David Corn

A lot of the hostility is not misogyny but anti-Clinton feeling that was repressed because of the impeachment and Newt-induced madness of the late 90s. My guess is that if Hillary had quietly divorced Bill in 2001 [showing her objections to his occasional sleaze], she'd be the nominee already.

I wrote about this the other day. I don't think that the numbers of women voting for McCain out of spite are that great. And yes, we will "get over it." But honestly, do you, as a man, know how it feels to finish up a technical presentation on rocket propulsion test data only to be asked to make a new pot of coffee? Do you know what it's like to be demoted when you're 8 months pregnant? I do. And so do a lot of other women. We've never had a shot at the presidency this good before, and we're wondering when we'll ever have it again. I don't think Obama has to worry about losing too many votes to McCain. But we women over 40 really thought this was going to be "our" moment. We'll be OK soon enough to get out there and help the Obama campaign, I can almost guarantee it. But we're sad, and we have a right to be.

Mary - that sums up the logic and the emotion of the situation. The male view point is that it's inevitably over so move on now. I can see why my wife and so many others say she should keep it going. It isn't that she can come in first, but she is running a bigger race than who gets to be the prez. Women under 35 get Obama, and so do us elitist chauvanist males, but this bus is going no where without the women over 40. I certainly support Hillary staying in until she is ready to concede. In the long run it can may bring more unity tot he party.

By the time Obama and McSame make their case to the public - everybody will be in a better position to choose who will be best.

Some will choose McSame. No way around it.

I think Barack will win - by the numbers. With or without those that claim they will vote this way or that.

"ultimately these spurned voters will have to dump the anger and come to terms with the reality that politics, like life, often presents you with let-downs and imperfect choices"

****

This is from a position of a reasonable person, some will lack reason.

Just in case you missed it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c

David, I'm a long time reader, infrequent commenter. Your comments are characterized by reasonableness and careful attention to choice of words so as not to distract from your main points. I have to say that you have gone to another planet in this comment however with the use of words like "gal" and "dame." Didn't those words just leap out at you for being inappropriate and dismissive? And in a comment dealing with feminists and the need to "get over it" and support Obama? Everyone is entitles to occasional slips of the keys, but this one was a doozy. Keep up the good work.

The new Harper's magazine puts this in perspective. In Feb 2000, nearly 60% of McCain supporters said they would not vote for George W. Bush; by October of that year, the number was still at 39%.

"But honestly, do you, as a man, know how it feels to finish up a technical presentation on rocket propulsion test data only to be asked to make a new pot of coffee?"

**

How about after putting several decades of the best years of your life into a relationship, and then being told it's time for something "new..." ...for a "fresh face..."

Older women know the "code" only too well....

Obama won (narrowly) the equivalent of a beauty contest...

Like I've said before, my wife and I will vote for Obama in November, but Obama definitely lost my mother-in-law to McCain for good.... (see above)

McCain and Hillary are actually good friends. And there's absolutely no doubt he respects her. Anyone who's actually followed their relationship as Senators over the last eight years knows that.

Trying to say he's somehow a misogynistic "old fellow" is pure crap. Try again David. If you want Hillary women to start "getting over it," you're going to have to try something else.

Reproductive rights and judges is a good start... But then Obama's fudged that issue too. He hasn't been nearly as clear and forthright on that as Hillary has:

"Individuals must be entrusted to make this profound decision because the alternative would be such an intrusion of government authority that it would be very difficult to sustain in our open society."

I just watched the "beat the bitch" YouTube clip. I think it's quite obvious McCain was embarassed by the question and tried to turn it around. He asked for a "translation." And when someone added the "ex-wife" comment it made him even more uncomfortable... He turned the question around made it into an "excellent question" by answering how was he going to defeat "Senator Clinton," whom he "respected" and would be an obviously formidable opponent.

Whether it's the Janet Reno/Chelsea Clinton joke, or "bomb, bomb, bomb... bomb, bomb Iran..." He's obviously a salty veteran who likes an earthy joke... but hasn't mastered the technique of how to handle them in public in front the cameras in the YouTube era...

Incidentally, "bitch" might be a terrible insult in elite circles perhaps, but lower down in the socio-economic ladder, it's often a compliment.

Like the old feminist quote... "I don't know what 'feminist' means, except that's what they call me whenever I do something that differentiates me from a doormat."

Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., endorsed Barack Obama for president shortly after noon today, focusing on his hope to end the Iraq War.

"As people all across this great nation know, I have been one of the most outspoken opponents of the Bush administration's misguided war in Iraq and its saber rattling around the globe," Byrd said.

He said he had "no intention of involving myself in the Democratic campaign for President in the midst of West Virginia's primary election. But the stakes this November could not be higher."

"Barack Obama is a noble-hearted patriot and humble Christian, and he has my full faith and support," Byrd concluded.

****

A very symbolic endorsement. A little late for thw WV primary but . . .

Obama wrote of meeting Byrd as new senator in one of his book's most compelling passages:

Listening to Senator Byrd I felt with full force all the essential contradictions of me in this new place, with its marble busts, its arcane traditions, its memories and its ghosts. I pondered the fact that, according to his own autobiography, Senator Byrd had received his first taste of leadership in his early twenties, as a member of the Raleigh County Ku Klux Klan, an association that he had long disavowed, an error he attributed—no doubt correctly—to the time and place in which he'd been raised, but which continued to surface as an issue throughout his career. I thought about how he had joined other giants of the Senate, like J. William Fulbright of Arkansas and Richard Russell of Georgia, in Southern resistance to civil rights legislation. I wondered if this would matter to the liberals who now lionized Senator Byrd for his principled opposition to the Iraq War resolution—the MoveOn.org crowd, the heirs of the political counterculture the senator had spent much of his career disdaining.

I wondered if it should matter. Senator Byrd's life—like most of ours—has been the struggle of warring impulses, a twining of darkness and light. And in that sense I realized that he really was a proper emblem for the Senate, whose rules and design reflect the grand compromise of America's founding: the bargain between Northern states and Southern states, the Senate's role as a guardian against the passions of the moment, a defender of minority rights and state sovereignty, but also a tool to protect the wealthy from the rabble, and assure slaveholders of noninterference with their peculiar institution. Stamped into the very fiber of the Senate, within its genetic code, was the same contest between power and principle that characterized America as a whole, a lasting expression of that great debate among a few brilliant, flawed men that had concluded with the creation of a form of government unique in its genius—yet blind to the whip and the chain.

(politico)

Superdelegates Turned Down $1 Million Offer From Clinton Donor

One of Sen. Hillary Clinton's top financial supporters offered $1 million to the Young Democrats of America during a phone conversation in which he also pressed for the organization's two uncommitted superdelegates to endorse the New York Democrat, a high-ranking official with YDA told The Huffington Post.

Haim Saban, the billionaire entertainment magnate and longtime Clinton supporter, denied the allegation. But four independent sources said that just before the North Carolina and Indiana primaries, Saban called YDA President David Hardt and offered what was perceived as a lucrative proposal: $1 million would be made available for the group if Hardt and the organization's other uncommitted superdelegate backed Clinton.

*****

Wow, I wonder how much they would be willing to offer me? I dare say the YDA have integrity and THAT is hope for the future no matter what.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FaAkcXynqLA

And the follow-up

http://youtube.com/watch?v=lQK84pmCfBY&feature=related

Diff,

I love reading your posts, you seem to know the issues very well and tell it like it is about Hillary, Obama and McCain. I have find myself agreeing with most of your posts.

I was at the Portland rally for Obama. I think most of the people just wanted to see what all the hoopla was about him. The latest polls show Hillary within 4-5 pts of Obama. The part of his speech about not driving SUV's was pretty funny since 80% of the people at the event drove a SUV.

I am curious why you only vote Democrat. Is this just nationally or state and local also? As an independent, I vote for the best person not the party. I find it interesting how you have made such a fact based account of how unqualified Obama is, but you would still vote for him. Kind of makes most of the stuff you say irrelevant.

Anyway keep posting, it's the only thing interesting on this blog so far. I was starting to get bored!

Mr. Corn's threats are hollow.

The wars will continue no matter who becomes President, because the Oil Lobby, the Defense Lobby, and the Israel-First Lobby will allow nothing else.

As for Roe v. Wade, the Elephascists would be fools to overturn that and deprive themselves of one of their best fund-raising points. However foolishly the Elephascists may conduct POLICY, they conduct POLITICS brilliantly.

Plastic Jesus's snotty Red Guards have been behaving like abusive boyfriends on blogs like Shakesville.

As a single man, I can only imagine, and not very well, what life must be like for a woman trapped in an abusive relationship.

I know when she finally decides to break free, no amount of phony sweet talk from the abusive sumbitch is going to work.

He will not be allowed back in the house.

And if the fool breaks in, he'll face the "Lorena Knife". ;)

Mr. Corn is proving himself a false friend of women.

And as the great Joan Jett sang, "YA GOT NOTHIN' TO LOSE, YA DON'T LOSE WHEN YA LOSE FAKE FRIENDS!"

Selah.

Patti Solis Doyle was the manager of the Clinton campaign until a couple of months ago. She was replaced in part because she was blamed for the financial problems of the campaign. According to a report in Politico it appears that Ms. Doyle is applying for a job with the Obama campaign for the GE.

Many of Clinton's fundraisers have already joined forces with Obama. But they can do that while claiming to keep an open mind about the outcome of the Primary. For a campaign's political manager this is difficult to do: why would you try to join a rival's GE campaign if your mind your candidate has not lost already. Thus it appears the Clinton ship is being deserted even by one of her closest confidants.

(kos)

*****

Just another woman hatin' judas.

HA!

Today, Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D) vetoed a bill that would require voters starting in 2010 to show identification at the polls. In her veto message, she said, “[N]o elected official should support enacting new laws discouraging or disenfranchising any American who has been legally voting for years.” Sebelius added that the bill “seeks to solve a problem of voter fraud which does not exist in our state.”

*****

Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius Rocks!

She is good on a few issues.

I see Hillary returning to the Senate with a newfound sense of purpose -- and power. With the presidency no longer in her sights -- at least for now -- she could become a commanding progressive force in the Senate.

Campaigning in Pennsylvania in early April, Clinton compared herself to Philadelphia icon Rocky Balboa. "Let me tell you something," she said. "When it comes to finishing the fight, Rocky and I have a lot in common. I never quit. I never give up."

The comparison was meant to reinforce her image as a tireless warrior -- but it was more accurate and prescient than she intended. Because Rocky actually lost his initial fight with Apollo Creed. After 15 punishing and bloody rounds, he was satisfied just to have gone the distance.

"Ain't gonna be no rematch," says Creed amidst the post-fight pandemonium. To which Rocky replies: "Don't want one."

Even though Rocky didn't win, he was ultimately seen as a triumphant figure. And that's how Hillary will be seen too. Once the disappointment fades and the cuts and bruises heal, the lasting impression will be one of glory, accomplishment, and profound impact.

Hers will have been a game-changing defeat.

(huffpo)

When I graduated from high school in 1965, my own government threatened me with prison if I did not submit to the Army draft or enlist in one of the alternative military services. Neither Senator You-Know-Her nor any of her aggrieved affluent "suffering sisters" had to face such intimidation and forced deflection from other life choices.

While I served nearly six-years of penurioius indentured servitude in the United States Navy, You-Know-Her matriculated at a posh private finishing school for upwardly nubile debutants. Somehow I just can't get too teary-eyed about her pampered life's many "disappointments." A national household name who has already lived eight years in the White House; who has an ex-president for a husband; who has practically the entire Democratic Party establishment behind her; and who has one-hundred-and-ten million dollars in the bank to loan herself for whatever she wants can run just as badly managed and unfocused a campaign for president as I could for vastly less. And American women consider this person an inspiration? Someone needs to raise their expectations quite a bit more than a little.

I actually did dodge some sniper fire in Vietnam and the whole disastrous experience made it perfectly easy for me to see through the fabricated fraud and transparent bullshit that Deputy Dubya Bush effortlessly fed to "all tough and stuff" You-Know-Her. Sleeping through the greatest national trauma of our generation -- America's War on Southeast Asia -- hardly qualifies one for "leadership" in any endeavor. Life never even scratched You-Know-Her -- which explains why she never understood the first thing about war: "Don't do it."

At any rate, Frank Zappa used to sing about the mall-hopping, San Fernando Valley princesses of privelege:

"She's a Valley Girl, fer sure fer sure
She's a valley girl, there is no cure."

Updated for You-Know-Her's incompetent and obtuse campaign for ... well .. whatever:

"She's a Wellesley Girl, oh what the heck?
She's a Wellesley Girl, like Madam Chiang Kai-Shek."

Definitely not working-class. Definitely not poor. Definitely not uneducated. Definitely a diva. That she feels disappointed in her desires does not in the least disturb me.

Here's my take - I want women to succeed as much as any feminist but I don't think Hilary always portrays a feminist point of view. All her speeches are me me me I, I, I and when Barack speaks he talks about WE. That's where she really blew it in my point of view. I dont' want another king or savior or any other male archetype. I want a facilitator and negotiator, someone who leads us all to be more involved. Someone who introduces all of us to our better angels. You can't get any more feminist than that IMHO.
But if she were to win the nom, you better believe I would stand in line for 3 hours in the cold to vote her in like I did for Obama in the primary! Oh yes. She's a good person in spite of the male archetypes that she invokes.

I too want a woman to be president, but not just because she is a woman. It has to be the right woman. Hillary has never been that to me. I expected to be voting for her just the same and would have.

I think HRC is capable, might have even been a better president than Bill.

I never warmed up to her, not even before she was a senator. I have always like Barack. He is no ticket to good governance, no politician is. We will have to hold his feet to the fire and I expect a few mistakes and there are already things with which I disagree completely.

Still he is the best we have going.

He has great potential, I hope he uses it and sticks to half of what he has said.

Values Worth Sacrificing For

Opening in January 1943, with the world at war, Casablanca gave audiences something they needed to hear, says screenwriter Howard Koch: “It said there were values that were worth making sacrifices for, and it said it in a very entertaining way.” Americans bracing for the coming months of attack ads need to hear that kind of message again. From us.

In a Casablanca documentary, playwright Murray Burnett talks about a key scene in Rick's Café Américain. Responding to singing German officers, the club’s refugee patrons drown them out by singing La Marseillaise – the powerless standing together against the powerful. Burnett wrote the scene with tears streaming down his face.

Victor Lazslo – the resistance leader – tells the band to play La Marseillaise. The band glances nervously at Rick. He nods. Lazslo stands poker straight and sings his heart out, his fist clenched. Patrons jump to their feet and they sing too, some with tears streaming down their faces. When you watch it, you’re there with those refugees. Your throat tightens. Your eyes tear up. And you feel that same mixture of hope and defiance.

Every time. Every time.

Americans need to hear that kind of message again. They need their hope restored, or the possibility of it. But media lapdogs feed them fear and distortion, and technocrats presuming to know America’s soul debate programs and policies.

Who will tell Americans, instead of “vote for me” or “support this plan,” that we are all in this together? That nobody should be left behind? That America is greater than the sum of her parts? That America is strongest when we live those ideals?

Values worth sacrificing for. Not programs. Not policies. Not single issues. Yes, they are important, but we started thinking they are everything, that the way to voters’ hearts is through their heads. It is the other way around. Win their hearts, and their heads – and votes – will follow.

If you are outmatched, you fight back with whatever you have. In Casablanca, Victor Lazslo fought back with a song.

Suspicion. Surveillance. Torture. Naked power. Americans again face troubling times. The world needs us to find our voices again.

