Mark Penn still doesn't have a clue

For comedic effect, both these articles appeared in the same copy of the New York Times.

First we go to Mark Penn's Op-ed: "The problem wasn't the message - It was the money"(apparently not grasping the irony of blaming money problems in a campaign that paid him and his company over 10 million dollars during the primary. Maybe a trip to Alanis Morissette Irony School would do him some good.)

The conventional criticisms of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign are these: she had no message; she ran just on experience; she should have shown more of her warmer side; she was too negative; President Clinton’s campaigning hurt her; and she presented herself as inevitable. It is amazing she got any votes at all.

So let’s take on a few of the myths. Even schoolchildren got the message that Mrs. Clinton was ready to be president on Day One. As a result of her campaigning and ads, people saw her as a strong commander in chief, a good steward of the economy and a champion for people who needed one.

Here's the thing, he's actually right that they got her message out there. The fact that she managed to campaign on "30 years of experience" is one of the greatest lies of our time, and it's the fault of the press and timid candidates for not calling her out on this. First lady and one term as a senator... Experience! Add that time as a Lawyer and on Walmart's Board... 30 Years experience! It's an indisputable argument!

But what he doesn't get is this, if your message is that you were experienced enough to vote for the Iraq war, and then stupid enough to vote for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment for war with Iran, it kind of discounts any positives about your "experience". Experience only matters if you learn from it, and she clearly learned nothing based on how she voted and then talked about in her foreign policy plans. So maybe it's the kind of experience that caught up with her, at least I hope it was. So what went wrong Mark?

Are there a lot of other things the campaign could have done differently? Of course. We should have taken on Mr. Obama more directly and much earlier, and we needed a different kind of operation to win caucuses and to retain the support of superdelegates. From more aggressively courting young people earlier to mobilizing the full power of women, there are things that could have been done differently.

While everyone loves to talk about the message, campaigns are equally about money and organization. Having raised more than $100 million in 2007, the Clinton campaign found itself without adequate money at the beginning of 2008, and without organizations in a lot of states as a result. Given her successes in high-turnout primary elections and defeats in low-turnout caucuses, that simple fact may just have had a lot more to do with who won than anyone imagines.

And sometimes your opponent just runs a good campaign.

Yes, Obama ran a great campaign, there's no questioning that. And he's right again about how blowing 100 million dollars before the first votes, not doing your homework on caucuses and the delegate system really did hurt her. I guess my only problem is that he's talking about it as if he wasn't there and not her CHIEF STRATEGIST! FROM THE VERY SAME SECTION OF THE PAPER:

As Mrs. Clinton assembled her campaign to take back the White House, she brought together much of the old team, led by her chief strategist, Mark J. Penn, who had orchestrated her husband’s 1996 re-election. Just as they did in 1992, the Clintons were offering two for the price of one. As Mr. Clinton surveyed the field, he could not quite believe that an upstart, inexperienced senator from Illinois could be a serious alternative to such an accomplished figure as his wife.

The campaign was built on the assumption of overwhelming force. Strategists believed that the first four contests would be decisive and that she would wrap up the nomination by Feb. 5, when more than 20 states were to hold nominating contests.

Mr. Penn shaped a message that she was “ready to lead” a nation “ready for change,” talking in early meetings about her need to spark a “movement” and dismissing Mr. Obama as a glamorous personality who would not connect with working-class voters the way she could, campaign officials said. “He may be the J.F.K. in the race,” Mr. Penn told Mrs. Clinton last year, according to an insider, “but you are the Bobby.”

Backed by Bill Clinton, Mr. Penn pushed for aggressive attacks on Mr. Obama, something other advisers resisted. At one point, Mr. Penn argued that Mrs. Clinton should find subtle ways to exploit what he called Mr. Obama’s “lack of American roots,” referring to his Kenyan father and his childhood years in Indonesia and even the offshore state of Hawaii, the campaign officials said. Mr. Penn recommended that Mrs. Clinton own the word “American” — she should talk about the “American century” and her “American Strategic Energy Fund,” and so forth. She should add flag symbols to her logo, he suggested.

Along the way, though, the campaign succeeded in defining Mrs. Clinton as a leader but not as an agent of change, and it hesitated in attacking Mr. Obama, who became the one leading a movement. Her logo was adorned with a flag, but her energy fund remained just an energy fund. Her strategists underestimated Mr. Obama’s strength and spent too much money before the voting even began.

It wasn't the union busting, the work for the murderous Colombian government, his bullshit polling or his hawkish advice. Mark Penn has become a laughing stock because he couldn't strategize his way out of a paper bag. And honestly, as long as he's no longer taken seriously, that's fine with me. Al Capone went to jail for tax evasion, right?

Our long national nightmare is finally over!

Hillary Clinton's campaign for the democratic nomination is officially coming to an end. After her gracious performance on Tuesday night where she attempted to undermine the validity Obama's victory, she has apparently come to her senses and will endorse him on Saturday. Or was forced to her senses by her non-lunatic supporters:

... [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.

Wow, a class act till the end. Well at least John Cole(political blogger and Pittsburgh Penguins fan) isn't giving up the fight:

Dear Red Wings,

I want to congratulate you on the great race you have run, and it was an honor competing against you in the Stanley Cup. However, I want you to know that a lot of Penguins fans, in the millions, all over the country, supported us this season, and I am just not ready to make a decision tonight. Also, I would like to point out that we performed much better in our home games, and thus the away game structure of the Detroit games were systematically unfair. I would like all our fans to go to our web site and tell us what they think we should do.

A lot of pundits are asking, what does Sidney Crosby want? Well, I will tell you. A few more assists, maybe a hat trick or two, but most of all, some respect for the fans. So while it was fun playing against you, we need some time to think, and I think in the interest of fairness, we may need to play another game to really settle this.

*** Update ***

I would like to note we are open to talks about being Vice-Stanley Cup winners.

On to game 7!

An Open Letter to Barack Obama

Senator Obama,

This seemingly endless nomination contest has finally come to an end, and let me be the first to say congratulations on your win. And if there's anything you need right now, it's unsolicited advice from someone who doesn't know what they're talking about, so here it goes.

