Halperin Creates Clinton Race-Card Scenario

Political analyst Mark Halperin is a journalist in a position to be heard and trusted by many people. You'd hope he'd be responsible in his reporting. He should know better than to place divisive race-laden words into a Presidential candidate's mouth while admitting she never once said those words. [Watch him on FOX News in the video above].

Mr. Halperin on Mrs. Clinton's alleged strategy to win over Superdelegates:

"What she's hoping, although she wouldn't say this to me, I tried to press her on it -- is that the exit poll that Fox and others do in Pennsylvania show that white voters are turning against Obama in Pennsylvania, even more than Ohio."

Mr. Halperin adds building blocks to his irresponsible framing of Senator Clinton's alleged race-based gamble in seeking the Democratic nomination. Halperin sets it up,

"Now, that is the biggest challenge to getting elected President as a Democrat is winning enough of the white vote. She hopes to show, perhaps based on what's happened with Reverand Wright, perhaps based on Obama's appeal in Pennsylvania, she hopes to be able that to superdelegates: 'look at what happened on Ohio, look at what happened in Pennsylvania, this guy can't win'. That's the mindset, that's the argument."

If you read this carefully, you'll see that, by claiming Hillary's too politically correct to admit she's betting on racism as a strategy toward winning the Democratic nomination, Mark Halperin just created a frame that is not based on any statement from Hillary Clinton or her campaign. This is how conventional wisdom grows (with no particular homage paid to the value of truth). This is what I truly hate about politics. Mr. Halperin should be ashamed. I'm ashamed for him. A person in his position should be reporting the facts and, at the very least, being careful about how he approaches the topic of race in this primary contest. He can be as non-PC as he wishes....but I firmly believe that stuffing words in Clinton's mouth while saying she refused to say the words herself our of PC-concerns is a violation of ethics in his line of business.

Out of the many reasons there are for Clinton to truly believe she'd be a better President, Mark Halperin chose the race card for her.

Isn't that special?


UPDATE: A recent development shows that Clinton campaign strategist Harold Ickes freely admits that the Reverend Wright issue has been discussed with Superdelegates. Ickes says that the Superdelegates have what he feels to be genuine concerns about voter reaction in the aftermath of Wright's decidedly startling comments..Obama's speech notwithstanding... and he felt it was appropriate to listen to those concerns. Mrs. Clinton has reacted:

Hillary spokesperson Doug Hattaway offered some clarification to ABC News: "She was and is unaware of anyone on the campaign pushing [the Wright] issue with superdelegates. She wants anyone who is talking to superdelegates to focus on our message, which is that she's best prepared to be president and beat John McCain."

Should Mrs. Clinton tell Harold Ickes to never talk about the Reverend Wright issue again? I'm not sure we should be muzzling any frank behind-the-scenes discussions about the political realities and the potential for the kind of swift-boat damage that the 527 groups so easily placed into the minds of American voters in the 2004 contest. Is it racism or is it staring into the abyss of cold hard reality? Is it worth going into denial mode for the sake of political correctness? Is it honest or is it racist to talk about the risk of loss of cross-over voters in November over Reverend Wright's statements and the public perception of Obama's long-term spiritual relationship with him?

I still hold to the belief that Mark Halperin took the lazy path to reporting this in the frame of the race-card when the issue goes much deeper in political reality.

Dems: Unity Ticket or Risk Loss

Seen at Talk Left:

"I strongly believe a Unity Ticket is necessary for Dems to have a good chance in November."

- Big Tent Democrat

Mario Cuomo thinks so (even though he and his idea are apparently being ignored).

I've been saying it (and cartooning about it) for a while now.






It's the only way to end this chaos and the only path to a possible win against John McCain.

I honestly believe anything else other than Clinton/Obama 08 (or vice versa) will be a loser by the process of party division.

Who Played The Race Card Game First?

Philadelphia Inquirer
Obama was the first to play the race card
by Sean Wilentz, Sidney and Ruth Lapidus professor of history at Princeton University

Frank Rich Gores Hillary Clinton

I thought that Frank Rich made some interesting points about the YouTube political generation in his latest column, yet I'm disappointed to see that he thinks it's Hillary Clinton who will suffer most from what he sees as a new brand of politics. His critique of her Bosnia-story mistake is reminiscent of what Mr. Rich and Maureen Dowd did to Al Gore in 2000, which was to look (or to be) clever by creating this lasting media caricature of Mr. Gore as a foolish braggart while we got Bush in the White House for eight years. So much for the "inevitability" of the not-so-different politics of 2000.

