No More Apples

The Tillman Story

2011-04-15T15:52:00.008-05:00

I first heard about this movie/documentary when Pat Tillman's little brother, Richard Tillman, appeared on Real Time with Bill Maher. Listening to Pat's little brother speak gave the sense that the quality of Pat was not unique to him. It was a family thing. Bill showed a clip of Richard at Pat's memorial service. John McCain and others spoke before Richard, assuring all present that Pat was with God in heaven and isn't that wonderful. Beer in hand, Richard Tillman took his turn at the mic. He was grief. I saw it in how he stood. On his cheeks. In his voice. Every eye was trained on him and every voice strained to catch his words. He thanked all who spoke about Heaven and God for their words and thoughts and, fearing nothing, told them all that Pat was not in heaven, was not religious, did not believe in God. "He's fuckin dead."

Richard Tillman gave the interview on Bill Maher's show in order to promote, "The Tillman Story." A documentary, I thought, about Pat and the circumstances surrounding his death by friendly fire in Afghanistan, April 22 2004. It was about far more. Not to be accurately summarized.

I can't watch it for you and I wouldn't if I could. You must see it for yourself. It just might make the world a little better. Maybe not. Hell I don't know but it's got a shit ton of things everyone should know and process.

I just finished watching it and wrote down what I thought at various times during the documentary. I'm examining my initial motivations in desiring to see it. I knew I wanted the truth. I knew I wanted, "The Tillman Story". I knew I wanted to learn more. Having seen it now I wonder if I wanted to be entertained. If I was looking for this documentary to feed my need to know about other peoples tragedy and if that might have been because my appetite for such has been hitherto unexamined. Was I a piece of shit and didn't know it? Are we all?

In order not to be so grandiose I'll get on with it. Fifteen minutes into the documentary I knew I was compelled to write about it. I knew it would hold things I had to comment on. The shitstorm inside me needed to be shared. So I paused the doc, grabbed a pen and paper, and decided to pause the doc every time I wanted to say something. At this point I had the thought that I might ruin the flow of the doc and it occurred to me that I might be watching it as though it was any other form of entertainment and rejected the notion of sitting back and chillin while feasting on facts and emotion. I felt fat with entertainment. And decided to do what I've done:

PAUSE: I'm fifteen minutes in. I'm angry. I'm sad. I'm frustrated. And I'm sick at heart. The writing is already on the wall. I Know where the story is going. But the lies, the betrayals are not here told by dispassionate news anchors and talking heads in monotone voices that treat this story as any other. No. This tale is told by Pat's family. It's not just a story. It's their lives. Their experience. Their child. What could be more sacred than that? And oh yeah, it's also about how the military and the government shit on and set fire to all the above. PLAY.

PAUSE: nineteen minutes in: Killed not by soldiers who were afraid. Not blind in darkness. But with dicks so hard to kill it hurts. They fire and fire some more.
PLAY.

PAUSE: 22:33 in. They call bullshit. nineteen year-olds are not Socrates. They do not all fight wars for all the right reasons. Common knowledge i.e. the propaganda says, "Young men fight because they are selflessly defending their country and fellow man. Not so. They call bullshit. PLAY.

PAUSE: 31:30 in. The military lies so despicably. My anger at them grows. I am awash in incredulity. All I can say, considering what I've just seen is, "What the fuck?" PLAY.

PAUSE: 34:10 in. The memorial service is held. Richard comments on what he said there. It's as obvious at this point as it was on Real Time with Bill Maher that this family is all heart and steel. PLAY.

PAUSE: 45:54 in. We the public shame ourselves. We are the violators of privacy. The media play their own disgusting role but it is our appetite they feed. We starve and demand to be fed with the broken hearts of others. We clamor for hidden camera's. For the close up on other people's minds that excludes and violates the integrity of the whole. We are indeed shamed. Pat may be a hero of a human being. I think he is. Maybe he belongs to no one maybe he belongs to his family but he sure as hell doesn't belong to us. He's only ours to the extent he shared himself with us and his family does likewise. He is not property. Neither his memory. Yet we take him for our own and lay claim to his memory without permission or restraint. We drink it up. I never before thought how presumptuous I was. I never knew I was in error til now. Kind of sad and pathetic, really. Pat and others similar have their own terms. And when they, "fucking die," the rest is up to those who knew and loved him. I fucked up. I'm sorry ya'll. It probably makes no difference at all but there is one less appetite for thoughtless shit around. For the next Tillman's. And those that follow. Fucking Play.

PAUSE: 49:15 in. Military. Propaganda. Military. Propaganda. Military. Propaganda. Military. Propaganda. Military. Propaganda. Military. Propaganda...
PLAY.

PAUSE: 1:07:40 in. How can we any longer deny that the military has a prime directive concerning the soldiers in combat? The directive is to lionize those who die in combat and when they do not die this way to lie and say they did. Either way, they're getting their recruiting poster. And they'll make sure their war has plenty of fallen hero's killed by evil enemies. PLAY.

PAUSE: 1:22:53 in. The highest echelons of power...well you just have to see it. PLAY.

PAUSE: 1:25:15 in. Bastards all. PLAY.

STOP: Doc Ends.

LAST THOUGHTS. One: See this movie.

Two: We don't know Pat. We know what we've been shown and what we've been told. We know what we think and imagine. We have ideas of him. One thing is certain. He was who he was. No more. No less. He was remarkable in many ways but he was still a human fucking being. If we're going to celebrate something, why not that. BOOM.

1976-2004

Planned Parenthood Debate Between Friends

2011-04-14T22:29:00.003-05:00

Friend 1: It's time to say NO to tax funding a radical pro-abortion agenda and the cover up of sexual abuse and trafficking of young girls: It's time to defund Planned Parenthood. Call your Senator today!

Friend 2: I appreciate your passion for this issue, however I respectfully disagree. Because of the hyde amendment, NO federal funding can go towards abortions. Abortions total only %3 of the women's health services offered by planned parenthood. 97% of their services include cervical cancer screenings, pap smears, treatment of STDs and birth control, That is what this money is paying for. Defunding these services would increase the spread of STDs and unwanted pregnancies which would in turn cause even more abortions.

Friend 3: THANK YOU FRIEND 2!!!!!!

Silmarill: Friend 2 beat me to the punch on the facts. However, I don't think it's accurate to say that planned parenthood has a radical pro-abortion agenda. They support women's reproductive rights. That's hardly radical. So does a majority of the American people. And as women's rights are the law of the land, PP's support for them is actually the status quo. It's difficult to comment on the accusation that planned parenthood approves the "cover up of sexual abuse and trafficking of young girls." Let's just go with, "I call bullshit". Love ya! B)

Friend 2: Silmarill, actually she' right about the abuse allegations. There is video evidence of PP staff assisting undercover journalists acting as pimps and prostitutes in bringing in under age girls for abortions. It's terrible. However, this was the action of a single employee and there is no evidence that this type of behavior is tolerated or encouraged on an administrative level. They did this at several locations and the vast majority turned them away.

Silmarill: I thought it was portrayed as being what you refuted but didn't make the point at the time cuz I was lazy and knew I'd still have to call BS because of the inaccurate portrayal. It was like having a cousin that uses drugs and someone saying that your FAMILY promotes a radical agenda of hard drug use and selling crack and heroin to high school kids. There's one thing wrong with this type of characterization: everything. Also your family would have to have thousands of members, all of whose behavior you are answerable for and convicted because of. It's funny. They have laws against guilt by association.

Friend 1: One out of every four abortions in the U.S. is performed in a Planned Parenthood facility. Data shows that since 1970, Planned Parenthood has performed at least 5.3 million abortions. In 2009 alone, Planned Parenthood performed a record 332,278 abortions. Former Planned Parenthood clinic director Abby Johnson has written that she was given an “abortion quota” and was even told by her superiors to double the number of abortions in order to bring in more revenue. Despite claims made by Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards and members of the media, Planned Parenthood does not provide mammograms. They are also not a significant primary care provider in general. In recent reports, Planned Parenthood acknowledges that it provided primary care only to about 19,700 of its 3 million unduplicated clients. These services have been trending downward for years, from 21,247 in 2007 to 20,235 in 2008, to today’s 19,796. Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger once said that "colored people are human weeds and are to be exterminated, birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race...also eugenic sterilization is an urgent need, we must prevent this multiplication of this bad stock". She also started the negro project which has one sole purpose- to elimate the african american from our coulture to create quote better health and planning and Planned Parenthood continues carrying on her legacy today. Do we really want our money going to this kind of organization? As far as Planned Parenthood willing to aid and abet in human sex trafficking of girls as young as 14, well I heard it first hand. Trust me, you would be astonished at some of the things I have seen and heard going into these places...you don't want your money anywhere near them.

Silmarill: Perhaps they do perform one in four. I don't know. What's your source hun? It's possible that a clinic director, who is extremely low on the totem pole and affects only one clinic, said what you said she did. She used to work for them so one might think she'd know. And she must be telling the truth. No one has ever bad mouthed a former employer.;)
I think you are right about the mammograms. Didn't know the CEO had made that claim but maybe they have given a few and she felt justified in making it seem like they do a lot more than they do since they are under attack for providing services that millions of Americans, especially women, cannot afford and/or obtain elsewhere.

I don't think they are a huge primary care provider or that they are organized to be as such. They concentrate their efforts and resources in key areas as David noted: 97% "cervical cancer screenings, pap smears, treatment of STD's and birth control" Birth control is 3% of their budget. Contraception is 35% If 3% of funding is to 332,000 abortions than 35% of funding is to over 3,652,000 abortions prevented. Planned parenthood prevents more abortions than all similar efforts combined. Ta dow =)
They already aren't allowed to use federal money to pay for the abortions they do provide. I think they should have MORE funding so they can PREVENT MORE abortions.
Margaret Sanger is dead. Her opinions don't matter.
Planned parenthood doesn't carry on any legacy except doing what they believe is right with regards to women. You can see their priorities in the services provided above. I think most people think these are moral and invaluable services. I know it's difficult to sanction an organization that provides abortions when you feel so strongly about how wrong they are. If I agreed with you I'd feel similarly. But the fact is we live in a compromised grey world where the same people who provide abortions also prevent the most abortions. If you get rid of them the net result is may times more abortions than they provide. That's worse than where you started. And, if you believe these are all human beings, it means you are going to owe the many more that are aborted one helluva afterlife apology.
Or maybe not. Just the way I see it.
No organization is perfect. Not one. Not even the Catholic church. But you don't hear anyone trying to de-fund them for their mistakes.

A Banking Thought

2011-03-30T02:48:00.003-05:00

My brother in law is upset because he now has to pay for his checking account. For many years banks have avoided this by charging exorbitant overdraft fees. Now that they are unable to do so they are charging for a service they provided for free in times past. His bent on the situation was that he was being screwed because the era of overdraft usury had expired. "I was responsible," he said, "Why should I have to pay for my checking account now just because irresponsible people couldn't keep track of their account balances?" What he didn't realize or didn't care about was the fact that he had been getting a free ride his entire life. He had received a service for nothing. Now, thanks to new legislation, he had to pay for that service. Oh the humanity! And he blamed people that had been taken advantage of by this system for so long. Fact is, bro, that you are the one who has been taking advantage of other people's "irresponsibility," as you call it. They have been paying for you for years. You have had the privilege
of a wellfare checking account for as long as you've had one. And now you're upset because someone else isn't paying YOUR WAY? Doesn't sound like a conservative value to me. Let's face it. You're upset because you have to pay for something you didn't have to pay for before. There is no other reason. So forget all the arguments you've concocted about the "unfair regulation of banks." You just don't want to pay more. And you don't give a damn who it hurts in order to keep more money in your wallet. That, unfortunately, IS a conservative value.

Standard of Living vs Standard of Life Part 1

2009-10-06T00:57:00.015-05:00

We just don't get it. Some play the fool for the benefit of others but most of us are the fools. Jesters in the courts of evil kings.

Standard of living is measured by more than how much you are paid for your work, what goods and services you can purchase, and how little you pay for those goods and services. When did the standard of living cease to coincide with a standard of life? When did economics eclipse way of life? Why isn't this an argument being made? What difference does money make when you detest so much of the way you live?

A standard of living makes no sense without a standard of life. In fact, one can have a high standard of life with a low standard of living and yet live a blessed and joyful existence, but few men can have a high standard of living with a low standard of life and yet be content and happy.

Machiavelli says, "I say then that such a principality is obtained either by the favour of the people or by the favour of the nobles. Because in all cities these two distinct parties are found, and from this it arises that the people do not wish to be ruled nor oppressed by the nobles, and the nobles wish to rule and oppress the people; and from these two opposite desires there arises in cities one of three results, either a principality, self- government, or anarchy." and then remarks, "A principality is created either by the people or by the nobles, accordingly as one or other of them has the opportunity; for the nobles, seeing they cannot withstand the people, begin to cry up the reputation of one of themselves, and they make him a prince, so that under his shadow they can give vent to their ambitions. The people, finding they cannot resist the nobles, also cry up the reputation of one of themselves, and make him a prince so as to be defended by his authority."He further states, "Besides this, one cannot by fair dealing, and without injury to others, satisfy the nobles, but you can satisfy the people, for their object is more righteous than that of the nobles, the latter wishing to oppress, while the former only desire not to be oppressed."

If the goal of the "nobles"(simply put, men of power) is to "oppress the people" And the, "only desire(of the people is) not to be oppressed." Then obviously the question of how to control and manipulate "the people" has been an age-long pre-occupation of thought and action among the ,"nobles." or "men of power." One imagines they have been perfecting it since prehistory. That they have turned history itself to their ends. How does one(or a group of individuals) accomplish this?