I've been watching the stuff you've said about Hillary Clinton over the past couple of weeks, the effusive praise for her and her supporters, and the personal touch you added when you said she has made things that much easier for your daughters if they ever wanted to follow in her footsteps and run for political office. And I sure can't think of anything more empowering for young women everywhere than to dream of growing up to marry someone who goes on to a very popular president of the United States, then use that springboard of enormous amounts of money and a famous last name to become a do nothing senator for 6 years, and then feel entitled to the presidency. My cousin's an amazingly smart and ambitious young woman who is about to graduate high school this weekend... and god knows THAT'S the example I'd want her to look up to as she moves forward. In fact, it's on the card I'm gonna give her:

I wish you the best of luck during this important transition in your life. And remember, if you go through life always seeking the next move that will give you more power, and once in there you only that power to position yourself for your next move... one day you might convince a lot of people that you're a legitimate candidate for President of the United States! Congratulations on Graduating High School, Nina!

I swear, Hallmark must have assumed she'd win cause they printed a bunch of em' ... but I'll get back to the point.

In the next couple of days/weeks/months, there are going to be quite a few losers and stupid people out of work. Lets keep in mind, with the utmost respect for the remarkable race that you have run and the win you've pulled off, you owe your victory almost as much to their stupidity as you do to your own actions. They took someone with the best position to win the nomination, any institutional advantage you can name and former president campaigning on her behalf and ran her into the ground. They managed to blow 100 million dollars in the process, including over 10 million to this clod. They didn't understand the rules of the process, and DIDN'T EVEN PLAN for a race after Super Tuesday. This is incompetence worthy of the Bush administration, and should be kept as far away from your campaign at all costs. Democratic politics has been the only field where incompetent losers like theses get hired over and over and over to attempt their same failed strategies again and again. Uh... scratch that last sentence, but the point remains the same, we cannot let this cycle continue!

Mind-bending incompetence is a pretty good justification for sending this wing of the party out to pasture, but that's not even the most important reason there needs to be a clean break. The Clinton wing of the democratic party has an inherently different view of America than you or I. They may agree with us at heart on some polices, but they will always resort to a centrist strategy because they believe America is an inherently conservative nation. Just look at her career and her husbands for a blueprint. When in office, was there movement towards landmark progressive legislation? We got NAFTA, Welfare Reform, and the defense of Marriage Act to name a few. Do I honestly think these were things that Bill Clinton was passionate about? No, but he believed that because America was inherently conservative, he needed to take these centrist/right wing stands to win elections.

Look at her career. What did she champion while in the senate? China PTNR, Flag burning, video game violence, and the biggest examples of them all the Iraq war and Lieberman-Kyl. While in the senate in 2002 and already planning a run for president, she believed that she had to vote for the Iraq war to look "tough" if she were to run for president. Do I believe in her heart, Hillary Clinton would have done better things if she had voted with what she thought was actually right in a lot of these cases? It may surprise you, but I actually do. But when you believe that this an inherently conservative county and you have to sneak progressive ideas in when no one's looking, you will never bring about real change, and you are certainly not an asset to the movement that we are trying push forward. Senator Obama, although you were not my first choice in this race, I believe that you understand this divide, and in order to to move forward as a party, we must leave this way of thinking in the past.

And while the general election has just begun, you will already be making decisions that will greatly impact your ability to win this fall and then have a successful presidency. There's going to be a lot of pressure to bring the party together by giving theses people jobs, and the campaign has already begun to give the sorest loser of them second spot on your ticket. So please, please don't give in to their pressure and empty threats. Make a clean break with this faction of the party and bury their brand of triangulation and failure once and for all.

I hope you take this advice seriously, for I have 30 years of experience fighting for change. (Hey if she can say it, why can't I?)

-JJ

PS: During your speeches over the next couple of weeks, can you send warning next time you're going to bullshit on and on about how what a classy campaign she ran? I know you "have to do it" and all, I'd just like to make sure I'd finished dinner before hand.

Your Democratic Nominee...

Barack Obama

After scaring the living crap out of me, we managed to get this one right in the end. Well done.

An exit with dignity and class

Or not:

ABC News' Kate Snow Reports: In an interview with the Argus Leader, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., took the unusual step of invoking the assassination of Sen. Robert Kennedy, D-N.Y., when discussing the continuing Democratic nomination battle.

"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it." Clinton said.

Wow. When my mom called me and told me what she said, I actually didn't believe believe her. There are few people who loathe Hillary Clinton as much as I do, and I gotta say, after all the race baiting, smearing, and bullshit to come from her campaign, I still didn't think she'd sink this low. From now on, I'll remember that there really is no remark too classless, and no limit to how low she will go. Lesson learned.

Enough of the offensive, how bout' some good old fashioned lies? (via devilstower)

ABC News' Sarah Amos reports: Former President Bill Clinton in South Dakota today delivered a harsh critique of how his wife has been treated during her presidential bid, telling the crowd that he has "never seen a candidate treated so disrespectfully just for running," and that, "she will win the general election if you nominate her. They're just trying to make sure you don't."
Clinton also spoke against bullying superdelegates to make up their minds, saying, "I cant believe it. It is just frantic the way they are trying to push and pressure and bully all these superdelegates to come out. 'Oh, this is so terrible: The people they want her. Oh, this is so terrible: She is winning the general election, and he is not. Oh my goodness, we have to cover this up.'"
"She is winning the general election today and he is not, according to all the evidence," Clinton said. "And I have never seen anything like it. I have never seen a candidate treated so disrespectfully just for running. Her only position was, "Look, if I lose I'll be a good team player. We will all try to win but let's let everybody vote and count every vote.'"

Well, in addition to that other stuff he said not being true... this whole disrespected thing is really getting on my nerves. That's true Bill, I can't think of a candidate who's had a worse ride in the media then someone who had a the press crowning them as the nominee and building up her non-existent credentials and accomplishments for 3 years. It's hard to think of someone with more institutional advantages ON her side... so to portray her as some kind of underdog story is beyond ridiculous.

But to give you a taste of a current Hillary supporter's mindset, I came across this at Huffington Post, written by one of their columnists. Keep in mind, this may read like sarcasm, but I'm pretty sure she's serious:

How Dare You! By Gill Iscol

We need to talk. How dare the leadership of the Democratic Party turn on Hillary Clinton! How dare they betray Bill Clinton! How dare they not speak out when Hillary is disrespected by words like bitch, whore and the "c" word! How dare they allow them both to be smeared as racists, playing the race card! Where was Howard Dean ? Where was Nancy Pelosi ? Where were Hillary's colleagues in the Senate when the Clintons were being so unfairly accused and denigrated? The Democratic Party has a lot to answer for. If we had stood as a party with one voice and said, "no", we will not allow one of our own to be so disturbingly maligned, we would now have a unified democratic party electorate at the end of a virtually tied primary race. Instead we are deeply divided. Now, since the party's leaders have chosen again and again not to speak up, I will.