Somebody around here had better start singing.

http://tinyurl.com/4ul8ho

Dear Capt -
Yes, I cry every time I see that scene too!!! Makes me want to stand with my vast and diverse brothers and sisters and sing "Oh Beautiful, for spacious skys..." Just like they did in Washington - spontaneously - right after 9/11 when we caught a glimpse of our precious oneness. Can we all go to that single moment in our hearts?

Great post - thanks!

Buffett Says He Prefers a Democrat for President

Monday, May 19, 2008 2:59 PM

FRANKFURT, Germany -- Billionaire investor Warren Buffett said Monday he would be happy if either Barack Obama or Hillary Rodham Clinton were the Democratic nominee because both have what it takes to be president.

He said the presidency was not unlike running a business.

"They say in the stock market, 'Buy into a business that's doing so well an idiot could run it, because sooner or later, one will,'" Buffett said. "The U.S. is sort of like that. I think the country will do fine whether it's the Democratic or Republican candidate, but I strongly prefer the Democrats."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So Buffett is supporting Barack because he strongly prefers the Democrat as being the bigger idiot?

Too funny!

Rupert Murdoch Loves Hillary Clinton

(CBS) To call them a political odd couple would be a rash understatement.

Conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch will host a fundraiser for liberal New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, the Financial Times reports.

The mating ritual of the unlikely allies has been under way for months. Clinton set political tongues to wagging last month by attending a Washington party celebrating the 10th anniversary of Fox News, the cable news channel owned by Murdoch.

The Financial Times quoted one unnamed source as describing the Clinton-Murdoch connection in this way: "They have a respectful and cordial relationship. He has respect for the work she has done on behalf of New York. I wouldn't say it was illustrative of a close ongoing relationship. It is not like they are dining out together."

The fundraiser will take place in July, the newspaper said. Clinton is the frontrunner for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, though she has not indicated whether or not she will run.

http://tinyurl.com/29pqyd

LBH --- My, are you dense! He's refering to the current occupant(s) of the White House. He is saying that any change will be for the better.

http://tinyurl.com/6af4zj

DB,

It was bait.

Nobody is that dense.

LBH --- My, are you dense!

Jeesh, Dog- you still smarting from Friday? Such personal attacks don't become you.

Buffet knows about as much about politics as Obama knows about the economy - zilch!!!! He would be wiser picking Hillary, but since he isn't then he must not be all that impressed with the Clinton economy of the 90's either.

Or maybe, Buffet has found Jesus like Capt in the name of Obama!

You silly trolls!!!

Hey Dog,

How does it feel to be told you're a fraud by 31,000 scientists?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

31,000 Scientists Debunk Al Gore and Global Warming

Monday, May 19, 2008 4:24 PM

By: Philip V. Brennan

An incredible 31,072 Americans with university degrees in science, including 9,021 Ph.D.s, have signed a petition that flatly denies Al Gore’s claims that human-caused global warming is a settled scientific fact.

Gore calls scientists and others who question the reality of human-caused global warming “deniers” and claims they are a tiny minority among the scientific community who he insists almost universally agree that the planet is being threatened by the alleged warming of the earth.

Gore told CBS’ Leslie Stahl on "60 Minutes" recently, "I think those people are in such a tiny, tiny minority now with their point of view. They're almost like the ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the world is flat."

These 31,072 scientists do not believe the world is flat, and they say there is no convincing scientific evidence that so-called greenhouse gasses are causing catastrophic heating of the earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the earth’s climate.

On Monday, Dr. Arthur Robinson of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, (OISM) announced the results of a drive asking scientists to sign a petition stating: “We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto Japan in December 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limit on greenhouse gasses would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.”

The petition went on to say, “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth.”

Robinson explained that the purpose of OISM’s petition project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climate damage is wrong.

Despite Gore’s extravagant claims, the petition shows that no such consensus or settled science exists.

In 2001, OISM circulated what was known as the Oregon Petition, and according to Lawrence Solomon, executive director of Energy Probe and author of “The Deniers: The World-Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud,” that effort, spearheaded by Dr. Frederick Seitz, past president of the National Academy of Sciences and of Rockefeller University, gathered an astounding 17,800 signatures.

To establish that the effort was bona fide, and not spawned by kooks on the fringes of science, as global warming advocates often label the skeptics, the 2001 effort was spearheaded by Dr. Seitz, a towering figure in the world of science.

Solomon wrote, “The Oregon Petition garnered an astounding 17,800 signatures, a number all the more astounding because of the unequivocal stance that these scientists took: Not only did they dispute that there was convincing evidence of harm from carbon dioxide emissions, they asserted that Kyoto itself would harm the global environment because increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth.”

According to Dr. Robinson, “As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.”

Solomon asked, “How many scientists does it take to establish that a consensus does not exist on global warming?”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Answer: none, just one man who invented the internet!

By the way, Buffet is worth more now during the Bush administration than he was during the Clinton admin.

No wonder he likes idiots.

According to Obummer, Iran is a tiny little nation that isn't a threat to us. Now what is a threat is our SUV's, eating as much as we want and keeping our homes heated above 72 degrees.

Wow! he is the messiah~

The Iranian threat is tiny compared to the USSR

[...]

First, Obama didn’t say the possible Iranian threat is “tiny.” He said it’s “tiny” when compared to the Soviet Union. As Josh Marshall explained, Russia was, after all, “the world’s greatest land military power, with a massive strategic nuclear capacity that carried on a multi-decade ideological struggle” with the United States. McCain thinks it reflects poor “judgment” to recognize the obvious difference between a nuclear superpower and Iran?

Second, there’s a bit of a contradiction here. Over the weekend, the McCain campaign said Obama was giving Iran too much credit, offering Iran “the status of a super power akin to the Soviets.” Today, the McCain campaign said Obama isn’t giving Iran enough credit. These guys should probably coordinate talking points among themselves before going on the attack.

http://tinyurl.com/4yo29w

Obama Responds To McCain: "Strong" Presidents Aren't Afraid To Meet With Enemies

Barack Obama, in Montana, responded moments ago to McCain's ridicule of the Illinois Senator for saying that Iran is a minuscule threat compared to the former Soviet Union.

McCain said this revealed Obama's "inexperience and reckless judgment." Here's the key part of Obama's reply...

"Here's the truth: the Soviet Union had thousands of nuclear weapons, and Iran doesn't have a single one. But when the world was on the brink of nuclear holocaust, Kennedy talked to Khrushchev and he got those missiles out of Cuba. Why shouldn't we have the same courage and the confidence to talk to our enemies? That's what strong countries do, that's what strong presidents do, that's what I'll do when I'm president of the United States of America."
Obama also said: "What are George Bush and John McCain afraid of"?

http://tinyurl.com/3qfpmd

Obama joins American Indian tribe, eyes policy change

CROW AGENCY, Montana (Reuters) - Democrat Barack Obama became an honorary member of an American Indian tribe on Monday and promised a proactive policy to help tribal people if he wins the White House in November.

The Illinois senator who is leading rival Hillary Clinton in their race for the party's presidential nomination, joined the Crow Nation, a tribe of some 12,100 members in Montana, taking on a native name and honorary parents in a traditional ceremony.

Obama, who would be the first black U.S. president, was "adopted" by Hartford and Mary Black Eagle and given a name which means "one who helps all people of this land."

http://tinyurl.com/3qfpmd

*****

Never say Barack can't pander with the best of them.

I thought this was satire at first.

lol

pan·der Pronunciation (pndr)

2. To cater to the lower tastes and desires of others or exploit their weaknesses: "He refused to pander to nostalgia and escapism" New York Times.

The 31,000 from Oregon has long since been debunked for the lie that it is.

The 31,000 from Oregon

What do you mean?

Oh, nevermind. I get it.

Some fun reading about the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

Ahem...

Hillary can F-n HAVE Kentucky...

"I would have NEVER voted for a WOMAN President, but I'm gonna, just to keep that Black-assed MUSLUM out of the Whitehouse! He's gonna bring on Armageddon, you're a denzien of SATAN!"

-Little, old 70-something woman near the top of 13th-street hill, Ashland, KY...

Most vile thing I've heard while cavassing SC, GA, OH, PA, NC...and it happens in my hometown.

I think I worked "A Primary Too Far!"

Tomorrow night, Obama will have the majority of pledged delegates, have maintained his lead of popular votes in states where the participants followed the rules, and lead in "Superdelegates" will continue to expand.

Hillary will STILL be spending more than her limit at "Pantsuits R Us" and Bubba will still be squeezing the flesh in backwater High-School gyms. (just don't let those cheerleaders follow him under the bleachers!)

I wholeheartedly urge all of her supporters to do as much as you can to pay off her campaign debts...without your support, she'd have stopped running up the charge card months ago! You OWE it to her! C'Mon, pony up! What's the DIFF?

Goodnight and best witches...

-T

As one of those pissed off fems you so cavalierly analyze and dismiss with
your cocky, smug tone, I beg to differ with your thesis that those angry Democratic women will all skip home to the Party in the end.

You write that disappointed Clinton voters will have to come to terms with our
loss. No. We won't have to come to terms with the letdown that we didn't get the candidate of our choice.

We are tired of being told what we must do or how we must behave by pundits in the tank for Obama or neolibs who are desperate to see Obama elected.

Using scare tactics to keep us away from McCain won't work either.

You're missing the point, Mr. Corn; it isn't just that Hillary has been treated
scabbily by Obama, but also by his raging supporters, who continue to shout down anyone who questions their hero.

Democratic women like me are sick, not only of the rampant misogamy (Hillary nut crackers) and the rabid Obama posse but we're furious that we have been alienated by the Democratic Party which has been seemingly hijacked by the far left, many who seem to think sexism is okay.

You're delustional if you actually think that the disenfranchised Clinton supporters are going to settle down like good Stepford gals and vote for Obama.

It isn't happening. Many of us will vote for McCain (no one's going
to get rid of Roe vs.Wade) and some of us will stay home on election
day. But, our actions will affect the election. Don't kid yourself.

"...maintained his lead of popular votes in states where the participants followed the rules"

The "rules" certainly should prevail in counting, seating delegates etc. Though rules can be changed by the votes of the committee members who make the rules in the first place...

But counting actual "popular votes," is another matter. It has nothing to do with rules... It has to do with people of good faith going to the polls and expressing their opinion.

If, by some fluke, Hillary pulls ahead in actual registered-to-vote human beings who went to the polls.... including US citizens of all 50 states AND territories... Then it's going to be pretty hard to deny that she's the recipient of the "will of the people."

Just watch those superdelegates start wavering then...

Hey LBH!

Thanks for the kind words. To answer your question, I vote the issues and that means I vote Democrat. And I don't care a whit about personality or politicians' private lives or the idiosyncrasies of their marriages. As long as we're talking about consenting adults, then I'm not talking about it... Too many other things that are more important:

Tax cuts for the rich, fighting environmental standards, gutting labor laws, deeply arrogant and incompetent military leadership, chickenhawks, oil addiction, attacks on science, reproductive rights, careening corruption and fiscal irresponsibility, pandering to religious bigots, killing foreigners by the tens of thousands, appointing neanderthal ideologue judges, torture, beating to death detainees, "unitary" theory of executive power, the ridiculously-bloated super-pork of the defense budget, Clarence Thomas, the NRA, Kenneth Starr, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, for-profit health insurance corporations that spend millions on the bureacratic machinery of denying medical claims, privatizing (sacking) Social Security, cutting Medicaid, Food Stamps and WIC, intelligent design, re-writing rules on mountain-top-removal coal mining to allow the utter inundation of streams and natural habitat under countless tons of rubble, calling our legalized-bribery-campaign-finance-system "free speech," refusing to fund infrastructure (including the blocking of funding for New Orleans levees in the '90s), Signing Statements, warrantless wiretapping, no-bid-cost-plus "privatizing" of government services, Blackwater, for-profit student loan companies (gov't assumes all default risk), Christian Zionists and neo-cons supporting extreme right-wing wackos in Israel, opposition to the Family Medical Leave Act and Equal Pay for Equal Work for women.... Samuel Alito.... Letting bin Laden escape... Invading the wrong country... Refusing to "swat flies" (Bush's own words on why he didn't want to go after Al-Qaeda in the early months of his Presidency), Project for a New American Century, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove going after John McCain in South Carolina in 2000, the Swift Boaters... Tom DeLay, Randy Duke Cunningham, Evan Meacham (better Google that one)....

(It's getting close to bedtime...I'll pick up where I left off tomorrow...)

...one more I thought of while brushing my teeth...

Oliver North selling weapons to Iran and using the proceeds to fund private contract flights that flew down to Honduras with arms and supplies for the terroristic activities of the "Contras" in El Salvador, then flew back North full of cocaine to sell in order to fund private right-wing death squad in El Salvador...

And I forget the name of the reporter who got fired from the New York Times after Ronald Reagan's White House called the editors and told them he was peddling communist propaganda...

The reporter had reported on the massacres at El Mozote in El Salvador... carried out by US-trained, US-armed, US-helicopter-borne elite forces of the US-backed government (Atlacatl battalion). Years later, it turned out the reporting was absolutely true.

...trading arms for terrorists in Lebanon... funding the Islamic fanatic Gulbuddin Hekmatyr in Afghanistan in the 1980s....

Oops. Typo.

Ronald Reagan traded arms for HOSTAGES in Lebanon... (With Oliver North's facilitation).

Oliver North was convicted of three felonies but the convictions were overturned on technicalities so the convicted felon went free...

....because a judge decided that because North had already confessed in detail (in uniform) on national TV (confessed to lying under oath to Congress, shredding government documents, accepting improper material compensation [i.e.embezzling])....as part of immunized Congressional testimony... that the judge couldn't be absolutely sure that those immunized confessions hadn't possibly influenced, in some way, the jury (of his peers) that had later convicted him in criminal court...

Typo. I meant "treated shabbily" but scabbily has a nice ring to it.

From Gallup 5/20

Barack Obama’s 16-percentage point lead over Hillary Clinton, 55% to 39%, may signal that Democrats nationwide are beginning to coalesce around him.

*****

HRC has managed to stay in until nothing she does now will matter - she could have been magnanimous and wise she instead chose to be strident and obtuse. Her insane rants about “we are winning” and “we have more votes” only make her seem detatched from reality.

The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900), The Gay Science, section 191

My guess is that no matter how polite Obama tries to be, the damage done by all his character-assassinating Red Guard followers, who've been trashing her relentlessly with their poison pens.... Know-nothing followers who were playing with legos when she was already deep in the fight with Republicans... and who now decided to take it upon themselves to decide that she's an evil harpie... Just because she was in the way of their new teen idol...

...the damage is done... Obama's "new politics" is already tainted by the Cultural Revolution tactics of his most fervent and immature followers...

(Maybe you can do a little Zen meditation on this paradox...

I'm a hard-working, white, middle-class voter.... But there's not a racist bone in my body... I've thought Martin Luther King, Jr. should be the next face on Mt. Rushmore since I was ten....

...But you know what? Hillary was right. Obama magic doesn't do a thing for a lot of people me.... The Kool-Aid just takes like Kool-Aid...

He's a neophyte politician, who's already made tons of neophyte errors...

Hey... really....I'm hoping, hoping, hoping.... Hoping that he really does turn out to be the next Abraham Lincoln... I'll be the first to eat my shoes...

Dividing the party straight down the middle and cornering the nomination by less than one percent (if that).... It's not exactly the Second Coming... Doesn't prove a darn thing to me that he has a chance at being an effective President... Certainly not over a proven and resilient street-fighter like you-know-who.

But really, Good Luck!

Well if we choose candidates based on their supporters words or actions we deserve what we get, eh?