A politician cannot lead a man away from a way of life that makes him happy. This man wants no change. With a family provided for, with access to clothing, food, shelter, community, and relative peace, what need has he for a higher, "standard of living?" Unless a man be tempted, fooled away, or frightened from his standard of life, perhaps with promises of a higher, "standard of living," or by the fear of another tribe, or "people", what need has he for government? What need has he for politicians? What need has he for an abundance of possessions? What need has he to live a modern life? Unless one has a low "standard of life" there is no need for a high, "standard of living." Unless one has wandered, or was forced, or led into an unknown land to lead an unfulfilling life how can he be herded as cattle? When a man is satisfied with what he has how can he be controlled? How can he be oppressed? On the other hand when a man has lost his way he will ask anyone for directions. When a man is unsatisfied he will follow any and all prevailing wisdom and advice in order to fill the hole in his soul. In order to recapture that which makes him whole. Then all one must do is control the prevailing wisdom and advice. To control the information. To make "the people" believe what makes them oppressable and unsatisfied is what will make them free and fulfilled.

Pretty smart. You can almost hear them planning, "We'll also confuse them with pleasure, history, religion, economics, nationalism, disease, war, and a multitude of fears." They don't stand a chance." One helluva shell game. And simple in it's complexity. I would not be much surprised if the data and knowledge of the science of power, control, oppression, manipulation, and the plan to achieve it all could fill the library at Alexandria.

In this variation on the over-all theme that "Although the un-ending march to a better standard of living is in many ways painful and we must sacrifice for it, there is no other way to improve the lives of humans and the fortunes of humanity but to continue on the course that made possible World Wars, nation-wide poverty in the third-world, genocide, climate crisis, oppression for all, and it is now as simple as someone making a mistake to destroy our entire species with weaponized disease, chemical, or nuclear weapons. Maybe a rational person would reject some of our "versatile solutions for modern living" if it meant the return to a standard of life that was actually worth living along with the ability to live life without the tools of mankind's assured destruction staring him in the face when he wakes up and the knowledge that it could all end at any time eating away at his well being throughout the day. And clawing at his subconscious throughout the night.

On Civil Discourse in an Uncivil Time

2009-10-04T05:24:00.003-05:00

I believe in driving myself to be a better person. I believe in challenging myself to be a better human being, but I do not believe in driving others to grow at the point of the argumentative blade. Will this accomplish much more than resentment or encourage much more than the thought that I am trespassing on an individuals will to learn at their own speed and to perfect themselves at the pace which they have set forth as right in their own minds? In questioning the ways of influence I can see no better course than inspiration. Does this not cause a person to turn inward and confront what may be holding them back? Does confrontation not defeat this purpose? Who moves forward when badgered and told that their ways are wrong? I have not met them. But who, that is not wholly lost, can refrain from questioning why they feel or do a certain thing when the better angels of their nature cry out to them across the great fields of their malformed convictions? Let us then address our fellow men not through arguments that enflame passions long polluted by feelings of discontent and hopelessness, but inspire our neighbors by appealing to that which is common throughout the body politic: Humanity. There is no one among us, not beyond the grasp of decency, who can withstand the call to uphold the right. If we do not arouse the passions of a lifetime of neglect, oppression, or powerlessness we cannot fail to touch those who disagree with us. We are all one. One man, One neighborhood, One city, One state, One nation, One world, One humanity. One life, One love, One God. Let us treat each other so and we will not be so easily divided or dismissed. Amen.

-MSC

The Great Liar talks with Jon Stewart, Who Creams Her

2009-08-26T14:03:00.003-05:00

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Betsy McCaughey Pt. 1

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Healthcare Protests

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Betsy McCaughey Pt. 2

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Healthcare Protests

Health Care Debate Based on Total Lack of Logic

2009-08-26T10:04:00.002-05:00

Heated partisan debate over President Obama's health care plan, erupting at town hall meetings and in the blogosphere, has more to do with our illogical thought processes than reality, sociologists are finding.

The problem: People on both sides of the political aisle often work backward from a firm conclusion to find supporting facts, rather than letting evidence inform their views.

The result: A survey out this week finds voters split strongly along party lines regarding their beliefs about key parts of the plan. Example: About 91 percent of Republicans think the proposal would increase wait times for surgeries and other health services, while only 37 percent of Democrats think so.

Irrational thinking

A totally rational person would lay out - and evaluate objectively - the pros and cons of a health care overhaul before choosing to support or oppose a plan. But we humans are not so rational, according to Steve Hoffman, a visiting professor of sociology at the University of Buffalo.

"People get deeply attached to their beliefs," Hoffman said. "We form emotional attachments that get wrapped up in our personal identity and sense of morality, irrespective of the facts of the matter."

And to keep our sense of personal and social identity, Hoffman said, we tend to use a backward type of reasoning in order to justify such beliefs.

Similarly, past research by Dolores Albarracin, a psychology professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, has shown in particular that people who are less confident in their beliefs are more reluctant than others to seek out opposing perspectives. So these people avoid counter evidence all together. The same could apply to the health care debate, Albarracin said.

"Even if you have free press, freedom of speech, it doesn't make people listen to all points of view," she said.

Just about everybody is vulnerable to the phenomenon of holding onto our beliefs even in the face of iron-clad evidence to the contrary, Hoffman said. Why? Because it's hard to do otherwise. "It's an amazing challenge to constantly break out the Nietzschean hammer and destroy your world view and belief system and evaluate others," Hoffman said.

Just the facts you need

Hoffman's idea is based on a study he and colleagues did of nearly 50 participants, who were all Republican and reported believing in the link between the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and Saddam Hussein. Participants were given the mounting evidence that no link existed and then asked to justify their belief.

(The findings should apply to any political bent. "We're not making the claim that Democratic or liberal partisans don't do the same thing. They do," Hoffman said.)
READ MORE

More Coverage of Senator Kennedy's Passing

2009-08-26T05:01:00.002-05:00

And now they are all gone. And the stones wept.

Here is as much information as one could need: (Just click the picture)

Mass. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy dies at age 77

2009-08-26T04:52:00.002-05:00

By GLEN JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer Glen Johnson, Associated Press Writer –

BOSTON – Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, the last surviving brother in a political dynasty and one of the most influential senators in history, died Tuesday night at his home on Cape Cod after a year-long struggle with brain cancer. He was 77.

In nearly 50 years in the Senate, Kennedy served alongside 10 presidents — his brother John Fitzgerald Kennedy among them — compiling an impressive list of legislative achievements on health care, civil rights, education, immigration and more.

His only run for the White House ended in defeat in 1980. More than a quarter-century later, he handed then-Sen. Barack Obama an endorsement at a critical point in the campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, explicitly likening the young contender to President Kennedy.

To the American public, Kennedy was best known as the last surviving son of America's most glamorous political family, father figure and, memorably, eulogist of an Irish-American clan plagued again and again by tragedy.

Kennedy's death triggered an outpouring of superlatives, from Democrats and Republicans as well as foreign leaders.

"An important chapter in our history has come to an end. Our country has lost a great leader, who picked up the torch of his fallen brothers and became the greatest United States senator of our time," Obama said in a written statement.

"For five decades, virtually every major piece of legislation to advance the civil rights, health and economic well being of the American people bore his name and resulted from his efforts," said Obama, vacationing at Martha's Vineyard off the Massachusetts coast.

Kennedy's family announced his death in a brief statement released early Wednesday.

"We've lost the irreplaceable center of our family and joyous light in our lives, but the inspiration of his faith, optimism, and perseverance will live on in our hearts forever," the statement said. "We thank everyone who gave him care and support over this last year, and everyone who stood with him for so many years in his tireless march for progress toward justice, fairness and opportunity for all."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada issued a statement that said, "It was the thrill of my lifetime to work with Ted Kennedy.....The liberal lion's mighty roar may now fall silent, but his dream shall never die." READ MORE

The Truth About Record-Setting U.S. Life Expectancy

2009-08-25T16:15:00.002-05:00

The following from livescience.com:

By Robert Roy Britt, Editorial Director
posted: 19 August 2009 03:16 pm ET

Life expectancy in the United States rose to an all-time high, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said today. But that's only half the story.

The country is behind about 30 others on this measure.

Though the United States has by far the highest level of health care spending per capita in the world, we have one of the lowest life expectancies among developed nations — lower than Italy, Spain and Cuba and just a smidgeon ahead of Chile, Costa Rica and Slovenia, according to the United Nations. China does almost as well as we do. Japan tops the list at 83 years. READ MORE

Stand Up For Your Neighbor!

2009-08-25T01:16:00.004-05:00

If you want to know who among Democrats, obviously no Republicans are to be found supporting the 47 plus million American citizens without healthcare, is standing up for the public option and who isn't please visit the following website: http://standwithdrdean.com/whipcount-results
(You can just click the picture)

Good on the Democrats that have already agreed that they support the public option bar none but we had better let those other, "Democrats" who have failed to stand up for what is right know that they are being counted and we will remember them well. They will have no chance for national office if they do not stand with the better women and men among their colleagues and say without reservation, "I care about the health of the uninsured. I support the widows, the orphans, and the poor! I will not fail them in the greatest and most righteous struggle facing this nation since the struggle for Civil Rights! I believe that without the inalienable right to life, the inalienable rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness become irrelevant. Thus are over 47 million Americans stripped of their citizenship and become aliens in their own land. Thus is the Declaration of Independence burned. Thus falls our country from it's place on high into a depth from whence it will only be resurrected after the failure is universally recognized by the mass of men to be a blight on our proud history and an ugly reminder that though we believed we were past the great and shameful struggles, such as the prolonged delay of Civil Rights, and could once again hold our heads high- That in the year 2009 we failed of the promise again- to make this a country of the people, by the people, and for ALL of the people."

I urge you all to write to those who have not declared their support for this measure and tell them what you think. You are called to act. Do not fail. Tell them to say YES!

ps: all you need do is do a google search with the name of the "Democrat" and the word: email and you can tell them all your heartfelt thoughts. Do as many as you are willing and then do ten more. Again, You have been called. Stand with me. Stand with your neighbors. Do your best.

Barney Frank and the crazy chick "talk" Healthcare

2009-08-19T07:40:00.001-05:00

Open Letter to Congressman Weiner on Healthcare

2009-08-17T17:56:00.001-05:00

Dear Sir,

I am writing to you from Dallas, Texas. I saw your recent interview where you stood up for Americans, like myself, who have no health insurance and, in my case as in many others, have not had it for many years. I wanted to thank you for fighting for me. For fighting for all of us. I am nobody. I have no power. Obviously I have no money or I would be insured. There is no real reason to care about my health that will do you any good whatsoever. I vote democratic and am registered as such but, as you well know based on my location, that is of no help to you either, unless you should some day run for national office. The only real reason to aid me and others like me in this cause is that there is something within you that compels you to do the right thing without hope of reward. That you are a good man. Thank you sir. A thousand times thank you. I have written the President as well as my republican representatives in the House and Senate so that at the very least they would know I am here and I am real. And perhaps, if there ever is a reckoning, they will find that when they were called to action in the defense of the defenseless, that they, unlike you, have no excuse and will deserve and receive whatever consequences they have so regrettably called down upon themselves. Again, you have my thanks, my goodwill, and my unfailing support. You do us proud Sir.

WATCHING THE REPUG CONVENTION

2008-09-03T19:41:00.001-05:00

I can hardly believe what I'm seeing.

There are more women speaking at the Republican National Convention (excluding wives of politicians) than at the Democratic convention.

Just saying ...

MUST-READ POST OF THE DAY

2008-09-01T12:24:00.003-05:00

What scary-smart Anglachel said.

UPDATE: The ever-alert Charles Lemos spots a provocative post by Edwards' campaign manager Joe Trippi, who says that Dems should take the McCain/Palin ticket seriously.

SEXISM SELLS ... WHO'S BUYING?

2008-09-01T11:59:00.003-05:00

Near the end of this film, the question is posed: If women constitute more than 50% of the electorate, why aren't there more women in public office?

It's a good question. Women can be sexist too. I've observed it in the workplace, where a female executive enjoys her privileged place so much that rather than mentoring or encouraging other women, she denies them access to the inner circle. I've experienced it with a female obstetrician who told me outright that since she had to endure female pain, she had no sympathy with mine. I've seen it, time after time, on the airwaves, when female reporters seemed so anxious for solidarity with their male counterparts or superiors, that they expressed some of the same sexist remarks or laughed nervously rather than calling them out for it.

When racism was a more accepted, pervasive phenomenon in our culture, we were told that to accede to or stand silently by, when racist remarks were made in our presence, made us complicit in that racist expression. That principle is no less true regarding sexism.

I remember when, some dozen years ago, my well-meaning and otherwise sensitive CEO (of a $10 billion Fortune 500 company) appointed four men to be facilitators for his pet project, and four women to be their co-facilitators (which basically meant we were to take notes on the flipcharts). The co-facilitators were Director of Sales, the VP-Corporate Communications, one of our corporate attorneys, and myself, Director of Communications, i.e., all executives, not administrative assistants. When we met for our first planning meeting, the CEO asked if any of us had any opening thoughts. I looked around the group and asked, "Has anyone else noticed that the facilitators are all male, and the co-facilitators all female?" The Director of Sales exclaimed, "I was wondering if anyone would point that out!" The CEO was astonished and then said, "I didn't even realize it." I believed it. Though the husband of a strong woman and the father of a CBS news producer, the habit of sexism was ingrained in even this fine man.

My point is, if we don't speak out against sexism when it rears its head, the HABIT will not be changed. The first step in eradicating any prejudice is to point it out, repeatedly, until consciousness is raised, and the habit is no longer culturally acceptable.

I FALL IN LINE -- PERSUADED BY HILLARY AND BILL

2008-08-26T23:16:00.005-05:00

For those who don't follow this blog enough to know, The Sage and I are fiftyish lifelong activist Democrats. The Sage, my hubby, is often quoted here but doesn't participate in posting, but I often reference his wisdom. But here and now, as Big Tent Democrat often says, I speak for myself only.

I now declare that I'm ready to fall in line (reference: Bill Clinton has said, "Democrats fall in love; Republicans fall in line.").