I am a Hillary supporter and along with millions of Democrats throughout our country , I have been outraged by how the media have treated her throughout this primary season. But what is most disturbing is how my Party has stood by and allowed the demeaning and dishonest attacks on Hillary to continue. This is not the party I thought I belonged to. This is not the party that espouses fairness, justice and equality for all. This is not the party that elected Bill Clinton President in 1992 and 1996 and Hillary Clinton as Senator in 2000 and 2006. That party knew that it had benefited enormously from the Clinton administration as well as the incredible accomplishments of one of the most activist, hardworking First Ladies in our history. That Party stood proudly by a president who many called the first black president because both he and his wife had demonstrated a lifelong commitment to civil rights and human rights.

Imagine if Democratic leaders had done what Hillary did when President Bush associated Barack Obama with terrorism in his much lauded speech in Israel. Remember, Hillary gave a heartfelt statement that Barack was one of our own and she would not stand by and allow him to be so denigrated ?

Women are outraged. We are still fighting for her, and we are ashamed of how our candidate, a woman who has devoted her adult life to serving others, a woman who has been a distinguished First Lady, a woman who has helped her colleagues pass legislation and win races in their own states, a woman who has stood up for all of our rights, has been treated not just by the media but by her own Democratic Party. Throughout all this, Hillary has maintained her focus, her message and her dignity. This is truly courage under fire. This is what it takes to be a great president. It is not over until the lady in the pant suit says it is and I and millions of others are with her.

She certainly captured the Hillary Clinton/Brick Tamlin monotone yelling in writing, which is no small feat. I'm not gonna talk about all the bullshit that she claims in the piece, I just feel like it's good to point out the absurdity of the arguments being made by the remaining Clinton supporters, and I just wish there was a better way to keep track anyone who said something this stupid, so we don't have to take them seriously in the future. Oh yeah, and speaking of people who are looking to put themselves in that category, Paul Krugman's credibility continues to plummet further into the abyss with his latest national column. Seriously Paul, on a completely selfish note, you're making everyone who backed you up when you were wrongfully attacked by the Obama campaign look stupid for having ever defended you on anything. I blame myself though, I should have known better than to trust a free trader.

I really can't wait till this is over. I never thought I'd miss the days when Hillary Clinton was just a crappy senator who ranted about flag burning and pushed us into unnecessary wars.

Joke or no joke?

I mean, she seems serious, but this has to be a joke, doesn't it? The entire column, by a legitimate columnist at Talking Points Memo:

What If Hillary Clinton Returns to the Senate as Labor's Voice?

By Jo-Ann Mort - May 21, 2008, 11:19AM

If the tremendous--and deserved--outpouring for Senator Ted Kennedy's well-being shows anything, it shows the power of a savvy legislator who has a clear agenda and keeps at it for decades. As one of his congressional colleagues noted in the NYTimes today, not only has he stuck with his vision and has been one of the most successful-- if not most successful-- legislator in our time, but he's also hired excellent staff who have aided not only his efforts, but the broader progressive cause for decades.

Now, labor's lion, Senator Kennedy, is going through a critical personal struggle, just at a time when the union movement will need his stature to assist a President Obama to pass a progressive agenda for this nation.

Obama, if elected, will need a smart and effective senator as partner to garner support for key union issues like Employee Free Choice Act and health care reform.

Even if the Senate and House gain more Democratic seats, as is likely, the labor movement will need someone to pull their support together, to be on the stump and to be play the type of role that Senator Kennedy has played for decades. Senator Clinton could take all the support she gathered in this primary season and play a pivotal role in the Senate and could offer hope to all the working class Americans that she has been hawking on the campaign trail. There is no better response that she can offer her union and non-union supporters than returning to the Senate to legislate a pro-worker agenda. Think Roosevelt and Wagner.

I mean, looking at what she's written in the past few days: "Geraldine Ferraro's next move: Civil Rights activist?" and "John Terry: The closer" we should have known she'd lost her mind a bit. I know as Nick reminded me in the comments a couple of posts ago that anything is possible, but Hillary Clinton, labor activist? I just can't wrap my mind around that one in any way. I'd like to ask her(or anyone for that matter) to name one and only one bill or cause that Hillary Clinton has championed on behalf of the working class during her time as a senator. Hell, we can make it a bigger time period if that helps. Let's call it the "From her time serving on Walmart's board listening to their strategy sessions about busting unions to having a union buster as her most trusted adviser and chief strategist of her presidential campaign" era.

So no matter how legit her column may seem to be, it's just really hard to take it seriously. Sorry Jo Ann, I just can't do it. But do look out for next week's column: "Sound financial planning: The Pacman Jones way"

Odds and Ends

A few reads:

• As the horrific death toll continues to climb in Burma, an deadly earthquake kills an estimated 10,000 in China.

• Potentially more Labor/Environmental partnerships in the future? Let's hope so.

• Hillary Clinton is 20 Million dollars in debt. Hilarious. Not being able to manage a campaign without resorting to lending yourself millions, and yet still finding yourself in massive debt. Now that's someone who should be running a country!

• A really stupid diary getting Rec'd on dailykos, leads to a common sense response from Chris Bowers:

While the Daily Kos diary in question is specifically arguing that the Cooper plan was great (although that is implied), it does take as its main point that health care reform failed in 1993-1994 because Democrats, specifically Hillary Clinton, weren't nice enough to conservatives. If only Hillary Clinton had been nicer to conservatives, then we could have had great health care plans like Jim Cooper's. Hell, Jim Cooper himself says so. And look, David Brooks agrees, so it much be right.
This is a very disturbing argument. The moment when dislike of Hillary Clinton is combined with calls for Democrats to compromise in the manner of Jim Cooper, and it is all justified by citing David Brooks, is a moment when I really fear for the internal logic of some Barack Obama support.

Jim Cooper=Bad. Check out the rest of the post for the full story and background.

• Paul Krugman once again lets his feud with Obama get the better of his judgment:

Discussions of how and why Mr. Obama’s support narrowed over time have a Rashomon-like quality: different observers see very different truths. But at this point it doesn’t matter whose fault it was. What does matter is that Mr. Obama appears to have won the nomination with a deep but narrow base consisting of African-Americans and highly educated whites. And now he needs to bring Democrats who opposed him back into the fold.

I've defended Krugman before during the primary because he was right in his policy criticism of Obama, and instead of responding to the criticisms, Obama's team put out a factually inaccurate hit piece on him. Here he moves away from issue based critiques, and on to utter bullshit. One Drop from Too Sense has a great response:

Not to get all racial up in here, but have any of you noticed how quickly white folks start talking about "it doesn't matter whose fault it was" . . . when the responsible party is white? You hear the same kind of rhetoric whenever the uncomfortable topic of race comes up, "Let's not go pointing fingers now," or "Playing the blame game isn't going to help anyone." Those statements, and similar ones, are really just euphemisms to avoid saying "Now, let's not go blaming white people for anything!"

