The Daily Jot: 2008-05-11

Friday, May 16, 2008

THIS JUST IN! BARACK DISRESPECTS WOMEN!

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

SENATOR SWEETIE AGAIN REFERRED TO A WOMAN AS "SWEETIE" TODAY. IT'S THE SORT OF DEMEANING GESTURE HIS CAMPAIGN HAS MADE REPEATEDLY TOWARDS WOMEN.

THE SILLY (AND IN THE TANK FOR OBAMA) LOS ANGELES TIMES TRIES TO TREAT THIS INCIDENT, WHERE HE CALLED A REPORTER "SWEETIE" AS SOMETHING NEW WHEN IN FACT, BARACK SWEETIE OBAMA HAS BEEN CALLING WOMEN THAT ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL FOR SOME TIME.

IN FACT, THESE REPORTERS WORKED WITH THE ONLINE MAGAZINE THE THIRD ESTATE SUNDAY REVIEW FOR A FEATURE APRIL 20TH THAT ASKED 10 QUESTIONS OF BARACK INCLUDING THIS:

10) What is a grown man doing calling women "sweetie"? Do you go out of your way to come off sexist? As a follow up, having used homophobia in your campaign -- putting homophobes on stage at a campaign event, doing 'gay' jokes in a debate when AIDS testing came up -- exactly why should any American trust that you give a damn about gay rights?

THAT WAS APRIL 4TH. TODAY THE JOKE THAT IS THE LOS ANGELES TIMES WANTS YOU TO BELIEVE THAT THIS IS THE FIRST TIME IT HAPPENED. WHICH MUST MEAN THESE REPORTERS ARE PSYCHICS TO HAVE KNOWN ABOUT TODAY'S INCIDENT NEARLY 30 DAYS IN ADVANCE. WE'RE OFF TO PLAY THE PONIES, ON OUR GUT HUNCHES.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Starting with war resistance. James Burmeister's father Erich writes about his son at Courage to Resist:

Passion and empathy: Why is it that it takes a harsh reality to kick in your own front door, grab you by the scruff of your own all too relaxed neck, before you really cry again. Maybe its cancer, a hurricane, a drunk driver, somebody gone crazy with a gun on campus, in a shopping center, on the job, on the freeway, or maybe a kid with a gun in a war, a soldier, your kid, like mine PFC James Burmeister.

He is not a kid anymore. When he joined the army, he was a typical poor kid, naive kid, painted himself in a corner kid. A typical young man high on testosterone low on common sense, he brought the recruiter's line of crap and fine-print flim flaw, and was coached on how to assure his induction despite medical conditions that would have disqualified him.

So the army trained him how to kill efficiently in urban warfare situations and shipped his naive butt over to Baghdad to carry out the orders of his commander and chief, the Warrior Prince Bush, our president, brave military veteran of Vietnam. So my son was forced to take part in and was witness to acts of human cruelty beyond his wildest imagination. He killed other young men just like him. In another place in another time, they could have been friends, they could have worked side by side and shared their dreams, now their ghosts will haunt his dreams, like the dreams of this brand new generation of "winter soldiers". For the matter of a few feet, or maybe even a few inches, my son's brains would have been spilled out on a Baghdad street. My nightmare of a soldier's dad, of cradling my son's blown up head in my lap while I try to put it back together, it would have become reality like the nightmares of the families of those soldiers who have already died, and those who will die next week, next month, and next year.

So now my son sits in Army custody, brain injured by a roadside bomb and struggling mightly with PTSD while he awaits court-martial for desertion, because he refused redepolyment to combat in Iraq in May 2007 in protest over the war crimes he was ordered to engage in. He married a fifty-caliber machine gun atop a hummer providing perimeter security for one of the now infamous small kill teams.

With the help of war resistance groups in Canada, on the eve of his re-deployment, he went AWOL and has lived in Canada until March 4th of this year when his worsening mental and physical condition, his homesickness and his family responsibilities left him little choice but to turn himself in to the Army at Fort Knox Kentucky.

Maria Hinojosa interviewed James Burmesiter and Agustin Aguayo for NOW on PBS (here for a/v, here for text). And while we're noting NOW on PBS and Hinojosa, their "Child Brides: Stolen Lives" report won the 2008 Edward R. Murrow Award for Best TV Documentary and the episode can be viewed online here. As Hinojosa's report explained, after being injured by a bombing resulting in PTSD, Burmeister was placed on medication and ordered to serve another tour of duty in Iraq. Burmeister explained his reaction: "I got back home -- talked to my wife. You know, I said, 'I think I'm gonna leave.' It was like a 15 minute decision that I'm -- I'm gonna leave -- I'm gonna leave the army."

Now he awaits word on what the military is going to do? Are they going to court-martial a wounded veteran, on medication, who they were trying to redeploy to Iraq for another tour? No one knows. But his Erich Burmeister is asking for people to "Drop my son a card of encouragement!" and the address is: PFC James Burmeister, HHC Bldg 298, Gold Vault Rd, Fort Knox, KY 40121.

Those war resisters who are in Canada need support as well as they wait to see if the motion for safe harbor is going to come to the Parliament floor. You can utilize the following e-mails to show your support: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. In addition Jack Layton, NDP leader, has a contact form and they would like to hear from people as well. A few more addresses can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use.

There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.

Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).

[. . .]

Turning to US presidential nominations. Rick Klein (ABC News) reports on Hillary supporters who state they will boycott if Barack Obama is the nominee and not Hillary Clinton. A surprise to the MSM perhaps but this community decided last week that if Hillary doesn't get the nomination, Ralph Nader gets the vote in the November. Klein notes that the nonsense group of crybabies making up NARAL (include Kate in that, I still laugh at Kate's crying in the Senate -- still and always) deciding to endorse Barack yesterday has had a reaction: "Emily's List is furious. Anad Martha Burke" expresses "It feels like they are abandoning a known ally for a less committed candidate because they want to jump on a bandwagon. I think the pro-choice community should stick by a woman who has stuck by them." Taylor Marsh points out that local NARAL chapters are saying (basically), 'Don't blame us, the national leadership kept us in the dark and didn't even consult us." Jo Mannies (St. Louis Post-Dispatch) quotes the Missouri chapter's president, Pamela Sumners stating, "In our membership demographic, a lot of longtime women's rights supporters are strong supporters of Hillary Clinton. If we had been consulted, we would have said, 'Let this play out'." Plus don't support a man who regularly insults women. Klein earlier noted that a woman finally got an apology from Obama for his referring to her as "sweetie" ("Hold on one second, sweetie . . .") but then, she's a reporter. He's called women "sweetie"s over and over. "Little Miss" is probably next. Delilah Boyd (A Scriverner's Lament) compiles a list of men who could call her "sweetie" and Obama's not on it. As Michael Regunberg (Boston Globe) noted yesterday, "When the history of the 2008 presidential campaign is written, we may find that Gloria Steinem was right. In a column in The New York Times that appeared between the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary she wrote, 'Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life, whether the question is who must be in the kitchen or who could be in the White House.' Fast forward six months and Steinem looks downright prescient. We didn't know then just how biased the media would be against Hillary Clinton, a woman running for president. But the 'boys on the bus' (and a good number of women as well) have had a tough time with Clinton and criticized everything from her pantsuits to her laugh, things they would not excoriate a man for. What's worse, they get away with it . . . they use her as a punchline." Punchline? That would includes 'cracks' made by self-loathing lesbian Laura Flanders (be sure to read Marcia's "Laura Flanders the self-hating, disrespecting lesbian") who felt Gloria and Robin Morgan were missing the point. What point was that, Laura? That you're a semi-closeted lesbian or a Brit playing Democrat when you were raised a Communist? That is, after all, why you do NOT vote Democratic. Step out of your closets, self-loather. You could write about all the Communists mentioned in this article because your family was tight with all of them. (Self-loathing lesbian Laura especially took offense at Robin's "Goodbye To All That (#2)." Probably the notion of saying goodbye to illusions scared the sexually and politically closeted Flanders.)

