Grease Is the Word for Democratic Unity

Speaker Pelosi Should Promote Unity on ABC News This Week

Cartoon by David K. Beckwith

When we see Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking with George Stephanopoulos on ABC News This Week tomorrow morning, my hope is that she'll take the tone of a solemn stateswoman and encourage the possibility of Democratic unity rather than tearing asunder, as she did earlier this week, the now-emerging and fragile notion about a Democratic unity '08 ticket with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (in whichever order). It would help her to hold on to her majority leadership status this Fall and it would plant a seed of party solidarity in a garden where weeds fertilized by voter angst and division have been choking out the sun.

Someone in this party has to play grown-up..Yoda...teacher..healer (whatever you choose to call it) here. The battle against McCain will be tough enough. We shouldn't be wringing our hands at this stage .. we should be preparing the ground for the most important election of our time.

_________________

NYT readers ask: Can Democrats Stop Their Squabbling?

There may not be as much squabbling at the website Daily Kos since Hillary-supporters, led by the diarist known as Alegre, decided to boycott the site and effectively avoid the non-productive and tumultuous scene that aggressive Obama supporter-diarists have created. For Hillary-supporters, it was the final act in an ongoing effort to strike a balance that they must've felt had become impossible to maintain at the website. A pity.

Dramatic Explosions Rock Albanian Arms Depot, Kill 160

This morning there was news of a series of dramatic explosions at an arms depot in the village of Gerdec, just seven miles north of the Albanian capital Tirana, where up to 160 people may have been killed, including some U.S. citizens.

The U.S. embassy in Tirana told Reuters it could not confirm the presence of U.S. military personnel at the site. A witness, Albin Mexhaj, told Albania's Top Channel Television there were 100 people at the base.

link

Michigan Dems Want A Do-Over Primary

Good news. According to the AP, Michigan Democrats have agreed to go for a do-over state-run primary in early June to allow for delegates to participate in the presidential race between Sens. Clinton and Obama. It'll require the passage of legislation by the state legislature, so it's not a done deal just yet. It will also require the approval of the two campaigns, the DNC, state party leaders and Michigan's Governor Granholm. A revised delegate plan would also need to be approved by the state party's executive committee and the DNC's rules and bylaws committee. Whew....I wonder if it'll ever happen with all these hoops that must be jumped through?

Obama Condemns Rev Wright Anti-American Statements

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright situation isn't breaking news to many progressive Christian bloggers, myself included. Some have warned of the danger of Sen Obama being too slow to take a pre-emptive defense on the issue. In January I posted this comment in response to a diary at the Daily Kos website:

There is a good blogpost by progressive Christian A-lister Chuck Currie explaining the swift-boating of Trinity UCC.

Last March [2007], Mr. Currie said:

If Obama is going to let right-wing blogs define for the world the theology of his church and dictate who is and isn't aboard his campaign he might as well pack-up now. The right is "Swift Boating" his church. How he ultimately responds will offer voters insight into how principled his presidency might be.

link

Barack Obama, after all these months, has spoken. At a Huffington Post blog today, he says,

"I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue."

Better late than never.

And Another Campaigner Resigns

The AP's political quote of the day reads,

QUOTE OF THE DAY:

'"It's not going to be the Barack and Hillary people who bring the factions together. It's going to be those of us who are still seen as neutral and have some standing in the party."

— Rep. Mike Doyle, a Democrat who represents Pittsburgh and has not endorsed either of his party's presidential candidates, Barack Obama or Hillary Rodham Clinton.'

As an ordinary citizen who is neutral, I feel the same kind of responsibility to guide my fellow Democrats (and the two campaigns) to come together or risk losing not only the Presidential race, but the integrity of the party. On this blog I keep telling the campaigns that, if the candidates care more for party and country than they care for their own ego and ambition, then we'll need to see two adults seeking fairness and urging supporters to stay positive and patient while they both (rightly) remain in this primary race. Heaven knows where the support they'd normally see from party luminaries to keep the party peaceful has gone! It almost seems that they've been left alone..perhaps purposely... to show their eventual capacity for unity when neither, after the voting's over and done, winds up with the number of delegates it'll take to snag the nomination.

Why does it seem that some newspaper editorials are setting wiser guidlines and promoting better ideas than some of the party elders? [See this one from today's Oakland Press].

I don't know where the party's wise elders and cooler heads are. I'm not the only one who's wondering. I think of Sen Ted Kennedy who admitted he made the endorsement that he made [for Obama] when he did because, in good part, he was angry with Bill Clinton's comments in South Carolina.

