At least that's what I'm assuming the campaign is really saying when he talks about drilling domestically to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

He is clearly advocating that any and ALL oil that comes from domestic drilling is going to be used by American consumers.

If this were the language being used in discussing domestic drilling, McCain would have a lot less support.  Obama (and dems in general) need to get better at framing the language of the argument.

Greg was very quick yesterday to post and praise Lanny Davis's argument for why the democratic party should settle MI and FL exactly as Hillary Clinton thinks they should be settled.

Poblano takes it apart point by point to show how one sided and stupid Lanny Davis's reasoning truly is.

Here's the link:

HRC has hijacked this notion of the rights of voters to be heard.  Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but this is absolute horseshit!

There is no mention of political parties in the constitution!

The political parties are NOT part of the US government!

They have primaries to try to make sure that they have a candidate that will be supported in the general election, but if they wanted to change their own rules to just simply have the nominee selected by committee they could. 

It wouldn't be popular, but it wouldn't be illegal either.

The penalties imposed on FL and MI are matters of the democratic party, not great social issues in American history!

Better known to the American public as Baghdad Bob!

On April 7, 2003, al-Sahhaf claimed that there were no American troops in Baghdad, and that the Americans were committing suicide by the hundreds at the city's gates.

On April 8, 2003, when he said that the Americans "are going to surrender or be burned in their tanks. They will surrender, it is they who will surrender".

This reminded me of Hillary supporters current argument and made me laugh.

"Hillary is the better candidate" even though she won less delegates, half as many states and needs to count states that she personally said wouldn't matter to argue any sort of lead.

"Obama should drop out" even though he's winning.

Her supporters are just as disconnected from reality as al-Sahhaf ever was.

I'm suggesting "Not Going Away" by Ozzie Osbourne.

Any others?

It's 10:30am Tuesday and Barack Obama has already picked up 4 Super D's.

Hillary Clinton is likely to win big in West Virginia today and some pundits speculate that she may get a net 10 delegates.

Does Obama need to pick up 10 Super D's to call today a wash?  If he picks up say 6 or 7 or 8, does the media pick up a dialogue that negates any positive commentary HRC would normally get for a big win?

One point that seems to get overlooked in the MSM and candidate discussions of the Gas Tax BS is that the 18 cent gas tax is NOT A CONSUMER TAX!  The gas tax is paid by producers.  It is assumed that the tax is passed on to the consumer in full, but this is not a tax that gets applied at the pump.

As such, why would HRC ask us to believe that her "windfall profits" tax that she wants the oil companies to pay to cover her "tax holiday" wouldn't also be passed directly down to consumers?

How is it possible that this became the major campaign issue of the moment?

I keep seeing SurveyUSA held up as the most reliable pollster this go round since they were spot on in California and Ohio.  I'm just wondering if anyone knows what their track record is in the other 30-some states that have voted.

Also, how's there track record in the state's Obama has won?  Did they correctly forecast any of his blowout wins?

I read something earlier that aluded to this and it got me thinking about the facade's that our media create for people (mostly derogatory for Democrats) in public life.

Al Gore the serial exaggerator.
John Kerry the flip flopper.
Hillary Clinton the ball buster (or worse).
Bill Clinton the womanizer (maybe a bad example).
John Edwards the pretty boy.
George W. Bush the strong leader.
John McCain the protector.

I've noticed several attempts to paint a facade for Barack Obama (inexperienced, unknown, naive) and there didn't seem to be one that stuck.  Now they seem to be comfortable just simply painting him as your stereotypical "black man" and it seems to be catching on.

I think in the past Barack has been so multi-faceted that the facades slipped off as he showed an adept ability to move past the MSM's attempt to pigeon hole him.  This week he seems stuck in a rut and unable to pivot past this lastest media blockade.

The questions that I would ask of you are:
 
Do you think the media will finally be successful in slapping the "black candidate" label on Barack or do you think he can emerge from this week and remind everyone why he was attractive as a candidate in the first place?

How does he get back to the 52% to 43% edge he had ove McCain two weeks ago?

As has now been established, if you disagree with ANYTHING said by your reverend, pastor or rabbi you must leave and denounce your church IMMEDIATELY!

Catholics who believe in equal rights must denounce the churches policy against women priests and leave now.  Also, any Catholic who believes in birth control should excuse themselves from whatever they're doing at this moment to denounce their church and revoke their membership.

Any Jew that eats pork, get out.  Not wearing your Yamika, go find a new religion.

As for everyone else, if you do not currently agree with every aspect of every word that comes out of your pastor, priest or rabbi's mouth, then you must stand up and get out now.

