theme and drive low-information voters out in droves to stop him.

The tidbit is a video of an Al Jazeera broadcast entitled: Gaza's Obama Campaign.

Rove will love this. For my part, I think it speaks to the positive hope that he inspires in people. Whether you like Obama or not, whether you think he's full of it or not, there's no denying the hope he inspires.

Exhibit B: ObamaWorks

Despite the increasingly horrific and nauseating criticism that Obama is getting from Rove et al. on Fox, and despite Obama's lama problem, I am going to try to have the same faith in Americans that Obama seems to have, and that Clinton does not have. I am going to hope they send him to the White House despite the Fox narrative.

But for the record, and for the third or fourth time, if Obama does not win the nomination, I will be voting for Clinton, and I am going to have faith that Americans of whatever party see that Clinton is easily a better candidate than McCain.

Democrats '08

If Clinton wants to discuss the Wright issue as it may reflect on Obama's character and judgment, as part of the battle for Democratic votes - fair enough. But when Clinton argues to superdelegates that Obama is unelectable because of what the Republicans will do to the Wright story, then I have a problem.

There is a fine line between being strategic and being a weak, fearful and defensive follower.

In the following scenarios, which are the Democrats - strategic or weak?

Scenario A:  The Democrats feel compelled to make a pass on the candidate that inspires them and that they feel connects most to Americans, because they fear that the Republicans might smear him and stir American xenophobic sentiment.

They effectively let the Republicans decide their nominee.

Scenario B: Having chosen Obama as the nominee, the Democrats feel compelled to pick a VP with national security credentials, as opposed to the one who would work best with Obama, who would be the best choice for president in a tragedy, and who would best argue in knowledge and experience the merits of the Democratic platform.

The Democrats would effectively let the Republicans choose their VP nominee.

More importantly:

The Democrats would let the Republicans dictate the issues of a general election campaign. 

The Republicans want to compete on the basis of national security credentials, so the Democrats  accept the inevitability of the Republicans being able to set the agenda, and try desperately to compose a defensive team (Webb, e.g.).

What's wrong with this picture? Where is the leadership, vision and courage to set a Democratic agenda, to control the general election narrative, and to put forth candidates that speak on that agenda eloquently, and have the experience to buttress that agenda?

John Edwards had the leadership, vision and courage in this respect when it came to health care. He determined what the primary battle would be about during his campaign and Clinton and Obama were playing catch-up and defense.

It is well past time that the Democrats lead and convince Americans why the issues of their choosing should decide the election, and why the candidates of their choosing representing those issues are better equipped to see the changes they espouse implemented.

It is also time that Democrats follow Obama in appealing to the better angels of our nature. The Republican strategy for winning is to appeal to xenophobia and fear and Clinton has accepted this same strategy to woo superdelegates. It is the politics of cynicism about the hearts and minds of Americans.

The politics of hope take courage. Leadership takes courage.

The Democrats seem doomed to consistently follow. The Democrats seem doomed to operate out of fear - fear of the ignorance and xenophobia of some Americans, fear of Fox news, fear of the Republican smear campaign.

If we select Clinton as our nominee, let it be because we believe she is best qualified to lead the party and the nation, and to demonstrate that leadership to America. Please let it not be because we fear what Republicans will do otherwise. If we choose the latter rationale, then we will continue to follow the Republican lead.

I know this is probably an absolute impossibility given the Obama campaign's opposition to a revote in Michigan, but what if Obama came out and said he would support seating the delegations from Michigan and Florida as is, with the "uncommitted" deciding at the convention or going to Obama?

What would that do for Obama's standing among Hillary supporters, undecideds and independents?

Obama could come out and speak about how the rules had been broken, and about how it is important to adhere to them in general to prevent future abuses. He could highlight the fact that breaking the rules and seating the delegates disadvantages two groups: his campaign and his voters in Michigan and Florida. He could then say that he is willing to accept their being seated provided his voters accept as well, for the sake of Democratic party unity and a resolution to a seemingly unsolvable problem. But he would emphasize that his accepting a bending of the rules, and his supporters in Michigan and Florida agreeing to such an extraordinary step, would be the condition upon which they are seated given the fact that rules should be honored in general.

Obama would still lead nicely in the delegate count, but the popular vote would be in jeopardy. But considering that he has a steep hill to climb now in the post-Wright controversy election, he may need a new injection of faith in his candidacy on the part of voters.