Again, if she is such a fighter how did she lose to an upstart , a guy with no chance (in your mind) of being an effective president?

You must admit he is a better manager of his campaign, his money, his media access, and whatnot or he would have been toast long ago.

That is a reasonable conclusion, from my point of view.

Barack has more vote, more states, more delegates, more superdelegates, more caucuses, more money, more supporters.

If he can translate his campaign skills into presidential skills he will be better than a few of our recent presidents, especially our most recent.

He will make mistakes, all people do. He will also do some boneheaded things that I will hate.

The country will be better off with the best manager at the helm. IMO

Sen. Clinton is getting hit with conflicting advice from within her own camp. Some of her top strategists are warning that she is injuring her political future by staying in. Others -- notably her husband, former President Bill Clinton, and strategist Mark Penn -- are urging her to remain in the race.

(wsj)

****

The same Mark Penn that was fired.

On Monday, the Republicans' campaign of appeasement smears against Barack Obama went from the sublime to the ridiculous. In an amazing if predictable display of chutzpah, Fox News commentator and Iran-Contra mastermind Oliver North rushed to John McCain's defense over the GOP nominee's spurious charges regarding talks with Iran. Of course, he was only repaying McCain the favor.

(kos)

****

I hope McSame gets support from all of the convicted felons from the ranks of the GOP.

Have Scooter Libby do a campaign ad!

Scooter, Tom Delay, and Jack Abramoff:

"We all know John McCain is honest and has integrity blah blah blah"

lol

Right on Prof Marcia~

I hope Corn takes the time to read your post, it was most excellent!!!!!

Bring On the Foreign Policy Debate

WSJ ^ | May 19, 2008 | JOHN R. BOLTON

President Bush's speech to Israel's Knesset, where he equated "negotiat[ing] with the terrorists and radicals" to "the false comfort of appeasement," drew harsh criticism from Barack Obama and other Democratic leaders. They apparently thought the president was talking about them, and perhaps he was.

Wittingly or not, the president may well have created a defining moment in the 2008 campaign. And Mr. Obama stepped right into the vortex by saying he was willing to debate John McCain on national security "any time, any place."

The Obama view of negotiations as the alpha and the omega of U.S. foreign policy highlights a fundamental conceptual divide between the major parties and their putative presidential nominees. This divide also opened in 2004, when John Kerry insisted that our foreign policy pass a "global test" to be considered legitimate.

Negotiation is not a policy. It is a technique. Saying that one favors negotiation with, say, Iran, has no more intellectual content than saying one favors using a spoon. For what? Under what circumstances? With what objectives? On these specifics, Mr. Obama has been consistently sketchy.

When the U.S. negotiates with "terrorists and radicals," it gives them legitimacy, a precious and tangible political asset.

Moreover, negotiations – especially those "without precondition" as Mr. Obama has specifically advocated – consume time, another precious asset that terrorists and rogue leaders prize. Here, President Bush's reference to Hitler was particularly apt: While the diplomats of European democracies played with their umbrellas, the Nazis were rearming and expanding their industrial power.

In today's world of weapons of mass destruction, time is again a precious asset, one almost invariably on the side of the would-be proliferators.

~~~~~~~~

Obama says he'll debate McCain anytime anyplace, then why is he affraid to debate Hillary?

MY Dear Mr. Corn:

Get over yourself.

McCain, asked about judges, has mentioned Roberts and Alito and Scalia and Thomas.

Here's a Wolf Blitzer exchange with Obama on judges from May 8, 2008:

WOLF BLITZER: “Are there members or justices right now upon whom you would model [your Supreme Court nominations], you would look at? Who do you like?”

OBAMA: “I think actually Justice Breyer, Justice Ginsburg are very sensible judges. I think that Justice Souter, who is a Republican appointee, is a sensible judge.”

Yesterday's Supreme Court decision on child pornography was decided 7-2.

Justices Souter and Ginsberg were in the minority. Souter opposed the crack down on child pornography.

Heck, even the liberal lion of the Supreme Court, John Paul Stevens, supported the law. Oh, wait, Stevens wasn't one of those Obama liked. But Souter and Ginsberg were on the list.

It depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

By Erick

So yesterday, Obama could not classify Iran as a serious threat.

If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance."

Today, however, Iran is a grave threat.

"Iran is a grave threat. It has an illicit nuclear program. It supports terrorism across the region and militias in Iraq. It threatens Israel's existence. It denies the Holocaust," he said.

Just to clear things up from the New American Dictionary:

grave |grɑv| |greɪv| |greɪv|
adjective
giving cause for alarm; serious : a matter of grave concern.

serious |ˈsi(ə)rēəs|
adjective
significant or worrying because of possible danger or risk; not slight or negligible.

Ah, I see. Us working class, Jesus loving, gun toters in middle America aren't used to such flourishing nuance from a Presidential candidate.

The Soviet Union was a serious threat (glad the left finally acknowledges that). It was "significant or worrying."

Iran is a grave threat or "gives cause for alarm."

Now, it may be just be me, but it seems based on those definitions and word usages that a grave threat is actually more serious than a serious threat.

And I would have to agree here. The Soviet Union certainly could have wiped us out, but we could have wiped it out too. The players were rather rational and neither wanted to be destroyed.

Iran could wipe us out through proxies with dirty bombs, but President Obama would never wipe Iran out. The players are not rational*. Both Iran and Obama supporters are wrapped up in messianic zeal for their respective sides.

*Of course, Iran probably knows President Obama would turn the other cheek, so perhaps only one of the players is irrational and it's not the one you'd think.

McCain Confronted With New Iran Gaffe, Gets Facts Wrong Again (VIDEO)

[...]

KLEIN: I've done some research, and um -

MCCAIN: I have too.

KLEIN: Also checked, also checked with the Obama campaign and he never, he's never sai -- mentioned Ahmadinejad directly by name. He did say he would negotiate with the leaders, but as you know - Ayatollah,

MCCAIN: (Laughing) Ahmadinejad is, was the leader.

KLEIN: But if -

MCCAIN: Maybe I'm mistaken.

KLEIN: Maybe you are, because -

MCCAIN: Maybe. I don't think so though.

KLEIN: The Supreme, you know, according to most diplomatic experts, the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is the guy who's in charge of Iranian foreign policy and also in charge of the nuclear program, but you never mention him. Do you, you know, um, why do you always keep talking about Ahmadinejad since he doesn't have power in that, in that realm?

MCCAIN: Oh I thin-Again, I respectfully disagree. When he's the person that comes to the United Nations and declares his country's policy is the extermination of the state of Israel, quote, in his words, wipe them off of the map, then I know that he is speaking for the Iranian government and articulating their policy and he was elected and is running for reelection as the leader of that country. Yes sir, go ahead.

NEW REPORTER: One more quest-

MCCAIN: I mean, the fact is he's the acknowledged leader of that country and you may disagree, but that's a uh, that's your right to do so, but I think if you asked any average American who the leader of Iran is, I think they'd know. Go ahead. Or anyone who's well-versed in the issue.

Ilan Goldenberg of the National Security Network notes:

Let's be clear: Iran has a very complex system of government with varying institutions, but at the top of it sits Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who essentially has only accountable to the Council of Guardians made up of clerics, many of whom are appointed by Khamenei. So, Ahmadinejad is not the leader. And as the Council on Foreign Relations explains, especially in the area of foreign policy, Ahmadinejad has very little influence.

On top of that as Klein points out, the President's job is to educate the public on questions of policy. So if the "average American" thinks that Ahmadinejad is the ultimate leader of Iran, it's up to the President to dissuade them of this notion - not reinforce it. Back in 2002 more then half of Americans thought Saddam was responsible for 9/11 and President Bush did nothing to disprove this assumption (In fact, while never directly claiming that Saddam was responsible for 9/11 the Administration did everything it could to reinforce the notion). That doesn't mean our policy should be based on those false assumptions.

Whoop's

Here is the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yr6Va7PEBg8

****

If the possibility of having this guy as president doesn't scare the crap out of you, you aren't paying attention.

No small wonder he wants to bomb bomb bomb, he is too weak to make the right call and doesn't know who to call if he had the desire to do so.

Commentary: Make wearing a flag pin the 28th Amendment

[...]

Since it is clear that our nation is paralyzed and so not able to close our borders, feed the homeless, develop businesses in the inner cities and save people from having their homes taken by foreclosure due to ruthless mortgage companies, all because some folks don't wear a flag lapel pin, we need to lead a national movement to demand that Congress and the states make requiring officeholders to wear a flag lapel pin the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

See, if it is so important, then take it all the way. Don't make it optional. Don't leave it up to someone to choose to wear a flag lapel pin. Let's really show those politicians that nothing is more important to us than seeing them with the U.S. flag on our chest.

http://tinyurl.com/6ncmru

****

Too funny!

If the possibility of having this guy as president doesn't scare the crap out of you, you aren't paying attention.

Capt

Look, I'm sure if McCain wins he will let Obama be in charge of states 51 throught 60.

Geraldine Ferraro, calling Barack Obama "sexist," may not back him

Might fully one-third of the six surviving Democratic vice presidential nominees end up opposing their party's national ticket this November?
~~

Obama's not sexist, Corn is!!

Capt,

I heard this, today from singer/songwriter Chuck Brodsky...
__________________

He Came To Our Town

He came to our town
For maybe an hour
The streets all got swept
And they planted some flowers
Babies he kissed
To the people he waved
And he stopped
At a Civil War General's grave

He struck just the right pose
He hit just the right chord
When he spoke of the family
And then of the Lord
He addressed the concerns
Of the common man
And he spoke of the glory
Of this mighty land

He had just the right color
His smile was fixed
His wardrobe assembled
From a bagful of tricks
He had gobs of make-up
Caked on his face
Starch in his collar
Every hair was in place

His wife stood beside him
His daughter did too
And behind them, a flag
With the red, white, and blue
Balloons from the rafters
Fell to the floor
Oh, Happy Days
Were gonna be here once more

He could sell you a war
He could revoke your rights
And still come off as your friend
In the camera lights
He'll run negative ads
If he has to to win
He'll go back on his word
He'll shed his old skin

He said all the right words
Quoted Bob Dylan songs
He sounded hip
Even though he quoted them wrong
His closets were cleaned
And his history revised
So his record would be spotless
To most people's eyes

I wasn't touched
By this guy in the least
He was no savior
Nor was he the beast
I have to admit
That they staged a good show
It was all reminiscent
Of four years ago

He came to our town
For maybe an hour
The streets all got swept
And they planted some flowers
Babies he kissed
To the people he waved
And he stopped
At a Civil War General's grave

And after an hour
They whisked him away
Things went back to normal
Over two or three days
The homeless returned
To living outside
And the flowers that got planted
All wilted and died

He came to our town
For maybe an hour
The streets all got swept
And they planted some flowers

__________________

...a nice, honest and sarcastic piece on the circus that is Political Campaigning.

-T

The 31,000 from Oregon has long since been debunked for the lie that it is.

Posted by Dog B

Hey Dog,

"Stop your Global Whining"

Clinton Camp Privately Assures Superdels: We Won't Embarrass You

During his recent Meet the Press appearance, Clinton spokesman Terry McAuliffe claimed the campaign has "16.6 million very passionate supporters." But at least a few among that group are more accurately described as nervous, prompting the Clinton campaign to reach out with reassuring phone calls over the weekend.

According to an account of one such conversation relayed to The Huffington Post by a Clinton cohort, campaign staff are now asking key supporters and superdelegates not to desert Clinton during the next two weeks of campaigning, when Sen. Barack Obama officially clinches the majority of pledged delegates. In exchange for this loyalty, the Clinton campaign is suggesting it will be mindful of the awkward position in which some of its backers now find themselves.

"People are saying, 'I don't want to be associated with the campaign staying on too long or tearing down Obama,'" the Clinton supporter told the Huffington Post. In response to these concerns, the supporter said, the Clinton camp's weekend phone calls included a pledge that "Sen. Clinton won't do anything in the next two weeks that's embarrassing, or makes things difficult [for you]."

http://tinyurl.com/5mt9rs

*****

I think the train has left the station on this one.

The way her campaign has been run from Super Tuesday on has been nothing short of an embarrassment for her and her supporters.

Now listen to them say how they will vote for McSame? Great job Hill!

Hajji,

Great lyrics!

Thanks

Just to reiterate the obvious. Obama has a "lock" on the nomination only because of the bizarre rules that govern and allocate delegates, (e.g. Texas and Nevada where she got more popular votes, but he got more delegates). He also raked in delegates in state caucuses that had microscopic participation in relation to the total number of eligible voters in those states. And many of those were also states that are deep red and will be absolutely irrelevant in the General Election...

And the "more states" argument is utterly balonious also. Some states are tiny while others are huge. Ever heard of "one man, one vote?" That's like trying to defend the make-up of the anachronistic US Senate...80 of those Senators combined represent less than 20% of the US population.... Since Democrats tend to populate the big states, and Republicans, the small, that means that when the "popular vote" for Senators up for election is tallied nationwide, the total generally has to go to the Democrats by a margin of millions and millions millions....just for the chance of getting a 51-seat majority! And add up the population represented by the last Republican filibuster! You'll be lucky to hit 10%

At any rate, wouldn't it be ironic if tonight Obama claimed his "majority of pledged delegates" at the same moment Hillary claimed the majority of actual human voters voting?

Hey, I know it's a long shot, Obama's likely to hang on to his fraction-of-a-percent popular vote edge, but it's still in the realm of possibility....

It's all up to the superdelegates anyway, and if Hillary suddenly had a clear majority in the popular vote, it wouldn't be surprising if a bunch started switching back...

Anyway, it's sad to see all the Obamans clinging so hard to the "rules." It's like they want to be the George W. Bush of 2008 (i.e., lose the popular vote, but win on the basis of an anachronistic system). Next thing you know, they'll be appealing to the Supreme Court...

(Again, I will enthusiastically support Obama in the November election, but it's vitally important for him to win the "popular vote," both now and in the General.... That's where real "political capital" comes from... Having a Democrat President who wins with 50.1%...or LESS god forbid....would indeed be a pyrrhic victory)

Today's Super-Delegate Action

Barack Obama's momentum continues unabated. Today he has received the support of five more super-delegates, with the campaign saying he is now 109 delegates from securing the nomination.

Obama was most notably endorsed by Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia. He also picked up state party chairs Larry Gates of Kansas and Dwight Pelz of Washington state, and DNC members Cindy Spanyers and Blake Johnson, both from Alaska.

Hillary Clinton has not received any super-del endorsements so far today.

http://tinyurl.com/5vdheo

According to the Associated Press news agency, he picked up six more on Monday, taking his total including super-delegates to 1,915 going into Tuesday's polls, with 1,721 for Mrs Clinton.

Once the 103 pledged delegates at stake in Kentucky and Oregon have been divided between the two rivals, Mr Obama may be only 50 to 75 short of the 2,026 delegates needed, AP says.

(BBC)

*****

The number is what it is 2,026 delegates. The popular vote or general election electors have nothing to do with the Democratic primary.

I've said since Super Tuesday HRC's only chance was if Barack gets eaten by a bear.

Still possible but not very likely. So all her venom and vitriol, and all her supporters insults and attacks were for nothing less than servicing her personal purposes because they were never going to do anything else. I am not psychic nor a soothsayer, the numbers were obvious and mathematics are a simple venture.

If I was a HRC supporter I would be pissed too, not at Barack or his supporters but at her abject failure and ineptitude.

If she was half as good as some people give credit she would have won, she would have had more votes, more delegates, more states, more caucuses, more money, more supporters AND more connections, an ex-President and more lobbyists money than any other candidate in history (and she wouldn't have to lie about it).

Return to top:

Memo to Pro-Hillary Women Scorned: Get Over It

Bill Upstages Hillary, Alleges "Gender Bias"

LOUISVILLE, KY. – While campaigning with his wife here today, Bill Clinton said that Hillary has been the victim of sexism. “I don't think there's any question, there's been moments in this campaign, when this sort of gender bias and presuppositions have come out,” the former president said.

The Clintons were campaigning together on primary day here in Kentucky, but it was President Clinton who did most of the talking. The candidate brushed off questions from a few reporters and it became clear that her husband was more than happy to speak to the press.

It is nearly impossible for the two to be in the same room and not create a bit of chaos with visitors clawing at the two of them in hopes of obtaining an autograph or a snapshot for their photo albums, while the press scurries around trying to capture images of them both, all the while having double the Secret Service trying to secure the area. But aside from the logistical chaos, there is the ongoing problem of President Clinton’s inability to stay in the shadows and allow his wife to be in the limelight.

****

That is the sound of any possible VP slot escaping from the realm of possibilities for Hillary.

DC sez:

"Her campaign is now a faith-based endeavor. She and her supporters (see below) ought to get on with the uncomfortable exercise of dealing with reality."

Wise words - I would add sooner rather than later.

Hagee-linked CUFI definitively linked to "Joel's Army"

Over the past week or two, a major focus on this diary has been on John Hagee--who has close associations with John McCain, runs a church that pretty much wants to nuke everyone and may well be one of the most abusive neopente dominionist groups ever formally documented in commonly available assays of coercive groups, and also fawns over the Jewish people--and in particular Israel--to the point of idolatry whilst condemning them to Hell in the same breath.

Now, recent revelations--inspired by an excellent series on Hagee by our very own Troutfishing--show that in fact Hagee's church is in fact part of the extremely militarised (and extremely worrying) Joel's Army movement...right down to the hymnal.

http://tinyurl.com/5qpudl

******

Roh oh, I think McSame might end up wishing he had the good sense to throw Hagee (and the others) "under the double talk express"?

Hagee is a little scary on his own but the whole militaristic thing will cook his goose.

Obama leads in actual Democrats voting by a fraction of a percent... And the fraction's going to narrow even more tonight...

...Just a tiny fraction of a percent ahead of "ineptitude and failure?" What does that make Obama?

The handsome young man beats out the middle-aged lady in beauty contest... He deliberately turned the race into a personality contest... He's hoping to win the Presidency on precisely the same basis as Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.... Pure "magic"... The irony is that Obama supporters actually have no idea what they're actually voting for.... (He's liked about Hillary's health care plan... He lied in Iowa about "passing" the Exelon bill in the Senate....)

When the margin is this close, then you realize it all depended on a tiny sliver of voters.... In this case, a bunch of impressionable youngsters caught up in cult-like idol worship....

It's like they're confused, and think that they're voting on who's going to play President on the next season of "West Wing..."

Like the young Obama worker who came to the door this morning here in Portland. The volunteers list showed some other registered voter living here... (We've been here less than a year and only recently re-registered)... It took me about ten minutes trying to explain how it could have happened... what exactly a "registered voter" was and where political campaigns get their lists from.... How it was possible that another voter might have been registered here in the past....

The more you post about how bad Barack is, the worse you make your candidate look.

If he is such a lop why is he winning? If she was better she would be winning. Call me simple minded but those are facts not in dispute.

HRC could win OR and KY at 75% to 25% AND 100% in every one of the rest and still loses by 30 delegates.

But maybe they will change the rules. Maybe the SD's will all come her way.

I doubt it but it is posible.

http://www.slate.com/id/2185278/

Slate delegate calculator, not exact but you can input whatsoever numbers you think are possible and see the net result.

The SD's are not included - but the methodology is at the bottom.

There is no scenario that gives HRC the delegates to win. Nothing creative about the math.

Clinton's Favorite Political Pundit Is...Karl Rove?

PRESTONSBURG, KY. -- There's only one Washington pundit that Hillary hasn't slammed as unreliable, out of touch, and even anti-democratic in the past few days. Unbelievably, that Washington pundit is none other than Karl Rove.

Trying to convince voters she is still viable in this race, Clinton told a crowd in Kentucky Monday afternoon, "There've been a lot of analysis about which one of us is stronger to win against Sen. McCain and I believe I am the stronger candidate. And just today I found some curious support for that position when one of the TV networks released an analysis done by, of all people, Karl Rove, saying I was a stronger candidate. Somebody got a hold of his analysis and there it is!"

Clinton has rolled out a TV ad in the past telling people not to listen to television journalists such as Chris Matthews and Tim Russert, going as far to say that they are "folks who don't want you to vote."

http://tinyurl.com/6ejpyn

*****

This doesn't really help me feel any better about HRC.

Rove? Really - this is what she brings to the table?

Maybe the rank and file democrats will join the cause in solidarity - the question is will they be for or against Rove?

Hmmmmm

To blame Barack Obama for the sexism that exists in our society is a major setback for Women's Rights and the Feminist Movement. Today, Claire McCaskill, an outspoken strong support of Barack Obama, slams Ferraro's silly remarks:

The Missouri Senator and Obama supporter criticizes the Clinton backer on MSNBC:

"Frankly, it is bitterly disappointing to me that a woman like Geraldine Ferraro would actually publicly say she is thinking about supporting John McCain, and what he would represent to women in this country."

"Really, the issues are so much more important than the people here."

(kos)

To political news junkies, a disclosure of Rove's relationship to the McCain campaign may seem unnecessary. But whether the public simply assumes that Rove supports McCain isn't the point. The "most influential pundit" in America, as Fox likes to trumpet, should have to play by the same rules as other high-profile political analysts. For example, Paul Begala and James Carville are regularly identified as supporters of Hillary Clinton when they appear on CNN. But Rove has been able to act as an independent observer while criticizing Clinton and Barack Obama, McCain's likely general election opponent.

(salon)

*****

So HRC is citing opposition analysis to support her staying in the race - just as McSame and Rove would desire? She can't see through that?

Is her ambition so blind? (obviously it must be)

If he is such a lop why is he winning? If she was better she would be winning. Call me simple minded but those are facts not in dispute.

Posted by Capt Smug

