OBAMA AND THE PULPIT

There is so much about this that disturbs me that I hardly know where to begin. But here are some quick thoughts:

1. Obama in the pulpit. That's just too, too close to the GWB "pastor-in-chief" meme. Is that what we're voting for?
2. His too-absolute identification with Christianity. Are Jews, Muslims, Mormons, atheists and agnostics going to feel as if he's their president too?
3. The quote about "doing the Lord's work." So, like Bush, he believes he's anointed by God for the presidency? I'd like to know what "Lord's work" he's done in the past, or is this just another promise we're supposed to hope he keeps?
4. The whole flyer is so staged and pretentious, it's embarrassing. It's an insult to people of faith. Just how stupid does he think the people of Kentucky are? Does he think they don't know a giant pander when they see one?
5. This lines up perfectly and bizarrely with the religious/cult/messianic flavor of Obama's campaign. It's one thing for one's supporters to develop true-believer-itis on their own, it's another to actively encourage it.

Holy smoke (pun clearly intended), can you imagine if Hillary had put out something similar? They'd be mocking her on MSNBC and in the blogs till the cows come home.

WHERE'S ELIZABETH EDWARDS?

I don't know why I should feel disillusioned because John Edwards endorsed Obama. I was an Edwards supporter until he dropped out of the race (because of his anti-poverty campaign, largely), but I wasn't heartbroken when he did because I was already getting, via the debates, the sense that Hillary had a broader, better-thought-out agenda. And to tell the truth, the smell of sexism and the "good ole boys club" was starting to bother me. And now Edwards' end-game endorsement of Obama smacks of more of the WWTSBQ? activity than a true meeting of the minds.

Still, it's a disappointment. I thought better of him. Obama has done nothing to indicate that fighting poverty is a priority for him, and from what I can tell from his resume and his books, he’s done about zero for poor people in his life. For crying out loud, he didn’t even take care of his own constituents who were freezing in his pal Tony Rezko’s tenements!

Sure would be nice if Elizabeth would endorse Hill. She was noticeably absent from the stage during the endorsement announcement. She's a smart, pragmatic feminist that has much in common with HRC and has stated that she prefers Hillary's healthcare proposal to Obama's. John even indicated on Morning Joe last week that he and Elizabeth had voted differently, which I take to mean she voted for Hill.

NARAL TEXAS NOT CONSULTED ON OBAMA ENDORSEMENT

I just called the Texas chapter of NARAL, and they told me in no uncertain terms that they had NOT been consulted before the national organization decided to issue an endorsement of Obama -- and they just found about it about the same time the rest of us did. They didn't sound too pleased about it, although a spokesperson said they could not make a public statement.

Nancy Keenan is an arrogant opportunist, so she should fit nicely into the Obama camp.

From the Illinois chapter of NOW:

"As a State Senator, Barack Obama voted ‘present’ on seven abortion bills, including a ban on 'partial birth abortion,' two parental notification laws and three 'born alive' bills. In each case, the right vote was clear, but Senator Obama chose political cover over standing and fighting for his convictions. When we needed someone to take a stand, Senator Obama took a pass. He wasn’t there for us then and we don’t expect him to be now.”

But you heard the woman. He's got the money.

HORRIBLE PEOPLE

Despite all the rancor on the Obama Blogs, the only "progressive" blog I've removed from my blogroll during the primary has been that of Democratic Underground. Today I've removed AmericaBlog as well. John Aravosis and gang have reached levels of rage that have rendered them not only stupid but disgusting. And they call themselves Democrats?

Go away you horrible human being
by John Aravosis (DC) · 5/13/2008 09:25:00 PM ET

IT'S NOT CLOSE. YOU FREAKING LOST THE NOMINATION, WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?
...
She can't win, the math says she lost the nomination, but she doesn't give a damn. She's going to stay in the race like some spoiled hateful egotistical brat.
...
Now, far too many of us loathe Hillary Clinton, and she has done her racist best to ensure that her supporters can't stand Barack Obama either.

The Clintons don't give a damn about our party. Their party, their church, is themselves. To hell with everyone else.
...
Now I actually loathe her. She makes me yell at the TV like she's George Bush, and no one other than George Bush makes me yell at the TV - until now. I actually can't stand her or her husband any more. I defended her. I defended her husband. And now I'm actually wondering if the Republicans weren't right about them. That's how bad she has damaged her reputation. People who actually liked you, who actually helped you, who actually defended you, LOATHE you now.

It amazes me, the self-importance of the media and the Blogger Boyz that they are enraged that a candidate IN CLOSE TO A VIRTUAL TIE for our party's presidential nomination doesn't take orders from them (unlike Al Gore and John Kerry). How dare She? Who Does She Think She Is? Doesn't she know that they're the future of the party, that they have plans to rule, and that in fact they're in charge now and the most important influencers -- and that there's no place for Hillary and her supporters (horrible, racist people that we are) in the party that they're wresting away from its most faithful members?

And we keep being asked, what will it take for the party to heal, for us Hillaryites to lie down and take another one for The Man.

No, YOU go away, you horrible people. You're destroying the party, you're fouling any chance your favored candidate can win the GE, and as usual, you'll blame it on Hillary.

FAITH VS. HOPE

Just wow. I'm just now catching up on the news of last night's extraordinary victory for Hillary in West Virginia.

Last night I slipped on some oil in the parking garage at work and strained my already-suffering back and knees (long story involving past surgeries), but dragged myself into the car and drove home as quickly as I could, intending to drown my pain in lots of Tylenol and lots and lots of election results and commentary. It was certainly one of those days. I arrived home to find the electricity off (rainstorms in Dallas), including my digital cable. So no TV, no Internet. I just wrapped both knees in heating pads, put one behind my back, and settled in with a good book instead and went to bed early.