The exploitation of anger bleeds over on to almost every Democratic issue in the MSM coverage of the primary race now. I honestly think, with a woman and an African-American running so close a race, that the "party bosses" are afraid to side with either candidate for the fear of looking politically incorrect. They know they run the risk of being reviled by half the total number of Democratic voters if they make what they think might be the "wrong decision"...or ANY decision at all.

It's pitiful to even begin to suspect that should-be-leaders in the Democratic party who had a preference for one candidate or the other could've been responsible and guiding...but decided instead to hold back in a state of fear and/or muddled confusion.

The emotion and anger of yet another Democratic campaigner (this time Maxim Thorne, a well-educated and dedicated supporter of Obama) has gotten the better of him. Mr. Thorne's out of the campaign for sending out an email that looked more like something from the Ken Starr-inquisition era than a 2008 campaign commentary. I consider him, like others who've had to resign from these two campaigns recently, to be another all-too-human victim of a Democratic primary campaign with an all-too easy fallback on race/gender/personal issues; improper, slow, missing, and/or uncertain leadership from the party; unnecessary rage; and high emotion.

Until this thing works itself out [or until a Democratic Yoda appears], here's a recommendation from a fellow blogger with the screen-name wmthetriallawyer that says,

"Don't let the main stream media or the whackjobs out there distract you from certain realities. [..]..the host of people who have lined up to support or otherwise be media-defined surrogates of the Obama and Clinton campaigns. [..] People say really stupid stuff sometimes. And it is dissected ad nauseum [..] But I only really care about what the two candidates themselves say"

Lending Orgy Led Bush Justice to Ruin Spitzer

"While New York Governor Eliot Spitzer was paying an ‘escort’ $4,300 in a hotel room in Washington, just down the road, George Bush’s new Federal Reserve Board Chairman, Ben Bernanke, was secretly handing over $200 billion in a tryst with mortgage bank industry speculators.

Both acts were wanton, wicked and lewd. But there’s a BIG difference. The Governor was using his own checkbook. Bush’s man Bernanke was using ours."

- Greg Palast ["Eliot's Mess", Greg Palast.com]

Greg Palast ruminates on the possible reasons for the Bush Justice Department using their 'discretion' to ruin NYS Governor Spitzer (with Spitzer's help, of course). Destroying a man's career in this manner is rarely done. So why, you may ask, was it done to Spitzer? Palast highly suspects there were reasons for defending the corrupt practice of lending that's been taking place on Wall Street and protecting the economic policy espoused by Bushites and all who agree with them. It's the type of economic policy that hides all kinds of built-in moral hazards. Reassuring that the sharks of Wall Street can keep partying while we taxpaying suckers and the Fed cover the losses and while hard-working African-Americans continue to be lumped together as just another group of high-risk mortgagees...I guess that kind of thing was more important to Bush and his Justice Department than having a politically ethical and emboldened Governor out here willing to take just about any risk to expose corruption but, unfortunately, couldn't keep his pants zipped up when he left his house.

Bush Justice smoked Spitzer out before he could smoke BushCo out of the swamp and bring them to justice. When Bush Justice yelled "Draw!" in this proverbial duel, Spitzer pulled out the wrong gun. But we're not so dumb to be lulled into the false belief that it's actually good for the public that a tough, persistent, risk-taking fighter against corruption is stepping away .... impotent.

.....the big players knew that unless Spitzer was taken out, he would create enough ruckus to spoil the party. Headlines in the financial press – one was “Wall Street Declares War on Spitzer” - made clear to Bush’s enforcers at Justice who their number one target should be. And it wasn’t Bin Laden.

It was the night of February 13 when Spitzer made the bone-headed choice to order take-out in his Washington Hotel room. He had just finished signing these words for the Washington Post about predatory loans:

“Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which he federal government was turning a blind eye.”

Bush, said Spitzer right in the headline, was the “Predator Lenders’ Partner in Crime.” The President, said Spitzer, was a fugitive from justice. And Spitzer was in Washington to launch a campaign to take on the Bush regime and the biggest financial powers on the planet.

Spitzer wrote,

“When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners the Bush administration will not be judged favorably.”

But now, the Administration can rest assured that this love story – of Bush and his bankers - will not be told by history at all – now that the Sheriff of Wall Street has fallen on his own gun.