~~~~~~~~
Last time I checked Obama needed 2029 delegates to be a declared winner, which he won't have~

Now those are facts not in dispute!

Fuzzy math skills~~

Schneider: Democratic division continues to run deep

CNN ^ | May 20, 2008 | Bill Schneider

CNN) – The vast majority of Hillary Clinton supporters in Kentucky are not willing to support Barack Obama should he win the party’s nomination, a sign of the continuing division in the Democratic Party as the primary race comes to a close.

According to the just released exit polls, only 33 percent of Clinton backers said they would vote for Obama should he be the party’s nominee. That compares to 71 percent of Obama supporters who say they are willing to support Clinton if she wins the nomination.

Those numbers are even worse for Obama than in West Virginia one week ago, where 36 percent of Clinton voters said they would back Barack Obama in fall.

As for the Clinton backers in Kentucky, 41 percent of them say they will back McCain if Obama is the Democratic nominee, 23 percent said they won’t vote at all, and 3 percent said they would vote for other candidates.

Among Obama supporters in Kentucky, 14 percent said they would back McCain, 11 percent said they would not vote in the general election, and 4 percent said they would vote for other candidates.

Koch: I May Back McCain

NewsMax.com ^ | 19 May 08 | Phil Brennan

Former New York City Mayor Edward Koch, one of the country’s most prominent Democrats, says he may cross over and back Republican Sen. John McCain for president.

In an exclusive Newsmax interview, Koch says McCain “has no equal” when it comes to opposing Islamic terrorism. Though Koch says he disagrees with most of McCain’s positions on domestic issues, he could support him because of his strong national security credentials.

Koch carries significant weight with many Jewish Democrats in New York and across the country. He also has a history of playing the maverick and crossing party lines.

He has backed several New York Republicans, including Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg for New York City mayor, Al D'Amato for the U.S. Senate, and George Pataki for New York governor. In 2004 he endorsed his first Republican for president, George W. Bush. Koch actively campaigned in several states, including Florida and Ohio.

Bush won both states.

Koch, a regular Newsmax pundit, also says in his interview that he still endorses Sen. Hillary Clinton for the White House and believes she should stay in the race. He says he is bothered by Sen. Barack Obama’s relationships with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and terrorist bomber William Ayers, and agrees with McCain that a pre-emptive strike against Iran may be necessary.

An election-day voter stampede is expected to propel Oregon's highest primary turnout in 20 years, state officials projected Monday.

More than 800,000 voters cast ballots in the vote-by-mail election as of Monday, and elections officials predicted another 250,000 will drop off their ballots before today's 8 p.m. deadline.

Secretary of State Bill Bradbury estimates a turnout between 50 percent and 60 percent.

*****

50 to 60 % sounds small. Still a million isn't bad. I

He's on top because he has a fraction of a percent margin made up of young and foolish voters... As naive and inexperienced as he is....

"If she was better, she would be winning..."

George W. Bush defeated Kerry by 3-1/2 million votes in 2004... That was because he was "better?" I never thought so actually....

Both Hillary and Obama have spent MILLIONS and MILLIONS campaigning and it hasn't budged the basic demographic breakdown of the race the slightest bit.

His supposedly genius-level campaigning and her "inept" campaigning have actually proven to be entirely irrelevant in race after race... His tiny but difficult-to-surmount delegate advantage after Super Tuesday was apparent, and it was clear if the same demographic split-down-the-middle demographics held, then that's how the race would end up.... MILLIONS and MILLIONS of campaign spending later.... Not the slightest budge in the race's essential dynamics since Super Tuesday...

Hard-working (euphemism for low- to middle-income), white, middle-aged Democrats (like me).... even though we're not even slightly racist... Just aren't impressed by his platitudinous "magic." And his "new politics" ring hollow when so many of his young followers spew oceans of venom at someone's who's put in years and years on the front-lines fighting for the exact same issues he is supposedly for...

All we do know about the campaign itself, is that when they actually debate face to face, the race shifts slightly her way... That's why he quit debating obviously... Hates anything unscripted and controlled... Afraid he'll slip up again... ("You're likable enough" and "bitter" and "cling".... when he didn't know he was on camera and was being candid with his super-rich San Franciscan donors)

(Maybe he'll govern like Reagan and W. also... Stay away from reporters and anyone who will challenge you face to face.... Another photo-op, stage-managed, hero-worship-type Presidency.... Great.

Did you know the Clintons take more off-the-cuff, spontaneous, unscripted and on-the-record questions from reporters than virtually any politicians in modern memory? Certainly since the proliferation of electronic media... Try to name one who tops them in that regard... Obama's not even on the track on that one... )

Delegates, shmelegates.... The super D's have turned to out to be total go-with-the-winner sheep and lemmings...

(What do winning first-tier politicians do with their mountains of leftover campaign cash? They dole it out to second-tier politicians.... Obama's cash pile is obviously very tempting for all those salivating Super D's... especially now that they see he's got the "lock"....)

But, by the same token, if Hillary pulls ahead in the popular, winning more actual votes nationwide, just watch the sheep switch direction in a heartbeat...

Yes, it's true... and now you've admitted it... it IS possible... Not likely, but possible...

And if it happened, it would be a case of pure democracy....the "will of the people" in action.... By winning a larger number of actual eligible, registered, oxygen-breating American citizen voters going to the polls.... A truly beautiful thing.

Oh, if only Obama could have, at any point in the last three months, been a strong enough and impressive-enough candidate to decisively win a substantial popular vote margin... "close the deal" so to speak...

....Rather than miss, again and again, every "knockout" opportunity...

(That's how party nominees usually get the nomination, by sweeping the primary process early with overwhelming victories... But Mr. Magic couldn't pull it off...)

I swear and I promise to put in a hundred volunteer hours for him for November if he can pull ahead to say....at least 3% in the Democratic popular vote...

And if only ONCE, electoral-vote.com would show him beating McCain...

Karl Rove is certainly a slimebag... but he knows his politics...

(He's secretly rejoicing... a brutal Tiger tank Democrat candidate, one who will come after Republicans and give absolutely no quarter...

....gets de-railed by a namby-pamby young black man...without a shred of national security experience....

Karl Rove must think it's nothing short of divine intervention)

Obama Freakout Over Michelle Video: The Ticking “Whitey” Time Bomb

But the real reason for Obama’s extraordinary freakout is that he fears the release of the videotape, reported here, of Michelle Obama in the pulpit of Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s church railing against “whitey.” And we don’t mean Whitey Ford. Four Republican sources have told me that the tape exists. I’ve also been informed that Karl Rove and his allies have a copy of it and are using it to raise funds for independent expenditure groups. The tape, I’m told, will be disclosed as the GOP October Surprise. It’s a ticking time bomb.

And I’ve learned that a right-wing Republican billionaire has put a $1 million bounty on the video. He doesn’t want John McCain to win, like a number of conservatives, and thinks Obama is a pathetically weak candidate. The billionaire wants that video released now.

Obama, speaking on ABC’s “Good Morning America” showed fear through his name-calling: “If they think that they’re gonna try to make Michelle an issue in this campaign, they should be careful. Because, that I find unacceptable. … The notion that you start attacking my wife or my family — you know, Michelle is the most honest, the best person I know. She is one of the most caring people I know. She loves this country. And for them to try to distort or to play snippets of her remarks in ways that are unflattering to her I think is … just low class.”

Does Obama have a copy of the “whitey” video? We know that he knows that his wife knows. The video really does exist. If we have to wait until October to see it, Obama might explode before then from the tension.

Black statement conflicts with record

Charlie Black, a senior adviser for the presidential campaign of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), told reporters Monday that he never lobbies candidates for whom he’s working.

“I have personally had a policy that, if I’m working in somebody’s campaign that I do not lobby they and their staff, since 1984,” Black said, as reported by The New York Times.

But that firm statement could provide fodder for the opposition in the upcoming general election.

Black served as an informal adviser to the Bush-Cheney reelection campaign in 2004.

Lobbying filings show that in 2003 and 2004, Black’s firm lobbied the Defense Department, State Department and Executive Office of the President on behalf of the Fluor Corp., a U.S. contractor in Iraq.

And the filings show that in 2004, Black’s firm lobbied the Executive Office of the President on behalf of Occidental Petroleum Corp. on Middle East trade and energy issues.

The McCain campaign did not dispute the records, but declined to comment.

Another Republican source pointed out that Black played a peripheral role, participating in conference calls with an array of Bush-friendly pundits.

****

The GOP is going to have trouble if they have such a tin ear to the public.

Anti-war protesters disrupt McCain here

Apron-wearing anti-war protesters disrupted Republican presidential candidate John McCain's speech to the National Restaurant Association Monday.

To the tune of "I've been working on the railroad," they sang, "McCain's in the kitchen with George Bush, cooking up another war" and unfurled red banners.

http://tinyurl.com/5jtpjn

*****

Lobbyists, the war thing, talking to the wrong leaders.

Maybe the GOP should run Hillary? (they might have a better chance)

BREAKING NEWS: Sen. Hillary Clinton wins Kentucky Democratic primary, NBC News projects

That was quick!

Hamas, Israel appear on brink of cease-fire

Hamas officials in Egypt Monday considered terms of a possible 'tahadiyeh,' or calming, in recent fighting with Israel even as violence flared on both sides of the border.

http://tinyurl.com/3tf3cq

******

Would that make Israel appeasers?

How dare they talk to Hamas.

Would that make Israel appeasers?

