Do We Have A Free Press?...Open Thread Version

Diane,

Fantastic article. I think you should post it at Kos and DU. I think you should send it to Huffpo and see if they'll post it.

I found this little story that reminded me of a certain regime we all know and hate...

Here's the anecdote:

A man in a hot air balloon realized he was lost. He reduced altitude and spotted a woman below. He descended a bit more and shouted,

“Excuse me, can you help me?

I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don’t know where I am.”

The woman below replied, “You’re in a hot air balloon hovering approximately 30 feet above the ground. You’re between 40 and 41 degrees north latitude and between 59 and 60 degrees west longitude.”

“You must be in Information Technology,” said the balloonist.

“I am,” replied the woman, “How did you know?”

“Well,” answered the balloonist, “everything you told me is, technically correct, but I’ve no idea what to make of your information, and the fact is I’m still lost. Frankly, you’ve not been much help at all. If anything, you’ve delayed my trip.”

The woman below responded, “You must be in Management.”

“I am,” replied the balloonist, “but how did you know?”

“Well,” said the woman, “you don’t know where you are or where you’re going. You have risen to where you are, due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise, which you’ve no idea how to keep, and you expect people beneath you to solve your problems. The fact is you are in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but now, somehow, it’s my fault.”

Good one, sparrow

And so true of the management at major corporations.

I've been doing research on United Airlines, for example, as part of my novel writing, and its management's ineptitude is appalling (these are NOT even airline/aviation people). And every time they screw up, the rank-and-file (like my protagonist) pay the price.

Ally,

The same is true for the auto corps. The people and engineers have been wanting to work on smaller cars and hybrids for YEARS if not DECADES. But management decisions at the top have brought an end to the big-three as we know it and have killed a working community in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois.

nmp--I watched kayak's video on the last thread. Loved it!

Thanks Sparrow!
This article is an "exclusive" for DCP! I occasionally put something at Docudharma but for DKos I'm mostly a lurker (stories fall down too fast) and as far as DU I take what I'm sent from Robin, a long-timer, as that site overwhelms me. I read HuffPo but have never even posted there, though I have a friend who writes for them. I pretty much stick to here as far as a regular participant, and of course, Silenced Majority (Bert fr Mpls, Nyc fr NYC) and now Barack Like Me (Nyc & I & it's all positive). I am now a "Policy Analyst" for Northwest Progressive Institute, and have been lurking at the campaign blogs and will occasionally post at Barack's site and have benefitted very much from joining Seattle for Obama, which is just a treasure house. So little time, even for a fast typist and reader!

sparrow

Thanks for reminding me. Yes, it's those MBA's and CEO's that wanted the fatter profit margins of the SUVs. Marketers often win battles over engineers - the prime example being my now-retired 1999 Ford Contour, an excellent car at first (in 1995) but a victim of major cost cutting in all parts of the car by the time I bought it. It was positively the worst POS anyone in my social circles had ever owned.

And when Toyota runs circles around them, they have the galls to blame their unionized workforce (as opposed to Toyota's right-to-work one). AFAIK, the unions only do what they're ordered to do - no more, no less - and they've done exactly what the inept management ordered them to do.

DU... I'm sick of their overly political correct stance.

nmp--you should still post this as a diary over there where more people can see it. Also, I think you should send it to different schools. It might go in their spam, or it might be appreciated and used as a lesson plan. You've got it all there.

I couldn't decide what to write/post as a blog header (open thread) today. I was trying to decide between the job outlook as reported in my daughter's school paper (which she copy-edits) or an article I saw on TMP-election.

The article at TPM reminded me of Diane's article. Basically, Bush is so reviled that in McCain's own state, they're not selling enough tickets to have a fundraiser at the convention center. So instead, as a means of stopping the media from reporting on these dire results for McCain, they've moved the fundraisers to peoples' living rooms. I guess instead of the 500 supporters, they've got 5. (wink)

At any rate, I also found a comment buried in that thread about the Democratic v Republican turnout in traditional 'red' states. And once again, the media is not reporting on that either, but instead they're trying to make it a 'horse race.'

Here's the money quotes:

Primary Turnout

Here's something I've been gnawing on for a few months, and have yet to see any pundit mention it. Democrats have been showing up to vote in the primaries in record numbers, while Republicans have been staying home. It's not even close.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660914

All of my numbers come from MSNBC, and I assume they are correct. Let's take a few states that typically go red, and see how the primaries went (not including states where on party had a caucus and the other had a primary election, apples to apples):

Georgia:
Obama 700,366 66%
Clinton 328,129 31%
Edwards 17,990 2%
------------------
1.05 millions votes cast by dems

Huckabee 326,069 34%
McCain 303,639 32%
Romney 289,737 30%
Paul 27,978 3% 0
Giuliani 7,039 1%
--------------------
940,000 votes cast by reps

Kansas:
Obama 27,172 74%
Clinton 9,462 26%
Edwards 53 0%
Uncommitted 8 0%
-----------------
36,600 votes by dems

Huckabee 11,627 60%
McCain 4,587 24
Paul 2,182 11%
Romney 653 3%
Uncommitted 84 0%
--------------------
18,000 votes cast by reps

McCain 142,826 72% 0
Huckabee 16,344 8% 0
Paul 13,419 7% 0
Uncommitted 10,756 5%
Romney 9,210 5% 0
Giuliani 3,057 2% 0
Keyes 2,046 1%

The pattern goes on an on. Dems having been going to the polls in numbers ranging from 50% to 100% over their republican counterparts! Why doesn't the MSM report this? They love a horse race. If they told everyone it was going to be a blowout, the republicans would blow a gasket and pull out the old liberal-bias standup routine.

