To Monica,        I too, 'don't  trust Americas vote integrity system anymore, thanks in  no part to Die Bold. I'm from NY, and am waiting for NH Patriots to tell me  if the E-voting fraud occurred  there again? We need to document this???Do you have any "Proof?" If so, please serd me a copy! You will not regret it!    Keep writing Monica, your words reach more people than you may know.

Jeff Morris- Saugerties, N.Y.-  DeJaVu57

Howard is first.

monica -

Thanks so much for helping participate in saving our democracy.

Linda wrote "Surely you're not trying to infer that because one race of 50, only the 3rd down, TRYING TO OVERLOOK his 2nd place showing with 30 pct in the first in Iowa, and receiving 17 pct as 3rd in New Hampshire."

Yes, I'm inferring exactly that.  Not on my own, of course.  We've come to find historically that election season math tends to disclose certain verities to those people willing to recognize it.

Phil wrote "every single Edwards vote is one less potential Clinton voter"

This is slightly discomoding.  I would not have presumed you will join the Clinton campaign once Edwards drops out.

4. well, thank you Tom, but historically you are incorrect. But that's ok. Historically Bill Clinton didn't win his first Primary 'til it went south in Georgia.

I would be more concerned over someone starting off with a win and losing since, when they were the Front runner for a year.

Monica, excellent work for integrity and democracy, thank you.

Well, it's been fun. Have good ones.

Mike wrote "there IS one random element with Mccain and this is a big one......perpetual war like he has elaborated...........are Amerians sick of this war stuff already?"

I agree with you.  By a wide margin, McCain is the Republican most associated with the Bush war agenda, having criticized the elder Bush for failing to rid Iraq of Saddam following the first Gulf War and openly campaigned on the rogue state rollback doctrine. 

He criticized Bush's handling of the war, but showed solidarity in supporting the attack and our continued presence there.  The degree to which voters view Iraq as a major issue will have an enormous effect on his prospects for election.  I always assumed that the war would diminish as an issue by next November because I never envisioned that Bush and his small group of hidebound supporters would allow it to wear on after such disastrous results. 

However, even the supposed success of the recent escalation in the troop level is doing nothing more in the popular opinion than convincing voters that we should be dumping this mess on the new government and departing.  At this point, I would assume that the war will trail off in importance in the mind of the electorate by November, but would not guess that predictions of our presence in the region for the next 100 years will form a compelling argument in favor of a McCain presidency regardless.

Linda wrote "well, thank you Tom, but historically you are incorrect."

So you say.  We'll certainly find out.

After yesterday, I have a better understanding of how caucuses work and have to say that I believe they disfranchise more voters than primaries.

In Nevada it almost all boiled down to one county (Clark) for Hillary though Obama won most all of the state. I guess that's how she got more votes and he more delegates.

That winter blast is headed our way...those up north take care with 30 below windchills by morning.

Going to miss the Pats/Chargers game for a meeting with a gubernatorial hopeful (Anthony Pollina)...maybe can be back to catch the second of the Patriot's win. Will be back in time to see the Pack smack the Giants.

bbl

Obama is in a dangerous spot with a state next that has a large African American population that he will carry by a large margin making him look like "the"  black candidate. You can bet Clinton folks will point that out.

Edwards needs to stick around for a month at least to keep that conversation honest, because a negative Clinton campaign against Obama might work to reduce him, but the voters won't have to go to her. 

I have a better understanding of how caucuses work and have to say that I believe they disfranchise more voters than primaries.

They drive down turnout and are easily manipulated. Caucuses suck along with the entire staggered primary system. 

Obama is in a dangerous spot with a state next that has a large African American population that he will carry by a large margin making him look like "the"  black candidate.

That's what Pat Buchanan says too. I find such talk distasteful.

Phil wrote "Obama is in a dangerous spot with a state next that has a large African American population that he will carry by a large margin making him look like "the"  black candidate. You can bet Clinton folks will point that out."

As a Clinton supporter in the near future, you must find this prospect exciting.

