The Final Intervention of Hillary

Unless something dramatic and miraculous happens, this will be my last post about Hillary Clinton until after November.

On the night that Barack Obama was decleared the presumptive Democratic Presidential Nominee, Hillary Clinton made these statements...

Who will be ready to take back the White House and take charge as commander-in-chief and lead our country to better tomorrows?

People in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the territories, all had a chance to make your voices heard. And on election day after election day, you came out in record numbers to cast your ballots. Nearly 18 million of you cast your votes for our campaign, carrying the popular vote with more votes than any primary candidate in history.

And this:

In all of the states, you voted because you wanted a leader who will stand up for the deepest values of our party, a party that believes everyone should have a fair shot at the American dream, a party that cherishes every child, values every family, and counts every single vote.

Translation: I really won, and we were robbed.

Just over 24 hours later Howard Fineman on Olberman reported Clinton will be conceding and endorsing Obama this weekend, at about 4:10 into the video:

... [A]nd to add to what Andrea was just talking about, there was another conference call involving senators, eight senators who were supporters of Hillary's, very hard core supporters of Hillary Clinton's.

And here's the added wrinkle to it: they were urged to assemble that conference call and to speak frankly to Hillary by some of the top strategists around Hillary -- I can't use the names -- but people you would associate with a hard-line defense of Hillary's position, who called the Senate and said "Look. You guys are Hillary's strongest supporters -- you gals also. Get in there and tell her to get out."

And we're talking about senators such as Barbara Mikulski, and Ben -- and Senator Nelson, and even Chuck Schumer, and others were reached out to by people around Hillary, strategists who said "You've got to get to her and get her out of this thing." And that's what they accomplished by this afternoon, so she will do it on Friday, she will get out of the race -- suspend, use whatever word you want -- but more important, endorse Barack Obama.

This was soon confirmed by a blog post and email to her supporters

I wanted you to be one of the first to know: on Saturday, I will hold an event in Washington D.C. to thank everyone who has supported my campaign. Over the course of the last 16 months, I have been privileged and touched to witness the incredible dedication and sacrifice of so many people working for our campaign. Every minute you put into helping us win, every dollar you gave to keep up the fight meant more to me than I can ever possibly tell you.

On Saturday, I will extend my congratulations to Senator Obama and my support for his candidacy.

The time has come to put down the warclubs, to take a step back and take a deep breath. The campaign is over, and Hillary Clinton did not win - Barack Obama did.

I still hope, as I have previously stated, that Hillary does more than make a simple announcement, I do hope that she begins to actively campaign for her supporters to merge with his supporters so that we will be absolutely assured of taking the White House in November.

She doesn't have to do that, because as of right now and the true Presidential Race begins Barack Obama has a 287 to 227 Electoral Vote lead over McCain. He is winning at least fives states, Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, Missouri and OHIO that John Kerry lost in 2004. Keeping and extending this lead is where our focus now needs to shift.

In addition to this we are looking at having 58 Democratic Seats in the Senate - with a reasonable shot at 61 - and 237 seats in the House.

If we handle things correctly, this will be an absolute rout as well as a glorious sea-change in the direction of nation.

Pardon me if I join Oprah in doing a "Happy Dance", I just won't be jumping on the couch.

Vyan

The Hillary Problem: Welcome to the show that Never Ends.

The Democratic Nomination is over, except for it not being over.

Barack Obama is now the Presumptive Nominee for President of The United States. At least until the convention.

In the meanwhile, we have a strong second place finish by Candidate Hillary Clinton who has yet to acknowledge Obama's win, and yet to suspend her campaign and yet to concede defeat.

It's only been a single day, but instead of rallying her troops in solidarity with Barack to the greater fight that awaits us, by all indications and certainly based on her speech last night - Hillary Clinton is still in it to win it.

So what should Obama and his supporters do about this?

One thing they may have to admit is there isn't anything they can say that will make Hillary and her supporters happy. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't say them anyway.

Obama supporters could try to forgive Hillary for her MLK/LBJ comments, by admitting that her larger point was that it takes more than just inspiration to get things done, it also takes a skilled legislator and skill leader to implement our best aspirations. (Something which Barack has already shown by passing Health Care Bills, and Middle-class tax cuts as a State Senator as well as Nuclear anti-proliferation and ethics reform as a U.S. Senator)

They can try to forgive Bill Clinton for his South Carolina comments about Jesse Jackson, since his larger point was nothing more than what he said : Barack ran a great campaign and so did Jesse, period.

They can try to forgive Bob Johnson, because Bob's greater point was that Hillary was on the front-lines of the Civil Rights movement while Barack was still a kid who didn't yet know up from down. (Obviously, he's grown up since then.)

They can try to forgive Hillary's the "hard-working white voters" comments, since all she was doing was repeating what the press had already been saying for weeks.

They can try to simply put Geraldine Ferraro out of sight and out of mind.

They can try to forget and forgive the "3 Am", Sniper-fire, Bitter-gate and "Slum-lord" talk as simply being the result of the heat of the campaign. Hard fighters can sometimes swing wide.

As the ultimate winner of the contest, Barack and his supporters have room to be forgiving. This we should do not because we need to appease and placate those who still feel passionately about Hillary, but simply because, it's the right thing to do and it costs us nothing.

The one thing that IMO is pretty much impossible to ignore or forgive, at least not yet, is Hillary's continued insistence that she has "Won the Popular Vote" when the Magical Math needed to justify that statement requires the disenfranchisement of 14 Caucus States, plus all the uncommitted and write-in votes from Michigan.

That's not a misstatement, that's not a typo, that's not matter that's "open to interpretation" - it's a deliberate manipulation and as such, it's a bit much to swallow.

It's a direct denial of Barack's Win. It's a challenge to his legitimacy, one which can not be allowed to stand for the good of the party.

It's become clear based on her actions and her speech yesterday, that Hillary intends to leverage her popular vote numbers and her high delegate count in order to issue demands and ultimatums upon the Obama campaign.

Her goal may be to shoe-horn her way into the Shootgun Wedding of a VP slot. It may be to push Obama to adopt policy positions (such as on Health Care) which are more in line with hers. Whatever her ultimately goal, what matters is how Obama responds.

Obama and his supporters can certainly afford to be gracious and magnanimous - but one thing they can't afford to be are pushovers!

Clinton may indeed have made history this year, she may have indeed drawn much of the Democratic Party to her side - but before Barack gives her the keys to the White House washroom, she still needs to put in some much needed work first. She needs to show that the can bring her army into line, begin to merge forces with Obama and display her willingness to be a team player and help heal the party in preparation for Movember before he starts giving her stuff willy nilly.

He's the winner, he has to set the agenda.

If he allows the loser to dictate terms to him, then he really is every bit as weak as she has long been intimating and in fact, she really is the stronger candidate.

This has now become a behind the scenes negotiation/poker/staring contest between the two of them over who will begin to start providing concessions first - and my money is still on Barack to be last person standing when the dust settles. He holds the card that matters, He's The Nominee!

Barack may be gracious outwardly but behind the scenes he's going to have to be tough, hard-nosed, and make her blink by holding his ground and displaying HIS leadership ability as the newly annoited head of the Democratic Party.

It's not going to be fun, it's not going to be pretty. It may take some time for these negotiations to play themselves out. The Hillacrats will certainly cry "foul", will certainly accuse Barack of "ignoring the will of the people", but this is the way it has to go because if Hillary can strong-arm Barack it will only undermine his own support, pissing off many of them who can't bring themselves to forgive Hillary for her scorched-earth campaign and galvanize all of the Republican talking points about his "inexperience and naivette".

It's admittedly possible that if Hillary doesn't get "WHAT SHE WANTS" she could hold-out with her delegates and force a floor fight for VP during the convention, since both President and Vice-President have to be confirmed by a vote of the delegates. She could still take this battle all the way to the wall.

It would be better for everyone if that didn't happen. That would ensure that he loses in November, and none of us can afford that.

Short of a quick capitulation by Barack or a contentious floor fight over VP, there is a path that may ultimately allow Hillary a spot on the ticket or even in the cabinet, say as head of HHS, if she is willing to do the right thing for the party by showing a willingness to fight FOR our Democratic Nominee WITHOUT CONDITIONS OR ULTIMATUMS as she was willing to fight against him to win the Nomination herself. However, continuing to try and use sharp elbows is only going to backfire and make her not only unwelcome and unpalatable as a member of the Obama Administration, it could make her poisonous to nearly all Democrats and shorten her political career.

I have confidence that Barack will do the right thing.