Related:

The Face-Slap Theory by Paul Krugman [NYTimes]

Betting the Bank by Paul Krugman [NYTimes]

Fed Pledges to Supply Cash by Martin Crutsinger [WSJ]

Ben Bernanke: Socialist by bonddad [Daily Kos]

Olbermann Goes Too Far

I have to agree with Kate Stone's assessment of last night's dreadfully melodramatic performance by MSNBC's Keith Olbermann where he compared Hillary Clinton to David Duke. [While divisive garbage like this is being thrown at the American public by MSNBC's rival corporate MSM contender..and we Democratic chumps wind up taking all the damage from their ratings battle]. I happen to think Mr. Olbermann's trying very hard to please and promote himself with what he seems to think is an objective progressive crowd at Daily Kos, where he ran to post his comments from last night's Hillary-bashing segment. The tone of those comments rivaled a Sarah Bernhardt high-drama soliloquy. The deliverer of the bitter content of those comments stabbed wantonly at a Presidential candidate with a faux-rage that would've been laughable if It wasn't so careless. What Mr. Olbermann fails to realize is that there is virtually very little objectivity at the Daily Kos website as things stand in this primary race. I know. I've been a participant there for five years. Democrats are fighting there all the time now. He's catering to one side of a broken party. Isn't that kind of like Jerry Springer exploiting dysfunctional families for entertainment's sake?

Speaking of the drama diva herself..while performing in La Tosca in Rio de Janeiro circa 1905, Sarah Bernhardt received an injury to her right knee during the final scene that eventually, due to untreatable infection, resulted in her entire right leg being amputated. With his corny and Democrat-dividing performance, I think Keith Olbermann, by breaking trust with many progressives last night, may well have caused an infection that could wind up amputating his career as a credible political pundit.

Too bad. For a while he was hitting some home runs. He was the last talk-show host on MSNBC to whom I'd been giving an open-minded listen. He polluted my open mind last night.

________________

* This is from me... a longtime blogger...a consistently objective John Edwards supporter who's hoping for the two remaining candidates to come together for the party's sake and take on some of Sen Edwards' issues instead of making me remember that he was the only grown-up on the room most of the time. This week I saw a powerful Democrat go down for spending God-knows-how much on hookers while the candidate I supported caught shit in the idiot MSM for getting a $400 haircut. I'm no longer in the mood to tolerate anyone willing to divide our party...that includes the remaining candidates and well-paid self-promoting pundits like Mr. Olbermann.

I realize that my opinion isn't the popular one, but it comes from an unbiased heart and mind. Fairness, in this case, was not given to Sen Clinton, who was delivering a heartfelt public apology as Olbermann was impulsively skewing her.. before he gave it one news cycle to see what Clinton would do. I didn't subscribe to the notion that some other bloggers have been expressing about Olbermann being "Obama's newscaster"...until last night. My party's been voting for more than just one candidate. Neither of the campaigns' surrogates have been innocent of the charge of damaging negativity.

Speaker Pelosi Can't Say "Unity" Now, But....

Some Obama supporters in my party are hanging their proverbial hats against the idea of a party unity ticket based on what they read from Politico's Ben Smith, who, at the end of the day, is not participating in his professional endeavours in order to create arguments that will win for Democrats .. and is making a living in a business that showcases the most controversial issues of the day for an optimal amount of eyeballs looking at a money-making website. I think it's wrong to hang your hat on just one temporal quote from Speaker Pelosi bluntly dismissing a unity Democratic ticket [sparked by her current displeasure with a compliment Clinton paid to McCain at the expense of Obama].

At Real Clear Politics there's a brief analysis by Blake Dvorak that I found to be astute:

I'm going to call Pelosi on inconsistency here. She says the differences between Obama and Clinton are nothing compared to the chasm between Democrats and Republicans. But later on she dismisses a "dream ticket" as impossible because the Clinton campaign has said McCain would make a better commander in chief than Obama. Well, assuming the need to beat the Republicans in November outweighs the differences between Obama and Hillary, which is what I think Pelosi is getting at, then a dream ticket is not only possible, but preferable.

But we also know why Pelosi is being inconsistent. Endorsing in any way a joint ticket is a nod to Clinton right now, given the campaigns' difference of opinion on the idea. And Pelosi needs to appear "uncommitted."

Speaker Pelosi's playing the part she imagines she needs to play while remaining uncommitted to either candidate. Perhaps she knows what time can do, if both candidates' campaigns are listening, to erase the memory of bold albeit temporal statements like this one.

