I'm no Unity Baby but I got tired about reading blog after blog on Hillary's gaffe, so, why not focus on things that are in the Democrats favor this year? So, without further ado: 10 things Democrats should be for this year:
 1. That George Bush is the anti-Midas. Everything he touches turns to crap. His businesses, Iraq, the Justice Department, the economy...you get the drift, I'm sure you could even add to the list.
   2. That the Republicans had the majority in Congress for six years as they helped George Bush run the country into the ground.
  3. That the majority of Republicans have lost their bearings along with John McCain. What principles do they stand for? As far as I can tell they're the Anti-Party. They're against abortion, against gay marriage, against immigration, against taxes, against Mother's Day, and even against a functioning government (this bunch hold the record for the most filibusters, ever). Oh, I just thought of something they are for...torture. But the Torture Party doesn't sound like a winner either.
  4. That Arnold Schwarzenegger cannot become a Vice Presidential nominee unless the Constitution was rewritten.
  5. That Mitt  the Phoney Romney seems to be McCain's best choice for a running mate.
  6. That the electorate is engaged in this election season because they're tired of George Bush.
  7. That the drawn out primary has helped the Democrats set up operations in many of the states and have enthusiastic support from volunteers across the country.
  8. That senior citizens have a problem with John McCain's age. It also helps that he's not sure about whether he supports privatizing Social Security or not. Flip-flop much?
  9. Speaking of flip-flops, McCain has flip-flopped on immigration so many times, Republicans don't trust him and Latino Americans don't trust him either. Notice his support in his own home state is not as strong as it should be.
 10. And most of all, they should be grateful for the rise of the blogosphere and that people have access to all kinds of opinions and don't need to rely on the traditional media.

    Last night, Travis Childers, the Democrat running to represent the first congressional district of Mississippi, defeated the Republican, Greg Davis, by eight points. As you may know, this was a very red district that George Bush had won in 2004 handily. The Republicans tried everything to bring Travis Childers down, they tried to tie him Senator Obama and Jeremiah Wright, that didn't work, they tried to tie him to Nancy Pelosi, that didn't work, how about sending Dick Cheney, Haley Barbour, and Mike Huckabee to rile up support? That didn't work.
   The Republicans are going to need their "change you deserve" pills because this is a very bad year for them. There have been three special elections in Republican districts this year and the Democrats have won all three of them. In two of these districts, the Republicans tried to tie the Democratic candidates with Senator Obama and instead of turning off conservative white voters, they managed to increase black turnout and they lost the district. It's increasingly becoming obvious that Democrats in the fall will need high turnout from African American voters as well as young voters in order to defeat John McCain. The Democrats have tried the 50+1 route and have lost twice, it's time they tried a new strategy if they want to win. So, far it looks like Howard Dean is doing a bang up job and Democrats have reason to be confident this year.

    My mother occasionally babysits for her neighbor who has two young daughters, ages 7 and 9. The neighbor is one of those New Agey types, you know, the yoga, the incense, the wheatgrass, and tattoos type. She's also incredibly politically active  and is into the whole "grassroots movement." She's a huge Obama supporter and she's been keeping her two daughters engaged in the whole process in terms they can understand.
    So, today the neighbor was out registering voters for the Obama campaign and my mom was watching her two daughters. The girls are playing some sort of board game, they decide to modify some of the rules and they commence playing. About twenty minutes later my mom hears the younger girl indignantly accuse the older girl of cheating.
"No, I wasn't!" the older one yells back. My mother goes to check what's going on and hears the younger one shout,
"You're, you're being Hillary Clinton!"
    My mom watches incredulously for a couple of minutes as the older girl tries to defend herself from the accusation. Then she finally steps in and settles the matter. She called me to share the story that little children are using Hillary Clinton as the prime example of a cheater. I thought I'd share.

    Alright, I'm going to go out on a limb here and disagree with the general consensus that Hillary's remarks today were racist. I don't believe that Hillary is a racist, I think she chose her words poorly. First of all, she basically repeated what all the asinine pundits have been saying since Ohio. "Why can't Obama close the deal with blue-collar voters?" They've all been asking if the white, working class voter would vote for Obama. They're cynically wondering whether those who haven't graduated from college are progressive enough to vote for the black man. Hillary and the pundits are guilty of cynicism, no doubt about it, but racism? Come on. Second, her mistake was juxtaposing the words "white" and "hard-working" in the same sentence, thereby implying that anyone who is not white does not work hard. Ok, that's a little hard to defend but I don't believe she meant that non-whites are lazy, good for nothings. Seriously, she would have been run out of the entire western hemisphere if she really believed that. Here's what I think she was trying to do, she was asked what her path to the nomination was, she was trying to prove to super delegates that she can get the support of the Reagan Democrats that have been lost in the Republican wilderness for the past twenty years. What other argument does she have for staying in? Granted, I believe that as soon as she leaves the stage, Obama will then have a chance to build a relationship with these voters and he'll be able to count on them in November. This is a year that is tailor-made for Democrats, the Republican party and John McCain are incredibly weak and misguided. Hillary is staying in because she knows it's a cake walk once the Democratic primaries are over. What she said is incredibly cynical, disappointing and not entirely accurate but it wasn't racist. So, flame away.