We have five grown free-thinking children, two sons and three daughters. My youngest son (27) has been an avid Obama partisan who has been totally disillusioned by his actions since securing the nomination. My oldest son (32) remains an Obama supporter. Two of our daughters are partisan Republicans, the third (the oldest) is apolitical but leans towards our (her dad's and mine) judgments.

I have been telling my acquaintance for the past several weeks/months, and on this blog, that I haven't "fallen in love" with Obama. I have serious problems with his character, his experience, his electoral tactics. I am a serious Hillary supporter who, surprisingly, started as an Edwards advocate until the debates, at which point I switched my loyalties. Hillary, I began to perceive, was clearly, the most knowledgeable, the most passionate, the most viable candidate to confront the Republican juggernaut.

I was incredibly moved by her speech last night. She pointed out so vividly the choices with which we are confronted. And as I've so often said, I cannot vote for the reactionary John McCain. Tonight Bill sealed the deal for me.

I have no illusions that Barack Obama is going to champion the issues most dear to my heart. I am seriously disillusioned by the DNC and its machinations during this election cycle. I am, indeed, furious at the DNC, its obvious efforts to distance itself from the most successful Democratic political and governmental legacy in the past half-century (the Clinton years),and have seriously contemplated changing my voter registration to Independent. I have been seriously insulted -- but that is not a personal thing, that is a challenge to the DNC -- by the meme that the Clintons are passe. Excuse me? The only successful POLITICALLY and actually successful GOVERNING regime in recent Democratic history?

Why, I wonder, are so many influential and powerful Democrats so eager to erase the Clinton legacy?

I feel completely empathetic with the old Gandhi meme that he would have embraced Christianity were it not for Christians. Similarly, Obama's supporters and the DNC have given me a disgust for their leaders and my party. But we cannot afford four more years of Republican rule. So I will cast my vote for Obama, but it will, in reality, be a vote more AGAINST the Republicans than in favor of BO.

WOMAN'S WORK IS NEVER DONE

2008-08-26T05:27:00.001-05:00

Oh, that Marie Cocco. Read it all.

It is not lost on them that in selecting Joe Biden to be the vice presidential nominee, Obama has chosen a Washington insider who voted in favor of the Iraq War -- two of the sustained attacks on Clinton that Obama used to devastating effect during the primaries.

The television cameras will linger on angry and tearful Clinton delegates in the convention crowd. The commentators will no doubt take this as a demonstration of disunity -- and not a few will, of course, blame Clinton.

But it is usually the job of the party nominee to build unity once a vanquished rival has conceded and made the right gestures. Unless the loser happens to be a woman. Then it's just like high school, and she must do the work.

WHY I WON'T VOTE FOR MCCAIN

2008-08-25T05:28:00.002-05:00

In light of my previous post, I say this to my friends and fellow travelers who have urged me to vote for John McCain:

I understand what you're saying, and I'm very tempted to agree, but I can't. The situation reminds me very much of my youth in the sixties. I was passionately opposed to the Vietnam War and fervently in favor of the civil rights movement, but I took the road of working within the system and trying to amend it rather than the Bill Ayers path of trying to blow it up. I demonstrated, I sat in (even slept in, which is where The Sage proposed to me), I was even arrested at a protest, but I would not participate in violence.

To me, to vote for John McCain is a kind of violence in itself. It's a vote for more senseless war, it's a vote to continue the disastrous Bush policies the world has had to suffer for eight years. It's a violence against women itself. So I'll be protesting once again by not voting for either candidate. That's the only path I can see for myself at this point.

BIDEN CLOSES THE QUESTION

2008-08-23T00:05:00.003-05:00

I've been totally consumed over the past month with A REGULAR JOB. But at the same time, I've been monitoring the machinations of the Obama and McCain campaigns and trying to make, in my own mind, some kind of sense of the presidential electorate.

Tonight I'm experiencing a totally visceral reaction to the announcement that Joe Biden is Obama's chosen running mate, and the news that Hillary was never even considered. For me, that's the end of the matter. I WILL NOT vote for Barack Obama, this phony, ego-centric, empty suit who has no record whatsoever of battling for the progressive issues that positively impact ordinary Americans.

No, I will not vote for John McCain. But neither will I vote for Obama. I'm tired of hearing how "brilliant" Obama is. Tonight when I was coordinating a major event for my company, I listened to an excellent, contemporaneous address by our youngish CFO. By contrast, Obama, absent a scripted, telepromptered-assisted speech, renders halting, incomprehensible speech. He has given evidence of a serious lack of understanding and/or principled stand on the issues. We are not voting for a pastor-in-chief nor a philosopher-in-chief. Obama has yet to publicly carve a concrete policy philosophy, and his record is so obscure, yet troubling, that it is incredible to me that this naif has ascended to the leadership of our party.

This is it for me. The "hope-y change-y" candidate has chosen as his running mate Mister MBNA, a rather cool guy in some ways but a man who has served in the Senate for over 30 years -- so what's with BO's anti-Washington shtick? Joe Biden has argued against Obama's judgment and his readiness to be president. He's wholly owned by a corporate lobby, which renders Obama's attacks against McCain's lobby connections vain, toothless.

By the way, though I had signed up on Obama's website to get the hyped email about his vice presidential running mate choice, I did not get any notification.

Did anyone get the vaunted text alert?

ENNUI AND ME

2008-07-30T11:41:00.004-05:00

I'm in the end game of launching a new portal/intranet for my company. The days are long and the nights pretty close to sleepless. It's perhaps a good distraction from the continuing saga of Obama and his public.

I simply can't get on board the bus when I've already been thrown under it, and the more Democrats I talk to, the more I find that I'm not close to being alone. Most of us agree that we simply can't bring ourselves to vote for John McCain (at least, not yet), but I've never witnessed so much dissatisfaction with a Democratic Party (presumptuous) nominee. My take on it is, those who were with him before the end of the primaries are still with him; those who weren't, are not. Despite what the polls and the media try to tell us, my Democratic acquaintance are split right down the middle. And that bodes big, big trouble for the GE and the DNC.

"FALL IN LINE, YOU WHINERS!"

2008-07-22T07:57:00.004-05:00

It would have been so much quicker for them simply to write "Either you're with us or you're against us." Because certainly, the Democrats' best chance to win the White House is to act just as patronizing, high-handed, dismissive, and sneeringly autocratic as the Republican administration our nation has grown to love so dearly.

I love that comment from Shakesville's post on the letter sent to Democratic fund-raisers and office holders by officials of the DNC. It sums up in a nutshell what is tormenting so many of us about the current leadership of our party and the direction in which they are taking it.

Go read Melissa's whole post.

LATE NIGHT MUSINGS IN THE NATION'S CAPITOL

2008-07-17T22:32:00.006-05:00

I'm finally sitting in my hotel in Washington, D.C. after a loooonnnnggg day of meetings and a business dinner and reflecting on what I feel for this city. I travel here several times a year for work, which has always been a kind of thrill since it's the center of our government and the hub of our political system, and because it fills me with pride to look around at so many memorials and distinguished, even famous, edifices my company has built and contributed to the skyline of our capitol city.

But this trip I'm reminded of my visit during the 2004 presidential election, when one of my priorities was to make it to DNC headquarters and collect all the Kerry paraphernalia I could to take with me back to Dallas. Kerry was not my first (or second) choice for Democratic presidential nominee, but I had no problem throwing my wholehearted support to him. I have no such inclination now. I still haven't decided if I can even bring myself to vote for Obama, who of ALL those running for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, wasn't on my list at all. At first I assumed that Barack was simply attempting to raise his recognition level in order to support a run in 2012 or 2016. It just wasn't credible to me that someone with such limited experience, thin resume and practically non-existent list of accomplishments (apart from two well-selling and self-serving personal journals) could be a viable candidate for the presidency at one of the most critical times in our nation's history.

But thanks to a venal DNC, cynical party leaders, and a once-again complicit and trivial media, we have what is perhaps the most unqualified candidate of a major party ever. Jiminy cricket, even the totally inept Ulysses S. Grant had better credentials!

I feel like I'm moving through a fog of unreality. At every juncture I see shades of W's campaigns in 2000 and 2004. The fact that we're talking about a Democrat now instead of a Republican doesn't change anything. Lack of governing, executive or legislative inexperience, ignorance of public policy issues, and personal arrogance and sense of entitlement are just as worrisome to me in a Democrat as in a Republican (even W had more experience than BO, though I think it's fairly obvious that Obama bests him in the arrogance sweepstakes). Nothing matters except that the media is fascinated and charmed by The Chosen One (whether W or BO) and despises the alternative (Al then, Hillary now), and when the victor gets the spoils the media revels in its power and the glory of Access. Too bad for the rest of us.

I've voted nearly straight Democratic (two exceptions that I can remember) for more decades than I like to admit, not as a knee-jerk reaction but because the values of our party were, to me, vastly preferable to those of the opposition party. I can't say that anymore. I just plain don't trust that those time-honored Democratic values are shared by Obama or our current party leadership. And I'm unwilling to associate myself with a candidate in whom I can find no compelling vision for the nation, no core principles, no new solutions for the many, varied and critical problems we face, and no burning desire to advance the well-being of the common people that can compare with his burning ambition to elevate his own status (don't get me started on the faux presidential seal, the Invesco Field convention acceptance speech, the Brandenburg Gate rally, oh my!).

So it's a sad visit compared to four years ago. I so remember the elation The Sage and I felt in 1992 when Bill Clinton was, against all odds, elected president. We've been waiting a very long time to once more have that kind of confidence in our national leadership, and we surely thought that this would be the year that was.
And as much as I admire, appreciate and support Hillary, it just ain't about her. It's about Obama. And if I hear or read one more implication that if I don't support him I'm a racist, I'll be more than tempted to throw a really, really big wad of money John McCain's way.

Has anyone else ever observed that hotel toilet bowls seem to be much smaller and lower to the ground than those in our homes? Been meaning to ask that question for about 30 years.

FORMER OBAMA SUPPORTERS REPUDIATE THEIR PRIMARY VOTE

2008-07-15T08:28:00.003-05:00

Interesting new blog -- Former Obama Supporters speak out about their disillusionment.

More than one pundit has asked incredulously, "What did you think you were voting for? He told you who he was, you just weren't listening ..." as if all those who bought into the "new kind of politics" and the hope/change/unity shtick are just credulous morons.

I disagree. I think they're idealistic, that they're yearning for a more responsive government and a better way of getting there. I'm tired of people blaming voters for their votes instead of pointing the finger where it belongs -- at cynical, lying politicians who betray the trust of the people who believed they meant what they said. I don't like it when the Blogger Boyz, the media and pundits whine about Clinton supporters who won't fall in line, and I don't like it when the same people roll their eyes at Obamacrats who are distressed about their candidate's about-face on issues that matter to them and regret their primary vote.

Get this straight, you REAL cretins of the media and the punditry -- voters aren't the problem. YOU ARE, for not doing your duty in vetting the candidates on issues and ideology, on their track record and statements rather than handicapping the horserace and concentrating on the petty "character" dialogues and narratives you all love so much to invent.

TOO LATE THE INDIGNATION

2008-07-11T08:57:00.007-05:00

Digby is miffed because McCain tells a story wrong and the press doesn't blow it up into a big story.

Sorry, Digby, but it's hard to work up a good mad-on, when Obama has gotten away with the same kind of thing over and over -- from his talking about being conceived after the Selma march (it happened after he was born) to the Auschwitz thing, to the Kennedys bringing his father to the USA to study, the errors and misrememberings and embellishments in his two books, the list is long. He's a kind of Forrest Gump, who loves to associate himself with great historic moments, only he makes the sh*t up. In the case you cite, the only McCain falsity was in the identity of the NFL team.

But yes, you're right, if Hillary had made a comparable mistake she'd have been pilloried (maybe we should change that word to Hilloried?) by the media and her political opposition. Since Obama's gotten pretty much the same pass from them as McCain in this regard, your indignation, at this point anyway, is IMHO misplaced.

As much as I have loved Digby since Hullaballoo began, I sure wish she'd aired a little more of her righteous anger while HRC was being belittled in the primaries. It's a little late for me to work up any heat against the media for their treatment of Obama now when he was so obviously the beneficiary of their regard and favoritism during the primary -- and none of the Obamacrats were crying foul then.

HE TOLD YOU SO (AND SO DID I)

2008-07-09T08:11:00.005-05:00

Today on Morning Joe, Scarborough asked columnist Gail Collins if she was surprised that Obama had moved so sharply and quickly to the center. Collins expressed surprise at the question. I'll try to paraphrase from memory.

Haven't you been listening to him all along? she replied. How exactly did you think he was going to get all this "unity" without compromising with the Republicans?

The unity shtick has never worked for me, not from the beginning. It's smacked of more and better capitulation to the forces of darkness, and we've had enough of that from Pelosi, Reid, Hoyer and the like. What we Democrats needed at this point in time was a FIGHTER, not an appeaser. What did you THINK post-partisan meant, anyway? You can't have an after-partisanship candidate until there's no partisanship! The Rethuglicans certainly have no intentions of making nice with the Dems, so the only logical conclusion is that Obama has been advocating unilateral Democratic disarmament.

But BO's "transcendence," his oratory, his manly maleness, and most of all the fact that he isn't a Clinton, bamboozled the media, the DNC, and the Blogger Boyz to the extent that they ignored (or maybe they were just crossing their fingers) all the signs that he is a typical politician and opportunist extraordinaire who can show no evidence of actually doing any good for anyone in his entire life and career.

I am quite sure now that once the Democratic National Convention takes place, I will be checking out of the blogging world. The only reason I'm still around at this point is that I harbor an infinitesimal hope that something will shake out that will, after all, bring Hillary the nomination. Lacking that, I have no intention of or interest in being an active spectator of the mess that will follow.

The DNC and all too many Democratic/liberal leaders have betrayed the party and precisely half of its voting base. I never thought I'd live to see the day when Democrats would adopt Republican/right-wing tactics and talking points, and I have no intention of rewarding that bad behavior with my vote.