But everyone knows there's no such thing as "impossible". Using the word creates an easily-breakable frame. A worry for me, though, is created by such an unimaginative and hopeless-sounding statement from a party leader. Absent of vision at a difficult time for the party, it emits a sad signal to already-conflicted Democratic voters who, unlike some party extremists defending Obama or Clinton, genuinely like both Obama and Clinton. I can't blame Nancy Pelosi, though.I blame the lack of harmonious spirit betwen two extremely (and equally) popular party luminaries who are running for the highest office of the land.

It will soon be time for them both to grow up and start coming together for the sake of their party and for the change they both say they wish to bring to our country.

It's no wonder Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, Bill Richardson, and John Edwards have remained uncommitted.

Like Rove, Obama Pushes Iraq as "Congress' War"

Like Rove, Obama Pushes Iraq as "Congress' War"
Why Help RoveCo?

Kristen Breitweiser knows better than most people about what exactly was happening after 9/11. She lost her husband in the World Trade Center attack and has been an activist for truth since that day. Her consciousness about the entirety of the events that have unfolded since that day has been heightened by her tragic loss.

She credits the Republican machine and their perverted and deceiving ways for the gullibility of the press and the people today of falling for Barack Obama's recent campaign spin about how he's a better judge about foreign policy than Hillary Clinton for having issued a speech back in 2002 when people like myself had my feet pounding the pavement in strong an loud protest and have continued to do so in a most committed way while he's voted to fund this war.

I've spoken to friends and colleagues about the circus-nature of Sen John Kerry and former Senate leader Tom Daschle standing by and advising Sen Obama on such matters when you look at them and their actions and words in 2002. SEE: Dear Sen Kerry: As a supporter of Edwards in 2008

For Sen Obama to proclaim that Hillary Clinton is in some way, unfit to be President because he gave a speech in 2002 when he was nowhere near the U.S. Senate and the responsibilities and duties that come with the job is a graceless and utterly fantastic claim to make [as I've said before many times].

My problem with Sen Obama is articulated clearly by Mrs. Breitweiser. If he were truly interested in getting the center leanng back toward the left after eight yers of President Disaster, then he should've been shaking hands with Hillary Clinton all along rather than relegating her and Bill (whose presence he fears more than I think most people realize) to an early political graveyard far too soon and giving the Republican spin machine a super chance to keep revolving and fooling a good many persons much of the time.

From Mrs. Breitweiser's Huffington Post column today:

.....in 2008 we Democrats seem to have forgotten that it was George Bush (along with the Republican war machine) that brought us first and foremost to the war in Iraq.

I wonder if the Republicans ever imagined the success of their spin.

Remember back in 2002. There was a drumbeat for war with Iraq. First it was a link between Iraq and 9/11. Then it was WMD. Then it was Saddam was a bad man and needed to be eliminated. And remember how the vast majority of the country fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

Indeed, more than 75% of our Senate voted for the authorization to go to war---including Senators Daschle, Dodd, Kerry, and Rockefeller I might add--all of whom work as advisors on Barack Obama's campaign. And yes, so did Senator Hillary Clinton.

So where did you stand back in 2002, 2003 and 2004? Do you remember the fever? The frenzy? The momentum? Do you remember the call to speak with one united voice? That was Senate Majority Leader Daschle's plea to the American public back in 2002. Yeah, the same Tom Daschle whose advice and judgment Barack Obama seeks out daily on the campaign trail.

I remember it all. And, I know where I stood. I was down in Washington fighting for a 9/11 Commission and I was steadfast against the war in Iraq.

But back in '02, for those of us who dared to speak out against President Bush and his war in Iraq, we stood virtually alone. There was no resounding chorus of people calling "bullshit" on Bush's folly. No, back in 2002 you were called unpatriotic if you dared to question the President; labeled as helping the terrorists if you raised doubt about his divine call to action.

Now forgive me, but I do not recall the help (or the voice) of any Barack Obama from Illinois. Indeed, I cannot recall hearing or feeling the impact of any one speech from the Illinois Senator. Did he attend the rally on the mall in Washington? The marches and protests in NYC? Did he conduct national press interviews? Did he write any editorials? Organize any protest rallies? Mobilize the people? Did he write any petitions? If he did, I never saw any of them.

Yet according to Barack Obama, because he spoke out in 2002 against the war in Iraq, he is better qualified to be President.

And according to Barack Obama, since Hillary Clinton voted to authorize the President to go to war in Iraq, she is unfit to be President.

