Sooner Blue

Mostly politics, a few current events, a squirt of seltzer down yer pants .. a little blog for my rambles and rants.

2008/2/29

Matt Drudge outs Prince Harry

@ 10:15 AM (64 months, 17 days ago)


I should have known that rightie blogger Matt Drudge would turn against our allies! Poor under-achiever, he only cared about trying to act like a real print media player with this scoop. His ego is bigger than his sense of duty or his moral conscience.

Even if Drudge wasn't the first to break the story--an Australian women's magazine (last month) and a German newspaper (last week) were first and second--Drudge knew he would blast this little goodie into the "global media spotlight" in seconds on the Net.

You know, if a Democratic blogger or journalist did this, the Rightie wingnuts would rightfully blow the roof off. If this had been CBS or the New York Times, the entire right-wing nut brigade would be leading the pitchfork-and-torch march down the street to their offices.

From washingtonpost.com: LONDON, Feb. 29 -- Prince Harry will be immediately brought home from Afghanistan, where he has spent the last 10 weeks quietly fighting on the front lines, the British defense ministry said Friday.

Harry, 23, third in line to the British throne, deployed to Afghanistan on Dec. 14 and has been fighting Taliban forces from a forward combat base in southern Helmand Province.

His presence there had been kept secret from the public in a remarkable deal between the British military and media. But the secret was revealed in two little-noticed articles in an Australian tabloid magazine, and then blasted into the global media spotlight Thursday by the Drudge Report website.[..]"

http://tinyurl.com/266t5n

The Brits are upset and I don't blame them. They probably feel this is how some Yanks thank them for fighting along side our military in Afghanistan and Iraq.

(I must dig out that old T-shirt I wore during Desert Storm...which had intertwined US and UK flags and said: "These colors don't run")

Britain has always been America's number one ally. I'm very disappointed that foreign/non-British journalists and blog Web sites decided to run this story.

"Journalism" crosses the line when news reports put people in danger...especially when they endanger soldiers in a war zone.

One only has to point to John McCain to see what a high profile POW is worth to the enemy. Think how much mileage the Taliban could get from a royal trophy.

But, it's refreshing to see that some of the ruling class feel they have a duty to serve their nation.

Just like here in America. <snort> Sen. John McCain has/had a son over there...and Sen. Jim Webb. Two out of, how many lawmakers? Close to 500?

Yes, Prince Harry certainly shows far more courage and character than most of our politicians and their military age progeny.

I'm thinking of those five strapping sons of Mitt Romney....

2008/2/27

Obama probably thinks it's all down Hill-ary from here

@ 08:38 AM (64 months, 19 days ago)

Yes, Barack Obama is loved and adored and is being crowned and carried on the shoulders of his young admirers, who are so thirsty for a hero.
 
Yes, Obama is on a roll, winning all those primaries hand over fist...but I can't shake the feeling that while he's a mile wide, he's only an inch deep. I'm not saying I don't admire the man, I do...but I think he needs to be more seasoned. What's wrong with waiting a few years? He's young.
 
People are too bowled over by his charisma. Hillary doesn't have charisma. I don’t care, I don't trust charisma.
 
Let's face it, if Barack Obama was a woman nobody would give him the time of day. A female of his age and experience wanting to be commander in chief? Why, the Military alone would be in full scale mutiny at such a ridiculous notion.
 
It makes you wonder if women have it worse than black men in America. Remember, black men got the vote 51 years before women did. Black men--in 1869 (15th Amendment), women--in 1920 (19th Amendment.)
 
Last night's debate shows that Hillary Clinton is a fighter. She fights for children and families. She fights for women's rights around the world. She fights for health care...for veterans' health care too.
 
Hillary needs to pound home that theme--"I'm a fighter."
 
Last night at the last debate, she took no prisoners. It looked like Obama wanted to just get it over with without making any mistakes. But he didn't say anything of significance. I didn't like the way he danced around the Farrakhan question. He almost seemed bored. I didn't see any passion in him.
 
Hillary showed passion and enthusiasm. She relishes politics and it shows. She knows from experience that politics is not a tea party. She knows this animal inside and out and will get things done...exactly for the same reasons that Obama’s fan base derides her.
 
Yes, Hillary has made mistakes. But that’s because she’s made hard choices. Obama goes to Congress and sometimes ducks tough issues by voting "Present."
 
Our next president needs to be a fighter--determined, stoical, and experienced. Someone who is inured to being blamed and smeared. I just think Hillary would be a better warrior than Barack.
 
She certainly wasn't afraid to speak up for herself last night at the debate, the flash in her eyes was obvious:
 
SEN. CLINTON: "Well, can I just point out that in the last several debates, I seem to get the first question all the time. And I don't mind. I -- you know, I'll be happy to field them, but I do find it curious, and if anybody saw "Saturday Night Live," you know, maybe we should ask Barack if he's comfortable and needs another pillow. (Laughter, boos.) I just find it kind of curious that I keep getting the first question on all of these issues. But I'm happy to answer it."
 
I'm really glad she mentioned the bias...it needed to be said.
 
And do you want to see how ugly the bias can get? Allow me to introduce you to the "Bro's Before Ho's" Barack & Hillary T-Shirts. They even have them for children.
 
http://tinyurl.com/2ugdvb
 
Lucky Obama is a bro...
 
I swear, anyone with a mother, daughter or younger sister should be concerned with this kind of crap. I can't believe it's the 21st century and this stuff is still considered cool.
 

2008/2/26

"Bitch is the new black!"

@ 06:42 AM (64 months, 20 days ago)

Saturday Night Live returned from its writer's strike and hit a home run with the biggest overnight rating in two years. But the news of the night came when Tina Fey formally endorsed Hillary Clinton for President. She quickly made fun of just about every reason pundits and other women are using not to vote for Hillary.
 
[UPDATE: They jerked it off YouTube, here is the NBC URL, but you have to wade through an ad first]
 
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/#mea=221773
 
If you are in the Clinton camp, this should make you happy. One thing for sure, it couldn't come at a better time.
 
I remember the McCain incident, when he was asked "How do we beat the bitch?"...how he just laughed and went along. Good ol' Tailhook boy that he is.
 
I think Tina was trying to reclaim the power of the term "bitch" for women...and defuse the nastiness that so many people intend when they call someone a bitch.
 
"Yo, Bitches get things done!"
 
What do you say, we start an All Bitch Party? Goodbye Democrats! The Bitch is Back could be our theme song! Yeah...we could have A Million Bitch March on Washington.........
 