What would this do?

1) Present Obama as the sole candidate primarily and fundamentally committed to a Democrat winning in November. While Clinton argues for McCain being a better Commander in Chief than Obama, Obama is arguing for Democratic unity and strength to ensure a Republican does not win the election. I think superdelegates would appreciate that, to say the least.

2) Counteract McCain's argument that Obama is a self-serving opportunist. Obama will be taking a risk, and putting his faith in the voters, in demonstrating his concern for a Democratic victory, not his own.

3) Placate Clinton supporters who would not vote for Obama in the general if he wins the nomination without seating Florida and Michigan.

4) Placate anyone not already in his camp who is concerned about this campaign weakening the Democratic party.

5) Impress Independents who would interpret such a move as courageous and self-sacrificing.

6) Change the tone of the campaign from in-fighting, to reconciliation.

7) Change the headlines in the press to: Obama makes sacrifices for the sake of his party.

I know many of you will strongly disagree with such a notion, but I support this idea. Obama has always had faith in the American people. He has said that if he loses this election it will be because he has failed to demonstrate to the American people the strength and merits of his candidacy. I will also have faith in the American people now, and will agree to this sacrifice, and hope that the Democrats who have not yet voted, reward it with a vote for Obama in the upcoming primaries.

I am pleased to see Josh is turning his focus towards John McCain and his many weaknesses. I would love to see the vitriol, the competitiveness, the thoughtful criticisms, and even the anger that is so rampant on the Reader Blogs directed towards the Republican nominee for President. We are so busy attacking one another's candidate that we are ingoring McCains rapidly growing approval rating. Worse: we are single-handedly growing that approval rating.

Please, please, please people. We had our wrestling matches. Let's not take our eye off the prize. Everyone please ask yourselves as objectively as possible: Would McCain really be a better choice than the Democratic candidate you oppose? Forget personality. Think Iraq, economy, primary and secondary education, civil rights, supreme court, criminal justice system, gun laws, US reputation abroad, health care, college affordability, community service, trade, the minimum wage, Iran, Afghanistan, race relations, bitter partisanship in Washington, a gloating Fox news, a racism or sexism-fuelled defeat of a Democrat, the victory of fear over hope, the indictment of Hillary or Obama on the basis of Bill or Wright, the hypocrisy of giving McCain a pass where we would not give Hillary or Barry one, the sense of one America versus a blue and red/black and white one, the tax code,  tax breaks, foreign aid, the list goes on...

You don't have the like the man or woman in office people. You really don't. But don't you want to like the direction America is taking?

Perhaps because I am living overseas at the moment, it is the path America is taking that fills me with such urgency and anxiety. I love my country and would want to be a citizen of no other. I want American to return to being a beacon on the hill.

If there are any Democrats on this site - as opposed to "Hillary supporters" and "Obama supporters" - then join me in focusing attention on why McCain is absolutely not an option for any Democratic voter.

Put aside your own ego. Think of America. Think of a more perfect union.

Ms Jane

P.S. I am an Obama supporter who dislikes Hillary considerably.  If Hilary wins the nomination, I will vote for her. And so will Obama.

If you like this post, please recommend it.

I have been wondering when the greater United Church of Christ was going to weigh in on this. Obama has much to lose, but the denomination does not want to see its own reputation or membership damaged in the process.

They have written a feature article on their website in which they describe Trinity UCC as a "great gift to wider church family" and heap massive praise on the church. They praise Wright as well. Remember this is a predominantly white denomination. I would be interested to see some UCC representatives address the MSM and defend their support.

An excerpt:
<blockquote>
In the wake of misleading attacks on its mission and ministry, Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ is being lauded by United Church of Christ leaders across the nation for the integrity of its worship, the breadth of its community involvement and the depth of its commitment to social justice.

"Trinity United Church of Christ is a great gift to our wider church family and to its own community in Chicago," says UCC General Minister and President John H. Thomas. "At a time when it is being subjected to caricature and attack in the media, it is critical that all of us express our gratitude and support to this remarkable congregation, to Jeremiah A. Wright for his leadership over 36 years, and to Pastor Otis Moss III, as he assumes leadership at Trinity."

Thomas says he has been saddened by news reports that "present such a caricature of a congregation that been such a great blessing."

</blockquote>

Interesting.

(I hope the formatting works on this post this time.)