So everything's back on this morning, and I awaken to the news that Hillary beat Barry by 41%, but it doesn't matter. WWTSBQ? is the anthem of the media and the Obama campaign. Right-wing talk radio is full of "she's toast, let's get on with it" commentary -- you can almost hear them salivating over the radio, they're so anxious to get her out of it and take on BO.

It's not over till it's over. I've given far more money to Hillary's campaign than I have ever before donated to a candidate, yet yesterday I sent another $50 just on faith. What a return!

And that reminds me. I've been thinking of posting on the difference between faith and hope for some time now. This will be a quickie.

Faith as defined in the Bible is "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen," while the dictionary defines hope as the feeling that what is wanted can be had or that events will turn out for the best; to believe, desire, or trust; to feel that something desired may happen.

Notice the difference between the two -- faith requires evidence, hope is a feeling or desire. We have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow because IT ALWAYS HAS (evidence). We hope our team will win (desire).

I have faith in Hillary because I have the evidence of her past record, her behavior, her character as demonstrated in the public domain for decades, and her explicit promises as outlined in her policy positions and issues papers. Barack's supporters have hope that he'll live up to his rhetoric, but they cannot have faith because there is no evidence that he ever has.

What's the intelligent, mature perspective?

"WE'VE COME A LONG WAY, BABY!"

Created by geeklove. Go to youtube to RATE, COMMENT & mark FAVORITE the video.

NOT ONE CENT FOR TRIBUTE

Finally. A major columnist has gone public with the sexism and misogyny exposed by Hillary's run for the presidency.

Marie Cocco calls them out.

Most of all, I will not miss the silence.

I will not miss the deafening, depressing silence of Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean or other leading Democrats, who to my knowledge (with the exception of Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland) haven't uttered a word of public outrage at the unrelenting, sex-based hate that has been hurled at a former first lady and two-term senator from New York. Among those holding their tongues are hundreds of Democrats for whom Clinton has campaigned and raised millions of dollars. Don Imus endured more public ire from the political class when he insulted the Rutgers University women's basketball team.

Yes, Marie, that clarion silence has pushed this formerly loyal Democrat to questioning not only the leading candidate (who has also been silent, that husband and father of two daughters) but the leaders of the party and other prominent Democrats. How can Caroline Kennedy justify it? How can George McGovern, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi?

I'm still struggling with what to do with my vote if Hillary doesn't win the nomination. But it's supremely easy to determine that the DNC will not win even one of my contribution dollars, which will to a cent be disbursed to candidates who have endorsed HRC.

THE PROGRESSIVE ELITIST

Because for so long we have concentrated our ire and our air on Bush/Cheney, it's been easy enough for Kos, Chris Bowers, and Whoever Kidnapped Josh Marshall to fool those of us who are more inclined to populism and traditional liberalism that they were of the same mind and heart. This primary season has certainly disabused us of that notion.

But I have to say that Chris Bowers has amazed me more than any of the Blogger Boyz with his faulty and sometimes downright flaky analysis. His lengthy post today on Obama and the "current" incarnation of the progressive movement is so target-rich I don't know where to start. Take just the following passage for example (emphasis mine):

Another objection that will be raised to this formulation is that I am characterizing both Obama and the netroots as elitists, which is exactly what Republicans will do. My first response is that well, we kind of are elites, when you look at our demographics. My second response is that 2008 is the first election year where the conservative backlash narrative against "liberal elites" and civil rights will find itself in a minority nationwide. In other words, the era of "liberal elites" as a negative is over in terms of its national political effectiveness. Consider, for example, how Obama has been hit harder with this characterization than even John Kerry or Michael Dukakis, and yet he continues to comfortably lead John McCain and cruise toward the nomination. The changing demographics of the electorate have rendered the "liberal elite" change functionally inert.

Is he serious? Obama has been hit harder with the "elite" meme than Dukakis or Kerry? They were dogged with the tag from day one and it never let up. Obama didn't receive such scrutiny from his adoring media fans until late in the primaries, with his infamous San Francisco comments just before the PA primary, and it didn't even begin to resonate until AFTER Pennsylvania. In addition, the MSM long ago decided that no person of color could possibly be deemed an elite, owing to their membership in an "oppressed minority," so Obama hasn't suffered nearly the mockery that Dukakis and Kerry experienced. In fact, the media didn't even inject an iota of mockery in their reports -- the remarks, it was made obvious, didn't bother THEM, rather they questioned whether the comments might hurt him among the peasantry.

And where on earth does he get his information that the "liberal elites" attack is no longer effective for Republicans? They haven't even STARTED on Obama, and it's a sure thing that they'll use it, and use it and use it, particularly since BO is having such a tough time selling himself to lower-income, less educated, and older non-AAs. They know it's a Barry vulnerability, and they'll use it to contrast him with good old salt-of-the-earth ex-POW John McCain, who knows how to barbecue and graduated near the bottom of his class. And dang, if I were a Republican I'd be quoting Bowers and every other Blogger Boy who proudly declares "we are the elites."

Here's a revealing excerpt that doesn't surprise me. The "new progressives" (so many of which are ex-Republicans) are ready to dispense with the Democratic Party and take the reins of power:

Further support for this thesis can be seen in the demographic breakdown of Obama's support, which is heavy both on non-partisan self-identifiers, on high-income voters, and on highly educated voters. This elite, anti-partisan message appeals to the growing progressive movement, which is largely de-moored from identification with dominant institutions like the Democratic Party, rather than changes the movement. It is a sort of creative class identity politics, which Obama appeals to both through his life story and his anti-partisan, pro-unity message.

I find it hysterically funny that Chris could talk so confidently about Obama's "elitist" message and then call it "pro-unity." What's the opposite of elite? Common? Does he really think progressives can triumph if they frame the argument as between elites and the common people? How do you unify the peasants with their "betters"?

Scary stuff, guys. More reason to support Hillary and avoid the trainwreck ahead.