Let's hope that Hillary, for the sake of the Democratic Party and for the sake of the Nation, can make the difficult - but correct - choices in the days and weeks ahead.

Vyan

Now is Hillary's Chance to show Character and Leadership

As the AP has reported, the Democratic Primary race is now effectively over.

WASHINGTON - Barack Obama effectively clinched the Democratic presidential nomination Tuesday, becoming the first black candidate to lead a major party into a campaign for the White House. Vanquished rival Hillary Rodham Clinton swiftly signaled an interest in joining the ticket as running mate.

Tonight, or at worst case tomorrow, Obama will achieve the magic Number - but the question remains, particularly if Obama does not immediately reciprocate her push to be VP, while Clinton and put Country and Party ahead of her own personal aspirations and finally begin doing the right thing?

Will she put down the sword and pick up the plowshare to start reinvesting in the the party infrastructure and unity - or will she continue to refuse to concede and still "take this alll the way to the convention" as Harold Ickes threated to do just three days ago?

It's clear that Hillary's supporters still have very raw and hurt feelings. People are feeling robbed. They're feeling let down. Even though many of us has been predicting this would happen for months, they are still stunned.

Why?

Because Hillary's campaign has worked so hard to create this illusion that in some mystical magical way - Obama wasn't going to be the nominee.

Well, within a few hours, Obama the Demoractic Nominee will be the reality.

People understandibly will begin going through the well documented five stages of grieving. Technically we've already been through Denial and are still deep in midst of Anger. We may have already begun to move into Bargining with Hillary's not so subtle push for the VP slot.

Eventually we're going to hit Depression, some may never leave that stage. Others, with luck, will eventually reach Acceptance.

I do know how hard this can be, because I didn't vote for Obama when I had the chance. My candidate was John Edwards, and even after he dropped out of the race I Still Voted For him Anyway, so I may have a slightly unique stance as I ask many of you to put down your hard feelings and consider putting Democrats back in the White House to be your first and greatest priority.

I had to go through my own candidate grief, and it took a while before I finally understood and embraced Obama. (Possibly reading how I went through that process might help some of you. It wasn't because I disliked or was biased against Hillary, it was because of what Obama brought to the table that no one else does.)

Even in the midst of all this I've still given Hillary credit for making Obama a better candidate. Hillary has fought hard for this nomination and she deserves credit for all her efforts, but the true test before her is whether she will fight just as hard to help the party and her supporters in particular through this process.

Will she fight just as hard to defeat John McCain even if she isn't on the ticket? And if she is on the ticket, will that sour support for Obama himself for accepting her?

It may not be nice to hear it, but she has long way to go to rebuild the trust with many Obama supporters and especially with many of the black community. She's exploited the working-class white community and helped drive an existing wedge and division even deeper.

She's dug a whole so deep she's going to need a backhoe to fill it again.

I frankly have my doubts that she's up to this challenge, just as I have my doubts that many Obama supporters are going to be in a forgiving mood anytime soon.

I've written more than once that Obama supporters have to anticipate that they're going to have effectively write many of Hillary's supporters off. Some of them are far too bitter. Some of them are far too hurt to come over to our side. I've strongly suspected that Obama will just have to go on without her and many of her supporters, even though that might significantly shrink the chances of a Democratic victory - he and we may have to do it anyway if she doesn't rally her supporters to Obama and our cause.

I do hope I'm wrong about that.

I do hope that she will show the kind of leadership and character that has inspired so many to support her with such fervor. I hope she does the right thing, suspends her campaign and concedes this nomination rather than continuing the death cage-match that has bruised feelings and generated a chasm within the party.

I hope she really steps up to the plate tonight and accepts the challenge that only she can fulfill.

I'm not expecting it, but I do hope for it - for it would be a truly glorious thing for the Democratic Party and for the Nation.

I pray I do not hope in vain.

Vyan

Unity Takes Two

You can't make a horse drink from water he doesn't want, you can't make someone accept an outstretched hand toward unity if they just plain don't want it, and you can't convince people of facts and realities they just refuse to accept.

Ickes on CNN complaining that Obama Hijacked 4 Delegates from Hillary

In this video Clinton's Campaign Manager Harold Ickes accuses the Obama campaign of theft, and even suggests the Hillary could still win the nomination with the support of the remaining uncommitted delegates. As of now she needs 240 out of the remaining 290 total uncommitted Super and Pledged Delegates.

That's 82.9%

In what bizarro upside-down world is that likely to happen?

Ickes has to know that Hillary can't win this, that everything he's doing and she's going will make the eventual Big Walk Back for her campaign ans supporters harder and harder.

There's only one way to look at this left - they have no intention of walking it back, ever!

All this Sturm und Drang is over 4 Delegates. FOUR. This is the sword they choose to fall on?

The more moderate supporers of Hillary will certain join with the rest of the party but the most rapid of Hillary's Evil Mob knows that this won't be over in another two days. It won't be over in Denver. The Humpty-Dumpty Democratic Party is broken and won't be coming back together despite the clearly noble efforts by Henry Wexler, Karl Levin, Donna Brazile and others this weekend to do exactly that. The most vapid of Hillary's supporters aren't going to listen to the facts or the reality, they aren't going to consider this to be a fair compromise or a generous gesture, they're going to listen Ickes when he says...

Ickes: They Hijacked - they just reached in and took four delegates from Hillary. It's unprecedented. It's unheard of. It's quite incredible.

...

Hillary got 73 delegates (out of Michigan) and Uncommitted got 55. Mr. Obama decided for strategic and tactical reasons to withdraw his name from the ballot. He didn't have to, nobody asked him to. He did it for his own strategic reasons. And now he says "Oh my goodness, I want these Delegates" - not only do I want the 55, but oh, by the way, I want the four of Hillary's

After these kinds of fighting words, accusing Obama of being a craven manipulative thief, they aren't unifying with anyone. Certainly not with Obama supporters and the Democratic Party once he becomes the nominee.

Let's be clear first of all every candidates except Hillary, Chris Dodd and Mike Gravel took their names off the ballot, which includes Obama, Biden, Edwards and Richardson. (Kucinich sued to be taken off, but wasn't) They did it because Iowa and New Hampshire asked them to honor the DNC decision. If Ickes wants to call those states "Nobody" - that's his call.

As things stood prior to the RBC meeting - no one was going to get any delegates. Clinton now has 69 more than she did before, but apparently that just isn't enough for her, she wants all 73 and she wants Obama to get ZERO - even ignoring the "Fair Reflection" of 30,000 voters who specifically Wrote Obama's Name In.

Other's have been over this in far better and greater legal detail than I can achieve but the core point is that the RBC decision not only re-instated the votes of those who directly voted for Hillary, but also the 30,000 who specifically voted for Obama even knowing and expecting that their votes wouldn't count. Those 30,000 votes happen to match up fairly directly to the 4 delegates that Ickes says belong to Hillary.

The 30,000 write-in votes, which a Clinton supporter (Ickes, I think) admitted during the meeting were likely mostly for Obama, were over 5% of the total votes cast. They were not counted. Just adding those actually cast votes to Uncommitted (rather than throwing them out, as happened), dilutes Clinton’s percentage of the total enough to knock her down from 74 delegates to 70.45 of 128. Knocking off the extra vote we started with (74 instead of 73), Hillary’s 70.45 translates to 69.45, or about exactly what the R&BC awarded her. Hmmmm.

So whose really trying to steal whose votes and delegates here?

It might be argued that some of those uncommitted votes might have been for Edwards or Biden or Richardson, accept that only Edwards was still in the race at the point and assuming he would have reached the 15% threshold he (and Richardson and Biden have) endorsed Obama - so Obama would get all those delegates even if there had been some way of truly splitting them up accurately.

It's clear that Ickes and Clinton aren't the "Victim" here - they are the ones trying to steal delegates from Obama.

It's naked, it's blatant and that's what it is.

The fact is by not having his people fight for the 64/64 compromise, which he would have narrowly won, Obama put forth a positive gesture and effectively granted Clinton Five Delegates More than she would have had.

We don't have to be afraid that we'll offended the Clintonies by saying this - it's the truth, they need to know it and acknowledge it. Running around on tip-toes isn't going to change that. How many times can you put your hand out in friendship and "unity" only to have it slapped away again and again until you realize the other size doesn't deserve it anymore?

At a certain point, the Democratic party is going to have to rid itself of the Hillacratic Party. We won't have to push them out. They're going to go on their own, some are already effectively gone. Maybe they'll stay home in November with their arms folded clinging bitterly to their preferred losing candidate in a huff, maybe they'll go to a third party candidate like Nader, maybe Bob Barr, maybe to the Republicans. They do seem to certainly like Republican styled campaigning - meanwhile we are moving in a new direction.

