It's a stunningly beautiful day here in Big Sky Country.  I'd always thought there were absolutely no advantages to a June primary until today, when I voted behind an elderly gentleman on crutches who would have had a VERY hard time making it to the polls in February.  You learn something new every day.

As of yesterday, an estimated 78,000 absentee ballots had been returned to the Montana's office of Secretary of State.   The S.O.S. predicts 35% of '08 primary ballots could be absentee.  Thats 3 times the absentee ballots cast in the 2004 primary.  Montana has registered over 32,000 new voters sine the 2004 cycle. 

Turnout predictions are running at around 47%, unheard of for Montana's late primary.  In Cascade County, one of the states largest, they have already registered a higher turnout than they had for the entire 2006 primary. 

Montana has an open primary where anyone can choose to vote for any party, but voters CANNOT vote both ballots.  This means Operation Chaos voters will have to sacrifice voting for contested Republican state races if they use their vote for the Democratic primary.

Races O.C. voters would not be able to weigh in on:  

There are 6 candidates jockeying for the chance to take on Senator Max Baucus. 

There is a VERY vigorous and vocal group of Ron Paul activists who are REALLY trying to get him across the finish line ahead of McCain.   This is not out of the question; Paul  came in second in Montana's GOP Caucus, ahead of both McCain and Huckabee (Romney won).  Yesterday someone parked an old Blaser covered in Ron Paul signs right outside the door of the TV station I work for with signs indicating the media were ignoring the other candidate for POTUS.   

Montana's lone representative, Republican Denny Rehberg, is unopposed on the GOP side. 

There is a pretty heated contest for the GOP nomination for state AG. 
*******

I hope to have more info as the day goes on.  Please consider recommending this post so I can update it later.  Thanks. 

From the NYT Article "The Right Against Reagan" Jan 17 1988.

Even before Reagan signed the treaty with Gorbachev on Dec. 8,  right-wing strategists were organizing.   One week before the signing, the core of ''the outside network'' -some two dozen conservative leaders heading mass organizations that claim a total of 1 million to 2 million members - held a strategy dinner at the Ramada Inn in suburban Tysons Corner, Va.

The table talk, recalled one participant, was full of frustration, and focused on the question of ''what to do about summit fever, what to do about Reagan's relationship with Gorbachev - the idea being that Reagan was appeasing liberals in Congress, appeasing the Communists, caving in on taxes, putting moderates like Frank Carlucci at Defense, and cutting deals with the evil empire.''

But Phillips's knock-out punch will be a full-page ad scheduled to run this month in such conservative-minded newspapers as The Washington Times and New Hampshire's Manchester Union-Leader. Under the headline, ''Appeasement is as unwise in 1988 as in 1938,'' photos of Reagan and Gorbachev are paired with photos of Neville Chamberlain and Hitler, followed by the appeal: ''Help Us Defeat the Reagan-Gorbachev INF Treaty.''

Emphasis is mine.

Now I say unto thee, go forth armed with this knowledge and defeat the freepers and Red-Staters amongst you!  Confront the LGF idolaters with the truth of the Great Communicator as a  negotiator, and rejoice at their wailing and gnashing of teeth!

From the NYT Article "The Right Against Reagan" Jan 17 1988.

Emphasis is mine. 

Even before Reagan signed the treaty with Gorbachev on Dec. 8,
right-wing strategists were organizing. One week before the signing,
the core of ''the outside network'' -some two dozen conservative
leaders heading mass organizations that claim a total of 1 million to 2
million members - held a strategy dinner at the Ramada Inn in suburban
Tysons Corner, Va.

The table talk, recalled one participant, was full of frustration, and
focused on the question of ''what to do about summit fever, what to do
about Reagan's relationship with Gorbachev - the idea being that Reagan
was appeasing liberals in Congress, appeasing the Communists, caving in
on taxes, putting moderates like Frank Carlucci at Defense, and cutting
deals with the evil empire.''