Seriously, strong women don't necessarily want to be mean...or be seen as "bitches." However, misogyny and gender inequality are so tightly woven into our culture that women HAVE to work harder, speak louder and defend actions that are commonly accepted by men.
 
I really do wonder why women are called bitches for taking the same action as their male counterparts.
 
Men are ambitious, which is good. Women are just am-bitches.......
 

2008/2/25

Whoever wears the biggest flag pin wins the presidency

@ 09:00 AM (64 months, 21 days ago)
 
Politico.com reports that CNN was running an 'online poll' asking if Barack Obama has enough patriotism to be president. Politico pointing out that "it's odd to see the mainstream media drive a largely whispered question that none of his main, named critics -- Hillary, McCain, or the RNC -- will touch."
 
http://tinyurl.com/yrp3no
 
The poll is gone now, replaced by a poll about last night's Oscars, so I can't tell you the results... but the results don’t really matter. Because watching righties spin scandals out of thin air is one thing...but watching the Mainstream Media get into the act is a different thing completely.
 
CNN should be ashamed...this is a partisan hit piece. But, that's how it works. It starts with rightie smear sites and hoax emails...next thing you know it's taken seriously at CNN.
 
Like it or not, the media often drives the major stories of an election season, and faulty reporting can sink a candidate’s chances.
 
So...will we have a poll asking if John McCain has enough patriotism to be president? And, let's see, did CNN ever ask if a certain officer in the Air National Guard who deserted his unit "in a time of war" was "patriotic enough" to become president? Or a guy who sought five draft deferments to avoid serving his country was "patriotic enough" to become vice-president?
 
It's slander, pure and simple...and pretty typical of what the next eight and a half months have in store.
 
I honestly don’t understand the thinking of people who are going to base their vote on whether or not the candidate wears a flag pin on their lapel, it’s not going to get them into heaven anymore (John Prine).
 
As Bush and Cheney have amply shown, any politician can wear the flag pin while lying to us and trashing our Constitution.
 
I think it was Sinclair Lewis who said that if fascism ever came to America it would come wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.
 
Obama’s response:
"As far as the American flag pin, I mean when we start getting into those definitions of patriotism that’s a debate I’m happy to have, because I will come right after them. This is a party that presided over a war in which our troops did not get the body armor that they needed, or sending troops over who were untrained because of poor planning, or are not fulfilling the veterans benefits that these troops need when they come home, or undermining our constitution with warrantless wiretaps that are unnecessary.
 
That is a debate that I am very happy to have. We’ll see what the American people think is the true definition of patriotism is."
 
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/qa-with-bho.html
 
That is a wonderful response to the drivel coming from the right. I especially like his mentioning the Constitution and warrantless wiretapping.
 
The Politico also reports:
"Top Republican strategists are working on plans to protect the GOP from charges of racism or sexism in the general election, as they prepare for a presidential campaign against the first ever African-American or female Democratic nominee.
 
The Republican National Committee has commissioned polling and focus groups to determine the boundaries of attacking a minority or female candidate...[..]"
 
http://tinyurl.com/228suy
 
I don't know why I find this so funny...how I wish I could've attended some of those meetings. My mind reels with Saturday Night Live skits....
 

2008/2/24

Attention Karl Rove freaks!

@ 07:54 AM (64 months, 22 days ago)

The Big Sleazy wanted dirty pictures.
 
Don't tell me that Republicans are going to start running to the dreaded liberal media with their sorry tales of woe about how the White House made ‘em do it.
 
Jill Simpson, a former "opposition researcher" (a cleaned up term for smear and slime agent) for Karl Rove, is being interviewed tonight on 60 Minutes. She'll say he wanted her to take hanky panky pictures to prove an Alabama Democratic governor was unfaithful to his wife in an effort to derail the very successful politician’s re-election.
 
This isn't the first time...she testified to congressional investigators last year that she overheard conversations among Republicans in 2002 indicating that Rove was involved in the Justice Department's prosecution of Siegelman.
 
We all know how the Bush regime does business. It's why we cannot allow the telecoms to have immunity. If the Bushies were wiretapping before 9/11, there's only one reason they did--to get DIRT.
 
"GOP Operative: Karl Rove Sought To Smear Dem
 
60 Minutes: Woman Says Top Bush Adviser Asked Her To Take Compromising Pictures Of Alabama Gov. Siegelman
 
(CBS) A Republican operative in Alabama says Karl Rove asked her to try to prove the state’s Democratic governor was unfaithful to his wife in an effort to thwart the highly successful politician’s re-election.
 
...Simpson says she found no evidence of infidelity despite months of observation. She tells Pelley that Rove, who had been a top Republican strategist in Alabama, had made requests for information from her before in her capacity as an "opposition researcher" for Republicans running for office.
 
Rove would not speak to 60 Minutes, but elsewhere has denied being involved in efforts to discredit Siegelman.
 
...Siegelman was convicted of bribery in a case that has drawn criticism from Democrats and Republicans. In fact, 52 former states’ attorneys general from both political parties petitioned Congress to investigate Siegelman’s case, resulting in hearings held last fall.
 
"I haven’t seen a case with this many red flags on it that pointed towards a real injustice being done," Grant Woods, the former Republican attorney general of Arizona and one of those who petitioned Congress, tells Pelley. "I personally believe that what happened here is that they targeted Don Siegelman because they could not beat him fair and square."
 
Siegelman was the only politician in Alabama history to be elected to all four of the state’s highest offices of secretary of state, attorney general, lieutenant governor and governor, and he did it as a Democrat in the heavily Republican state."
 
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/21/60minutes/main3859830.shtml
 
Hopefully, the next Attorney General will look into charges of obstruction of justice, and prove that Karl interfered with more than one prosecution for political reasons.
 
Please please please, if I can have only one Bush regime member frog-marched off in shackles and chains to prison, please please please let it be Karl Rove.
 
Seriously, if there's any justice in this world at all, Rove will one day spend time behind bars...but I'm not holding my breath.
 
Rove will probably be in the news for decades, as more and more of his schemes and dirty tricks gradually come to light. But he won't mind. It'll be history by then...and it'll keep his speaking fees up.
 
Never forget that Karl Rove was the "genius" who gave us our worst president in history, George W. Bush. Rove built him from the clay of a party-boy, draft-dodging, failed business man...creating the myth of the “cowboy” in a white hat who would right all wrongs in the world...a “common man you'd want to have a beer with."
 
Karl guided George into the governor's seat in Texas after that makeover. But first he had to get rid of a very popular Gov. Ann Richards...so he started a whisper campaign that the beloved grandmother was a lesbian.
 