I have heard a great deal of complaining on the part of Democrats who do not support Obama, about the fact that blacks are voting overwhelmingly for Obama on the basis of race. With Obama getting as much as 90% of the vote in some primaries, it is hard to argue against the claim that his race is playing a role. I am sure it is.

But it is easy to argue against his race being the only factor. As many have noted, Al Sharpton, for example, did not perform as well among blacks. Obama is so much more than his race, which is precisely why non-blacks from Iowa to Wyoming have enthusiastically endorsed him. So blacks have not just blindly followed the brother. In fact, it has been repeatedly documented that they took a good deal of time to assess him before offering their support. It even seems that Obama supporters in general have taken longer to assess and support their candidate than Clinton supporters have taken to support theirs. Much of her support after all, preceded this campaign. So the black vote and the vote for Obama have not been largely reflexive votes, and yet blacks have been criticized for being unthinking and tribal in their support and voting behavior.

It has also been argued extensively that blacks did not support Obama in significant numbers until after he won Iowa and South Carolina and
could make a case for his electability. Then the critics say, blacks went emotional and tribal and voted on the basis of race.

What the critics failed to have seen in their criticism and to respect, is that blacks were concerned first and foremost with electability. They wanted a winner. They wanted to ensure that the Democrat they chose would take back the White House. They wanted their vote to ensure a Democratic victory. That is the essence of party loyalty.

Blacks essentially said: I will not vote my race. I will not vote for the community organizer from the South Side of Chicago. I will not vote for the civil rights lawyer. I will not vote for the great orator who echoes King. I will not vote for that fine looking brotha with the strong black wife. In short, I will not vote for Barack Obama unless I am sure he can give me a Democratic victory. I will not waste my vote on some emotional, tribal sentiment.

What does this tell us?

No one has discussed this telling article from the Chicago Tribune which reports:

In a national poll taken by Pew Research in late February, white Democrats said they were more likely to defect to presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain of Arizona if Obama is the Democratic nominee than if Clinton is.

In the poll, 10 percent of white Democrats said they would cross party lines and support McCain if Clinton is the nominee. But twice as many -- 20 percent -- said they would back McCain if Obama is nominated. White Democrats without a college degree were even more likely to defect if Obama is nominated: 24 percent said so.

African-American Democrats said they were not likely to defect regardless of the nominee. Under either scenario, only 1 percent of black Democrats said they would support McCain.

Democrats who do not support Obama and who treat the black "block" vote with disdain have the shortest of memories. Bill Clinton has enjoyed the black "block"
vote for his entire national career. After Monica Lewinsky, it was the black "block" support that was strongest and most steadfast. The black "block" vote has been the surest foundation support of the Democratic party for decades.

And as the above poll indicates, it is the black "block" vote that is most loyal to the Democratic party today.

To the Democrats who do not support Obama and criticize black voters today:

Thanks a lot.

I have never really understood the call of some Obama supporters that he start slinging mud or take off the gloves. I always admired his relative focus on the issues and his attempts to draw contrasts based more or less in fact.

But now I see what Clinton's endless criticism of Barry has done...

These past two weeks, if you went to the homepage of any news organization you found the leading political stories being:

Cilnton blasts Obama for...
Clinton charges Obama is...
Clinton accuses Obama of...
Clinton lambasts Obama...
Clinton says to Obama "Shame on you!"

Forget the hypocrisy, falsity or deceit in any of the criticisms. Forget that every criticism has been truer of Clinton than Obama (Rovian tactics, Republican talking points, NAFTA-gate, distorted policy mailings, etc.) and that she has successfully managed to pin her sins on his lapel. (pun intended)

What kind of picture does this create? Who would want to vote for the guy getting beat up every day? There's no sympathy for a man getting trashed. There's contempt. Sexism is a two-sided coin.

All Obama has done is ignored the charges when no one else did, laughed them off while no one else did, or worse - defended himself. You don't win by defending yourself. You win by turning the tables. Changing the narrative. Making the headlines. Dictating what the story will be tomorrow. Exposing to the public Clinton's lies, flaws and weaknesses.

All Obama discusses is her Iraq vote. Newsflash Barry, we knew that already!

I cannot think of any solid blows he has made to the credibility of her candidacy beyond the Iraq vote. Not one.

Is that all you got Barry? Is that the only reason not to vote for her? Give me a break.