As Democrats we need to remember exactly who took us to war in Iraq. We need to remind ourselves exactly who is to blame for the huge price tag our soldiers and their families have paid. We need to never forget that it was George Bush who created this debacle. Costing us billions in dollars and worldwide respect.

Maybe that's what bothers me most about Barack Obama. He keeps talking about working with the Republicans. Reaching across the aisle. Compromise. Well, I've been to Washington. I have fought battles in Washington--most of them against the Republicans---to get 9/11 legislation passed into meaningful law.

And if there is one thing I know for sure right now, I do not feel like reaching across the aisle and finding compromise with Republicans particularly on any of the following issues: Roe v. Wade; torture; FISA surveillance and illegal wiretapping; unfounded wars with Iran, Syria, or any place else; stem cell research; the erosion of our constitution; alternative energy and global warming; and/or healthcare reforms.

So why does Barack Obama want to compromise on such issues? Doesn't he get it?

To me, those issues are non-negotiable. To me, after 8 long destructive years of Republican rule, there is no wiggle-room left for Republican taint and ruin. I remember all too well that it is the Republicans who are to blame for our nation's current precarious state.

That's why the Democrats must win the WH back in '08. We cannot afford another term of Republican ruin. That's why the only place I am willing to compromise is when it comes to figuring out the best way--the surest way--to get the Democrats in the WH.

So would somebody please tell Barack Obama to stop talking about shaking hands with Republicans and start talking about shaking hands with Hillary Clinton and her half of the Democratic party so we can all start working together to beat the Republicans.

Unity Ticket '08.

Why, Eliot Spitzer?

NYS Lt. Gov. David Paterson
with NYS Governor Spitzer
photo by Jude Nagurney Camwell

New York may get first African-American governor [Reuters]


I keep aasking myself, 'Why?'

This whole thing's so depressing. A man who had everything blew it all [and 4300 bucks] on a hooker?

While the Presidential candidate I supported caught hell in the media for spending $400 on a haircut. Go figure.

Expected that Gov. Spitzer will Resign - NYT

Obama Slams Hillary's Cracked-Open VP Door

I don't want to see one currently-interested and enthused Democrat sitting home on their ass [or their hands] on Election Day 2008 because they're pissed off about who got top-of-the-ticket. Hillary Clinton already sees this and has acknowledged to voters that she understands how they're feeling.

It's time for Barack Obama to do the same.

When confronted about the possibility of a Clinton/Obama or an Obama/Clinton ticket, Barack Obama said:

"..what I'm really focused on right now .. is winning this nomination and changing the country. And I think that's what people here are concerned about." - ABC News

I'm here to tell Barack Obama that he's absolutely wrong if he's thinking that the entire body of Democratic voters believe it's all about him. It isn't all about him and him alone. He's not the sole Savior of the Democratic party even though he's convinced half of the Democratic electorate that he might be. He won't increase the size of the hardened hearts of Republicans as did Dr. Seuss' tiny heroine Cindy-Lou Who, who succeeded in pumping up the Grinch's ticker three sizes in one day.

George W. Bush made the fatal error, throughout much of his Presidency, of allowing his ego to convince him that he was beloved by all when at least half the nation saw that he was deluded by self-vision. I hope I'm not seeing this character trait in Obama.

In case he's missing something, let me remind Senator Obama that Democrats are looking to both him and to Senator Clinton for maturity and leadership during what we all can see is a contentious, historic, and incredibly close primary race. They need to agree to remain open to coming together on one 2008 ticket and stop pretending they don't need one another.

They need one another.

We need THEM to show us that they both get it.

Neither candidate can close this deal. We aren't stupid. We can see it. It's so obvious!

There will be anger among 50% of Democratic voters regardless of who winds up winning this hot primary contest ... the anger won't only apply if Barack loses it.

There's no reason for either contestant to drop out. Neither one has convincingly beaten the other.

Some will question Hillary's sincerity about floating the idea of Obama-as-VP and then, days later, exposing the weakness of her primary rival with an air of uncertainty about his preparedness for the task. I think it's not to say that Hillary's ruling out the possibility of Obama-as-VP. It's still a possibility and an invitation to what could be. It serves to confuse, though.

Voters have tired of confusion and uncertainty.

The outcome of the Florida and Michigan controversy could be the fork in the road that will make or break the Democrats this November, depending on the cooperation and attitude of the two candidates and their campaigns.