Gene Lyons (Arkansas Democratic Gazette) is far kinder than I am, he calls them "progressives." Yeah, they tried to hide behind that label before as well. There's no reason for a Communist to be in the closet today (and young ones are not) unless you're trying to trick and decieve. The way Flanders did the night/early morning of the 2004 election when she pretended she understood the anger and upset, when she pretended she'd voted Democratic. Maybe all these 'progressives' wouldn't have so much influence if the Democrats they're trying to steer knew how many of them weren't Democrats. It's not "red-baiting." It goes to honesty. Lyons:

There's no denying that her candidacy has encountered what a friend calls a "perfect storm" of progressive idealists merging with Clinton-hating celebrity courtiers in the "mainstream" media. And yet she keeps chugging along like the Little Engine That Could, defying increasingly shrill demands to quit.

Weeks before the Indiana primary, Obama described it as the potential tiebreaker. Then he went out and lost it. Nevertheless, all but openly gloating, NBC's Tim Russert took it upon himself to announce, "We now know who the Democratic nominee's going to be, and no one's going to dispute it." Reaction among some Obama supporters was less polite.

Maybe Marie Cocco (same column as yesterday but link goes to the Washington Post) had those types in mind when she wrote: "I won't miss reading another treatise by a man or woman, of the left or right, who says that sexism has had not even a teeny-weeny bit of influence on the course of the Democratic campaign." Meanwhile snippy little Ryan Corsaro (CBS News) declares of Hillary leading in the popular vote: "Clinton only leads in the popular vote if Michigan and Florida's primary votes count, which they currently do not, because of Democratic Party rules." As Ava and I noted in March:

One offered, "She's thousands behind! If you don't count Florida and Michigan." Thanks for the add-on but shouldn't a press be aware that a presidential election in November will take place in all fifty states? Shouldn't a press not be concerned with the talking points of the Obama campaign and report the facts which is Hillary isn't behind due to Florida and Michigan?

If there's a re-vote, by all means, replace the votes. But there was a vote in both states and Hillary won both primaries. While it may not be in the Obama campaign's best interest to include those totals, the press is supposed to report what happened and what happened in those states' primaries was that Hillary won. "If you don't count"? Why wouldn't the press count them? They took place, millions voted. More people voted in the Florida primary, for example, than took part in all the primaries and caucuses before Florida combined. If you're the press, not the Obama campaign, and you're talking about the popular vote, there's no reason not to include Florida and Michigan. The press reports what happened. What happened is that Florida and Michigan voted. The delegates may be in dispute but there's no question that voters in both states showed up at the polls and no question about who won.

As we noted in April:

The popular vote is the popular vote. Primaries took place in Florida and Michigan. Whether the DNC seats, or doesn't, the delegates, the primaries took place and news outlets shouldn't pretend otherwise. Reporters are supposed to report what took place and, fact, primaries took place in both states and Hillary won.
John Dickerson -- whose outlet created a Hillary Death Watch and likened it to their Saddam-Meter, so therefore really shouldn't be invited on to comment on the Hillary campaign -- was whining that "the arithmetic we were taught in school" didn't allow for including the primaries. Actually, John, it did. Math exercises had you count apples and oranges. You weren't allowed to determine whether a national grocer would carry those apples and oranges before you were expected to count them. You were told there were X number and you added them. The same way that the primaries in Michigan and Florida are part of the popular vote.

The race isn't over. Yesterday Hillary received the endorsements of former governors of Kentucky Wendell Ford, Paul Patton, John Brown and Julian Carroll. Guessing they matter a bit more to Kentucky then John Edwards' nonsense. The race isn't over and, unless one of them drops out, goes to the convention floor.

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

THIS JUST IN! BRECK GIRLS FOR BAMBI

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

ONE TIME DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR THE 2008 PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION, JOHN EDWARDS, TOOK HIS LAXEN LOCKS TO THE PUBLIC STAGE TODAY TO ENDORSE TYRA BANKS AND BARACK OBAMA.

WHEN ASKED ABOUT THE LATTER BY THESE REPORTERS, EDWARDS GIGGLED AND SAID, "I'VE HAD A CRUSH ON HIM FOR SOME TIME, HASN'T IT BEEN OBVIOUS?"

EDWARDS EXPLAINED TO US THE "THRILL" HE EXPERIENCED REPEATEDLY ONSTAGE IN DEBATE AFTER DEBATE WITH BARACK WHEN BARACK "HANDED ME MY LUNCH. I JUST LOVE BEING PUNKED. AND I THINK AMERICA WILL LIKE IT TO. SO I'M SUPPORTING BARACK BECAUSE I THINK THE DEMOCRATS LOSING THE WHITE HOUSE IN NOVEMBER WILL GIVE AMERICANS THE SAME STRANGE TINGLES I GOT WHEN BARACK PUBLICLY HUMILIATED ME IN DEBATE AFTER DEBATE."

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Starting with political realities. There have been reports that US Senator Barack Obama intends to declare himself the Democratic presidential nominee (click here for Tennessee Guerilla Women citing an outlet's report). It's possible that the campaign truly is that stupid. Making that declaration would be a disaster and most have focused on the p.r. when the bigger disaster would be the finanical one. Ava and I discussed this morning a number of realities including that if August seems to long to wait for a Democratic presidential nominee to take it up with the DNC that shoved the convention back so that the Democratic candidate would be running on a level playing field (financially) with the Republican candidate. We didn't factor in the alleged May announcement because we'd honestly forgotten it.