BTW--I think it's telling that John McCain has cozied up to, and accepted a campaign contribution from, Karl Rove--after Rove trashed him and his family so savagely in South Carolina during the 2000 race. Remember the "illegitimate black baby"...who turned out to be McCain's adopted daughter from Bangladesh?
 
There is no limit to how low The Big Sleazy can go.

2008/2/23

US troops use captured weapons and ammo

@ 08:05 AM (64 months, 23 days ago)
 
...because they have to wait too long for replacement parts, etc.
 
How in the hell can US troops possibly be using enemy equipment or ammo if we’re spending $10 billion a month on defense?!
 
The right wingers are spitting flecks of foam over a story Barack Obama told at the debate the other night...about an Army captain and how we're short changing our troops in Afghanistan, shorting rifle platoons.
 
ABC's Jake Tapper tracked down the Army captain in question, and Obama's story appears to check out in full:
 
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/from-the-fact-3.html
 
Of course, the Pentagon denies it.
 
Yet, everybody knows that this administration shorted Afghanistan from the beginning...thinking Afghanistan could be done on the cheap. And they've let Afghanistan go to hell...look how the Taliban and al Qaeda have surged twice as strong there as we diddled away in Iraq.
 
The same Afghanistan that enabled al Qaeda to launch the attack that killed 3,000 Americans.
 
I backed our going into Afghanistan, that's where the men who attacked us came from. But then Bush lied us into his stupid greedy oil war in Iraq...which undermined the real war in Afghanistan.
 
And who's surprised that the Bush/Cheney/McCain worshipers are trying to discredit Obama's story. A story which shows once again the failure of the GOP to handle the wars, not to mention national security matters.
 
Here's the original story from NBC News Feb. 22, 2008...
 
WASHINGTON - The Pentagon on Friday tried to cast doubt on an account of military equipment shortages mentioned by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, whose campaign team stood by the story.
 
In a debate with rival Hillary Clinton on Thursday evening, Obama said he had heard from an Army captain who served in Afghanistan and whose unit did not have enough ammunition or vehicles.
 
Obama said it was easier for the troops to capture weapons from Taliban militants than it was "to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief," President Bush.
 
The captain told NBC News that he was talking about not having enough ammunition and no Humvees for training, but that his unit underwent a three-week crash course in Afghanistan before they saw combat.
 
...The captain, who spoke on background because he's still active duty, said that his unit temporarily had to replace their .50-caliber turret-mounted machine gun with a weapon seized from the Taliban because they couldn't get a needed part fast enough.
 
...Obama said the captain had served as the head of a rifle platoon, which should have had 39 members — but 15 had been sent to Iraq so the unit deployed to Afghanistan had only 24 soldiers.[..]"
 
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23301273/
 
Remember that brave soldier who confronted Rumsfeld a few years back? He asked Rummy why troops were forced to dig up scrap metal to protect their vehicles because the military did not have enough armor.
 
Rumsfeld said "you go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want..." I wanted to slug him. Here we're the richest nation on earth and we can't supply the best equipment for those kids?
 
And now we learn from Obama's captain that things haven't changed.
 
The warhawks. Bush/Cheney/McCain, will try to deny it, but there are more stories out there about how the war in Iraq has diverted scarce military resources -- troops, equipment -- from Afghanistan to Iraq. The cost for that diversion was paid, is still being paid, by America's sons and daughters. We owe our troops better.
 
At the rate this administration has destroyed the military, it will be a miracle if we have a standing army by the time we get rid of GWB.
 
A president who thought of war as one big John Wayne movie -- "Bring 'em on!"
 

2008/2/21

Bimbo alert!

@ 08:01 AM (64 months, 25 days ago)

Boy, just what ol' Huck has been hopin' for! And maybe why ol' Mitt only "suspended" his campaign?
 
Hmm...Senator McCain spends a lot of personal time, and *maybe* has affair with, Telecom industry lobbyist, while said senator is active in Telecom industry legislation.
 
Wellll, at least it's not a scandal about a homosexual affair...with an underage boy...and gerbils...and light bulbs.
 
His people are denying it of course. Maybe we ought to send McCain to Gitmo and waterboard him until the truth comes out.
 
This is a story from the NY Times about Sen. John McCain's ethics...his  possibly inappropriate relationship with a female lobbyist. The NYT had been chasing this story for months and were having internal dissension over whether to run the article. But rival publications (Newsweek, The New Republic and Politico) were hot on the trail and forced their hand.
 
Why was the NYT dragging its feet with this story? Surely not trying to atone for all those years of pimping the Bill and Monica story?
 
Or...are we not getting the news because 5 people own ALL the media?
 
From nytimes.com: "...In 1999 she began showing up so frequently in his offices and at campaign events that staff members took notice. One recalled asking, "Why is she always around?"
 
....A former campaign adviser described being instructed to keep Ms. Iseman away from the senator at public events, while a Senate aide recalled plans to limit Ms. Iseman's access to his offices.
 
In interviews, the two former associates said they joined in a series of confrontations with Mr. McCain, warning him that he was risking his campaign and career. Both said Mr. McCain acknowledged behaving inappropriately and pledged to keep his distance from Ms. Iseman. The two associates, who said they had become disillusioned with the senator, spoke independently of each other and provided details that were corroborated by others.
 
Separately, a top McCain aide met with Ms. Iseman at Union Station in Washington to ask her to stay away from the senator. John Weaver, a former top strategist and now an informal campaign adviser, said in an e-mail message that he arranged the meeting after "a discussion among the campaign leadership" about her.[..]"
 
http://tinyurl.com/ys69sj
 
Let's see...didn't Viagra come out around 1999?
 
Looks like the Times wouldn't stick its neck out so far if they didn't know a lot more about the story...at least on this first go round.
 
And if I am reading correctly, the key sources in this story are Republicans. Are they putting up a sex/corruption story now as a buffer zone against future stories that would be corruption only?
 
Seriously, if this was just about an 8 year old affair it wouldn't be much...but the fact that Iseman's clients had business before McCain's committee at the same time makes this story important.
 
Wow...could he literally go to bed with a lobbyist and then push her legislative goals?
 
How did McCain vote on the impeachment of Clinton, again?
 
As to the fall out, Hillary probably does not want to go there...we'll have to wait and see if Obama and Michelle find some way to take a few subtle digs at McCain.
 
There's long been blog rumors about a stifled NYT bimbo story concerning an unspecified candidate...some thought it was about Edwards.
 