WHAT WOULD IT TAKE? A DIFFERENT CANDIDATE

Turkana at The Left Coaster asks what it will take for Clinton supporters to vote for Obama should he become the Democratic nominee. I posted the following comment:

Well, it would certainly help if he'd say one dadgum word publicly to shame his supporters for saying things like this (yes, I'm looking at you, Donna Brazile): "...the Hillary forces are uncivil, repugnant and vile."

Beyond the wounds his campaign has inflicted on faithful, long-time Democrats who simply prefer a different candidate, Obama has never demonstrated any particular loyalty to the Democratic Party. Despite Hillary's repeated promises to do everything she can to support him if he wins the nomination, Mr. and Mrs. Obama have not returned the favor. That's a little hard to swallow, considering all the unity ponies they keep offering.

Obama would have to change his pro-Republican "unity" rhetoric and back up all that "hope" and "change" with some solid progressive positions on universal healthcare, Social Security, and SCOTUS appointments, among other issues, before I'd even consider voting for someone who has so diligently worked to destroy the legacy and reputation of the Clintons.

But there's something I'd like to add, something the Obamamaniacs and the swooning media just don't get.

We don't know this man well enough to turn the most important seat of power in the world over to him. We have but the sketchiest legislative record to assess. He has shown almost no real leadership on any particular issue that helps us to understand his priorities and passions. He and his wife talk unity out of one side of the mouth and trash-talk their party and its most successful representatives, the Clintons, out of the other side. He has demonstrated no command of or particularly insightful understanding of the domestic economy, of foreign relations, or other issues that matter to liberals (notice I don't say progressives) and ordinary Americans. He has offered no new solutions to any of our more pressing problems, indeed has cribbed most of his policy positions from others, but watered them down in the process and making them less workable and less appealing. At the very least, he and Michelle have abetted (or endorsed by failure to refute) the accusations of racism against the Clintons. He has consistently and egregiously conflated the Clinton-Bush years. There's plenty more, but the point is, what we do know about him, we don't like or trust.

So when I hear pleas for "party unity" and for Hillary supporters to rally 'round the Obama campaign lest that evil old John McCain win the presidency, I gag. Of COURSE "any Democrat" would be an improvement over McSame in the normal course of events. But what others don't get is that we're not sure Obama qualifies since we know so little about him and have so little insight into how he will govern. I'm sure there are loonies who call themselves Democrats that I would NOT trust with the functions of government over John McCain. And many of us worry that Obama's inexperience, coupled with our other concerns and reservations, put him in the same category. And with him making noises about "fixing" Social Security, admiring SCOTUS justices such as John Roberts, voting for the Cheney energy policy, and running away from universal healthcare, he sounds more like McCain than like the other Democratic candidates.

It's not a spite thing. It's a considered response to an absurd campaign in which hope triumphs reason.

HILLARY CLINTON -- THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE

Now that pundits and leading Dems have decided that the primary race is over, many of them are speculating on an Obama/Hillary ticket. Most conclude that the hostility in the Obama camp is too great to allow Hillary the second slot on the ticket. Again, that's simply more fodder for the "it's all about them" charge against the Obamas. Many other hotly fought races found nominees reconciling with their former opponents to create a formidable ticket for the good of the nation (think JFK and LBJ, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush), but that's not where the Obamas are at. Barack and Michelle have always been reluctant to openly promise to support Hillary were she the nominee, and are ungracious in their presumed victory.

But the blindness of others, who suggest that there's a Hillary surrogate such as governors Ted Strickland (OH) or Ed Rendell (PA) that, if selected as BO's running mate, would assuage the concerns of Clinton voters, is preposterous.

In the first place, I don't want her running with Obama as VP. His and Michelle's attitudes towards her would almost surely prevent them from giving her any substantive place in their administration. If Hillary's not going to be president, I want her in the Senate where she can at least continue to fight the good fight for the issues that matter.

In the second place, there is no substitute for Hillary. Her experience, her passion, her resilience, her leadership, her courage, her dedication, her compassion, and her mastery of policy nuance are unparalleled and cannot be transferred by osmosis to another. She is far and away the best choice for president and our best chance to beat John McCain.

We will not be placated by a gesture.

R-E-S-P-E-C-T

Huff Post continues its quest to label all non-Obama supporters as racist.

Of course, the fact that 90%+ of AAs are voting for BO indicates nothing more than their superior judgment. And the fact that working-class whites may actually be voting, this time around, "for their own interests" as they did for JFK and Bill Clinton in the nineties, doesn't mean that they actually LIKE Hillary or believe she'll fight for the issues that matter to them. Oh no! They're just acting out of their thick-skulled, inferior, racially insensitive Bubba mentalities.

I am 34, a white male in West Virginia, and currently have an Obama sign in my yard. I have logged on and read total ignorance about West Virginia for days. I love Obama and his speeches move me, but I'm now uncertain about the base I'm aligning myself with. I have read nothing but hate and ignorance spewed at my home state from Obama supporters for days.

West Virginia is 99% white. The lead Hillary Clinton has in West Virginia is on par with whites in most states. So enough with the racist, backwards West Virginia comments.

For the uneducated WV remarks, I implore you to pull out recent World Almanacs and see where WV ranks on average in SAT scores in the country, because like I said in my other comment, South Carolina and Georgia are consistently the worst in the country and Obama carried South Carolina and did very well in Georgia.

For the racist remarks, you people have no idea how much the people in this state love our African American college football QB Pat White. There is very strong support in this state to have a statue of him put up when he graduates. Just ask Randy Moss, or OJ Mayo how "bad" they have it here.

As much as I support Obama I love my home state and am just starting to get embarrassed enough after reading the comments on here to go pull the sign out of my yard.

Obama's supporters better get a grip. Their words and actions not only reflect poorly on their candidate, the rest of us are attributing their sentiments to The One, since he's not said one word to rein them in. And we're sure-as-shootin' not going to vote for anyone that arrogant, spiteful and hypocritical.