In 2004, John Kerry and the DNC considered delaying the nomination. Not because Kerry was at risk of losing it Why? Because the DNC convention was in July of 2004 and the GOP convention would wrap up in September. The Washington Post, May 2004: "Under federal law, each major-party nominee will receive a check for $74.69 million from the U.S. Treasury to finance the general election. Receipt of the money is triggered by formal acceptance of the nomination, and after that no money raised for the primaries can be used on behalf of each nominee's general election campaign." Read the article. The Kerry campaign and DNC were not talking about delaying the convention, they were talking about no announcement of the nominee being made at the convention and doing that later. That was one idea they were toying with. If the announcement is made, the FEC regulations kick in.

When John McCain's mentioned here we generally note he is the presumed nominee and often include the point that, barring some upset ("heart attack or scandal"), he will be the GOP nominee in the fall. Barack Obama making an announcement this month would result in one of two things. A) The DNC calls him out on it and he has egg on his face that the press laughs at from now until the convention. (Possibly beyond.) B) The DNC doesn't call him on it. If the DNC makes no statement that the nominee has not been decided and it is not in Barack Obama's power to declare himself the nominee, then Barack would be in the presidential spending cycle. In May. Defeating everything the DNC was hoping to achieve this year by pushing the convention back to August. Read the Washington Post article. The 2004 convention would take place but John Kerry would make a speech in August declaring himself the nominee and they intended to argue that the speech was when Kerry became the nominee. By the same token, if Barack declares himself the nominee before the convention and is not loudly rebuked by the DNC, the federal guidelines should kick in and you better believe the Republicans will argue that they should.

When one candidate is left standing (the 'norm' for those especially young), they still aren't the nominee until the declaration. Barack making such a declaration before the convention and doing so while another candidate remains in the race would be viewed as a formal acceptance (seizure) of the nomination and the FEC spending rules would kick in.

Along with the p.r. nightmare Barack would create by declaring himself the nominee, people better get real about what happens in terms of financing. And, if you missed it, Barack's engaged in a dance with the press about how he would finance a general election campaign. Declaring himself the nominee -- with no LOUD rebuke from the DNC -- would take the issue from the hypothetical into the near future into the immediate present. (While the GOP nominee would have months to decide what they intend to do.) Since, unlike 2004, there are still two candidates, Barack declaring himself the nominee to shut out Hillary would most likely have to be seen by the FEC as his nomination unless the DNC loudly rebuked him and the federal finance laws on the general election cycle would immediately kick in.

Barack shouldn't be able to declare himself the nominee. It's a tie and the rules and guidelines say it goes to the convention where it's decided. But if he does try to do that the two most likely outcomes are (A) he enters the general election finance period in May or (B)he is loudly rebuked by the DNC. If it's (A), he defeats the entire purpose of the DNC moving the convention to August for 2008. If it's (B), he becomes the laughingstock of the press and America which suddenly gets an education on how a nominee is decided and Barack's speech becomes his Dan Quayle potato moment (or, as Dan spelled it, "potatoe").

We'll return to politics later in the snapshot. Turning to war resistance, Jesse McLean (The Samia Observer) reports on war resister Richard Droste. Twenty-two-year-old Droste served in Iraq as a medica and then self-checked out after seeing what was really taking place in the illegal war. He says, "I was a stupid one and didn't see what we were really doing there until I was already there for four months." Now he's in Canada, where he's married to a Canadian citizen, and speaking out in favor of the Canadian Parliament granting safe harbor to US war resisters. He and Josh Randall spoke in Sarnia yeterday and he states, "It's not looking good. I'm worried the government in Canada right now is too bought into the American life" and if safe harbor isn't granted "you're going to see hundreds of objectors shipped back stateside, where a lot of them would probably get imprisoned."

Currently, you can utilize the following e-mails to show your support: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. In addition Jack Layton, NDP leader, has a contact form and they would like to hear from people as well. A few more addresses can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use.

Meanwhile George Bryson (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that a US judge, John D. Roberts, has declared that paratrooper Michael Barnes is a conscientious objector. In the Anchorage Daily News, Bryson explains that Barnes enlisted in 2005 and was sent to Iraq where he realized he was a conscientious objector. Bryson notes: "In a 26-page recommendation to the U.S. District Court, Roberts noted that the Army failed to show 'any basis in fact' to support its decision to deny Barnes' petition to be honorably discharged due to his religious beliefs. At the same time, the record includes strong reasons to justify the request, including Barnes' own testimony, supporting letters from fellow soldiers and the opinion of an Army chaplain, the judge said." He is not the first war resister to require a court interceeding. Robert Zabala is the most recent example and Agustin Aguayo is hoping the Supreme Court will intercede on his behalf.

[. . .]

In other news, Reuters reports puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki has headed to Mosul to oversee the assault and has dubbed the ones under attack "terrorists" and "criminals." al-Maliki last oversaw the failed campaign in Basra which created the current conflict in Sadr City.

In US political news, West Virginia held a primary yesterday. As the Boston Globe headline proclaimed, "Clinton Crushes Obama in W. Va." With 100% precints reporting, Hillary Clinton beat Barack Obama by 41% and exit polling revealed a number stating that if Barack was the Democratic Party nominee, they would vote for John McCain in November. On NBC's Today Show this morning, Matt Lauer noted that the voters rejected the conventional wisdom the pundits keep pushing: that Barack is the nominee; while Andrea Mitchell noted problems in the upcoming primary in Kentucky "unless there is a major change in the way he connects to people." Barack Obama is in a tie with Hillary Clinton. Neither will finish the primaries with enough delegates awarded to claim the nomination. The rules and guidelines dictate that the decision be made at the August convention. In the meantime the 'invincible' Barack seems even less so but David Gregory assured Lauer that "new math" was being used by the Obama campaign and that they are convinced he can lure Republican states in the last two elections based on his 'appeal' to Latino voters -- an appeal that did not exist in Texas, California or Florida. Hillary declared in her victory speech last night, "After tonight's tremendous victory here in West Virginia, it's clear that the pundits declaring this race over have it all wrong. The voters in West Virginia spoke loud and clear -- they want this contest to go on." If there were a nominee selected by the people, the press-appointed nominee wouldn't have lost yesterday's primary by 41%.