And you know, it would be interesting to find out how many people knew about the existence of the NYT McCain story through blog activity...as opposed to how many would have known about it before blogs came along.
 
I'd bet the difference would be in the millions. Something to think about...
 

2008/2/20

Who says white men can't jump?

@ 08:23 AM (64 months, 26 days ago)

This Democratic presidential nomination race that pits a bi-racial man against a woman, may well be determined by middle-class white men. They might determine the next occupant of the White House.
 
It certainly won't be the first time working-class white men have influenced our nation's politics. They were the main-stay of FDR's New Deal coalition. They were the "Reagan Democrats" who helped Ronald Reagan win office in the 80's. Then Bill Clinton won many of them back to the Democratic Party in the 90's.
 
And they were the same "angry white males" who resented affirmative action and the women's movement enough to help Republicans capture Congress a couple years later.
 
They make up nearly one-fourth of the electorate, outnumbering African-American and Hispanic voters combined.
 
A lot of these white men just won't go along with Hillary Clinton, who's a symbol for everything that irritates them -- the women's movement, women in the workforce, etc.
 
That's why they've started voting for Barack Obama.
 
Yes, primary exit polls show that Obama is picking up support from white men from lower income, less educated voters and union voters. That pretty well sums up the angry white male demographic.
 
Bringing these men back to our party is a very healthy sign...working white men are a damned big demographic. It would be great if we could rebuild the Democratic party that existed before sexism, racism and Reagan splintered it.
 
Here's the CNN exit poll of Wisconsin voters:
 
Obama won male voters 67% to 31% -- they split the women's vote.
 
Obama won all education levels (narrow margin for high school only) and all income levels.
 
Obama won white men 63% to 34%.
 
Clinton won white women, but only 52% to 47%.
 
Obama won union households.
 
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#WIDEM
 
The Virginia exit poll last week found a similar trend.
 
So, Barack Obama is making history in more ways than one on his march to the White House -- he's picking up strong majorities of white men. That's unheard of...white men have always been the most reactionary, racially-bonded voting group, and the deepest well of anti-Black hostility in the country.
 
So, why are they jumping to vote for Obama?
 
Maybe because Obama has been sending messages from day one that he will take race and sex privilege off the table? Notice how he doesn't preach about either?
 
I do have one little theory about Barack Obama's unusual appeal to white males.
 
Since a good many American white males under 50 are so crazy about spectator sports, maybe they see Barack Obama as a cross between Tiger Woods and Michael Jordan.
 
No really...just watch ESPN for a while and notice how many black athletes are important stars for more than just their athletic prowess. A lot of these athletes are wildly successful and have a ton of charisma. And money. Their audience of white men perceive them as leaders.
 
So maybe it's not so far-fetched for these white males to see Obama as a leader.
 
Just sayin'.....

2008/2/19

Of delegates and superdelegates

@ 06:55 AM (64 months, 27 days ago)
 
There was an interesting piece in the Sunday NYT on the history of delegates in the Republican and Democratic parties.
 
From nytimes.com: "The two parties’ nominating systems reflect the philosophical differences between them. Or, as a prominent Republican strategist, Mike Murphy, suggested, perhaps jocularly, in a recent appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Democrats are hung up on ideas of fairness and equity.
 
“Democrats, being the nice liberals they are, grade on a curve,” he said. “They give you delegates for coming in second.”
 
“Republicans,” he continued, “being mean social Darwinists, we tend to punish the second-place guy with a lot of winner-take-all primaries.”
 
In other words, the Republican who kills the buffalo gets all the meat; the Democrat has to crouch around the campfire and share it with his brethren and sistren.[..]"
 
http://tinyurl.com/yq6n3x
 
Thomas Jefferson felt that Democracy depended on an educated electorate. I wish I believed that Americans have a longer attention span than catchy chants like 'yes we can, yes we can.'
 
But then the record turnout for the primaries and caucuses gives me hope that Americans are paying attention to politics after being asleep at the wheel for so many elections.
 
I just hope something doesn't happen to turn off voters before November. My greatest fear is a destructive convention in Denver.
 
If Obama is denied the nomination because of the superdelegates...if he wins the popular vote and then loses because of the delegates, I think we will see rioting in the streets by young people. How terrible to have a re-run of the nightmare of the 1968 Convention.
 
Democrats started this superdelegate thing a couple of decades ago...people really didn't pay much attention to it because it never comes into play. Well, now it might come into play and people don't like it at all.
 
To be fair, the superdelegates were designed to play a pivotal role at the beginning rather than the end of the primary season. Way back before the power of blogs, a frontrunner could become a frontrunner just from having the support of a majority of superdelegates.
 
So in essence, Democrats may have more or less shot themselves in the foot, at least where ordinary voters are concerned.
 
It's nice to think of a national primary, held maybe on the first Tuesday in March or April...everyone votes, every vote counts, etc. But then it's also nice that during the caucuses voters get to see and talk to the candidates face to face. And small states get to play too. With no caucuses, campaigns would just turn into big airport rallies.
 
Basically what this boils down to is Democrats created the superdelegates to make sure the nominee was one that was ELECTABLE.
 
And look at the choices that the superdelegates in their wisdom have given us: Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, and John Kerry.
 
Okay okay...they came up with one winner, Bill Clinton.
 
To make matters worse, superdelegates have received over $800,000 from Obama and Clinton in the form of campaign contributions during the last three years, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.
 
Obama has doled out more than $694,000 to the superdelegates from his political action committee, Hope Fund, or campaign committee since 2005.
 
Clinton has not been as openhanded. Her PAC, HILLPAC, and campaign committee appear to have distributed $195,500 to superdelegates.
 
Wonder what Thomas Jefferson would think about all that?
 
Lefty organization Move-On has gathered over 200,000 signatures on a petition to Democratic Party superdelegates. It reads: “The superdelegates should let the voters decide between Clinton and Obama. Then support the people’s choice.”
 
The superdelegates MUST respect the will of the voters if they want unity in the Democratic Party and victory in November.
 
Just a thought -- if the GOP had superdelegates, does anyone still think that John McCain would be their nominee?
 

2008/2/15

Hope you didn't hurt your hip on that flip-flop, John

@ 08:01 AM (65 months, 1 day ago)

 

McCain was against torture before he was for it.