How dare they talk to Hamas.

~~~~~

A cease fire, agreed to by both sides is not appeasement.

Obama stumped by question about Hanford cleanup

Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., speaks at a town hall meeting in Pendleton, Ore., Sunday, May 18, 2008.

YouNewsTV™Story Published: May 19, 2008 at 3:44 PM PDT

Story Updated: May 19, 2008 at 5:30 PM PDT
By Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrat

Barack Obama was stumped this weekend when a woman asked him about cleanup at the nation's most contaminated nuclear area: the Hanford site in Washington state where scientists helped create the atomic bomb.

Obama admitted he didn't know much about the problem, but promised he would learn about it.

"Here's something that you will rarely hear from a politician, and that is that I'm not familiar with the Hanford site, so I don't know exactly what's going on there," Obama said Sunday at a campaign stop in Pendleton, Ore. "Now, having said that, I promise you I'll learn about it by the time I leave here on the ride back to the airport."

A spokesman for the Republican National Committee called Obama's answer proof that the Illinois senator has little understanding of issues that are important to families in Oregon and Washington. During a visit to Washington state last week, Republican John McCain said he would speed cleanup efforts at Hanford and push for technological advances in disposing of nuclear waste.

"How can Obama deliver change if he doesn't even understand what needs to be changed?" asked RNC spokesman Paul Lindsay.

Despite Obama's answer to the voter, a campaign spokesman said Monday that Obama is committed to cleaning up Hanford and other contaminated nuclear sites.

"Sen. Obama will reverse the Bush administration's budget cuts and ensure that the Hanford cleanup effort receives enough resources and support to protect area residents and businesses," said spokesman Nick Shapiro.

The federal government created Hanford in the 1940s as part of the top-secret Manhattan Project to build the atomic bomb. The government now spends about $2 billion a year to clean up the site.

The Energy Department, which manages Hanford cleanup, announced last year that it would be unable to meet a number of cleanup deadlines at the site. The agency has been in negotiations with Washington state for the past year to establish new deadlines and cleanup priorities.

Ridding Hanford of contamination has long been a priority for Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire, who championed the original cleanup pact signed by the state and federal governments in 1989 when she was director of the state Department of Ecology. A Democrat, Gregoire has endorsed Obama and is herself running for re-election.

The governor is confident that Obama will make toxic cleanup a priority, Gregoire campaign spokesman Aaron Toso said.

"We feel that an Obama White House will be much more favorable to environmental cleanup than the Bush administration," he said.

Obama will talk with any leaders pre-approved by the Israel lobby.

The same is actually true of Hillary, of course, but she knew better than to ever give the impression that it could ever be otherwise.

Obama got all his naive followers cheering his brave stand... That he would talk with Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Assad.... but then had to embarass himself by backtracking rather than face the political retribution of the Presidents of Major Jewish American Organizations or whoever the heck they are... defenders of the most wacko Israeli fanatic settlers....

Israel's negotiating with Hamas through Egyptian mediaries. That's actually how it's done and always has been. Obama should have known that. Foreign Policy 101.

That's a neophyte error...

The Illinois senator's campaign was focused, however, on a different set of numbers. When the day began, he was 17 delegates short of a majority of pledged delegates available nationwide, according to an Associated Press count. The allocation of 52 delegates from Oregon and 51 from Kentucky was certain to give him that many and more.

(USAToday)

For local fans of Clinton, campaign is personal and "extremely emotional"

When Shannon de Rubens, a stay-at-home mom, wears her Hillary Rodham Clinton button, she expects to be harassed. A woman in Bellevue even pretended to spit on her once. That's all part of the game, when you're a Clinton backer in a land of Obama bumper stickers.

"I hate to say it, but that sort of acrimony between strangers has been standard in this campaign, especially locally," said de Rubens, who lives in Issaquah and co-founded two grass-roots campaign groups, the Hillraisers, in the region with more than 100 members total.

"We feel undervalued, mistreated and bullied. It's been an emotional journey," she said.

In an impassioned race that's been shaped from the outset by personality and symbolism, it's no surprise the campaign has gotten personal.

*****

Politics is not about emotions. These gals are not doing themselves any favors - they are reinforcing crass sterotypes.

Politics is hardball.

Savage praises comments by controversial McCain supporter Rev. Parsley advocating destruction of "false religion" Islam

Summary: Michael Savage stated that Rev. Rod Parsley, whom Sen. John McCain has reportedly referred to as "a spiritual guide," has made "some inflammatory statements of which I agree with 100 percent." Savage then played clips in which Parsley stated that "America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion [Islam] destroyed" and that supporters of same-sex marriage "are seeking to redefine marriage. In other words, they are intending to pervert God's original intention."

(MediaMatters)

*****

This is not being helpful to McSame. I can't help but think he wishes for less vocal support from the insane. Maybe it's just me.

Politics is ALL about emotion. Picking a President is a deeply personal, intangible and almost spiritual phenomenon...

How did Reagan win big victories when polling consistently showed that majorities of Americans disagreed with him across the board on virtually all the issues?

Or how could anyone think George W. Bush "won" any of those debates against Gore and Kerry? He got all-out creamed! And double-creamed by Kerry especially....

....But people watched those debates, and EVERYTHING about Presidential campaigns, through their own cultural, emotional, demographic and "identity" filters....

That's what I'm talking about when I say Obama magic just never worked on me...

Just like Hillary never worked on YOU...

It's ALL about emotion....

Just think of this as another lesson for political neophytes...

Now Obama does know this. It's exactly WHY he campaigns solely on platitudes.... He just over-estimated his appeal... I'm praying he hasn't peaked yet...(not that he's got the "lock").... Hoping, hoping, hoping, that there's still another untapped surge of magic left...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcDMD0B7r88

Positive emotions, yes, negative emotions even, yes but emotions that drive someone against their own party when that party is the only chance against Bush/Cheney/MCain - no. Petty vengence because they lost? Wowser that is not very high minded IMO.

I would go so far as to question where and how does loyalty to the person become paramount? Is it only when their candidate loses or is it some ideology that is against the democratic party in general? Do these gals really want McCain to win - just to spite whom? All Americans just the women or just the Barack supporters?

Spite is as ugly as hate - it will never change the math.

It will likely reflect poorly on those most spiteful.

Hmmm...curiouser and curiouser...

My "canvass partners" (the major ones, but not all) through six states' democratic primaries were:

A 60-something year-old female retired insurance agent with multiple sclerosis.

A 30-something marketing consultant and rugby player from Chicago.

A 40-ish woman REPUBLICAN realtor from Nyeck, NY.

A 30-something BABE-ALICIOUS English Lit phd Prof. from East Tennessee.

A 20-something single mother.

A 55 year old plumber, male.

(I am, of course, a 22 year old, Mensa-guru, tech-savy, 3-time Mr.Universe and world-renowned underwear model...oh, and I'm filthy rich, too!)

There were a few others, but most of the teams were filled out with such diverse, intelligent, educated and enthusiastic supporters who took the time to learn local election issues, state voting laws and even brought their own issues-oriented literature in some cases.

I'm just amazed, with such personal experience, that someone would get a visit from exactly the kind of person they've been raging against, for so long...

...I mean, what ARE the odds?

-T

misogyny is a problem in this RACIST nation and in November you will see. The MEDIA picked Bush and has picked Obama.

It is a sad day in America for me - I will never vote for Obama (he doesn't really want or need my vote), and god forbid I WILL NEVER VOTE REPUBLICAN (they are hatefilled war mongers).

I am embarrassed a somewhat proud of my people (BLACKS), but Obama doesn't deserve his loyalty.

Good point, Hajji... Also, the volunteer sure didn't seem like they were from out of town. Seemed like a local to me... But then it's rainy today, and in raincoats and wool caps, everyone looks Oregonian...

I remember exactly how I felt when I read my first newspaper quote of a young Obaman saying they hated Hillary so much that they'd vote for McCain if Obama didn't get the nomination... I was quite incensed for all the same reasons capt cites.... But it's a reality sometimes and the phenomenon's been around for as long as there've been primaries.... No doubt temperatures will cool and people will come to their senses....

Except it doesn't help that McCain is a damn likable guy and he's practically a Democrat on a darn lot of issues (or can at least sound like one).... climate change, campaign finance, fiscal responsibility... etc. etc.... genuine sympathy for out-of-work manufacturing workers...

And if you think Obama really dissed your favorite girl, it may well be hard to warm up to him.... Especially if you think he's a disrespectful upstart... Not to mention all his bratty followers...

...and all that magical "It's my time" hooey.... Remember, emotion, emotion, emotion....

I'm just sayin'... I'll be voting for any potted plant that runs against any Republican, anytime, anywhere, of course... but it's something to think about...

In today's Oregon primary, there's also a particular race between two local candidates: one more Hillary-like...less charismatic, long record of service...and the other more Obama-like...outsider, more flamboyant, more personality...

The flamboyant one has a political blog that's fairly well known apparently...

The more workaday candidate asked him, "How are going to go to Washington and work now with the very people you've been calling *&*@&@^ and (*#$#&^$ ??"

And how are you going to vote for, let alone work for, someone you've been calling untrustworthy, corrupt and a liar?

All the anti-Obama blather is actually pro-McSame. Why help the GOP? Because you have to do so or because you really want McSame in office. (rhetorical)

Return to top

Get over it.

KY - looks to be about 65%-35% - Barack will win enough delegates from KY to have the majority. Oregon will only expand that majority.

Well, the good news for Hillary is that she totally spanked Obama in Kentucky (this is a sentence in which it is best to avoid the state abbreviation). The bad news for Hillary is that the 12 pledged delegates that Obama's picked up (so far) give him a total of 1635, which is a majority of the 3253 pledged delegates (I don't think this includes FL and MI, however). So she is now officially unable to win the nomination without the help of the superdelegates - and she's trailing on those too.

In fact, Obama is now only 85 delegates away from winning the nomination outright, and he'll get even closer after the rest of KY's pledged delegates are allocated, and after he gets his share of Oregon delegates. If Dave is right about him winning Oregon, he could easily be within 40 or 50 delegates of the nomination by tomorrow morning, with 94 pledged delegates left in PR, MT, and SD, and a little over 200 superdelegates still in play.

(FDL)

Neither can win without superdelegates. That's been plain for months.

You keep acting like you think those super D endorsements are carved in stone. They're just not...

+238,000 popular votes for Hillary in Kentucky. Obama's lead in actual voters is smaller than ever... less than half-a-percent now....

The polls are closed in Kentucky and votes are being counted in Oregon, and it's clear that tonight we have reached a major milestone on this journey.

We have won an absolute majority of all the delegates chosen by the people in this Democratic primary process.

From the beginning, this journey wasn't about me or the other candidates. It was about a simple choice -- will we continue down the same road with the same leadership that has failed us for so long, or will we take a different path?

Too many of us have been disappointed by politics and politicians more times than you can count. We've seen promises broken and good ideas drowned in a sea of influence, point-scoring, and petty bickering that has consumed Washington.

Yet, in spite of all the doubt and disappointment -- or perhaps because of it -- people have stood for change.

Unfortunately, our opponents in the other party continue to embrace yesterday's policies and they will continue to employ yesterday's tactics -- they will try to change the subject, and they will play on fears and divisions to distract us from what matters to you and your future.

But those tactics will not work in this election.

They won't work because you won't let them.

Not this time. Not this year.

We still have work to do to in the remaining states, where we will compete for every delegate available.

But tonight, I want to thank you for everything you have done to take us this far -- farther than anyone predicted, expected, or even believed possible.

And I want to remind you that you will make all the difference in the epic challenge ahead.

Thank you,

Barack Obama

I think only someone with a shallow and cynical view of the recent political history of this country would call Hillary Clinton part of "the same leadership that has failed us for so long."

The Clintons have been fighting for universal health care, rebuilding the middle class, maintaining and improving economic infrastructure, equal rights for all including homosexuals, fiscal responsibility, environmental protection....

The only failure were the voters who put Republican majorities in Congress '94-'06 and in the White House '00-'08... It takes guts (ask Ted Kennedy) to fight the uphill fight for so long... If Hillary's a failure, then so is Ted Kennedy, so was Paul Wellstone, so is Chris Dodd and Joe Biden and John Kerry...

That's a despicable crack by Obama and obviously aimed at his know-nothing followers who were playing video games when their elders were fighting Republicans tooth and nail for their well-being....

Maybe he'll get my vote by November, but he sure doesn't have it tonight.

Kentucky: +250,000 to the popular vote for Hillary....

I don't think it was Hillary or Bill's "failure" when Bob Dole and the Republicans filibustered the Clintons' carbon tax in 1993...

The smartest and most hard-working couple in recent American political history and a 1% sliver of know-nothings sold them out for a Ken Doll...

Yeah. He's prayin' for "new politics...." I sure hope he's right, 'cause he's a babe in the woods, a little helpless lamb if the big bad wolf of "old politics" does happen to show up again...

Here's hoping, hoping, hoping!

This line in Obama's speech was incredible:

Senator Clinton has shattered myths and broken barriers and changed the America in which my daughters and yours will come of age.

We may get ornery about the ridiculousness coming out of the Clinton camp, but most of that will be forgotten in time. But what will remain in the history books is exactly this.

If Clinton hadn't voted for Bush's war, and compounded that grievous mistake by voting for that Iran bill, she'd likely be the nominee. As it is, she almost overcame that disastrous decision in a fiercely anti-war party. That's testament to her talents as a politician and as a political symbol.

And yes, Clinton has shattered barriers that will one day benefit my 13-month-old daughter. And for that, I am grateful, no matter how much I may want her to simply go away now.

(kos)

Clinton now needs 104.17% of the remaining delegates...

... to win an elected delegate majority.

According to Demconwatch, 22 KY delegates can be confidently assigned to Clinton; 11 to Obama.

This leaves Obama needing 3.5 delegates to clinch an overall elected delegate majority. It also leaves Clinton needing 162.5.

The thing is, though, that there are only 156 elected delegates left to be assigned.

(kos)

Here's the full breakdown via the Obama campaign:

By the numbers....

New donors in April: 200,000

94% of contributions were under $200

93% of contributions were $100 or less

77% of contributions were $50 or less

52% of contributions were $25 or less

Number of donors to the Obama campaign overall at the end of April: 1.475 million

Number of contributions given: 2,929,000 million

Average donation: $91

Amount raised in April: $31.3 million (plus an additional $600,000 for the general election)

Cash on Hand: $37.3 million (plus an additional $9.2 million for the general election)

*****

Not bad for the new guy. Cash on hand and some for the general - that is better financial management than many campaigns. That alone is encouraging.

We will face our share of difficult and uncertain days in the journey ahead. The other side knows they have embraced yesterday's policies and so they will also embrace yesterday's tactics to try and change the subject. They will play on our fears and our doubts and our divisions to distract us from what matters to you and your future.

Well they can take the low road if they want, but it will not lead this country to a better place. And it will not work in this election. It won't work because you won't let it. Not this time. Not this year.

My faith in the decency, and honesty, and generosity of the American people is not based on false hope or blind optimism, but on what I have lived and what I have seen in this very state.

***

The "other side" is McSame not HRC.

She was never the other side (usually add - of the aisle).

Until she decides to get out she is still in but Brack is no longer running for the nomination he is running against McSame.

Wishing you could be a campaign surrogate, but don't have a national platform? Do you find blogging your own opinions tedious? Wish you could have someone tell you what to think during this political season? Well look no further than John McCain's new blog outreach!

That's right; the McCain camp wants to recruit online supporters and activists to serve as comment trolls. From their website:

Help spread the word about John McCain on news and blog sites. Your efforts to help get the message out about John McCain's policies and plan for the future is one of the most valuable things you can do for this campaign....

Select from the numerous web, blog and news sites listed here, go there, and make your opinions supporting John McCain known. Once you've commented on a post, video or news story, report the details of your comment by clicking the button below.

*****

Like this is something new?

LOL

But now that Clinton is not going to be the nominee of the Democratic party, we are hearing a terrible moaning and whining on the part of Clinton's women supporters, even to the point that some are saying they will not vote for Obama in the Fall. As much as many of us would have liked to see a woman President, it has become apparent that to insist on a woman candidate is mainly about "us" not about what the majority of Democratic voters may want or need. It is selfish of us to insist on a Clinton victory, and appalling to hear such women leaders as Geraldine Ferraro implying she might not vote for Obama because she is so disappointed that Hillary cannot win. A McCain victory would be anathema to the causes that Hillary Clinton has always supported like choice, a repudiation of No Child Left Behind, health care for all, and women's rights.

Selfish women like the ones who are grousing about Hillary's loss are precariously close to embarrassing our entire gender. If we can fight for a nomination as good or better than any man (and Hillary has fought as hard as any man would or could), then we ought to be able to lose as good or better than a man. That is, losing without pouting, without recriminations, without blaming -- the media, our opponent, men, etc. I so want women voters and Hillary Clinton to be exemplary losers. There is nothing to be gained now by this complaining and finger pointing. It has been over for months, and insisting on having Clinton fight to the finish is not only somewhat unique in political campaigns (most candidates bow out long before the so-called 'end'), it has been undoubtedly damaging to the fight against McCain in the Fall.