Sparrow
Thanks for the ideas! I'll try to do something because it's more a resource than topical. That is also the kind of thing we're doing at Northwest Progressive Institute, which is like an "idea factory" and progressive think tank.

About the turnout .. probably it's not reported because it doesn't favor the Republicans and that is where the disenfranchisement starts.

Put the machines in the closets in the areas with minorities, throw people out who have names similar to terrorists etc.

The article I'm working on for Monday relates directly to this.

http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/05/24/obama-campaigns-in-puerto-rico/

more on Puerto Rico / Obama
First it was Christian Broadcasting Company and now Fox.
Where is the rest of the media?

It occurs to me that though PR has more delegates than SD & MT combined, & HRC will use edge in the "popular vote" to boost her case & try to get the number of delegates needed increased (by how it's decided to seat MI and FL on 5/31), PR is not allowed to vote in the general election, so their popular vote total isn't meaningful. It isn't anyway, as nomination isn't decided by popular vote.

I was wondering how the turnouts have been for the Republicans, and hadn't heard anything on it until now. Why, then, is the media reporting the numbers on polls taken between Hillary/McCain and Obama/McCain being so close?
How do they arrive at those figures? Doesn't look like they are even accurate.

TSP,

Those polls you refer to are for likely voters in the general elections. While it is reassuring to see so many Democrats exercising their right to vote in the primaries, I would not be too sanguine about the likelihood of a Democratic landslide. As it is, there are many Clinton supporters who are determined not to vote for Obama, but may instead vote for McCain. Also, if Clinton gets the nomination (which I do not think will happen), there will be millions of younger voters who absolutely will not show up at the polls.

I think the high turnouts for the Dems would help but the Repubs may counter with voter suppression (hiding machines, sending out robocalls with false information etc)

on Hillary Clinton's bizarre reference to the assassination of RFK ..

Al Gore's 2000 campaign manager Donna Brazile, an uncommitted superdelegate who has been complimentary to Obama, told Newsday: "I am numb."

New York Times offered:

..she issued one of those tedious non-apology apologies in which it sounds like the person who is being offended is somehow at fault: “I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation, and particularly for the Kennedy family was in any way offensive.”

Markos Moulitzoz:

It looks like many of Hillary Clinton's apologists and several political pundits claim that her assassination remarks can be explained because of fatigue. Perhaps. In fact, it's likely. But won't she be fatigued at 3 a.m. in the morning?

Obama's Classy Response:

"I have learned that when you are campaigning for as many months as Senator Clinton and I have been campaigning, sometimes you get careless in terms of the statements that you make and I think that is what happened here. Senator Clinton says that she did not intend any offense by it and I will take her at her word on that," Obama told Radio Isla Puerto Rico.

http://www.silencedmajority.blogs.com

What an interesting RUMOR
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/24/181842/091/532/522208

54

Why in the hell aren't Guam, American Samoa and Puerto Rico allowed to be states? It seems like they contribute. With Puerto Rico, is it because they speak Spanish.

Consider:

Puerto Ricans aren't allowed to vote in the general presidential election in November. Some questioners at today's event told Obama that it's unfair that Puerto Ricans who fight for the U.S. don't have full representation in Congress. Puerto Ricans have served in all U.S. wars and conflicts since 1917.

On a per-capita basis, Puerto Rico has sent more active- duty forces to Iraq and Afghanistan than all U.S. states except Nevada, according to Defense Department figures.

Obama said today, should he become president, he would look into whether Puerto Rican veterans need an official liaison to the White House.

NMP:

OK, I know I am stupid. But this stuff about RFK is even stupider. RFK was making a serious run at HHH in June -- who knows where it would have gone if he hadn't been killed. I am sure he was behind in delegates and all but even so he represented a part of the party that felt it wasn't represented by HHH. So HRC, when asked a question about why she is running for POTUS, uses that as a historical example of people staying in the primary race in June even though they are behind in pledged delegates (several others come to mind as well, such as Ted Kennedy against Carter in 1980, Brown against Clinton in 1992, Reagan aagainst Ford in 1976). Why is that bizarre? Why was Donna Brazille numb? That seems bizarre to me. What's to explain? I really don't get this one. What does Obama mean she was careless? Is that like what he meant when he said it's unfortunate to point out that LBJ signed the civil rights bill? Inquiring minds do occasionally want to know. Why is her remark in any way even remarkable?

Chuck in Houston

Chuck,

Donna Brazille was probably numb because Obama, unlike other unknown candidates, had to get secret service because he's had death threats since he first decided to run.

Now, you and I both know that she probably didn't mean it to sound like a death threat. But there are people who will read her statement that way, and those people are both Obama supporters and Hillary supporters. But unfortunately for her, it's a faux pas that is pretty darn serious.

In fact, I can't imagine anything that would have shut down her campaign faster than what she just said--even unintentionally.

who would have known that he was so cool.

http://www.johnmccain.com/ActionCenter/BlogInteract/BlogInteract.aspx

Sparrow:

I guess I still don't get it. Why is it a faux paw? Incidentally, I think all serious primary candidates get security details and have since the seventies. I could be wrong, but that is my impression. But to the point, are you (or Donna Brazille) saying that Hillary might have issued a death threat? That is a very, very serious thing to imply, especially when there is no reason whatsoever to impute anything out of the ordinary to these remarks. Implying that to me seems very, very bizarre. I just don't get politics these days I guess. What in the world could someone be thinking to impute that to this? What in the world is going on here? Weird....

Chuck in Houston

Chuck
From everything I've gathered over the past three days, the objections comes because of the timing of Ted Kennedy's illness, because of the upcoming 40th anniversary of RFK's assassination, because of the horror and bloodiness of assassinations in general, because of the threats to Obama and the timing, as if she might benefit if it were to come to pass, and also some think it sounds callous and that her apology rang hollow.