The truth is, most of America has been gradually separating from the racial divide for some time now. We still have progress to make, especially in our institutions and social networks, but it's a far cry from the conditions that existed even 20-30 years ago. To trash fully half (or more) of the country as Ku Kluxers just because we're immune to the Obama Magic is a losing strategy. And it compares badly with Hillary's campaign, which, despite the best efforts of the Obamaniacs and their media surrogates to label it as race-baiting, has consistently demonstrated respect for every demographic.

POT CALLING KETTLE!

As you may know, we here at AMERICAblog are now awarding Hillary and her team a special prize every time they cross the line of decency and attack Democratic nominee Obama in a way that could hurt his chances against McCain in the fall. Our award is called a "Monica," and the Hillary team member will earn between one and five Monicas, based on the severity of their sleaze. This morning's Monica goes to former NY Mayor Ed Koch.


These people are unbelievably un-self-aware. SLEAZE??? It's not sleazy to use Monica as an icon, it doesn't "cross the line of decency"?

I vote five Rezkos for John Aravosis of AmericaBlog.

SUNDAY TALKING HEADS

It's amusing to watch this morning's news shows with their panels speculating on who Obama might pick for his running mate.

It's clear, from Michelle Obama's attitude, that he will never select Hillary unless forced to do so by pragmatic political considerations. And I have real trouble believing that Hillary would accept such a post. She has to know that if it happened, he would diminish her role in every possible way, relegating her to a campaigner and not an adviser or participant in the governing process. And Hillary is an activist -- she would never voluntarily surrender her ability to speak and act independently on the issues that matter to her just to fill a ceremonial slot. So the talking bobbleheads suggest that maybe a Hillary supporter such as Ohio Governor Ted Strickland might be a way to extend the olive branch to the Hillary wing of the party. Fools and idiots. Strickland or PA Gov. Ed Rendell will not assuage our doubts about Obama, and they will not serve as surrogates for Hillary. The media and the Obama campaign JUST DON'T GET IT. Hillary is not a REPRESENTATIVE of an ideology or a wing of the party -- she is herself, the best-prepared candidate for the presidency. We are not voting for her as a symbol. We support her leadership, which is not replicable. Someone else cannot substitute.

There really is no way for the Obama campaign to make nice with us now other than to appeal to us as loyal Democrats. And there is only one real issue that keeps me and others like me in the fold: Supreme Court appointments. Were it not for that (McCain praises Alito and Roberts as the kind of judges he would select), I would certainly be abstaining from a presidential vote if Obama is the Democratic nominee.

The discussion is almost always, on this topic, about how horribly AAs would react if Obama is "denied" the nomination. Give credit to Cokie Roberts for insisting on This Week with George S. that the media coverage, columns, and blogs have offered little respectful treatment of Hillary and her campaign. Cokie rightly pointed (I keep waiting for it, but almost never hear it) out that women are offended by the rampant sexism in this election cycle, and women are resentful.

Sam Donaldson defended Hillary on the "white, working-class voters" problem for Barack comment by saying that not only is that a fact reported repeatedly by every media outlet, but the Obama campaign knows it and is working on it.

This is NOT OVER.

HAPPY MOTHER'S DAY, HILLARY

Many of you know that I'm the mother of five and the grandmother of four toddlers. If you include our "adopted" daughter and her three young'uns (which we do) and the sons-in-law, we have a pretty large brood. I've played a lot of roles in my life, but none has been more satisfying than motherhood. Less than two weeks from now our oldest daughter will become a bride, and yesterday, as we shopped for her lingerie shower, with the cell phones ringing merrily between me and our four girls, I thought how amazing the bond is between mothers and daughters when founded on love, trust, and respect. Whenever I'm low and feeling as if I haven't accomplished all I wished to in this life, I look at my daughters and two sons and know that I've had a part in creating an amazing legacy of young people with good values, bright minds and strong wills that will enable them to make contributions to society far beyond what The Sage and I have done.

Hillary Clinton has faced more bad press and confronted more unreasoned animosity during her life and career than any public figure in my memory, yet she has produced a superior child, Chelsea, and her success as a mother is practically unquestioned. Hillary has been an example to us all in the way she has carved out of an incredibly burdened schedule of working for the betterment of ordinary people, an inviolable space for her responsibility and pleasure in guiding, educating and mothering her daughter. And adding to her personal success in that role, she has fought for other people's children throughout her entire life. So she is to be celebrated today, and every day, as an extraordinary mother, and an example for all the rest of us.

For years there has been a meme that declared Republicans as the "strong father" party and Democrats as "nurturing mother." There's nobody better than Hillary to represent the latter, yet she's demonstrated she qualifies for the former as well. She's our iron lady, our Margaret Thatcher, only with more brains and more heart. Lady Thatcher, with whom I have an acquaintance and intimate knowledge of through our mutual close friend, has had much less success as a mother, producing a spectacularly flawed son, whom she has doted on and thoroughly spoiled, and a somewhat estranged daughter that nobody even seems to remember she has (though her son's twin sister). Hillary is resilient, tough, focused and pragmatic, yet she is also and always a wise and devoted mother. I believe from the depths of my being that the nation is in great need of such a character as Hillary's to lead us through the monumental challenges we face.

So Happy Mother's Day, Hillary. This mother salutes you and is inspired by you. God bless you. And keep fighting the good fight for all of us.

WAKE UP, YOU OF THE "NEW DEMOCRATIC COALITION"

While Donna Brazile and her main man Barack Obama may think that Democrats can win presidential general elections with a coalition of The Creative ClassTM, AAs and the youth vote, I have very serious doubts that dumping other minorities, women and blue-collar whites is a sustainable strategy. After all, youth AGE and lacking another charismatic suit like Obama for a nominee, what guarantee is there that young people will continue to coalesce around a Democratic candidate in the future? The Creative ClassTM are process-oriented, not issues-oriented, and therefore not reliably Democratic (witness the way the Blogger Boyz have surrendered their progressive credentials during this primary season). AAs have long been a reliable voting bloc for Democrats, but they're never going to be much more than 10% of the total electorate.