SWEETIE'S GOT THE BLUES

2008-07-08T08:28:00.004-05:00

Marie Cocco is seeing red.

Somewhere along Barack Obama's winding road through the red states, he lost me. It happened when he talked about women who are "feeling blue."
...
But I do wonder why a candidate praised for his rhetorical gifts talks about women in the way that he does. During the primary campaign, he said Hillary Clinton launched political attacks on him "periodically, when she's feeling down." He called a Detroit reporter "sweetie" when she was trying to ask him about job creation. Now he has incorporated a myth created by the right -- that women who seek late-term abortions should not be allowed to do so if they are "feeling blue" -- into his own lexicon. And this is enough to make me see red.

Good stuff.

WISHIN' AND HOPIN'

2008-07-08T08:08:00.004-05:00

Well, well. Bob Herbert is feeling the pain.

Mr. Obama is betting that in the long run none of this will matter, that the most important thing is winning the White House, that his staunchest supporters (horrified at the very idea of a President McCain) will be there when he needs them.

He seems to believe that his shifts and twists and clever panders — as opposed to bold, principled leadership on important matters — will entice large numbers of independent and conservative voters to climb off the fence and run into his yard.

Maybe. But that’s a very dangerous game for a man who first turned voters on by presenting himself as someone who was different, who wouldn’t engage in the terminal emptiness of politics as usual.

Time flies and the Iowa caucuses seem a very long time ago.

Is it really too late to do something about this? Is there even the remotest possibility that party leaders could wake up, throw open the nominating convention, and enough superdelegates change their minds and throw their support to HRC, securing her the nomination?

Nah. But a girl can dream.

EASY TO BE HARD

2008-07-02T15:58:00.006-05:00

Here's a Guardian tale of how the Left took pleasure in smearing Hillary during the primary by using right-wing talking points.

Throughout the course of the Democratic primary, it was neatly repackaged as "wildly ambitious person who will do anything in her voracious quest to win including destroying the Democratic Party while cackling monstrously and whose womanness totally doesn't matter we swear." The classic misogynist charge once used against Clinton by the vast right-wing conspiracy became the rallying cry of large swaths of the erstwhile reality-based community.

Without a hint of irony.

Clinton was suddenly a bitch, a witch, the Queen of Hearts "who has parasitically attached herself to the legacy and record of" her husband, the screech on the blackboard with an elitist trademark laugh. "Hitlery," "Hildebeast," and "Billary" - staples of 1990s criticisms of the feminist First Lady have returned with a vengeance. She was a monster, the devil in a pantsuit, targeted with dehumanizing and eliminationist rhetoric to which liberal bloggers used to object when the right used it against liberals, but apparently now consider okay, as long as it's only directed at a candidate they don't like.

In a spectacular ballet of aggressive misogyny, attacks on Clinton's femaleness masquerading as critiques of Clinton's policies and campaign failures (separate altogether from legitimate critiques of Clinton's policies and campaign failures), and indifference to the former, the liberal blogosphere - once a proud conglomeration of feisty challengers to Republican memes - embraced as its own one of the most pernicious strategies of the 1990s anti-Clinton conservatives.

And they didn't stop there.

But no, Nancy P., no sexism here except the upside. Nothing to see, move on.

UPDATE: Here's Part Two.

BUSHAMA 2.0

2008-07-01T10:17:00.003-05:00

So Obama wants to outdo Bush in supporting and funding religious charities with taxpayer dollars.

My boss, the Massachusetts Democrat, just walked into my office with the news, asking, "So is Obama running as a Republican now?"

Folks, Obama is correct in this: "...I came to see faith as being both a personal commitment to Christ and a commitment to my community; that while I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work.." But that's a personal commitment, not a commitment you can make on behalf of other citizens and public monies. If Obama wants to serve the nation as pastor-in-chief, all well and good. But our president's chief duty is to protect and preserve the Constitution (not, as both Bush and Obama have said, to protect the people), and this commingling of church and state has got to stop.

Wonder how the Blogger Boyz will receive this one ... and what excuses they'll make for BO this time, after positively eviscerating GWB for doing the same thing. I guess we'll have to start a new acronym for them -- IOKIYO.

OBAMA=1, DOBSON=0

2008-06-28T09:06:00.004-05:00

I'm beginning to think that Obama's true calling might have been as a philosopher/teacher.

The passage of the speech that prompted Dobson's "fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution" and "lowest common denominator of morality" comments was this: "Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. What do I mean by this? It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, to take one example, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all."

Dobson paraphrased this as "unless everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe in." But that's not what Obama was saying at all. Rather, he was arguing that in a pluralistic nation like ours, politics depends on people of faith being able to persuade others based on common and accessible ground and appeals to reason -- which sounds entirely reasonable. Christians who oppose abortion can make an effective case by talking about sonograms, fetal development and the moral imperative to protect the most vulnerable. That doesn't mean one's faith shouldn't inform the question of abortion -- or, for that matter, war, poverty and other issues. After all, President Lincoln's argument against slavery was partly grounded in faith. But appeals to the Bible or church teaching aren't sufficient in a pluralistic nation. That's why Lincoln talked primarily about the Declaration of Independence.

There are certainly reasons for evangelicals to have concerns about Obama -- based on his extreme views on abortion, judicial nominees, Iraq (his plans for a precipitous withdrawal would probably trigger mass death and perhaps even genocide) and other issues. But critics of Obama have an obligation to provide a fair and honest critique, and the attacks leveled by Dobson fall terribly short of that standard.

I'm impressed by BO's words here, unlike his usual stump speech themes of "change, hope, unity." In this case, he expounds a distinct, reasonable approach to the church/state conundrum that confounds so many. Man is both a political animal and a religious animal, and resolving the two natures in the civil sphere has proven a challenge to humans throughout history. His contribution to the debate here is not negligible.

The Dobsons and Robertsons have served us ill by trying to impose their interpretation of Biblical principles upon our society, our laws, our institutions. Obama's message is that we humans cannot isolate our spiritual selves when we enter the public sphere; indeed, the words of our founding documents include spiritual references; but the Constitution itself states that there can be no civilly-recognized religion, ergo there can be no law instituted that is based solely on the tenets of a particular faith. While our faith may inform our political philosophy, it cannot be cited as the basis for governance of the larger public. Instead a case must be made to values that are commonly accepted, that is, by groups outside one's own religious circle. That is a precept the religiously authoritarian simply can't or won't accept.

And that is curious to me, since the New Testament is so rife with admonitions to Christians to keep ourselves apart from the world, not to seek power over others but to serve them instead. Political influence is a foreign concept to Christ's teachings. He stood mute before his accusers, when he could have inspired his followers to riot and defy the government.

Perhaps Barack should have been a teacher or minister instead. His personal charisma, his exalted language and powers of persuasion would have served him well. But religious or movement leaders have never made very good civil governors.

"BLIND REVERENCE"

2008-06-27T08:37:00.002-05:00

Glenn Greenwald:

The real danger is that those who defend Obama the Candidate no matter what he does are likely to defend Obama the President no matter what he does, too. If we learn in 2009 that Obama has invoked his claimed Article II powers to spy on Americans outside of even the new FISA law, are we going to hear from certain factions that he was justified in doing so to protect us; how it's a good, shrewd move to show he's a centrist and keep his approval ratings high so he can do all the Good things he wants to do for us; how it's different when Obama does it because we can trust him? It certainly looks that way. Those who spent the last five years mauling Bush for "shredding the Constitution" and approving of lawbreaking -- only to then praise Obama for supporting a bill that endorses and protects all of that -- are displaying exactly the type of blind reverence that is more dangerous than any one political leader could ever be.

I don't care what flavor it is, if you drink the kool-aid you're a kool-aid drinker.

THE TRANSCENDENT ONE

2008-06-27T07:50:00.006-05:00

I don't think I've ever seen anything more ridiculous than Obamabot and Congressman Robert Wexler (D-FL) on Morning Joe today when Scarborough asked him point blank if it isn't true that BO is a liberal. Wexler nearly wet himself exclaiming that The One "transcends labels." Joe kept saying, if you're a liberal and proud of it (Wexler's just published a book titled Fire-Breathing Liberal or something to that effect), what's wrong with saying Obama is a liberal? But Wexler wouldn't HAVE it. You simply can't pin a label on a man so "transcendent." Here's how the dictionary defines it:

1. going beyond ordinary limits; surpassing; exceeding.
2. superior or supreme.
3. Theology. (of the Deity) transcending the universe, time, etc. Compare immanent (def. 3).
4. Philosophy.
a. Scholasticism. above all possible modes of the infinite.
b. Kantianism. transcending experience; not realizable in human experience. Compare transcendental (defs. 5a, c).
c. (in modern realism) referred to, but beyond, direct apprehension; outside consciousness.

Yep, the word fits. It fits Obama's surpassing ego and the near-worship his supporters demonstrate.

Here's Mister Transcendent in action. He doesn't just flip-flop, he blows with the wind. What, exactly, does he care enough about to stand up for?

Last night it was obvious to me that The Sage is ready to throw in the towel. If it's a choice between Obama and McCain, he'll take Obama. I told him, I wish I didn't feel this way. I've never had a problem throwing my support to the Dem nominee, and I've NEVER had my first choice win the nomination.

It just ain't happening. And it's got nothing to do with Hillary -- I would like to fall in line with her wishes, but I Own My Vote, and so far Obama's not offered the right price -- principles.

WHAT'S AT OBAMA'S CORE?

2008-06-24T08:15:00.003-05:00

I've said it over and over, and now Richard Cohen says it too:

But here is the difference between McCain and Obama -- and Obama had better pay attention. McCain is a known commodity. It's not just that he's been around a long time and staked out positions antithetical to those of his Republican base. It's also -- and more important -- that we know his bottom line. As his North Vietnamese captors found out, there is only so far he will go, and then his pride or his sense of honor takes over. This -- not just his candor and nonstop verbosity on the Straight Talk Express -- is what commends him to so many journalists.

Obama might have a similar bottom line, core principles for which, in some sense, he is willing to die. If so, we don't know what they are. Nothing so far in his life approaches McCain's decision to refuse repatriation as a POW so as to deny his jailors a propaganda coup. In fact, there is scant evidence the Illinois senator takes positions that challenge his base or otherwise threaten him politically. That's why his reversal on campaign financing and his transparently false justification of it matter more than similar acts by McCain.

A presidential race is only incidentally about issues. It's really about likability and character. Obama is, to paraphrase what he said about Hillary Clinton, more than "likable enough" -- in fact, so much so that he is the most charismatic presidential candidate I've seen since Robert F. Kennedy. But the character question hangs -- not because of any evidence to the contrary and not in any moral sense, either, but because he is still young and lacks the job references McCain picked up in a North Vietnamese prison. McCain has a bottom line. Obama just moved his. [Emphasis mine]

VERIFY BEFORE YOU TRUST

2008-06-22T08:18:00.001-05:00

Today's must-read from from Glenn Greenwald.

What really rubbed me the wrong way was how Obama in his statement says essentially trust me with these powers, I'll use them responsibly.

Nope.

"There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty." - John Adams [1772].

OBAMAWORLD

2008-06-21T04:34:00.003-05:00

I just thought I'd wander over to the land of the Cheetos to see what the reaction was to Obama's statement on FISA immunity. Lots of them are wailing, but I thought this statement from one of the diaries was so funny it hurts:

Did we all forget that he has to win the White House first before we can judge his true intentions?

And it's so typical. You read and hear that kind of thing all the time.

In what universe does an otherwise intelligent human being suggest that we should give the greatest concentration of power in the world to a man of whose intentions to use that power we have not the slightest clue?

Just sayin'.

THE IMPERIAL CANDIDATE

2008-06-20T16:24:00.004-05:00

Oh. My. God.

I'm starting to believe he really IS related to Dick Cheney.

UPDATE: Talk about an arrogant narcissist!

OBAMA'S REACTION TO FISA FIX MAY FIX HIM

2008-06-20T15:47:00.004-05:00

I wonder how many other progressive Obama supporters are going to find this a deal-breaker.

UPDATE: Obama backer Russ Feingold is not happy.

“The proposed FISA deal is not a compromise; it is a capitulation. The House and Senate should not be taking up this bill, which effectively guarantees immunity for telecom companies alleged to have participated in the President’s illegal program, and which fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans at home. Allowing courts to review the question of immunity is meaningless when the same legislation essentially requires the court to grant immunity. And under this bill, the government can still sweep up and keep the international communications of innocent Americans in the U.S. with no connection to suspected terrorists, with very few safeguards to protect against abuse of this power. Instead of cutting bad deals on both FISA and funding for the war in Iraq, Democrats should be standing up to the flawed and dangerous policies of this administration.”

Within 48 hours, Obama has reneged on two of his central planks, public financing of campaigns and telecom immunity. Feingold said the former was "a mistake," because the general election aspect of McCain-Feingold is not broken, only the primary element.

That's two strikes, Russ. Reconsidering your support?

FAST BARRY AND PUBLIC FINANCING

2008-06-20T08:31:00.005-05:00

The buzz about Obama's renouncing public financing for his presidential general election campaign seems to be that it was (a) a smart move; and (b) not so deftly handled. But David Brooks' take on it, much as I hate to say it, reflects my own:

I have to admit, I’m ambivalent watching all this. On the one hand, Obama did sell out the primary cause of his professional life, all for a tiny political advantage. If he’ll sell that out, what won’t he sell out? On the other hand, global affairs ain’t beanbag. If we’re going to have a president who is going to go toe to toe with the likes of Vladimir Putin, maybe it is better that he should have a ruthlessly opportunist Fast Eddie Obama lurking inside.

All I know for sure is that this guy is no liberal goo-goo. Republicans keep calling him naïve. But naïve is the last word I’d use to describe Barack Obama. He’s the most effectively political creature we’ve seen in decades. Even Bill Clinton wasn’t smart enough to succeed in politics by pretending to renounce politics.