"There is no principle I will not renege on, and no personal values I will not betray in order to get the nomination of the GOP." -- George W. McCain

From Senate debates on torture rules, November 8, 2005:

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: First, subjecting prisoners to abuse leads to bad intelligence because under torture, a detainee will tell his interrogator anything to make the pain stop. Second, mistreatment of our prisoners endangers U.S. troops who might be captured by the enemy, if not in this war, then in the next.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: If we inflict this cruel and inhumane treatment, the cruel actions of a few darken the reputation of our country in the eyes of millions. American values should win against all others in any war of ideas, and we can't let prisoner abuse tarnish our image.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/july-dec05/torture_11-08.html

The United States punished the Japanese (15 years of hard labor) when waterboarding was used against Americans in World War II...we called it a war crime.

Waterboarding WAS torture, IS torture and WILL be torture. Period.

From nytimes.com, 2/14/08: WASHINGTON — The Senate voted 51 to 45 on Wednesday afternoon to ban waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods used by the Central Intelligence Agency against high-level terrorism suspects.

....Mr. McCain, a former prisoner of war, has consistently voiced opposition to waterboarding and other methods that critics say is a form torture. But the Republicans, confident of a White House veto, did not mount the challenge. Mr. McCain voted "no" on Wednesday afternoon."

http://tinyurl.com/yussem

He supports torture after opposing it...after SUFFERING from it.

He's trying to convince the millions of conservatives who dislike him that he is in fact a conservative candidate. He doesn't get it...he is winning BECAUSE conservatives don't like him...BECAUSE he is/was more moderate.

If he is willing to change his position on this...what else is he willing to change his position on for political convenience?

If his ambition continues to smother his principles, he's going to erode the respect many Democrats have for him...sad, especially since he will probably lose the election anyway.

And after Bush vetoes the bill, McCain will again be faced with a vote to either stand with Bush or stand against torture. By his vote today we all know where he will come down on that issue. That picture of him with his head cuddled to Bush's chest flashes through my mind.

So, let the flipping and flopping begin. But really, it began back when he kissed Jerry Falwell's, uh, ring.

No wonder Romney endorsed him.

Flip McCain/Flop Romney 2008..."Whatever you believe, we'll believe it too."

 

2008/2/14

Just keep him sitting behind that big desk...okay?

@ 08:04 AM (65 months, 2 days ago)
 
Man-crush or Restless Leg Syndrome?
 
Wow, and I thought Chris Matthews was over the top when he said Hillary Clinton has a career only because her husband cheated on her....
 
From newsbusters.org: "During MSNBC's live coverage of Tuesday's presidential primary elections, after the speeches of Barack Obama and John McCain had aired, Chris Matthews expressed his latest over the top admiration for Obama's speaking skills as the MSNBC anchor admitted that Obama's speech created a "thrill" in his leg: "It's part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama's speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often." (Transcript follows)
 
http://tinyurl.com/2k5y8n
 
How soon will it be before he faints? And is this anything like the feeling he got seeing George Bush in his flight suit?
 
Not only does Michelle Obama have to endure crowds of women moaning ecstatically every time her husband opens his mouth, now she has to worry about the feeling Chris Matthews gets up his leg.
 
(Also notice how MSNBC has ever so subtly been on the Obama bandwagon...and in order for them to push Obama, they've had to ever so cleverly attack the Clinton campaign.)
 
If Chris Matthews got a certain leg thrill when Obama spoke...and he watched the speech via a satellite feed, imagine what would've happened if he'd seen it in person.
 
You know, there's a very big difference between how good a speaker is and how good their policies will be as president. All too often style counts more than substance in this election.
 
I would like to ask Obama's supporters: Are you in favor of Obama’s energy plan? Do you know what his energy plan is? What do you think the result of said energy plan would be?
 
Being black and having charisma is not enough for me. Yes, he is riding high on this "cult of personality"...but what do you want to bet that in 6 months he'll feel the same voter apathy that Hillary is feeling now?
 
Ah well...if nothing else, Chris Matthews has given us a peek into the forbidden world of how Man Thrills really work. So, they run UP the leg, huh? Do they start in the feet or what?

2008/2/12

Beat beat beat, beat beat McCain...

@ 11:40 AM (65 months, 4 days ago)

"Good luck with that in November"
 
I read that the following video got 200,000 hits on the first day...dang near impossible to get that many viewers in one day on YouTube without putting on black eyeliner and crying.
 
Here's the answer to swiftboating...actual wit and sarcasm used to show the real flaws of the GOP.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gwqEneBKUs
 
Maybe the media will let politicians get away with campaigning out of both sides of their mouths, but YouTube will not.
 
I’ve long said that all we have to do with McCain is let him open his mouth.
 
Wait until they drag out his "jokes"...like this one:
 
"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno." - John McCain in 1998 at a GOP fundraiser.
 
Bashing an 18 year old girl and making a lesbian joke about the Attorney General.
 
That's "Tailhook" mentality enough for me.
 

2008/2/11

Hillary-hate ain't got nothin' on McCain-hate.

@ 08:32 AM (65 months, 5 days ago)

Yep, you have yer Vietnam Veterans Against McCain...you have Rush Limbaugh leading right-wing radio in calling McCain--"John McLame".. "John McAmnesty".."John McPain"...etc. etc. etc.
 
The fact that they would rather not vote, than to vote for McCain says a lot. That they all rallied around a loser like Bush, following him right over that cliff, says a lot. It's just crazy to me that Rush, DeLay, Coulter et al are so offended by McCain, yet rabidly defend Bush.
 
You have Tom DeLay on This Week yesterday, saying that John McCain had to prove himself to conservatives on such issues as immigration and the 2nd Amendment. (Not sure what the latter is about.)
 
Then you have Karl Rove appearing on Face the Nation with his little white board showing Rush and his litter mates that, even though *they* may not like John McCain, a lot of other Republicans *do*...and like him in higher numbers than Democrats love Hillary. Or something like that.
 
I just love that little board...damn, Fox knew what they were doing when they hired Rove. Every media outlet will want Karl, and every time he opens his mouth he pimps Fox. Genius I tell you, Genius.
 
Rove said McCain "has a lot of work to do" to get conservatives "energetic and passionate and committed." He said he has already contributed money to McCain's campaign because he views him as "the presumptive Republican nominee."
 
Next you have the Preznit on Fox News Sunday telling Chris Wallace that McCain is a true conservative. But, as we all know by now, Bush does not know what a conservative is...and, hopefully, he gave McCain the kiss of death with this endorsement.
 
Anyway, the Prez seems ready to give McCain advice and begin duties on the campaign trail, and I’m certain McCain has a fundraising position with Bush's name on it. Uh huh...
 
Surely people aren't voting for McCain because wingnuts prefer to follow their talk radio masters, who are pounding him for not hating Mexicans enough and for hating torture too much.
 
