I have been virulently against an Obama-Clinton ticket for a while now for a few reasons.  First and foremost, I think it undercuts his message of change.  Adding the wife of a former president (and by default, the former president himself) to Obama's ticket doesn't seem all that revolutionary in terms of revising

I don't get it.

Prior to today, I'd seen a few people say Barack's pastor was "problematic" or whatever, and it seemed to me like it was hushed up, and sort of pushed to the side in the campaign.  I never really looked into it, other than to google it briefly and see that some people thought he was an extremist.  I was sort of glad Barack had distanced himself a bit.

In a thread at EC earlier today someone posted a couple of video clips that based on their comments seem to be designed to discredit Barack based on excerpts of some of the Rev. Wright's sermons.  I clicked to see what the big deal was.

Maybe it's just me.  Maybe growing up as a Chicana Catholic in Utah has radicalized me more than I realized, but as far as I can tell this dude is just right.  I don't know why this is even an issue (other than the fact that it makes people uncomfortable to hear the truth).  If I lived in Chicago, and he hadn't retired, I'd go to his service after Mass, because I think he's saying things that need to be said despite the fact that they are uncomfortable.

Since when is speaking truth to power a bad thing? 

What kind of craptastic society have we created where the following two clips can be viewed as damning critiques of a man?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzhl-endvco
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUbUBTlmAiA

Two caveats:

First, I'm talking substance here, not reaction.  I get that the comments on these alone prove that America is not ready to confront these issues in such a way.  I get that.  But we here at TPMCafe are ostensibly a rational, throughtful bunch, right?  So please try to answer my query with something other than a critique that reads something like "the content is fine, but the delivery is toxic."

Second, I've only viewed these two clips.  I'm not fully emeshed in the Jeremiah Wright story yet.  If there are other, more inflammatory incidents, please let me know.  My position on this is malleable.  I just had to get this off my chest before doing some more homework on this, because after listening to these, and having them posted as some form of evidence against Barack, I was sort of appalled, because I'm pretty sure this just makes me like the dude more.

This will be pretty short, but I just had to put it out there, specifically after Joe Klein's (and others, but <a href=http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1710721,00.html>this piece</a> seems to cover it) seeming endorsement of the "Obama Cult" theory.

While I understand that the HRC camp really wants to win, and has to do something to attack Barack in order to make that happen, I'm pretty sure critiquing his supporters and pushing the "you all are cultish fiends line"* backfires.  I was loathe to vote for Hillary before, even in a general against the GOP, since she's tacitly endorsed calling me a mindless fool, I'm pretty sure I have no motivation to turn out for her if she does win the nomination.

This is a problem.  The woman has fully 40-45% of the country that does not like her.  At all.  She cannot afford to have numerous party activists stay home because she needed to win the primary.  If she wins with this line of argumentation it isn't merely that she loses the new turnout youth vote (although, that would be devestating too.  With the number of new people Barack is bringing into the process, we could turn OH, PA and FL just on turnout...that's significant and they only turnout for one person) it's that she and her team are alienating parts of the party's base apparatus.  The part that gives money.  The part that mobilizes to phone bank, knock on doors and just generally GOTV. 

There are only two possibilities.

Either she suffers from such a delusion of grandeur that she really believes she can call people mindless and still get their vote, or she is so desperate to get her shot at the presidency that she's willing to put herself in an untenable position vis a vis winning, totally ignoring that it may put the GOP in the White House, because she feels it's owed to her somehow.

Neither option is good.  I am sick of leaders who suffer from delusions of never being wrong and entitlement.  I am equally appalled that one would run a campaign on a strategy aimed at ridiculing a substantial portion of the base of the party.

I concede, I was an Obama fan before. But his proposal unveiled at Google HQ today is amazing stuff. I link you to a conversation on it that Matt Stoller has already started because most net junkies know that Stoller isn't exactly and Obama fan. Scratch that, I should say wasn't, because after this was unveilved he said he leans toward Obama.