Reed

I have found that at about ten below the temperature drop has a log scale expotential negative effect with brittle metal, freezing pipes, and painful eyeballs

twenty below is a whole lot more dangerous drop from ten below than ten below is from zero

I'm only going out by necessity, I can't imagine sitting in a stadium after dark tonight, the fans will be LOUD just to stay warm

take care at work

If Hillary gets the nomination I'll be working on Tom Harkin's re-election because I'll want him to carry the state even if she can't.

Historically Bill Clinton didn't win his first Primary 'til it went south in Georgia.

You're actually describing Obama's possible "comeback" this year since Clinton's in 1992 was based on the votes of southern African-Americans.

<>SC Primary, RCP avg 1/14-1/18:

1. <>O: 43.2 %
2. C: 33.6 %
3. E: 13.2 %
   

Anyone who is interested in reading the DNC primary and convention rules, here is the link:

http://www.demconvention.com/a/2007/03/delegate_select.html

I'll want him to carry the state even if she can't.

"If" being the operative word in that sentence.

Phil and all those in the COLD Zone, stay warm and take care.

Hope the puters don't freeze up either:)

A January NIGHT time game in Green Bay is insane.  

Surely the TV audience would be just as huge in the early afternoon.

In a way though, the chilled playoff games are a bit reassuring.

We still have a chance to mitigate global warming. 

I don't think Hillary can carry Iowa.

Sitka wrote "Linda is] actually describing Obama's possible 'comeback' this year since Clinton's in 1992 was based on the votes of southern African-Americans."

Possible, although I'd hate to think the poll numbers in South Carolina one week out from the primary could be less reliable than the numbers that came from New Hampshire.  Obama may have to show a vulnerable moment of tender emotion on national television to seal a victory.

when does the lickin of the Chargers commence? I best get at my evening chores soon

I could see how a Obama win in South Carolina would work to Clinton's advantage, is my point, so she might just let it happen and concentrate her campaign on the Feb 5th states.

Obama is in a dangerous spot with a state next that has a large African American population that he will carry by a large margin making him look like "the"  black candidate. You can bet Clinton folks will point that out.

Clinton was more than 20 points ahead just a month or so ago, in SC. The Clintons consider themselves the "black candidate" and laid claim to SC as their territory, not Obama's.

They would be conceding Obama as the NEW black candidate.

I don't think Hillary can carry Iowa.

That was obvious. But you can't possibly know it since Clinton and Gore won it in their elections.

Guess away. 

<>I could see how a Obama win in South Carolina would work to Clinton's advantage, is my point, so she might just let it happen and concentrate her campaign on the Feb 5th states

<>That's a very contemptuous attitude toward Democratic voters if it's considered a strength that Bill Clinton carried AA voters, but for Obama it's a weakness.

You should leave that rap to the Buchanans. 

I called the causus results right in Iowa months before they happened.(basic three way tie with the winner being someone who never voted for the war) I may not know diddly about California politics, but I do know a tiny bit more than someone from Arizona about Iowa. Hillary as candidate will totally energize and unite a now dispirited and divided Republican Party here and make for a close election up and down the ticket. (don't ask me to explain the Republican mind I just have talked to enough to get a glimpse) 

Possible, although I'd hate to think the poll numbers in South Carolina one week out from the primary could be less reliable than the numbers that came from New Hampshire.

I was pointing out to Linda that the very people who made Bill's "comeback" in the south  possible now seem to be overwhelmingly for Obama.

And I find the suggestion being made by Phil that such support will hurt Obama with other voter groups (especially when it never hurt Clinton) to be something which sets back rather than moves forward.

Phil wrote "Hillary as candidate will totally energize and unite a now dispirited and divided Republican Party here and make for a close election up and down the ticket."

This can't be your rationale for supporting her candidacy.  What gives?

Sitka wrote

"I was pointing out to Linda that the very people who made Bill's 'comeback' in the south  possible now seem to be overwhelmingly for Obama.

"And I find the suggestion being made by Phil that such support will hurt Obama with other voter groups (especially when it never hurt Clinton) to be something which sets back rather than moves forward."

Your points seem sensible to me, but Linda and Phil are Edwards supporters, so normal logic doesn't seem to have the same influence on them.