Meanwhile, yes, it's true, John Edwards, former Democratic presidential candidate this year (and 2004 vice presidential nominee) appeared on TV today to make an endorsement. His taped announcement appeared at the end of The Tyra Banks Show where he joined other celebrities (such as Will & Grace's Debra Messing) in congratulating Tyra on her 500th show and wishing her many more episodes. With Merv Griffin and Michael Douglas no longer having TV shows, Edwards spoke live to endorse Barack Obama, the candidate who repeatedly punked him on stage, the one he refused to stand up to, the refusal that led to American voters seeing him as weak. At this late date and considering his non-stop desire to act as if his campaign existed for him to be part of an Obama entourage, no one gives a damn. Edwards joined Barack, Tim Russert and Brian Williams in the tag-team bashing of Hillary -- the debate FAIR didn't think warranted a "media advisory." He was a weak candidate who couldn't finish. His endorsement is meaningless. But it was nice to see him on Tyra playing the grinning fool he does too well.

Today Hillary Clinton explained what's at stake:

There are some people out there who want to declare this race over now, before all the ballots have been counted or even cast. There are some who say they don't know why I'm in this race. So let me tell you why I'm still running.

I'm in this race for everyone who needs a champion. For the hardworking families who are losing sleep over gas prices and grocery costs and mortgage payments and medical bills -- but who never lose that American can-do spirit and optimism.

I'm in this race for the more than 16 million people like you who have supported me -- for the people who have put their hearts into winning this race. You never gave up on me, and I'll never give up on you.

We are in the homestretch. After sixteen months, there are only three weeks left to compete in the final contests. With your help I'm going to keep fighting until every last American has a chance to be heard, and as we learned last night in West Virginia, I know we can win.

Contribute now to keep our campaign going strong.

I'm also in this race because I have the best chance of beating John McCain in November and putting America on the right track.

We proved something in West Virginia last night -- a state every Democratic president has won since 1916. And we proved something in a few other battleground states that have a history of picking presidents. Pennsylvania. Ohio. Arkansas. New Hampshire. New Jersey. New Mexico. Nevada. And, yes, Michigan and Florida.

I am in this race, and so are you, because we both know the stakes in this election are too high to stay on the sidelines.

So let's keep going together, you and me. Let's keep driving our campaign forward, and let's keep winning.

Make a contribution today to help me win.

I want to thank you again for the incredible generosity of spirit you have shown over the course of this campaign. Together, you and I are going to make history.

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

THIS JUST IN! PATRIOTISM!

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

FOR THE SECOND DAY IN A ROW, BARACK OBAMA IS WEARING A FLAG PIN. WHEN WE SAID THAT TO THE SENATOR, HE CORRECTED US.

"I'M NOT WEARING ONE FLAG PIN," HE INSISTED, "I'M WEARING THREE! I WAS OUT OF BRIEFS, SO I GRABBED AN AMERICAN FLAG, MADE IT INTO A DIAPER, AND USED 2 MORE FLAG PINS TO PIN IT TOGETHER. AIN'T I PATRIOTIC!"

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Starting with war resistance. The May 2nd snapshot noted war resister Ryan Jackson who turned himself in and was waiting to find out what was next. Courage to Resist reports: "War objector Army PFC Ryan Jackson was temporarily moved from his brig cell yesterday and arraigned at Fort Gordon, Georgia. Ryan was formally changed with multiple counts of AWOL stemming from his attempt to be released from the Army prior to Iraq deployment. He is scheduled to face a special court martial--with a maximum one year prison sentence--on Tuesday, June 3. Since voluntarily returning to Fort Gordon on April 14 and formally applying for a conscientious objector discharge, Ryan has been held in pre-trial confinement at the Charleston Navel Brig. Write to Ryan | Donate to Ryan's defense | Attend Ryan's court martial."

That's the US, in Canada, war resisters are hoping the Parliament will take action on a motion waiting to be debated. Currently, you can utilize the following e-mails to show your support: Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's pm at gc.ca) who is with the Conservative party and these two Liberals, Stephane Dion (Dion.S@parl.gc.ca -- that's Dion.S at parl.gc.ca) who is the leader of the Liberal Party and Maurizio Bevilacqua (Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca -- that's Bevilacqua.M at parl.gc.ca) who is the Liberal Party's Critic for Citizenship and Immigration. In addition Jack Layton, NDP leader, has a contact form and they would like to hear from people as well. A few more addresses can be found here at War Resisters Support Campaign. For those in the US, Courage to Resist has an online form that's very easy to use.

[. . .]

Let's go to MTV "News" where Gil Kaufman is a certifiable idiot. First he repeats Barack's claim that the US is "facing the largest homecoming since the Second World War." When he needs a fact, he just makes it up and his MOANING THAT HE'S WEARING BLUE JEANS press pack, is too STUPID to say, "Hey, how man troops did the US deploy to Vietnam?" Gil then decares that there is a "near-mathematical impossibility of her beating Obama for the nomination" -- what?????? Look, you're a reporter -- a bad one -- but a reporter. When you don't know what you're talking about, you 'research' it (make phone calls). Here's reality: neither Hillary or Barack will reach the magic number. Unless one of them drops out, this could go to the convention. If it does, there are no "pledged delegates." Super delegates can change their minds at any time. But, at the convention, pledged delegates make their own decisions. As Big Tent Democrat (TalkLeft) observes, it's probably not a good idea for Barack's campaign to be applauding a pledged delegate to Hillary (Jack B. Johnson) who states he'll "support Obama at the August convention."

Can Johnson, sent by the state (he's not a super delegate) to be a Hillary delegate, change his vote at the convention? Absolutely. And those of us who survived Miami in 1972 know very well that on the floor of the convention there are no promises. George McGovern himself proved that as he stabbed women OVER AND OVER in the back and sent out a woman to try to explain his betrayals and justify them. (Coward then, coward now: George McGovern. See Rebecca's "george mcgovern, start worrying about the after-life.") But Barack's campaign's applauding that. Good. Maybe it will make the press wake up to how STUPID they are. There is no winner. There will be no winner. There is a set number that the nominee has to reach. If no one reaches it and there's more than one standing, the issue is supposed to be resolved at the convention. Translation, NO ONE HAS A LOCK on the nomination. No one. Now those old enough to remember past Democratic nominations decided on the convention floor could explain that but the elders went AWOL in the party sometime ago, mouthing meaningless patter about 'movement.'

