One of my favorite Obama quotes came this evening, in discussing McCain's "let's stop campaigning" ruse: "Senator McCain is running his campaign, I'm running mine."

That alone, to me, is reason #2008 to trust and vote for Obama. So far, he hasn't fallen for any of McCain's attempts to tell him what to do--and McCain sure has been trying.

McCain "called on" Obama to travel to Iraq together. When Obama said no, the McCain camp mocked him for cowardice. Then Obama went overseas without McCain, and the GOP'ers competed to mock the incredibly positive results.

McCain "called on" Obama to have a series of Town Hall Meetings with him, and as recently as last week implied that if only Obama had agreed to those meetings, the campaign would not have had to go so negative. Bloggers crowed that Obama was scared to appear with McCain. But yesterday, it was McCain who tried to postpone a long-scheduled debate with Obama.

It was also yesterday when McCain "called on" Obama to suspend campaigning in order to better deal with the financial crisis... because, you know, the other 98 senators can't be expected to handle it. And Obama, bless his heart, said no. Not to rescheduling the debate and, hopefully, no to putting off the campaign.

Obama does not come when called--especially not by his opponent.

Thanks but no thanks. Obama's got his own campaign to run--and an election to win.

Some people love her enough to overlook any possible faults. Some people hate her enough to make up lies. All of them are right. Because none of us are talking about the actual Governor of Alaska. All of us--with the exception of, oh, Alaskans--are talking about the imaginary figure we've created, as a kind of place holder, until we really get to know her.

If and when we can ever truly reconcile our vision of the governor with her reality, I mean.

There was a time that first impressions didn't hold a lot of worth. But when McCain introduced a virtually unknown governor in her 18th month in office as his running mate, he forced Americans into a whiplash-worthy first impression.

It's one we may not recover from in time. Because it takes more than two weeks to get to know a real person. It takes more than two months.

But that's all he gave us. He introduced her with only sixty days to go in one of the most important presidential races in history.

Normally I dislike using sports metaphors in politics. They encourage us to cheer for "our" team and boo the "other" team, instead of reminding us that we are all supposed to be on the same team, Team America, no matter which party is in the White House or Congress. But this time, I will use one.

The McCain campaign, by introducing a relative newcomer with only two months to go in the election, is running down the clock.

People who ask in-depth questions of his VP choice are called "condescending." People who defend themselves by calling her lies lies are called "discourteous." The press is told that she will not give interviews until they are prepared to treat her with "respect and deference"--a demand, by the way, unprecedented in American politics. In the meantime, the airwaves are full of trivia (she likes mooseburgers!) and lies (she wanted to ban books!) and attempts at truths (she really was for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it, and she sold the jet at a loss). And every day of that is a day we didn't discuss the economy, the wars, the housing crisis, or the Constitution.

In the meantime, there really does exist a governor of both the largest state of the union (in landmass) and the smallest state in the union (in population, depending on the season). She's fairly popular there. But we're too busy being distracted by the Anna Nicole Smith / Michael Jackson / Britney Spears feeding frenzy (by the way, you don't know them either) to focus on reality.

Instead of me presuming to tell you the reality, let me ask you about it:

Think about someone, or everyone, you've met and instantly fell in love with. Were they the same prson two months, much less two years later?

Would you recommend marrying someone you'd never heard of two months before? Why or Why not?

Finally--and this is very important. What's the name of that guy running to be President of the United States on the Republican ticket? No, not Barack Obama. We've had almost two years to get to know him, sure, but I'm talking about the Republican ticket. The guy we've known even longer. Yes, that's it. John McCain!

The one hiding behind his imaginary friend.

I first heard this from Chris Matthews' report -- that the Republicans are trying to rebrand themselves as a "party of mavericks." We're hearing it from Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California, and Sen. Richard Burr of N. Carolina.

And in my head I hear Mandy Patinkin as Inigo Montoya in The Princess Bride, saying, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

At the point that we have an entire party of mavericks, can any of them really claim to be mavericks anymore? Consider Steve Martin, from his hit album Wild and Crazy Guy:

"Now let's repeat the non-conformists' oath: I promise to be different! [repeat] I promise to be unique! [repeat] I promise not to repeat things other people say!"