These are not my quotes but what I have gathered and I also updated my son, who had been working and missed all of this - I played him the original clip and Olbermann's reponse. I do not agree with those in HRC's camp who would vote for McCain rather than Obama and I support the plan for Bill Clinton to make peace and involve Gore as well.

Also, I agree that the nomination is based on delegates rather than popular vote, especially since Puerto Rico cannot even vote in the general election, though I think they should soon be able to, given that they have lost so many in wars for the US since 1917.

I think some of the comments at http://www.hillaryclinton.com, http://www.hillaryis44.com, http://www.barackobama.com and http://www.dailykos.com and other sites as well as at the end of various newspaper articles, and on YouTube are divisive on both sides.

We need to start focussing on McCain and not allowing him to be President.

Remember when Obama's "bitter" comment was made - it could also have been argued that he was "fatigued" and he in fact made a classy response in Puerto Rico when asked about what Hillary said.

It's time to get our act together against McCain, I repeat.

NMP:

The "bitter" thing was pretty well stated in context and I feel pretty confident that I know exactly what Obama meant. On the RFK thing, the coincidence with Ted Kennedy's diagnosis and any anniversaries might well explain why that particular primary season was on Hillary's mind, but I do not see in any way how that makes it somehow immoral to mention that, in 1968, the Democrat primary was in question in June even though the party elite and probably the delegates had already picked HHH. I just don't see it. Anyone that spins that otherwise, to my mind, is not being entirely honest.

The nomination is based on pledged delegates, that you get in the primaries and caucuses (with or without Florida and Michigan, depending on how that gets decided in the old smokeless-back-rooms) plus the other delgates, who can change thier position at any time up to the convention.

Neither candidate in the Democratic Party at this point will be able to achieve a majority of delegates though the primaries and caususes.

Did I miss something?

Chuck in Houston

NMP:

I think the Democratic Party will nominate Senator Obama for POTUS. Both McCain and Obama claim to be mavericks that will unite the country. How do you see Obama uniting the country? How about McCain? Obama claims to appeal to Republicans. What GOP issues do you see Obama supporting, as a Democrat? What Democrat ideas do you see McCain supporting, as a Republican?

Chuck in Houston

NMP:

And it gets even more interesting. Obama has alienated the "Reagan Democrats." McCain has alienated the "Evangelical Republicans." What does that mean?

Chuck in Houston

NMP:

Now, of course, if Obama goes on to turn off Clinton Democrats (and there is such an animal -- moderate Democrats) in addition to the Reagan Democrats, then we are looking at a McCain GOP POTUS and a fairly strong Democrat majority in the Legislative, which is sort of like the 'eighties (McCain's Savings and Loan days, come to think on it)....

Chuck in Houston

Chuck
I don't think the comment by Hillary could be said to be immoral but perhaps insensitive. I also think I know what Obama meant by "bitter" and the context. I think both comments were "used" as Hillary said something similar in March and it's quoted in Time magazine, but it wasn't picked up on by many. Near the end, everything is at a fever pitch.

I agree that neither candidate will get enough delegates through primaries and caucusses. It will come down to some votes by superdelegates and then there is the matter of the "magic number," to be decided 5/31 unless enough Superdelegates decide by then, and still, the decision could be appealed all the way to the Convention Credentials committee, which I hope it isn't.

That's a hard question- off the top of my head - I don't know that Obama would appeal to Republicans so much as Independents and same for McCain, & Independents are a mixed bag. That said, Obama has been touted (as in this article at http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/08/24/obama_gop/ Salon, as being willing to reach across party lines. McCain has actually done so, working with Democrats such as Feingold. Not Obama, but a possible mentor, Ted Kennedy, has worked closely with Orrin Hatch. It can be done. McCain could appeal to Independents and some Dems on the basis of being less conservative than Bush on the environment and global warming, as well as immigration.

I think it might come down to more of a perception than actually policies and issues. The Ron Paul people have a rather striking video at YouTube which initially masquerades as a pro-Obama video and when people only can identify "Change" as a pro for Obama, the interviewer asks them to be more specific and they can't. If they are at all, the video reveals that Ron Paul fits the bill. I am not touting Ron Paul but the point was made with me, that some Obama supporters get the global picture but don't fill it in well. Similarly, some Hillary supporters who consider themselves feminist might register a protest vote with McCain but his positions are largely nonfeminist.

As you said the other night, alot of it is dysfunctional. Remember that at one time I would have supported Hillary and even now I am not one of the worst haters. I favor the "rumor" that Bill Clinton is going to help mend fences, with the help of Gore. I understand the two of them got estranged at some point, along with Carter, and this needn't be. There will never be total Democratic unity - it would be like herding cats - but we should beat McCain and mend things as much as possible.

Taking the party back after 9/11 is hard and reforming it is harder. Clintons have been out of office for awhile and things have changed - it's time for change. Maybe they can change and maybe the new blood can finally accept some of their Experience, for a stronger product.

I am not going to fight about it. I have thought about it alot. I started to support Obama in January.

Chuck

McCain might get SOME of the Reagan Democrats. Obama hasn't alientated ALL of them though Clinton did do well with MANY of them. If McCain alienates SOME of the religious right, he'll have to pick up votes elsewhere on the spectrum and that will have to be from the Independents. Bush's father lost 2nd term because he failed with the religious right. Bush II learned to "work" them.

Now McCain has given back the endorsement of Hagee because of the comment about Hitler and the Jews, yet conservative Jews are now rallying around McCain, presumably because they're part of that Christian/Jewish conservative coalition that believes in the Rapture and takes the Bible literally, which scares me as much as Al Quaida.

