Pay back your debt?

You've got to be fucking kidding me.

Some Clinton donors had been frustrated that the Democratic presidential nominee-in-waiting had not done more to help her pay the bills even as they are expected to help fund his campaign.

Obama received a standing ovation from the crowd of more than 200 when he said he would enlist his supporters to help pay off her debt.

"I'm going to need Hillary by my side campaigning during his election, and I'm going to need all of you," Obama said, according to a report written by the only reporter allowed into the event and shared with other reporters afterward. He recounted how he had told his top fundraisers this week "to get out their checkbooks and start working to make sure Senator Clinton _ the debt that's out there needs to be taken care of."

Unity, I'm all for it. It's usually not a big deal for someone to concede when they lose, but hey, some people are clearly a little more special than others and need a couple of weeks to figure that out. But your millions of dollars of debt you incurred because you spent money like a drunken sailor? No no no, I'm no you rapper, that shit is your mess to clean up. You honestly going to expect people to give their hard earned money to a multi-millionaire couple? To a campaign that race baited, tried to cheat, and gave 14 million dollars to a union busting asshole? From the bottom of my heart, you can go Cheney yourself.

Where are the "feminists" now?

When it comes to defending Michelle Obama, where have they all gone?
Rikyah at Jack and Jill politics and in a Mary Curtis in Washington Post, are asking that very question:

In her piece called ' The Loud Silence of Feminists', Curtis opens with:

Michelle Obama has become an issue in the presidential campaign even though she isn't running for anything. An educated, successful lawyer, devoted wife and caring mother has been labeled "angry" and unpatriotic and snidely referred to as Barack Obama's "baby mama."

Democrats, Republicans, independents, everyone should be offended.

And this black woman is wondering: Where are Obama's feminist defenders?

...

One has to wonder, as Michelle Obama is being labeled unpatriotic, bitter, mean, angry. Where are those feminists who saw sexism lurking around every corner with Hillary Clinton?

Where.are.they?

Curtis wrote:

The campaign against Michelle Obama -- who went on "The View" this week to prove her everywoman bona fides -- has not caused a rift between black and white women so much as it has exposed it.

I've long been frustrated, as a black woman and a feminist, with our national conversation. I didn't hear the cause speaking up for women of color or for women who have always worked in blue-collar or service jobs. Choice was not their issue.

The woman who employed my educated mother to clean her house never quite saw her as a sister in the struggle for equality.

And there in lies the problem. The feminist movement has accomplished a lot, and has plenty to be proud of, and I don't want to paint with a broad brush. Under that banner of achieving equal treatment, pay and defending women's rights I am most certainly a feminist in that camp.

However, things that have been done under the feminist name have not been less than kosher. My first introduction to this was a lecture describing the imperialistic nature of "lets save these poor foreign women campaigns" that are much more degrading and insulting than they are helpful in any way. The intentions of some of the people behind these campaigns might be good, but the impression it leaves with the people they are trying to "help" doesn't exactly exude sisterhood as much as it breeds contempt. Telling people that their cultures are backwards and behind the times is greeted with same enthusiasm that forms of imperialism receive, and the tensions just grow from there.

Well, the other major fault line throughout sections of the feminist movement is race, and rikyah from Jack and Jill politics adds her 2 cents:

Well, it's no secret that I'm not a fan of feminism. I don't believe that it had anything to do with Black women's lives. I believe we already had our own brand of feminism, because Black women have always worked. Our ancestors - mothers, aunts, grandmothers, elders in the church- have been balancing work, relationships and marriage, well, since forever. We failed to uphold the lessons that they tried to teach us, throwing it away for something that NEVER had our families in mind. I can't be a Black feminist if I'm being separate from the Black men in my life. Just doesn't work for me. That's part of the reason why there was no real 'conflict' for me when it came to Obama vs. Clinton. Am I Black or Woman? I'm both, but I've been in this country long enough to know:
1. Being Black is the true designation of my life
2. Being separated from the men in the community has not done us any good
3. 'Sisterhood' is a one way street; I'm a ' Sister', when Mainstream Feminism wants something from me. When they're done, then I'm kicked to the curb. I understood long ago that Miss Anne wasn't studdin' about my Black behind, and I don't think I'm alone in that realization.

I said before that I wasn't going to hold my breath waiting for Mainstream Feminists to defend Michelle Obama. This was a job that those of us who cared would have to take on our shoulders.