Think about it.

You've got to hand it to the McCain campaign. Today "should" have been spent analyzing and admiring the American anthem that was Barack Obama's call for Americans to grasp our destiny. But by naming not just a VP, but surprising us with 2-year Alaska governor Sarah Palin, McCain also snatched all the media attention.

Even the blogs supposedly about Obama's speech, over on HuffPo, seemed overrun by people reeling over the surprise.

I'm sure plenty of better analysts than me will discuss Palin's qualifications or lack thereof (she seems nice enough, even cool, but her complete lack of national experience and the fact that she opposes rape and incest exceptions for abortion bans--oh, and being a Republican--has made up MY mind). Instead, I want to note: WAY TO SHOW US YOU CAN BE AS SECRETIVE AS BUSH, McCAIN.

To pull off this surprise, the McCain campaign didn't just deliberately mislead the press--by never letting us see an official meeting or even consideration of Palin, by leaking his fake-out short-list, etc. He mislead ALL OF US. He chose someone who wasn't on anyone's radar, which means he chose someone against the recommendations of pretty much the rest of the country--even Alaska! (Not that they don't love Palin in Alaska, which speaks well of us--but they sure didn't expect her to be a VP pick this early in her career).

AND HE MISLEAD HIS FELLOW REPUBLICANS. Romney and Pawlenty both feel they've been manipulated, and rightly so.

So here's my question. At what point does pulling off a "surprise" cross over into being downright secretive?

While we're all discussing McCain's choice of VP, I hope some of us will look beyond the woman who was chosen and look at how the man who wants to be our 44th president CHOSE her. In secret. Behind the scenes. Without consulting his peers.

And elect Obama.

You've got to hand it to the McCain campaign. Today "should" have been spent analyzing and admiring the American anthem that was Barack Obama's call for Americans to grasp our destiny. But by naming not just a VP, but surprising us with 2-year Alaska governor Sarah Palin, McCain also snatched all the media attention. Even the blogs supposedly about Obama's speech, over on HuffPo, seemed overrun by people reeling over the surprise.

I'm sure plenty of better analysts than me will discuss Palin's qualifications or lack thereof (she seems nice enough, even cool, but her complete lack of national experience and the fact that she opposes rape and incest exceptions for abortion bans--oh, and being a Republican--has made up MY mind). 

Instead, I want to note: WAY TO SHOW US YOU CAN BE AS SECRETIVE AS BUSH, McCAIN.

To pull off this surprise, the McCain campaign didn't just deliberately mislead the press--by never letting us see an official meeting or even consideration of Palin, by leaking his fake-out short-list, etc. He mislead ALL OF US. He chose someone who wasn't on anyone's radar, which means he chose someone against the recommendations of pretty much the rest of the country--even Alaska! (Not that they don't love Palin in Alaska, which speaks well of us--but they sure didn't expect her to be a VP pick this early in her career). AND HE MISLEAD HIS FELLOW REPUBLICANS.

Romney and Pawlenty both feel they've been manipulated, and rightly so.

So here's my question. At what point does pulling off a "surprise" cross over into being downright secretive? While we're all discussing McCain's choice of VP, I hope some of us will look beyond the woman who was chosen and look at how the man who wants to be our 44th president CHOSE her. In secret. Behind the scenes. Without consulting his peers.

And elect Obama.

And once again, we get better reporting about the USA from England than we do from the American MSM. 

Link

I think what bothers me even more than the joke is the fist-jab and grin....

I want to see more posts start, "I support Barack Obama for president, but..."

It's better than leading with the "but," isn't it?

You may have noticed Democrats seriously attacking Obama, since the General Election got underway. At first I thought it was an oversensitive minority, the PUMA's of progressive politics. But enough riled liberals are crying out to fill a lot of inches--and minutes--in our mainstream media.

Examples: Netroots break with Obama over FISA compromise. Pro-choice groups decry Obama for third-trimester limitations. Separation of Church and State advocates recoil at proposed continuance of Faith-Based initiatives. Who knew Justice Scalia and Obama would agree on so much? And did you see--he's even wearing a flag pin now! (The sell-out)

Also? Just as many Democrats worry that these attacks weaken America's chances for a Democrat into the White House to change at least some of Bush's overstayed course. They call on the malcontents to shut up, at least until November, lest they undermining what progress we've made. Support Obama or else! Not very diversity friendly, perhaps, but pragmatic.