They have to face the truth, Hillary has Lost, and so do we.

Hillary is going to win Puerto Rico. She's probably going to win the overall popular vote (as long as you ignore the Caucus States), but then again having the popular vote and $5 will barely get you a Coffee at Starbucks. It certainly didn't do anything for Al Gore.

In fairness, as I have mentioned several times before, Ickes is correct about the Electoral Map favoring Clinton. The latest polls have her leading McCain 327 to 194 on the electoral college. She is leading in eight states that Kerry didn't get in 2004.

In contrast Obama is only leading McCain by 276 to 238 and only picks of a measly fives states that Kerry didn't win. That's what we're arguing over - winning in November by eight states or just five?

His argument is that the path to the White House is easier with Clinton involved. On that point he may be technically correct, but here's the rub. Do we really want to start off a new democratic era by taking the shortest and easier possible path to victory?

Is the Low-Road really the best coarse to take?

Or, do we feel it's worth it to take the Best Road? It may not be as easy, it may not be as fast - we might have to fight with difficult and complex truth instead of easy to understand innuendo and double-talk. We have to take a serious look at whether we want to continue to fall into the old patterns, push the same old buttons, run from the same old fears that we have for generations or do we want to have the courage to do the hard thing? To do the Right Thing?

Wouldn't taking the High Road and Still Winning Be all the Sweeter, all the more worth it?

Do we have the guts to take a stand, and risk the possibility that some of our (soon to be former) Democratic brethren might never seek to join us on that path? That we'll never truly have "Unity" again?

I think we have no choice but to recognize some, like Ickes, and the Old New York Lady yelling at the cloud are simply too far gone, we can't expect and don't need "unity" with the likes of them. Instead we need clarity of direction and the conviction to get where we need to go.

Washington DC. The White House.

With them or without them, we're going to get there. No more Mr. Nice Giaus.

Vyan

They Shoot Peacemakers Don't They?

It had to be this way...

This is how it had to end.

No one was going to push Hillary out of this race, except Hillary. No one was going to invent some genius argument, that was going to convince her or her supporters that her candidacy had to end - she had to do it herself.

Of course, it's not going to end. It's going to limp on for a few more weeks, it might even get worse for her as she attempts, as she has so many times before, to lash out at the invisible enemies who have so spitefully held her back, and blocked her inevitable coronation.

It had to finally be revealed that Hillary's greatest foe, her greatest downfall, is Hillary.

The truly sad thing is that I think many of us are fully aware that Hillary probably didn't mean to deliberately build the construction that she needed to stay in the race purely because Barack Might Get Shot.

She's been saying over and over again how she's the "better candidate", and that's the reason she's continued to fight on. Frankly, looking at the Electoral Vote Map, she has a point.

Even as of today the state-by-state polls indicate she has a lead over McCain of 312 to 202 Electoral votes with 270 being needed to win the Presidency. That's practically a blow-out.

The thing is that winning isn't everything.

There's also the question of "Who would make the Better President?"

What Hillary has shown us again and again, long before this latest rhetorical blunder, is that it wouldn't be her.

She was against seating the delegates in Michigan and Florida before she was for seating them. She and her campaign gleefully exploited the Secret-Muslim smears, the links to a "Slum Lord", to an ex-Hippie Radical whose never been charged or indicted with anything, and his links to the outrageous black preacher - look he's black and angry and stuff - with the verbal diarrhea problem. (Not that any of them have ever spoken for Barack, but who cares?) She claimed we shouldn't just count the votes from 48 States, we should count all the votes - except for the caucus states she didn't win. We've heard her claim that the "little states" don't count when she doesn't win them, but that they show that "Barack can't close the deal" when she does. We've heard Geraldine give us the "Barack wouldn't be where he was if he was white" upper-cut, while Hillary herself delivers the round-house that his problem is that "He can't get the poor dumb white voters", and she can.

And all the while, the real reason she hasn't already won the nomination is because of all the sexism!?

Yeah, right.

If this was about just the one RFK statment, it woudn't be so bad. But we've already heard her claim that MLK wasn't as important as LBJ right on top of the 40 anniversary of Martin's murder. Why should we be surprised when she didn't know that she should have stopped with the insensitive crazy talk back then, and has now basically did the exact same thing to RFK and his memory?

I know some of her supporters feel that all she's done is fight hard and I agree we do need Democrats to fight hard for what they believe in. But what is it that she's shown she believes in here? That MLK doesn't matter? That she's Hubert Humphrey waiting in the wings for Kennedy's fall only to lose in November to Nixon? That truth is only viable when it's expedient? That some white people are irredeemably racist, and she doesn't care? That instead she's willing to exploit fear and paranoia of a black man, who couldn't possibly love America as much as she does or they do, while claiming she's the victim of gender prejudice? What, just cuz Chris Matthews is a condescending prick? Grow up. Have these all just been political arguments that have nothing to do with how she really thinks or how she would really govern?

Which version of Hillary are you guys supporting? Do you think you get to pick your personal favorite and go with that?

This is not how we need a potentially leader of the free world to be thinking, speaking or acting. They're supposed to be fighting for us, not just for themselves. If the RFK comment was her response to a 3 A.M. wake-up call, she just flubbed it and started World War III with most of America. Nobody makes you take the Low-Road, it's not a mandate, it's not a requirement - it's a choice. There's always a better option. She has simply made the wrong call - repeatedly - because she thought she could get away with it. She thought "it's just politics", instead of it being a complete lack of character. It's not just politics, it's clearly a part of who she is, and she's not getting away with it. Not anymore.

It's time for Hillary's supporters, to realize they made an honest mistake. Yes, she does seem like a great candidate on paper. Electorally it makes sense. It's true that she would probably win the Presidency more easily than Barack and that feeling that way can be easily understood, forgiven and forgotten. In the heat of a passionate campaign, we can all sometimes say things we don't literally mean, it can get away from us. But now it's time to face the facts.

Her campaign is in it's last throes. She's not going to be the nominee. She's not going to the be VP. She's out. She's probably going to continue to hang around, continue to get a few more charity/protest votes in Puerto Rico, but then - it's over.

This isn't a construction of the media. This isn't the boys club trying to squeeze her out. She's been dancing on the edge of the rhetorical cliff for months now. We all know it. Many of her supporters have happily cheered her on with each new dazzling kick and spin move. But you have to know she's been flirting with total disaster and devastation all along. It's been the kitchen-sink/scorched earth strategy for a long time. Now she's finally gone tumbling down the cliff and Nobody pushed her.

She fell off the cliff all by herself.

That's the way it had to go. It wouldn't have been tolerated if Barack had cut her off at the knees. He would've become the bad guy. The big black meany man who stole her Presidency from her. But that's not what happened. Nobody can claim that Barack knee-capped our first potential female President. She just lost.

She utterly failed the Commander-and-Chief test.

I'm not gleeful about this. I'm not joyful. I'm just relieved that it just might - just might - be nearly done with. I'm telling you this has not be fun to watch. Democrats clawing at Democrats. Friendships broken. Families going at each other. It's been H.E.L.L.

That is why people have wanted this to come to an end. We've needed to put her out of our misery. It's not about June. It's the fact that you don't count the length of campaign from the finish line backward, you count it from the beginning. This campaign has essentially been going on for a year and a half already. The only reason anyone might have wanted Hillary out of the race, beside the fact that she hasn't been able to statistically win for weeks, is that they're are just plain SICK AND TIRED OF IT ALL.

22 debates. 22 Friggin Debates. Enough already. We get it. We know who we want, we don't want Hillary. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

The one thing I have to thank Hillary for - in a sad, sick way - is making Barack a better candidate than he had been. McCain can't play the "He's a Negro" dog-whistle game on him, she's already done it and still lost. He can't argue that he's "too inexperienced", because with experience and judgment like her's - we obviously need more rookies. Obama is now innoculated on Reverend Wright, on William Aires and on Tony Rezzco. He's teflon. Unbreakable.

During all these challenges Obama has shown us a grace, class, dignity and clarity of vision that is rare and awe inspiring. His speech in Philadelphia was historic. That's how we need a someone to respond under pressure. These primaries have shown why we need a President like Barack Obama. This is the guy I want answering the crisis phone at 3 a.m. and at 2 p.m.

So, yes in a way, we owe Hillary our thanks.

It's also true that during her various attacks Barack suffered Electorally. Back on May 5th, Obama and McCain were in a dead-heat with 264 to 263 Electoral Votes respectively.