This is an article from TIME
written on Jan.19, 1976. It makes a fascinating read because thirty-two
years later, we're using some of the same language with the same
players.

A prime goal of U.S. oil diplomacy over the past
two years has been to break up the Organization of Petroleum Exporting
Countries. The U.S. tried to weld consuming countries into a bloc that
would reduce oil imports and accelerate development of alternative
sources of energy, with the aim of shrinking OPEC revenues enough to
prod some of its 13 member nations to cut prices, thus dissolving the
cartel. The strategy seemed justified: OPEC's quintupling of prices
since late 1973 has aggravated both inflation and recession in
industrialized countries. But the attempt simply did not work, and now
the policy is being quietly shelved. The U.S. Government has decided
that it cannot beat the cartel and that, as a result, it may just as
well learn to live with it—perhaps even gain politically from its
existence. Assistant Treasury Secretary Gerald Parsky sums up the new
mood: "Breaking up OPEC would be detrimental to the direction in
which we want to go."

The softening U.S. attitude is prompted by several factors. Early
predictions that a massive transfer of wealth to the oil-producing
states would cripple the industrial world's financial and production
systems have proved unfounded. Most of the newly rich producers have
become big spenders, and are creating lush export markets for U.S.,
European and Japanese goods.

Much of the rapid rise in oil prices has already been absorbed by
consumer countries. According to a recent study by the Brookings
Institution, even with higher oil prices the growth of disposable
income in the developed world will be slowed by only 3% or so between
now and 1980.

Then, too, the Administration has been unable to rally Europeans and the
Japanese to its anti-OPEC strategy. They are far more dependent on oil
imports than the U.S. and are exceedingly reluctant to annoy the
producing states.

France has refused even to join the International Energy Agency, which
the U.S. hoped would unite consumer nations in a struggle against OPEC
pricing policies. Britain, which is pinning its hopes for recovery on
North Sea oil, is banking heavily on continuing high crude prices;
Prime Minister Harold Wilson says it is "not entirely misplaced
humor" that Britain eventually might actually join OPEC. Non-OPEC
producers like Canada and Mexico have also benefited from the towering
cost of oil and are not about to press for reductions.

Moreover, OPEC has proved remarkably resilient because its members are
well aware that their power to fix prices lies in their ability to
maintain a united front. Thus cartel members have been able to hold
traditional animosities in check—at least so far. Iran and Iraq
managed to settle a long-smoldering border dispute, and radical Algeria
fell in line behind Saudi Arabia's moderate pricing policies when the
Saudis presented Algeria with a generous loan. Un-gluing OPEC, if it
could still be done at all, would require extraordinarily disruptive
measures by the U.S.; for example, actively fostering friction between
such rivals as Iran and Saudi Arabia.

But experts fear that disruptive measures could lead to unpredictable
turmoil, especially in the already explosive Middle East. That kind of
strategy, says a State Department Middle East specialist, would be
"so politically damaging as not to be worth the effort."

Ending Confrontation. Instead of confrontation, the U.S. is now seeking
to influence OPEC through accommodation with Saudi Arabia, the cartel's
most influential member and biggest producer. The Saudis' avid
antiCommunism, their support of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat against
more radical Arab leaders and their relatively moderate position on oil
pricing make them particularly acceptable to American policymakers.
Despite its vast wealth, Saudi Arabia is still essentially a feudal
state badly in need of both industrial and agricultural development. In
the past year or so, the U.S. has signed agreements to provide the
Saudis with military and technical assistance, including
electrification projects and agricultural development programs. Says
Saudi Information Minister Muhammed Abdo Yamani: "We see signs
that make us optimistic about American policy."

The strategy worked last fall, when the Saudis held the latest OPEC
price boost to a stated 10%, though some cartel members had wanted much
more.
Whether OPEC will continue to present even a facade of moderation,
however, remains open to question. Iranian Interior Minister Jamshid
Amouzegar recently noted that with the expected worldwide economic
recovery, new oil price boosts "will become possible again in
mid-1976."

    At the end of this election season, I certainly hope there is an award given out to the most creative political ad/video. Anyway, this one is a lot of fun.  Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8lvc-azCXY

Last week, the United States deployed a second aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf, while insisting that this move was not a signal of escalating tensions between the United States and Iran but instead was a “reminder” to Iran. With Admiral Fallon’s retirement, an opponent to a war with Iran, and General Petraeus’ promotion to his job as CENTCOM commander, it would seem that a war with Iran might be in the cards.                     