They're doing it again.
Hillary is being Gored.

Politics may have become more hip, but politicians certainly haven't. Here's my biggest fear: Hillary Clinton will be harmed irreparably, as Gore was harmed, from the hip/mocking media and late night talk shows over something relatively trivial..and that will politically advance Obama and McCain...and there will be a heck of a lot more hip/modern-techno-political damage done to Obama with the Reverend Wright issue from the Right (yeah, they know how to use YouTube, too) than I think any journalist whose center of the universe is Manhattan could understand right now.

Recent polls with limited and temporal glimpses into who-knows-whose minds aren't your Uncle Larry or your cousin Susie-May or old square Bill and Betty from Fumbuck. The Reverend Wright issue is like a tornado that left as quickly as it came. People outside the storm's path will see it on the news and forget about it quickly, but for those who were directly shaken, the storm's mark will permanently remain. There a a lot of average Americans who are not racist by extremist standards who just can't shake the words "God-damn America" out of their minds. The Right's going to play with this like a Red, White, and Blue bouncing ball in their padded room of 527 delight.

The polls also fail to reflect the Hillary-supporters who I see becoming more and more disillusioned with their party by the day. They see her trashed in the media and by the decidely nasty young-bloods in the Democratic party [a bitter division of the netroots at the once-productive Daily Kos is only a symptom of a greater illness within the party].

They're seeing self-interested politicos like Pat Leahy trying to cut off small-d democracy, which is totally antithetical to the idea of the big-D philosophy of fairness and justice. It's all too reminiscent of Florida 2000, but this time it's due to the dysfunction of the party itself. We can't even blame the Republicans for this one!

I think of the daughters who are coming of age..the ones who are pulling for Hillary..hoping to see the first female President... and only seeing how the old boys still think they can play (and win) the game. To use dated commercial jargon, I've come a long way myself, baby...and I have to say that, for all my years of observing politics, there are a lot of boys out there who still like to play games to maintain the integrity of that precious glass ceiling of theirs.

I have this nagging feeling about what's likely in store for us Democrats in this YouTube generation of politics. I think it's all about to backfire on us as we prepare for the General Election. For whatever reason. I think that many Democratic strategists are snatching division and chaos from the once-easy-flowing river of victory.

Some of my readers won't like what I'm saying here..they won't like it at all... but I'll be perfectly willing to meet them back here at this blogpost in six months and we'll revisit my current opinion, which has been borne of tough love. I think we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking Hillary's character is weak any more than Al Gore's character was weak...whether or not people can play rotten and underhanded tricks on YouTube.

John and Elizabeth Edwards Speak Publicly on Hillary, Obama

As far as credibility is concerned, if I have to choose between an anonymous Democratic strategist and getting my information straight from the horse's mouth, I'll pick the direct information every time. So the choice occurred today, with the first choice being a New York Magazine article boasting so-called 'insider' information from a strategist the writer can't even name regarding Elizabeth Edwards' opinions about the two remaining Democrats in the primary race ... and the second choice, regarding that which Mrs. Edwards said herself in public when she was asked a question about the two candidates' healthcare policies.

UPDATE APRIL 2: Elizabeth Edwards says the NY Mag info is FALSE.

John McCain supporter Lee Aase reports this bit of information after having heard Mrs. Edwards speak at the Health Journalism 2008 conference:

In response to a question, Mrs. Edwards said she supports Sen. Clinton's [healthcare] plan because it is closest to her husband's plan. She views it as significantly better than Sen. Obama's.

Elizabeth's husband John Edwards just gave a public speech at the Young Democrats of North Carolina convention. This was his first public speech since dropping his White House bid two months ago. He praised both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, but declined to endorse either candidate. The AP reports the following quote:

"I have a very high opinion of both of them. We would be blessed as a nation to have either one of them as president."