After Hillary hit him with Bitter-gate and "He's an Elitist who doesn't relate to hard-working blue collar (white) Americans" Barack lost ground not just in West Virginia, but in Texas, Florida, Wisconsin and Michigan falling behind McCain 290 to 237 on May 11th.

But today - literally today,just a single day after Hillary's campaign has taken what may well be a mortal wound - Barack has flipped the map by gaining ground in New Mexico, Ohio and Virginia. He now has regained the lead with 266 to 248.

He still has to break the tie in both Indiana and Virginia, as well as hold his leads in New Mexico, Ohio and Missouri to win. But it's possible he could do that and take back Wisconsin, Michigan and South Carolina. Sure, it could also go back the other way, there are quite a few states at play, including red ones, But today, for the first time, if just a few things go his way, it looks like Obama could win by an Electoral Land-Slide!

And we have Hillary to thank for that. Somebody had to air out of Barack's near-dirty laundry, better it was Hillary now than McCain in November.

It had to be this way.

By finally exiting the race, and not seeking to use her delegate votes to engineer some kind of Shotgun Wedding as VP, Hillary will be doing us all a great service.

She just might of saved this country, from both McCain and herself.

Vyan

Olbermann on Hillary's RFK Gaffe

Is Obama being Sexist?

Tbe Party isn't Broken and doesn't need "Fixing"

The Party is Changing for the Better.

It's taken me a bit of time to come to this conclusion. I've carefully considered the issue of post nomination Party Reconciliation and whether or not we may need to a Shotgun Marriage to repair the wounds that have been gouged into the Democratic Party by this Primary Season.

But I've finally realized we don't need to break out the spackle, silly putty and super glue in order to re-stitch the Democratic party back together. With Barack Obama's candidacy we ourselves are Becoming the Change that we need.

Hillary Clinton is a fine candidate, and a fine politician - but she is shown herself to clearly be a politician of the past with her use of divide and conquer, fear-mongering, crush and smear tactics.

It's time we moved away from that kind of politics, and that kind of country. It's time we embraced the future - and that future is President Barack Obama.

As thereisnospoon has handily pointed out today, this isn't about either sexism or racism.

Barack Obama will be the Democratic Nominee because he has repeatedly refused to pander to our worst instincts. He has refused to easily give into fear.

No, he didn't do the proper political thing and toss Jeremiah Wright under the Mid-town Express at the first opportunity. He let Jeremiah blow himself up.

No, he didn't immediately assume that we should show "strength" either by jumping into a ill-advised and unnecessary war, or by keeping everyone we disagree with at arms length as if simply having a conversation and attempting to find common ground (Like Kennedy with Krushchev, Nixon in China and Reagan with Gorbachev) is in and of itself some kind of grand concession and some sign of "weakness" or some silly misappropriated version of appeasment.

No, he didn't sign on with an idiotic gas-tax holiday plan, because he had the experience to know that it wasn't going to deliver the consumer savings it promised.

On each of these issues and many more he shown better judgement, and better respect for the intelligence of the American people than has Clinton. She and her campaign have deliberately pandered to ignorance, paranoia and fake outrage with "I would have walked out of that Church", "He's lucky to be a Black Man" when even they know damn well he isn't, "He's not a Muslim as far as I know..." and bragging that she "has the hard-working uneducated White Voters, that he can't get" - while he has not responded in kind. He's refused to be dragged down into that cesspool with her.

He has not stooped to her level.

Sure we need a President who is "tough", but I would prefer one who doesn't repeatedly and chronically gets "tough" about The Wrong Issues.

He has not tried to exploit our fear and anxiety or try to Bribe Us. Instead he has shown Courage and an abiding Faith in the American people and that's the kind of President we need.

We need a President who isn't going to have a "Senior Moment" over and over again between Sunni and Shia. Who knows the difference between someone (like the duly elected ruling party in Palestine) supporting you, and you supporting them. Whose idea of "Supporting our Troops" isn't to oppose bills that would do exactly that. Whose Primary campaign debts and promises aren't to lobbyists, corporations, Rangers, Super-Rangers or Cougars - but are to the American people themselves.

More than that we need a President whose idea of showing solidarity with our military families isn't to give up a golf, and then not actually give it up - we need a President with genuine courage.

For Courage is the ultimate cure for what ails us.

Courage is how we cure both Racism and Sexism. It takes courage to ignore what statistics might say about any particular type of individual, and what past experience might say - and to take them for who and what they actually are.

Courage is how we cure Terrorism. It takes courage to remove the primary power that a terrorist wields, fear of death, destruction and injury. If we can not be terrorized, their methods become useless and meaningless.

Courage is the Key.

We don't need to be afraid that the party won't heal itself, that we may have lost some of the Hillacrats forever as they wallow in self-pity over how we "beat up on their girl", yet ignore and justify all the jabs and cheap shots she and her campaign have dolled out. Let Hill court and keep the West Virginia Double-wide vote. The people who just can't bring themselves to vote for that black (muslim/anti-american) man.

If they're willing to embrace the change , embrace the future - they're welcome with us. If not we don't want 'em. We don't need 'em. Sorry but - Frack 'em.

We don't need to go begging on hands and knees for them to hold their nose and pretend to support our curly haired black-negro-man with the white mother, elitist, former food-stamp receiving, educated, school debt-having, orange-juice drinking, basket-ball playing, lousing bowling candidate. If they want to jump-ship and join the Republicans and vote for John McInsane, I'm sure Maverick and his good buddy Karl Iceman Rove will be happy to have them.

We have to realize that nominating and electing Barack Obama to the Presidency will send a shock-wave across this nation and across this world, one that will resonate for more deeply than even the passage of the original Civil Rights Act. Back then LBJ knew that Democrats would be losing the south for perhaps a generation or more. This time we might lose more than that, and we might gain far more as well.

Both in the long and the short run, it's going to be worth it.

This is the beginning of the New Democratic Party.

We have already begun the Change that Barack has spoken of, we have become that Change. Those who wish to join us and embrace that change are welcome to do so, those who do not are free to wallow in the cynicism, pandering, oppurtunism, manipulation and fear-mongering of the past.

We're done with all that, and are going This Way. Toward the Hope. Toward the Future.

Everyone else can either climb on for the ride or be left behind. I hope you can come along.

Vyan

The Primary Endgame: A Shotgun Wedding?

There's only one way this ends, and it's not going to be pretty. Hillary Clinton has deliberately driven a stake through the heart of the Democratic Party, and not because she's a sportman's and refuses to leave the field of play until the last whistle, it's because she want to position herself as completely indespesible to Barack Obama in the all.

She's been more than willing to pander and try and bribe the electorate with her gas tax holiday scheme. She's been willing to bait and pander to poor, ignorant West Virginian's like these...



Listen to this Hillacrat dreck, "Obama's a Muslim - he's doesn't know the Pledge of Allegiance or the Star Spangled Banner - he doesn't believe in America the way Hillary or McCain do..."

Why is Hillary willing to win on the back of this swill?

It can all only be for one reason.

I haven't yet found any video of this, but yesterday during the Primary Coverage on CNN, former NY Governor Mario Cuomo came on-air to talk about the likelyhood of a "Dreamticket" of Obama/Clinton.

He claimed... (not an exact transcription)

Cuomo: None of the reasons against it make sense.

Host: But what the idea that Barack Obama represents a change from the politics of the past, while Clinton represents the past?

Cuomo: Ok, that almost makes sense, but do you mean the past like the (Bill) Clinton Presidency? Where we had a $1.4 Trillion budget surplus, the best economy we've had in generations, people moving out of poverty...

Let's just get one thing straight, Hillary Clinton is not BILL Clinton. Simply because they happen to be married does not mean she will be implementing the same type of policies that he did. Such an assumption would be like thinking that George W Bush, would simply be a echo of his father - George H.W. Bush's - presidency.

We've all seen how that turned out haven't we.

The problem isn't that Hillary Clinton represents the return of Bill Clinton's past - she has clearly shown through this campaign that she truly represents the return and continuation of No-Holds Barred Karl Rove Politics.

She's willing to use anything, to scratch, claw and bite her way into the White House even though for several weeks she's had no mathematical pathway to get there. In fact, she shown more than a touch of the delusional - "I can make my own reality" politics that we've seen far too much of over the last 8 years.

Yes, she won West Virginia.

But there is no good reason to hyperventilate over the delegates that Hillary picked up yesterday. In the past week Barack Obama has gained more Superdelegats (37) than are even available from that entire state (28), meaning that since the previous primaries in North Carolina and Indiana she's actually lost ground to Obama even with winning in WV.