McCain has a Bush fundraiser in Phoenix that had to move to a smaller venue and I have emailed myself a long article about the uphill climb for McCain's campaign. Yet my son believes this country would even "buy" a McCain/Lieberman ticket. Woo Boy.

Chuck,

I'm just telling you how I 'took' her comments together. And yes, that's exactly why I believe it was a serious mistake because I'm not the only one who heard her words that way.

What it boils down to is that communication is a two way street. She may have said one thing and meant another. Or maybe the combination of recent events coupled with the word, "Assassination..."

As I stated...I don't believe she intended it to be more than a history 'lesson' but when the word 'assassination' is tossed out regarding a person who she is embattled with...

Sorry Chuck. It may be a stretch of the imagination for both of us. But it sounded like a Freudien slip to me.

It also doesn't help that Huckabee made a threat towards Obama at the NRA convention. That's extremely inappropriate and yet nobody has done diddly-squat to him!

Regarding offenses by Obama. I would hope that the threat of 4 years with McCain would make Reagan Democrats realize they have to give a little too-and all of us have to stop fighting and unite against McCain.

Chuck
You have to also consider that Hillary may have alienated some of the African American and what Begala called the Egghead vote (latte drinking elite) - I have a PhD but grew up in a trailer court. I am a self-made elite. Hillary can't "assume" such people will vote for her, nor can people like Maria Cantwell and Patti Murray, though many of us probably would. Doesn't mean we would work hard for and donate as much money as we could, as we might have had we not been at least partially alienated.

Obama and Hillary attract different constituencies, as Feinstein says. Schumer and some others think they should run together but there is alot of sentiment against that. Now I know that the loud and vociferous voices of the internet/blogosphere can't be said to represent the rest of the country.

Chuck
I am glad you have come here to talk. McCain is encouraging bloggers from his camp to go to places like DailyKos. I was deleted off the Clinton blog and I didn't say anything bad. I only talked about the pitfalls of voting in protest for McCain.

This all reminds me of Kerry v Dean but I don't think it ever got this bad. That is one of the bad parts of stringing the campaign out til June or later.

On the other hand, all of this may be a distraction away from McCain.

NMP:

That whole "Independent" label is always a riddle to me. I mean, is a Green the same thing as a Libertarian? Not in my experience!

I am thinking on the rest. I am no longer partisan. With the legistlative safely Democrat I am no longer worried about the GOP. I think they learned their lesson about Hubris.

Some, all, many....

You put your finger right on it! It is a weird situation and a new day. I'm back where I was in 1992....

Chuck in Houston

NMP:

You got in three or so posts while I was composing my one!

More in a second....

Why did I quit smoking? It's just going to make me draw more non-existing social security!!!!

Chuck in Houston

Here is the article about weaknesses in the McCain camp
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/25/us/politics/25mccain.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

I was state typing champion for South Dakota in 2000 plus Betty Crocker Homemaker of the Year.

Chuck
Glad you quit smoking. Please tell my husband how.

Chuck,

Trust me when I say that I'm sorry what happened to Clinton happened. I would have liked to have voted for a woman, but for me, she changed from the woman I liked in the 90's to the woman who ran these last few years.

That was important to me.

I didn't start out as an Obama supporter. And regardless, I am more in the middle just watching both sides. I don't feel involved in either campaign.

What I do know is that the primaries got mean and BOTH candidates and their supporters said something or did something to piss off the other side.

The thing is that McCain is corrupt. He's going to hurt this country as much as Bush did. The only difference is that he'll KNOW it; whereas, Bush is probably drugged somewhere and is in lala land.

I hope you understand what I'm saying. But it's up to US to shake off any splitting of the Democratic party and to put aside anger or resentment.

I hope that Hillary's comment will not impact her future as Senate leader or Justice or whatever she has her hopes on. But I think it's definitely going to affect her presidential campaign.

I'm Going to bed now...

NMP:

Obama alienated Clinton Democrats and Clinton alienated Kennedy Democrats. They both did this on purpose to play to their bases. That is normal. In addition, Obama played the race card, which put him over the top (in a race-neutral setting, both white and black working class would have been a Clinton advantage -- I could speak to that more if you want but at this point I think that is water under the bridge and there really is no point). So he will probably win the primaries on that basis, which is OK, a win is a win. But, in doing so, it is, indeed, a victory of the "egg heads and the african americans" against everybody else in the party. Now, to take that into the generals is to play to Democrat weaknesses -- we have the base (egg-heads and AA's, if you will), but how do we extend that into an electoral majority? Or is this a Rovian tactic of "motivate the base?" I am thinking as I type....

Chuck in Houston

Sparrow:

Likewise, at the beginning, I sort of liked Obama. The happenings have sort of given me pause. I guess I am finally an independent!

Chuck in Houston

Chuck
I trust you are right. I read Nedra Pickler's article today and found out who were the chief strategists behind the campaigns - I'm not talking about people like David Axelrod or Mark Penn but the people who go even deeper. As far as Clinton vs Kennedy Democrats, this is nothing new. What is new is what strategy to use in terms of electoral votes. Demographics are changing as is technology and we also have all the wild cards such as terror alerts, though I hope the Republicans have learned that they can't step in the same river twice. We know too well the myths of The Boy Who Cried Wolf and The Emperor's New Clothes.

If it's any consolation, the Republicans are having a parallel problem, as you alluded - how to position between the "swing" voters and the religious right.

Chuck
An independent may not be a bad place to be. At least you are aware of the factions in the party.

NMP:

For the record and against interest, some of my friends and most of my enemies would characterize me as an egg-head. But none of them were Hosford GS 1975.

