...

I get the feeling that the media and some Democratic elites were anxiously waiting for a disappointing night for Clinton to declare the race over. We should expect nothing less, considering all that we have seen. But even before Hillary won the Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania primaries, a lot of us saw a challenging day to overcome shortly thereafter. We saw that come to pass two days ago. However, it's not too hard to see that the post-May 6th contests may well change the equation.

Yesterday on NPR's On Point, Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell laid it out:

I think we should let every state vote. I think Senator Clinton is going to win crushing victories in West Virginia and Kentucky and Puerto Rico and hold her own in the other states…People should take advantage of the polls and figure out the electoral math…It’s going to be an interesting three or four weeks. Let the people vote, and I would suggest that if there is any way to let Michigan and Florida vote, I would love to have seen it. We tried to work to get Michigan to approve a new primary, the DNC was for it, but unfortunately the Obama folks killed it in the Michigan legislature…

"Crushing" may well be no exaggeration. According to Rasmussen, Clinton holds a 29 point lead over Obama, and Susan at No Quarter has up a brand new poll that has Clinton up 40 points...63/23...in West Virginia, which also happens to be a key swing state needed in November.

In Kentucky, Clinton leads by 34 according to SurveyUSA and by 25 according to Rasmussen.

How big would it be if Clinton's victories in West Virginia and Kentucky are by these margins? We can guess. Adding together the populations of these two states, we get a number that approaches the population of Virginia. Obama won Virginia by 29%...about 275,000 votes. If Clinton adds something close to this many votes to her total, she catapults herself back into the popular vote lead with all contests counted and estimates from four caucus states.

From there, it would just be a matter of keeping things close in Oregon, South Dakota and Montana, and winning Puerto Rico. There is less polling information available to get a good estimate for Puerto Rico, but there's a single poll at Pollster.com that has Clinton leading by 13 points. She's got a lot going for her there and is definitely favored.

The fact is... if these numbers hold up (no wishful thinking involved), Hillary Clinton will emerge as the popular vote winner at the end of her contest with Barack Obama. She will also have won the key Democratic states required for victory against John McCain. For these two reasons and more, it is a completely rational scenario that Hillary Clinton can end up with this nomination. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise, because they know full well what's in store for Obama in the remaining contests.

But it all starts with West Virginia next week. Are you in?

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27631

https://contribute.hillaryclinton.com/wesclark.html?rc=GDY5

"A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood of ideas in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." JFK

"In the year 2003, as far as we've come, we are far from the fundamental ideal of 'one person, one vote.' Today, it's only one person, one vote if you live in the right county. And if you vote at the right machine. And if your name happens to be on the rolls," said Clark. "Well, last I checked, there was no 'if' in the 15th Amendment. One person one vote isn't just a slogan -- it's the highest law of this land. As president, I will not rest until every single American can cast their vote, and every single one of those votes is counted. We shouldn't have to wait for another Florida to fully fund election reform."

–Wesley Clark at the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church, Birmingham, AL December 29, 2003

http://www.zazzle.com/losers_for_obama_shirt-235573617630440462

Oh, god. laughcrying here.

You gotta love that it is sleeveless. 

It can be taken either way. Great Gift for Fathers Day for my hubby

May 8, 2008

Senator Barack Obama
Obama for America
P.O. Box 8102
Chicago, IL 60680

Dear Senator Obama,

This has been an historic and exciting campaign. Millions of new voters have been brought into the process and their enthusiasm for the Democratic Party and the principles for which you and I have fought and continue to fight is unprecedented.

One of the foremost principles of our party is that citizens be allowed to vote and that those votes be counted. That principle is not currently being applied to the nearly 2.5 million people who voted in primaries in Florida and Michigan. Whoever emerges as the Democratic nominee will be hamstrung in the general election if a fair and quick resolution is not reached that ensures that the voices of these voters are heard. Our commitment now to this goal could be the difference between winning and losing in November.