But that doesn't matter, what matters isn't the delegate count, it's the electoral map. As of today, the current state-by-state polls indicate the Clinton would defeat McCain by 280 to 241 Electoral Votes. That is based on these numbers.



Florida: Clinton 49% McCain 41%
Ohio: Clinton 48% McCain 38%
West Virginia : Clinton 47% McCain 42%

By contrast Obama is current in losing to McCain 237 to 290, whereas just a week ago they were in a virtual tie.



Obama was already losing in Florida, Ohio and West Virginia, but now he's also losing in Wisconsin and Michigan. That's not good.

I understand that Poblana numbers show Obama potentially winning by a landslide based on high turnout from youth and minority voters. But it's also true that the youth vote also tends to be unreliable, so betting the farm on the youth is a high-risk gamble for Barack.

Yes, there are many other reasons why this November could still be Tidal Wave for Obama, but they are all theoretical - and not yet concrete or proven.

The problem is that the Electoral Map does not LIE.

As it stand right now, Barack Obama is probably going to lose in November.

In order to prevent a McCain victory in November, Hillary Clinton has forced Obama into a position where he has to somehow reach the apparently unreachable between now and then. Those poor, uninformed, uneducated, blue-collar Democratic Voters in shown in the clip above have to be persuaded to Stay with the Democrats instead of bolting for McCain.

Hillary has remained in this race, not because she has any reasonable expectation that she's going to grab some landslide of Superdelegates willing to snatch the nomination away from Obama, but simply because she - and only she - may be able to bring Florida, Michigan, Ohio and yes, even Redneck infested West Virginia into the Democratic column and guarantee victory.

She's hoping for a Shotgun Wedding in Denver, and she'll get it if...

If..

And this is a BIG if... Barack Obama is willing to toss his own ideals and the core elements of his candidacy - Hope and Change - completely under the bus. Is he willing to take on a second-in-command who would play had hard, fast and loose as Clinton has played with "He's not a Muslim, as far as I know" and "He can't get the working-class White voters", and "He's an elitist who drinks orange juice" tactics. Is this how he answers the toughness question? Does he think he can use Clinton to kill the "experience" issue the way that Cheney did for Bush? Can he keep a snake on the leash in the West Wing, only to be released when and where he feels the need to twist and arm, or Pop a Cap in somebodies ass up Capitol Hill?

Is that a Role Hillary willing to play for the next 4-8 years? White House Pitt Bull?

I'm seriously beginning to think that it is, that she isn't playing to the Supers anymore - she's trying to make this case to Barack.

The question is: Does he have the stones to resist the temptation, put his faith in the youth, strap his own campaign to his shoulders without pandering to the Hillacrats and carry it across the finish line despite the mindfield that Clinton has put in his path?

I think he might, and if he does, it will be a glorious sight to behold.

Update Ok, I've heard a lot of arguments against this idea, some have said the polls don't mean anything even though there is a Rec'd Diary right now claiming Barack has a 7 point lead nationally on McCain, except that we don't elect the president nationally we use the electoral college, and it's from the same sources that electoral-vote.com uses, Quinnipiac - but the best one I think is the following.

Something else Cuomo said was that Obama can't get Hillary's voters and Hillary can't get his - so it makes sense for them to combine forces in his mind.

What he failed to realize is that if she's on the ticket there are people who won't vote for Barack anymore - and that many of her voters who vote for her even as Veep if Barack is at the top so it's not "Win/Win" it's "Lose/Lose"!!


The point being that if Obama falls for the trick, and I don't think he will, it'll massively hurt him in the fall, not help him. We're going to have to win this without the Hillacrats.

Vyan

SNL: Hillary Makes her Case

From SNL: There's Something about Hillary.

"Unlike Senator Obama, I have no ethical standards. Even my critics would agree that once I get the nomination, I will stop at nothing--absolutely nothing--to win. Whereas, with Senator Obama, there are some things he simply will not do. Take, for example, the race card, which he has been reluctant to play. As in, 'anyone who doesn't vote for me, is a racist.' I, on the other hand, will be happy to play the gender card and claim that anyone who doesn't vote for me is a sexist. In fact, once Senator Obama is out of the picture, I look forward to playing the race card myself. As in, 'anyone who doesn't vote for me is both a sexist and a racist.'

Now for those of you who say, 'she'll never do that, it doesn't even make sense!' I answer, 'if you believe that, you don't know me.' So there you have it: sore loser, racist supporters, no ethical standards, qualities Senator Obama simply can't match."

Red State Update: Hillary the Racist may have just found McCain's bearings

And now without further ado... it's Red State Update.

Yeah, I think it's time we throw a bake sale for Hillary so she can finally get the hell out of the race, don't you?

Deeply and truly: It's getting UGLY out there.

Dunlap the Man speaks the truth.

It's nothing but Racism and Ageism. Ageism/Racism/Sexism/Ageism/Racism/Sexism... so shoot me now!

And next time you're at Kroger, make sure you check the produce double careful-like. McCain and his Stepford Trophy might have been through earlier.

I don't usually do diaries this short, but what else is there to say?

Vyan

The Democratic Nominee is a Nig....?

We did this better in the 70's, didn't we?

Video (Warning:If you are humor-challenged or can't see the video, just stop reading now - your blood pressure will thank me later)


Ok, so let's just be the first to admit it. The Democratic Nominee for President in 2008 is a Nig....!

Just listen to Hillary Clinton.

“I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,” she said in the interview, citing an article by The Associated Press.

It “found how Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”

“There’s a pattern emerging here,” she said.

Oh, No she D'int!

Oh yeah. She did, but the funny part is that all she did her was repeat what the Press has been doing for months.
Just do a search on Yahoo News for "Obama, White Voters, Polls" and this is what you get.

1. >Obama Faces White Resistance In South, Polls Show - Politics on The ...
Obama Faces White Resistance In South, Polls Show - The Huffington Post ... Obama did less well among white voters nationally in a CBS poll released January ...
huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/19/obama-faces-white-resista_n_82300.html - 87k - Cached

2. Voters question Clinton's trustworthiness. - By Chadwick Matlin - Slate ...
... Times/CBS News poll says the country prefers Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton by 12 ... Six percent of Democratic primary voters think Obama is a Muslim. ...
www.slate.com/id/2175496 - Cached

3. Obama Support Among "Bitter" Voters Unchanged
... poll can help address the issue directly because it asks voters if ... to live in small towns, Obama probably had white voters in mind when he made his ...
gallup.com/poll/.../Obama-Support-Among-Bitter-Voters-Unchanged.aspx

4. Election Center 2008: Primary Exit Polls - Elections & Politics news ...
... .com delivers the latest exit polls for the Democratic and Republican ... The Political Ticker • Barack Obama • Hillary Clinton • John McCain • more topics " ...
www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls - Cached

5. ABC News: White Working-Class vs. Change in Indiana
EXIT POLL: White Working-Class vs. Change in Indiana; Blacks Lift Obama to N.C. Victory ... 51 percent of voters picked it, and they went to Obama by about his ...
abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Politics/story?id=4798314&page=1 - 94k

6. ABC News: PA exit polls: Whites, blue-collar voters stick with Clinton
Working-class white voters rallied around Hillary Rodham Clinton on Tuesday as ... Survivor: Clinton Closes In on Obama. WATCH: Rocky Road to the White House ...
abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=4706022 - 93k

7. Obama struggle to attract white voters continues
... in Denver is whether Obama's weakness with white voters could endure and spell ... The poll found that white voters who say equal rights for minorities have been ...
www.startribune.com/politics/national/president/18095979.html - 56k - Cached

8. Clinton Hangs On, Obama Drops in Polls, With Negative Media Attention ...
... well Clinton and Obama do relative to each other among White voters when each is ... percentage of White voters who will not vote for Obama based solely on ...
www.talkleft.com/story/2008/4/28/204817/799 - Cached

9. Voters agree Wright furor hurt Obama : Politics : Commercial Appeal
Black and white voters in next week's primary states agreed on one thing on Wednesday: Barack Obama's preacher had hurt the Democratic presidential candidate at a ...
commercialappeal.com/news/2008/may/01/road-to-the-white-house-voters... - Cached

10. Polls: Obama falters with working-class whites - Barack Obama News ...
... Barack Obama discusses his connection with working-class white voters with NBC's ... In exit polls, one in five of the state's white voters who haven't completed ...
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24447399 - Cached

Far from being a taboo subject, this issue has been constantly debated since both Rev. Wright and Bitter-gate.

How does Obama win back the Springer Vote? How is he going to appeal to the Double-Wide Demographic?