Clinton's argument that she can still win, as she has been proclaiming on the campaign trail for weeks, is completely incomprehensible to anyone who can count and dishonest to those who cannot. In order to overturn the long tradition of counting "delegates" as the measure of who is the Democratic nominee, Clinton would have to do a number of very damaging things -- to herself, her supporters and to the Democratic party. She would have to overturn an agreement she herself made not to campaign or count Michigan and Florida's votes; she would have to overturn the concept of using pledged delegates as the metric for victory and replace it with "popular vote"; she would have to convince 75 to 80% of superdelegates to change their votes or vote for her because of her version of an electoral map metric -- alienating not only the women who support Obama, but all of the other Obama supporters, who are more than half of the Democratic party at this point. Would that victory be worthwhile? Would that victory be a feminist victory? What would we have proved? Only that women are the most selfish of all voters.

(huffpo)

*****

Very insightful and astute.

Election musings...

Anyone who doesn't understand the difference between Russians with nukes and religious fanatics lead by a madman with nukes isn't qualified to be the president. Period.

Anyone who doesn't understand what increasing the capital gains tax would do to the middle class is an extremely poor choice for president.

Anyone who basically wants the U.S. to return to the days of Jimmy Carter (shudder) is definitely on the wrong track and certainly the worst choice for president.

Anyone who speaks in platitudes and starts to believe it himself is worse than the pied piper and obviously a poor choice for president.

Anyone who thinks you can "end" a war is not qualified to be president. Period.

Anyone who thinks we should give up our technological lead in weapons research is a fool and would be a fool's choice for president.

I sometimes wonder which is worse - the "anyone" mentioned above or Americans who would actually vote for him.

-Tim

I used to think Hillary becoming the president was the worst possible thing that could happen in the upcoming election... Boy, was I ever wrong!

If you would have asked me several months ago what I thought of her you would have got an earful. To realize now that she is actually the LESSER of two evils is like getting a cooler full of ice dumped down the back of your shirt!

I also have to admit that as of today, I've developed at least a respect for her tenacity. At least she is RATIONAL and understands foreign policy!

-Tim

"We know from past campaigns that presidential candidates will say many things," Hagel said of some of McCain's recent rhetoric, namely his policy on talking to Iran. "But once they have the responsibility to govern the country and lead the world, that difference between what they said and what responsibilities they have to fulfill are vastly different. I'm very upset with John with some of the things he's been saying. And I can't get into the psychoanalysis of it. But I believe that John is smarter than some of the things he is saying. He is, he understands it more. John is a man who reads a lot, he's been around the world. I want him to get above that and maybe when he gets into the general election, and becomes the general election candidate he will have a higher-level discourse on these things."

Hagel, speaking to a small gathering at the residence of the Italian ambassador, took umbrage with several positions taken by the McCain campaign, including the Arizona Senator's criticism of Obama for pledging to engage with Iran. Engagement is not, and should not be confused for, capitulation, he argued.

****

Hagel, appeaser too!

Well, I guess anybody that still thinks Bush never lied and his policies are amazing successes is a great source for political acumen and insight.

James Baker III even says McSame is wrong but facts never bothered a troll.

Thanks for playin!

NEXT!

Oh yeah, here is the video:

James Baker: Talking to an enemy is not appeasement

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYC3jVaDDEg

****

The neoconmen are just not up to speed with the youtube stuff. McSame has some very good ones. The younger folks will never vote for him, if they show up at the polls it is over up and dowen the ticket.

You should get with your anti-obama breathern and plot something new, the old crud just doesn't fly.

Lies, money and manipulation of some talking point will just not fly anymore.

Talking to an enemy is not appeasement but everybody knows that.

HA!

Why do the armchair generals and chickenhawks fear talking?

Because Bunnypants says so!

The real men and real leaders have no fear of words.

What a bunch of weaklings and whiners - typical.

Words are really not that scary, really.

Republicans, when confronted with a ‘problem’ choose several activities from the list below:

ignore it, deny it
borrow a mountain of money for you know, whatever
talk to your prostitute about it
email Wright “goddamn America” youtube
blame it on Dems ‘San Francisco values’
capitalize it collateralize it securitize it and sell it to the world
call it al Qaeda in (wherever it is)
cover it with a big flag
pretend you’ve already solved it in the future

(C&L)

Spot on!

BAKER: ... necessarily, by talking to them if you're tough and you know what you're doing. You don't appease them. Talking to an enemy is not, in my view, appeasement.

I made 15 trips to Syria in 1990-1991 at a time when Syria was on the list of countries who are state sponsors of terrorism. And the 16th trip, guess what? Lo and behold, Syria changed 25 years of policy and agreed for the first time in history to come sit at the table with Israel, which is what Israel wanted at the time. And, thereby, implicitly recognized Israel's right to exist.

Now, all I'm saying is that would never have happened if we hadn't been sufficiently dedicated that we were going to keep at it. And that's the only...

(from a transcript)

*****

Add Prescott Bush funding the Nazis and appeasement takes on a new meaning, eh?

Bush thinks talking is hard work, it is. Especially for him. It is just too easy to send in the troops to try to cover his failure of diplomacy and policy.

No appeasement just more wars - Maybe it will sell?

McSame is counting on it.

Diff,
Your disdain for younger voters is even more offensive than LBH's ramblings. Why do you assume anyone especially the youth who have come to a different conclusion than you is clueless and stupid? Some of us may not have been of voting age during the 90's but that doesn't mean we weren't paying attention. It's hateful attitudes such as yours that have driven us away from the "old gaurd". Years do not automatically grant wisdom, it is the willingness to learn in the time you have that does. The advent of the information age is a double edge sword that missleads those who are easily led astray, but has also made those willing to learn possibly the most well informed generation in all of history.

Here is a repost from the last thread
********************
http://www.counterpunch.org/navarro11122007.html
Why Hillary's Health Care Plan Really Failed
By VICENTE NAVARRO

"And this is why the Clinton proposal failed. He did not include in his plans any effort to mobilize people in support of the reform. Quite to the contrary. He allied himself with the major forces responsible for the sorry state of the U.S. medical care sector--the health insurance industry. The insurance companies ultimately opposed the final proposal because of its regulatory components, added by Starr and Zelman. But, apart from these components, the insurance companies would have continued to manage the health care system.

Starr's explanation of why the reform failed is dramatically insufficient. The failure had little to do with timing, with when and where President Clinton presented the proposal. It had to do with how the Clintons related to the progressive constituencies, including labor and social movements. No universal, comprehensive coverage will ever be achieved in the U.S. without an active mobilization of the population (especially progressive forces) so as to balance and neutralize the enormous resistance from some of the most important financial lobbies in the nation. Starr's social engineering approach, lacking any understanding of the dynamics of power, explains failure as a consequence of problems of the electoral calendar or the types of benefits offered."

*snip*

"A continuing shift to the right (erroneously called the center) has been the Democratic Party's strategy for the past 30 years, abandoning any commitment to the New Deal and the establishment of universal entitlements that make social rights a part of citizenship. David Brock writes in his book "that Navarro had told Mrs. Clinton that if the President went ahead with a managed care competition plan, it would cost the election to the Democratic Party." Brock's credibility as a reporter is extremely limited, but on that point he was right. I told Mrs. Clinton that the only way of winning, and of neutralizing the enormous power of the insurance industry and large employers, was for the President and the Democratic Party leadership to make the issue one of the people against the establishment. It was a class war strategy that the Republicans most feared. My good friend David Himmelstein, a founder of Physicians for a National Health Program, told Mrs. Clinton the same thing. And as I judged by her response, she seemed to think we did not understand how politics works in the U.S. The problem is, we understood only too well how power operates.

This, then, is why the Clintons failed. And unfortunately, Hillary Clinton will fail again if she lacks the courage to confront those responsible for the predicament in the nation's health care system. The insurance-controlled system imposes enormous pain on the population. It is not just that 46 million people are now without health insurance, but the system also fails the huge numbers of people who have insufficient coverage and don't discover this until they need it. This cruel system has been supported by large employers because it gives them oppressive control of the labor force. When workers lose their job, they lose not only their income but also health benefits coverage--for themselves and their families. The alliance of two of the most powerful forces in this country--insurance and large employers--is at the root of the problem."
********************
"No universal, comprehensive coverage will ever be achieved in the U.S. without an active mobilization of the population (especially progressive forces) so as to balance and neutralize the enormous resistance from some of the most important financial lobbies in the nation."
What has Obama shown to be the best at? Mobilizing people.

"...the most well informed generation in all of history..."

Excuse me while I choke on my enchilada...

I've also heard it called the "cut-and-paste" generation. In my day that was called plagiarism...

Went to a performance here in Portland of "Voices of the People's History of the United States" the other night, with Viggo Mortenson, Eddie Vedder and a bunch of other awesome performers....

At the beginning of the evening, the organizer said, "Please, no photography..."

But throughout, young people all over the room were holding up their little gadgets and videotaping the show...

What part of "no photography" is so hard to understand?

The "entitlement" generation thinks its their "progressive" right to steal movies, music and whatever else they can get their little "cutting and pasting" electric hands on... And that they'll get health care without being required to pay for it..

The Navarro piece is one of the most clueless things I've ever read.

Are you thinking Obama's about to "mobilize the progressive forces?"

...and start a "class war?"

You must be eating mushrooms. Don't hold your breath....

Believe me, I wish it were only true... Of course I'd prefer a single-payer system, and would love to sink all the health insurance companies to the bottom of the sea...

And I wish I could vote for Ralph Nader or Dennis Kucinich for President too...

But any politician who puts those notions into their public platform is doomed to single digits....like Nader and Kucinich...

Do you think it's an accident that Obama's health care plan is ALL private-insurance-based? That it's. in fact, FAR more insurance-company-friendly that Hillary's?

That's why Elizabeth Edwards declined to endorse him.

Hillary at least had the cojones to say "some" insurance companies would go out of business... And some small businesses too.... the ones that can only survive if they have to deny decent wages and can't generate enough revenue so their workers can have insurance...

Obama hasn't even been willing to go THAT far out on the limb...

News flash... His published positions on domestic policy are to the RIGHT of Hillary's!

In fact, he attacked her health care plan with blatant deceptions complete with flyers mimicking precisely the insurance company's attacks on her efforts in 1993! ("Harry and Louise")

You're living in a dreamland "eyes_open!"

For the record:

Hillary voted in '02 to authorize force against Iraq in order to compel compliance with UN resolutions. Colin Powell then led the UN Security Council to a unanimous resolution to say precisely the same thing.

The direct result was that Saddam complied and allowed hundreds of inspectors into the country who immediately began scouring Iraq from one end to the other for WMD and any other violations of UN resolutions.

They found conventional missiles of slightly-longer-than-permitted-range and began destroying them.

By early '03, UN Chief Inspector Hans Blix said they would need only a few more months to certify compliance....and that war would not be necessary.

Both Clintons, along with scores of other Democrats, said at that time that war was not necessary, the inspectors should have more time, and that, IN FACT, that the authorization they had voted for (in close conjunction with the UN unanimous resolution and the international community) had worked precisely as intended and had, in fact, made war unnecessary....

What Clinton, Edwards, Kerry and others voted for WORKED precisely as intended and should have PREVENTED war...

It was precisely the combination of international law and hard-nosed diplomacy that the post-WWII international system was designed to make possible... and it worked perfectly as it should have. There is NOTHING in the above historical account to APOLOGIZE FOR. And nothing that is the basis for being savaged by know-nothing dilletante youngsters...

Bush and Cheney had both said months and months before the Congressional authorization or the UN Resolution that they felt the President's inherent Constitutional powers enabled him to invade Iraq or anywhere else whenever they felt like it... They never felt Congress or the UN had anything to do with it

...and that's exactly what they did. It had, in fact, nothing to do with Hillary. It had everything to do with the Bush/Cheney/neocon fantasy....

To try and tar her now with that brush is historically inaccurate and shameful...

Just like Obama's using "Harry and Louise" to lie about her health care proposals is shameful...

(Just consider it another Political History 101 lesson for neophytes...)

"clueless and stupid" is as "clueless and stupid" does (as "clueless and stupid" posts)...

I've invited you Obamans to demonstrate your actual knowledge of any issue whatsover (even if you only cut-and-paste)... but I've yet to see anyone rise to the challenge...

And as for your "fiercely anti-war party," haven't you noticed that your hero Obama has explicitly promised to ESCALATE the war in Afghanistan?

And several debates back, both he and Hillary acknowledged our troops would likely still be in Iraq in 2013?

And Obama's been not Russ Feingold in the Senate since 2004. His "mentor" was actually Joe Lieberman... And he campaigned for Lieberman AGAINST Ned Lamont, a TRUE anti-war Democrat...

He likes to keep citing his irrelevant speech-as-a-state-senator in 2002, opposing the war in Iraq, but since he actually got on the national playing field...in the actual US Senate... his voting record on the Iraq War has been IDENTICAL to Hillary's... Voted for every single penny.... (While actual anti-war types like Kucinich and Feingold had the courage to stand up and vote against it).

("most well-informed generation in history" Ha! I'd say "most narcissistic and gullible")

(Seriously, I don't have nearly as low an opinion of Obama as I do of his supporters)

Whoopi Goldberg asked her co-hosts on “The View” how they would describe Mrs. Clinton’s historic battle for the Democratic nomination.

“A man took it away from a woman,” Joy Behar replied. “Then they yelled at her for complaining about it.”

In the popular vote...of all Democrats actually going to the polls and voting across the entire country in this primary season...

....and IF and only IF you count all the Michigan "undecideds" as Obama votes...

He wins by about .38%.... by a little over 100,000 votes out of 35million+

The only reason he claims a delegate victory tonight is because the Texas and Nevada systems awarded him MORE delegates despite his winning LESS actual votes in those states...

Obama is just teetering on being the "George W. Bush" of the 2008 Democratic primaries... Lose the vote, but win the race...

And as GWB had to resort to the Supreme Court, Obama will have to fight in the DNC to keep all the votes from being counted...

If he's going to "mobilize the masses," I sure hope he gets started soon....

Red herrings (recording a concert), assumptions of drug use (mushrooms), personal insults (narcissistic and gullible). You ask to be spoon-fed information. Are you sure you aren't a Republican posing as a Democrat? I ask because your attitude and posting style disturbingly mirrors those of the various rightwing posters I have seen come and go from this blog over the past few years. Maybe it's time to re-evaluate whether or not you are helping your party when the resident righties here are praising and agreeing with you. Oh, and I'll give you the "Red Gaurd" thing is at least more imaginative than outright calling us communists like those on the right usually do.

I'm certainly not a Republican posing as a Democrat. I'm just not impressed by young Obamans... I don't need to be spoon-fed information. I'm just curious to see if there are any out there among you who have any actual ideas about the issues and where the candidates stand on them. If you have any political thoughts in your head besides hero worship and wishful thinking.

The idea that Obama is going start a "class war" and "mobilize the masses" against the rich in order to blast insurance companies out of existence is shockingly ill-informed... As is the idea that he's fiercely anti-war... (escalate in Afghanistan, identical voting record with Hillary on Iraq)...

The "Red Guard" I just picked up from someone else on this blog. It's a reference to the young vanguard of the Cultural Revolution in China ('60s and '70s). Mao mobilized the young and filled them with the idea that they were ideologically superior to their elders... He then used them as his brutal foot soldiers to ruthlessly purge what he saw as the older intellectual elites... whom he considered threats to his monopolistic hold on power....

I'm certainly not equating Obama to Mao... I actually like Obama.... But the "Red Guards" analogy is a reference to the phenomenon of youngsters thinking the older generation is hopelessly corrupt and immoral and must be pushed aside to make way for the brilliant and pure new generation...

Hey, I'm just a big skeptic... If only Obama were running on anything substantive... so his electoral victories might actually stand for something besides just celebrity... If only he were actually building some political momentum for something specific.... He's for everything and nothing all at once....

Hillary's stood steadfastly for a universal health care system for 15 years straight... and has taken and withstood tremendous abuse for it... Her victory would have laid down an advance marker the size of an Egyptian pyramid... THAT's the change I believed in...

Meanwhile, Obama fudges on universality right out of the gate... and worse yet, uses Republican talking points against it!

Then he erroneously gives Republicans credit for "cap and trade".... Something actually pioneered by Democrats and then steadfastly opposed by Republicans throughout the Reagan era...

His center-right economics advisor Austan Goolsbee, who ghost wrote all his early economics proposals, is obviously pro-NAFTA, but Obama tries later to claim he'll threaten to can it... After it turns out that his original centrist triangulator positioning strategy has been suddenly superceded by all the leftie blogosphere types flocking to him in a fit of mass self-delusion and wishful thinking...

Go back and read my response from last night to LBH. I am definitely not a Republican. I'm a Democrat and I just don't think Obama's rhetoric about "blaming both sides" and "building bridges" to the Republicans indicates any awareness at all of what's actually going on in this country....