I have consistently said that the votes cast in Florida and Michigan in January should be counted. We cannot ignore the fact that the people in those states took the time to be a part of this process and to make their preferences known. When efforts were untaken by leaders in those states to hold revotes to ensure that they had a voice in selecting our nominee, I supported those efforts. In Michigan, I supported a legislative effort to hold a revote that the Democratic National Committee said was in complete compliance with the party’s rules. You did not support those efforts and your supporters in Michigan publically opposed them. In Florida a number of revote options were proposed. I am not aware of any that you supported. In 2000, the Republicans won an election by successfully opposing a fair counting of votes in Florida. As Democrats, we must reject any proposals that would do the same.

Your commitment to the voters of these states must be clearly stated and your support for a fair and quick resolution must be clearly demonstrated.

I am asking you to join me in working with representatives from Florida and Michigan and the Democratic National Committee to arrive at a solution that honors the votes of the millions of people who went to the polls in Florida and Michigan. It is not enough to simply seat their representatives at the convention in Denver. The people of these great states, like the people who have voted and are to vote in other states, must have a voice in selecting our party’s nominee.

Sincerely,
Hillary Rodham Clinton

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27632

"A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood of ideas in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." JFK

interesting stuff- the vid clips are great, I love the woman who said she got a text message from her dad this morning & ran over! heh The reporter did a good job capturing the atmosphere.

SHEPHERDSTOWN, W.Va. — Before a charged and sometimes raucous crowd of about 350 people at Shepherd University, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton on Wednesday worked to keep up the energy in her battle with Barack Obama, detailing her agenda for a better economy, renewable energy and better health care and education options.

"I'm so happy to be here in West Virginia and excited about the next week as we campaign here in this beautiful state about our country's future," Clinton told the Shepherd audience.

West Virgina's Democratic primary is Tuesday.

Clinton, with her daughter Chelsea at her side, spoke on the steps of McMurran Hall. Chelsea Clinton initially was scheduled to be the only one appearing for the Clinton campaign, but news organizations learned Wednesday morning that Hillary Clinton would join her daughter.

Chelsea Clinton introduced her mother to the crowd.

"I am proud to be my mother's daughter," she said. "... I would be even more proud to call my mom my president because I know she would be the best president of my lifetime and the best president I could ever imagine for my children's lifetime."

With Obama's delegate advantage, some are pushing Clinton to withdraw from the race, but Clinton said during a press conference after her speech that she wasn't quitting.

"I'm staying in this race until there's a nominee," she said.

If anyone can stand to hear more about this, there is an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer which clearly debunks the BO campaign's assertions that the Clintons played the race card. It documents that it was BO & Cohorts who started it all. A good piece to counter race-baiting arguments. Sorry for the long link.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20080330_Obama_was_the_first_to_play_the_race_card.html

bookmarked

"A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood of ideas in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." JFK

but it should be. This is honestly what the O! fans think will be the **new** Democratic Party...

From Chris Bowers:

Cultural Shift: Out with Bubbas, up with Creatives: There should be a major cultural shift in the party, where the southern Dems and Liebercrat elite will be largely replaced by rising creative class types. Obama has all the markers of a creative class background, from his community organizing, to his Unitarianism, to being an academic, to living in Hyde Park to shopping at Whole Foods and drinking PBR. These will be the type of people running the Democratic Party now, and it will be a big cultural shift from the white working class focus of earlier decades. Given the demographics of the blogosphere, in all likelihood, this is a socioeconomic and cultural demographic into which you fit. Culturally, the Democratic Party will feel pretty normal to netroots types. It will consistently send out cultural signals designed to appeal primarily to the creative class instead of rich donors and the white working class.

Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.

Beware of Media Darlings

Obama has become the darling of the news media and formerly rationale liberal, progressive, and moderate pundits. Watch what happens. I hope I am wrong.

The news media's influence on American politics continues to grow more dangerous and destructive. This may result in another Republican administration. The news media loves to chew up Democrats and many Democrats have allowed an understable idealism to dimish clear thinking and strategy.

The outcomes of elections have become more a reflection of media biases and attitudes than of an informed electorate. How can we have an informed electorate when the news media has become such a potent force in influencing attitudes and opinions?