Chuck in Houston

Chuck
I'm kind of an egghead but I do not come from the same background as most. So far, it has given me an edge in certain situations. I actually identify with both Clinton and Obama. Like Clinton, I am Irish. LIke Obama, I have been on food stamps but got an advanced degree.

At least not to my face.

Strength in swing states:

Obama Shows Strength in Swing States (with MAPS)
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/24/233549/533

Chuck
"Egghead" is not the insult it seems. It means smart.

GOP Strategists Mull McCain "Blowout"
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10585.html

I'm ready to have the Clintons, Gore - whomever - as "assets" - and go to war against McCain.

NMP:

On the smoking thing, there is nothing to tell him. Not smoking is much worse than smoking except you feel morally superior and your insurance goes down. Check back in a year or so and I'll let you know if there is any physical manifestation of that. On the other hand, this Welbutrin (sp?) drug did help me quit. You take it and it makes you very edgy but you do not feel nicotine withdrawls.

Chuck in Houston

Sparrow:

That's funny! I didn't like Hillary in the 90's but I like her now! Seems like we crossed paths on that somewhere -- me on the Hillary upswing and you on the Hillary down-swing. In fact, back then, I thought she should not run because I thought she didn't know retail politics. I thought she was just Bill's wife. Then, in the C-SPAN Senate hearings and the debates I saw a good mind there so I changed my mind. Of course, being a moderate Democrat, I was easy to convince on that. Silly me!

Chuck in Houston

The only people I saw playing a 'race card' is Hillarys people.

If you take away the blacks and 'eggheads' that leaves you with a white uneducated base.

How sad.

"Anyone that spins that otherwise, to my mind, is not being entirely honest."

And yet, we already know you will flat out defend her when she is lying.

The reason the argument is sooo damn offensive, is because it has become obvious that her only hopes of winning is if something bad happens, you know, like a bullet hits him.

And it would be her only shot at winning, because even if you seated Florida and Michigan, Obama still wins.

Unless, her hopes and dreams come true and someone kills him.

Chuck
He tried Welbutrin and the edginess was too much for him so he quit and went back to cigarettes but as far as I know he is not smoking but is on the patch - the smallest one. That's still nicotine in the blood but not lungs. How he'll wean off that I don't know. He's like a crack baby of cigarettes and his parents had huge ashtrays in the house and car ones too (in the old Cadillac) - kids started at age 12 or so.

Yes Hillary has a good mind and so does Bill. Just have gotten mixed feelings over the years because they have long careers. I started to support this new guy about the time Kerry endorsed him.

My son started early though (for Obama) and this is the oldest letter in my email box, from February 2007, from his friend Josh (who went to PA from WA for Barack, and his dad works with homeless vets):

Hi everyone,

It is very early in the presidential race but with all of the candidates already jumping in, raising money, campaigning, etc, I think its important to start thinking about which Democrat has the right stuff to lead the country and the right political skill to take back the White House. I'm not sure where you stand, if you support another candidate, or if you are simply waiting to support the nominee that emerges. In 2004 I did just that, wasn't particularly behind anyone, and when Kerry emerged triumphant he had my full enthusiastic support. I look at the field now and I have not a shred of doubt in my mind that I want Barack Obama to beat every Democratic contender in every primary state possible and go on to the general election to take out whoever the Republicans prop up. In order to do this he will need to gain as many supporters and raise as much money as he can starting NOW.

I love Hillary Clinton and will not remark on my reservations about her candidacy along with the other contenders such as Edwards and Richardson. I will only say that I sincerely believe Obama has what it takes to lead the country and is the best chance we have at taking back the White House from two terms of incompetent Republican rule. He has a magic about him that resonates with people and his story and vision will inspire the country to stand with him. I also think he's a fighter and will not sit down while Republicans try to swift boat him and raise questions about his credibility. The country wants new blood and bold vision to lead us out of the wilderness George Bush has created. Therefore I stand with Barack Obama in his fight for the nomination.

I have created a group on Obama's website (www.barackobama.com) called "Washingtonians for Obama 2008!" and it already has over 200 members since it was created this last weekend. You can look it up easily on his website by clicking on "Groups" and typing in your WA-based zip code. You'll see the pretty picture on the profile of the Space Needle and Mount Rainier in the background. If you are interested and either considering or fully supporting Obama's candidacy, I would encourage you to create a profile on his website and join this growing group of Washington residents who are jumping on the Obama bandwagon!

Thank you and keep up the good fight!

Josh Castle

A Memo to Senator Obama
http://www.newsweek.com/id/138611/page/3

This was placed on his website with the comment:

REALLY good stuff in this article. Especially on the last page about how to connect with "working class white" people in Appalachia and elsewhere by using socioeconomic status affirmative action rather than racial affirmative action. Apparently BO has already alluded to suggesting this and I think it would be very effective in his campaigning.

I hope HQ reads this (or better yet, they probably have already got everything in this article on their agenda!).

Here is what it says and it brings me back to when I was young and lived in one of the poorest states (South Dakota) - JFK had grants to the poorest schools & I was a direct beneficiary & it was based on poverty not race.

Here's the Memo:

You need an issue that plays against prejudice or typecasting. Affirmative action is deeply unpopular with white, working-class voters who see African-Americans bestowed with privileges long denied poor whites. You've suggested—obliquely, but nonetheless provocatively—that you might prefer seeing affirmative action for disadvantaged whites rather than black elites, noting that you wouldn't expect your private-school-educated daughters to need an admissions break at college. Taking a stand for affirmative action based on socioeconomic class rather than race would send a powerful signal.