Christopher Hayes (The Nation, gets a link because he's a nice guy) can't understand why the media notes Barack's religion by stating he 'says he's a Christian.' Allow us to break it down for you. Thus far, mainstream journalists have attempted to locate Barack's baptismal record. Can't find it. And a number with the church when Barack started showing up there say (to the press) it's due to the fact that Barack wasn't baptised. What did he do May 4th? What he always does. On NBC's Meet The Press, he insisted he was "uh a Christian" and then went on to list what Wright had done for his family including baptizing Barack's children. But where was Barack's baptism. I know it's hard for a lot in Panhandle Media to grasp due to not being religious or not being part of a religion that requires baptism. However, Barack says he's a Christian and says he's a member of a church. The church and the faith requires those coming to the Lord to be baptiszed -- regardless of age. Those changing churches can simply have their baptismal records forwarded (the church secretary takes care of that). If someone's not grasping it, if Barack wasn't baptized -- and that is becoming the consensus in the press -- he's yet again misrepresented himself to the public. He can try to fix it by claiming, "Well, I came to God on my own." But he hasn't said that. He's stated he's a Christian and stated that a church was his church. Allowing people to believe he'd been baptized in that faith. If he never was, he misrepresented and that will be one of the kinder things said about him. And that is what will rally the religious right to the polls for John McCain in November. If you don't grasp that, you don't grasp religion. Here's Barack speaking to Tim Russert from Meet The Press' transcript (which leaves out the 'uh-uh's):

And, as a consequence, when Reverend Wright, who married me and baptized our, our children, when he made those statements, or I learned of those statements that I found so objectionable, I, I .

What's missing? Barack saying Wright baptized him. (Again, the press consensus is becoming that it never happened.) He doesn't mention it in either of his books. A grown man getting baptised, you'd assume he'd have an anecdote. This would be an issue in the general election if he got the nomination.

If you disagree, note this from conservative ("crunchy con") Rod Dreher (Dallas Morning News):

His former pastor the Rev. Jeremiah Wright is an unreconstructed '60s radical, a fire-breathing disciple of James Cone's period-piece black liberation theology. Mr. Obama wrote in his 1995 autobiography, Dreams From My Father, about his attraction to the leftist pastor's church as a vehicle for social change. If black nationalism would uplift the race, he wrote, "then the hurt it might cause well-meaning whites, or the inner turmoil it caused people like me, would be of little consequence."

That's a remarkable admission of a racialized "ends justify the means" morality. It helps explain why Mr. Obama was willing to stick with a crackpot like Dr. Wright. It also might explain why an up-and-coming Barack Obama found nothing particularly wrong with rubbing political elbows with Bill Ayers, the Chicago university professor and onetime fugitive member of the revolutionary, communist Weather Underground.

You can use the link to read the entire piece. If Barack wasn't baptised, the GOP attack will include that and it will effect voters (including some of Barack's core support because the word for many church goers -- of all races -- will be stronger than "fraud"). Meanwhile, Egalia (Tennessee Guerilla Women) notes, "So many women in the media have remained silent" during the non-stop sexist attacks on Hillary and post a clip of ABC's This Week where Cokie Roberts (who has called it out before during this election cycle) again pointed out the double standards. Marie Cocco (link goes to Real Clear Politics -- Cocco is syndicated by the Washington Post) appears to write a burial for the Clinton campaign (it's not over, Marie) and finds her voice to speak out against some of the sexism (left out of the list are the writings at the website which reposts her for free). It's a greatest hits of the most obvious. Cocco notes: "I will not miss the deafening, depressing silence of Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean or other leading Democrats, who to my knowledge (with the exception of Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland) haven't uttered a word of public outrage at the unrelenting, sex-based hate that has been hurled at a former first lady and two-term senator from New York." Don't stop there, Marie. As we all know Laura Flanders has defended Laura Bush, Condi Rice and countless other GOP women in print and over the radio when they were attacked for or discriminated against due to gender. But the self-loathing lesbian Laura Flanders couldn't call it out. And The Nation thought it was cute to print all those sexist attacks on Hillary, as did The Progressive, as did . . . The entire Panhandle Media. This will not be forgotten. And it's not hurting feminism, it only fuels greater strength.

And just as the sexism will not be forgotten, the campaign isn't over. Fernando Suarez (CBS News) quotes Hillary explaining, "West Virginia has a record of picking presidents. West Virginia made it possible for President Kennedy to become president of the United States. West Virginia in the general election votes for the winner and if West Virginia had voted for our Democratic nominee in 2000 and 2004 we wouldn't have had to put up with George Bush." Yesterday 41 former South Dakota state legislators and Constitutional Officiaers endorsed Hillary. I guess they didn't hear that the race was over? Or maybe they weren't foolish enough to believe the spin. The race isn't over. There are two candidates left in the Democratic primary and they are in a dead-heat. Neither will finish the race with enough pledged delegates to be declared the winner or to declare themselves the winner. And while the Obama Groupies run to a largely compliant press yelling "Shut it down!" the people want it to continue. The new ABC News - Washington Post poll finds 64% want the race to play out. Read Elaine's "Debates" in context of the poll and realize how badly Panhandle Media failed America by refusing to call out Barack's refusal to debate. Lindsay Levin (HillaryClinton.com) points out, "In the face of grim poll numbers, the Obama campaign has attempted to dismiss today's outcome despite the fact that Sen. Obama has outspent us on advertising, has more staff in the state, and more than double the number of offices. He has also benifted from the support of the most high-profile endorses in West Virginia -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller and Congressman Nick Rahall. By every measure, the Obama campaign has waged an aggressive campaign in the Mountain State. Despite being the so-called 'presumptive nominee' and benefiting from these advantages, Sen. Obama has been unable to close a significant gap in the polls. Sen. Clinton has already won Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and Michigan. With a win in West Virginia, Sen. Clinton will have once again proven her greater ability to win in the key swing states." Lastly Jake Tapper (ABC News) notes how no matter what happens in the Obama campaign, "It's never my fault!" is the cry of Barack.

Monday, May 12, 2008

THIS JUST IN! LOOK WHO'S PANDERING!

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE

THESE REPORTERS ACCOMPANIED SENATOR BAMBI OBAMA TO WEST VIRGINIA WHERE 'LET ME MAKE MY BIG STATEMENT ABOUT HOW I DON'T BELIEVE IN FLAG PINS' DECIDED TO SPORT A FLAG PIN.

WHEN THESE STARTLED REPORTERS SAW THE FLAG PIN WE ASKED HIM ABOUT HIS BIG STAND AND HOW HE HOPPED THE HIGH HORSE BUT NOW IS SPORTING A FLAG PIN.

BAMBI GIGGLED AND SAID, "I REALLY DON'T STAND FOR ANYTHING. HAVEN'T YOU FIGURED THAT OUT YET?"

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Alexandra Zavis (Los Angeles Times' Babylon & Beyond) notes: "Government officials had been talking about it for months. But when the offensive finally began Saturday to clear the northern city of Mosul of insurgents, residents were caught off guard." Talking about it? Did someone miss that Barack Obama, April 8th, was praising it in the Senate during The Petraeus & Crocker Variety Hour? Praising it, acting like it had taken place. Turning to US politics. PBS' NewsHour on Friday featured THREE IDIOTS, chief among them Mark Shields who wants to claim to be a "hard working American." Old idiot should have retired a long time ago so it is hilarious to watch him claim that Hillary Clinton needs to exit "gracefully." Shields won't exit period. Mark Sheilds turns 70 this month (May 25th). Exactly when he is going to exit? Exactly when will his tired ass be taken off television or does he really think anyone believes he's from the "left" all these years later or that anyone needs his nonsense? 70 years old and he wants to pretend anyone else needs to exit? Get real, Mark, it's time to go. Step down and allow someone younger -- even ten years younger would be something at this point -- to step up to the plate.