In Krugman's case, I can't say that he's trying to deflect blame away from white people in general. He's definitely trying to deflect blame from Hillary and her campaign, though. If Krugman had any plausible way to put the entire blame for the recent racialization of the Democratic primaries on Obama, "It doesn't matter whose fault it was" is the last sentence he would have written.

So who is responsible for the increase in racial tension? Well, did Obama go on tour in front of exclusively black audiences and tell them that Clinton does not care about "people like you?" Has Obama ever gone before a black audience and told them that Hillary, the white candidate, was making fun of them for supporting him? Has Obama ever referred to "hard working Americans, black Americans" or stated that Clinton has no support among black voters?

No?

Okay, next question: Has Clinton done the reverse?

Few things piss me off more than a whitewashing (no pun intended) an event and pretending there was equal blame to go around. It's always important to understand who is to blame for what and why, for the simple reason of not repeating your mistakes or trusting people who should not be trusted or listened to.

And just for the record, the first paragraph of One Drop's response is also describes what's wrong with the current discussion of colonialism. "Look, it's not about assessing blame, its about what we can do now" is the most common response from European powers when it comes to issues of the developing world. Ok, it's about right now, but how the hell can you understand what's going on now if you don't acknowledge how we got there, who got us here and why?

On another note, it'll be fun to see how Hillary Clinton responds tonight after a win in West Virginia. Her speeches have really been comedy gold recently, with all her talking of "winning" and "being the nominee". It's a level of delusion that would be hard to keep up, and it'll be interesting to see how she plays it. Interesting enough to watch during one or two commercial breaks of the Spurs-Hornets game.
Maybe.
If it's a blowout.

Hillary Clinton: you're done, son!

Dear Hillary, why won't you go away?

Contrary to common logic, your belief that you still have a chance to win the Democratic Party nomination is, how should I put this... wrong. You didn't win North Carolina. In fact, Obama's margin of victory in the state all but nullified the gains you made when you won Pennsylvania. Plus, you barely even won Indiana at a time when winning one out of these last two primaries would effectively end all hopes for you.

So please tell me why you refuse to end your campaign? Are you really telling me that you would ask superdelegates to overturn the popular vote and pledged delegate totals, which would in turn, destroy the Democratic Party? Oh wait, that may no longer even be possible seeing as how your once-commanding lead among superdelegates has disappeared. Sucks for you!

Finally, you must stop this incessant blabbering about how Florida and Michigan's votes should count now. Why wouldn't you say that now? Is it just a coincidence that you're losing? Let's not forget that these two states clearly broke the rules by having their primaries so early, refused to push them back after the DNC told them they would not count and didn't even put Obama's name on the ballot in one case.

I hope this letter finds you well and, you know, QUIT THE RACE! Give my best to Bill and Chelsea,

Sincerely, your favortie blogger's favorite blogger XOXO.

Obama and Fox News: The Debate

So there's been somewhat of a pretty big debate on the left surrounding Obama's appearance on fox news last Sunday. To start, Kos provides a good explanation on the background, and why he was didn't approve.

We've spent the last few years in the netroots working to discredit Fox News as the propaganda network strives for mainstream respectability. The more it is viewed as a legitimate news outlet, the better it will be at injecting right-wing narratives into the broader media stream. It's why we fought so strongly against the attempts by the Nevada Democratic Party and the Congressional Black Caucus to partner with Fox on several Democratic primary debates. Debating on Fox made as much sense as Republicans debating on Air America. Or Daily Kos.

Given Fox's role in pushing several bullshit attacks against Obama (including the one about Obama attending a Muslim Madras while living in Indonesia in his youth), Obama had wisely steered clear of the network during the primary. Yet he clearly hit on a dilemma -- Indiana is an open primary, hence Republican crossover support could be key to victory in the state. And where do Republicans hang out? Yup. Fox News.

On the other hand, the network had consistently taunted his refusal to visit Fox. His appearance essentially sends the message that Obama is susceptible to caving to right-wing bullying taunts and threats. Perhaps not a surprise since that appears a trait embedded in the Democrats' DNA.

Move on (whose members have endorsed Obama) explains further(with links):

It was a mistake for Obama to go on FOX’s Sunday show and treat the experience as if it was a real news interview. Democratic politicians need to understand that FOX is a Republican mouthpiece masquerading as a news outlet. When dealing with FOX, you either burn them or they will burn you.

It's well documented that FOX executives send morning memos to anchors and reporters dictating Republican talking points. In 2006, one said, “Be on the lookout for any statements from the Iraqi insurgents...thrilled at the prospect of a Dem controlled Congress.” Robert Greenwald's videos have shown FOX's consistent pattern of smearing Barack Obama, smearing Hillary Clinton, smearing African Americans, and denying global warming.

FOX's power lies not in its audience size – which is puny and consists mostly of unpersuadable voters. Instead, FOX's power comes from tricking politicians and real journalists into treating their “breaking stories” like real news, thereby propelling smears like the Swift Boats and Rev. Wright into the mainstream political dialogue. That's why progressives fought (successfully) last year to deprive FOX of the legitimacy that comes with hosting a Democratic presidential debate. And that's why Democratic politicians should never treat FOX like a real news outlet - including FOX's Sunday show.

So I've gone back and for on this. I agree with most of the stuff written above, and successfully marginalizing fox as a conservative news network is a very important goal, and the tool we have on that front is to stop democrats from legitimizing it as a network. But even though I wouldn't have advised him to go on, the narrative of his campaign kind of paints him a in corner for these situations. If you build your campaign on inclusiveness and ending divisions, you could see why he wouldn't want to be seen as freezing out a right wing news outlet because of "politics" or "partisanship".

[Tangent: This and racism are the only two actual weakness I see in Obama's general election campaign. His narrative painting himself into a corner when it comes to strongly taking on the GOP and undercurrents of racism that still exist in a big way. Other than that, he's pretty much as good as we could hope for in a general election candidates ]

I see why his campaign did it, but I just don't think it was that smart to do so. I'm not sure how many votes are gained, as Move On pointed out, and you tend to harbor ill will from your own side when campaign operatives lie about your motives for going on the air.