These are not messages that can just be handed down from on high, from network studios or mass urban rallies. Lyndon Johnson went to Appalachia before launching the War on Poverty; Robert Kennedy went into the hollows of mining towns in his crusade against child hunger. You need to go there, too. You can sound a little haughty at times, and it is crucial that you do not condescend to voters who are proud and self-reliant but have not had your breaks in life.

Sen. Jim Webb, the ex-Marine elected from Virginia, noted recently on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" that his people, the Scots-Irish who so heavily populate the hills of Appalachia, are like "tortured siblings of black Americans. They both have a long history and they both missed the boat when it came to larger benefits that a lot of people were able to receive." If poor rural whites and African-Americans could sit down together, they would find that they have much in common. When you visit West Virginia and Kentucky, you could begin that conversation with some town meetings. Webb has also observed that the Scots-Irish hill folk are by nature scrappers and fighters. That's one reason they admired Hillary and voted for her. You need to show them you are a fighter, too—and that you will fight for them.

With Richard Wolffe, Suzanne Smalley, Holly Bailey and Sarah Kliff

This link opens to page one and I'm going to read the whole thing thoroughly and then go to bed. I have insomnia.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/138611/page/1

By the way, the Shepard Fairey poster I bought for $70 is now out of print and selling on eBay for $401 so far.

http://silencedmajority.blogs.com/silenced_majority_portal/2008/05/shepard-faireys.html

From Harold Ford, Jr.
"Go Meet them Senator"
http://www.newsweek.com/id/138511

I found my soulmate:

I've been fighting insomnia so went online to check if we got any more super delegates today and again I am hit by how the internet allows for the most vile, anonymous hate spewing and I just want to urge my fellow Obama supporters to edit themselves in the same way Senator Obama has conducted his campaign. With dignity and class, not nameless bashing. I have been waiting to call Obama my President since 2004 but what is happening between Clinton and Obama supporters online is ugly and I think we should all take a lesson from Barack and take the high road. In another few days or weeks we can all celebrate his nomination but can we try and do it without slinging mud? In order to bring the party together we have to proceed with humility and grace if we are going to convince Clinton supporters that we all have more in common with each other than against one another.

OMFG!

To justify holding him, the government claimed a broad interpretation of the president's wartime powers, one that goes beyond warrantless wiretapping or monitoring banking transactions. Government lawyers told federal judges that the president can send the military into any U.S. neighborhood, capture a citizen and hold him in prison without charge, indefinitely.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/ENEMY_COMBATANT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-05-24-09-57-22

Source: McClatchy

In a week of dramatic developments in the Middle East, the most dramatic development of all may have been the fact that the United States, long considered the region's indispensable player, was missing in action.

As its closest allies cut deals with their adversaries this week over the Bush administration's opposition, Washington was largely reduced to watching.

More painful for President Bush, friends he's cultivated — and spent heavily on — in Lebanon and Iraq asked the United States to remain in the background, underlining how politically toxic an association with the U.S. can be for Arab leaders.

.....

Others said that by refusing to talk to adversaries and using bristling "with-us-or-against-us" rhetoric, Bush has cut his administration out of the game.. Under Bush, U.S. diplomats have had few substantive discussions with Iran, Syria, Hezbollah or the militant Palestinian group Hamas, which in 2006 won elections that the White House had pushed for.

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/world/story/38319.html

A woman president in the White House will be nothing like Hillary Clinton

The next major female presidential candidate will be well advised to stuff any errant husband into a rucksack and chuck him down a laundry chute.

Camille Paglia

An observation from across the Atlantic......which should help to reassure the worry worts who are paying too much attention to the Clinton-spun MSM (mainstream media) in the US.......

It's 11:30 AM, Saturday, May 24th, and I've just watched a rebroadcast of last night's BBC program, "Newsnight." The main story was US foreign policy and what the world might expect to see from the next administration. There were clips shown of stump speeches and interviews with experts and an assessment of the current administration.

The show analyzed two possibilities - a McCain presidency or an Obama presidency - there was no discussion of a possible Clinton administration. Not only was it not discussed, the name "Clinton" was never spoken, not even once.

Oh yes, she did merit a minute of coverage on the regular BBC news broadcast, which showed her RFK gaffe and subsequent attempt to explain. The introduction to the clip was something like, "Clinton's worst 24 hours yet."

An American in Europe,
Laurie Singh
Brussels, Belgium

Meanwhile in Europe at a book event, Jimmy Carter told Reuters:

"I'm a superdelegate ... I think a lot of the superdelegates will make a decision quite, announced quite rapidly, after the final primary on June 3," he told Sky News. "I have not yet announced publicly, but I think at that point it will be time for her to give it up," Carter said.

Read more: http://www.silencedmajority.blogs.com

My son will march down the aisle to Quincy Jones.
Jessica Lange told Sarah Lawrence students to work for peace.

Now if you go to this link here and now, you can see Barack Obama address the students of Wesleyan University in place of Ted Kennedy, who had to cancel.

http://edition.cnn.com/video/live/live.html?stream=stream2

BTW, I would love to convince clinton supporters that we have more in common than what sets us apart.

HOWEVER, that is slightly difficult to do while hillary is up there saying 'Maybe I can win if someone will shoot him!'.

And what do her supporters do? Just like when she was caught outright lying repeatedly about sniper fire, here they come to justify it with the lamest excuses they can find.

The clinton supporters who are threatening to vote mccrazy... LET THEM. If any self respecting democrat can honestly turn down Obama to go vote for mccrazy, then what the hell kind of democrat are they and why should ANY OF US care to make nice with them when they obviously are willing to put liars and crooks above a good man?

Even if half of hillarys supporters go mccrazy or stay home Obama still wins. Their threats ring as hollow as their excuses for her does.