For all the impatience and complaints I've heard about his silence, it sounds like he's already endorsing either of them .. or both of them .. doesn't it?

Hillary: Nope, Not Going

Unquestioning Patriotism Comes in All Colors

Rice Hails Obama Race Speech as "Important" For U.S.


I think the very best, most inspirational, and most visionary leaders for this day and age should speak loudly about how we're all in this experiment together instead of beating on the many divisions that cause fear and raise old envy and create diversions from the pressing issues that we all have in common.

When we're talking about people who've trusted and "loved" their government, I'm really not sure that we're looking at our past or future in a healthy frame. Intelligent patriotism takes some healthy doubt and some very hard questioning. Most of us have learned, over time, that we cannot "love" a government... because law is not love. It's only we individual human beings who can love ourselves enough to respect and to care about our neighbors. We are a government of people, but the law by which we agree by consensus to abide is not now and had never been a compact of love. Love doesn't come in one color or one creed, and it surely isn't guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. Love's our own individual responsibility.

Good faith in government can only be created when we stop dividing ourselves up by color and ethnicity.

Stop it!

For the love of God and the good of America, please, all political leaders, stop this!

Bill Clinton Campaigns In Kannapolis

I took all of these photos today at a Hillary Clinton rally with guest speaker Bill Clinton.


Former President Bill Clinton Greets Rally Attendees at A.L. Brown H.S. in Kannapolis, N.C. today



Bill Clinton Speaks to Hillary Clinton Supporters



Bill Clinton



The Hillary rally theme was "experience" and
"Change you can depend on."




Reporters Ask Questions

Former President Bill Clinton, during a nearly hour-long speech in Kannapolis today, had a message for people who think his wife should drop her presidential campaign:

"That's a bunch of bull."

[Charlotte Observer]

N.C. Blogger David K. Beckwith [Anonymoses]



A View From the Floor

Playing on the car number of a famous Kannapolis native, NASCAR driver Dale Earnhardt, Clinton said there were “three” important things each president should do for a country - leave office with the country in better shape than when he or she enters; make a better future for the country’s youth; and improve the country’s relationship with the world.

[Independent Tribune]

President Clinton's Shadow on the U.S. Flag

Basra Heats Up, Threatens Surge Benefits for U.S.

"The collapse of the cease-fire could have disastrous consequences for Iraqi stability. The relative lull in assassinations, bombings, and kidnappings that accompanied it might end, wiping out some of the gains of the U.S. "surge" in Baghdad and its surrounding areas....


U.S. military officials have stressed repeatedly that one of the main reasons for the steep drop in violence during the U.S. troop surge is the cease-fire declared by al-Sadr in August. With the massive Iraqi military operation under way in Al-Basrah, that agreement clearly is in serious jeopardy."

- Radio Free Europe

Juan Cole explains that the setting of October, 2008, as the date for provincial elections in Iraq has provoked the most recent step-up on violence in Basra. He also believes that VP Dick Cheney is wrong (as he has been so many times) about this recent Iraq war strategy (with an apparent motive to destroy the Mahdi army). You can read Professor Cole's reasoning here. An AP report on the most recent bombing of Basra by the U.S. (with British support) underscores the fact that, while Shiite cleric Muqtada Al-Sadr is calling out for a political solution to the burgeoning crisis and an end to the 'shedding of Iraqi blood', the risk is increasing that the U.S. and its allies in Iraq "could be drawn into an internal Shiite conflict that has threatened to unravel al-Sadr's cease-fire and spark a new cycle of violence after months of relative calm" [see NYT link].

It seems that this turn of events is, in good part, a U.S. silent war with Iran as the U.S. remains in Iraq. Stratfor.com reports that "the Basra operation will serve as a litmus test of just how far Washington can push Iran aside."

Iran needs the Shiite militia card to counter the Sunni threat wielded by the United States ...

It is in the short-term interests of PM Nouri al-Maliki and ISCI leader Abdel Aziz alal-Hakim to offer Washington a way to reduce U.S. reliance on Tehran for stability in Iraq.....

Basra is among the few regions in the Shiite south where the ISCI — Iran’s principal Iraqi Shiite ally, which dominates Iraqi security forces in the south — faces a significant challenge. The governor of Basra is from the Fadhila party, an ISCI rival...

