This Michelle Cottle piece that the ever sassy latina for obama over at the unbelievably excellent The Field points to is kind of interesting. Here's what it is missing amid all the finger pointing: an emphasis on organization. The Clinton campaign got out organized and out hustled every step of the way. Yes, they pulled out all the stops and bussed in thousands of college students and union members from AFSCME for New Hampshire and beat us there. And they managed to hold the line in Nevada. But there after, their only victories came in places that they had overwhelming demographic advantages. Yet where is the discussion of grassroots organizing in the obits that Cottle collected?

Barack Obama represents the new Democratic party. A party that not only has better ideas and better candidates than the Republicans, but is lean and mean and ruthlessly well organized enough to beat them, as Michael Dukasis said, in every precinct in the country. Clinton's campaign was the death throes of the old media driven, top down campaign of the past. So don't mourn Clinton, organize!

Joe Trippi is right. Obama's campaign is the future, the Dean approach on steroids. And its another example of how things keep getting faster. It took 20 years for the Republicans to go from Goldwater to Reagan and for movement conservatives to reshape the GOP. But it only took us four
 to get from Dean to Obama and take control of our party.

YEEEEEEHAWWWWWWWWWW!

Before the Iraq War, a friend who believed strongly that Saddam Hussein was a poor man's Stalin and should be overthrown yet saw the difficulties in launching an invasion of the country made the following modest proposal:

Do a non-invasion. That is, instead of attacking, establish a cordon sanitaire and set up an alternative government. Invite the Iraqi people to freely participate and demonstrate peacefully the superior benefits of the alternative government. Given that we have now spent the equivalent of $120, 000 of each and every Iraqi citizen, cost could be no objection.

A similar plan could be put into effect in Burma. Security would be defensive in nature, with no aggressive moves towards the other side. However, it would be made clear that the slaughter of refugees would not be tolerated. In Iraq, we already enjoyed a no-fly zone. In Burma, one would have to be established and a healthy defensive force put in place. But we would not have to condone the slaughter of thousands of conscripts in the Burmese military in the name of humanitarianism.

Thoughts?

John Edwards is endorsing Barack Obama tonight. That makes me think of something good the Edwards campaign did.

Mudcat Saunders said that John Edwards told him, Mudcat, if anyone tells you that they are voting for us because Obama is black, you tell them we don't want their vote. (Can't find the exact quote, sorry.)

Clinton has never said anything like this. None of her surrogates have ever said that if people are voting for her out of racism, they don't want their votes. If she had, and she still could, she could have/would do something lovely for this country and for the Democratic party. If she doesn't, it will be another thing for her to muse on in retirement.

Ah nostalgia, eh, Rick Brookhiser? Yes, then were a time when even the horned liberal could appreciate the beneficence of Whites toward their Negro subjects. How far our society has fallen, really towards Darkness.

Over at talkleft.com, the Alamo of Hillaryland, they are talking intimidation again. I always have kind of a guilty pleasure reading the delusional idiots at talkleft whistling past the graveyard, but this time its not even funny. Their idea is that somehow superdelegates are going to be more scared of a bunch of poorly educated yokels and old ladies than alumni from the best organized campaign in history. I love Hillary's coalition. I actually stood outside a polling place with the three major Hillary constituent groups once: gays, walrus shaped women, and union guys. AWKWARD. If there had been a dimwitted racist, the set would have been complete. Anyway here is the insanity.

Obama is likely to do as poorly in KY as he did in W. VA. Counting MI and FL votes (not delegates), she's going to either top Obama or get really close to him in the popular vote total. (No, but ok, Fidel Clinton, by all means, let's count Michigan. Viva la Revolucion!)

If you live in a state that went for Hillary, check out the superdelegates from your state that are in Congress. Write them and tell them that since Hillary won in your state and she's the most electable in November [snicker], if they do not support her, you will [be really pissed].

And, if Obama is the nominee and loses in the general, you will hold them personally responsible [OH NOES!11] because they should have known Hillary was the more electable [so hard to type while crying] and they did a disservice to Democrats everywhere by voting against the candidate that had the best chance of winning. [for reallys]

[snip] People who make bad judgments like that shouldn't be serving in Congress.

There's nothing the[y] hate more than a contested primary. It distracts them, costs money and keeps them on edge. They care about getting re-elected more than anything else. That's your leverage. In my opinion.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/5/14/31527/9080