It's really a pretty fair column and worth reading it all. I've been asking for some time, what WILL BO fight for? What does post-partisan, new politics really mean to him?

OBAMA AND GAS PRICES

2008-06-19T11:32:00.004-05:00

I've been kind of surprised I haven't heard more about Obama's take on higher gas prices in the media. It's gotten some traction among the right-wing bloggers, but nothing like I'd have expected.

Barack Obama: "I think that... we have been slow to move in a better direction when it comes to energy usage. And the president, frankly, hasn't had an energy policy.* And as a consequence we've been consuming energy as if it's infinite. We now know that our demand is badly outstripping supply with China and India growing as rapidly as they are."

CNBC's John Harwood: "So could the (high) oil prices help us?"

Barack Obama: "I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. The fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing. But if we take some steps right now to help people make the adjustment, first of all by putting more money in their pockets, but also by encouraging the market to adapt to these new circumstances more rapidly, particularly U.S. automakers..."

The obvious inference is that Obama doesn't object to $4 a gallon gas per se, just how rapidly the price increased. Most Americans hate it and want gas prices to go down as rapidly as possible. Obama wants to "help people to make the adjustment" to "new circumstances."

Is reducing the price of a gallon of gas a policy priority for Obama? Or does he, like Thomas Friedman, believe that the president should "guarantee people a high price of gasoline — forever."

Or perhaps he's like Andrew Sullivan, who regularly laments that "gas prices are too low," periodically forgetting to remind readers that he never learned how to drive (at least as of 2004).

* Says the man who voted for President Bush's energy bill. [Emphasis mine]

Now, I'm a liberal Democrat, and I was shocked when I heard him say it. My immediate reaction was, you THINK you'd have preferred prices rose GRADUALLY? But that you have no problem with them rising in general? Man, talk about being out of touch with the working man and woman. All anyone does anymore at the office is talk about relative gas prices and mileage, who gets what. The Sage and I both have Honda Civic hybrids that we purchased before gas prices started soaring -- our idea was to help the environment. But now our kids always want to borrow them when they go on trips, and we get cards from our car dealer asking if we'd like to sell them. People are really starting to change their driving habits because of the costs, and everyone except the well-to-do is feeling the pinch.

Now I realize that many liberals and environmentalists have long maintained that until gasoline prices rose to an untenable level, Americans would refuse to conserve, and for many progressives, conservation has been seen to be the key to energy independence, NOT more resources, so they don't object to higher prices; indeed, they have championed them. But sorry, folks. The reality is that moderate to low incomes can't afford groceries bought at Whole Foods, which is more expensive than what you find at the corner grocery, and they cannot support high energy costs. Their cars are not the new, expensive, fuel-efficient models; public transportation in most towns and cities is inadequate or even non-existent, and people DO still have to get to work. In cities the size of Dallas, where I live, affordable housing may be 20 miles or more away from job centers, and many of our suburbs have no bus service at all. People are actually sacrificing food in order to keep their gas tanks full. And don't talk to me about car pooling. People aren't all working in manufacturing jobs anymore where the whistle blows and the whole workforce begins or ends their day.

So to say, "I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment" doesn't sound very sympathetic coming from a guy who voted for the Bush/Cheney energy plan.

There's going to be a lot of suffering between now and when The Chosen One gets new, more robust CAFE standards passed by Congress. And just how many low and moderate income people does he think will be able to rush out and buy a new vehicle anyway? It sounds very offhand, detached, and unsympathetic to the plight of the Democratic base, frankly.

Oops. I forgot. Obama's campaign has a new coalition of Democratic voters. And it doesn't include the non-AA working class.

WHITHER OBAMA?

2008-06-19T08:13:00.006-05:00

Joe Scarborough was making much of this on today's Morning Joe show:

The [Iraqi] foreign minister said "my message" to Mr. Obama "was very clear. . . . Really, we are making progress. I hope any actions you will take will not endanger this progress." He said he was reassured by the candidate's response, which caused him to think that Mr. Obama might not differ all that much from Mr. McCain. Mr. Zebari said that in addition to promising a visit, Mr. Obama said that "if there would be a Democratic administration, it will not take any irresponsible, reckless, sudden decisions or action to endanger your gains, your achievements, your stability or security. Whatever decision he will reach will be made through close consultation with the Iraqi government and U.S. military commanders in the field." [Emphasis mine]

Joe pressed Harold Washington to explain away the conclusion one might reach that Obama does an awful lot of back-door reassuring that he really doesn't mean what he's telling voters (e.g., Canada and NAFTA during the Ohio primary). Harold responded by saying that Americans should be reassured that they'll have a CIC who'll do the responsible thing. Joe wasn't buying, and asked why doesn't Obama just tell that to the American people rather than campaigning on a fixed date withdrawal? Washington stuttered and had no good answer.

To the Blogger Boyz and all the rest of the BO kool-aid drinkers who have projected their hopes for a rapid end to the Iraqi conflict under a president Obama, I have eight words from history:

Nixon's secret plan to end the Vietnam War.

A lot of us hung our hopes on it. It was political truthiness as usual. Nixon had no secret plan, he didn't do what he said he would, and he didn't have to once he'd won the election.

What will you do when you find out that Obama has the same priorities as George W. Bush (keeping us safe from terror) and not as Hillary Clinton (ending the Iraq War, universal healthcare)? Do you really, looking at Barry's history and resume, get a good sense of what really matters to the man, what he'll fight for, how he'll govern?

I hope, I really do hope, that you're not in for an awful disappointment, even a betrayal. Because if you are, we'll all suffer right along with you.

WHERE I'M AT

2008-06-17T13:21:00.004-05:00

Like some other pro-Hillary bloggers, I've posted very little since Hillary's concession speech as I sort out my thoughts and feelings and determine where I go from here.

As to my vote for POTUS, well, that will never go to John McCain. The only question now is whether I support Obama or sit out the presidential race while voting for down-ticket Dems.

There is one other certainty, however. I will continue to protest the DNC's actions in permitting itself (perhaps even engineering the whole thing) to become a party built around a single individual, for the benefit of a small group of political insiders, and devaluing its traditional base of working-class Americans, minorities (other than AA) and women. The big tent has shrunk to a pup tent, and the progressive agenda, which appeared to have such a promising future at the beginning of this election cycle, seems to be in the hands of those who would dismiss or amend it so as to seem unrecognizable by traditional liberals.

DNC actions since Hillary conceded, including Howard Dean's efforts to keep her off the convention ballot, suggest to me that there is indeed an insiders' desire to diminish or destroy the Clinton legacy and to curtail any influence Bill and Hill might exert in the future.

There is an ugliness here that continues to disturb hardcore Hillary supporters, even those who have already pledged to back Obama. And while polls may indicate that women in general are voicing support for BO, the party and the Blogger Boyz are still "not getting it" -- the women and men who are most vocal in their refusenik status are activists, volunteers, and donors, the kind of people the party has relied on for generations to stuff the envelopes, man the polling places, and turn out the vote. While our numbers may not demonstrate voting power (and I question even that), we are not so expendable as they seem to think. We are informed and we are influencers, people who will continue to talk politics with our friends and coworkers, and our dissatisfaction with the nominee and the party will be heard and have repercussions beyond our single votes.

So to my options:

Do I continue as a Democrat and work to "change" the current direction of the party from the inside? Or do I change my registration to Independent in protest, as I currently favor? And do I fall in line with a candidate I mistrust and dislike as much as I do Obama? I don't give a flip about party unity; I'm not exactly thrilled with the Democratic Party leadership these days OR their idea of "unity" (read: caving in to the opposition Bushies and Rethugs, and including giving comfort to the Clinton-haters). If party leaders had really been all that desirous of unity, we would have seen fairer treatment of HRC and her voters, and she'd now be our nominee. After all, poll after poll during the primaries showed that Obama voters would be satisfied with Hillary, but the reverse? not so much.

I'm still considering.

GORE CLIMBS ABOARD OBAMA EXPRESS

2008-06-16T16:31:00.002-05:00

Al Gore has endorsed Barack Obama for POTUS. Other than asking for donations to Obama's presidential candidacy, this is all he says:

Over the next four years, we are going to face many difficult challenges -- including bringing our troops home from Iraq, fixing our economy, and solving the climate crisis. Barack Obama is clearly the candidate best able to solve these problems and bring change to America.
...
Over the past 18 months, Barack Obama has united a movement. He knows change does not come from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue or Capitol Hill. It begins when people stand up and take action.

With the help of millions of supporters like you, Barack Obama will bring the change we so desperately need in order to solve our country's most pressing problems.
...
On the issues that matter most, Barack Obama is clearly the right choice to lead our nation.

We have a lot of work to do in the next few months to elect Barack Obama president and it begins by making a contribution to his campaign today.

Pretty tepid, wouldn't you say?

TIM RUSSERT DEAD AT 58

2008-06-13T14:55:00.004-05:00

Breaking.

Dead of a heart attack. My heart goes out to Big Russ and the family.

OBAMA RULES?

2008-06-13T09:34:00.003-05:00

Must-read for the day.

So Obama's taking over the DNC. Moving its headquarters to Chicago. Assigning state party staffers to his presidential bid (wonder how the down-ticket pols in those states will appreciate THAT). Demanding that all fundraising be coordinated through the Obama campaign. Removing elected convention delegates who initially supported other candidates and replacing them with Obama loyalists.

Look, I'd love to be shed of all this worry. I'd love to come back to the Democratic Party, support its presidential nominee, and work to defeat John McCain and the Republicans. But I'm not in a place where I can do that. Every day new evidence surfaces that suggests Obama is an authoritarian with a hidden agenda, backed by a DNC that will no longer tolerate dissent in the ranks, that devalues traditional Democratic voters in preference for a "new coalition" of youths, AA's and the "creative class." The shrinking of the Big Tent is troublesome to me, and the consolidation of power in the hands of one man is antipathetic to the grassroots tradition and strength of the Democratic Party.

THE LEVERAGE THEY WANT US TO SURRENDER

2008-06-12T16:57:00.003-05:00

Violet speaks, you listen.

I've said repeatedly on this blog that one of my greatest disappointments and sources of anger of late has been the insistence of the DNC and party leaders that we Hillary supporters just give in, buckle under and unite the party, despite the treatment we and our candidate have received. Hillary is virtuous enough, and loyal enough to the party, to do just that. Many of us are not. We have waited a very long time for women (a majority of Democratic voters and of U.S. citizens in general) to have some leverage within the Party, only to be asked to take it in the a** as usual while we and our standard-bearer continue to be demonized and discredited. Sorry, folks. If Obama wants my vote, he has to earn it. I say again, I will never vote for John McCain, but I desperately hope that millions of Hillary supporters will continue to say, "Convince me" before surrendering their vote to someone so arrogant as to believe it's his due and prizes the votes of Rethuglicans and Indies over loyal Democrats. Anyone who disparages my vote, I assume, just plain doesn't want it.

And that's the bottom line. I'm convinced that party leaders want to rid us of any vestige of Clintonism -- and that surely includes us Hillary voters.

You know, I was actually excited about Obama's candidacy at one point. It takes a lot to alienate a party loyalist like me.

Now my friend Sally opines that it's the media and the bloggers who are at fault, and that Obama didn't contribute to the fray. I don't buy it. Obama is every bit as responsible -- it's HIS campaign that says he's not going to waste time courting Hillary voters. It's HIS campaign that spread the lies about the Clintons' alleged racism and contacted the media to accuse Hillary of wishing for his assassination (her RFK remark). It's Barack himself who said, "You're likable enough, Hillary" and repeatedly conflated the failures of the Bush administrations with the Clinton years. Obama benefited from the media's misogynistic flaying of Hillary and her women voters, and he NEVER SAID A WORD.

No, Obama HAS to come courting if he expects my vote. I want a good, solid reason why I should reward him and the DNC for their bad behavior.

And the John-McCain-as-the-alternative scare tactic ain't it. That dodge has been successful too many times. It's lost its punch for me.

PUMA. PUMA. PUMA.

WHERE'S OBAMA'S PASSION? HIS CENTER?

2008-06-12T13:17:00.003-05:00

This is the kind of thing that has made me absolutely nuts this primary cycle.

Kevin Drum:

Obama has been consistently good on domestic issues, but he's also been thoroughly mainstream. There's never been anything boldly innovative or risky about his domestic proposals.

But that's OK. It's not 1932 and the public isn't calling out for a complete re-ordering of the political system. What's more important than Obama's general direction, I think, is understanding what his priorities are. What's he going to fight for starting on Day 1? And I have to confess that I don't have much of a handle on that.

If, for example, Obama successfully withdraws from Iraq, passes a climate plan that looks something like his campaign proposal, and implements his healthcare plan, that would constitute a stunningly successful first term even if you think he's too much of a milquetoast in every one of these areas. But are these the three things he's most likely to fight hardest for? I don't know. He's consistently solid in almost everything, but that very consistency makes it hard to figure out what he's really passionate about. Now that the primary is over, maybe we'll start to find out.

How, I ask, can an intelligent, insightful person such as Kevin Drum used to be, justify supporting a candidate who, he admits, hasn't made it clear what he's passionate about, what he would fight for? "Consistently solid in almost everything," while not "boldly innovative"? You bet. He's solid because in almost every instance he's taken Hillary Clinton's or John Edwards' policy positions and tweaked them to make them LESS innovative, LESS risky -- and less effective. He's advanced not a single original idea or concrete plan to meet the challenges that we face. And that inspires the kind of devotion to his cause that Obama has reaped?

I just don't get it. But then, I'm one of those "old politics," "old Democratic coalition" types that actually value a candidate who can think for her/himself and offer solutions, not just recycle other people's ideas. I just spoke with a lifelong Dem friend who supports Obama, and his response to that thought was, well, that's what appeals about Obama. He may not have the original ideas, but he has the charm and postpartisan support to enact policy that a Hillary wouldn't be able to achieve because of her unlikeability.