Targeting the chief rivals of the ISCI, which seeks to establish an autonomous Shiite region in the south, gives al-Hakim’s group an opportunity to consolidate itself in what is perhaps the most important part of the Shiite south. This could prove quite useful ahead of provincial elections set for later this year.
[source: Stratfor]

This new violence, if it entrenches the U.S. deeper into Iraq's civil wars, stands to make the so-called success of 'the surge' in Iraq no more than a distant memory for the American public. Even the Sunni fundamentalist Iraqi Accord Front is opposed to the attack on the Mahdi Army, with its leader Adnan Dulaimi, saying that it does not work to the benefit of Iraq. In Baghdad, al-Hayat is reporting that thousands of protesters came out to rally against Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, demanding that he resign and threatening him with a trial worse than that of Saddam Hussein. It seems to me that any benefit to the U.S. image [in the American public's mind] from having created a fragile and temporary peace stands to be wiped away by the appearance of the U.S. decision to join the Shiite Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq [ISCI] in destroying the Mahdi army. The new violence will pervade the world media's coverage of the war and serve to reestablish the appearance of U.S. strategy as that of the occupier rather than the strategic diplomat and peacemaker.

If asked what the American public thinks about all of this, Dick Cheney would likely shrug his shoulders and, once again, show his pure disdain for the People with a "So?"

Richardson as Judas? Didn't I Tell You?

I don't think James Carville's to blame or that anyone should be shocked for hearing him talk out loud about what I'd imagine a lot of politically-aware Christian Democrats were thinking on Good Friday. The day I'd heard that Bill Richardson decided to endorse Obama, even I choked a bit on my fried fish and coleslaw and I'd said these very words:

"I just read that Bill Richardson decided to endorse Barack Obama after he heard Obama's major speech on race. [A bit of a betrayal and crucifixion for Richardson's former champion Hillary Clinton ..and done, most curiously, on Good Friday..I wonder if the name Judas is flying around the Clinton camp today? ]

Don't blame me, either. I'm not in either camp. I'm just a good Catholic girl who payed attention during her Religious Education classes. Substitute those 30 pieces for one sweet promise of a cherry position with Obama's administration (if Obama gets that far). Mmm-hmm. You know what I'm talkin' about, don't you? Bearded Bill threw his girl under the bus.

As for me, there's something oh-so-precious to be said about the value of loyalty when I examine the make-up of a man or woman's character.


UPDATE:
James Carville expounds on the matter:

I believe that loyalty is a cardinal virtue. Nowhere in the world is loyalty so little revered and tittle-tattle so greatly venerated as in Washington. I was a little-known political consultant until Bill Clinton made me. When he came upon hard times, I felt it my duty -- whatever my personal misgivings -- to stick by him. At the very least, I would have stayed silent. And maybe that's my problem with what Bill Richardson did. Silence on his part would have spoken loudly enough.

Most of the stuff I've ever said is pretty insignificant and by in large has been said off the cuff and without much thought to the potential consequences. That was not the case in this instance. Bill Richardson's response was that the Clinton people felt they were entitled to the presidency. In my mind, that is a debatable hypothesis. But, even more than that, I know that a former president of the United States who appointed someone to two Senate-confirmed positions is entitled to have his phone calls returned.

If Richardson was going to turn on the Clintons the way he did, I see no problem in saying what I said. Because if loyalty is one virtue, another is straight talk. And if Democrats can't handle that, they're going to have a hard time handling a Republican nominee who is seeking the presidency with that as his slogan.

Disloyalty That Merits An Insult, WaPo op-ed

Nubs and Major Dennis

"If having a soul means being able to feel love and loyalty and gratitude, then animals are better off than a lot of humans" ~ James Herriot





I loved this story.

Democrats' Decisions Shouldn't Turn on Race

There's something terribly wrong about the latest developments in this Democratic presidential primary race. It's becoming more and more apparent by the day and I'd be remiss if I didn't share my concern with fellow Democrats.

Recent statements made by Obama campaign surrogates [like John Kerry, who's never been politically sharp or quick] convey the clear and unapologetic opinion that Obama is the leader they choose, in good part, because of issues surrounding the color of his skin.