I am an Obama supporter and voter. I really like the guy. I respect him. I think he will be a great president; and despite my positive opinion of Hillary at the beginning of this campaign, and my commitment to vote Democratic in November regardless of the nominee, I cannot seem to control the growing hate inside of me for this woman.

But Barry is making me angry now. I don't expect him to trade in lies, smears, distortions and histrionics like Hillary. But I do expect him to fight- not fight back - fight first. Fight hard. Fight fair. Fight honestly. Fight eloquently.

As Clinton criticizes, Barry has a speech from 2002. She says that's all he's got. That ain't so. But that speech was damn good and it's time Barry went back to it for some much needed inspiration in his challenge to Clinton:

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our
children, let us send a clear message to the President today.

You want
a fight, President Bush?

Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al
Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down
of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland
security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want
a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work,
and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that
former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately
eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like
Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their
possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding
the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight,
President Bush?

Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East,
the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and
suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and
mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without
education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of
terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to wean
ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't
simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil. Those are the battles
that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join.
The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed.
Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We
may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of
our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not -- we will not
-- travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who
would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the
full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful
sacrifice in vain.

You want a fight Hillary?

Then give her one Barry!

Thanks to the addition of Readers' Blogs on TPM, I now have an excuse to read TPM outside the hours of 9 am to 5 pm EST as well as during business hours when Josh et al. are posting.

This means, I now have absolutely no time to study for my med school assignments and exams, save during the hours when I should be sleeping.

Damn TPM and all its works!

Check out Martin's blog post on Anderson Cooper 360. It's his very own "Shame on you!" to people who don't vote, the governors of Michigan and Florida, and Hillary Clinton for demanding the delegates of those states be seated. He still gives props to Clinton for her successes and defends her so-called dirty tactics, but calls her out over Michigan and Florida.

Definitely worth a read.

Last week I wrote a post on the merits of an Obama/Bloomberg ticket.

Today we find the two men have had a conversation following the publication of his op-ed piece. 

Hmmm...

If Obama is soliciting an endorsement, I would argue he is doing so for some of the same benefits he would receive from Bloomberg as a running mate.

But I still think he gets greater benefit from Bloomberg as a running mate than a supporter.

Obama is not going to take the Independents away from McCain on the issues of national security, foreign policy expertise and the Iraq war. 

If Bloomberg - the man who inherited New York after 9/11 - does endorse Obama, I will be eager to learn why. His answer may point to the strategy for winning Independents in November.

In an op-ed in the NYT, Bloomberg announces he will not be running for President, but may be supporting a candidate:

In the weeks and months ahead, I will continue to work to steer the national conversation away from partisanship and toward unity; away from ideology and toward common sense; away from sound bites and toward substance. And while I have always said I am not running for president, the race is too important to sit on the sidelines, and so I have changed my mind in one area. If a candidate takes an independent, nonpartisan approach — and embraces practical solutions that challenge party orthodoxy — I’ll join others in helping that candidate win the White House.

The changes needed in this country are straightforward enough, but there are always partisan reasons to take an easy way out. There are always special interests that will fight against any challenge to the status quo. And there are always those who will worry more about their next election than the health of our country.

These forces that prevent meaningful progress are powerful, and they exist in both parties. I believe that the candidate who recognizes that the party is over — and begins enlisting all of us to clean up the mess — will be the winner this November, and will lead our country to a great and boundless future.

This could sound like McCain or Obama, but sounds more like the latter to me.

An Obama/Bloomberg pairing could do a number of things:

1) Remind us of Gore/Lieberman - look how well that turned out.
2) Defuse the "Obama is a Muslim" argument a bit
3) Strengthen Jewish confidence in Obama
4) Attract more independents away from McCain
5) Give Obama some insider knowledge of post-9/11 security needs in NYC
5) Change the conversation of a general election away from national security to the economy.

This last possibility I find the most interesting. For the record, I am very concerned about the war in the Iraq, and am deeply ambivalent about what we should do there. I don't feel comfortable with McCain or Obama's plans. I don't see how the average American can possibly know what is best, and so I don't like the idea of the election being decided on this issue. I know many people think this election should be a referendum on the war; and early on it was thought the Democrats would win handily for that reason.

But then the economy took a downturn and became the biggest issue in this election to voters, and no one knew what that would mean for the Democrats.