I had lunch today with five other lifelong Democrats, two who have supported Obama, two for Hillary (me being one of them), one who has been unwilling to declare for either, and one who can't vote (a management consultant from Singapore who is still not a citizen, but leans Democratic). One still supports Obama but is "waffling," the other Obama supporter said she's now sick of him and the sexism and misogyny revealed by Obama's campaign and the media, and will vote for John McCain in the GE. We two Hillary supporters (one is male) are going down to the wire with her. The uncommitted said it's time for Hillary to leave the race, but he is highly skeptical of Obama and suggested he might vote down-ticket and abstain in the presidential vote (unless McCain chooses Romney for a running mate -- then he'll vote for McCain; he's from Massachusetts and thought Romney was a good governor). I took a vote, and found that of the six of us, FOUR believe John McCain will win the GE, one didn't have an opinion, and the sixth believed the Dems would unite around the nominee and squeak through to victory.

Not a good sign, Donna. Wise up. You need us. The party needs us. And we won't be there for it if party leaders and influencers continue to tell us they don't need us and/or that we're racists if we support Hillary instead of Barack.

WHEN PAT BUCHANAN IS A SANEST VOICE IN THE ROOM, YOU KNOW THE REST HAVE JUMPED THE SHARK

I've been in intense all-day meetings for most of this week and working on details of my daughter's impending wedding at night. While I've tried to follow events and blogs on my Blackberry Internet browser during infrequent breaks, I realize I'm woefully behind on things. So this morning I was disgusted to tune in to Morning Joe (absent Hillary admirer Joe Scarborough) to find Mika B. and David Shuster desperately trying to get everyone to agree (they had no problem with Peggy Noonan) that Hillary and Bill have gone openly racist.

(1) Gasp! Hillary in a conference call referred to Obama's growing weakness with white, working-class voters.
(2) How dare he! Bill told an audience of Hillary supporters that it is "you people" who are going to help her win this thing.

Mika and David believe there is something "insidious" with "long-term consequences" about Hillary using the word "white." They went over and over it with each guest, and it took conservative Pat Buchanan to point out that every pundit in every newscast for the past several weeks has speculated on the demographic results of the exit polls, which indicate that Obama has the AAs by upwards of 90% and has faltered in the past several primaries in reaching white, working-class voters. So what's with calling Hillary racist for doing the same thing? Did she say that whites SHOULDN'T vote for Obama? Of course not, it's ridiculous, and it's the kind of thing the Obama campaign and the media have used to tar the Clintons (and later, by extension, their supporters) as racist ever since South Carolina.

Then David Shuster had the "audacity" to say outright that clearly Bill Clinton meant "you white people" when he was speaking to his audience. Pat broke in and emphatically declared that that was grossly unfair to Bill Clinton. There were AAs, Latinos, Asians and others in that crowd besides whites, and in any case he obviously and on the face of it meant "you Hillary backers" of whatever identity.

When Pat Buchanan is the only fair-minded pundit on the panel, it's time to change the dial. Oops! It's the same on all of them ...

TONIGHT'S THE NIGHT

... until the Kentucky/West Virginia primaries become The Night.

I won't even pretend to have any intelligent idea of what the vote will be. I know what I want, what I pray for -- that's for Hillary to win both Indiana and North Carolina, unlikely as that may seem.

Let's watch it unfold.

Okay, first thought on the coverage. Chris Matthews is trying desperately to paint Hillary as an "Ivy League" elitist. Clinton advisor Lisa Caputo is shutting him down charmingly. Keith Olbermann (with Chris laughing in the background) is openly mocking (along with Obama supporter Tom Daschle) what he repeatedly refers to as Hillary "changing the math." It's oh so silly how she keeps insisting that the Florida and Michigan votes count. She's just delusional, and Tom Brokaw has heard from Clinton people that Hillary and Bill intend to take this all the way to the convention, no matter what. Well, that settles it. The Clintons are out to destroy the Democratic Party. I can't stand it any more.

To CNN. Ridiculous setup. Lou Dobbs is moderating a panel consisting of two Obama partisans and two Republicans. Fair and balanced, yep.

SUPERDELEGATES SHOULD LISTEN, NOT TALK

While the pundits, Obamabloggers, and DNC officials continue to put public pressure on Hillary to drop out of the race, some people are listening more to the candidates, and putting their own personal everyday concerns ahead of the hysteria of the chattering classes. Beltway vs. the John Deere voter:

There is a huge disconnect between the Joe Andrew voters and the John Deere voters in this world. No one can win in the general election without them. They are the Reagan Democrats that swing elections. The last time I checked, the voters who live in the Beltway have never swung a national election. Ever.

If the leaders of the Democratic Party want to win in November, then they need to step outside of their comfort zone and take a look at what the people are saying. Yes, Obama had glorious wins in the early caucus states, but are caucus voters reflective of general election voters? Voters then knew less about Obama than they do now.

This is not an argument for Clinton but an argument that the process needs to be taken to the end. It has to. To have superdelegates, the bulk of who derive their livelihoods out of Washington, decide the candidate without looking at the collective vote would be tragic for the Democratic Party.

And if superdelegates understand their greater roles, they know there must be a careful examination of all the primaries before they make a true decision.

Here is a requirement that all superdelegates should complete before making their decisions: a two-day trip across the state that they hail from and listen. Not talk, listen. A test of a true leader and thinker should be to listen twice as much as you talk. Maybe that is why we have two ears and only one mouth.

As one Hoosier voter said to me along the road, "just let us vote. Stop telling us it is over before we go to the booth."

HILLARY WILL BE READY ON DAY ONE

We watched the first thirty minutes of Obama's stint on Meet The Press, then switched over to ABC to see Hillary's "town hall" meeting on This Week With George Stephanopoulos.

Obama was weak, we agreed. He seemed short on energy, and his remarks about his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, were so obviously tired and defensive. A generally lackluster performance.