That's pretty sick.

To see the Democratic party becoming 'the race party' from their own politically correct standpoint is no better than Republicans who use race as a wedge and fear issue. I'm not alone in feeling this way.

I just read that Bill Richardson decided to endorse Barack Obama after he heard Obama's major speech on race. [ A bit of a betrayal and crucifixion for Richardson's former champion Hillary Clinton ..and done, most curiously, on Good Friday..I wonder if the name Judas is flying around the Clinton camp today? ]

From the NY Times:

Mr. Obama’s address on race in Philadelphia on Tuesday appeared to sway Mr. Richardson, who sent word to the senator that he was inspired and impressed by the speech, in which Mr. Obama called for an end to the “racial stalemate” that has divided Americans for decades.

You'd have to be nearly blind not to see new racial divisions being showcased in the media by the recent political actions and words of both Democratic campaigns and campaign surrogates in this primary race [while the media unfairly gets all the blame and the Republicans love every moment of it].

I wonder how Richardson's endorsement will fly with Hispanic voters? They were a particular racial group that, for the most part, got left out of Obama's major speech on race the other day.

I think I'm seeing Democrats setting themselves up for something that they never expected... at the expense of the racial progress that I believe we actually have been making. [It's the political progress that's been suffering because of a very weak Democratic leadership]. Pressing the issue of race and highlighting what divides us...making that a key part of the Obama candidacy...well, I couldn't think of anything more harmful to the political progress for which we'd have hoped.

If the Democratic leadership did expect this wedge issue and welcomes this new turn of events with this focus on race, I'm beginning to think we have some fools leading the party. Making race an attribute or test for the Oval Office is antithetical to my being a Democrat in the first place.

My thoughts on Obama's Major Speech

I've been cartooning a lot lately, using humor to convey to you what was, for me, the light-hearted side of my view of Barack Obama's major speech on race in America. I didn't want the opportunity to pass, however, for me to explain to my readers how I felt about what he had to say, because it isn't really a laughing matter. I chose to look at the speech in a most objective way, remembering that the man who was speaking is in the political battle of his lifetime. Obama's an excellent orator. His eloquence was to be expected. I was prepared to hear something marvelous from him before he got up to the podium. And I watched and listened...very closely. I'm sure there are many blogposts already out there about the speech and I know how inundated you've already become by the almost-nauseating media coverage. It's par for the course these days...much like theatre. As the blogger Digby wryly put it,

"I have a problem with these expected blog posts on expected speeches that the dynamics of 21st-century campaigns demand. This election has turned into some kind of bizarre series of rituals, like an season of Greek theater where everybody knows the plot and the audience is left to judge the work on the presentation."

I'm not the gushing kind. About the speech, you won't hear me say "It was Jeffersonian... Lincoln-ish. .... I laughed; I cried; it became a part of me..."

But for those of you who know me...you know that I am from a family of more than one race myself. Some of you reading this have lived that life by my side. I've lived out this country's race issue in my own household. Here are some of my thoughts...



Taking the apples out of the old apple pie

I think the now-infamous video-snippets of Reverend Jeremiah Wright's words will continue to haunt Senator Obama's campaign for as long as he's running for the highest office in this land. It would be naive for anyone to think otherwise, as much as I'm loathe to have to admit that I think it's true. There will always be those shadow-interests who so fiercely oppose a Democrat taking the Oval Office that they'd do just about anything to keep it from a Democrat. In this case, I think that, unfortunately, all they'll have to do is continue repeating that dreadful "God-damn America" statement, something the detractors would've never even have to had manufactured in their dreams. It is what it is. It'll be interpreted in any one citizen's own unique way..each and every time they hear or see it. The tone enveloping Wright's words, based on the video snippets alone, context notwithstanding, sucks all the apples out of MSM-consuming moderate America's proverbial apple pie. It isn't fair - but it's there.



Religious leaders and political leaders aren't supposed to be roomates in the same moral echelon

I think a mistake may have been made by Obama in his speech by placing religious leadership and political leadership in the same moral echelon. Reverend Wright wasn't just another political campaign supporter [like Geraldine Ferraro was]. The title of 'Reverend' wasn't just there for show...he is and was a religious leader..a moral leader. Specifically, he was Obama's spiritual mentor for 20 years. That's a good chunk of a person's lifetime...especially in one's faith-formative years.