It hasn't been pretty. Or inspiring. Or particularly useful.

So how's this? Do both!

QUESTION #1: Do liberals have the right to voice their outrage, even their sense of betrayal?

Absolutely! Obama himself said as much regarding supporters on his website who reject his FISA compromise. He says: "when citizens join their voices together, they can hold their leaders accountable. I'm not exempt from that. I'm certainly not perfect, and expect to be held accountable too. I cannot promise to agree with you on every issue."

He says: "I understand why some of you feel differently about the current bill, and I'm happy to take my lumps on this side and elsewhere" and that "Democracy cannot exist without strong differences. And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker."

Most importantly, he says: "that is the kind of White House that I intend to run as President of the United States -- a White House that takes the Constitution seriously, conducts the peoples' business out in the open, welcomes and listens to dissenting views, and asks you to play your part in shaping our country’s destiny." 

QUESTION #2: Is an Obama who compromises on FISA, limits third-term abortions, reaches out to the Christian right, favors some gun ownership and doesn't reject the death penalty for non-capital crimes--an Obama who might even (omigod) shift his position on certain issues--still a better candidate than John McCain?

Abso-freakin-lutely! Those people who say "I cannot support a man who would [condone the FISA compromise/accept the death-penalty/flip-flop/whatever]" are lying to themselves, much less the rest of us. Because what reasonable choice do they have? Where do they plan on finding a candidate who has consistently held positions better than these?

Obama is in a race against John McCain. One of them will win.

Of course you have the right to feel betrayed--especially if you didn't realize that even the most transcendent of politicians is going to come with some sticky clay feet. But this election is damned important, probably, hopefully, the most important in our lifetime.

But consider this: On his worst, flippiest floppiest day, Obama's positions remain significantly better than those of John McCain III.

Is McCain talking even about criminal liability for the telecoms? How long has it been since McCain was pro-choice, even for the first two trimesters? McCain courts the religious right far more aggressively, and he's not even particularly religious! McCain called the Supreme Court's recent ruling on Habeas Corpus "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country." And you want to talk flip flops? How about the issue of torture? How about that business about the US being greeted as liberators?

No matter how angry you are at Obama--and I'm not denying your right to be so--can we at least agree that Obama is better than McCain?

If not, go back and read those quotes from his website.

Can you really imagine McCain encouraging dissent? Do you honestly think McCain will seriously ask people to hold him accountable?

I've got to believe that, in this light, you do support the Democratic candidate, at least marginally, no matter how grudgingly, over the Republican. So how about including that little tidbit in your critiques of him? Just to be clear to the MSM vultures who keep looking for reasons to downplay Obama's electibility.

"I wholly support Barack Obama for president. But I think he could do better, and I hope that he does. I intend to do my part to ensure that he gets elected, and that he therefore gets more chances to do better."

That is how we will continue to unite, as a party.

That is how we'll win this election.

You've heard the phrase, "Damned if they do, damned if they don't." I never thought I'd help put anyone, even a company, into that rock-and-hard-place position, but that's it. I've had it.

Next time I want donuts, I'm avoiding Dunkin'.

Next time I'm after condiments, I will NOT choose Heinz.

Why?  Y'all have heard the news stories, right? It's because both of them caved, almost immediately, to right-wing extremists. Dunkin' pulled a Rachel Ray ad because conservative mouthpiece Michelle Malkin decided Ray's scarf was a terrorist keffiyeh (which she equated to a KKK hood). And now Heinz has pulled an ad in which two men kiss, because (according to a British paper), 200 viewers contacted the company saying it was offensive. The whole joke of the ad for "Mayonaisse with a New York Deli Flavor," was that the role of the "Mum" of an otherwise British family was being played by a New York deli guy. The kiss was a simple, edge-of-the-mouth goodbye peck from "her" husband.