Their silence has been quite instructive....don't you think?

Yep, and like she said... I'm not holding my breath waiting on Geraldine Ferraro's strongly worded condemnation.

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.

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.

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!!!

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.

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?

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.

4.3 Million Worth

As reports come out that Hillary Clinton's staffers will go without pay for the next month and that she is loaning herself 5 million dollars to keep this thing going, it's good to know that not everyone is feeling the burn. Not only is chief union busting/Blackwater defending creep Mark Penn still taking his pay, but his it's been revealed that his firm "Penn, Schoen and Bertland received 4.3 million dollars for their work, and that figure doesn't even include another 1.5 million owed that has yet to be payed. But if she wasn't paying him 6 million dollars, who would she get to come up with brilliant spin like this:

"The more that Senator Obama has shifted to becoming an establishment campaign based on endorsements, people said, `You know, it's really Senator Clinton who has the ideas for change,'" Penn told reporters.

Well that may sound incredibly stupid but in fairness to Penn that 4.3 million wasn't by commission, and since he's getting his payday win or lose he's probably fine with mailing it in every now and then. Call it the Vince Carter method, it seems to work out ok for him. Oh wait, nevermind.

Hillary Clinton Stayed Silent as Walmart Busted Unions

Hillary Clinton stayed silent during more than 20 Walmart board meetings where they discussed their union busting tactics, referred to them as parasites and reiterated their plan to stop them at all costs. This is one of those things you figured was probably the case, but you just assumed could never be proved. Thank you ABC news and the magic of video...

In six years as a member of the Wal-Mart board of directors, between 1986 and 1992, Hillary Clinton remained silent as the world's largest retailer waged a major campaign against labor unions seeking to represent store workers.

...

Wal-Mart's anti-union efforts were headed by one of Clinton's fellow board members, John Tate, a Wal-Mart executive vice president who also served on the board with Clinton for four of her six years.

Tate was fond of repeating, as he did at a managers meeting in 2004 after his retirement, what he said was his favorite phrase, "Labor unions are nothing but blood-sucking parasites living off the productive labor of people who work for a living."
Wal-Mart says Tate's comments "were his own and do not reflect Wal-Mart's views."

But Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton and other company officials often recounted how they relied on Tate to lead the company's successful anti-union efforts. An ABC News analysis of the videotapes of at least four stockholder meetings where Clinton appeared shows she never once rose to defend the role of American labor unions.

...

A former board member told ABCNews.com that he had no recollection of Clinton defending unions during more than 20 board meetings held in private.

The tapes show Clinton in the role of a loyal company woman. "I'm always proud of Wal-Mart and what we do and the way we do it better than anybody else," she said at a June 1990 stockholders meeting.

I know what you're thinking, I mean... it was the 80s. Give her a break, everybody did a little union busting back then. It wasn't as bad as everyone made it out to be. And besides, we need to give her credit for these 6 years of "fighting for change" busting unions on Walmart's board, because otherwise that screws up the whole 35 years of change thing. And well, if you pull a number out of your ass and then someone has the nerve to call you out on lying about it, what fun is that? Well the important thing was that this union busting was just a youthful indiscretion, and now is behind her. It's not like she surrounds herself with these people or has them in key positions in her inner circle.
Oh right, never mind. Well at least she's cut off these dealings with Walmart, right? RIGHT??? UUGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!! How bad can this get?

According to the New York Times, Sen. Clinton "maintains close ties to Wal-Mart executives through the Democratic Party and the tightly knit Arkansas business community." The May 20, 2007 article also reported that her husband, former President Clinton, "speaks frequently to Wal-Mart's current chief executive, H. Lee Scott Jr." and held a private dinner at the Clinton's New York home in July 2006 for him.

If after crap like this comes out and people still can't choose between Clinton and Obama... then it's a pretty bleak outlook for the future of the progressive movement.

Not Within the Democratic Party

February 2000: South Carolina's Republican Primary.

We all know what a shameful place that election holds in American political history. We CANNOT allow that to happen again. Not within the Democratic Party.

It's not the practice of push polling, but it is race baiting with dog whistle politics, and it has to stop. Since I believe some people writing about this subject have missed the point or included too different examples, lets review the three cases.