But Phillips's knock-out punch will be a full-page ad scheduled to run
this month in such conservative-minded newspapers as The Washington
Times and New Hampshire's Manchester Union-Leader. Under the headline,
''Appeasement is as unwise in 1988 as in 1938,'' photos of Reagan and
Gorbachev are paired with photos of Neville Chamberlain and Hitler,
followed by the appeal: ''Help Us Defeat the Reagan-Gorbachev INF
Treaty.''

Friends,
A curious situation is arising in this primary campaign.

For months we've all seen (and many of us have posted) comments that this race isn't over until it's over.

Over the past several days another common theme has arisen; that the Obama camp is doing little to attract the supporters of Senator Clinton.

To my friends who support Senator Clinton I have to say that I'm confused.

Which is it?

If the Senator from New York still has a chance at this nomination, isn't it disrespectful of the Obama team to prematurely count her out by trying to unite her supporters behind him? 

If you believe Senator Obama and his team are not taking your feelings or your past dedication to the Democratic party into account,  do you believe deep down that this race is over?

I don't think you can have it both ways.

Dear Destor23,

If ever there was a time that we need to be reminded of John McCain's age, it is now.

Please, if you are lurking here at TPMEC, speak up, eh!

Testing embed:

<iframe height="339" width="425" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/23601329#23601329" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>

I just watched a co-worker of mine choke back tears.

His son is being stop-lossed.  OUR GOVERNMENT is sending him back for a THIRD deployment in Iraq. 

He literally went to his ETS processing and the paperwork wasn't signed.  Instead of separating in June, he's now scheduled to re-deploy in September.  He came home from Iraq last November. 

This bullshit primary is the greatest gift we could have given that Lame Duck and his henchmen.  While we're pixel-whacking about flag pins and  middle fingers, people are fighting and dying because we STILL can't find the guts to say NO MORE!

We need to do everything we can to end this bullshit now. 
Are your representatives undecided?  GIVE THEM HELL.  Don't use kid gloves.  Tell them lives are at stake. 

Know of any party Superdelegates in your area?  Call them up.   Tell them we can't wait another minute.

NO MORE.

Do you know what a liturgical stole is?

It's that cloth sash that clergy wear around their neck.

At this moment, there are dozens of liturgical stoles on display in my church.  Each one represents the life story of a Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, or Trans-gendered person of faith.  Together, they represent an astonishing spectrum of human experience, from dizzying inspiration to heart-wrenching tragedy.  They are each profoundly moving.

I don't believe in God.

But that is MY church.

Three weeks ago I had the spne-tingling experience of watching two of the pastors, both openly gay, both women, discuss their doubts about the gospel.  That was the sermon.

And it was so much more than novel.  The scope of each woman's knowledge and imagination was breathtaking.

I don't believe in the gospels.

But that is MY church.

Two weeks ago the sermon was given by a minister whom I would have described as developmentally disabled upon first hearing him speak.  I spent the first few moments of his sermon trying to decide whether or not he had downs syndrome.

By the end I was in tears and the whole room was shouting.  His sermon drew incredible parallels between St. Matthew,  Steinbeck, MLK, and others.  The other ministers called him the Prophet of Love.

I don't believe in prophets.

But that is MY church.    

MY church has welcomed parishioners and leaders of any sexual orientation for FIFTEEN YEARS.

MY church has a PROUDLY displayed library on climate Change.  MY church's leaders have demanded, loudly and publicly, that other religiously leaders break their silence and urge their congregations to combat climate change.  MY church has organized a religious coalition supporting environmental initiatives across my red state.    

MY church sends people to Oaxaca, Columbia, and many other places to do real work against tyranny and imperialism.

I am not a Christian.
But that is MY church.

MY church is the UCC church.  It is the church of Senator Barack Obama.  It is the church of Reverend Jeremiah Wright.  

I wish more churches were just like it.

What is your church like? 

Do you know what a liturgical stole is?

It's that cloth sash that clergy wear around their neck.