Some observations and rants --

• 2000, 2004, 2008 . . . I was in the middle of the 2000 debacle, and witnessed and studied how the news media supported the Republican propaganda machine that drove the outcome. I then participated in the media's major ballot study and witnessed how Gore's win was covered up. Then, as Bush quickly became a disaster, the media found it too dissonant to recognize and admit their role and responsibility. And they helped get us in deeper -- beating the drums for war, and consistently treating Bush high crimes and misdeameanors with very little critical examination.
• Hypocrisy. Then the pundits have the audacity to criticize Hillary's Iraq vote -- when a pretty good argument can be made that the media was even more complicit in overlooking the administration's faulty logic and lies.

But when Obama gets the nomination and loses, who will be blamed?  We know.

• The Hillary Bashers. On what facts is all the Hillary bashing based? Most people critical of Hillary freeze when they are asked for proof of their assertions. In actuality, they are merely parroting frenzied media pundits.
• Chauvinism. Listen to the language of the pundits. Lots of male and sports adjectives, metaphors, and analogies. Lots of chauvinism. We must expose the slant and demand better.
• Delusions. There is an old book, which is now available in reprint, that has a title that is apt for the predicament we are in. "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds."
• Disenchantment. My list is growing of formerly-admired liberals, progressives, Democrats, and voices previously known for fairness. Who is left to admire, listen to, and respect? Bye, bye Michael Moore, Keith Olberman, Arianna Huffington, Randi Rhodes, Ed Schultz, Edward Kennedy, Charlie Rose, Jonathan Alter, Rachel Maddow . . . you can add more. And just listen to the inflections in the voices of Brian Williams, Wolf Blitzer, Charles Gibson, et. al. I need to take a shower after I hear them report.

It's not that I believe that I am right and they are wrong. It's about my yearning for Americans to get information instead of opinion. Thank goodness for C-Span.

• Follow the thread. During Jimmy Carter's administration I was teaching a college course in media literacy. I remember how Sam Donaldson's criticism of Jimmy Carter grew so loud and irrational. Carter bashing became a trend that caught on and brought on the election of Reagan, whose was coated with teflon by the media. Emotion eclipsed facts.

Now the media darling is Obama. Watch what happens. I hope I am wrong.

When the Fat Man Sings

We've heard a lot about arcane Democratic Party rules this primary season, so much esoterica about punishing swing states, credentials committees, and wild apportionment. But I'd never heard the most important rule of all in the DNC playbook: you know, the one that proclaims the race is over when Tim Russert declares.

Tuesday night, Russert sang his high-pitched tune of grinning closure, clearing his manly throat and firmly calling the primary finished - and Senator Barack Obama the winner. Wrote Digby:

It reminds me of the halcyon days for Democrats in November 2000, when Russert used his little marking board to show us "the math" and declare that Gore needed to bow out for the good of the country. Good times.

Now, the race may indeed be in its final stages (though I believe there are scenarios that could see this through to the convention) and Senator Hillary Clinton did not get her hoped-for, longshot double shotgun blast Tuesday night, but listening to the media's big shove - Hillary must go! - that's now in its fourth or fifth iteration, I was reminded of the words of the prescient Peter Daou, Hillary's Internet director. Must've been a year ago when Peter told me - and I paraphrase - the media primary is the primary.

Consider: Obama's lead is only slightly more than it was before last night, though it now gets the modifier "commanding" routinely dropped before it by the media hounds - history-blind fools who can't recall Teddy Kennedy taking it all the way to the convention trailing by 750 delegates. Tracy Russo, who suffered through hours of MSNBC the other night (I watched Joba Chamberlain blow one to the Indians instead), detected the same strong whiff of sexism that has suffused major media coverage of Clinton for a year.

I wonder what we’ll see when we have time to remove ourselves from the daily grind of this campaign and look back at the way in which the media influenced this election and our public discourse around the candidates. Will it be as obvious then, as it is to me now, how entrenched and acceptable the misogyny spewed daily has become? Will we be able to look back and say that there was something quite unnatural about the level of hatred so many had for Hillary Clinton? Will we ever be able to understand why?

Tracy's post was spot on and she correctly identified one of this long campaign's historic legacies......

Tom Watson

"A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood of ideas in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." JFK

Jimmy Carter, whom I have admired greatly and whose Carter Center I have frequently given financial contributions, told Jay Leno that Michigan and Florida delegates shouldn't be counted because they "disqualified themselves."

http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/05/jimmy_carter_florida_and_michi.html

Screw those voters? What hypocrisy from the man who has devoted the last several years working for free and fair elections around the world. Maybe if we were a third world country....