As many of us know, the war against Iraq wasn’t about Iraqi freedom as the Bush administration tried to convince us, it wasn’t about terrorism, it was about oil. It was about the fact that in 2000, Saddam Hussein “insisted Iraq’s oil be sold for euros, a political move, but one that improved Iraq’s recent earnings thanks to the rise in the value of the euro against the dollar.” 

            For the same reasons the United States attacked Iraq, the United States is now flexing its military muscle to intimidate Iran. In the summer of 2003, Iran began discussing plans to stop selling oil in dollars and instead begin trading in euros. To further this plan, Iran also began making plans to create its own stock exchange, the Iranian Oil Bourse. This would create problems for the United States because oil is currently exchanged on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) and the London International Petroleum Exchange (IPE), both exchanges are owned by American corporations. Last fall, Iranian President Ahmedinajad at the OPEC meeting in Saudi Arabia announced that the U.S. dollar was worthless due to its depreciation and the losses were being sustained by oil exporters. Ahmedinajad, along with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, tried to get support at the OPEC meeting for a proposal that would trade oil in a variety of currencies and replace the dollar.

            In response to Iran’s impudence, the US has put pressure on European and Asian banks to isolate Iran by accusing Iran of terrorism and attempting to build a nuclear weapons program which Iran vehemently denies. However, the threat Iran poses to the United States is not nuclear, it’s economic. According to William Clark, the author of Petrodollar Warfare: Oil, Iraq and the Future of the Dollar, “the drop in demand for petrodollars would cause the value of the dollar to plummet further, thereby undermining the U.S. position as the global economic leader." This past week Iran has officially divorced itself from the dollar, isn’t it a coincidence that during this same period there is another aircraft carrier on its way to the Persian Gulf?

A factor which concerns the Bush/Cheney administration is that China is one of Iran’s biggest trading partners. China’s dependence on Iran for energy is similar to the United State’s dependence on Saudi Arabia. If the U.S. were to attack Iran, it would cause severe strain to American ties with China. This is because China has over $1 trillion in foreign reserves, and as of November 2006, $700 billion or 36% of that was held in U.S. treasury securities.  (Remember a few months ago when the Fed loaned $200 billion in U.S. Treasury securities in exchange for mortgage backed securities that have lost their value). Joe Biden wasn’t being flippant last summer when he said that China owned the mortgages on our homes. The U.S. can’t afford to antagonize China because economically speaking, China owns us. We’ll need some kind of pretext to intimidate Iran without provoking China or threatening China’s interests in the region. Hence, the narrative of the Bush administration about Iran: Iran is determined to acquire nuclear weapons, Iran is responsible for the deaths of US troops in Iraq, and Iran is a part of the axis of evil. It’s interesting to note that the Bush administration has no evidence that Iran’s government is responsible for the deaths of US troops, in fact, Admiral Mullen, the chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, confesses that there is, “no smoking gun which could prove that the highest leadership (in Tehran) is involved.”

So, here we are. The dollar is weakening, stocks are down, oil is traded at $110 a barrel, and Admiral Fallon, a critic against a war with Iran, is retired and General Petraeus has taken his place. Are we headed to war with Iran? Perhaps. We’ve certainly rattled our sabers in its direction often enough. Including, presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton who has threatened genocidal retribution if Iran attacked Israel, despite the fact that Israel is more than capable of defending itself, despite the fact that by attacking Israel, Iran would also be responsible for the deaths of their fellow Muslims in Palestine and despite the fact that in December 2007 the IAEA and the NIE declared that Iran has not been pursuing a nuclear weapons program.  Saber rattling is not going to convince a nation that is already paranoid that it is surrounded by enemies to not arm itself to the teeth. It’s time we asked ourselves, is our economic preeminence really worth the lives that will need to be sacrificed for it? In the words of John Lennon isn’t it time to “give peace a chance”? Isn't it time to elect a president who respects all cultures and is willing to engage in diplomacy?

    From The Page, Texas DNC member John Patrick endorses Obama. That makes 5 super delegates to Obama today. Woohoo.