Best of luck attending your new church, the church of yourself.

I am rather dismayed at the comments I'm seeing around the web that refer to Barack's speech as divisive or accusatory.  One woman on HuffPost actually posted "I was stunned to hear that I am a bigoted racist ".  If this is the message that people took away from this speech, then we are all doomed.

I have heard time and again that we need a leader in the White House that is willing to listen to people that he doesn't agree with.  I've heard that we need a leader that is open minded and who talks about issues in more that sound bites.  I've heard from Democrats and Republicans that we need a leader that remembers that he (or she) works FOR the American people.  And yet, here we are.

When faced with the choice between a truly different direction for our politics and our society, we latch on to the first BS distraction and declare "How dare this man keep implying that if EVERYONE doesn't support HIS candidacy we must be racist" (different idiot on HuffPost).

If this is how we (collectively) react to the opportunity to have a THINKING President, then we might as well stop all this nonsense right now, repeal the 22nd amendment and keep George W. Bush as President for life because that is the President we deserve!

It is time for Hillary to stop "bloodying up" Barack Obama for John McCain.  I'm tired of the rhetoric that McCain will be even worse. 

FINE!  Then let McCain bring it. 

Hillary's primary hope to get the nomination is to overthrow the democratic process and subvert the will of the electorate.  Is this what we want in a President?  Is this not what we (as Democrats) have been railing against these last 7 years?

It is time for the Democratic nominating process to wrap it up and let our nominee and our party fight against McCain and the Repugs.  Hillary is either deluded or intentionally hurting Obama so that she can run again in 2012.  She has lost this competition and it's time for serious calls from the populace for her to end this charade.

She needs to realize why she needs to quit for the good of the party and the good of our nation.  We cannot afford another 4 years of Bush/Cheney policies just so that she can have another shot at the nomination.

I will be sending a calculator to the Clinton headquarters tomorrow and I would encourage anyone who reads this to do the same. 

I've been hearing a lot of people in the media commenting about if the nomination is decided by super delegates, that it means that the primaries and caucuses were for nothing.  That it will disenfranchise half of the democratic party.

What a bunch of BS!

Let me please remind everyone that if it weren't for the primaries and caucuses, we wouldn't be having this discussion.  Hilary was the presumed nominee!  Nobody else was even going to come close!  But 6 other people stood up to our "all but nominated" candidate and said to the democratic voters of this country "Hold On A Second!".  The process that these people are now saying would be considered pointless because the super delegates could decide the nominee is the exact process that allowed John Edwards to bring healthcare and poverty to the forefront of the conversation.  It's the same process that allowed millions of people to see Barack Obama win Iowa.  This process is what gives people time to get to no the candidates and hear their positions and make a decision about who to support. 

If it was just up to the party officials, Hilary would have been the nominee a long time ago and we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.

Florida and Michigan brought this on themselves and upon the rest of us!
 
Carl Levin especially bears responsibility in Michigan's case.  Levin decided that his need to make a point was more important than the our need to vote.

That said, it's time to remind everyone that primaries/caucases are matters of the political parties and there is no such thing as a "right" to vote in the nomination process.  There seems to be a lot of overlap in the conversation that confuses the nomination process with the election process and they are to completely seperate things.

So, for the NAACP and anyone else that thinks the punishment given to Florida and Michigan was too harsh, stop complaining to the DNC.  Get the Florida and Michigan party elders to play by the rules and hold elections that comply with the rules of these PRIVATE organizations and move on!

I'm increasingly annoyed by the insistence of several talking heads that keep bringing up this supposed "problem" that Barack Obama has with winning big states.  The premise is that he hasn't won any states with large populations and that Hilary Clinton has the edge in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania because they are among the top 10 states in the US by population.

Let's take a look at this.  The top 10 states ranked by population are:

California
Texas
New York
Florida
Illinois
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Michigan
Georgia
New Jersey

Let's start with the obvious, Florida and Michigan can be tossed out of the list as they awarded no delegates and the candidates didn't campaign there.  Hilary won New York, but it's her home state.  Barack won Illinois, but that's his home state.  Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania haven't voted yet and now we're down to talking about just 3 states.  Hilary won California and New Jersey and Barack won Georgia.  So for all the media's talk of Hilary's dominance in big states, she's only won 1 more big state than Barack has.

To top it off, Hilary only won California and New Jersey by 9 and 10 percent respectively.  Barack won Georgia by 35 percentage points. 

I know that the media is well known for their oversimplification and wanting to categorize in absolutes, but couldn't they at least base their comments somewhere near the facts?