Hillary, while not at the top of her form, was still presidential, leader-ly, and fluid in her speech. She didn't have to think, she just pulled the information out of the file cabinets of her mind. That's the most amazing, impressive thing about Hillary -- her complete mastery of every nuance of every issue. It boggles the mind.

A plus -- the first mention I've heard on broadcast TV that Hillary has the backing of 35 flag officers. She worked that in nicely, along with some recognizable names such as former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Hugh Shelton.

George has to bring in the unfavorables. Her honesty is an issue. Hillary responds convincingly.

You know, I was one of those bright girls growing up, that the Tweetys of the world like to dismiss as so unlikable. I had the genius IQ, got the scholarships to college, always made the top grades. I was a popular leader at school, but I was concurrently known as somewhat of a tomboy sports nut and bohemian intellectual, which made me "interesting." And I had lots of friends who were boys, who didn't seem the slightest bit intimidated by a smart girl -- not even my debate team pals, who were all learning nerds and completely accepting of me as the lone girl in the circle. I never really felt the gender bias except from my parents' generation, from teachers and counselors, and after school, from business recruiters and employers.

When I moved to Arkansas as a young bride, Bill Clinton was running for governor for the second time. All our friends in our new hometown were Republicans who were eager to clue us in on the despised Clintons. What The Sage and I gained, though, was a terrific admiration for and excitement about them as a new political promise -- a pragmatic, intellectually engaged, connected-to-the-people, solutions-oriented couple who were completely committed to improving and defending the nation. And I was particularly admiring of Hillary, who had made some of the same choices I had (marriage, motherhood, subliminating one's own career goals somewhat to those of the husband) yet somehow found the energy and commitment to devote herself to public service at the same time. I could only shake my head in admiration and respect for her. And even today, as one of the "smart girls" so denigrated for the amusement of the MSM, I am in awe of her ability to process and store so much information. A few years younger than Hillary, I nonetheless have problems these days with remembering the birthdays of my relatives.

And now that she actually has received her well-earned position at center stage, she continues, day after day and week after week (as she did this morning), to demonstrate a detailed knowledge of every issue the next POTUS may face and the fact that she's reflected on all of them and reached imminently reasonable and thoughtful judgments. She truly IS ready to take on the job on Day One.

CLINTON VIEWED MORE FAVORABLY BY DEMOCRATS THAN OBAMA

I missed this yesterday [emphasis mine]:

The ongoing controversy over Obama’s former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, appears to have damaged how Americans view Obama. His favorable rating is now 47 percent, down 7 percentage points since February when 54 percent had a positive view of him. As may be expected, his unfavorable rating went up from 33 percent to 42 percent today.
...
The poll shows smaller changes in the other candidate’s ratings: Clinton’s favorable rating is up 2 points to 47 percent from 45 percent in February, while McCain’s is down 3 points from 52 percent to 49 percent today.

The decline in Obama’s favorable rating also is evident among Democrats: 63 percent have a favorable opinion now, down from 73 percent in February. For Clinton, 73 percent of Democrats have a favorable view of her, up from 71 percent.

Got that, superdelegates? Hillary is so "polarizing" that she has the EXACT SAME favorable rating among all Americans as Obama. And among Democrats, 10% MORE have a favorable view of her than Obama.

Momentum, ba-by.

WHY SOME CONSERVATIVES ARE TAKING A SECOND LOOK AT HILLARY

I mentioned to a friend at work that I had gotten a call from my youngest daughter today. She is, inexplicably, a conservative Republican.

"Mom," she wanted to know, "did you watch Hillary on O'Reilly last night?" I told her no, but I'd read some accounts of it. "She nailed it, Mom!" she said excitedly. "Well, that's what I read, but I didn't expect to hear that from you," I replied. She went on to say, to my delight, that she's considering crossing over in the GE to vote for HRC, she was that impressed.

My friend later emailed me the following:

"Actually, there seem to have been a number of conservatives who have come out for her recently. I think it may be due to:

- Her being tough
- Her being specific and practical in her views
- Her being willing to listen
- Obama not being any of those things
- McCain being so much of a wildcard that they don’t know what to make of him"

Now I know that the blogger boyz believe that any conservative who expresses admiration for Hillary is lying just so John McCain will get to face a weaker candidate (HRC, in the BBoyz view). I'm not so sure of that. Wherever Hillary goes she wins converts. The fluidity of her speech, whether in debates or in interviews, gives evidence of a clearness of thought, a mastery of the subject matter, that impresses more than the scripted prose of her opponent. The controlled passion she demonstrates for improving the nation and the lives of its citizens resonates with many people much more than the slick, even-tempered Obama. (The only time he shows much passion is when he perceives a slight to HIMSELF.) And to prove it, she's now doing better with Independents than Obama, who's been selling himself as the candidate who can bring more of them into the fold.

I'm not going to miss seeing her in the second installment of the interview on O'Reilly tonight!

YOU GOTTA BELIEVE

Joe Andrew proves himself to be not a Judas but a Thomas.

Andrew was head of the DNC under Bill Clinton and has announced that he's changed his superdelegate endorsement from Hillary to Barack Obama. His explanation of his switcheroo is so full of bloviated, meaningless rhetoric reminiscent of his new favorite that I could hardly read it without tossing my cookies. There's no THERE there, just lots of unity ponies.

Hoosiers should grab that power and do what in their heart they know is right. They should reject the old negative politics and vote for true change. Don't settle for the tried and true and the simplistic slogans, but listen to your heart and dare to be inspired. Only a cynic would be critical of Barack Obama inspiring millions. Only the uninformed could forget that the candidate that wins in November is always the candidate that inspires millions. [Emphasis mine]

Is he kidding? When it comes to simplistic slogans, "yes, we can," "hope," "unity," and "change" would have to top the list. And that last assertion, that the candidate that wins is always the one who inspires millions -- who in their right minds would suggest that winners such as Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter and George Bush (both of them) "inspired" much of anyone?