Okay, on the one hand? 200 viewers IS a significant number to contact a company, when you consider that each viewer who writes a letter is comparable to what, 500 unspoken opinions? Or it should be. But these complaints erupted after right-wing talk-show host BILL O'REILLY made a fuss about it on FOX News. Mind you, this ad only ran in Britain (until O'Reilly showed it specifically to inform his American audience about the horrors going on in British advertising). But apparently, O'Reilly is willing to go that extra effort to find something over which to take umbrage.
 
Am I overreacting? Very possibly. But it seems to me that the right-wing dittohead types are flexing their muscles in a manner that reminds me (vaguely, I admit) of McCarthyism. Bow to us, their complaints say, or we'll make trouble for you. It gives the impression that they are the standard viewing, donut-eating, mayonnaise-using audience, and they are NOT.

And I'm tired of it. So what if it puts me in league with a group of Liverpudlian gay activists who have already called for a boycott of Heinz? I'm no more gay than I am British, but I'd rather be in their camp than O'Reilly's any day. And if companies keep reacting this quickly to these nontroversies, that's exactly where we will ALL be. FOX News', Michelle Malkin's, and Bill O'Reilly's camp.

So my apologies to Dunkin' Donuts and Heinz Mayonnaise, but seriously. I'm disappointed with your cowardice, and I'm showing it with my pocketbook, just like the extremists are.

Next time, maybe take a poll before you pull.

Good start--she's praising Obama. "Ain't no mountain high enough" has me intrigued, though....

The one linked on the front page: "Obama takes heat from Catholic League over Pfleger"

I know CNN.com posted it first, but that doesn't make it right. Has anyone looked at who this "William Donohue" guy of the Catholic League really is?! Check out Media Matters:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200412210001

To call it "news" that this man took offense at something in the news (in this case, calling out Obama for being friendly with Pfleger) is like calling it "news" when Alberto Gonzales says he can't recall something, or when Bush calls something "awesome" -- or when Ann Coulter says something nasty. Meaning, it's not.

Here are some other Donohue jewels:  Senator John Kerry "never found an abortion he couldn't justify" and "Hollywood likes anal sex."

He doesn't deserve front-page link, above or below the proverbial fold. He probably doesn't deserve this post about him, but frankly, I was so upset when I linked the article that I had to learn and then share the truth about him.
I think most of us here--even the trolls--are above needing to hear from this guy.

Hey, didja year? The Democratic Rules & Bylaws Committee is meeting tomorrow (5/30) to decide the outcome of their previously decided sanctions on Michigan and Florida. Hillary Clinton supporters have vowed to stage rallies and carry signs to make their presence known (although the WomenCountPAC have vowed to make this a positive, fun rally without disruption. Really). In the meantime, Obama has asked that his supporters NOT picket the committee, in a quest to maintain order.

I like his chutzpah--the idea that the RBC will make the most reasonable decisions, for the best of the party without a lot of drama. On the other hand, I worry about the fact that the RBC may be hearing significantly more from the Clinton supporters than the Obama supporters.

So, while I'm agreeing with Obama's request, I thought it might be fun to post what we WOULD put on my sign, or WOULD chant at RBC members going by, if there WERE a big Obama contingent in DC this Saturday.

Any takers?

It sometimes helps me to take a deep breath and remember those words. AMERICA IS BETTER THAN THIS.

We are better than the kneejerk Racial Responses that many have stirred up in the Democratic campaign. Obama himself, in "A More Perfect Union," notes that we cannot ignore either racism or reverse racism--but can we not acknowledge it without FEEDING it? I think that, in America, enough of us can to make a difference.

We are better than Feminist fears that putting a woman into the White House is more important than putting the right leader there. As long as we define people primarily by their gender, we will continue to be sexists. Of course women must continue to fight--that is what has given us female Supreme Court justices. That is what has given us a female Speaker of the House--2nd in line to lead the country! But we cannot fight blindly, because we are better than that.

We are better than the Fear Mongering that has come from our own leadership, which is its own kind of terrorism and has done far more damage to the United States of America--to our Constitution, to our long-held checks and balances, to our very sense of well-being--than was perhaps done even by the terrorist attacks of 9/11. And I admit that the those attacks were a terrible, tragic blow and lost far too many good, good lives. But a healthy being learns to recover from tragedy, not to define oneself by it, and America should be healthy again. 