Don't look so shocked, we all know what we're talking about here. White, Working-class, un and under-educated. C'mon. Where do you really think these people can afford to live? A condo? Who do you think Rush Limbaugh is talking to day in and day out?

Some of my best friends used to enjoy semi-mobile living conditions. Really.

Anywho...

The sad part about this discussion isn't the fact that it's being discussed, it's that it's being portrayed as some kind of failure on Barack's part! instead of the very obvious implication that we still, even in the 21st Century, have some dumb-ass reactionary redneck's left in this country.

Again, don't get all offended - isn't that the core idea behind Jeff Foxworthy's entire career?

You might be a Redneck if...?

You won't vote for the Black man for President, even when he's the best candidate, he's won the popular vote, he's (practically) won the delegate vote and he's won the most states.

I thought that was the entire point behind CMT. and "Blue-Collar TV"?

Instead of asking, gee - what the hell is wrong with these people? - the press has been putting all the blame in Barack's lap?

And now that Hillary is echoing them, people are up in arms?

Oh my God, the Sherrif Nominee is a Nig...!

Just figuring that out now are ya? Very astute. But Guess what...

Oh my God, the Country's Full of Ignorant Red-Necks too...!

Which of course, according to the Press, would be Clinton's base.

But here's the really interesting thing that the Press and Hillary haven't said, something that our own DemfromCT pointed out last week.

Since July 2006, long before both Bitter-Gate and Rev. Wrong, Barack Obama's favorability has actually maintained a net 5 points gain in support from White Voters, Hillary has lost 36 points from the Black Vote.



I wonder why the Press doesn't ask "What in the world is Hillary going to do about her Black Voter problem?"

Instead we get all this blather about how we're supposed to expect Black people to vote not based on issues, or facts, but skin color.

Y'know - cause they're just naturally racist. They see everything through the prism of color. It's in their blood, don't cha know?

Never mind the fact that both Bill and Hillary used to have massive support Black Voters. Why doesn't the Press ask - What went wrong sour between Hill and Black people?

Oh wait, they did ask that and the answer was - Bill.

But White people, when they reject a perfectly good Black candidate it's got nothing to do with race - except for everything! You see, he's too leftist and radical (A hidden Black Panther), he's too elitist (Uppity!), Educated (Effete!), and he' too damn Muslim (Barack Hussein Obama - Farrakhan and Hamas' new Puppet President!) and we shouldn't bother to call them out on it. No, don't even think about it. Don't get them all riled up by saying they're "bitter" or anything...

That's like tossing raw meat at a starving dog.

For those who can't take a hint: /Snark Off!

It's about time we started realizing that we have some big big problems in this country and it's not all the black peoples fault, nor is it all the white peoples fault. It's our fault if we let ourselves be manipulated in this way. If we fail to see the obvious. If we let injustice happen in our laps and just brush it away.

We need to admit that Racism for a minority of say 17% of Democratic Voters in the South has become acceptable. It's expected now.

We have to do better than this. This isn't just Barack's problem, it's a problem for all of us.

We need to get enraged and fight back not just because Hillary repeats this nonsense, we need to fight back All the Time when the media repeatedly attempts to pit us all against each other.

We need to fight fear with truth.

Black people are not slaves to their skin-tone, and White people - even the "uneducated" ones - are a lot smarter and a lot less racist and reactionary than everyone from ABC to FOX seems to think.

Barack can get the White Vote back, in fact he's already started to - and if Hillary keeps insulting her own "base", she's going to lose all of it.

Vyan

Obama Voted for the Gas Tax Holiday in Illinois

and it didn't fraking work.

Wanna hear some straight talk &trade, here's what Obama admitted yesterday on Meet the Press.

As an Illinois Senator Barack Obama voted for a gas tax holiday, and at the end of the summer they found that Consumer's didn't save a penny!

I told you a couple days ago that the Gas Tax Holiday was nothing more than a cheap Bribe.

I"m keeping this short because Barack says everything that needs to be said here.

MR. RUSSERT: One issue that has really defined the two campaigns here in Indiana is this debate over gasoline...

SEN. OBAMA: Right.

MR. RUSSERT: ...the price of it and whether there should be a tax holiday...

SEN. OBAMA: Right.

MR. RUSSERT: ...from the federal taxes. This is Hillary Clinton's ad talking about you. Let's watch.

(Videotape of political ad)

Narrator: Now gas prices are skyrocketing, and she's ready to act again. Hillary's plan, use the windfall profits of the oil companies to pay to suspend the gas tax this summer. Barack Obama says no, again.

People are hurting, it's time for a president who's ready to take action now.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: Why are you against giving taxpayers in Indiana, North Carolina, a relief from federal gasoline tax this summer?

SEN. OBAMA: You're right, Tim, this defines, I think, the difference between myself and Senator Clinton. This gas tax, which was first proposed by John McCain and then quickly adopted by Senator Clinton, is a classic Washington gimmick. It, it is a political response to a serious problem that we have neglected for decades. Now, here's, here's the upshot. You're looking at suspending a gas tax for three months. The average driver would save 30 cents per day for a grand total of $28. That's assuming that the oil companies don't step in and raise prices by the same amount that the tax has been reduced. And, by the way, I have some experience on this because in Illinois we tried this when I was in the state legislature, and that's exactly what happened. The oil companies, the retailers were the ones who ended up benefiting.

MR. RUSSERT: You voted for it, too.

SEN. OBAMA: I did. Exactly. And that...

MR. RUSSERT: When gas was only $2 a gallon.

SEN. OBAMA: And, and that's my point. I voted for it, and then six months later we took a look, and consumers had not benefited at all, but we had lost revenue.

MR. RUSSERT: So you learned from a wrong vote.

SEN. OBAMA: Yeah, I learned from a mistake.

Barack Obama made a mistake and learned from it. He gained the benefit of Experience (Ding Ding Ding!) on this issue, and instead of continuing to give the people empty meaningless Happy Talk about it, he's telling the truth.

The Gas Tax Holiday is not going to work.

What's worse, it won't be paid for...

Obama: And, in addition, what happens is, is that this would come out of the Federal Highway Fund that we use to rebuild our roads and our bridges. And if we don't have that fund, then we're looking at thousands of jobs being lost in Indiana and in North Carolina.

Now, Senator Clinton says that she's going to use the windfall profits tax to fill it. First of all, she's already said that she's going to use the windfall profits tax for something else, as I have, and, and that is to invest in clean energy and, and other important measures. So that money, she's already spending twice. More importantly, nobody thinks that George Bush is actually going to spend--or is actually going to sign a law for windfall profits taxes, so that's not going to happen this summer.

So what this is, is a strategy to get through the next election. And Senator Clinton's own staff told The Washington Post, "We don't think this is really going to go anywhere. We don't think it's going to work, but we think it's a good issue to use in a campaign." And that's what Washington does. We, we, we don't deal with the serious issues that are in front of us, we try to figure out what's going to poll well and what can we do to get through the next election.

There is no practical way that George Bush, who is already threatening to Veto the Webb G.I. Bill if it's attached to the latest war supplemental, is going to RAISE TAXES ON THE OIL COMPANIES.

Not. Gonna. HAPPEN.

The result will blow a $6 Billion hole in our infrastructure budget that simply won't be replaced. This kind of cynical irresponsibility is not what we need in a President.

We don't need Clinton. We really don't need McSame.

We need Barack Obama.

Let me just close by saying this proposal will only save people 30 cents a day, 30 Pieces of Silver (well ok, "copper" whatever) - if it even worked, and it's not going to work. Comedian Lewis Black of Root of All Evil said it best when he describes his reaction to a previous tax scheme from Congress.

It would be better if my Congressman simply came to on my door and just pissed on my foot!

Are your socks all wet and squishy? That's not rain.

Vyan

Someone Tell Hillary...It's the Math, Stupid.

Despite all the huffing and puffing over just when and how Hillary Clinton will finally pull a heroic Rocky-II-like comeback knock this black teenager out of the race - all the real numbers say she's already lost.

Barack Obama will be the Democratic Nominee, all he has to do is sit back and wait for it.

And you can prove it for yourself and all your friends with CNN's handy-dandy popiel-o-matic Delegate Calculator.

With this pocket-size tool, You Too, can be a Pundicator.

(Isn't it odd that no-one who actually appears on CNN knows how to use their own website?)

As of today, May 4th - my wife's birthday - the Delegate Calculator indicates that Obama has a lead of 1736 total delegates (with 289 needed to win) and Clinton has a total of 1,599 total delegates (with 426 needed to win).

The only numbers that really matter are the number of delegates needed to win - which again are 289 and 426 respectively. That's how close the nose each of our candidates has come to crossing the finish line.