I'm going to join ms in la on that boat and keep on going.

I promise to sit on my hands.

...here's an exchange I had today with the host of an NPR program "On the Point" which leaves me SO discouraged.

My initial e-mail:
Spin away, just like the right-wing propaganda talk shows do, playing fast and loose with the facts. Examples of your deliberate "ignorance" today:

1. Regarding the vote in Michigan, Clinton was NOT the only candidate on the ballot; Obama chose to remove his name, whereas Dodd and Biden kept theirs on. Furthermore there was an active effort by Obama's camp to promote the vote of "uncommitted" as his hedge.

2. In Florida Obama ran campaign ads in Florida so it's untruthful to say that
he did not participate in that state.

If I can find out these facts, so can you and you're paid to do it.

It's a sad, sad time when an NPR show behaves in this manner. You have NO
right to favor one candidate over another using public funds, not to mention
money from donors who expect fairness.

Didn't expect any response, but this is what I got:
Kathy, thanks for the message--but you're doing some spinning yourself.

All the remaining major candidates at the time -- Edwards, Richardson and
Obama -- removed their names from the ballot in Michigan. Grass-roots
supporters of all three encouraged voters to choose "uncommitted," but the
campaigns were not officially involved.

Ahead of Florida, Obama ran ads that aired nationally on CNN and MSNBC. The Clinton campaign says that violated the agreement not to advertise in
Florida, but that's certainly arguable.

As to favoring one candidate over another, we're trying to report as frankly
and fairly as we can in a highly emotional environment.

Best regards,

Warren Olney
Host, Executive Producer
"To the Point"

Well, I couldn't let that stand:
Mr. Olney, thank you for responding, and I can't resist pointing out that your response is precisely what you should have said on the air. Reporting "frankly and fully," is what you failed to do because you chose to omit important details that give listeners the full picture. Selective omission that changes the picture is a journalistic failure.

As for the campaigns not being "officially" involved, I've been a listener quite a while and I can't believe you're naive enough to think they were not unofficially involved. Likewise, I have seen no evidence that they made any effort to stop the encouragement.

I could go on, but your mind is obviously set on its particular compass point. Pity, because without a skeptical press, this country is doomed to get more of what we've had for the past eight years.

He's limp reply:
Kathy, as I recall, I had to provide a very brief backgrounder to bridge between guests, or explain a reference. I did not choose to omit details. I’m at least as skeptical as you are, but I don’t have an encyclopedic mind.

wo

My last effort
Oh, Mr. Olney, your excuse is that you were short of time? One of the basic skills a journalist (supposedly) learns is how to succinctly and accurately summarize. I have heard this very topic of Michigan/Florida accurately and fully summarized in 15 seconds. It can be done.

You did not give a full summary of the facts, ergo you chose to omit important facts. Where there is a will, there is way.

Pointless to go on.

We'll see if his ego can take that. If NPR fails us, what's left?

For the Dems to win in November

by Jeralyn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:46:15 PM EST

the nominee needs to carry Catholics, Hispanics-Latinos, older voters and women. Arnone again:

Unlike African-Americans or younger voters who have voted steadfastly for the Democratic Presidential ticket in recent elections, Catholics, Hispanics-Latinos, older voters and women have tended to vote less Democratic in recent Presidential elections. In the 2004 Presidential election, the Democratic Party suffered significant losses of support among each of these four critical constituent groups.

Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.

Sen. Barack Obama , D-Ill., took his campaign for presidential superdelegate votes to the House floor Thursday, triggering complaints from some supporters of rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton , D-N.Y.

“I have a question in my mind whether it’s kosher, whether it’s ethical,” said Grace Napolitano, D-Calif., a staunch Clinton supporter.

“It’s unusual. He’s actively soliciting the votes of superdelegates on the floor,” said Allyson Y. Schwartz , D-Pa., another Clinton backer.

Obama’s explanation: “Oh, I wasn’t campaigning. I was saying hello.
/snip/
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=cqmidday-000002719775

Yea, sure. But he can't find the time to hold any hearings for the committee he chairs.