And for the record... I am fully aware this whole debate doesn't have very much significance outside of dailykos and that world, but I found it interesting nonetheless. Oh yeah, and for those how cared about how the ACTUAL interview went, here are some pieces (Transcript here):

Oh yeah, that primary that we waited 6 weeks for...

So for the record I'd guess that Hillary will win by 8% tonight, which won't really matter, cause she can't win the nomination anyway. And by can't win, I mean she can't win unless some unforeseen crazy event alters the race... or the superdelegates overrule the popular vote and the democratic party is destroyed(a pretty crazy event in itself). Now that we've got that straight, lets recap what really matters tonight:

1. Game 7 of Caps-Flyers
2. If Hillary Clinton somehow manages to win by 20% of the vote.

Since there's a 100% chance of event #1 occurring, and a almost 0% chance of event #2 occurring, you can guess what will have my attention tonight. I've got a feeling that Hillary Clinton's lying, scare tactics and war-mongering will still be there in the morning... here's hoping the caps are too.

ROCK THE RED!!!
LET'S GO CAPS!!!

Caps back from the dead - a few quick thoughts

There is no greater defining moment in sports than a Game 7. As J said earlier today, I will be able to express very few actual rational thoughts on tonight's game at the Verizon Center, so I will offer some quick hits:

• You just had the feeling that the longer this series dragged on, the more likely it was that Alex Ovechkin would have a breakout game. That game finally arrived last night and there really isn't anyone else you would want to score two critical goals on the road.
• This team has thrived all year with its back against the wall. Really, the Capitals started performing in this series when they were backed into a corner down 3-games-to-1. Psychologically, now all the pressure is off Washington and pushed squarely to the Flyers. How will they handle it?
• The Caps are historically bad in Game 7's, with an all-time record of just 1-4, but that one win came against Philadelphia in 1988 after (you guessed it) overcoming a 3-1 series deficit.

That win in 1988 created what is arguably the greatest defining moment in Capitals' franchise history. As JP said on his blog, it might be kind of cliche to put it up, but really, how could I not do it? Without further ado, the series-winning overtime goal in Game 7 20 years ago that sent Caps fans into delirium and Dale Hunter into the hockey annals:

Finally, I want to thank the NHL for not making me wait one whole extra day for Game 7. Genius.

Sadly, the news is not all good, since as good as things have gone for the Caps, they have been equally as bad for the Wizards. They need to mount a huge response in Game 3 and 4 or else they are in serious trouble. Tonight will also see the Pennsylvania Democratic Primary take place. I have no idea what will happen but let's hope that tonight can effectively end Hillary's nomination bid and we can get back to focusing on boring things like sports and music. Much more on all of this to come in the following days... LETS GO CAPS!!!!!!!

This isn't a good sign...

Bad news for those of us who favor democracy in the... you know... Democratic party:

Many of the Democratic superdelegates who are still undecided say the most important factor in their decision is simple - they just want a winner in November.

Problem is, after nearly four months of primaries and caucuses in 46 states, territories and the District of Columbia, they still aren't sure who that is, don't seem be in any hurry to make up their minds and aren't interested in any artificial process that might force them to choose between Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Most of the more than 100 undecided superdelegates who discussed their decision-making with The Associated Press in the past two weeks agreed that the primaries and caucuses do matter _ whether it's who has the most national delegates or the candidate who won their state or congressional district. But few said the primaries will be the biggest factor in their decision.

It's pretty amazing to watch some elements in the democratic party be perfectly comfortable overturning the popular vote to steal an election after what happened 8 years ago. It's not like there's much of a chance of a "superdelegate coup" actually happening, but hearing this type of open disregard for the will of the voters is still pretty upsetting.

Mark Penn and the Isiah Thomas question

As Nick pointed out in the comments a few posts back, Mark Penn is out as Clinton's chief strategist.

I've devoted a decent amount of posts to this asshole, so I'll write bit more about his dismissal/ or not really dismissal as details of what actually happened come out over the course of the week.

But for the moment I'll just mention that if he really was fired, it raises an interesting question. A few weeks ago, I was talking to a few fellow NBA fans (possibly dcjonesy or LSouth, can't quite remember) and we were having a laugh at the expense of the Knicks franchise. We were debating the idiocy of their owner James Dolan, and when he would finally see the writing on the wall and fire their GM(actually he has since been fired from this job)/Coach, former NBA legend Isiah Thomas.

Then someone brought up a pretty interesting point: If Isiah Thomas hadn't been fired for ruining the Knicks franchise in every way possible since he took over (leagues highest payroll, near-worst record, trades and contracts that guarantee they will be bad for years to come, constant bad press and drama which included a sex scandal that tarnished the franchise in addition to a large court settlement), why would they fire him now? If he didn't get fired for any of that, why are we so sure he's gonna get fired now? It's not like its gonna be a surprise when he makes the next bad move, and when he inevitably does, what makes it any worse than the other stuff he did that seemed to be fine with their owner?

And that's why this whole thing reminds me of Mark Penn. If Hillary Clinton was cool with all of the other stuff he was doing (unionbusting, consulting for blackwater and loansharks, being a disingenuous pollster and truly moronic strategist), what makes this different from the pattern? I mean if none of that stuff got him fired, and anyway why was this any worse than what he had already done? And when you read the news the most recent scandal over the Columbia FTA, was anybody actually shocked? Of course they weren't! He's a right wing hack! What else would he be doing? Would you be shocked tomorrow if Isiah traded Nate Robinson, David Lee and next years number one for Ricky Davis and case of beer? Of course not! He's a terrible GM! That's what he does!

And if James Dolan is dumb enough to let someone as inept as Isiah Thomas run his franchise, then the blame lies squarely at his feet. And there's no difference with Hillary Clinton. She knows he's an amoral hack, and frankly the fact that she would give some like that complete control of her campaign tells you all you need to know about her judgment and leadership skills.

So it looks like Mark Penn may have actually lost his job. If I were Isiah, I'd be watching my back.

Mark Penn being Mark Penn

In a move that shock people only for his brazenness, this morning Hillary Clinton's chief strategist Mark Penn met with leaders of the Columbian government to advocate for a free trade deal she claims to oppose.

Hillary Clinton's chief campaign strategist met with Colombia's ambassador to the U.S. on Monday to discuss a bilateral free-trade agreement, a pact the presidential candidate opposes.

Attendance by the adviser, Mark Penn, was confirmed by two Colombian officials. He wasn't there in his campaign role, but in his separate job as chief executive of Burson-Marsteller Worldwide, an international communications and lobbying firm. The firm has a contract with the South American nation to promote congressional approval of the trade deal, among other things, according to filings with the Justice Department.

Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates, Mr. Penn's campaign-consulting firm, received more than $10 million in payments from the Clinton campaign as of the end of February, according to federal election filings.

Mr. Penn declined to comment. Howard Wolfson, communications director for Sen. Clinton's campaign, said in an email that "Mark was not there on behalf of the campaign" and referred further questions to Burson-Marsteller. "Sen. Clinton's opposition to the trade deal with Colombia is clear," Mr. Wolfson added.

Her position on the deal is clear? Well, somebody better tell the Columbian government:

A spokesman for Colombia's President Álvaro Uribe said the ambassador met with Mr. Penn to discuss the bilateral agenda. "There have also been meetings with the advisers to the campaigns of Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain," he said. "It's the embassy's job to explain Colombia's reality."

The spokesman said he didn't know if Mr. Penn was representing Sen. Clinton or Burson-Marsteller, which signed a $300,000, one-year contract with the Colombian Embassy in March 2007 to work on behalf of the trade deal and anti-drug-trafficking initiatives, according to the Justice Department filings.

And this is the point where I lose my mind. Mark Penn is a despicable human being who should be expected to do things like this. What bothers me is not him, but the fact that for over a year of Hillary Clinton being declared the sure thing nominee of the democratic party, almost all of organized labor refused to take a stand against him and Hillary Clinton's campaign. Too little too late I'm afraid, but I'm still glad to see that changed this morning:

Change to Win, the labor federation that includes SEIU, just sent out a statement demanding Penn's head:

The statement, from executive director Greg Tarpinian:

"It's time for Sen. Hillary Clinton to send her vaunted 'chief strategist' Mark Penn packing — back to his job consulting for union busting corporations and anti-labor governments for good."

"We have questioned Penn's role in the Clinton campaign in the past for his representation of union busting employers like Cintas. At that time, Penn said there was a wall between him and his firm's representation of union busters. The latest revelation that Penn -- whose firm represents the Colombian government in its effort to secure passage of a so-called free trade agreement -- is actively involved in securing its passage in the middle of Senator Clinton's presidential campaign is outrageous. It also suggests that he has been playing a double role - advising the Senator on what to say to curry Democratic voters and advising the Colombian government on what to say to curry a majority of votes in Congress.

"The vast majority of Americans do not believe that we should be granting preferential trade status to a government that coddles death squads that target union organizers. Colombia remains the most dangerous country in the world for union members, where more than 2,200 workers have been murdered since the 1980s by Colombian death squads for trying to form unions while the government has done nothing to effectively stop the murders. It is time for Penn to go."

Well done, Change to Win, and it's about damn time. Oh yeah, and remember those union leaders who stupid enough to actually endorse Hillary Clinton despite all this? Well, I hope they feel as dumb as the should this morning, and as far as I'm concerned, they can go fuck themselves. The sooner they're through weakening the labor movement and can get forced out of their jobs, the better.

If you don't get it, you don't get it.

Great article by John Nichols in the Nation on the Democrats and trade. The article focuses on the presidential candidates, but makes great points about the dividing line for the Democrats as a whole on trade:

The trade debate is a challenge for Obama. For all Clinton's talk, her record of past support for free trade with China makes her vulnerable in Pennsylvania and Indiana. But to exploit that vulnerability, Obama must be more than a critic of Clinton or even NAFTA. Obama must inspire confidence that he "gets" Sherrod Brown's point that the problem is not NAFTA; it's "the NAFTA model" for trade pacts--a point Brown and Michaud plan to make this month with timely legislation that challenges US support of "race to the bottom" trade policies that encourage corporations to move jobs in search of ever lower standards for protecting workers, consumers and the environment.

And there is the divide. Either you "get" the progressive position on trade or you don't, there isn't much room for nuance. Accept the the current framework or reject it. Simple enough.

The good news is that it's easy to see who gets it and who doesn't. The bad news is that you can firmly put the Democratic speaker of the house and the two democratic candidates for president in the "don't get it" column. People like Sherrod Brown give me hope that the party is slowly headed in the right direction, but this fight isn't going to be an easy one.

Sirota nails the Rev. Wright "controversy"

The recent shit-storm surrounding Obama and Rev. Wright has really been too much to take. I was struggling on what to write about it first, and then a funny thing happened, David Sirota did it. Not only did he write an amazing essay, but he also did it in his nationally syndicated newspaper column that runs in quite a few places that weren't going to be as welcoming of this piece as a audience of liberal blogs. First he gets into a few of the Joe Buckish reactions of many political pundits:

Pat Buchanan billy-clubbed Wright for saying, "God damn America." The MSNBC commentator, who avoided the draft, implied that Wright, a former Marine, lacks sufficient loyalty to country. Out of context, Wright's exclamation was admittedly offensive. But remember: It punctuated a speech about segregation. Buchanan, nonetheless, unleashed, deriding "black hustlers" and insisting descendants of those "brought from Africa in slave ships" owe whites a thank you. "Where is the gratitude?" he asked.

Fox's Charles Krauthammer berated Wright for saying the 9/11 attacks were "chickens coming home to roost." Krauthammer labeled the pronouncement "vitriolic divisiveness" despite our government acknowledging the concept of "blowback" -- or retaliation -- Wright was referencing. The CIA knows that when it supports foreign dictatorships, there can be blowback from radicals. While blowback is often immoral and undeserved, its existence is undisputed. Yet, Krauthammer alleged that Wright takes "satisfaction in the deaths of 3,000 innocents."

"Where's the gratitude?" Defending slavery in 2008... you gotta love cable news!

Sirota goes into the "controversy" that has them so riled up:

In promoting the Wright "controversy," most media outlets joined this mob and embraced "colorblind racism," says Duke University's Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, author of "Racism Without Racists."

It is polite pinstriped prejudice shrouding bigotry in feigned outrage against extremism -- the operative word being "feigned." After all, John McCain solicited the endorsement of John Hagee -- the pastor who called the Catholic Church "a great whore." Similarly, according to Mother Jones magazine, Hillary Clinton belongs to the "Fellowship" -- a secretive group "dedicated to 'spiritual war' on behalf of Christ." She is also friendly with Billy Graham, the reverend caught on tape spewing anti-Semitism. But while Wright's supposed "extremism" blankets the news, McCain and Clinton's relationships with real extremists receive scant attention.

Why is it "controversial" for one pastor to address the black community, racism and blowback, but OK for another pastor to slander an entire religion? Why is it news that one candidate knows a sometimes-impolitic clergyman, but not news that his opponent associates with an anti-Semite? Does the double standard prove the dominant culture despises a black man confronting taboos, but accepts whites spewing hate? Does the very reaction to Wright show he's right about racism?