What we have to remember is that either candidate must reach the magic number of 2025 only using the pledge and Superdelegates that remain, of which - according to the calculator - there only 695.

Simple, very simple, basic math says that in order to win Clinton has to gain 61% of all the remaining delegates. Each time she falls short of that number, it gets larger for the next contest. Obama on the other hand only needs 41%, as long as he stays above that number - HE WINS.

He could lose Indiana, lose North Carolina, lose Kentucky - but as long as he doesn't collapse below 41% - he will be the Nominee. Period.

And if he does better than that, things continually get worse for Clinton.

As of today the results in Guam and some of the recent Superdelegate shifts have not been counted on the calculator but that is of little matter, you and I can put them in ourselves.

Grab the Guam slider and set it 50% Obama/50% Clinton, it automatically allocates 2 delegates to each. That puts Obama at 287 and Clinton at 428 with 691 available. Their percentage requirements to win remain at 41% and 61% respectively.

The latest Zogby Poll for the Indiana Primary gives Obama a one point lead (43/42%) over Clinton. Adding this to the Calculator as best you can (52/48 Obama) gives Obama an additional 37 delegates, bringing him to 1,775 and another 35 for Clinton bringing her to 1,636.

Are you following along at home kiddies? I knew that you were, because this is where it gets fun.

With a small victory in Indiana Obama's Magic Number drops to 250 - and his percentage required for final victory also drops a bit from 41% to 40.3%. Clinton's does the opposite, with still 389 needed to win her required percentage for the remaining delegates shifts upward slightly to 62.8%.

This means simply put, that as time goes one things get worse for her - not better.

Let me just say this again, after this point Clinton has to beat Obama by an average of 22 points on all remaining contests and on all remaining Superdelegates to win the nomination.

Who in their right minds thinks that's gonna happen? (Oh, yeah, most of punditocracy on on CNN, MSNBC, FOX, ABC, NBC, and CBS - except for Chuck Todd who seems to have actually passed 5th Grade math - continues to maintain the ridiculous delusion that Hillary still has a chance to win, silly of me not to notice....)

Ok, let look at North Carolina - where the latest polls places Obama with a nine point lead (46 to 37%) over Clinton. Let's be generous and say that Obama only wins by 8 points (because the slider won't go to nine - damn you CNN!) Obama would receive 62 delegates and Clinton 53. After this contest there are only 504 available delegates, and in order to win Obama would only need to 37.3% of the remaining delegates and Clinton needs a whopping 67% to win.

Anytime she doesn't beat him by greater than that number she falls further behind and can't catch up.

If Clinton doesn't win both West Virginia (where she leads 55/27) and Kentucky (where she has a massive lead) by a pair of double digit 20 point blowouts it's still all over but the whining because those states - with only 28 and 51 delegates at stake respectively - are both too small to make up the difference.

That's right Hillary, "Small States really don't count that much" do they?

Just one week from now - there will only be 425 delegates left (which in reality is an over-estimate since many more Supers will probably be committed by this point next week) and Clinton will need to get 298 or at least 68% of them all (which is assuming that she does blow Barack out by 22 point in Kentucky and again in West Virginia as predicted)

A 22 point landslide is what she needs just to stay even at this point, she has to do much better than that to win.

Once you plug in all the remaining poll estimates, which really only includes Oregon which has Obama up by 6 points, and assume he basically loses every other state by at least 8 points except Puerto Rico where Clinton is strongly supported and there he gets again blown out again by at least 22 points...

You get this:

Even with all that, with every break she could possibly get, Clinton still needs 212 delegates to win, while Obama only needs 95. All of the 287 Superdelegates would have to break for Clinton by 73%. She needs to get almost 3 to 1 of the Supers over Obama to Win. But if Obama just barely manages to squeek by with just 33% of the Supers - it's over, it's done, finito.

He wins.

See?

Your mileage may vary depending on your assumptions generally speaking, and the Calculator isn't perfect, but even if you give her every benefit of the doubt and 2/3 of the Supers - whom she happens to have been leaking lately like water from an old radiator - she still can't win.

By all reasonable measures, she already lost, her campaign is dead - a load of sound and fury signifying nothing - she just hasn't realized or admitted it yet.

Go ahead, try it. see for yourself.

Vyan

The Toughness Question

Much of DKos and other sites have gone full-on Obama as the level of rancor has reached a fever pitch. With the strike of pro-Clinton kossacks we really aren't hearing much from the other side of the argument and that just might be something we need to hear, and Obama needs to hear.

There actually are some reasons besides sexism and racism that people have been bitterly clinging to their support of Hillary Clinton, and I think it's simply the toughness question.

Does Barack Obama have what it takes to keep fighting and fighting and fighting...?

It doesn't really matter to Hillary supporters that she has continued to shift goal-posts, gone back on previous pledges, uses her fuzzy-math to claim the lead, has helped feed the fake outrage storm over his so-called elitist anti-american-secret-muslim leanings, and has fed the fires of White Wright-Panic and Affirmative Action resentment.

And there's only one reason why.

None of the under-handed dirty tricks and double-talk matters, because Hillary is showing us all something that we haven't seen from Nancy (Impeachment-is-off-the-table) Pelosi and Harry (We-just-can't-make-the-Republicans-Filibuster-the-War-Budget-Again!) Reid.

One word.

Backbone!

I've been a long-time Bill Clinton supporter and still feel he may have been probably the best President of the 20 Century after FDR. I think he did a massively important thing when he stood up to the Republican Congress to prevent them from gutting our budget with tax cuts, and twice shutdown the government.

They thought he would cave - like a typical Democrat - but he didn't.

Whether we Obama supporters like it or not, during this election Hillary Clinton has proven to be the Freaking Energizer Bunny of Politics.

In a way, seeing this side of any democrat is refreshing.

This carefully constructed image of invulnerability - laughing hysterically whenever she's asked a tough question, rather than grimacing and barking out a be-grudging answer or ducking the issue - is working for her precisely because it feeds into a deep seated need for Democrats to feel that someone is willing to be a full-on pit fighter for them.

We've had too many promises broken.

We've seen too many would be champions of the rule of law, such as John Conyers, eventually prove to be ineffective and deflatable. Henry Waxman and Pat Leahy had promised to dog the crimes of the Bush Administration to the ends of the earth, yet one memo from Fred Fielding claiming executive priviledge and their various investigations have crashed into a solid brick wall.

Not zesty.

We won the Congressional majority, but we still haven't stopped the war - or defunded it, in fact we have more soldiers in harms way today than we did when Pelosi and Reid were sworn in.

But Hillary? She keeps Going and Going and Going...

But she's not going to win. She simply doesn't have the numbers and she keeps bleeding supers.

And even if she does win in some magically way, what exactly are we getting?

Yes, it's clear we need Democrats who are willing to take it to the mat and then some, but the other question that needs to be asked and answered is - how much of our integrity, values and common-sense our we willing to give up in the process?

Winning isn't everything if in the process of winning you have to give up what it is your actually fighting for such as fairness, justice, integrity and truth. Do Democrats have to start operating "on the dark side" (as Dick Cheney has put it), and use any available excuse simply to get what they want?

Isn't that kind of "ends justify the means" thinking that has led the Bush Administration completely off the moral precipice with their ridiculous and endless justifications for Torture, Domestic Spying and Unprovoked War?

Here's another point that both Obamans and Clintonistas need to consider. It may be true that Obama has far less Washington experience than Clinton, but we need to consider what she's done with that experience and wonder just when have we ever seen this endless fighting spirit of Clinton's before?

As posted on Democratic Underground: When has Hillary Clinton really fought for anything except herself?

Where was her "fight" during the Senate confirmation of John Ashcroft?

Where was her "fight" during the Senate confirmation of Alberto Gonzales?

Where was her "fight" during the failed Senate confirmation of John Bolton?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR cloture on the nomination of corrupt corporatist Priscilla Owen, clearing the way for her confirmation to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR cloture on the nomination of unqualified fascist Janice Rogers Brown, clearing the way for her confirmation to the DC Court of Appeals?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR cloture on the nomination of religious zealot and homophobe William H. Pryor, clearing the way for his confirmation to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR cloture on the nomination of John Roberts, clearing the way for his confirmation as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court?

Where was her "fight" during the Senate confirmation of Samuel Alito?

Where was her "fight" when she skipped the Senate debate and confirmation vote on Michael Mukasey?

Where was her "fight" against the Military Commissions Act?

Where was her "fight" during this summer's vote on the Iraq War Supplemental?