Just a wild thought:

Now that Hillary made her comments about RFK and Obama has said it is time to move on, and has been complimentary to the achievements about her campaign does that increase the possibility that Obama and Hillary could or would run on the same ticket? i.e is he trying to help her bury the hatchet and if they do, will he offer and will she accept?

Christy
We have to make sure there are enough people who are NOT voting for McCain directly or voting for McCain indirectly (as a protest vote against themselves, especially women.)

They would have to vote against health care and schools for their kids, against choice, against the environment (he has lame programs), and for more war, more downfall of America's reputation.

I still have this CNN Live player on and it has the Libertarian Convention in Denver so some entertaining nutjobs. (I am only Libertarian when it comes to a couple of things I don't like the government involved in that involve privacy and person) My brother is doing stage and lights for them. Maybe someone will convince him because once he went to a fundie camp with a neighbor and came home "born again" but it only lasted 2 weeks.

Obama got an Honorary Degree in Law as well as delivering the address.

OnCall
I read that Obama's search committee has been working on VP picks. When I can find info on who has backed him early on, I am impressed with what I find. I am reading all I can on his organization and McCain's. I imagine there should be some bridge between the Kennedy and Clinton Dem clans that Chuck mentioned. This has gone on for years. I don't like how moderate the party got under Clinton/Gore, because I'm a liberal not a moderate. Even the right has to move more to the left and that would be McCain, but he also needs to lose. He needs to be enough left of far right to ditch the religious conservatives without picking up too many swing voters/Independents/moderate Democrats. Fortunately, Obama does well with Independents and Republicans in some sectors and is moving up some in states that need to be competitive. The hard group is Dems who score high on "racial resentment." Clinton is not the only running mate who could help there, as there is Webb, Nunn etc. (too conservative for me but big improvement over Cheney) - who knows. Did the Clintons want power back? Maybe it's true what they say about power corrupting absolutely. How many countries have coups and then the coup leaders become greedy .. seems America though has been working on a coup in the Democratic party for a long time, since Hart then Dean etc & this one has the support of Kerry Kennedy Gephardt Daeschle etc.

Also I am a liberal and most of my friends are progressives, so vote their consciences, support third parties, go outside the Dems. I'm more of a reform Dem. It leads to some interesting arguments. I'm just one of those people who would like to see more of our taxes spent on health and education and less on war preparation. It's pretty simple.

The Fall of Conservatism
http://www.truthout.org/article/the-fall-conservatism

See at the end where McCain has to wimp out re conservatism because the country won't elect an arch conservative any more?

I hope he's true but yet that we don't end up with him.

I am going to register voters today at FolkLife and if people seem to be already registered I will work on those "leaning Nader" types or those "feminist protest" votes as I've done time in those sectors & have my "hairy armpit degree" and so on already decades ago.

NMP,

After reading your comments, I think Obama must be your choice. So the question then becomes: if Obama does pick Clinton and she accepts (another big if), does he have a better chance of beating McCain or do the Republicans unleash not just both barrels of the attack machine, or do they drop the atomic bomb? And if they drop the bomb, do too many Americans accept the distortions and lies and vote for McCain? Always interesting to speculate, isn't it?

Have you seen the latest poll numbers NMP?

The only ones voting for mccrazy are the lunatics. The gop is no longer g.

And, suddenly, finally, all the sane people are awake, aware, and moving to the voting booth for an election that will be remembered forever among our people.

I understand the fear of an inparty split. But for 1 the fear itself is counterproductive, and for 2, it is about damn time democrats get rid of the dinos.

Only a totally bitter and ignorant assh*le would vote for mccrazy at this point, or even threaten to. Frankly, I am sick of those people. And if they want to 'leave' the party, then get the hell out and go vote for mccrazy then, even though they know damn well they are voting for a monster, that is for THEM to live with. Not me because I will be voting for the guy that wins.

Like I said, even if half of hillarys supporters stay home or go mccrazy,... Obama still wins.

This country is poised to purge ANYONE who in any way remotely acts like they are in support of our current policies. Republican OR democrat.

And if Obama puts a CLINTON on the ticket, well, what about that says 'change'...? Because that is STILL ANOTHER bush or clinton to continue on the long unbroken line of bush or clintons being in power.

And if her only way to the VP slot is to threaten to send her voters to mccrazy... Let her threaten away. Because it will not matter one bit at the polls, but she will be remembered for it forever.

It is no damn wonder the republicans are freaking out, because the polls do not just show them being swept out of power, it foretells a massacre, and extinction of the GOP that may last the rest of our lifetime.

What I do not understand is why, before she ruined her own reputation, why did she not bow out and head up a NEW political party? She could have broken the two party system all by her little self, yet instead she would rather be a dino and attack Obama with ever tactic known to republicans.

It is going to be damn hard to heal the rift between the two camps, but at some point you have to ask, why bother? It has become a waste of time, focus, and energy. It has become stupid redundant. And the daily insults to our collective intellegence are just not freaking worth it.

I would rather spend my time whipping mccrazys arse than arguing with hillarys supporters about why she can not break the rules, lie repeatedly, shoot her opponant, ect. ect. ect.

If they don't get it by now, it is because they don't want too. They refuse too. Again.. total waste of time we don't have.