But now it seems that despite the economy being the #1 voter issue, if Obama wins the Democratic nomination, the war will take front and center in the debate, precisely because it is the issue upon which Obama and McCain differ so greatly. Moreover, it is closely related to McCain's greatest strengths (national security, military experience and sacrifice, decades in congress, two sons in uniform) and Obama's greatest weaknesses (none of these).

Obama's lone opposition to the war as evidence of "good judgment" is to some degree neutralized by McCain's lone support of a troop surge, which is being sold as "good judgment" given subsequent reductions in violence.

So how does Obama win? Change the conversation. The only criticism of McCain that has worked well for Obama, is on economic ignorance, to which McCain is kicking himself for admitting. 

So how does Obama win? The economy, stupid.

Obama can wipe the floor with McCain on domestic issues, and has the eloquence to show people why a Democratic approach to those issues is needed now. With Bloomberg he can can argue for a financially responsible way to implement them, and can argue for a return to the relative fiscal responsibility of the Clinton years after eight years of Republican economic mismanagement.

To the extent that the war is discussed, he can make it more about its being economically unsustainable and do so persuasively.

Obama picking a Southern running mate to help him take the South may not be as effective.  (He is still black and he still has that name.)

Obama picking a running mate with military credentials won't sufficiently soften the stark contrast between the two candidates on national security. (McCain was a POW for goodness sake. No contest.)

Obama picking a woman other than Clinton would just seriously piss off her supporters.

Obama picking Clinton would unite the Democratic party, but wouldn't attract more independent or republican votes.

Obama picking Bloomberg on the other hand, might attract fiscally responsible republicans, independents, originally wary Jewish voters (think Florida), and anyone who cares more about the economy than Iraq - which seems to be the majority of Americans right now.

For my part, I think we fu**ed up royally in Iraq and need to do the right thing in Iraq and Afghanistan; but since I don't know what that is, and don't believe the majority of Americans can possibly know either, I don't want this election to be decided on the issue.  That is, I don't want a vote for McCain or Obama to represent a vote for staying in or leaving Iraq. I want that decision to be decided by the next President and Congress with the understanding  and deep appreciation that Americans want out as soon as it is feasible and responsible.

For this to happen, we need to change the conversation. Who else to better do so than Bloomberg?

Regardless of who wins the Democratic nomination, and especially if the nominees consent to public financing, I propose some benevolent, patriotic, and progressive millionaires establish a new 527 to counteract the inevitable slime machines that will emerge.

These slime machines will target both McCain and the Democratic nominee.

When these machines attack, we will see the ugliest of America, American politics, and quite possibly the American people should they be swayed these attacks.

An election that could have marched America ten steps forward, may show America to be the most backwards Western industrialized nation on the planet, if this election becomes overwhelmed by the slimiest of politics, that questions the patriotism of career public servants like John McCain, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton.

With candidates as inherently decent and as intelligent as these three, we could see an election and a debate superior to all in the recent past. But the slime machines have already begun to soil and spoil this election.

Who will stand up - not for McCain, Obama or Clinton, but for America?

Who will invest in inspiring the best in America? In tuning our attention to the issues?

Who will remind America that all 3 of these candidates are patriots?

Will you, MoveOn.org, help America move beyond the politics of fear, racism, misogyny, bigotry towards Muslims and Muslim names, and disdain for constructive critics of our nation?

Probably not.

Who will?

Can someone please stand up?

If we are true supporters of our candidates on the issues, then we should be willing and eager to see our candidates compete on the issues. We should not be satisfied to see our candidates win through the sullying of the opposition's name, reputation, public service, and commitment to this country.

For the love of country, someone (preferably with money and organization) please stand up and start blanketing this nation with television ads and mailings to combat the slime.

We need a true 527. One that advocates - not for a candidate - but for the most important issue of all in politics - the betterment of America.

Someone -
Anyone -
Please help us.

I like that the Obama campaign is quickly addressing the various charges against him - the biggest being that he is all talk, no substance; but I am not sure this ad works:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7k-SetojeUE

It does tell people he has a Blueprint for Change and where to find it, which is the main point, but it could have been better. The "boxes and boxes" of specifics are just copies of the same document, for one thing. Also, if he doesn't speak about those specifics fluently, voters may suspect they are not the product of his own thinking.

The quality of the video is also not too crisp and the tone is just a bit negative.

I am thinking this ad must be intended for internet distribution to remind supporters and users of his site to direct people to the website. I would want a crisper, more positive version for TV.