We don't do "Don't Run! and "Drop Out!" pieces in this community (community-wide, it doesn't happen). Someone's campaign may appear over to us and we may note that. We don't then say, "Drop out!" (We didn't with Dennis Kucinich when he demonstrated that he would give votes away in Iowa. That's when his campaign died. Had he stayed in, were he still in today, there would be no "Drop Out Dennis!" piece.) Those pieces -- whether aimed at Ralph Nader, Cindy Sheehan, or whomever -- go against the beliefs in democracy that the US is supposed to have. Someone wants to run, they run. Someone wants to stay in the race, they stay in. It's really basic but it's something that a number of people have trouble grasping and they need to start answering the question: "Do you believe in democracy?" Their actions indicate that they do not.

In terms of the Democratic primaries a few things. Iowa and New Hampshire should not have a lock on who goes first. That's been the position community-wide (and we wrote about it at Third -- over and over -- beginning in 2005). Iowa's caucus is prone to theft and not open (ibid). Caucuses are not used in the general election so they shouldn't be used in any primaries (ibid). Every vote should be counted (ibid). Everyone who wants to run for public office has a right to (ibid). No candiate 'steals' votes from another. Everyone gets the ones they get and if they lose by X% that is their own loss (ibid). Those are the basic beliefs that this community has operated under since it started. In terms of this election cycle, the only thing to add to that is that this site (The Common Ills), Wally and Cedric (at their sites) have all argued for Michigan and Florida's delegates to be seated and done that going back months and months well into 2007 -- long before either state held their primary (and Wally, Cedric and I were making comments that the delegates will need to be seated and the totals honored in roundtables at Third long before that -- Wally lives in Florida, this has always been a primary issue to him). We have not adopted to a position helpful to 'our candidate,' we have stayed consistent with our core democratic beliefs.

Now the DNC has repeatedly lied to states -- presidential election cycle after presidential election cycle -- that there's no harm in the order. It may happen, they've said, that states pushed all the way to the end of the calendar could end up being the deciding factors! It just might be, they've lied, that the final states could decide it! Well now the race continues and shame on anyone in an elected office who tries to call it off or says someone needs to drop out. The campaign's still going (West Virginia's primary is tomorrow, Kentucky & Oregon's on May 20th, Puerto Rico's on June 1st and then Montana & South Dakota on June 3rd.) Every four year, Iowa and New Hampshire get their asses kissed by every candidate and the rest of the states suffer. It's not fair, it's never been fair. It's not right, it's never been right. 2012 should see real changes from the DNC. That should include doing away with caucuses which are not used in a general election, which allow people to 'vote' in 'rounds' and which are useless. That should include immediately implementing a rotating schedule for state primaries so that all states will have a chance at being the first ones (yes, even Alaska).

To cover a few more points, we don't waste our time on faux candidates. Meaning Cynthia McKinney. When idiot Ted Glick stated on Democracy Now! that McKinney (who is not yet the Green Party nominee) knew she couldn't win the presidency and was defining 'victory' by getting 5%, that was idiotic. That was stupid. But he said it. When her campaign turned around and linked to the interview stating he speaks for her, this community was under no obligation to ever again give a damn. And, if she's the nominee, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC should shut her out of the debates because a candidate (who doesn't even have her party's nomination) who states that 'victory' would be 5% of the vote isn't a real candidate. They should shut her out and she has no right to complain if they do. Ralph Nader's not saying, "I'm going for X% of the vote." Nader's running to win. Though you hear over and over that Ralph's running a vanity campaign (you heard that in 2004, 2000, 1996 . . .), he is not (and has not) run a vanity campaign. He's running to win. He may win or he may not win but he's running the best campaign he can and in a race to win it. Nader has a right to be on stage taking part in all debates. I don't know right-wing third parties. If their candidates are running to win (and not announcing "I can't win, I just want a percent of the vote!") then they should be allowed on stage at the debates as well. That's a basic of democracy as surely as count every vote: candidates in a race to win it are real candidates -- not based on polling, not based on fund raising. It's not only that they have a right to be included it's also that in a democracy those 'deciding' have an obligation to include them.

Those are the basics and we'll touch on them throughout the next section. Another basic, how many states are there in the US? Answer: 50. Who said this: "Over the last 15 months, we've traveled to every corner of the United States. I've now been in 57 states, I think one left to go. One left to go. Alaska and Hawaii I was not allowed to go, even though I really wanted to visit but my staff would not justify it."? It wasn't John McCain, it was Barack Obama. Video here. The NewsHour link earlier will find Barack saying "I said uh on Brian Williams yesterday" . . . Not 'to' Brian Williams. Sorry to break it to Barack but there's no Brian Williams Show to say that on. The program's title remains NBC Nightly News, the same title it's had since Barack was a child going by "Barry." (It was Huntley-Brinkley Report until July 31, 1970.) This comes on top of his absurd claim last week (in his North Carolina victory speech) that the media refused to notice where he was insisting his father (a Kenyan) was buried (in Kenya) with a US flag draping the coffin. (Be sure to check out Isaiah's comic on Barack's blunders.) I'm sure some will rush foward -- the same who chuckled at Barack's slam to John McCain last week, the ageism, no doubt -- to insist Barack's tired. Now I know the Bully Boy's made it look easy by delegating so much of his work to Dick Cheney; however, the president of the United States is supposed to be one of the hardest and most demanding in the country. If Barack's not up for the job, voters need to know that now. He's already required a tropical vacation (Virgin Islands -- March right after he gave the nearly 4,000 word speech) and a day of rest last Wednesday. Barack Obama is young for a presidential candidate (46-years-old) currently. And he's having trouble keeping up with the campaign schedule? And he wants to smear John McCain with little jabs? (Covered in Friday's "Iraq snapshot" and Ava and I note it in "TV: Tiny Tots"). He thinks he can accuse McCain of "losing his bearings" after all of that plus repeatedly calling Matt Lauer "Tim" last week?