This is a, to use Stoller's phrase, radical proposal. I'm not a techy type, so I'll leave a lot of that discussion to the many people at TPM who are much better on that issue than I am. What I do know a bit about is government and transparency. The lack of transparency in our government, particularly over the last 8 years is one of, if not the, fundamental reasons that we are where we are today.

A lack of transparency in a democracy leads to increased voter apathy, and policy disasters because there is never a hope that the American public can vet those policies. Transparency is one of the core reasons some political scientists have proffered that democracies aren't as warlike as non-democracies. It is also the central complaint about institutions like the WTO and the World Bank that have decimated populations and the enviroment because of trade/development policies (respectively).

There is an opening in the American consciousness at this moment to try something new. It is critical that we take advantage of this moment in this election, so that we don't just roll back the barriers between our government and the people to pre-Bush levels.

We need to take advantage of this moment to drop a devestatingly large hammer on the barriers that keep information from the American public.

I do believe that Obama just said he'd like to take the first swing.

I took I took an interesting online quiz this weekend that is designed to tell you which presidential candidates have made statements on the issues most important to you, that you agree with.

My results weren't all that surprising, or all that interesting, except for one thing. It turns out I agree with Hillary on quite a lot, but I just don't care. My issue with her isn't that she says the wrong things, or that we have some huge chasm between us politically that means I can't support her (as is true with the entire GOP field). My issue with her is simply that I don't trust her to act on any of those issues with anything approximating conviction.

Last October, when I was discussing this campaign with another strong Democrat, she did not invoke the same vitriol that she does now, and he's asked me more than a few times what changed. Because something did change, I went from being able to support her, even though she wasn't my first choice, to deciding that I wouldn't vote for her, even if she got the nod. Granted, if I lived in a swing state, I probably would have made a slightly different decision in the latter instance, but I don't, and there is no reason I have to check the box for a Democrat I don't agree with, but that still leaves the question open: What changed?

What is it about Hillary that makes some of the most dedicated members of the Democratic party cringe and decide that they won't vote for her no matter what?

It's not what she says on the issues, objectively she sounds fine on them. Not as far left as Edwards, not as open to new ideas as Obama, but let's be honest, she's fine. What she says is basically okay. So why can't I just be a good Democrat and toe the party line with her?

It comes down to two things. I don't trust her to do what she says, and I am flat out resentful that she is in this race. I'm even more resentful that she's the annointed favorite. Don't get me wrong, I have pragmatic reasons as well, I think that she has negative coattails and destroys the Congressional majority, I don't like the idea of the presidency being held by two families for at least two decades, etc. But those are not offensive reasons I can't support her if she gets the nod.

The reason I can't support her is anger. I feel like she's a sub-par candidate in a year where we could elect anyone we wanted merely by nominating them, and given amazing options like Edwards and Obama we are on the verge of throwing that away and giving the nod to a calculating DLCer who can say what we want to hear all she wants, but has never actually delivered on any of it. She's perfectly happy to rob the rest of us of a true liberal progressive candidate as long as it lands her on Pennsylvania Avenue.

It's sad really, and could backfire tremendously, because I'm not the only one, and the luck of geography that doesn't have me in a swing state doesn't apply to a lot of the other Democrats who feel the same way. I'm the vote she shouldn't have to work for. In fact, I'm the vote that should be working for her, and it turns out I'm one she can't win no matter what she says.

This isn't an issue of electability. This isn't the same argument those in the Kerry camp tried to make against Dean, because at the end of the day everyone knew that if Dean got the nod, the party would vote for him. You cannot say the same thing about HRC, and I for one think that should give us all pause.

I mean there is really nothing else to call it, is there, when we designate the armed forces of a sovereign nation as a terrorist entity, which I know everyone at this blog knows is code for outside the rule of international ethics and laws.

This is pure insanity.

Ah, Karl, we hardly knew ya.

So, Karl Rove is retiring, I'll do my best to stiffle a tear.

Does anyone know if there is a way to declare an international holiday?

I'm going to take a stab at using the early hour to get my thoughts up before the chattering class can come up with theirs. I just watched the video of the debate this evening, and I can see 3 clear outcomes for various candidates, winners, no change, and losers, in no particular order.