America is better than the aggression that not only Republicans have been putting out in the news--sabre rattling and bluster, invasions and excuses.

America is better than the economy that twenty years of "trickle-down economics" have left us with. We are better than our health crises and mortgage crises and employment crises would show us to be.

America should be--IS--better than politics that focus too much on "gotcha" and not enough on real issues. We are smart enough to hear the truth, and strong enough to take some responsibility for our own salvation.

I don't know about you, but sometimes--when I start to get really frustrated--it helps me to remind myself of this. And, more and more often, to act that way.

You?

(tagline: Almost nobody who has been calling for superdelegates to come out with a decision has come out with a decision of their own!)

It's time our public figures stopped being such cowards--and I'm no longer just talking about the superdelegates.

I was listening to the Rachel Maddow show. I love her work. She's been calling for the superdelegates to make a freakin' decision for longer than almost anybody, and said more of the same, but then she added something else familiar to any of her listeners: "I honestly don't care who wins, just pick someone."

And I thought: How the hell do you not care who wins? And aren't you sending out mixed signals, here? 

Rachel herself mentioned that more significant differences have emerged between the Obama and Clinton platforms on the issues of a gas-tax holiday, and one's openness to perhaps prosecuting members of the Bush administration. The candidates also differ on whether to "obliterate" Iran should it attack any non-nuclear Middle Eastern country or talk to adversarial leaders, and what kind of voters they've brought to the race, and how they've run their campaign. It would be one thing for her to say "I have my own opinions and do not feel that, as a news commentator, it is my place to voice them." But to actively not care?

Then I realized: Almost nobody who has been calling for superdelegates to come out with a decision has come out with a decision of their own! It's all Frederick Burr Opper ("After you, my dear Alphonse." "No, after YOU my dear Gaston.")

Howard Dean has publicly called on the superdelegates to start making a decision. Has Howard Dean publicly made a decision? Has Nancy Pelosi, or Harry Reid? Is not one important step of being a leader having the guts to go first?

And how about the pundits? My dear Rachel is but a drop in a much larger bucket-o-punditry, after all. And at least she really doesn't seem to care, as long as some nameless, faceless Democrat rises to the top for the rank and file to support... whether they're supportable or not. But what about the scores of commentators who obviously have a favorite and yet have never come out and admitted it?

Sure, yes, journalists should be objective. But these are commentators, not journalists. They are the spoken-word op-ed page. In what world is it more honorable to pretend objectivity while actually pushing one's point of view through the bias of one's coverage? I'm talking to all the Keith Olbermanns and Arianna Huffingtons and Chris Matthewses and even my most beloved Jon Stewart. Have most of them not voted already?

Judges need to stay impartial. Journalists should probably struggle for impartiality. But everyone else?

I challenge you.

If you want the Superdelegates to square their shoulders and speak up, then YOU FIRST. Afraid you'll be wrong? Well welcome to politics. Heaven knows that more Democratic voters have taken that risk already.

Me? I voted for Obama, and I'm behind him all the way.

Everyone else? Stop being such cowards and speak up. You want to be our leaders? It's time to freakin' LEAD.

Who knows. Your voice might be the tipping point that ends this thing.

Obama needs 23 Superdelegates to tie with, and 24 to pass Clinton in the last metric she's got going for her. More states won. More pledged delegate. More votes cast. It's time to make this unanimous.

Let's here it from the Super-D's!

End the drama, endorse Obama.

On Huffington Post right now you can find a piece by Thomas B. Edsall entitled "Media Jump Ship from Obama to Clinton." The author claims that the media have "become a crucial Clinton ally... a potential lifesaver," and then goes on to talk about the recent flurry of McGovern comparisons, at which point my mind begins to wander, because really. The phrase "Reagan Democrat" is yellowing at the edge already. McGovern? Before my time.

And I'm middle aged.

ANYHOO--I'm not here to criticize Edsall's piece which is well-written and probably even true.

Today.