At this moment, there are dozens of liturgical stoles on display in my church.  Each one represents the life story of a Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, or Trans-gendered person of faith.  Together, they represent an astonishing spectrum of human experience, from dizzying inspiration to heart-wrenching tragedy.  They are each profoundly moving.

I don't believe in God.

But that is MY church.

Three weeks ago I had the spne-tingling experience of watching two of the pastors, both openly gay, both women, discuss their doubts about the gospel.  That was the sermon. 

And it was so much more than novel.  The scope of each woman's knowledge and imagination was breathtaking.

I don't believe in the gospels.

But that is MY church.

Two weeks ago the sermon was given by a minister whom I would have described as developmentally disabled upon first hearing him speak.  I spent the first few moments of his sermon trying to decide whether or not he had downs syndrome.

By the end I was in tears and the whole room was shouting.  His sermon drew incredible parallels between St. Matthew,  Steinbeck, MLK, and others.  The other ministers called him the Prophet of Love. 

I don't believe in prophets. 

But that is MY church.    

MY church has welcomed parishioners and leaders of any sexual orientation for FIFTEEN YEARS.

MY church has a PROUDLY displayed library on climate Change.  MY church's leaders have demanded, loudly and publicly, that other religiously leaders break their silence and urge their congregations to combat climate change.  MY church has organized a religious coalition supporting environmental initiatives across my red state.    

MY church sends people to Oaxaca, Columbia, and many other places to do real work against tyranny and imperialism. 

I am not a Christian.
But that is MY church.

MY church is the UCC church.  It is the church of Senator Barack Obama.  It is the church of Reverend Jeremiah Wright.  

I wish more churches were just like it. 

What is your church like? 

Dear Clinton Supporters,

I am the rural voter Barack Obama is talking about.

I am a gun owner and a sportsman.  Not the kind of sportsman that pays thousands of dollars for a guided trophy hunt.  I save for my tags every year, and I go where I know I will fill them because my family depends on that meat in the freezer. 


Though I'm not a factory worker or a miner, I struggle to provide for a family of four on a salary that falls below the federal poverty line.  My company was just bought out and jobs are vaporizing around me as this economy continues to skid (someone forgot to tell corporate that there may not be a recession. ) 

I come from a fire & brimstone evangelical background.  I still go to a small country church in a ghost town on holidays with my parents. 

I do not consider myself a Christian, but I do attend regular services with my family (the UCC Church, the church of Jeremiah Wright.  I go with my wife, but I stay because they are at the ABSOLUTE BLEEDING EDGE of progress and social justice in my community.  To hear a church that has done so much for so many progressive issues demonized by Democrats is astonishing, but that's a subject for another post. )

I am that small town voter your hearing a lot about. 
I am also that small town voter that a lot of you are talking about.

You know, the one that sees Obama as out of touch with my traditions.  The one that sees Obama as an elitist. 

I cannot believe how much some of you think you know me.  And I really can't believe how STUPID many of you think me and my family and friends are. 

Do you really think that Hillary's description of killing a duck as an "amazing experience" is going to resonate with sportsmen?

Do you honestly think that her sudden testimony of being moved by the Holy Spirit is going to sway small congregations to her? 

The next time you decide to analyze the minds of these so called "small town," middle of the road," "rural" voters, consider that you may be talking to one. Oh, and they might have the same intellectual capacity that you have. 

Its no secret that I am an Obama man.



Many people take that to mean that I care more about style than
substance. Though that is often the case with me, (I play drinking music on
the violin; if I worried about substance I'd be too scared to even
look at the thing) in this instance I like to assure myself otherwise.



This assurance has occasionally proven difficult to defend, however,
because the "substance" I find exciting in Obama often takes an
abstract form, and I end up using terms like "worldview" and
"overriding philosophical approach" and "Tao".



Words which seem rather, well, unsubstantial. And style-ey. I mean stylish. Whatever.