    I thought I'd cheer Obama supporters up by letting them know that since March 4, Obama has picked up the support from 41 superdelegates. Whereas, Hillary has picked up 10. Since Pennsylvania, Obama has had support from 10, and Clinton has received 6.  That's a ratio of 5 to 3 in the past week since Pennsylvania. Whatever momentum Hillary got out of that win is negligible. The count is 261 for Hillary and 242 for Obama. Those of you who can't do math, you know who you are, that's a difference of 19 super delegates.
    Oh and May 3, Guam has caucuses and Obama already has an office there. There are eight pledged delegates but they each count for half so, it's four pledged delegate votes. They have five super delegates, all of them have full vote capabilities but there are three vacancies, two will be voted on during the caucuses. As for the third vacancy, the Guam Democratic Party Chairman is retiring and the two people that might replace him are both Obama supporters. Hillary has one super delegate from Guam that's already endorsed her. The other super delegate is undecided. So, here's hoping for some good caucusing in Guam. How many of you actually know where Guam is?

    I saw this video a couple of months ago but the new DNC ad against John McCain reminded me of it. It's pretty amusing, I think the DNC should run this against McCain but their ad isn't too bad. Anyway, enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gwqEneBKUs

TPM should really consider an embedding feature.

   Watching Jeremiah Wright on PBS, I'm struck by how intelligent, godly and patriotic this man is. This man was a marine, he was in the military medical corps where he helped his fellow Americans. He obviously cares deeply about others, black folks as well as white. I think his criticisms of the US government is perfectly valid, criticism can be a sign of patriotism. He's right when he talks about Dr. King was vilified for his criticisms of the policies of the government in Vietnam and the plight of poor people in the US. I'm really impressed with Jeremiah Wright and Bill Moyers, what a great interview.

    First Rush Limbaugh urges Republicans in Texas and Ohio to vote for Hillary on the March 4th open primaries "to bloody up" Senator Obama. Then the McCain campaign chooses to focus its criticisms exclusively on Senator Obama. In fact, Rick Davis, John McCain's campaign manager, writes a letter to anyone interested about how there are "cracks in Obama's coalition" after Pennsylvania, trying to convince anyone who would listen that Obama is a weak candidate.Wait, that sounds like the Clinton campaign, doesn't it? But that's not all. The Great Republican Poobah himself joins in the fray, Karl Rove writes a letter explaining why Hillary has really won the popular vote (include Florida and Michigan and give no votes to Obama from Michigan),  and shouldn't Democrats count all the votes? Such concerns from  Turdblossom  would  be touching if his boss hadn't stolen the election in 2000 by not counting all the votes. How about the ad the Republican party in North Carolina have decided to run? This ad is ostensibly  against the  two  Democratic gubernatorial candidates and yet,  they're running it now which suggests they're hoping to turn North Carolina against Obama. Am I the only one that's having a hard time distinguishing GOP and HRC attacks? Why are both Hillary and Bill complaining that under GOP rules, she would be the nominee? How bizarre. Finally, Terry McAuliffe is now the promo for Fox News a.k.a, The Republican channel, how sad is that?

    Well, congratulations Hillary and Hillary supporters. As for us Obama supporters, she was supposed to win by over 60% to make a dent into his pledged delegate count. It doesn't look like she will. So, congratulations Obama and Obama supporters. I'm impressed at how far he's come in Pennsylvania when he was pretty much running against Hillary, Bill, the media and John McCain. Think about it, he was supposed to be dead after Wright but he's not. We have a phenomenal candidate and I just donated to show him my support.

    I'm a fairly young person. At one point you could have described me as pretty apathetic when it came to politics. I didn't vote in 2000 and I didn't bother to vote in 2004 either. When Al Gore was running against GW Bush, I remember thinking, "whatever, this doesn't affect me." In 2003, we were led into war and I remember being horrified but it wasn't like I could do anything about it, right? John Kerry came around in 2004 and I was pretty sure he'd win, so I didn't bother going to the polls. He didn't win and I feel awful that I didn't try to make a difference when I could have. Things might be different if I, and those like me, had done something then. So, for the past three years, I've been listening and watching and learning about how our country is responsible for torturing people, responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, responsible for millions of displaced civilians in Iraq. I could have done something but I didn't when I had the chance.
   Come January 2008, this time I'm determined to do something. Who to support? It didn't matter to me at first, just get a Democrat who was willing to get us out of Iraq and help settle things in that region of the world diplomatically. When I examined all the candidates, the one who appealed to me was the 46 year old senator from Illinois. His brand of politics represented unity, a unified country coming together to solve the very real problems facing us. I was really excited about the elections in a way that I had never been before. I was engaged in politics, I knew what was going on and I was out there volunteering my time, trying to recruit people to the cause. As the democratic primary fight has dragged on, I gradually find myself deflating. Every day, there's some issue that people get all worked up about. But those issues are so trivial when I think about what is at stake. Don't you find it depressing that we're willing to be sidetracked by the dumbest issues? I'm not willing to go back into my previous state of apathy, but it's hard to resist the pull of disengagement.  I wonder how many  others have tuned out?

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Sc9PepjyDow&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Sc9PepjyDow&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

url: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sc9PepjyDow