Now he's decided to write off campaigning in many states (he can't win them) and his campaign is allegedly calling people in those states and telling them the race is over? That's as phoney as targeting certain areas with fliers stating the wrong date for an election or telling some communities that anyone with an outstanding traffic ticket or warrant will be arrested if they vote. He should be ashamed of his campaign. He should be ashmed of himself for writing off states -- were he to become the nominee, he would need to have used the opportunity to introduce himself to residents of West Virginia. Big Tent Democrat (TalkLeft) notes "that Democratic Presidential candidates carried West Virginia in every recent election except the last 2". Jeralyn (TalkLeft) again stresses the issue of the electoral college map and notes Bringiton (Corrente) results where the idea of sharing delegates is tossed out and the winner takes all system is used (as it is in the general election for all but two states). In that match-up, based on the states that have voted thus far (and tossing Oregon over to Barack before their primary), Hillary comes out the strongest. Bringiton's point is the one that NOW on PBS addressed two Fridays ago when David Brancaccio spoke with Willie Brown and Dan Schnur and it was noted that if the system the Democrats are currently using was used by the GOP, John McCain would still be facing Mike Huckabee; however, under the winner takes all system, Hillary would have been declared the Democratic primary winner long ago. So, to be clear, the GOP will be putting up a nominee (barring any unforseen circumstances) who has played on the winner take all field and the Democrats may very well go with a candidate who's been given delegates that really don't matter even though he lost the states (Schnur compared it to Little League giving every player a trophy). Anglachel (Anglache's Journal) asserts, "I will simply repeat what I've been saying for weeks now: Hillary = nominee= vicotry; Obama = nominee = defeat. Neither candidate has enough pledged delgates to get to 2209 votes without super delegates, so it is up to the SDs to decide the fate of the party in this electoral cycle. The nominee isn't the person with the most at a certain point in time, it is the person who first hits 2209."

Meanwhile John Edwards' supporter John Mashek (US News & World Report) weighs in on John Edwards "playing games with his preference for his party's nomination. Truth be told, it really doesn't matter at this late hour. Edwards holds a meager handful of pledged delegates, and even they can act as free agents at the convention in Denver." What's he talking about is John Edwards was on Face The Nation (CBS) Sunday (link has text and video and, PDF format warning, transcript here). As Edwards noted himself, she doesn't need any advice so why are so many rushing to give it to her? Rushing to tell her to drop out? Fernando Suarez (CBS News) reports that the latest Suffolk University Poll shows Hillary Clinton with a huge double-digit lead in West Virginia -- a 36 point advantage over her opponent Barack Obama. But the most striking figure in the poll is that Clinton is viewed more favorably than Obama". Doesn't sound like a loser. Suarez also notes that "no Democratic candidate has won the White House without winning West Virginia since 1916." Egalia (Tennessee Guerilla Women) notes Barack's absences from West Virginia and Kentucky and wonders, "If Obama views it as pointless to campaign in the Kentucky and West Virginia primaries, why would he bother showing up in the general?" Good point but it also needs to be noted that this was his Michigan strategy. Idiots keep repeating, "He wasn't on the ballot!" He took his name off. He did so for the same reason he's refusing to campaign in Kentucky and West Virginia right now: He doesn't think he can win. The plan with Michigan, which he knew he couldn't win (and he couldn't, he was right on that) was to take his name off so that he could say of Hillary's victory (she was expected to win and she did), "It doesn't matter, I wasn't on the ballot." Just as his trashy campaign will attempt to argue that Kentucky and West Virginia's votes don't matter "because he didn't campaign!" He took his name off the Michigan ballot after the internal campaign voting showed him losing to Hillary and John Edwards. His own campaign polling showed him coming in third. He took his name off the ballot (as did Edwards) and then used that to suck up to the residents of Iowa and New Hampshire.

Hillary's still in the race because the race is a dead-heat. The cries for her to drop out are coming because Barack's campaign knows it does reject their narrative that he is the choice of Democratic voters when the upcoming primaries take place. Actually, had the media been paying attention, Indiana recently made that argument. He lost, she won. Were he the choice why, in May, would he be losing to her? He's not the choice. It's a tie, neither will reach the necessary number of delegates awarded by states. The decision should be mae on the convention floor unless one of them drops out. Whining about August being so late in the year? Blame the DNC. They were the fools that moved it back. The mistaken belief is that part of John Kerry's losing campaign's failure was in fundraising -- and by being so far ahead (so many weeks) of the GOP convention, the July DNC convention was the reason. He had so many more weeks where he needed to buy advertising! Boo-hoo. But if August is too far away, blame the DNC for pushing the convention so far back this year.

Barring one of them dropping back, the race should go to the convention room floor. Those are the rules. I don't know why so many big babies -- alleged adults -- are afraid of a convention floor fight? The Demcractic Party used to have them all the time. Maybe it's scary when one candidate is vetted and the other isn't? Texas Darlin (TaylorMarsh.com) notes this from Chuck Neubauer and Tom Hamburger (Los Angeles Times) report on Barack's relationship with Chicago business person Robert Blackwell Jr.: "After After an unsuccessful campaign for Congress in 2000, Illinois state Sen. Barack Obama faced serious financial pressure: numerous debts, limited cash and a law practice he had neglected for a year. Help arrived in early 2001 from a significant new legal client -- a longtime political supporter. Chicago entrepreneur Robert Blackwell Jr. paid Obama an $8,000-a-month retainer to give legal advice to his growing technology firm, Electronic Knowledge Interchange. It allowed Obama to supplement his $58,000 part-time state Senate salary for over a year with regular payments from Blackwell's firm that eventually totaled $112,000. A few months after receiving his final payment from EKI, Obama sent a request on state Senate letterhead urging Illinois officials to provide a $50,000 tourism promotion grant to another Blackwell company, Killerspin." Darlin notes that "the day after Obama wrote his letter soliciting state funds for Blackwell's company, Obama's U.S. Senate campaign received a $1,000 donation from Blackwell." There are things like this throughout Barack's 'career.' Panhandle Media has inflated him and you hear that he was a "community organizer" (he did get-out-the-vote work), a "law professor" (he lectured -- the Chicago university may cover his butt, we won't here, reality is reality, he was a lecturer), a "Civili Rights" or "Civil Liberties" attorney. Don't hold your breath waiting to hear about those cases because they don't exist. Since he hasn't provided any (again, they don't exist), journalists are checking the Chicago docket (and finding nothing). There seems to be some delusion in the Obama campaign that no one will ever ask questions. (They're backed up by the fact that the many in the media still think Bill Ayers-Barack Obama is the connection when, in fact, the connection is to Bernardine Dohrn and all who know Bernardine and Bill -- myself included -- no Bill never does a thing without her say so.) That's what's behind the attempts to push Hillary out of the race. If Barack's get the nomination, the thinking is, the Dems are stuck with him and they'll have to defend him from whatever scandal (I count four brewing in the press and it will be interesting to see which one gets reported first). The thinking is that if they sell this lemon and it's driven off the car lot, it won't matter, people will be stuck with Barack. They'll have to defend for things that they do not approve of. It's a losing strategy and it's a loser for the Democratic Party.