There's no more room for my own tolerance of pastors politicking in the 'Black' churches than there is in the 'White' churches

When politics and church went into the mixing bowl on what they called Justice Sunday at the primarily-white mega-churches, I can tell you that I had equal complaint. I've been publicly mocked for my strong opposition to Christian churches and Christian leaders crossing dangerous lines..bastardizing faith and being co-opted by worldly politics at the Sunday pulpit. The line between church and state that melts away in the process of a religious leader abusing his status as a man of God endangers all churchgoers and all Americans, regardless of color or creed.



Obama has admitted that his decision to run for POTUS was not exactly pre-planned or easily foreseen

Part of Obama's current problem is that he's told us that he wasn't thinking about the Presidency when he ran for (and won) a U.S. Senate seat. As soon as he got to D.C. and before he'd barely had a chance to stock his new desk with supplies, he'd decided to run for the top slot. While he tried hard yesterday to explain his positions in many ways - all crammed into one speech - I don't think it's unnatural of anyone to continue to question why, if Senator Obama had any aspirations whatsoever..even in the back of his mind... to seek the office of POTUS, that he never had "the talk" with Reverend Wright about his strongly negative public attitude toward affluent non-African Americans...especially after Reverend Wright had aimed and pointed that strong sentiment toward and against Hillary Clinton who is in the controversial political ring with Senator Obama at present. Did he think no one would ever capture it on video....in this day and age? Fair or unfair, it isn't a stretch to picture a still-frustrated George Allen-supporter trying to frame this as a reverse 'macaca-moment'.



Some words about my own spiritual mentor

Thinking about Senator Obama's predicament and the ways in which he personalized it in his speech, I can only look back to my own 20-year spiritual mentor Monsignor Joseph Champlin, a beloved priest in Syracuse NY who lost in his battle with a rare cancer only two months ago. Never once in all the time I heard Father Champlin speak publicly or privately did he ever indicate or even give a hint as to whether he was Democrat or Republican. Never did a word pass his lips that could've been labled "racist words". He was the the founder of the Father Champlin Guardian Angel Society, a non-profit organization that, to this day, benefits the Cathedral School in Syracuse and the children in need of opportunity who are welcomed, mentored, and educated there. To thank him for making such a difference in the lives of others, President George W. Bush presented the President’s Volunteer Service Award to Father Champlin in Rochester, New York in 2006. Father Champlin baptized my son seventeen years ago and, week after week, he inspired my spirit and nourished my mind with his incredibly uplifting sermons that were never made at any fellow human being's expense, regardless of their skin color. Political words were not in Father Champlin's public vocabulary.


One of the greatest examples of his drive and caring for others was his running in my village's 5K race each and every Memorial Day. Even in the years when his cancer was getting the better of his body, his will was strong, buoyed by waves of justice, love, and community support.

I'd wager that Barack Obama also has a lot of stories he could tell about Reverend Wright to show what an incredible inspiration he's been to the Obama family. Unfortunately, every word we say in public has its own life..its own consequence.. once it passes our lips it's gone. What I'm saying right now will follow me.I accept that. Our actions, along with our failure to act when we know we should've acted, carries consequences.


When I think of my grassroots friends, many came from the same tradition as Senator Obama

The culture of the church attended by the Obama family was obviously quite different than what I've experienced as a Catholic in Central New York. I also know that I walk side-by-side in marches and political activities with many here in the African-American community. I proudly call them my friends. I call them family. I've been warmly welcomed by their churches on frigid Upstate nights to sit and talk about the political problems that face all of us. If they'd ever heard a race-tinged comment coming from their pastors, they've certainly never treated me as if they'd heard it or taken stock in the ideas behind such harsh words.

That's where I know Senator Obama's been getting a bum deal from the powers-that-be in the media and from the Right.

Obama has never said the words that Reverend Wright said himself. He's stuck between a rock and a political hard place .. being forced to dance around sensitive topics as directly and as earnestly as a political leader can dance around them.