Case One: New Hampshire Clinton Chair Bill Shaheen

The Republicans are not going to give up without a fight ... and one of the things they're certainly going to jump on is his drug use," said Shaheen, the husband of former N.H. governor Jeanne Shaheen, who is planning to run for the Senate next year.
Shaheen said Obama's candor on the subject would "open the door" to further questions. "It'll be, 'When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?'" Shaheen said. "There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It's hard to overcome."

Case Two: NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo

"It's not a TV crazed race. Frankly you can't buy your way into it," Cuomo said, according to Albany Times Union reporter Rick Karlin. He then added, "You can't shuck and jive at a press conference. All those moves you can make with the press don't work when you're in someone's living room."
According to Joan Houston Hall's Dictionary of American Regional English, the phrase "shuck and jive" means, "To be deceptive or evasive; to tell tall tales or lies; to fool around. esp freq among Black speakers," and "stalling or obfuscating, especially to avoid having to admit that you did not know something or were trying to divert someone's attention."

Case Three: BET Founder Bob Johnson

As an African-American, I'm frankly insulted that the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Bill and Hillary Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues when Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood that I won't say what he was doing, [but] he said it in his book.

One time, it's a loose cannon surrogate. Twice, it's a poor choice of words. Three times, in a carefully delivered speech with the candidate herself on stage when the remark is made... that should make you wonder. Josh Marshall explains the possibilities:

We seem to be at the point where there are now two credible possibilities. One is that the Clinton campaign is intentionally pursuing a strategy of using surrogates to hit Obama with racially-charged language or with charges that while not directly tied to race nonetheless play to stereotypes about black men. The other possibility is that the Clinton campaign is extraordinarily unlucky and continually finds its surrogates stumbling on to racially-charged or denigrating language when discussing Obama.

Marshall also notes a reader ML's comment that gives a different take comment:

I think that the Clintons' anti-Obama strategy is more subtle than commentators are realizing. It is in the nature of a "provokatsiia", as the Russians say. Cuomo didn't utter the phrase "shuck and jive"without forethought; nor did Clinton bring up LBJ and MLK on the spur of the moment. Both are experienced street-fighting politicians who don't say that kind of thing to the press without thinking it through. Such comments are a provocation, waving a red cloak in front of the Obama people. When they respond angrily with charges of racism, suddenly they look like Jessie Jackson redux...just the kind of angry, militant black folks who scare white people (btw I think black anger and militancy are completely understandable...this is just a point about how much of the white public reads such charges of racism). Then the Clintons deny responsibility.
The whole point was to get the Obama people to respond angrily, which they did. Clintons win.

Do I think Hillary or Bill Clinton are racists? No, I don't. Do I think they are extremely calculating politicians who would be willing to stoop to race baiting if they thought it would help her win? In short, yes.

I think the best response would be a press conference from Obama, and a much stronger statement decrying this pattern than the one today during the debate. He needs to send the message that even though these statements may have come from surrogates, but if they continue, the candidate themselves will be held responsible. This isn't just about a one day news story during a heated primary fight, these are the type of disgusting tactics we should expect from the Republican party in the general election. I just didn't think we'd see in the democratic primary.

It's critically important for the long term future of the democratic party that this tactic be addressed in the stark terms it deserves - and right now before it gets any worse. Because if it isn't put into the spotlight, it WILL get worse.

Hillary Clinton doesn't understand irony

So you decide which makes more sense: Entrust our country to someone who is ready on day one ... or to put America in the hands of someone with little national or international experience, who started running for president the day he arrived in the U.S. Senate?

-Hillary Clinton, December 3rd, 2007

To Recap: Hillary Clinton is criticizing someone for having long-time ambitions to run for president, and for having little national or international experience.

Somewhere Alanis Morissette is smiling. Oh wait, I forgot, she doesn't understand irony either.

Hillary's "Experience" finally questioned!

"I have 35 years of experience, fighting for real change, and I will use my experience to change Washington, starting on day one."

This is the nonsense that the media has repeated without question throughout the battle for the democratic nomination. But her barrage of misleading statements is now being challenged, and even better - it's coming from a mainstream media voice in Maureen Dowd:

Her Democratic rivals had meekly gone along, accepting her self-portrait as a former co-president who gets to take credit for everything important Bill Clinton did in the ’90s. But she was not elected or appointed to a position that needed Senate confirmation . . . She was a top adviser who had a Nixonian bent for secrecy and a knack for hard-core politicking. But if running a great war room qualified you for president, Carville and Stephanopoulos would be leading