Instead, I want to thank him for whiplashing me into a realization that many have stated, but which perhaps must instead be experienced to really grasp. See, for a few minutes there, as an Obama supporter, I was worried. The media is embracing Clinton? I mean, I've seen it myself (9.2% is not 10%, and let's see some support on that $10M figure, and oh yeah--OBAMA WON TEXAS). But to see it announced like that in headline font on my big, bright computer screen? The media deserting the man I think can help save this country? Noooo!

Except--why wouldn't the media be dancing and singing Hillary's name? (Figuratively speaking... I mean, there are images of Matthews and Olbermann that don't bear conjuring)  She just won a primary! The media danced and sang Obama's name after the Iowa primary. They danced and sang Clinton's name after the New Hampshire primary. Super Tuesday? La-la-la Obama! Super dooper Tuesday? Li-li-li, Hillary! (To the point that few of them can bear to revise the memory of that celebration to admit that hello, OBAMA WON TEXAS).

Things change.

The media is a soulless entity without loyalty. It will support the star of the hour, a position which not only will but must pass from candidate to candidate lest the goldfish-like attention span of the 24/7 news-viewing public lose focus. The flicker of media attention should hardly cause the supporters of one candidate or the other to celebrate or mourn, lest we train ourselves into nervous breakdowns. More nervous breakdowns.

And here's the real revelation: IT'S NOT JUST THE MEDIA THAT CHANGES.

You know all those troublesome polls where almost 30% of Clinton supporters (supposed true blue Democrats) say they'll vote for McCain over Obama, should he win the primary, or almost 20% of Obama supporters say they'd just not vote rather than supporting Hillary, should she wrest the primary... er, sorry, I mean, gain the nomination? NOT TRUE.

Not exactly.

I say this as someone who's muttered the same thing--"She's gone too far! I wouldn't vote for her if [fill in ugly incentive of choice]"--in more than one fit of pique. NOT TRUE...ish.

Which doesn't mean I was lying, or that I think anyone answering the polls lied, even if there IS an edge of rug-rat level, "hold my breath until I turn less blue" blackmail to the statement. Oh, we mean it. But just because we aren't lying now doesn't mean it will be true.

Not in November.

THINGS CHANGE.

That's the truth that such polling questions completely ignores. Who we are now, this wonderfully, passionately diverse Democratic spectrum of so-called Clintonistas and Obamaniacs? Of COURSE we mean it. We are furious and frustrated, and we cannot understand why the other side can't see the clear wisdom of our side. Uncertainty--especially in the hurry-up-and-wait primary-sized parcels in which it arrives of late--is a superhighway to stress. We marinate in the midst of a competition with lives and history at stake, pouring our donations and hearts and souls into our candidates, and damned RIGHT we wouldn't vote for "the other side," even at the threat of a hug from Rush Limbaugh.

TODAY.

But none of us--none--knows where we will be or how we will feel once November arrives. It's ridiculous for the pollsters to assume we do. It's even sillier for us to assume it. We will grow. We will learn. If there's a dramatic walk-out by either side at the convention in August, then it may be too late for the Democrats to regroup... but I don't think that will happen. More likely, some compromise will be reached that almost-but-not-quite splits the party in June. The figurehead of the disenfranchised will prove her (or his) leadership skills by calling for unity. People will mutter, and drink, and hurl invectives at the nominee. BUT, as the general election draws close, we will consider the situation on the Supreme Court. We will growl at the gloating on Fox News. We will watch the death tolls from Iraq climb, and roll our eyes as the Democratic nominee is called "tax and spend" while hardly anyone ever calls the Republican nominee a "spend what you never had in the first place, oh, that's a lot better" candidate. And while a handful of us may still be cherishing hard feelings, I suspect the majority of us will suck it up and vote for a Democrat.

Any Democrat.

I'm not saying I don't have hopes for a conclusion to the crazy, sooner rather than later. I'm not saying it does the party good to allow McCain this much time under the radar. But seriously? Since figuring this out, I'm a lot more at ease, with the necessary tension release of the Obama and Clinton camp spitting some venom at each other, while the mainstream media works as our great enabler.

This, too--the spitting, if not the media--will change.

Just like, eventually, out-of-date political references to before-our-time candidates.

And the numbers proving WHO WON TEXAS (I know. I was there).

Just saying.

Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/24/media-jump-ship-from-obam_n_98545.html