The important thing to see here is that Americans in general are plain fed-up with the modern Republican conservative--ignorant, intolerant and unable to admit the truth about what they have done to this country. People want change.
 
The question isn't why McCain isn't winning, it's why Republicans aren't winning.
 
I've been a Democrat voter for many years and I've been known to criticize my party as well as Republicans for poor management of our country. However, having lived thru these last 7+ yrs of Republican mismanagement, I am astounded that anyone would even want to vote Republican this time.
 
I still don't understand the vehemence these Republican fanatics feel against John McCain. He is their best candidate, but they hate the fact that he doesn't join them in lockstep. You would think that, oh, a war hero with a long list of experience, a hawkish stance, pro-life, and broad appeal would be a good thing.
 
If McCain wins, it will show that those righty blowhards just aren't that important anymore. It would mean that a Republican, business-friendly, supports military, fiscal conservative, etc., doesn't have to be praising Jesus, demanding prayer in schools and the stoning of abortion doctors to be elected.
 
Anyway, there aren't enough conservatives to win elections without wooing centrists and liberals -- usually through slander and fear-mongering. That stuff wears off, especially when you can't deliver the goods.
 
John McCain is the GOP's only hope BECAUSE he isn't as right-wing as the lunatic fringe would like. As he moves to the right to please the radicals of his party, he lessens his chances of winning in November.
 
Whatever, it's their grave...we can be bipartisan in digging it.

2008/2/10

Latinos will be the wild card

@ 07:58 AM (65 months, 6 days ago)

On his JOURNAL this week Bill Moyers had an interesting conversation with Hispanic evangelical Samuel Rodriguez--president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference with access to 18,000 Latino evangelical churches--who argues that Republicans’ opposition to amnesty for illegal immigrants could undermine the GOP’s power to attract Hispanic voters.
 
Rodriguez gave his opinion on the role faith is playing in this campaign, and his take on what's happening with the evangelical vote in the primaries.
 
I had never heard Rodriguez speak before, but I found the interview to be quite compelling. He talked about issues like immigration, marriage, evangelicalism, abortion and xenophobia.
 
He believes that Obama needs to reach out to the Latinos...that Obama should be resonating with them more than Hillary. And he isn't against gay people's rights. He is primarily for justice...he believes our common thread should be justice. Justice for all.
 
“The Republican Party really had it going on. I mean, they really made significant inroads. 44 percent of Latinos voted for George W. Bush in the 2004 elections... All of a sudden, the Republican Party is hijacked de facto by the Sensenbrenners and Tancredos... There's an anti-Latino, a nativism, xenophobic spirit emerging out of the Republican Party. As a result of that, the Republican party will be hard pressed to engage anything close to 25 percent in the 2008 elections. And they may lose the Latino vote for two or three generations...
 
"....we're all in favor of border protection and securing the borders, of course. But however, what we actually did see in the Republican Party is the emergence of something that subtle in the Republican Party, the xenophobia, American nativism under the guise of border protection and border security. And the amount of polarization — I'm a generation X'er, born in the great republic of New Jersey — I never would have imaged in my lifetime that I would have to prove my citizenship in order to apply for an apartment in Oklahoma, Texas or Arizona.
 
There's an anti-Latino, a nativism, xenophobic spirit emerging out of the Republican Party. As a result of that, the Republican Party will be hard pressed to engage anything close to 25 percent in the 2008 elections. And they may lose the Latino vote for two or three generations."
 
Transcripts:
 
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02082008/transcript2.html
 
The video:
 
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02082008/watch2.html
 
 
 

2008/2/8

Take that, Rush! Mitt Quits

@ 08:01 AM (65 months, 8 days ago)

With the evangelical Republicans having a strangle-hold on the South, it's beyond me how a Mormon thought he could win the Republican nomination. This guy's goose was cooked before the campaign ever got started.

When a large section of your own party thinks you believe that Jesus came to America, and you wear magic underwear to protect you from evil...you're screwed.

"WASHINGTON - John McCain effectively sealed the Republican presidential nomination on Thursday as chief rival Mitt Romney suspended his faltering campaign. "I must now stand aside, for our party and our country," Romney told conservatives.[..]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23050678/

Well, there is a shocker. Actually, it does show that he has SOME business sense. It only took losing $40 million of his own stash before he folded. His sons must have told him to stop spending all their money. Who did he think he was...George Bush?

Now won't it be funny if Mitt tells everyone to vote for Huckabee?

At least we won't be subjected to all those boring speeches after Mitt lost a state...his poor wife and staff standing behind him with forced smiles on their faces melting like cakes in the rain the longer he droned on. He gave the worst speeches ever.

Though he did rouse his base with that goodbye speech yesterday...going on about how electing Obama or Hillary would be a "surrender to terror." A disgraceful and exploitative smear.

I'm sure that at the moment President Obama or President Hillary is being inaugurated, barge-loads of al Qaeda warriors brandishing box-cutters will be arriving on our shores.

BTW Mitt... now that there is no campaign for them to "serve" in, isn't it time for one or two of your five strapping sons to visit a recruiting station to fight in that war you promote?

Anyway, Mitt left because he lost. Period. He never connected with ordinary people...and he was like an actor auditioning for a role that's already been cast.

Our nation just might be ready for an African-American president or a female president...we are just not ready to elect an android.

Surely Mitt isn't angling for the VP slot...he and McCain dislike each other intensely. But then, by convention time their little spats could be healed.

Whoa! Not a McCain/Huckabee ticket! That would be a monumental disaster, the worst ticket in history. Don't do it John! You're no spring chicken...what if you keel over and put us in the hands of a President Huckabee who wants to amend our constitution to God's Laws?!

Maybe Mitt is merely bowing to the inevitable and practicing St. Ronnie's 11th commandment--Thou shall not speak ill of other Republicans.

Is our Republicans finally learning?

I'll say it again--IF Republicans were smart, they'd lick their wounds and coalesce around McCain and aim for November...while Democrats spend the next six months squabbling.

Boy, I heard that Rush Limbaugh had a little hissy-fit on his show about Mitt leaving...but it's nothing a little Oxy can't handle. I NEVER ever listen to Rush, but I might start. Hearing him bash the Republican nominee would be priceless.

 

2008/2/6

The morning after

@ 08:40 AM (65 months, 10 days ago)

I watched most of Super Tuesday's returns on Fox, just so I could enjoy their squirming over Romney's dismal showing. I got a certain amount of pleasure from watching Sean Hannity put in his place...he didn't make much eye contact as Brit Hume interviewed him about McCain's win.
 