I'll tell you what inspires ME -- solid solutions for the problems of the nation and its citizenry, and the experience and knowledge to execute them. And "in my heart," I know what is right (I assume he means what is "best" unless he's suggesting that Hillary is wrong for America) -- electing Hillary Clinton as POTUS.

What is best for our Party and our country is not blind loyalty, but passionate support for the candidate who can best correct the misguided policies of the last eight years.

We need a candidate who will re-invigorate the economy and keep good jobs here in America. We need a candidate who will end the war in Iraq. We need a candidate who will provide health coverage for our 45 million uninsured neighbors. We need a candidate who will end our addiction to high-priced foreign oil by investing in renewable energy here at home.

That candidate is Barack Obama.

What would lead Andrew to believe that Barack Obama will provide "health coverage for our 45 million uninsured neighbors" when BO's healthcare proposal only truly covers children and ensures that millions of Americans will go uninsured? What does BO know about creating new jobs? What would lead him to think that a Democrat (Obama) who supported Dick Cheney's energy policy would end our addiction to foreign oil?

The polls already show the supporters for both candidates becoming more strident in their positions and more locked into their support. Continuing on this path would be a catastrophe, as we would inadvertently end up doing Republicans work for them.

And you think that by ending the primary now and disenfranchising states like Michigan and Florida, Kentucky and West Virginia et al will unlock the support of Hillary's voters? You actually believe, you cretin, that calling for her to be forced out of the race by superdelegates at such a time, when she has momentum and voters are clearly taking a second look at Obama, is going to bond us to Barack? Get a grip.

Innuendo is easy. The truth is hard.

Sound bites are easy. Solutions are hard.

Okay, buddy, put your facts where your mouth is. Spell out what Hillary has done to make you question her "character" and "vision" as opposed to Obama's. Detail what solutions Obama offers that have not been cadged off HRC's own proposals (and in many cases, diluted of their progressive impact). You don't SERIOUSLY expect any informed citizen to believe he has a greater mastery of policy than Hillary, do you?

This is specious nonsense. Andrew appears to have bought into the Obama inevitability argument, and he's placing his bet on the supposed winner. Too bad he didn't have more faith in HRC. Maybe if she'd been able to offer him a look at the nailholes in her palms, he would have continued to believe.

OBAMA FOR VICE PRESIDENT?

Is it time to seriously promote the idea of Obama as Clinton's vice presidential running mate? NYCWeboy thinks so and makes a good (IMO) argument in favor. (H/t Donna Darko.

UPDATE: I just ran into the #3 man in my company in the hallway. He's a Massachusetts Democrat now living in Dallas who likes to talk Dem politics with me. He's been out of town for a couple of weeks, so we kind of caught up a bit on what's been happening. He leans Obama, so when I suggested that I'm ready to talk unity (as long as Hillary heads the ticket), he expressed some skepticism that BO would be willing to run as #2. But here's the thing, I told him. If Barack wins the nomination and loses to McCain, he's John Kerry -- his career is toast as far as going anywhere beyond the Senate. As Hillary's Veep he can enjoy doing what he does best -- giving speeches and addressing process -- while Hillary attacks the very real problems that Bush 43 leaves behind. He can build his resume. He can prepare for 2016. And while Hillary will no doubt be heavily criticized for whatever she has to do to turn this country around, he can dodge some of that; and clearly, fending off attacks from the media and the opposition takes a toll on Obama -- he's simply not used to anything less than success and adulation. The next eight years will toughen his hide, improve his skills as a candidate, and pad his portfolio. It's a win-win for him AND his supporters, although I must add that delayed gratification is not their strong suit.

HAPPY MAY DAY, Y'ALL!

"OBAMA NO," HILLARY YES

Today's must-read, by Adolph Reed Jr., Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania.

I’ve never been an Obama supporter. I’ve known him since the very beginning of his political career, which was his campaign for the seat in my state senate district in Chicago. He struck me then as a vacuous opportunist, a good performer with an ear for how to make white liberals like him. I argued at the time that his fundamental political center of gravity, beneath an empty rhetoric of hope and change and new directions, is neoliberal.
...
It may be instructive to look at the outfit where he did his “community organizing,” the invocation of which makes so many lefties go weak in the knees. My understanding of the group, Developing Communities Project, at the time was that it was simply a church-based social service agency. What he pushed as his main political credential then, to an audience generally familiar with that organization, was his role in a youth-oriented voter registration drive.

The Obama campaign has even put out a misleading bio of Michelle Obama, representing her as having grown up in poverty on the South Side, when, in fact, her parents were city workers, and her father was a Daley machine precinct captain. This fabrication, along with those embroideries of the candidate’s own biography, may be standard fare, the typical log cabin narrative. However, in Obama’s case, the license taken not only underscores Obama’s more complex relationship to insider politics in Daley’s Chicago; it also underscores how much this campaign depends on selling an image rather than substance.
...
There is also something disturbingly ritualistic and superficial in the Obama camp’s young minions’ enthusiasm. Paul Krugman noted months ago that the Obamistas display a cultish quality in the sense that they treat others’ criticism or failure to support their icon as a character flaw or sin. The campaign even has a stock conversion narrative, which has been recycled in print by such normally clear-headed columnists as Barbara Ehrenreich and Katha Pollitt: the middle-aged white woman’s report of not having paid much attention to Obama early on, but having been won over by the enthusiasm and energy of their adolescent or twenty-something daughters. (A colleague recently reported having heard this narrative from a friend, citing the latter’s conversion at the hands of her eighteen year old. I observed that three short years ago the daughter was likely acting the same way about Britney Spears.)
...
And, as many Progressive readers may know, I’m hardly a Clinton fan. I’m on record in last November’s issue as saying that I’d rather sit out the election entirely than vote for either her or Obama. At this point, though, I’ve decided that she’s the lesser evil in the Democratic race, for the following reasons: 1) Obama’s empty claims to being a candidate of progressive change and to embodying a “movement” that exists only as a brand will dissolve into disillusionment in either a failed campaign against McCain or an Obama Presidency that continues the politics he’s practiced his entire career; 2) his horribly opportunistic approach to the issues bearing on inequality—in which he tosses behaviorist rhetoric to the right and little more than calls to celebrate his success to blacks—stands to pollute debate about racial injustice whether he wins or loses the Presidency; 3) he can’t beat McCain in November.
...
Obama’s campaign has been very clever in carving out a strategy to amass Democratic delegate votes, but its momentum is in some ways a Potemkin construction—built largely on victories in states that no Democrat will win in November—that will fall apart under Republican pressure.