And, of course, when I read the postings of young Obamans, I'm even more disturbed.

For instance....tell me how we're going to extricate ourselves from Iraq?

How are you going to counter McCain's argument that the military situation is, in fact, greatly improved in the last six months? That the Iraqi government, with our support, is actually starting to establish law and order in many parts of the country? And that the most vicious and inhuman militants are, in fact, being systematically isolated and driven back by General Petraeus and Nuri al-Maliki?

Hey, I hate this war. I opposed it from at least as early as Obama, but I also recognize that the "surge" is actually working now, and that it's saved thousands and thousands of Iraqi lives, and that literally millions of Iraqis are terrified what will happen if we leave precipitously.... I know how many very well-informed observers of the war say clearly that a precipitous withdrawal at this delicate stage will almost certainly lead to a major new outbreak of hideously bloody civil war...

Do you think there's even a remote chance that Obama would risk his new Presidency on a gamble like that?

Okay, let's hear a semi-competent response...

Forget for a moment that America did negotiate with the Soviet Union, not once, but many times -- let's see, by my count every president from Roosevelt to Reagan negotiated with the Soviets. But John McCain, our brave war hero who wants to be president, says Iran is too scary and dangerous. We dare not negotiate with them.

Maybe the guy should be wearing glasses. He's sure not seeing things accurately.

Big John needs some little warning stickers that he can put on things to remind him of reality. They could say: "Caution! Things you are looking at may be smaller than they appear!"

This disability of McCain's could at least explain how he has managed to stay so trim at the ripe age of 71 when most of his doddering Senate colleagues are sporting paunches. He probably looks at a plate with a little a tiny burger on it, and thinks he's been served a Quarterpounder.

(buzzflash)

*****

Why is it so scary to these guys? They are lacking perspective. That is why the piece is funny on so many levels.

McSame wins KY but still cannot break 75%?

Good luck GOPhers!

$22 Million Hillary Raised In April Does Not Include Loans

A number of you have written in to ask whether the $22 million raised by Hillary in April includes the $6.4 million she lent herself in recent weeks. She lent her campaign $5 million on April 1; the rest came in May.

Hillary spokesperson Howard Wolfson confirms that the $22 million does not include the loans.

(TPM)

******

Whoop's caught in another fundraising lie.

The latest Gallup poll shows that the base of Clinton's support nationwide is starting to swing towards Obama.

The poll was conduct May 16-18 and shows a gain of 12 points since the first of May. The pickups came from Clintons base. Among Whites, both run to a 47% draw. With Women, Obama takes a 49-46 lead. Obama also leads with those with a high-school degree or less 47-46. Among Hispanics, Obama opens up a significant lead of 51-44.

(TPM)

*****

Give it a little time - I think more HRC supporters will come around, even some of those using reich-wingnut talking points.

McSame is hiring trolls - does anybody else think the wingers wouldn’t create resentment by posing as a supporter of one camp when they are not?

Say I was a McSame loyalist, I hear these HRC supporters will vote against their party if Barack supporters aren’t humble and kind - so I pose as a Barack supporter and then insult, demean, belittle - do whatever it takes to create that resentment.

Do the HRC supporters not see through that?

Are they blind to the crass manipulation?

The hostility against Clinton has nothing to do with the fact that she is a woman, or at least I think so. It has to do with the racist, dishonest campaign she has run. Some of us remember all the unsavory acts she committed the last time she occupied the White House. Here are some........

HILLARY CLINTON CRIMES

(1) Took a $100,000 bribe, camouflaged as futures trades,
from Tyson Foods Inc.

(2) Speculated in Health Care industry futures while overseeing
legislative reform of same.

(3) Failed to correct false testimony by co-defendant Ira
Magaziner in Health Care trial.

(4) Obstructed justice by ordering the shredding of Vince
Foster's documents in the Rose Law Firm.

(5) Ordered members of the Health Care Task Force to shred
documents that were the target of a court probe.

(6) Ordered the removal of documents from Vince Foster's office.

(7) Told aides to lie about their removal of documents from
Foster's office

(8) Obstructed justice by keeping her billing records, a document
sought under subpoena, in the White House residence.

(9) Lied to investigators about her knowledge about billing
records.

(10) Lied to investigators about her involvement in the Castle
Grande land flip con.

(11) Ordered the use of the FBI to discredit Travel Office
employees.

(12) Lied to investigators about her involvement in the firing of
Travel Office Employees.

Diff,

You're wasting your time on Capt. He will never answer your question about Obama and issues. He's a lot like Bush, he sets his mind on something and doesn't care what the facts are or if he's going in the wrong direction. He has his blinders on and pushing full steam ahead until mission accomplished.

Reuters/Zogby Index: Mood of Americans Turns Dour

Survey shows job approval for President Bush hits all-time low of 23%; Congress slumps back to record-low mark of 11%

UTICA, New York – Despite a brief rebound last month, the overall mood of Americans has since fallen sharply, with majorities now taking a negative view of both U.S. economic policy and their own personal financial situation, a new Reuters/Zogby poll shows.

The Reuters/Zogby Index, a measurement of American confidence, has fallen to 87.9 from 95.5 in April, and is now just slightly about the all-time low of 87.7 registered in March. In February, the index boasted its highest rating since the baseline rating of 100 for the index was established in August. The Reuters/Zogby Index includes 10 poll questions that gauge perception of the state of the country and the economy. The telephone survey of 1,076 likely voters nationwide was conducted May 15-18, 2008. It carries a margin of error of +/- 3.0 percentage points.

*****

All new all time lows.

Holy Republican talking points, Batman. Hillary Clinton actually said it:

"I think that what's happened with Florida and Michigan raises serious questions about the principles of our party."

Short version: vote for McCain.

(kos)

*****

And she was suppose to be the standard bearer for the party?

Her true colors show through every time.

Shameful, how long will her supporters allow her this much slack? Where is the line or is there one?

Hillary's new brain;

Karl Rove Amazed: Obama Can't Put Hillary Away

Wednesday, May 21, 2008 2:16 PM

By: Rick Pedraza Article Font Size

Karl Rove, now a political analyst and contributor for Fox News, Newsweek, and The Wall Street Journal, believes the Democratic nomination will go to Sen. Barack Obama, but Rove is amazed that Obama can’t put Hillary Clinton away.

“It’s awfully close,” he told the cast of "Fox & Friends" this morning on the Fox News Channel, “and yet, he can’t put it away,” Rove says.

“I think what [Obama] saw in Oregon was the rumor that the polls were closing, and that‘s why he spent most of last weekend in Oregon rather than going on the offensive and trying to take away something in Kentucky,” Rove says.

“It’s like, he only gets 30 percent of the vote in Kentucky, but feels compelled to go to Oregon. And even then, in that state, which is full of granola eaters and Birkenstock wearers, he gets 58 percent of the vote, and she gets 42 percent.”

Rove added, “The problems that Barack Obama has with working class voters are real, and they’re not going away. It’s cultural. They view him as an elitist — as somebody who’s condescending and doesn’t share their values.”

Also, in Rove’s opinion, “Obama should not have gone to Iowa last night and said, ‘I’ve got a majority of the elected delegates.’ Let somebody else do that. He should have focused on substance, not try to say, ‘[look at me], I’m ahead.’”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Look at me, look at me"

That's funny!~

The violence of the political dialogue lately has made me understand how desperate the electorate is after nearly eight years of Repugnicans and three stolen elections. I totally understand Obamamania--and I also get the frustration of voters who wanted this to be the year we broke through the glass ceiling for women.

But let's get real. It's time for Democrats to put all personal bias aside and unite behind the things we believe in: a planet we can live on, reproductive choice, workers rights, health care for all, education for poor and middle class students, fair taxes, a Constitution made whole, rescuing America from war profiteers -- if indeed there is still time.

It's already very late. It's too late for quarrels about whether race or gender is more restricting. It's too late for prognostications about a future presidency we won't know until it has unfolded. Remember so-called compassionate conservatism? It turned out to be neither compassionate nor conservative. Why anybody believes election slogans mystifies me. But we do know this: a landslide for Democrats will change the direction of this country. So let's join forces to make it happen--and let's start now.

(huffpo)

I don't believe that passionate Hillary supporters will vote for McCain in fits of pique. I sure won't. The truth is that Obama and Clinton are so similar politically that without generational and gender differences they'd be indistinguishable. Perhaps the passion for or against these two Democrats was revved up by how very close they are in vision. Sometimes people need to disagree for the sake of disagreeing.

Obama is right to offer his applause for Hillary's tenacity. He is right to take the high road. I doubt that she will be remembered for taking the low road. In politics as in life, tenacity is all. Where is Chappaquiddick now that Teddy Kennedy has honorably served decade after decade in the Senate?

If Hillary loses the nomination, maybe she can get a life by divorcing Bill. I was always a defender of their curious marriage but having seen him try to sabotage her campaign, I wonder. Maybe she'd get a burst of energy by cutting loose. Imagine her with additional fire -- she could rescue our stalled space program with her own built-in rocket.

(huffpo)

This finished the above, I thought the article was longer.

Obama needs a quick refresher course in Cold War history

NY Daily News ^ | May 21 2008 | K.T. McFARLAND

Recently, Sen. Barack Obama reiterated his pledge to meet with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, among other rogue leaders, without preconditions, suggesting his approach would be consistent with the best, and strongest, American foreign policy of the past century.

"Strong countries and strong Presidents talk to their adversaries," said Obama. "That's what Kennedy did with Khrushchev. That's what Reagan did with Gorbachev. That's what Nixon did with Mao."

Not so fast. I was in both the Nixon and Reagan administrations, and I can attest that those Presidents understood the danger of prematurely forcing top-level meetings without sufficient preconditions. Neither Richard Nixon nor Ronald Reagan would sit down for face-to-face meetings with their counterparts in enemy nations until America hadsome realistic - and playable - bargaining chips. They recognized that negotiating without leverage isn't negotiating, it's begging.

Nixon and his brilliant national security adviser Henry Kissinger knew that to end the Vietnam War, they would have to cut off North Vietnam's supply chain, which came from the Soviet Union through China. What leverage could Nixon get with the Soviets and the Chinese? China needed training and technology to enter the modern world - as well as breathing space from foreign threats in order to modernize its economy. Nixon calculated that, taken together, these were more important to China than fighting a proxy war in Vietnam.

Nixon also recognized the Sino-Soviet Communist alliance was cracking, and we could exploit it by being China's great power counterweight to the Soviet Union. The threat of a loose Sino-American alliance gave us the leverage we needed to get the Soviets to the negotiating table on arms control. Nixon met with Mao Zedong only after he had the leverage needed to negotiate.

Similarly, Reagan waited until his second term to deal with the Soviets. He used the first term to line up the leverage necessary to negotiate from a position of strength. He rebuilt America's defenses, which had atrophied after Vietnam. He reached out to allies in Europe and strengthened our alliances worldwide. He knew the Soviet economy was a sham; the Kremlin was heavily dependent on hard currency from selling oil abroad. So Reagan worked to drive down the international price of oil, which weakened the Soviet economy from within.

And when all those elements had been put in place, Reagan delivered the coup de grace and introduced his Strategic Defense Initiative, the missile defense plan that challenged the Soviets to a nuclear arms race Reagan knew they could neither afford nor win.

Obama said recently that Reagan's negotiations with Gorbachev "led to a series of measures that helped prevent nuclear war, and over time allowed the kind of opening that brought down the Berlin Wall."

He's got it turned around. Reagan built up the leverage first, and then negotiated. He didn't believe we could talk the Soviets into anything they didn't want to do, nor trust them without verification. Reagan was a man of considerable persuasive powers, but he didn't defeat communism and win the Cold War because he was able to charm and cajole Gorbachev during direct negotiations. He won it because by the time he sat down to negotiate, America held all the cards.

I don't disagree that the next President needs to talk to the Iranians. Dealing with them will be an essential step in ending the war in Iraq, stabilizing the Middle East and pressing Iran to dismantle its nuclear program.

The question is who, when and how. We all have the right - indeed, the obligation - to ask exactly what leverage a President Obama would carry with him to the negotiating table, and how he plans to get it.

K.T. McFarland was Henry Kissinger's research assistant on the National Security Counsel staff during the Nixon and Ford administrations, and deputy assistant secretary of defense for public affairs during the Reagan administration.

Nice try Barry O'Thug supporter. We are not falling
for the Roe vs Wade B.S. so give that one up-
You really don't get it. Yes we are angry at the
blatant sexism that is tolerated by all, but most
of us that are voting for McCain if Clinton is not
the nominee are doing so because we genuinely
'feel he (Obama) is not qualified to be president. Not only that, there is the matter of his unsavory associates
that he conveniently denies knowing, or ever seeing
or ever hearing - Rezko, Wright, Ayers to name a few.
There are millions of us who feel this way- so go ahead, dismiss us - it only strengthens our resolve.

t
conveniently denies knowing or ever seeing or
ever hearing - Wright, Rezke, Ayers - just to name
a few. Make no mistake there are millions of us
and jackass comments like yours just strengthen
our resolve. So , you get over it!

Clinton compares the Florida and Michigan fight to civil rights movement

My colleague Ken Vogel reports:

BOCA RATON, Fla. - Hillary Clinton compared her effort to seat Florida and Michigan delegates to epic American struggles, including those to free the slaves and win the right to vote for blacks and women.

The current stalemate over the two states' primary votes threatens to replicate the disputed 2000 presidential election in Florida, she warned an elderly crowd in Palm Beach County - one of the jurisdictions where Democrats allege voters were disenfranchised in 2000.

The pointed speech marked the kick-off of a last-gasp effort by Clinton to prolong her Democratic presidential campaign by making the states count, which would cut into rival Barack Obama's leads in popular votes and pledged delegates.

"In Florida, you learned the hard way what happens when your votes aren't counted and the candidate with fewer votes is declared the winner," she said. "The lesson of 2000 here in Florida is crystal clear: if any votes aren't count, the will of the people isn't realized and our democracy is diminished."

Clinton, at times sounding like a modern history professor, praised the abolitionists, suffragettes and civil rights pioneers and talked about her own efforts to fight legislative redistricting and voter identification initiatives that she said dilute minority voting power.

(politico)

*****

Maybe people will go in for this sort of thing, I do not. I cannot imagine a lower stunt from HRC then they get even worse.

She is causing harm to herself. She should stop it.

Hillary Adviser Sid Blumenthal: Public Doesn't See McCain As Continuation Of Bush

A few weeks back Hillary took some heat for saying that John McCain had passed the "commander in chief test," prompting some to point out that this could prove rather helpful to McCain in a general election.

Now Hillary adviser Sidney Blumenthal has veered similarly off the Dem message for the general, warning his party that painting McCain as a "McSame" continuation of Bush will fail:

(TPM)

*****

And there is it - something even lower.

“John McCain needs to explain why continuing to do exactly what George Bush has done will somehow produce a different result,” said Mr. Dodd. “The Senator McCain I used to know was open to negotiations with Cuba to lift the embargo, but now he’s taking a hard line position, embracing a policy that has failed the Cuban people and the American people alike for fifty years. Instead of four more years of George Bush’s policy, Barack Obama will help bring liberty to Cuba through direct diplomacy and change that allows for unlimited family visitation and remittances to the island. It’s time to reject a Bush-McCain approach that has isolated us in our own hemisphere, so that we can have renewed American leadership under Barack Obama.”

The closer we get, the more.....

Hillary is taking the red states big. No one is saying how much of this is the Rush effect as GOP cross dressers vote for Hillary in Indiana, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Kentucky. They don't need to vote for McCain and she's their girl.

The same for Montana and South Dakota. They'll give Hillary a decisive victory. Obama will win even bigger in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Isles.

Remaining delegates 50 -50

Even with Florida and Michigan going to her like pickles on a whopper and Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan or campaigning in Florida, she still needs to get 75% of the remaining super delegates to win.

And what about Edwards 14.4 Florida delegates? The DNC is going to give something to Obama out of Michigan's count. With any fair split in Michigan and she needs 90-100% of the remaining super delegates.

You gotta lover her spirit and enthusiasm, question what she has up her sleeve and challenge her ability to analyze.

McCain is distorting history when he suggests that Barack Obama is bucking American presidential tradition in expressing a willingness to meet with the leaders of countries hostile to the United States. Hitler apart, U.S. presidents have held meetings with some of the greatest mass murderers in history. It is also incorrect to suggest, as both McCain and President Bush have done, that the mere willingness to meet or negotiate with foreign dictators constitutes "appeasement," a term used to describe actions such as the surrender of the Czech Sudetenland to Nazi Germany in a desperate bid to avoid World War II

(WaPo)

She is marching to Selma, to free the oppressed and disenfranchised.

She is a woman of the people, no matter how impossible her quest she will tame the windmills - now where did Pancho go?

Barack is doing the right thing by campaigning for president against McCain and Bush.

Carley Feorini aside, McCain is embracing too many Bush dogmas for Cuba, Iran, Europe, Iraq and Wall Street.

This is a new one. Instead of rearanging the deck chairs on the Titanic, they are painting them a new shade of W.

While wearing Rove colored glasses?

Selma? Is she 40 years late or is she following McCain's April itinerary?

Hillary Clinton compared her effort to seat Florida and Michigan delegates to epic American struggles, including those to free the slaves and win the right to vote for blacks and women.

From above - Not so much Selma per se but that was the only civil rights march that I could think of. . .

McCain is distorting history when he suggests that Barack Obama is bucking American presidential tradition in expressing a willingness to meet with the leaders of countries hostile to the United States.

CaptBush