If that's the case, where's his legislative record to prove it?

DNC RBC VIOLATED RULES IN IOWA, NH AND SC

2008-06-12T09:46:00.002-05:00

Today's must-read.

For anyone who still doubted that we wuz robbed.

MOVE ON FEELING THE PINCH?

2008-06-11T08:39:00.003-05:00

I just responded to an email from MoveOn asking me to participate in a bake sale for Obama (more sweeties?). I finally (should have done it long ago) sent back a reply asking to be removed from the mailing list and spelling out my reasons for doing so.

What I got back was an automated reply headlined, "Don't Go!" It included a comments box and asked for the reason I'm quitting. The "reason" box was a drop-down menu, where one of the options was, "MoveOn's endorsement of Obama."

Think they've lost more than a few subscribers/members because of that?

DON'T STOP THINKING ABOUT TOMORROW

2008-06-10T16:15:00.004-05:00

I'm doing almost nothing but. I'm ready to switch my registration from Democrat to Independent, but I believe I may wait until after the convention JUST IN CASE.

No, I don't harbor any illusions that by some miracle Hillary will become the nominee. But I somehow sense that this thing has not totally played out yet.

"They also serve who only sit and wait."

THANK YOU, HILLARY

2008-06-06T08:43:00.003-05:00

Struggling to articulate my feelings about what's happened this week, I stumbled across this:

The president of NOW sends a thank-you to Hillary Clinton.

Yes, Hillary Clinton persevered to win contest after contest, despite the ridicule, scorn and derision that was heaped on her by the frat-boy commentariat, and we salute her courage and determination not to allow the self-important pundit class to drum her out of the race with their endless name-calling. But will that treatment be the norm for women who run in the future? Has it become acceptable?

Television commentary on her voice, her laugh, her clapping, her clothing, even her ankles - not to mention calling her a bitch and a she-devil, and comparing her to a crazed murderer, a hated ex-wife or a scolding mother - became so commonplace that we came to expect it. And Hillary rose above it, as we knew she would, but it took a toll on her campaign and on all of us. We should vow today, here and now, that we will not allow the media to do it to any woman ever again.
...
Until then, a salute to Hillary Clinton, who said on Tuesday: "I made you -- and everyone who supported me -- a promise: to stand up for our shared values and to never back down. I'm going to keep that promise today, tomorrow, and for the rest of my life."

Hillary, you have made a mark on history for eternity, giving little girls and little boys the full knowledge that women can compete, take risks, take the heat, make hard decisions, and be strong leaders. Whether you are President, Vice President, on the Supreme Court, serving as the Senate Majority Leader or just plain being the best-ever senator for New York and for ALL of us, we will be with you -- as we work together for equality for all, and a better, safer, more peaceful world for everyone, not just the privileged few. Yes, we will. Thank you, Hillary.

OBAMA WON'T WOO HILLARY SUPPORTERS?

2008-06-04T12:54:00.004-05:00

If more Obama supporters (and the Obamas themselves) would take this seriously, there might be a chance for the Democratic Party to unite in common cause going into the GE. Problem is, they're not showing any eagerness to do it.

By winning the nomination, Obama supporters may feel that they have gained the upper hand in debates with Hillary supporters, but this is a false perception. This campaign is not over until the race is over. Political campaigns can never afford the luxury of feeling superior to anyone. Obama may have won the nomination but it will mean nothing if he does not win the General Election in November, and to do that he needs the votes and even the enthusiastic support of Hillary and her supporters. Clinton's supporters cannot be insulted, bullied, or guilted into enthusiastic support in the fall. Like any other key voting bloc, Obama and his supporters can only gain these votes by understanding Clinton's supporters' real concerns, making a connection with them and making a compelling case for their support.
...
First, stop labeling Clinton and her supporters as the politics of the past.
...
Second, Democrats need to reclaim the luster of the Clinton years.
...
Third, embrace feminism as one of the indispensable pillars of the Democratic coalition.
...
In victory or defeat, Clinton and her supporters deserve to be heard regarding their views about the sexist climate of this campaign. The sexism that just as much as racism persists in our culture, and consciously or unconsciously in our political campaigns must be "denounced and rejected." The Chinese proverb, "women hold up half the sky" does not even fully describe the Democratic Party where numerically, women account for substantially more than half of the votes we will need to win in November and this core group of Democrats deserves real respect from the Democratic Party and its new presidential nominee.

Problem is, few Obamatrons show any willingness to go there. And they need to, fast and furiously. Those Democrats-for-life among us who have been fixtures in local party politics, the volunteers who stuff and stamp envelopes and man voting booths, have been told in no uncertain terms that the party no longer needs us, that we're witchy old broads and relics of "old politics." So it's going to take a lot to win us over. And this kind of approach won't get it done:

Obama is not, one of his senior advisers assured me Tuesday night, going to spend a lot of time in the next few months wooing Clinton supporters whose feelings may be hurting.

“I think there are always immediate feelings of disappointment and anger,” Anita Dunn said. “But in the months ahead, he must appeal not just to the constituency groups who favored her in the primaries, but those he wants in the general election, and that includes independents and Republicans.”

So he wants independents and Republicans and not the Democratic constituency groups he lost, eh? Careful what you wish for. That kind of attitude could convert a lot of Dems into (I)s and (R)s. Would that then make us more palatable to The Precious?

ATRIOS JOINS THE CLASSLESS

2008-06-03T18:22:00.003-05:00

He couldn't help himself.

MSNBC sez AP reporting that Clinton campaign officials say that (MSNBC CHYRON): "Clinton will admit tonight that Obama has nomination."

And then the deranged harpy will bite down on his jugular, suck the blood out of him, and screech BUT NOW IT'S MINE ALL MINE!*

*In case you weren't sure, this is satire.

I hope someone's making a list and checking it twice for all the so-called progressive and/or Democratic blogs that have demonstrated overt sexism and unseemly, classless, graceless remarks about candidate Clinton and her supporters.

LIE BACK AND ENJOY IT

2008-06-02T10:21:00.004-05:00

This op-ed in HuffPost is the most arrogant, repulsive bit of nonsense I've read in the past couple of days. The author claims that because Hillary ran such a divisive campaign during the last, "quixotic" phase, it is her responsibility to heal the wounds in the party that she, and only she, has created. Therefore, in order to be forgiven by the more noble of the party, she must definitively declare in a concession speech and often thereafter:

1. That she was treated fairly in all ways (ed. note: all evidence to the contrary).
2. Her loss was due to her own poor choices.
3. She'll be fine and will continue to fight the good fight for women's causes.
4. The campaign demonstrated that women can do anything, that there are no more glass ceilings.
5. She wouldn't have won no matter what the DNC rules were, and her name recognition was more powerful that actual campaigning.
6. She MUSN'T say the party rules should be changed; and it would be helpful if she would actually say outright that the rules were actually designed to help people like her.
7. Neither she nor her supporters are owed anything by Obama or the party, and they'll be delighted to bow down and take another one you-know-where for the privilege.

And if she does all this, she should be invited to keynote the convention.

I'm speechless.

THE END OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

2008-06-01T14:04:00.003-05:00

It may still be called by the same name, but it's not the party I've been voting for since I cast my first vote in 1968. It's no longer the party of the working man and woman; it says it doesn't need us any longer. It's not the party of equal rights; it's the party of misogyny and sexism. It's not the party of the "one person, one vote" principle; it's the party of elite insiders awarding unearned votes to their chosen candidate and favoring undemocratic caucases over primaries. It's not the party of political courage; it's the party of words without substance and consequences.

Riverdaughter calls yesterday "a day that will live in infamy," and I completely agree. In every other race over the past 40 years where my favored candidate was defeated, I was able to rally loyally around the Democratic banner, assured that our standard-bearer would be an immense improvement over the Republican. I cannot and will not do this in the GE this year. The only slightly legitimate arguments for Obama over McCain concern Supreme Court appointments and ending the war in Iraq. Obama himself has delegitimized them by voicing support for the John Roberts appointment, and his own advisers have said that he won't end the war anytime soon. We've not heard the breath of a plan for withdrawing our troops, and Obama has demonstrated an ignorance of foreign and domestic policy that equals McCain's. So where's the advantage in our sucking it up once again for a party that disdains us, our contributions, our experience and our judgment?

Movement conservatives have flirted with the idea of withholding their votes from McCain to prove to Republican party leaders that their votes are essential to Republican victories. Democratic insiders appear to believe that that won't happen with Clinton backers, but they're simply, once again, not listening to voters. This is not a case of first-choice, second-choice. We do not accept Obama as our leader, and will not no matter who he selects as his running mate. The extent of party leaders' tone-deafness (and include the media in this as well!) is the popular meme that choosing a female such as McCaskill, Napolitano or Sibelius will placate Clintonistas and cause us to fall in line behind BO. Are they kidding? McCaskill is such an idiot that she openly declares that her CHILDREN persuaded her to support Obama. In fact, I've been appalled all season by the number of otherwise-seemingly-intelligent Dems who have set aside their own judgment in favor of that of their adolescent and young adult children. Some leadership! I listen to, and respect, my own adult children's views, but as a parent I exert a little more leadership in my own family.

Get this, Dem leaders: Hillary is not interchangeable with "any woman." We support her because of her specific policies, her resume, her history, her character. We reject Obama for the same reasons. And we are now rejecting our party because it first rejected us.

SINGIN' THE PARTY BLUES

2008-06-01T10:34:00.005-05:00

Well, it's done! Our oldest daughter is married and left for her honeymoon yesterday, and all is well. This felt like one of those month-long tribal weddings, with activities from Thursday through Tuesday (the wedding was on the Saturday before Memorial Day) and oodles of out-of-town guests (all of whom, fortunately, stayed in the hotel and not with us). We're exhausted but satisfied, and the newlyweds are deliriously happy.

So on to politics. I'd decided to resist at all costs any discussion of politics during the week to avoid conflict and keep the peace among our numerous and diverse family, but it proved impossible and, frankly, unnecessary. Other than a couple of our twenty-something sons who are lukewarm Obama supporters, both the Democrats and the Republicans are uniformly appalled and bewildered at the notion that Barack Obama will be the next president. The Repubs among us had several themes to their conversation: (1) How could you Democrats be so stupid to nominate such a completely unqualified, unvetted candidate over the very qualified and well-known Hillary Clinton? (2) There's so little we actually know about Obama that the thought of him as POTUS is downright scary, and what we do know about his associations only exacerbates that fear. (3) The military wing of the family would feel vastly better about Hillary beating John McCain since so many of our flag officers have endorsed her; that means a great deal to them, as they're all relatively comfortably economically and national security is their top issue.

My older sister and her ex-fighter-jock husband had come to us directly from their annual reunion of Vietnam-era fighter pilots, where they'd discussed the race and the mystery that the Dems would shoot ourselves in the foot and risk losing an election that should have been a slam-dunk for us this year. My brother-in-law quoted one of them as saying that if you want an old war hero who most everyone respects but few really like, vote McCain; if you want someone who will give speeches talking about bringing us all together while dividing us, vote Obama; if you want someone who will actually find solutions to the problems we face, vote Hillary.

So now the festivities have ended and I'm catching up on the news and developments. More than ever it appears that we're on a runaway train, and the media and Democratic Party leaders are shoveling the coal as fast as they can. They want this thing wound up, and they're going to get their way. Clearly, they want the Clintons destroyed and discredited more than they want electoral victory. They're giddy at the idea of booting the working class non-AA's and older women out of the Party and replacing us with ... what? Some amorphous young voters who have no historical memory, no party loyalty (theirs is reserved for the person of Obama, not ideology) and no real agenda other than the thrill of their own influence? The young Obama supporters in our family first backed Ron Paul. How's that for ideological consistency?

I continue to have hope because Hillary inspires it with her dogged determination to do what is best for the country despite the personal cost. But I realize the odds are greatly against her chances of winning the nomination. I will not, ever, vote for John McCain, and I will not vote for Obama. I have not the slightest modicum of confidence that Obama would be an improvement over McCain in either foreign or domestic policy. And don't hand me that sad "it's the Supremes!" argument. BO had to be talked out of supporting John Roberts, of all people, for SCOTUS and for what? Political expediency. There is no CORE to Obama that can be identified, no principles for which he would fight, and his much-vaunted "judgment" is a myth supported by a single speech made at no cost to himself. Other examples of his good judgment are almost impossible to find and are overwhelmed by the myriad of instances in which he has been exposed as a Chicago machine-style politico who has associated himself with the most hateful, divisive elements in our culture.

What will I do downticket? Cast my vote on a person-by-person basis. The Democratic Party leadership has betrayed its base and its principles, and I'm prepared to check out of politics until my confidence is restored. It's taken a lot to turn me against the Party. I could have easily supported any one of the early nominees. I could even have backed Obama in the early days, before we knew much about him and I was simply thrilled at the prospect of an African-American being a viable candidate. But again, that was before he began to diss universal healthcare and talk about "fixing" Social Security, before he demonstrated that all he has to offer are teleprompter-assisted speeches and Republican talking points, before he gave evidence of an arrogant and entitled attitude that has exacerbated the racial and gender divide in the country rather than unifying anybody. But it is not just Obama, David Axelrod and his campaign that I resent. It is Howard Dean, Donna Brazile, Teddy Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, and practically the entire media, all the elites who determined that they should select the nominee, not the voters, and who have given evidence of an animus against the Clintons, both Hillary and Bill, that is unseemly and threatens to split the party right down the middle.

As soon as Obama is confirmed as the party nominee, I will immediately switch my registration to Independent. How many more formerly loyal Democrats, I wonder, will do likewise?

WEDDING FEVER

2008-05-19T09:15:00.003-05:00

Light posting for all of this week. Our oldest daughter is getting married on Saturday, and we have a slew of family coming in from out of state. So much to do and so little time!

But I'll be following tomorrow's primaries with bated breath like all of you and checking in periodically.