And then where will we be?

BEHAVIORAL CLUES

Nobody who reads this blog can doubt the strength of my preference for Hillary Clinton as the Democratic presidential nominee and, eventually, the POTUS. But I truly hate that the Reverend Wright thing has become the focus that it has, and I hate to think that voters would select a president on such a basis. I back Hillary because of her experience, her mastery of the issues, her passion for improving people's lives, her resilience, her courage, her judgment. It is because of those characteristics that she would make a better president than Barack Obama or John McCain.

Obama's relationship with Jeremiah Wright amounts to what is called a "behavioral clue." It is perhaps indicative of his character or personality, but it does not define the man anymore than Hillary's slip about the landing in Tuzla defines her. One may point out the difference between a sustained, twenty-year pattern of behavior and the muddled recollection of a decade-old event, but my point is that we should temper our judgments on both with the knowledge that human beings are imperfect. In electing a president we are not selecting a new best buddy or a saint -- we are selecting a leader. Behavioral clues can be valuable in assessing leadership qualities, but they shouldn't be weighted above such tangibles as positions on issues, record of accomplishment, and relevant experience. When they are, you get a George W. Bush.

And I suspect that it is not the voters who do that so much as it is the media. They may assert, and Obama's aides may agree, that the Reverend Wright issue is responsible for Obama's losses and Hillary's advances in recent polls. I prefer to think (and truly believe) that in the absence of substantive reasons to choose Obama over Hillary, the newness and excitement have worn away some of the luster of his campaign. His only real assets, his promises to play a "new kind of politics" and to deliver "hope" and "unity," have begun to pall as our economy deteriorates, conditions around the world look bleak, and people are increasingly seeking real solutions for our problems. I think we're witnessing a kind of "buyer's remorse" towards the Obama campaign, and Hillary's strength is being recognized for what it is. We're also seeing even a few media types beginning to note her own behavioral clues -- grace during crisis, a willingness to speak to any audience, a tireless fighting spirit that also seeks reconciliation where possible. These are positive clues. We have now glimpsed some of Obama's negative clues, but he also has some positive ones, such as his even temperament. Let's take them all into consideration, but not let them obsess us as they do the media.

We have good and tangible reasons to earnestly support Hillary. Let's keep our eye on that ball.

LIES AND THE LYING LIARS

" Hillary's top NC surrogate bashes gays in front of her this morning, she does nothing."

This is a reference to remarks made by North Carolina governor Easley, who just yesterday endorsed Hillary's candidacy for president. What, you ask, did he SAY?

After touring a bio-manufacturing training center, Gov. Easley, First Lady of North Carolina Mary Easley and Clinton held a ceremony at NC State University. The Governor formally expressed his support saying that there was "nothing I love more than a strong powerful woman." Easley concluded his remarks saying Clinton -- "makes Rocky Balboa look like a pansy".

This is getting to be more ridiculous by the minute. I use the words pansy, weenie, wuss all the time to describe a weakling, male or female, and it never even occurred to me that anyone would read an anti-gay message into it. Aravosis really needs to consider which is worse, a former Edwards supporter implying that Hillary is more of a fighter than Rocky and in the course of it using the word "pansy," which few use as slang for "gay" but many use to describe weakness; or a conscious decision by Obama himself, the actual candidate, to give an unabashedly gay-bashing gospel singer cum preacher like Donnie McClurkin a platform to air his hateful opinions by inviting him to open an Obama rally.

And "top surrogate"? Since when did Easley join Hillary's campaign staff?

It's not even close unless you're determined to lie about Hillary in every way possible in order to discredit her and crown Obama. The blogger boyz have proven to be willing to do just that.

UPDATE: Oh, for heaven's sake. The usually semi-reasonable Atrios joins in.

THE DEVIL, YOU SAY

Oh, for heaven's sake. In one of the more preposterous Blame HillaryTM episodes, it's now being speculated that a Hillary supporter was behind the Jeremiah Wright fiasco at the National Press Club.

Like the devil, She's everywhere, she's everywhere!

UPDATE: Politico demonstrates that it's unlikely, but I expect we'll be hearing similar speculation in the cable talk shows today and from some of the blogger boyz. And there'll be plenty who will want to believe it.

UPDATE 2: Didn't take long for one of the blogger boyz to get into it.

NORTH CAROLINA GOVERNOR TO ENDORSE HILLARY

This is good news for Hillary's chances in North Carolina.

A former state attorney general, Easley has focused largely on education programs during his eight-year tenure. He's called on both of the presidential candidates to talk more about he issue.

"Gov. Easley understands that education and a good economy are intertwined, and he understands that more than anyone else in the country," Hendrickson said.

Two week ago, Easley wrote a note to Obama imploring the Illinois senator to take part in a debate that would have taken place Sunday in Raleigh. Obama declined, saying he wasn't sure it would fit with his schedule, and the state Democratic Party later abandoned the debate plans.

Easley is a moderate Democrat, a popular two-term governor. The only thing better, in North Carolina, would be an endorsement from John Edwards.

What with this endorsement and the fallout from the Wright media blitz, not to mention his own missteps in the Chris Wallace interview yesterday, Obama may want to reconsider his debate boycott.