The voters of the two now-orphaned states of Florida and Michigan stand to be reassured that they'll be represented .. and fairly represented at the DNCC in Denver. It's going to get tougher from here. When it comes to the end results of Florida and Michigan, my forecast is calling for a certain hurricane of anger to blow away 50% of Democratic voters unless both candidates start showing that they'll respect the choice of the other half of voters by casting a welcoming eye and warm heart to their opponent for the VP slot.

Our party cannot afford (and by all means should not tolerate) the palpable negativity and division that currently hangs over both campaigns and campaigns' supporters. I'm glad to see that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has spoken out on the matter.

Cynical media pundits [who I believe have given the easy-pass treatment to Obama while perpetually crucifying Clinton] and even the media-pampered Obama himself are making it sound as if Clinton's a conniving she-devil for suggesting that she and Obama might run on the same ticket.

Wasn't it just three days ago that a valued campaign advisor had to resign for casting Hillary as a monster? When will the Obama campaign start getting the fact that the Democratic voting public is getting sick to death of their negativity after she's shown she's been capable of getting nearly the same amount of popular votes as their candidate .. and in key November states?

It seems like such a no-brainer that the two would be unbeatable if they could both show the ability to campaign together in a forward-thinking, mature, responsible, and committed fashion .. and agree to do so before August. Most cynics would (and do) say "fat chance" and perhaps they're right .. and perhaps the campaigns will listen to the cynics as usual ... and perhaps the Democrats will blow yet another great chance to win the Oval Office.

Marty Kaplan's conflicted and in turmoil over the idea of Clinton and Obama running together [and I say that jokingly .. read his hilarious and home-hitting piece today at Huffington Post].

Despite Rush Limbaugh's mocking threat about a lady and a black guy never being able to win on the same ticket, we aren't just talking about just any lady...or just any black guy. We know that these two will blow past McCain and rise and inspire progress for years to come. Rush is talking about a society in which we no longer live, and the numbers of voters coming out on the Democratic side compared to the Republicans are proving it.

We can only lose this if we destroy ourselves.

Right now I'm seeing Hillary Clinton as the wiser leader because, even while behind on delegates, she's welcomed Obama [and the voting public] to begin to consider the two candidates as part of an unstoppable team. Is she sincere? One commenter at the Chicago Tribune Swamp has said, "Good gracious, Hillary is just too much. She's losing, and yet is willing to dole out the VP award to the guy in first. How on earth does that make ANY sense?" The only way it makes sense is just the fact that the idea, to so many voters, makes sense .. plain and simple. That Hillary was first to suggest it is neither here nor there, but it does show a transcendence of ego and a positive attitude toward the Democratic party's electoral success that I haven't yet detected in Obama.

Obama doesn't help nor does he offer hope to those who'd wish they'd both cut the ego-crap and agree to run together:

"I won more of the popular vote than Sen. Clinton. I have more delegates than Sen. Clinton. So I don’t know how someone in second place can offer the vice presidency to someone in first place. If I was in second place I could understand but I am in first place right now."

Once again, [after what sounds to me like a statement from a haughty third-grader] he's denying just how close this race is and how neither candidate will meet the required delegates for securing the nomination by August. Worse, his attitude leaves this squarely in the hands of super-delegates which increases the likelihood that the election will be removed from the hands and hearts of the average voter. A very undemocratic thought .. especially after voters' still-lingering pain from Florida 2000.


If you build it, they will come. Field of Dreams. Remember that line?

I think Hillary's trying to build it. We want 'em to come out in droves to vote Democratic this November ..

..don't we??

Obama has already rejected the prospect of running as Hillary’s running mate, and has gone so far as to accuse Clinton of attempting “to deceive the American people just so that they can win this election” — not the kind of statement that a candidate makes when preparing to accept his rival’s ‘offer’ of the number two spot on the ticket. - [VisibleVote08]

Let's hope Obama joins her instead of putting out the negative vibes that damage the party's unity and serve to give animated reality to the Obama rookie-ambition narrative that has been pumped out by Hillary-supporters.

This can no longer be about ambition and ego. If it continues, there will be anger from either camp's supporters and I think we might well kiss the winds that should've been at our backs in November a fond 'Goodbye'.

And please - to Democratic voters who are whining that they'll refuse to vote for either candidate should they make top-of-ticket - try to think rationally even if your candidate may not be responsibly leading you to think outside your individual boxes at a perilous time for the party. Losing emotion can be useful in these trying times. Ask James Wolcott.