Winners:

Kucinich

Say what you will about the man, he was on a roll. The line about having already dug through the earth to China was pure gold, and he managed to outshine the presumptive favorite of the AFL-CIO crowd: John Edwards. Anything Edwards could do, Kucinich could do better, and funnier, I might add.

Obama

In the interest of full disclosure, this is my candidate, but he came into his own tonight. He went toe-to-toe with Hillary, Dodd and Biden, and came out looking to be the true candidate of change. There was a slight flub with the "President of Canada" remark, where I groaned, but other than that, he was money. He seems to have finally been able to reduce some of his complex and thoughtful meandering into some very powerful sound bites. Additionally, his exchange over Pakistan may very well have turned that little episode into a win for him.

Neutral:

Edwards

I like John a lot, if Obama doesn't get the nod, I hope it goes to him, additionally, I thought he had a pretty good night and I'm tempted to put him in the winners category. There is a small problem with that. Edwards should be the presumptive frontrunner with the AFL-CIO. Despite the fact that this was Obama's turf, this is his crowd. He did very well against Hillary, and his answers were awesome, but he let himself get out shone with his natural audience by Kucinich. That's problematic for him at this juncture, and makes me lean towards tonight being a draw for him.

Clinton

She didn't have to go on the offensive tonight because Dodd and Biden did it for her (running for Vice President much?). Her answers, as always, were polished, knowledgeable to the point, and most importantly cautious. Not a great idea in what seems to be shaping up as a change election. Additionally, she got served by Obama on the question of Pakistan...Twice. Once when he chastised those who authorized the war, and again when he accused her and Dodd of trying to keep important foreign policy decisions away from the American public.

Richardson

He didn't make a lot of gaffes, but he didn't shine either. In fact, when trying to come up with Richardson's big moment in the debate, I'm sort of drawing a blank, which leads me to label him as a draw. Keep in mind, at this stage, a draw for Richardson isn't fatal, but he needs to make some more moves to crack into the top tier. Were it closer to January, and were he not in double digits in Iowa, this would be a loss for him.

Loser(s):

Dodden

They became lap dogs for status quo Washington tonight. They allowed Hillary to avoid making attacks, because they did it for her. Additionally, they were indistinguishable, at a time when then need to start making a brand for themselves, they both wilted into obscurity, and were only noticeable when they were attacking Obama and Edwards. Good if you're running for Clinton's Veep, bad if you're running for President. It's a pity too, because Biden had a shot at one point to score points on Obama (the President/Prime Minister of Canada flub mentioned above) but was so subtle with it most Americans wouldn't have caught it. Bad news when you're in single digits in both national and state polls.

As the Happy Hour Round Up notes Rahm Emmanuel's attempt to catch this Administration in its favorite pastime of double-speak has failed. Despite the fact that I disagree, I can understand why most of the GOP couldn't bring itself to defund the Office of the Vice President. However, it seems to me the following Dems have some serious explaining to do:

Bean

Boren

Boyd (FL)

Capuano

Cuellar

Edwards

Ellsworth

Gordon

Herseth Sandlin

Kaptur

Klein (FL)

Lampson

Murtha

Obey

Peterson (MN)

Ross

Sestak

Skelton

Smith (WA)

Snyder

Space

Tanner

Yes, I understand that some of these Representatives are in conservative districts and needed to throw their constituents a bone. Nick Lampson, for example, in Tom DeLay's old stomping grounds is surely in a tough spot there.

Jack Murtha, however, is not. He won re-election by over 20% last cycle. There is no justification for him to rubber stamp the lunacy that is this Administration.

Or what of Collin Peterson? He may be in a conservative leaning district, but he bested his last "opponent" (I use the term loosely) by over 40%.

I could go on, but you get the point.

Who are these people, and what are they doing lending anything approximating credibility to what Ana Marie Cox has so aptly named, Dickistan?

Rahm's Amendment failed by 9 votes.

Nice job, Dems. This is yet another stellar example of why your approval rating is hovering in the neighborhood of Bush.