Go, Hillary!

WILL THE REAL MEDIA DARLING PLEASE STAND UP

2008-05-16T15:19:00.006-05:00

The TimesOnline takes a realistic look at the American media's worship of Obama:

it's fairly clear now that, with the near-certain nomination by the Democrats of Barack Obama everything is in place for the media to indulge in one of the greatest, orgiastic media fiestas of hero-worship since Elvis Presley.

You will not see a finer example of the genre than the cover story of this week's Newsweek, which was entitled “The O Team”. This rhapsodic inside account of Senator Obama's campaign reads a little like a cross between Father Alban Butler's Life of St Francis and the sort of authorised biography of Kim Jong Il you can pick up in any good bookshop in Pyongyang.
...
The idolatry of Mr Obama is a shame, really. The Illinois senator is indeed, an unusually talented, inspiring and charismatic figure. His very ethnicity offers an exciting departure. But he is not a saint. He is a smart and eloquent man with a personal history that is startlingly shallow set against the scale of the office he seeks to hold. It is not only legitimate, but necessary, to scrutinise his past and infer what it might tell us about his beliefs, in the absence of the normal record of achievement expected in a presidential nominee.

If the past 40 years have taught us anything they have surely taught that premature canonisation is an almost certain guarantee of subsequent deep disappointment.

The only real disagreement I have with this story is its speculation that the media will forsake John McCain for Obama when the GE gets going. I'll have to see that to believe it. Obama is the new crush, but I can't believe they'd turn on The Straight-Talking MaverickTM so easily. It seems more probable to me that they've been championing Obama because they think he's The One to finally and forever rid us of the pesky Hillary Clinton, but most of the male media actually want to BE John McCain. He's more their kind of guy, the one they want to have barbecue and beer with, swap football and war stories with.

I expect the media will be flummoxed and discomfited when their dream candidates go mano e mano. That's about the only pleasure that such a matchup will bring me.

OBAMA AND THE PULPIT

2008-05-15T13:31:00.005-05:00

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?

2008-05-15T10:08:00.008-05:00

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

2008-05-14T14:50:00.004-05:00

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

2008-05-14T09:46:00.003-05:00

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

2008-05-14T08:24:00.006-05:00

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!"

2008-05-14T08:19:00.002-05:00

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

NOT ONE CENT FOR TRIBUTE

2008-05-13T16:19:00.003-05:00

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

2008-05-13T15:04:00.004-05:00

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

2008-05-13T13:46:00.007-05:00

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

2008-05-13T09:53:00.004-05:00

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

2008-05-12T13:40:00.005-05:00

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!

2008-05-12T13:20:00.003-05:00

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

2008-05-11T10:10:00.007-05:00

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

2008-05-11T09:03:00.004-05:00

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"

2008-05-09T13:00:00.003-05:00

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

2008-05-09T08:41:00.006-05:00

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

2008-05-06T17:38:00.003-05:00

... 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

2008-05-05T15:10:00.003-05:00

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

2008-05-04T10:46:00.005-05:00

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

2008-05-01T16:18:00.005-05:00

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

2008-05-01T15:43:00.006-05:00

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

2008-05-01T13:17:00.006-05:00

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?

2008-05-01T10:12:00.004-05:00

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!

2008-05-01T09:04:00.002-05:00

"OBAMA NO," HILLARY YES

2008-04-30T10:06:00.003-05:00

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

2008-04-30T05:29:00.004-05:00

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

2008-04-29T13:26:00.005-05:00

" 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

2008-04-29T10:16:00.004-05:00

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

2008-04-28T21:48:00.002-05:00

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.

THE BIG CON

2008-04-28T16:23:00.005-05:00

The Obamabloggers are in a tizzy today as a result of BO's squishy, PANDERING interview on Fox's Sunday show with Chris Wallace. KOS insists he didn't put Obama on a pedestal, so he couldn't be knocked off, but he is clearly PO'ed, particularly when Obama threw DKOS a dis during the interview.

Chris Bowers wonders whether progressive bloggers and MoveOn have lost leverage over the Democratic candidates because of their early endorsement of Obama.

aThe events of this weekend, where the Obama campaign can appear on Fox News, the campaign can lie about the purpose of the appearance, and then bloggers who call Obama out on this get attacked by Obama supporters online, to me smacks of the death knell of blogosphere influence in the 2008 presidential campaigns.

Well, duh! They certainly lost leverage over Hillary Clinton! And they lost influence with her supporters (virtually half of all Democrats) by not just preferring Obama to her, but actively savaging her AND her voters, and by actively trying to destroy the legacy of the Clinton administration, the only two-term Democratic presidency since FDR. How on earth do they think they can backpedal now?

It appears that the Blogger Boyz are reluctantly and timidly facing up to the fact that they wuz used. What did they think, that a product of Chicago machine politics that is light on details, runs from progressive priorities (such as UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE), and talks "unity" with Republicans instead of "fighting the good fight" would be a good champion for them? Obama has even said he doesn't know much about or read much on the blogs. They really bought themselves a bill of goods.

But not to worry! When their candidate is trounced by John McCain in the fall, they'll not only be able to Blame HillaryTM, they'll have a raison d'etre for continuing and expanding their operations -- McCain Bashing. They'll gain new readers, increase ad revenue, and be able to afford all the latte and arugula they want.

Oh hey ... maybe that was their underlying motive in the first place. It sure as heck wasn't to help the most experienced, progressive candidate of the two make it to the White House.

MOTHERS AND DAUGHTERS FOR HILLARY

2008-04-25T19:31:00.005-05:00

I had a big thrill today. My oldest daughter (of three, plus two sons) is getting married in exactly one month from yesterday. She's a beautiful (not just my opinion!), brilliant, successful young businesswoman, she sails competitively, has produced indy movies and continues to pursue that interest, raises horses for endurance racing, and is generally an amazing young woman. Now in addition to all her extracurricular interests she's completely engaged in planning her wedding to a young man we love and welcome as a son. Along with all that praise, I have to add, she has never been very engaged politically.

Till now. And today, in the midst of managing myriad wedding details, she called me on the phone at work. She said, "Mom, I'm in the car. Can you Google a number for me? I want to call the Hillary Clinton campaign and get a huge yard sign." She went on to explain that after I commented last night that I'd never donated so much to a political candidate as I have to Hillary (with the complete agreement of The Sage), she began to wonder what she could do to contribute.

Now, she lives within shouting distance of the famous Southfork Ranch (of the TV show Dallas), a rural-suburban area outside Dallas that is made up of two-to-five acre ranchettes. Most of her neighbors, like her, have 70's-era, moderately sized (2500-3500 sf) ranch houses with swimming pools and barns or stables for one, two or three horses. They all have HUGE frontage on Parker Road, a heavily traveled byway, and as my daughter told me, there was a plethora of McCain and a few Obama posters in their front yards.

So Daisy decided she wanted a HILLARY sign.

I'm not sure what caused the sudden spurt of Hillary love. I do talk to my daughter (as with all my children) a good deal about my political thoughts. But I'm going to guess that at least part of it was her own life experience. She's been a star in business from the time she was fifteen, when the CEO of Bank of America Texas Operations spotted her potential when she waited on him at a Plano, TX yogurt shop. From there she went on to graduate with a triple major from one of the most prestigious (and expensive -- totally on scholarship) Texas universities, to a lucrative career in banking.

But during those years she's experienced egregious sexual discrimination and harassment, which to a great extent she's passed off as business reality. She's a realist in her business life and an idealist in her personal life. But I think that she's believed that once she was "established" as an executive that things would improve.

It can't have escaped her notice that Hillary is, for the umpteenth time, undergoing the same kind of treatment, which is not temporary or ephemeral but a lifelong reality. She recognizes that, like her, Hillary has never played the victim card but as any worthy activist has had the courage to call out prejudice when she sees it.

And she knows that Hillary has spent her entire adult life defending and fighting for the rights of women to be treated as people, not as a separate and unequal species, and for the well-being and protection of children. Hillary hasn't let any obstacles divert her from her mission of public service. And my daughter has never let anything stand in the way of her achieving her goals.

My daughter recognizes a kindred spirit when she meets one. So there's now a great big Hillary for President sign on Parker Road.

Boy, do I feel good right now.

HILLARY STANDS FOR WORKING CLASS AMERICANS

2008-04-25T15:07:00.007-05:00

This is the most important post of the day. Read it all, including the links.

It's why Democrats have lost so many presidential elections, why Bill Clinton won them, and why Obama is going the way of the losers. It's about the unreality of "progressives" supporting Obama, who uses the rhetoric of Joe Lieberman and the strategy of the "hated" DLC. It's about why Hillary Clinton would be by far the most electable Democratic candidate in the GE.

We can't afford to dismiss fully half the voting population. It's a losing strategy. It's wrong. And it's contrary to the principles and future of the Democratic Party.

Hillary Clinton is outperforming Obama among working class Democrats because she is addressing the issues that most matter to them. They believe she cares because she never stops talking about them. Obama and his surrogates, on the other hand, have plainly written off that 50+% of American voters as rubes, racists or Reaganites, who don't deserve a Unity Pony.

Read it. Absorb it. And spread it around. Before it's too late.

KEITH OLBERMANN AS WIFE-BEATER

2008-04-25T13:12:00.008-05:00

I've somehow missed Keith Olbermann's "final solution" for Hillary Clinton. And it's totally reflective of the attitudes so many of the out-of-the-closet misogynists this election cycle.

I probably wouldn't go so far as to say, as did Anglachel did, that Keith has effectively called for Hillary's murder. But let's think about that for a minute. Keith suggested that to bring her campaign to an end, some unnamed superdelegate (but definitely male -- "he") take Hillary into a back room, from which only one of them would emerge -- and it wouldn't be Hillary.

This scenario sounds disturbingly like the words of an abusive husband/partner/boss who does his ugly business in the dark corners where nobody can observe. It reeks of violence, of coercion, of the insecure but domineering male who, when challenged by a female, interprets that as an attack upon his masculinity for which he is justified in whatever action he decides to take in order to "put [her] in [her]place" (shades of enabler Maureen Dowd!)and set his world aright.

How many wife beaters actually intend to murder their spouses from the outset? I would venture to guess that the great majority tell themselves they're doing the world, their wife, and/or their family a service by maintaining what they believe to be the correct order of things (i.e., man on top, woman subservient). But while society looks the other way, their violence escalates, and at the end, when the wife is dead, society cries out, "We didn't know!"

This is what is happening now. The media and political opponents have treated Hillary Clinton like a punching bag for so long and so incessantly, with hardly any consequence, that they now feel as if they have a right to do so. And as their anger/outrage builds up as a result of her successes, their rhetoric and attacks increase in fervor until it seems completely acceptable in their little Village to call her a murderer, or suggest that she deserves a good whacking.

So maybe Anglachel is correct after all. After all, it's an oft-heard refrain of the murdering husband who cries out in his defense, "She wouldn't stay down after I hit her!" and not so very different from what KO was suggesting ON THE FACE OF IT, without any analysis of his deeper meaning.

Who would have thought that the "progressive" movement would have taken us so many steps backward? I'll never use the term to refer to myself again. I will not be associated with a movement so wholeheartedly in favor of the sexism of a century ago.

I think it's about time we women (and the admirable men who support gender equality) begin our own protest, our own boycott. Maybe we could call it, "A DAY WITHOUT A WOMAN."

See what that gets you, boyz.

UPDATE: Chilling commenter on Anglachel's Journal.

From a perspective that isn't very familiar with Olbermann, other than from quotes, I could try to express my "he said 'what'?" reaction, but I find words fail me, except for these four:

Benazir Bhutto
Indira Gandhi

Yes indeed, a very funny, witty observation from mr. Olbermann...

UPDATE #2: Was listening to the Hugh Hewitt show on my commute home tonight (yes, I know, but I'm obsessed with right-wing talk radio -- it's like spying on the enemy), and he had two guys on his show (Jim Geraghty of NRO and someone else, I forget because right after this I had a flat tire ... but that's another story) talking about KO's remarks. One of the two guests said he'd written about a UK (I thought it was The Economist, but I can't find any reference) journal in which someone suggested that (this is from my pretty reliably accurate memory) "Hillary should retire to a dark room with a glass of wine and a gun."

Never in my memory has a viable OR unviable presidential candidate been subject to repeated suggestions in the MSM that he (never been a she before) should be subjected to intimidation, probably violent, in order to force him out of the race.

Maybe it's only come up now because we HAVE a she.

BY WHAT HISTORICAL STANDARD IS OBAMA THE FRONTRUNNER?

2008-04-25T09:50:00.005-05:00

Obviously, Violet and I are of the same generation. We learned the same political lessons:

One of the first political facts I learned was this: winning the California primary in June 1968 meant Robert Kennedy had a serious shot at taking the nomination, even though he’d entered the race late and was behind in delegates.

But of course Bobby was murdered a few hours later, so that was the end of that.

I learned about this as a child because my parents were trying to explain to me why another Kennedy had been killed and what it meant for the election.

“Why did California matter so much?” I asked them. “How could he have gotten the nomination if Humphrey already had the party behind him? And what about McCarthy?”

It was thus that I learned about the realpolitik of nominating contests. A lot has changed in the process since 1968, and all to the good. More actual voting, fewer smoke-filled rooms. But what hasn’t changed is the purpose of the whole thing: to settle on the candidate with the best chance to win in the general election.

If I had a time machine and could go back to 1968 or 1972 to chew over a thought experiment with one of those old pros, the conversation might go like this:

Violet: Okay, hypothetical situation. Let’s say we’ve got two strong candidates. Candidate A wins the Iowa caucus. Candidate B wins New Hampshire. Then Candidate A catches fire and in February wins a bunch of caucuses and small primaries in mostly Republican states. Racks up the lead in delegates. But then Candidate B comes roaring back and wins New York, California, Massachusetts, Ohio, New Jersey, Texas, Pennsylvania. Who’s the front-runner?