Cavuto Hands Desperate Obama Adolescent Her Head On A Plate »

By Uppity Woman

Please witness why it’s always nice to get some experience in life before you leave the Little League and become a “strategist”, Mmm-Kay? And always remember, the one who screetches using the highest octaves always wins by sheer head explosion, even without the nervous laughs.

Flavia, here’s your head on a plate. Study. Learn.

YouTube

Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.

Larry Johnson @ No Quarter

~ snip ~

Hillary’s only hope is that the super delegates will come to their senses and realize that Barack Obama’s relationships with the corrupt Tony Rezko, the racist-wife stealing Jeremiah Wright, and the unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers will provide the Republicans with ammunition they have never had at hand to use against the Democrats’ candidate. This is particularly true of that flag stomper, Bill Ayers.

Think not? Just read what the execrable Bob Novak wrote today:

The test of Obama’s strategy may be his friendship with and support from William Ayers, an unrepentant member of the Weathermen terrorist underground of the 1960s and ’70s. Instead of totally disavowing Ayers as he belatedly did his former pastor, Obama potentially deepened his problem by referring to Ayers as just a college professor — “a guy who lives in my neighborhood.” He then compared their relationship to his friendship with conservative Republican Sen. Tom Coburn, just as he compared Wright’s racism to his white grandmother’s.
.
Democrats abhor bringing up what Obama calls Ayers’s “detestable acts 40 years ago,” but they will be brought into the public arena even if that is not McCain’s style of politics. A photo of Ayers stomping on the American flag in 2001 has been all over the Internet this week. That was the year Obama accepted a $200 political contribution from Ayers and the year in which the former Weatherman said: “I don’t regret setting bombs; I feel we didn’t do enough.”
.
While McCain will not demand a response from Obama, others will. How the prospective nominee handles this will help define whether he is seen as flawed or fantastic in the long campaign ahead.

We may now understand why Barack does not wear a flag lapel pin. He’s afraid that Bill Ayers will stomp on him. In reality, it will be the relationship with Bill Ayers that will empower the Republicans to destroy the candidacy of Barack Obama.

This is not a question of whether or not the Republicans will use this material. They will. So what is there to find? That is the area of greatest danger for the Democrats. Obama has lied about his longstanding relationship with Bill Ayers.

Why? What is he hiding? As I have pointed out before, 1995 was a critical year in the Obama/Ayers relationship. It was in 1995 that Barack was tabbed by Ayers to be the Chairman of the Annenberg Challenge (a failed $50 million project). That same year, Barack sat at a kitchen table with Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, Bill’s wife, a plotted the ouster of Alice Palmer, who Obama took down in order to secure his place in the Illinois state senate.

If the Super Delegates do not insist on a full and complete disclosure from Barack Obama about his ties to Bill Ayers, the Republicans will force the issue in the fall. It is one thing to have a name that sounds like the terrorist who attacked us on 9-11. But it is an entirely different matter to be close friends with an unrepentant terrorist who bombed U.S. Government buildings.

There is no where to run. The relationship is genuine. This is a stonewall that will not stand.

Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.

and their Cayman accounts to dodge taxes. Krugman is also very good tonight.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/09/opinion/09fri2.html?hp

Obama's campaign used the "Racecard" to sway votes. I have 0 respect for him.

The Obama campaign deserves credit for playing this primary like a violin. They have used the press, the rules and race to hit HRC over the head time and again. She deserves great credit for being able to ward these challenges and in fact win nearly every contested primary. The Obama campaign used online resources effectively to win caucuses like IA, ID,KS etc then needed to race bait to guarantee historic African American margins in SC,GA,NC,MS etc to ensure big victories in southern primaries. Inevitablity was applied and swing states like FL,MI,OH,PA were blown off as meaningless. But in the end these two candidates will be separated by only a small number of delegates so we must persevere through the summer to the convention because anything could switch a few delegates. The press again is giving Obama a pass by insisting the onus is on Clinton to unite the party. Obama has denied the states of FL and MI their vote and it would seem to me that it would be very important to address that issue but he has never been called out personally. He has also alienated a lot of good Dems who find it appalling to label the Clintons as racists and again never personally attempting to denounce such nonsense.