This paragraph is pivotal (from the above cited article on Fall of Conservatism):

Obama, of course, is an entirely different personality in a different time, but the interminable primary campaign has shown his coalition to look very much like McGovern's: educated, upper-income liberal voters; blacks; and the young. Nixon beat McGovern among the latter even after the Twenty-sixth Amendment lowered the voting age to eighteen; but times have changed so drastically that, according to Pew Research Center surveys, almost sixty per cent of voters under thirty now identify more strongly with the Democrats, doubling the Party's advantage among the young over Republicans since 2004. And the demographic work of John Judis and Ruy Teixeira in their 2002 book, "The Emerging Democratic Majority," showed that the McGovern share of the electorate - minorities and educated professionals working in post-industrial jobs - is expanding far faster than the white working class. This was the original vision of a McGovern adviser named Fred Dutton, whose 1971 book, "Changing Sources of Power: American Politics in the 1970s," cited by Perlstein, foresaw a rising "coalition of conscience and decency" among baby boomers. The new politics was an electoral disaster in 1972, but it may finally triumph in 2008.

OnCall
I support Obama since this January. Prior to that time I was undecided. I was influenced strongly by the Kennedy and Kerry endorsements and by the ability to overcome alot of challenges. I'm not worried so much by what will be on the surface, as I think what lies below it is much more interesting and important. Demographics, demographics, demographics. Also, McCain has plenty of skeletons.

If Obama picks clinton, every single person that believed him when he said 'change' will feel betrayed.

And they should.

Stephanopolous actually confronts KARL ROVE! HAHA!

Rove Issues Non-Denial Of Role In Seigelman Case: ‘I Read About It In The Newspaper’

Last week, the House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed former White House aide Karl Rove to determine his knowledge and role in the decision to prosecute former Democratic governor of Alabama Don Siegelman.

ABC’s This Week host George Stephanopolous asked Rove if he was directly or indirectly involved in Siegelman’s prosecution. Having trouble coming up with a coherent explanation, Rove simply offered this legalistic non-denial denial. “I learned about Don Siegelman’s prosecution by reading about it in the newspaper,” Rove said.

When Stephanopolous continued to press Rove about his involvement in the case, Rove stuttered and stammered, then responded by again saying he learned about it in the newspaper. Stephanopolous astutely noted, “That’s not a denial”:

STEPHANOPOLOUS: But to be clear, you did not contact the Justice Department about this case?

ROVE: I read about — I’m going to simply say what I’ve said before which is, I found out about Don Siegelman’s investigation and indictment by reading about it in the newspaper.

STEPHANOPOLOUS: But that’s not a denial.

ROVE: Uh. I’ve — I’ve — I’ve — uh — you know, I read about it. I heard about it, read about it, learned about it for the first time by reading about it in the newspaper.

Watch it:

Trying to defend himself, Rove said “everyone who was supposedly on that telephone call” — which points to Rove’s involvement in the case — says it “never took place.” But when Stephanopolous pointed out that there is a cell phone record of the call, Rove had nowhere to go.

Unfortunately for Rove, dealing with the House Judiciary Committee isn’t going to be as easy as ducking questions on a Sunday talk show. As committee chairman Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) said recently, “We’re closing in on Rove. Someone’s got to kick his ass.”

Think Progress. org

And, suddenly, finally, all the sane people are awake, aware, and moving to the voting booth for an election that will be remembered forever among our people.

I sure as hell hope so Christy, we have waited 8 friking years for the sane people to finally wake up/

NMP,

Unless Obama, and mostly his surrogates, decide not to campaign with a message highlighting McCain's hypocrisy, it really wont matter if McCain's closet is stuffed to the ceiling with bones.

Christy,

Let me ask you, would you vote for Obama if he picked Hillary? I would, but it would leave me a bit uncomfortable.

Montana's huge black population gives Obama the edge
by kos

Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:29:02 PM PDT

Census numbers:

Black Persons, 2006: 0.4%
White Persons, 2006: 90.8%

The rest are either Latino (2.5%) or Native American (6.4%).

Montana is also the nation's fifth poorest state. It's poor, it's white, and has no African Americans to speak of. Therefore, if what the Clinton campaign and its apologists say is correct, if what the political news media tell me is accurate, Clinton should have another 30-point blowout in store. Right?

Mason-Dixon for Lee Newspapers. 5/19-21. Likely Democratic primary voters. MoE 5% (12/17-19 results)

Obama 52 (17)
Clinton 35 (29)

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/25/131838/888/200/522548

By the way, I would vote for an Obama/Hillary ticket - I voted for Gore/Lieberman. Kind of burned out on Darth Cheney and his puppet though so hope there wouldn't be some kind of wierd behind-the-scenes pressure. Tired of invisible shadow government. Obama/Hillary would remind me of some of the wierd power-sharing agreements they end up with in other countries. Like Musharaf was supposed to share with Bhutto and .. oops .. won't go there.

By the way, Vanity Fair already has an RFK cover. Everything needs to get settled soon or there will be an awkwardness. & everyone needs to stop worrying about Obama as every President is endangered from something. There is a reason the airspace is closed off when Bush/Cheney travel and they only play small venues. We just don't hear about it. It will be interesting some day if some Secret Service Agent Man decides to write a tell-all.

Did you guys see front cover of the New Yorker?

Guy walks through the airport screening thing starkers.

(from Seattle for Obama)

Just imagine if this woman said this about Bush.

The Prosecution of George W. Bush for MurderVincent Bugliosi, 05.19.2008

To discuss anything less than the death penalty for someone responsible for over 100,000 deaths would on its face seem ludicrous. But we are dealing with the president of the United States here.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vincent-bugliosi/the-prosecution-of-george_b_102427.html

Yes I would vote for him even if she is VP, but then again, I really would not have a choice either.

Would I?

Like you I would feel very uncomfortable and I would never ever fully trust him again because I will never trust her.

Bush VP, bush VP, Bush Prez. Clinton Prez. Clinton prez. Bush prez. and now AGAIN a clinton VP?

Hell no, not if you are serious about change.

Like you I would feel very uncomfortable and I would never ever fully trust him again because I will never trust her.

Amen.

(phot