Old Pro from 1968/72: Are you kidding me?

Violet: No, really — who’s the front runner?

Old Pro: Candidate B, of course. What’s the matter with you?

Violet: But Candidate A leads in pledged delegates!

Old Pro: Candidate A is the guy who had a good February? But then loses in all the big states?

Violet: Right.

Old Pro: You’re actually asking me this question?

Violet: But don’t the pledged delegates count?

Old Pro: You’re talking about nominating the guy who lost New York, California, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas, and Florida? Jesus! You’re outta your mind!

Violet: But what about his delegates?

Old Pro: Fight it out at the convention if you have to. Geez. That’s what conventions are for. Look, you don’t get to be the nominee because you were popular in February in Utah. For chrissake, if you can’t win the Democratic primaries in California or New York or Massachusetts or Florida or Texas or Ohio or Pennsylvania, you don’t get to be the Democratic nominee. Unless you’re Hubert Humphrey. Wait a minute, Humphrey isn’t still alive, is he?

Violet: No. But the party bosses really love Candidate A. They say Candidate B needs to drop out so Candidate A can be the nominee.

Old Pro: They want the winner of all the big states to drop out so the party favorite from February can be the nominee? Goddamnit, it is Humphrey, isn’t it? Christ, he must be like 100 now.

Violet: No, he’s dead. See, the two candidates we’ve got are both strong. They both have a lot of devoted supporters and they’re really close in pledged delegates and popular votes.

Old Pro: What do their numbers look like against the Republican?

Violet: Close, though when you look at the state-by-state polls and the exit data, Candidate B looks stronger in a match-up against the Republican than Candidate A.

Old Pro: And you’re still asking me who the party needs to nominate?

Violet: Well, the supporters of Candidate A say that if Candidate B will just drop out, then the party will be able to get behind Candidate A.

Old Pro: It is Humphrey!

And so on.

Look, I’m not ignoring the fact that Obama has fervent support. I’m just trying to get at the sheer freak factor of the insistence that he is the de facto nominee, even after losing all the big states. I’m too old and my head is too full of memories for me not to recognize the surpassing strangeness of it.

LET OBAMA EAT HIS WAFFLE ... AND CALL HILLARY

2008-04-24T11:00:00.003-05:00

H/t to commenter GeekLove 08.

HILLARY VS. THE ELITES

2008-04-23T10:30:00.003-05:00

Boy, she's got them running scared. The NY Times printed a despicable, one-sided screed against Hillary's "negativity" and decried her "responsibility" for the "spectacle" of two strong candidates battling for the votes of Democrats. Why does the Times hate democracy?

It is getting to be time for the superdelegates to do what the Democrats had in mind when they created superdelegates: settle a bloody race that cannot be won at the ballot box. Mrs. Clinton once had a big lead among the party elders, but has been steadily losing it, in large part because of her negative campaign. If she is ever to have a hope of persuading these most loyal of Democrats to come back to her side, let alone win over the larger body of voters, she has to call off the dogs.

Last I looked, there were quite a few states who have yet to vote. What's the rush?

And of course, MoDo has to weigh in with her standard sexist flippancy [emphasis mine]:

“Why can’t he close the deal?” Hillary taunted at a polling place on Tuesday.

She’s been running ads about it, suggesting he doesn’t have “what it takes” to run the country. Her message is unapologetically emasculating: If he does not have the gumption to put me in my place, when superdelegates are deserting me, money is drying up, he’s outspending me 2-to-1 on TV ads, my husband’s going crackers and party leaders are sick of me, how can he be trusted to totally obliterate Iran and stop Osama?
...
The Democrats are eager to move on to an Obama-McCain race. But they can’t because no one seems to be able to show Hillary the door.

She's wrong, of course, as is her paper. Democrats aren't eager to move on, they're eager to vote and have those votes counted. And since the race so far is split almost fifty-fifty in popular vote and delegates, who can fairly claim to speak for "Democrats" -- except the elites, of course?

Hillary knows better than to listen. She's been here before. The elites were astounded and outraged that a hillbilly like Bill Clinton and his too-smart wife occupied "their" White House for eight years, and they never gave the Clintons credit or slack. They are not, and never will be, representative of the party or supportive of populist candidates. They are the Kool Kidz, the most popular clique in town, and they don't like the nerds or the smart kids winning the Student Council election. They'll never grow up, and they despise and resent real grownups such as Hillary. She knows where her support comes from -- ordinary Americans who are worried about their mortgage payments, getting and keeping healthcare insurance for their families, preserving Social Security and Medicare for themselves and future generations, and recognize the global threats, both man-made and natural, that confront us now and may escalate in the near future.

So you go, Hillary! Keep listening to the people who count -- the voters -- and ignore the pundits and plutocrats who are so anxious to push you out of the race so they can turn their attention to getting John McCain elected, just as they did George W. Bush. And we saw how well that turned out.

WHO'S DIVIDING THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY?

2008-04-22T23:04:00.004-05:00

John Aravosis of AmericaBlog has thrown down the gauntlet. If Hillary wins the nomination (and he makes clear that can only happen if she steals it), 50% of Obama voters won't vote for her.

No Unity Pony for him.

YES, SHE DID!

2008-04-22T22:35:00.005-05:00

So she did it, she got her double-digit win over Obama. Like so many of us, I'm very nearly drained. Almost every ounce of energy has leeched from my body. How Hillary does it, I don't know. Well yes, I do. She does it for us.

But then, that's why I want her for my president. I know she will rise every day, rise to the challenge, deny herself a normal person's respite because of her abiding sense of responsibility to the nation and to the people.

This race is not yet done. Hillary won Pennsylvania decisively despite a huge spending imbalance. Obama threw everything he had into this one primary, and again, he exhibited an inability to connect with rank-and-file Democrats. The media is speculating on whether or not he's "peaked," his lack of accessibility to them seeming to begin to disillusion, and his lack of energy and increasingly toxic comments about Hillary are beginning to pall with voters. Hillary, on the other hand, is proving fearless with the media, exposing herself and her ideas to virtually any audience that invites her, giving evidence of a complete mastery of the issues. Her resilience is winning the respect and admiration of former foes and critics.

I'm so proud of her. Hillary reflects the best of womankind. We who treasure her don't see her as an icon or a personality -- we see her as a completely human woman, mother, wife, and dedicated public servant, a woman who has made a significant difference in real people's lives. She is the mother, daughter, big sister, dear friend we've seen make the most of her potential, become the kind of person we'd most want in our lifeboat. She has our confidence, our trust.

On to Indiana and North Carolina!

BEFORE YOU VOTE ...

2008-04-22T09:23:00.002-05:00

... read this. My sentiments, exactly:

"Seven months ago … I organized all of the women in my family for a photo of “Four generations of women for Hillary Clinton.” … Hillary was to be our first woman president, and my now adolescent daughters and I agreed with their cousins and aunts and grandmothers and great-grandmother that it was finally time.

… [BIG BUT]

… "I wish the Clintons well and like many of their friends and allies I hope they don’t think I am betraying them, but I am voting for Barack Obama in the Pennsylvania primary."

"I responded at length:

… You are betraying them, and profoundly.

You are endorsing “I’m Barack Obama, running for President and I approve this message. … Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected.”

You are endorsing the candidate who claims the middle class lost ground during the Clinton years.

You are endorsing the candidate who successfully framed the Clintons on accusations of race-baiting, through an elaborately orchestrated race-baiting campaign of his own.

You are endorsing the candidate who later claimed in passive voice that racial tensions just “bubbled up” between the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries … and who preposterously asserted that America can’t make any progress on jobs, health or education without his admittedly incremental contribution to America’s admittedly residual racial divide … who frames his campaign in grossly counterfeit histories of the civil rights movement of the 60’s, the Reagan years of the 80’s and the Clinton/Gingrich years of the 90’s … who inspired you with a speech that claims a Clinton presidency would leave us in racial “stalemate” analogous to the slave state versus free state stalemate at the Constitutional Convention.

You are endorsing the candidate who gave Hillary the finger last week in Raleigh NC.

You are endorsing the candidate who says Hillary represents the status quo, and whose surrogates constantly drum the message that both Clintons entire lives in public service have been motivated solely by self-interest.

You are endorsing the candidate who claims Hillary has been bought by special interests … “bought” for a fraction of a percent of her campaign budget (an amount smaller than lobbyist contributions to his own presidential exploratory committees and FEC-exempt expenditures). That’s the same candidate who with no track record in major-league politics claims he can end politics as we know it simply by restricting a few hundredths of one percent of federal lobbyist budgets.

You are endorsing the candidate whose chief adviser on entitlements tried to resuscitate Bush’s Social Security privatization initiative in 2005 after the netroots and unions joined forces to beat it to death … whose chief health care adviser believes the push for universal coverage is misplaced (along with virtually all mainstream progressive health care concerns) … whose Chicago/DLC/neoliberal chief adviser on trade says “there is nobody more in favor of open markets than me”, and believes our 900-page trade agreements should be reduced to a libertarian two pages each.

You are endorsing the candidate who promises you a whole new world, but avoids describing it or disclosing how he will deliver it — whose entire appeal rests on the premise that special interests and partisan opponents will evaporate when he takes the oath of office.

You are endorsing the candidate whose appeal depends largely on his endorsement of traditional talk radio tropes of the Arkansas Project.

You are endorsing the candidate of make-believe — who looks at governance the way a 12-year-old looks at Playboy — over the candidate who has seen the world as it is, and is prepared to govern there.

If that’s not betrayal enough, we could get into the misogynist double standards, but I think you get my drift. All this betrayals are MINOR compared to the betrayals of hope and trust and progressive possibilities that an Obama presidency would bring … dashed hopes that would immunize two generations against Hope itself, doing for the Democratic/Progressive alliance just as much as Herbert Hoover did for Republicans and Conservatives.

Here’s another betrayal. You’re probably old enough to remember when women beat down the Equal Rights Amendment. If this uncommonly qualified, uncommonly equipped woman at an uncommonly opportune time is beaten down by your double standards, we will not live to see any woman taken seriously for POTUS … and prospects are dim for our daughters and nieces and granddaughters.

But you like the goosebumps and the lines engineered to trigger sentimental tears? So do I, even as I recognize the cheap tricks that cheap tricksters use to evoke them. Fine. Go your way, and I’ll go mine.

Just do me one favor. I’ve done my time, sweeping up after LBJ’s war, and Nixon’s perfidies, and the idealists who brought down Carter and gave us twelve years of Reagan/Bush, and idealists who brought down Clinton and gave us six years of Gingrich/Delay and eight years of Bush.

I will stop Obama before the convention if I can, and after the convention if I have to. If that means supporting McCain, so be it. If that means backing an independent candidate in a key state and throwing the election into the House of Representatives, so be it.

If you do get your Unity Pony — along with the pro-lifers, the Naderites, the Friedmanites, the Lieberman Democrats, the Bloombergers, the theocrats, the Federalist Society and everybody else who thinks Obama is their free ride — just don’t expect me to sweep up after it. I’ll do what good I can in other pursuits, including deep reflection on the defects of media-age democracy that re-elected Bush, and that enabled a major faction of a major party to fall for Obama."

PENNSYLVANIA VOTES AND KO CHOKES

2008-04-22T09:03:00.005-05:00

This is the day. I have all fingers and toes crossed (and I'm getting a cramp in them) that Hillary wins by 10 or more.

Hillary was fantastic on Countdown last night, and KO appeared subdued when confronted with her mastery of the issues and her ability to address any gotcha questions he could throw her way. She particularly showed her stuff when Keith asked her if there is really anything a president can do about about high gas prices, and she just rattled off a LITANY of actions a president can take! She's a can-do, not a wishful thinker.

But all the morning talk shows are buzzing about her statement on Iran -- that if Iran launched a nuclear attack on Israel, that she'd retaliate with nuclear force. The Morning Joe crowd was saying that we don't have a treaty relationship with Israel, so how could we do that?

I'm confused. I thought that defending Israel had pretty much been our policy for decades. Is Hillary's position that such a threat would be a deterrent such as was used to good effect during the Cold War, really that surprising?

UPDATE: Big Tent Democrat at Talk Left has more here and here.

OBAMA CONFLATES BUSH AND CLINTON, AGAIN

2008-04-21T10:17:00.004-05:00

What is it with this guy? He seems determined to undermine/destroy the good will generated for Democrats by Bill Clinton's successful presidency. Now he's saying that Clinton and Bush waited too late to push for a Middle East peace. Bush, sure, yeah, of course he did! But Clinton? Did I hallucinate all those ME peace initiatives he pushed dating from the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993 through the Rabin assassination in 1995 to the Wye and Camp David attempts? No American president since Jimmy Carter has tried so hard to solve the "unsolveable" Middle East crisis. For a fairer reading of the situation, see the State Department's history.

White House hopeful Barack Obama on Sunday criticized both President George W. Bush and former President Bill Clinton for waiting too long to make a big push to achieve Middle East peace.

Obama, a Democratic senator from Illinois, said he would pursue an active diplomacy from the beginning to try to reach a peace accord between Israel and the Palestinians.
...
"On the other hand, what I also disagree with is a habit of American presidents which is every president in their last year, they finally decide, we're going to try to broker a peace deal," Obama added. "Bill Clinton did it in his last year and he ran out of time. George Bush tried to do it."

I'm getting to seriously dislike this man.

NOT BEING HILLARY CLINTON

2008-04-20T20:24:00.005-05:00

Thanks to Susie for directing us to this astoundingly correct analysis of Obama as a presidential candidate. It's written by David Sirota, who has, since he wrote this, drunk so much of the BO kool-aid that it dribbles out of the sides of his mouth when he talks. And he quotes Ezra Klein along the same lines -- Ezra, one of the foremost supporters of universal healthcare, who nonetheless backs Obama, who is not.

What, I wonder, has Obama done in the sixteen or so months since Sirota penned this column to change his mind?

I suspect it's not be Hillary Clinton.