Clinton seems to think so. Her aides have been calling the states they believe Obama will lose their political "firewall." That's campaign-speak for "race wall" -- one built with bricks like Pennsylvania and Indiana. These aren't the near-purely white states where racial politics is often muted (and Obama won). They are the slightly diverse states where racial politics simmers and where the black vote is too small to offset a motivated racist vote. This race wall is now being fortified.

ABC News reports that Clinton's campaign is "pushing the Wright story" ahead of the Pennsylvania and Indiana primaries. The crass tactic is designed to motivate the racist vote by reminding whites of Obama's connection to the African-American community. Put another way, Clinton's message has become simply: Obama Is Black.

Wright probably expected this brouhaha. He says our government is "controlled by rich white people" and our culture afflicted by racism. Though these statements are also deemed distasteful by the Establishment, they are truisms. You can see their veracity in the collected portraits of white millionaires commonly called the congressional photo directory. Or, just turn on your television and watch the mob continue stoking the Wright "controversy."

For more of his thoughts on the situation, he wrote a longer blog post explaining it here. When these things get out of hand, its nice to know that someone with a voice in the traditional media is out there making sense.

Unthinkably Stupid.

Look, I know a little something about doing stupid things. I had Clemson taking out Kansas and then losing to Georgetown in my NCAA tournament bracket. I spent a solid amount of time with dcjonesy, Lsouth and others this past week rating 80s songs from one to ten based on how well you can pump your first and stomp your foot to them. Several weekends ago when I went out into Adams Morgan wearing a DC United flag as a cape. I bet 25 dollars on the redskins winning the super bowl last year at 50-1 odds. All of that stuff happened within the last couple months, and I haven't even started with the stories that involve my lime blazer. So I think we've established that I know stupid when I see it.

And so I mean it when I say that this is possibly one of the dumbest ideas I have ever heard. (Or a least to emerge in this election cycle):

[Hillary] Clinton also called on President Bush to appoint "an emergency working group on foreclosures" to recommend new ways to confront housing finance troubles. She said the panel should be led by financial experts such as Robert Rubin, who was treasury secretary in her husband's administration, and former Federal Reserve chairmen Alan Greenspan and Paul Volcker.

It's hard fight through the rage enough to form complete sentences after you reads something like that, but Economist Dean Baker does a pretty good job in his post titled "Senator Clinton Calls for Barry Bonds and Roger Clemons to Head Commission on Steroid Abuse":

Actually Senator Clinton's proposal was far more ridiculous. She suggested having former Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan and former Treasury Secretary and current Citigroup honcho Robert Rubin lead a commission (along with former Federal Reserve Board chairman Paul Volcker) to analyze the country's current economic crisis.

There is certainly no one more directly responsible for the current crisis than Alan Greenspan, who allowed the housing bubble to grow unchecked for almost a decade. Also, as the country's preeminent bank regulator, he looked the other as the predatory mortgage market exploded.

While Greenspan is undoubtedly villain #1 in the housing bubble story, Robert Rubin has claim to #2 status in his post near the helm of Citigroup. Citigroup provided the secondary market for many of these predatory mortgages with its creative financial engineering and structured investment vehicles.

It's also nice because it makes a good parallel for her vote on the Iran resolution. There is clear evidence that on either foreign policy or the economy, she does not learn from her mistakes, and she goes out of her way to repeat them.

(Unrelated Rant)

I also wanted to apologize if it seems like every time you click over to this site, all I've done is write something new slamming Hillary Clinton. I know it's been like that for most of the primary season, but it really isn't my goal and I definitely don't go out of my way to write too many posts on an issue that has already been covered at length. I will say this in my defense though: Every day there is essentially a constant stream of infuriating news from/about her campaign. Stories like this, this, this and this for come to mind. And all of those happened today happened today, mind you. Writing about all of them would take too much time, as well as drive you (and me) completely insane. And let's face it, Hillary Clinton doing something stupid or damaging to the progressive movement is no longer really a surprising news story.

So why bring her up at all?

Because, by in large I think it's different than what you read or see elsewhere. I find it truly mind boggling the lack of mainstream media scrutiny she gets on issues that matter (the war, economy and willingness to destroy the democratic party) and (until recently) the abundance of "well there isn't that much of a difference if she wins the nomination" talk from the online left. One of the tasks of the progressive movement in our political system is to pressure our party's leaders to do the right thing, and when you see someone with a D attached to their name behaving this disgracefully, they should probably be called out.

Well, in 2 months either Barack Obama will be our nominee, or Hillary Clinton cementing her place in history as the person destroyed the loose coalition once known as the Democratic party. I guess only time will tell, huh?

Two signs, one huge problem.

If you can't tell from the picture, this is a house in Takoma Park, with two signs in their front lawn. One says "Was is not the answer" and the other says Hillary for president. I don't know what possesses anyone who is against the Iraq war to vote for Hillary Clinton, but on another note this really does represent larger problem of the progressive wing of the democratic party. We need to examine all factors (Media, Politicians, Strategy...) and try to understand which of these would allow for the picture above to exist, and what needs to be done about it. I don't think there are easy answers here, but it does seem like an interesting question and if you have any thoughts feel free to share them in the comments.

On more of a housekeeping note, I'll be posting more this week as I recover from the glorious basketball watching/hanging out/drinking/listening to 80s music binge that was much of last week. Special thanks to dcjonesy and Lsouth (the main offenders) and everyone else who helped provide the good times.

The Joe Buck Disgusting Act of the Week: Geraldine Ferraro

The Joe Buck Disgusting Act of the Week is awarded to whatever event/person best deserves Joe Buck's unnecessary and over the top outrage after a 2004 Randy Moss' touchdown celebration.

It starts with the other day with Geraldine Ferraro's comments about Barack Obama:

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she continued. "And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

Huh... that's fairly offensive, not to mention a really idiotic thing to say. You'd think that 43 for 43 record of white men being president would take down that whole "advantage" arguement, but let's give her the benefit of the doubt. After all she could be referring to this black president, but since's he's a basketball player, and that was an ad based on nickname he gave himself... somehow I doubt it. DHinMI at dailykos has the ugly strategy behind her strange statement:

One can laugh at the ridiculousness of the statement, or ridicule the idea that African-Americans somehow have it easier in America than white men or women. But to do so misses how Ferraro's statement will be heard by too many Americans.