Jennifer Agiesta and Jon Cohen (Washington Post) reported Saturday that, yes, Jeremiah Wright is making a difference in voting with presumably White churchgoers the most vocal while "African American churchgoers were not uniform in their response to the uproar surrounding Wright's controversial views, which the preacher rekindled the week before the primaries. Nearly half of black weekly churchgoers in Indiana said Wright was not at all important to their vote, while in North Carolina, about the same percentage said it was a significant factor. In the Tarheel state, black voters who gave Wright's sermons the most consideration still gave Obama a 70-point advantage, but it was slimmer than his 93-point win among those who said it was not a factor." Issue after issue and the presumed conviction of Antoin "Tony" Rezko all rolls together to make Barack Obama not the image he presented to the American people. And he was never that popular to begin with. He was popular with those following Democratic primaries which doesn't even include all Democrats. What Barack's done is run an impressive -- though not winning -- primary campaign and demonstrated that he's not a general election candidate. The bloom came off the rose when ABC's Good Morning America broadcast the Wright videos, his campaign's been a drag ever since. Not helped by his uh-uh-uh-uh, not helped by the fact that he can't win a debate -- exactly how do his supporters assume they would prod swing-voters to his side after they saw him embarrass himself in repeated debates with John McCain (and hopefully Ralph Nader)? Or is he going to stomp his feet and insist that there be no debates the way he did in the primary season? Hate to break it to the Big Baby and his Devoted Cult, Hillary hasn't hit that hard. If Barack does steal the nomination, it will be a rude awakening for his devoted following when false charges of racism backfire on them, when he's excepted to be competent and know what he's talking about, when he's expected to grasp issues -- those things he always wants to talk about (he says) but never gets around to. His radicals in Panhandle Media can stomp their feet all they want, they can scream and yell all they want, it won't do any good -- and bystanders watching the proceedings from the sides are already sick of the trash the Barack campaign has used. It's like all the pathetic White people of the 'left' defending Jeremiah Wright. There is no excuse for what he said. There's no excuse for it. Carol F. Roye (Women's eNews) notes that "Wright's incedniary comment was unwarranted and destructive. I wish he'd dare to raise an actual HIV-AIDS threat that is being dangerously silence by taboo. It's a threat that the public health community continues to ignore and that we must talk about: women's unprotected anal intercourse with male partners." Wright offered crackpot science and it was justified, excused, defended by Panhandle Media. Grow up. You can trick your small devoted into believeing that for a little while; however, let's be honest, the bulk of you have also tricked your same audiences into believing that you are Democrats.

Jake Tapper (ABC News) notes that Chris Rock, NPR's Ken Rudin and US House Rep Steve Cohen have now all compared Hillary to the Glenn Close character in the backlash trash Fatal Attraction. Tapper notes "as the late great Pauline Kael wrote in The New Yorker at the time, the 'film is about men seeing feminists as witches'." It's exactly that sort of crap that made people like Ava and myself get off the sidelines. The Obama camp has no one to blame but themselves. They have used sexism over and over and the media has amplified it and provided their own. (And let's remember, Betsy Reed, wanting to talk sister-to-sister to all of us gals cited the 'feminist' Chris Rock in her column. Reed's not a feminist, she's not a Democrat and she needs to stop trying to trick America but people like her having nothing to offer but tricks and deceptions. If forced to be honest -- about anything -- they'd probably suffer a heart attack.) Another who called out Fatal Attraciton, Susan Faludi, noted last week (Friday in the New York Times but link goes to Der Spiegel), "Pundits have been quick to attribute the erosion in Barack Obama's white male support to a newfound racism. What they have failed to consider is the degree to which white male voters witnessing Senator Clinton's metamorphosis are being forced to rethink precepts they've long held about women in politics." That's certainly logical and plausible and would be similar to the shift in the Latino community, the one Cokie Roberts attempted to address the night of Super Duper Tuesday on ABC when she noted that, in the 1980s, Latino voters were among the more resistant to female candidates -- and not only had Hillary won their support but that the change had begun in the 90s for the Latino community. That is two women now who noted it. Hopefully, others in the media will at some point. It's one of the major developments of this campaign season. Another development is that US House Rep Ciro Rodriguez has endorsed Hillary today stating, "The voters of Texas' 23rd congressional district voted overwhelming for Senator Clinton in the Texas primary and I will respect their decision. I believe Hillary Clinton has the experience, vision, and toughness to win a general election and can help expand our Democratic majority in Congress. Not only can she win, I am convinced that she will be a truly great President. In two areas of special importance to me, caring for our veterans and improving our schools, Hillary has been a real leader. I am happy to follow the clear choice of my constituents and support Hillary for President." Which does put pressure on Barack supporters who scream "popular vote! popular vote!" but whose own constituents voted for Hillary. (Yes, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, that would include you.)

Peggy Simpson (Womens Media Center) reports on Barack and Hillary's statements that the Democratic Party will come together in November regardless of the outcome of the nomination process. Trina would disagree. Joel S. Hirschhorn (Information Clearing House) makes the argument for Ralph Nader, assumes Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee and argues: "Peoplw with intelligence and conscience must resist peer pressure and the temptation to vote against John McCain by voting for Barack Obama." Regardless of who gets the nomination -- Hillary or Barack -- some voters (maybe many) will go elsewhere. A Nader supporter grasps that, too bad for the pathetic public faces of the Green Party that they couldn't grasp that very basic fact. This community is pro-Hillary. That's the Green members, the independents, the third partied and the Democrats. Democratic community members are supporting her with their votes but community-wide she had support in terms of the primary race. That didn't prevent Green 'faces' from smearing her throughout the primary. Teddy Glick, I-Need-Attention Benjamin and all the others. Between that and the nonsense of McKinney's I'm-Running-For-5%-of-The Vote, Ralph Nader sewed up the community. He is the choice of Greens and most independents and has become the back-up choice for all the rest should Hillary not get the nomination. (For those visitors who have continued to whine in e-mails -- I didn't vote in the poll, I do not disclose my vote. And I honestly don't give a damn what any of you cry babies have to say. The community made up its mind, you aren't part of it, whine elsewhere.) "Call it the no more whinging campaing," says Team Nader:

Don't tell us about Bush/Cheney. We know already. The sewage has risen to the surface. The question is -- what are we going to do about it? The answer is -- Nader - [Matt] Gonzalez. [. . .] We put our people vs. the corporations platform on the table. And -- per your request -- we've just updated our issues pages with more detail. We're working hard to get Nader/Gonzalez on as many state ballots as possible. And -- per your request -- we've just launched a clickable state by state map of the country for ballot access.