Because, guess what? Apparently after two weeks of rabid Righties fluffing up Romney and swiftboating John McCain, it was all for naught.
 
Day in and day out, all you heard from Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingram, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, James Dobson, the editorial board at the National Review, etc. was how they will not vote for him and would, in fact, vote for Hitlery instead.
 
"He's not a real conservative" they whined. "Why he's wasn't even a real hero in Vietnam" they sneered. "He's a Mexican-lover" they drooled.
 
Fox’s Brit Hume had even reported that McCain had "lied"...also that “some members” of the Bush family are supporting Romney (maybe that was the kiss of death).
 
I guess we can call them Neo-con Coyotes ...because they chewed off their legs to get away from John McCain... and now they have to figure out how to unshit their nest. And may I gleefully predict that this is the beginning of their decline. Sane Republicans are tired of all their hate.
 
Okay now, McCain has emerged as a frontrunner, Romney is a dead candidate walking, and Huckabee is hanging in there with the biggest ol' grin on his face. But, Huck won't seriously be considered as a conservative alternative to McCain.
 
So, the Republicans are pretty much sorted out, while the Democratic race has no clear-cut winner before the convention. Just the exact opposite of what everyone expected not too long ago.
 
If the R's are smart they would kick Limbaugh & Gang to the corner and quickly unite behind McCain to start running a general election campaign ...because the D's will get all the negative press as they'll probably duke it out for months to come.
 
Yes, Obama won more states, but Clinton won the big Democratic strongholds. People are choosing between inspiration and competence. There will be more wins in store for Obama, but come November he won't win the same places he won last night...because they are wingnut country. Karl Rove himself said the same thing on Fox last night. (Yes, he finally came home)
 
So, this very close Democratic race brings good news and bad news. The good news -- it's still Exciting! The bad news -- contrary to what all the pundits and TV talking heads have said, the race hasn't been a very nasty one....until now.
 
The delegate thing drives me crazy. Republicans have a "winner take all" delegates arrangement. Democrats have a "proportional delegates" arrangement, wanting everyone to have a chance for a slice of the pie. Trying to be fair you see, but boy is it complicated.
 
And what about all those bastard Michigan and Florida delegates? There Will Be Blood at the Denver convention.
 
But back to last night. Again, Hillary's women give her strong unshakable support...even the Massachusetts women the Kennedys tried to seduce away. These women don't make as much noise as Barack’s youth movement, but it looks like they will not be moved. Hillary's women will either give her victory or keep her in play till the very end.
 
And remember that older women are steady ...not as flighty as college students. Older women know how to stand their ground.
 
What we have to figure out is -- who has a better chance to defeat John McCain in a general election?
 
More about that later.
 

2008/2/5

Today's the day kids! Tsunami Tuesday!

@ 07:24 AM (65 months, 11 days ago)
 
It's gonna be a close one between Democrats. What if it's a dead heat, so close that the so-called SuperDelegates get to make the selection? Hillary and Obama could get the same number of delegates, this year there's 4,049 (it changes with population) delegates that they earn through voting. Then there's this other 796 SuperDelegates, Congressmen, Senators, party officials, who have the privilege of changing their vote at the last minute. The last minute.
 
One thing I'd like to say--If Hillary Clinton does pull this thing off, she will have done so against 16 years of being the target of misogyny and hatred...and not always from the Righties either. I guess she didn't get the memo -- middle aged women are supposed to fade away, go home and be invisible.
 
There has also been a world of difference between the way the media cover Obama and Hillary. The language they use to talk about him--his charisma, his youth movement, his momentum and his star quality--all stand in sharp contrast to the way they pick apart every tiny detail about Clinton. They never once made fun of Obama's voice, his laugh, his hair, the way he dressed, or when he got a tear in his eye (which he did when the Kennedys endorsed him).
 
About Obama, I like what Bill Maher said: "...there's something there that we haven't seen in decades -- people getting involved who never got involved before. He's stirring something....he got like 14,000 people in Idaho or some place where there's only 12,000 Democrats....you know, it's something that's -- it's beyond politics.
 
And that's, I think, what a lot of this country has been looking for. In the last presidential election, I think, the figure is 79 million people who could have voted and did not. Those are the people, I think, who are getting involved."
 
Obama has also had to battle hatred. Who hasn't seen the hate email full of lies zooming around the country? I was so surprised that someone I admire actually said, "Wouldn't it be terrible if Obama was planted by the terrorists?" I gave her the snopes.com site.
 
So now...there's nothing else to do but:
 
1 -- Ignore the polls and the meedja spin
2 -- Think long and hard about what's important to you
3 -- Make up your mind who deserves your vote
4 -- Get out there and vote for him or her no matter the weather
5 -- Kick back with some popcorn and await the results
 
Then "Que sera, sera."
 
I don't care if my president is good looking, or black or white or male or female. I don't even care if my President is nice. I want a smart President, a strong President, a successful President who leads our country, who ruthlessly defends our constitution, and protects and promotes our civil rights. I'm not real concerned about the means to those ends...just that they be legal.
 
You know, I'm really going to miss the horse race aspect of the whole thing...and the haters and the lovers...laughing at the "impartial" partial opinion making clowns on TV...and the phone calls. Who's going to be messing with my beautiful mind next?
 
March is going to be sort of blah.....
 

2008/2/4

I'm shocked, SHOCKED I tell you.

@ 11:41 AM (65 months, 12 days ago)
(What with all the campaign frenzy, no one is going to mention this...so I will.)
 
Boy, that Karl Rove sure can do a lot of dirty business just using his phone and blackberry. Like "softening" the reports of the 9/11 Commission.
 
A Philip Shenon book coming out soon will reveal that Rove carried on back-room discussions with Philip Zelikow, the Commission's Executive Director, for a LONG time after the Commission told him to STOP speaking with White House Officials.
 
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The September 11 commission's executive director had closer ties with the White House than publicly disclosed and tried to influence the final report in ways that the staff often perceived as limiting the Bush administration's responsibility, a new book says.
 
Philip Zelikow, a friend of then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, spoke with her several times during the 20-month investigation that closely examined her role in assessing the al-Qaida threat.
 
He also exchanged frequent calls with the White House, including at least four from Karl Rove, Bush's chief political adviser at the time.[..]"
 
http://tinyurl.com/2lcnrm
 
You know, one of the topics of conversation might've been those terror tapes that George Tenet never told the 9/11 Commission about.
 
Or, how about the obvious? That the entire Bush team poo-pooed Bill Clinton’s advice that their first priority ought to be Al Qaeda...and as a result lost any chance they had to prevent it?
 