The fact is, there are a lot of White people in American who believe they're at a disadvantage, that Blacks get things handed to them. The idea may be foreign to some people, but I've heard it my entire life. I've heard it at family gatherings, in my neighborhood when I was a kid, from family friends and all kinds of other folks. It's not a fringe belief. It's at the heart of the belief system of the so-called Reagan Democrats—swing voters and even some Democrats who were cradle Democrats but defected to Reagan and have been up for grabs in most elections since 1992.

Some of these Reagan Democrats will hear Ferraro's comment, and they'll think about the job they didn't get because, they believe, it went to an affirmative action hire. They'll think about the guy promoted over them because, they believe, he's black. And they'll think "here we go again."

Ohhhhhhhhhhhh! Race baiting from the Clinton campaign! Now THAT makes sense! Well, we've been down this road before, and since it's been seen by the national media, they'll let the smear stay in the news for a few more hours before Ferraro gives her insincere apology:

"It wasn't a racist comment, it was a statement of fact," she said on CBS' Early Show, adding that she would leave Hillary Clinton's national finance committee if she were asked.

"Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?"

Wow, that was different. Instead of apologizing, she strongly defended the comments. It looks like the Clinton campaign over played it's racebaiting tactic by allowing the comments to be said by an actual racist! What a twist! The Hillary Clinton campaign, produced by to you by M Night Shyamalan. As if to solidify the point, what's her next move? To appear on one of the remaining sanctuaries for racism in the mainstream media: The Bill O'Reilly show!

O'REILLY: This crossed the wire. Apparently you told the Daily Breeze newspaper in Torrance, California, quote, "If Obama were a white man, he would not be in this position. If here were a woman of any color, he would not be in the position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is in a country who's caught up in the concept." Did you say that?

FERRARO: Yeah, but I also said a lot before that.

O'REILLY: Right, but you know you're gonna get hammered on that.

FERRARO: I was not speaking – no, I was speaking to – it was a paid speech. I was not representing a campaign. I go out and give speeches. I don't –

O'REILLY: Oh, I understand that.

FERRARO: You know, like you do.

O'REILLY: I absolutely know they can take you out of context, but do you believe that Barack Obama, if he were a white mean, white senator, would not be in the position?

FERRARO: Absolutely

O'REILLY: I got it. I got it. I got it. No, listen, I mean, I'm not saying you're wrong [...] but you're gonna get hammered by it, but if anybody does, let me know, and I'll take care of them. Geraldine Ferraro, everybody. Geraldine's too nice, see.

Classy stuff. But not as damning as this gem all the way from 1988.

That's right, you guessed it, about Jesse Jackson:

Placid of demeanor but pointed in his rhetoric, Jackson struck out repeatedly today against those who suggest his race has been an asset in the campaign. President Reagan suggested Tuesday that people don't ask Jackson tough questions because of his race. And former representative Geraldine A. Ferraro (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday that because of his "radical" views, "if Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race."

Asked about this at a campaign stop in Buffalo, Jackson at first seemed ready to pounce fiercely on his critics. But then he stopped, took a breath, and said quietly, "Millions of Americans have a point of view different from" Ferraro's.

Discussing the same point in Washington, Jackson said, "We campaigned across the South . . . without a single catcall or boo. It was not until we got North to New York that we began to hear this from Koch, President Reagan and then Mrs. Ferraro . . . . Some people are making hysteria while I'm making history."

I guess some things never change, huh?

Kos pulls a great quote from blogger dna who explains further explains the strategy and the cost:

If the Clinton campaign was truly embarrassed or disagreed with Ferraro's comments, they wouldn't be tossing her into the media frenzy to shout her message from the mountaintops that Barack Obama's success is due only to his blackness. And they would not be utilizing the most effective means of doing so--the Right Wing smear machine that nearly destroyed Bill Clinton's presidency.

The aim here is to evoke racial resentment on the part of white voters over issues like Affirmative Action, and cast Obama as a talentless hack who excels only because our country is held victim by political correctness. The hope is that this will drive a permanent wedge between Obama and white voters that will sway Superdelegates to ultimately go with Hillary at the convention. At worst, Obama will be so damaged in the general that he can never be a threat to their ambitions again.

Aside from the various ironies at work here, the fact that Affirmative Action has mostly benefited white women and Hillary's use of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy she gave a name to, the possiblity that Hillary, even if she gets the nomination, may face a similar line of argument given the fact that bans on Affirmative Action will be on the ballot in several swing states, there may be a silver lining. After this campaign, black voters should consider very seriously our allegiance to the Democratic Party in the voting booth, and the reality that white liberals are comfortable with our success only to the point that they can control and take credit for it.

Agreed. That last sentence hits home for those of us who believe that a Hillary Clinton victory based on super delegates will completely destroy (And rightly so, I might add) the democratic party.

After a couple days of this stuff, it also looks like this Ferraro has been fired, leaving behind this rather amazing letter:

Dear Hillary –

I am stepping down from your finance committee so I can speak for myself and you can continue to speak for yourself about what is at stake in this campaign.

The Obama campaign is attacking me to hurt you. I won't let that happen.

Thank you for everything you have done and continue to do to make this a better world for my children and grandchildren.

You have my deep admiration and respect.

Gerry

Nice. But just like their other race baiting campaign, when the dog whistle turns into a siren, its becomes a lot less useful.

The more I read these quotes and others by her (especially the ones here about John Lewis and others who dared to endorse Obama), this doesn't quite qualify as one disgusting act. It more qualifies Geraldine Ferraro as a disgusting human being, and I really hope she quietly returns to her previous position of complete irrelevance that she maintained so well before the existence of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.

The numbers don't add up.

The people on TV seem to have forgotten that Hillary Clinton can't win the pledged delegate lead without a miracle in the next couple of states. Unless she goes for a party destroying super delegate fight... she has lost. I don't get it. They're reporting her spin as if it's fact, and completely ignoring the scoreboard for the night. Make it stop. Please.

Put aside the idiotic stand taken by the pundits tonight, and take a look at the delegate count tomorrow. She can't win without destroying the party through a super delegate fight, I guess our political reporters decided sweep that under the rug for some unknown reason. Oh well. The numbers don't lie, and they'll still be there tomorrow morning.

11:45 - I should point out that Obama's campaign made a massive mistake several weeks ago. After super Tuesday, when Hillary Clinton made the point that super delagetes were important pieces of the process, he needed to take the hard line. I'm guessing his campaign was scared at pissing them off by making such a bold statement, but at that point he needed to firmly say, all super delegates should commit to supporting the winner of the popular vote. It would have been bold, but it would expose the process for being as shady as it is, putting him on the side of democracy and her on the side of back room politics. Super delegates are the only way she can win, and his campaign needs to start pointing this out to anyone who will listen.