~~~~~~~~~~~

Then why did Obummer flip flop on his Iran comment in less than 24 hrs?

He knows he screwed himself on this one. Biden and Dodd both criticized him for this comment in the debates before defending him for being an idiot!

'Squawk Box' Guest Warns of $12-15-a-Gallon Gas
Robert Hirsch, an energy advisor, says CNBC morning show prediction was a citation of the 'Dean of Oil Analysts.'

By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
5/21/2008 3:38:13 PM

It may be the mother of all doom and gloom gas price predictions: $12 for a gallon of gas is “inevitable.”

Robert Hirsch, Management Information Services Senior Energy Advisor, gave a dire warning about the potential future of gas prices on CNBC’s May 20 “Squawk Box”. He told host Becky Quick there was no single thing that would solve the problem, due to the enormity of the problem.

~~~~~

So much for the Democrats having a plan in place to lower gas prices. LOL

There goes Obummers 10 year plan to lower gas prices~~~

At least the trial lawyers will make a bundle off the high gas prices with Pelosi's new OPEC bill.

In an interview with Fox News’s Neil Cavuto today, former Rhode Island senator Lincoln Chafee, who recently left the Republican Party to become an Independent and is supporter of Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), said “there are two John McCains”:

There’s one that was my colleague in the Senate that was good on the environment, that voted with me, the only other Republican to vote against the tax cuts, and had the Gang of 14. And now there’s the senator McCain that’s running for the Republican nomination. It’s almost like two people, kow-towing to the Republican base. And being a different candidate, and talking as he is now about how we need to not engage anybody on the world. … It’s a different John McCain, hearing the rhetoric I hear now. Make the tax cuts permanent and distancing himself from his environmental record.

(thinkprogess)

****

The old McSame wasn't so McSame - everybody has noticed.

Speaking with ThinkProgress yesterday afternoon, Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) blasted McCain for his “overwhelming lack of sophistication” when it comes to foreign policy, and said McCain, as a presidential candidate, should know more than “average Americans” when it comes to Iran:

I just think that it’s a reflection. I don’t want an average American as president. I have great respect for average — average Americans don’t want an average American president of the United States of America. I want someone above average. I want someone who knows what they’re dealing with. And it surprises me that John didn’t understand the complexities of the power struggle going on in Iran right now.

John Judis in The New Republic writes that Hillary Clinton might have lost the nomination due to her efforts at "winning the support of the pro-Israel lobby."

Specifically, Hillary's big mistake was backing the Kyl-Lieberman resolution which targeted the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. That resolution was drafted by Dick Cheney's office and Congressional neocons as a part of the run-up to war with Iran.

"Like her refusal to apologize for the October 2002 war resolution, her vote on Kyl-Lieberman may have stemmed from her ignoring the primary and thinking about the general election, or--as Helene Cooper suggested in The New York Times--it might have been an attempt to win support from the pro-Israel lobby,' which strongly backed the resolution. Whatever the case, her vote was a political disaster. It confirmed the worst fears of anti-war Democrats about her foreign policy inclinations. Her rivals denounced her vote, and she had to answer for it in ads, mailings, and debates through early January. It gave Obama an enormous push at a time when he seemed to be floundering and laid the groundwork for his success in fund-raising and in the Iowa caucuses."

(TPM)

*****

She can't pretend she never voted for Iraq - I think that turned a bunch of people off. The war is very unpopular - it was a poor choice on her part.

It didn't seem to help Edwards when he apologized for his error in judgment. I don't know of any way to get around such a huge issue - war is a big deal, the biggest.

A vote for McCain is a vote for wars and an overreaching foreign policy and a fiscally irresponsible imperial presidency more extreme than George W. Bush. Yet McCain is a man with an explosive temper that Republican and Democratic senators and senior military leaders do not trust as commander in chief. The consequences of a McCain presidency are too dire to not vote for the Democratic candidate, or abstain from voting, for reasons of race, gender, or campaign bitterness. The lives of our sons and daughters and the future for our grandchildren depend on it. After ten years of transformation, the John McCain of 2008 is no maverick; he is indeed, worse than Bush.

*****

Yet some people will go for that sort of thing. It takes all kinds.

“This year’s Republican primary was a contest to see which candidate could out-Bush the other, and that’s a contest that John McCain won.

“Now, I will leave it up to Senator McCain to explain to the American people whether his policies and positions represent long-held convictions or Washington calculations, but the one thing they don’t represent is change.”

Gates refuses to defend Bush’s ‘appeasement’ remark.

During a Senate appropriations subcommittee hearing today, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) asked Defense Secretary Robert Gates if President Bush is “correct when he says that it’s appeasement to talk to Iran?” While Gates tried to wiggle out of the question, saying “I don’t know exactly what the president said,” Specter took the opportunity to chide Bush for his comments he made recently to the Israeli parliament:

SPECTER: [I]t’s not appeasement, and that the analogy to Neville Chamberlain is wrong. And we’ve only got one government to deal with there. They [Iran] were receptive in 2003. I’ve had a chance to talk to the last three Iranian ambassadors to the U.N. And I think there is an opportunity for dialogue.

(thinkprogress)

LBH,

Your quote at 4:25 PM is very timely. McFarland's analysis is dead on, but I doubt some of the more myopic folks who post here are capable of understanding the real world.

This is the essential problem with Barack. He talks a good game, but there's really no substance behind it. Those of us that can listen woth discernment to what he says and ANALYZE it (as opposed to swooning over it) are able to easily see where he's blowing smoke! I believe that he really doesn't even know what he's saying. He's winging it hoping that the empty-headed who follow him won't wake up before the general election!

Hillary's word: It's worth nothing

Tuesday, Jan. 29, 2008

COURTING VOTERS in Iowa and New Hampshire, last August Sen. Hillary Clinton signed a pledge not to "campaign or participate" in the Michigan or Florida Democratic primaries. She participated in both primaries and is campaigning in Florida. Which proves, again, that Hillary Clinton is a liar.

Clinton kept her name on the Michigan ballot when others removed theirs, she campaigned this past weekend in Florida, and she is pushing to seat Michigan and Florida delegates at the Democratic National Convention. The party stripped those states of delegates as punishment for moving up their primary dates.

"I will try to persuade my delegates to seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida," Clinton said last week, after the New Hampshire primaries and Iowa caucuses were safely over.

Clinton coldly and knowingly lied to New Hampshire and Iowa. Her promise was not a vague statement. It was a signed pledge with a clear and unequivocal meaning.

She signed it thinking that keeping the other candidates out of Michigan and Florida was to her advantage, but knowing she would break it if that proved beneficial later on. It did, and she did.

New Hampshire voters, you were played for suckers.

http://tinyurl.com/4ydtva

About my earlier comments on Iran:

Here's the more accurate analogy to make regarding the difference between the former USSR and present-day Iran. The Russians were deterred by the doctrine of mutually assured destruction and therefor could be engaged in rational dialogue regarding the potential use of nuclear weapons.

Iran is in a completely different league. They will not be deterred by the concept of M.A.D. because they do not worry themselves with what happens after they use the nuclear capability they are are building! If you folks would simply LISTEN to what president "I'm a Jihad" says and understand where he's headed perhaps you could realize why no U.S. President can simply sit down and "talk" with him without preconditions being met!

It's very telling that Obama has reversed himself 180 degrees on this topic!

Clinton supporters have repeatedly accused Obama of sexism. When asked the other day to cite examples of sexist behavior, Geraldine Ferraro mentioned Obama mocking Clinton for posing as a hunting buff, and, bizarrely, pretending to brush dirt off his shoulder in a speech. Of course, these things aren't sexist at all. The Clinton die-hards see the mere fact that Obama would run against Clinton as an act of sexism.

I should say that plenty of voters support Clinton for the same essential reasons they support other candidates: her character, her platform, etc. Many also support her because her opponent is black. But there remains an unshakable core of Clinton fans whose loyalty is a matter of identity.

http://tinyurl.com/6nl95o

****

A cult of personality. Time to get over it.

The final word on Iran:

They absolutely cannot be allowed to have the bomb. Period.

Whatever it takes, we must prevent it. If we don't, it's a certainty Israel will.

"They absolutely cannot be allowed to have the bomb. Period.

Whatever it takes, we must prevent it. If we don't, it's a certainty Israel will."

Exactly, which is why this idea that we must protect Israel at all costs is utterly rediculous. Israel has had nuclear weapons since the 60s and even by conservative estimates the stockpile is sizeable. (That information is so easy to find I will not post it here) If the leadership in Iran were really so suicidal to actually attempt some sort of nuclear attack Iran would likely be reduced to a smoldering wasteland before they could even finish installing the launch button, let alone push it. If the Iranians are really so evil you should be supporting any effort to build a bomb so they get obliterated by the response.

Without wanting to appear anti-woman, I'd like the female backers of Hillary who are supporting her because of her sex, to take stock of the candidate. I was a supporter of Bill Clinton, voted for and defended him during the time the Republicans were hunting him, but following his antics in this campaign I have had to recalibrate my true feelings with his receding administrations. Bill has been very disappointing in retrospect, yes, he balanced the budget during an economic upturn for the entire world, but he has also done a lot to harm the workers of this country. He signed into law NAFTA and CAFTA; he is also responsible for the media ownership debacle, which has given us wall-to-wall right wing radio 24/7. He has also given us untried and untested genetically modified foods without the choice in whether or not we want consume such novel foods. These are the policies of a Republican, yes, I'm saying that Bill is a Trojan horseman, and by implication so is Hillary. Perhaps I dozed off and had not realized how the Democratic Party had become inundated with Republicans. When you have people like Hillary, who is a war hawk, rise to the top of the Democratic Party, you know that our democracy (joke) is in jeopardy. Hillary is on a power trip and will try to use whatever is expedient in attaining her prize, including the gender card. She also assigns blame for everything that has gone wrong in her campaign to anyone but herself; this is a characteristic ploy used most often by Republicans. She has sought ways to drive the wedge between her opponent and various segments of our society, and this will have a long lasting effect on the unity of our Democratic Party. I would vote for anyone whose agenda and outlook is favorable to my own and whose disposition is predictably stable. Hillary does not display the psyche of a leader, especially of such a powerful nation as this. When she speaks of obliterating a nation she betrays her penchant for violence, hardly a feminine characteristic. Her vote to give Bush the authority to launch an illegal and an immoral invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation that was impotent to harm us is indicative of what she would do, given the chance. The Kyle-Lieberman vote to classify the Iranian defense force as a terrorist organization was also voted for by Hillary, thus allowing Bush to think that he has approval to attack Iran. Superficially, she may appear benign, but underneath there lurks an evil heart. Perhaps she was so humiliated by Bill’s activities she feels that becoming president will take that monkey off her back, and woe be to anyone that gets in her way.

David Corn, why are you so in the tank with Obama? Wouldn't you feel more at home at DailyKos?