Where was her "fight" during the vote to extend FISA?

Where was her "fight" during the Walter Reid scandal?

Where was her "fight" during the debate on Telecom Immunity?

Where was her "fight" when she SKIPPED the Senate vote to strip TelCo immunity from the FISA bill?

Where was her "fight" on the possible impeachment of Dick Cheney?

Where was her "fight" on the possible impeachment of George Bush?

Where was her "fight" against the myriad scandals surrounding the current administration?

Where was her "fight" when she campaigned for Joe Lieberman against Ned Lamont?

Where was her "fight" when she proposed legislation to ban flag burning?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR the 2001 Bankruptcy Bill?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR the USAPATRIOT act?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR the renewal USAPATRIOT act?

Where was her "fight" when she voted AGAINST an amendment to prevent the use of cluster bombs against civilian populations?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR the Iraq War Resolution?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR the Kyl/Lieberman amendment?

For some reason, Hillary Clinton only seems to be "a fighter" when she's fighting to feed her own naked ambition. Is that really what we want in a president?

It may be fair to say that we have seen Hillary the head-strong my-way-or-the highway pugilist at least once before: During her ill-fated Universal Health Care project.

What Hillary supposed learned, what she supposed discovered from that experience was how to accommodate, negotiate and reach across the isle. This is why she can now sit down with Richard Mellon Scaife and not involuntarily flinch from the squick factor.

There's another name for this tendency: Blind Bullheaded Ambition.

That kind of ambition and bullheadedness is likely why she voted for the Iraq War (showing she wasn't the typical squishy democrat on defense), and continues to defend that vote to this vary day.

Toughness is important, but so is Judgment.

On a variety of issues they break even. One might argue that Hillary's heath care plan has advantages over Barack's, and that his support of Nuclear Power is troubling considering the lack of a plan for long-term waste disposal.

But Barack has certainly shown better judgment when it comes to numerous issues - particularly Iraq, ethics reform and tracking down lose nukes - while Clinton has become even more Hawkish than the biggest neo-cons with her proposal for a nuclear umbrella over the middle east.

Clinton has clearly shown that she cares more about saying what people want to hear, than saying what they need to hear. This is a trait she shares with George W. Bush.

It's also clear she would be a far better President than George W. Bush could even dream of, but is that good enough? If we can do better, shouldn't we?

We democrats and the nation should realize that we need more than an unrestrained angry rampaging bull in the china shop of our foreign policy, domestic security and financial well-being.

We need a grown-up.

We need someone who can do more than rattle sabers and exploit fear to make cheap political points, but actually knows how to work with, deal with and find common ground with people whom they might otherwise have deep seated differences with. People like, ironically enough, Reverend Wright. People like William Ayers. Barack has said that he'd be willing to sit down and negotiate with those people that we don't like, such as Ahmadenijad as well as those that we do like - that he can bring disparate people together to meet common goals, rather than simply try to crush them, or "obliterate them".

We can do better, we have to.

Shunning and disavowing people we disagree with is not how you bring people together and solve problems, you have to engage them and challenge them - not simply walk away and expect them to come crawling apologetically to your feet.

Barack needs to make the argument that his wide and varied aquiantences are not a detriment, but an asset. He needs to rise to Clinton and the medias ridiculous arguments, all of them, and beat them back to where they belong - in the garbage. And do it with a smile.

Barack has the judgment, he has the rabid support of the people, but what he also needs to show is that he can go toe-to-toe with one of the toughest democratic politicians and political machines of a generation and not just barely survive it, but learn from it.

He needs to use this experience to Toughen Up, but do so without losing his integrity or his argument that he represents a shift away from the "old-time politix".

This is truly a clash of generations, the tried and true vs the new and dynamic. He needs to make that argument, and he needs his surrogates and supporters to continue to support this meme - it's time to put away the dirty tricks, the fear-mongering, the politics of division of the past and move forward with clean - but well worn and hard-working and fully engaged - hands.

Vyan

Clinton Campaign Gets PWNED!

From the NPR News Blog:

Wednesday morning, the Clinton campaign sent reporters and bloggers covering the campaign a statement that consisted of questions and comments under the title of "Keystone Test: Obama Losing Ground."

The Obama campaign's communications department decided to annotate those questions and comments with some comments of their own... and boy, they held nothing back.

Below you'll find the annotated e-mail that has been making the rounds of the media. The Obama campaign's comments are in bold.

To: Interested Parties
From: Clinton Campaign
Date: Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Re: Keystone Test: Obama Losing Ground [Get ready for a good one.]

The path to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue goes through Pennsylvania so if Barack Obama can't win there, how will he win the general election?

[Answer: I suppose by holding obviously Democratic states like California and New York, and beating McCain in swing states like Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Virginia and Wisconsin where Clinton lost to Obama by mostly crushing margins. But good question.]

After setbacks in Ohio and Texas, Barack Obama needs to demonstrate that he can win the state of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is the last state with more than 15 electoral votes on the primary calendar and Barack Obama has lost six of the seven other largest states so far -- every state except his home state of Illinois.

[If you define "setback" as netting enough delegates out of our 20-plus-point wins in Mississippi and Wyoming to completely erase any delegate advantage the Clinton campaign earned out of March 4th, then yeah, we feel pretty setback.]

Pennsylvania is of particular importance, along with Ohio, Florida and Michigan, because it is dominated by the swing voters who are critical to a Democratic victory in November. No Democrat has won the presidency without winning Pennsylvania since 1948. And no candidate has won the Democratic nomination without winning Pennsylvania since 1972.

[What the Clinton campaign secretly means: PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT WE'VE LOST 14 OF THE LAST 17 CONTESTS AND SAID THAT MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA WOULDN'T COUNT FOR ANYTHING. Also, we're still trying to wrap our minds around the amazing coincidence that the only "important" states in the nominating process are the ones that Clinton won.]

But the Obama campaign has just announced that it is turning its attention away from Pennsylvania.

[Huh?]

This is not a strategy that can beat John McCain in November.

[I don't think Clinton's strategy of losing in state after state after promising more of the same politics is working all that well either.]

In the last two weeks, Barack Obama has lost ground among men, women, Democrats, independents and Republicans -- all of which point to a candidacy past its prime.

["A candidacy past its prime." These guys kill me.]

For example, just a few weeks ago, Barack Obama won 68% of men in Virginia, 67% in Wisconsin and 62% in Maryland. He won 60% of Virginia women and 55% of Maryland women. He won 62% of independents in Maryland, 64% in Wisconsin and 69% in Virginia. Obama won 59% of Democrats in Maryland, 53% in Wisconsin and 62% in Virginia. And among Republicans, Obama won 72% in both Virginia and Wisconsin.

But now Obama's support has dropped among all these groups.

[That's true, if you don't count all the winning we've been up to. As it turns out, it's difficult to maintain 40-point demographic advantages, even over Clinton]

In Mississippi, he won only 25% of Republicans and barely half of independents. In Ohio, he won only 48% of men, 41% of women and 42% of Democrats. In Texas, he won only 49% of independents and 46% of Democrats. And in Rhode Island, Obama won just 33% of women and 37% of Democrats.

[I'm sympathetic to their attempt to parse crushing defeats. And I'm sure Rush Limbaugh's full-throated endorsement of Clinton didn't make any difference. Right]

Why are so many voters turning away from Barack Obama in state after state?

[You mean besides the fact that we're ahead in votes, states won and delegates?]

In the last few weeks, questions have arisen about Obama's readiness to be president. In Virginia, 56% of Democratic primary voters said Obama was most qualified to be commander-in-chief. That number fell to 37% in Ohio, 35% in Rhode Island and 39% in Texas.

[Only the Clinton campaign could cherry pick states like this. But in contrast to their logic, in the most recent contest of Mississippi, voters said that Obama was more qualified to be commander in chief than Clinton by a margin of 55-42.]

So the late deciders -- those making up their minds in the last days before the election -- have been shifting to Hillary Clinton. Among those who made their decision in the last three days, Obama won 55% in Virginia and 53% in Wisconsin, but only 43% in Mississippi, 40% in Ohio, 39% in Texas and 37% in Rhode Island.

[If only there were enough late deciders for the Clinton campaign to actually be ahead, they would really be on to something.]

If Barack Obama cannot reverse his downward spiral with a big win in Pennsylvania, he cannot possibly be competitive against John McCain in November.

[If they are defining downward spiral as a series of events in which the Clinton campaign has lost more votes, lost more contests and lost more delegates to us ... I guess we will have to suffer this horribly painful slide all the way to the nomination and then on to the White House.]

[Thanks for the laughs guys. This was great.]