Thankfully, Talking Points Memo alumnus Spencer Ackerman seems to be better with words.

When considering any presidential hopeful's foreign-policy promises,
it's important to remember that what candidates say is, at best, an
imperfect guide to their actions in office. What proves to be a more
reliable indicator of presidential behavior is a candidate's roster of
advisers. (If the press had paid better attention, the country would
have seen through Bush's pitch about a humble foreign policy and
realized that many of his advisers, including Paul Wolfowitz and
Richard Perle, were conspiracy-minded warmongers.)



(snip)



"There is a popular notion that Democrats have to try to appear like
Republicans to pass some test on national security. The fact that
that's still the case after Iraq is absurd," says one of Obama's
closest advisers. "So you break from that orthodoxy and say 'I don't
care if the Republicans attack me because I'm willing to meet with the
leadership in Iran. We haven't for 25 years, and it's not gotten us
anywhere.'"



(snip)



The Obama foreign-policy team describes it as "the politics of fear," a
phrase most advisers used unprompted in our conversations. "For a long
time we've not seen much creative thinking from Dems on national
security, because, out of fear, we want to be a little different from
the Republicans but not too different, out of fear of being labeled
weak or indecisive," another top adviser says. Identifying that fear as
the accelerant of the Iraq War mind-set is the first step to a new and
innovative foreign policy. John Kerry was not able to argue for
fundamental change in foreign policy because he was consumed by that
very political fear. Obama's admonition to Democrats is much like Pope
John Paul II's to the Gdansk shipyard strikers -- first, be not afraid.

Every single paragraph in the article reminds me of why I believe Obama
is THE MOST SUBSTANTIAL candidate I'm ever likely to see. He and his
team CAN'T WAIT to wrap this election around foreign policy, and
neither can I. To me, their mindset represents the exact antidote to
the regressive and absurd logic that got us into Iraq (as well as the
myriad realpolitik atrocities that led up to it) in the first place.



It's time to kick some ass!



Whoops. Sorry, got a little crazy there.



Cross posted at livejournal.com.

When a McCain staffer was suspended recently for pointing to a video mashup designed to link Senator Obama to militant factions of racial equality movements, Election Central linked to the video without question.


The video itself provided no material value to the actual facts of the story containing the link, yet it was deemed important enough by Election Central standards for a direct link.

Over the weekend, video has surfaced that directly contradicts (to put it mildly) a key claim by Senator Clinton.  This footage, along with the footage of Senator Clinton recounting her recollection of the landing in Bosnia, are DIRECTLY RELATED to timely and pertinent claims the Clinton campaign has made.

This is a major story in ELECTION NEWS, Election Central's stated realm of operation. 

Please explain to us why the video in this case not newsworthy?           

Richard B. Cheney is arguably most experienced politician alive today. 

Vice President Cheney has around 4 decades of intensive experience in both foreign and domestic affairs at the highest levels of American government.

Vice President Cheney has undoubtedly crossed the Commander In Chief threshold. 

There is little doubt that Vice President Cheney knows exactly what he would do on DAY 1 of a tenure in the Oval Office.

If Richard Cheney were running for President today, could he count on your vote?

If not, why not?  What is more important than his experience?

I'd really like to make up some merchandise to sport along the lines of the "PRO-CHOICE and I VOTE" sticker.

Something that lets people know that it doesn't matter how much they REALLY WISH more Americans were closet-racists and cardboard patriots, for Clinton's sake, I'm just not offended by Wright's remarks. 

Nor am I offended by Michelle Obama's remarks. 

And they can stick their lapel pins up their...  well, they can stick them anywhere they'd like, but I don't care about that either. 

Anyone got any ideas? 

At Lalo35adm's suggestion, this thread is for open debate and deliberation on the particulars of the economy of the 90's.

Please add your learned opinions at will.

Also, please recommend the post to extend the opportunity for responses by the greatest number of contributors, many of which don't have the luxury of all-day computer access.

Thanks. Slouch.