But the "them" [the sensitive topics and Reverend Wright's YouTube performances] will still be the "them" after the dancing's done. I believe that Reverend Wright's going to have to come out and speak humbly if he cares enough for the ongoing integrity of Obama's candidacy and campaign...and I think he does. I think he's the only one who can dissolve this messy situation from the roots. He's not just some crazy old uncle. He's been a leader and mentor for Obama.

I regret to see that a speech on race is being used as a key speech at a time when there's a hot Democratic primary between two great candidates....but that doesn't mean that the words Obama spoke yesterday should be held back. I don't think the Democratic party, for the sake of its own health, needed to see full public advantage being taken to make this primary about the divisive topic of race when the divisive issue of white female v. African-American male are already a mountain of "change". As a Democrat, I'm becoming more unhappy about it by the day.



In all fairness to Barack Obama

The Obama race speech, on its own, doesn't suddenly make Obama the best candidate for President in my eyes. Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said what needed to be said at a time when it needed to be heard and he wasn't running for public office. Like Jeremiah Wright, Rev. Dr. King was a pastor.

I look to careful places for my spiritual guidance and not Washington, D.C., but for a decidedly much more secular youth in today's Democratic party, who knows? Perhaps Obama is the spiritual guru that's missing in their lives.

I think Obama stepped into his old pastor's shoes yesterday and made amends for him.. and perhaps atoned for some of Rev Wright's decidedly stale views on social progress. But why should it have been Obama to have to clear that up?

The grassroots will need some nourishing, regardless of who becomes the Democratic nominee. Yesterday's speech from Obama reminded me of mistletoe, which grows at the top of the trees. The great Sufi leader, Idries Shah once said about the phenomenon and metaphor of mistletoe:

"Mistletoe is green year-round, even while the trees wherein it resides has lost its sap. Mistletoe is self engrafted. It ensures its perpetuation by feeding off the tops of branches of the great trees, and thus stays alive and green - even when the tree sleeps. The Burning Bush from which God appeared to Moses in the desert is thought by some Biblical scholars to have been an acacia glorified by the red leaves of a locanthus, the Eastern equivalent of mistletoe."

By pointing to and feeding off the top branches of the angels of America's better nature, pointing out that certain individual traditions - whether political or religious - lose much of their sap [or modern usefulness] after time has passed, Obama took some focus off the roots and pointed to what is highest...the mistletoe...the way we need to go.

That was the great good of his speech, whether or not he becomes nominee.

John Edwards Is Still the Heart of Progress

See this CBS News story .. [LINK]

Race to the Finish

Is Obama Putting Own Interests Before Michigan Voters?

Our silly hypocrisy moment today leads us on a walk down memory lane...Let the People Vote! by the Obama campaign-supporting Senator John Kerry, who decried the Clinton position before the Las Vegas caucus two short months ago when he said:

"For too many years, American politics has been divided between two types of people: those who want more people to vote, and those who want fewer people to vote.

UPDATE: ... Now we hear that the original Soviet-style vote in Michigan may be the only one that will stand as proof of any semblance of an election when these so-called party leaders had the fairest alternative in front of them?

Who's Playing Cards? Mystery, Myth and Mugging

..and just when you thought we might have gotten past it, tomorrow Obama promises to deal you yet another card [sneak peek here]

We Shall Not Walk Alone

Whatever it is you believe in your heart, it's all about faith, my darling brothers and sisters.
It's all about faith.

T Takes: Short Film Fest at NYT

A heads-up for film fans. A special feature at the New York Times website called "T Takes" is a short film series shot by the emerging New York writer and director Brody Baker during the recent Sundance festival. There are 12 short films, one to be featured each weekday at 10 am, that were conceived to be viewed sequentially and feature stars such as Boston Legal's Saffron Burrows, Michael Pitt and Lukas Haas.

The first installment of 'Take' featuring Josh Hartnett has been posted today.

As a Band of Horses fan [ you know them from the Ford Edge commercial ], I enjoyed the "Is There a Ghost" music video here [left bottom corner].

Ben Stein Disturbed by Spitzer Ruin

"Having elected officials kicked out of office by appointed officials is a very dicey proposition."
- Ben Stein on the fall of Eliot Spitzer

Unity: What Nancy Pelosi's Really Thinking

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.