Lost a chance to prevent 9-11 or gained a chance for a new Pearl Harbor?
 
http://www.themodernreligion.com/terror/thirty-year-itch.html
 
And ain't it funny that Zelikow was yakking it up with Rove on June 23, just when that whole Plame leak thang was brewing?
 
Nah...I highly doubt there is any connection between the two investigations. But I do think it's typical that Karl Rove was trying to obstruct two investigations at the same time.
 
Anyway...what will be the right-winger spin? Will they lead off with the usual ad hominem attacks, or will they use a Clinton deflection?
 
Let's sit back and wait ....
 

2008/2/3

McCain Derangement Syndrome

@ 07:51 AM (65 months, 13 days ago)

Last Friday night Pollster Frank Luntz came on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes to discuss his reaction to the debate between Hillary and Obama the night before.
 
He lost no time pointing out Obama’s swipes at McCain, but he never mentioned Obama’s zingers about Mitt Romney. This is just too obvious--“fair and balanced” Fox plays up attacks on McCain to show favoritism for Romney.
 
Bashing John McCain, the odds on favorite to win the Republican nomination, seems to be a popular Fox game right now.
 
Yet, it's not just Fox, it's also all over conservative media.The noise machine is gunning for McCain because he does not follow the corporate line. Too bad they can't use that illegitimate black baby smear again. Oh wait, there is that "John McCain Is No Hero POW" ad that accused McCain of ratting on his fellow prisoners at the Hanoi Hilton.
 
The Republicans are double disgusting when they eat one of their own.
 
This confuses me. Rabid Righties seem to literally hate their party's frontrunner. Ann The Man Coulter even said she'd rather vote for Hillary!
 
Fox promotes Romney at every opportunity, even though his chances are slim...despite his spending nearly 50 million dollars of his own personal fortune. That was one of Obama's zingers--Romney's business smarts not getting him a good return on his investment so far in this campaign.
 
Average Republicans on the street just don't seem to like the guy. They say he looks like a phony and speaks out both sides of his mouth, the ultimate flip-flopper. First he supports a woman's right to choose, then he doesn't. First he supports a secret timetable for troops to come home from Iraq, then he doesn't.
 
So, it looks like McCain might just be the Republicans best chance to maintain their hold on the White House. But they'd prefer to nominate Romney, an almost certain loser, rather than the man who gives their party its best hope?
 
Surely they don't actually prefer either Clinton or Obama over McCain?
 
Wait...is this the Rapture?
 

2008/2/1

Hillary vs Obama, no blood this time

@ 08:41 AM (65 months, 15 days ago)
 
Finally, a grown-up debate, and the best one I've seen in a long time. Two smart, engaged, informed candidates, a stark contrast to the past 7 years of...well, you know..."Subliminabable misunderestimations."
 
Such a refreshing contrast to the last Republican debate. Those guys were trying to out gun and out God each other all over the place.
 
Both Hillary and Obama looked great. Compared to the GOP debate, it was like sunshine and darkness.
 
Again...I felt proud to be a Democrat.
 
It really was an informative, dignified debate and makes the Democrats look like smart, informed grown-ups. We should all be proud.
 
After Edwards left, I leaned toward Obama...but now I am undecided. Hillary held her stuff, and showed her command of the issues. But then again, Obama did too.
 
Obama's Iraq response was very good. And Hillary's explanation of the reality of being in the situation was also good, how the problems Iraq posed in the 1990's factored into her vote...along with explaining the realities of policy making. "I supported legislation for inspections not war" is essentially her argument.
 
That helped soften my "Iraq problem" with her.
 
Really liked Obama's answer on immigration... he resisted the temptation for an easy pander on scapegoating Mexican immigrants. I liked Hillary's answer too...making us think about the reality of rounding up 12/14 million people, knocking on every door, and where would we get the law enforcement to do such a task, etc.
 
I thought Obama did a nice job of showing some clear differences between himself and Hillary without distorting her record or trying to draw blood...as in the last debate with the Walmart crack. Which caused her to shoot back with the slumlord crack.
 
His debating style still needs sharpening, he still stammers and raises his hand to speak, but he's improving. I also like Hillary a lot more when she's not in attack dog mode--it lets her grasp of the issues shine through.
 
I hope the militants in either camp don't try to ruin the afterglow of this debate for Democrats.
 
I actually learned something from their discussions. It was nice to see two candidates capable of actually talking about an issue without resorting to just sound bites.
 
The question about a joint ticket was, to say the least, titillating. As the debate unfolded I couldn't help but think -- hey, maybe they *could* do a joint ticket after all. The fact that the debate ended with that idea in the air makes me think that they were feeling the same thing. After all, they'll probably need each other to win big later.
 
Bring in Edwards as AG to clean up the mess at DOJ and we have a trifecta.
 
Even though I still think Hillary would have a hard time settling for second place, the combined ticket would be historic, and it would be foolish for either candidate to ignore it at this point. Also, the Democratic base would be extremely disappointed if one or the other candidate does not step up for this historic opportunity.
 
I thought it was classy that Obama helped Hillary in and out of her chair. Of course some people saw it as not only gender-related but also age-related. But a good move by Obama in my estimation. Maybe it will impress some of those older women, Obama's smallest constituency....and put to rest any 'snub' questions.
 
CNN did a good job with this format -- smart audience, long time discussing big issues. Finally, they got to talk about ONE issue for more than two minutes.
 
But I do get fed up with Wolf Blitzer playing "gotcha"-- he kept trying to start a fight with his "Was that a swipe at ...?"
 
Anyway, we've got a long way to go baby until November. Beware of desperate Republicans ...they get down and dirty and conjure up 'illegitimate black babies' when they're in a corner.
 
I am still a little fearful that nothing will motivate the Republican base like selecting Hillary as our nominee...that it's the only chance they have at keeping the White House.
 
But I am even softening on that. We just shouldn't worry about the wackadoo-wingnuts, we'll never get past their tribal markers anyway. If it's not the Clintons that set them off, it's going to be MoveOn.org, Howard Dean's "scream", Dan Rather, etc.
 
And really, they make up a relatively small portion of the overall electorate, so why bother? Let's not overestimate their influence. Remember, in the face of their opposition, Bill Clinton won two elections and survived impeachment.
 
Let's not allow extremist minorities to influence who we choose to be on our ticket.
 
So, the next time you encounter a right-wing crazy -- laugh in his face and move on past him without a second thought. He'll sputter and fume, but soon get back to his racist jokes.