I don't have a dog in that fight (oops probably shouldn't use a Mike Vick racially motivated conviction as a phrase)

just the facts

Hillary gets to use her "historic" cohort, but if Obama does, it catogorizes him at one group is 50+% of primary voters and the other 20% max so it works to Clinton's favor to try and make this the battle of "history"

so if we talk these things out before they happen we can avoid splintering the party

leave that to Republicans

I called the causus results right in Iowa months before they happened.(basic three way tie with the winner being someone who never voted for the war)

Three way tie?

O:38% E:30% C: 29% 

You obviously didn't "guess" right. 

I'll state again for the record. I am an Obama delegate. so it is quite unlikely I'm supporting Clinton 

Phil wrote "it is quite unlikely I'm supporting Clinton."

But you wrote "Edwards votes are a subtraction from Clinton with that fairly large group that aren't buying what Obama is selling but don't like a pro-corporate War Party candidate.  [E]very single Edwards vote is one less potential Clinton voter."

What does it mean that an Edwards vote is one less potential Clinton vote?

Tom wrote:Your points seem sensible to me, but Linda and Phil are Edwards supporters, so normal logic doesn't seem to have the same influence on them.

Your sarcasm ever present, still you should have stated correctly, being we are normal and you seem to generate from the river of denial.

As much as you all are trying to spin and distort, the reality is your guessing, triangulaating and projecting means little in the real world where events happen regardless without respect to your words.

And, regardless of what happens in South Carolina, the events of past that you are trying to compare to are ALREADY DIFFERENT, so it still boils down to......spin cycle stuck. :)

Phil wrote "every single Edwards vote is one less potential Clinton voter"

You must admit that you boxed yourself into a rhetorical corner with that statement, Phil.

But it's patently absurd to say that every Edwards vote would go to Clinton. I would guess an even split of them without Edwards in the mix, with some people not even bothering to vote (and I don't pretend it's anything but a guess).

Letter to AFSCME President McEntee
http://thepage.time.com/letter-to-afscme...

January 4, 2008
Gerald McEntee
International President
AFSCME
1625 L St. NW
Washington, DC 20036

Dear President McEntee:

We are writing to protest in the strongest terms the negative campaign
that AFSCME is conducting against Barack Obama. We do not believe that
such a wholesale assault on one of the great friends of our union was
ever contemplated when the International Executive Board (IEB) made
its decision to endorse Hillary Clinton.

In fact, when the vote to make a primary endorsement was taken by the
IEB, there appeared to be widespread agreement that we had a strong
field of Democratic candidates all of whom had made a very positive
impression on the IEB Screening Committee. The argument for endorsing
Hillary Clinton was not that her positions were better than those of
the other candidates or that she would be the better president for
working families, but rather that she was the clear frontrunner, the
most likely primary victor, and the strongest general election
candidate.

While some of us did not agree with the decision to endorse Sen.
Clinton, we all recognized that once the endorsement was made, AFSCME
would have to expend a certain amount of resources on her behalf in
order to give weight to its action. While the Board was informed at
that time that procedures for independent expenditures had been
established, there was never any discussion of how those expenditures
would be made.

None of the information presented to the International Executive Board
suggested in any way that AFSCME intended to utilize its resources to
attack the other Democratic candidates. In fact, a number of IEB
members stressed-either privately or in their comments at the meeting-
how much they respected and admired Sen. Obama. And at least one Board
member spoke passionately against the Democratic candidates attacking
each other, arguing that such negativity would damage Democratic
prospects in the General Election.

We were therefore shocked and appalled to learn that our union-through
"independent expenditures"-is squandering precious resources to wage a
costly and deceptive campaign to oppose Barack Obama. As Barack's
standing in the polls has soared, according to numerous press reports
AFSCME has spent untold dollars in Iowa and New Hampshire to send out
mailings and run radio ads whose sole purpose is to undercut his
candidacy. And now AFSCME has even registered a website with the
explicit purpose of "opposing Barack Obama."

While we would not approve of attacks on any of the Democratic
candidates in this race, all of whom have good relationships with our
union, it is worth noting that AFSCME has chosen to attack only one of
those candidates, Barack Obama.

It is also worth noting that the campaign that AFSCME is waging
against Sen. Obama is fundamentally dishonest and inconsistent with
past positions of our union, i.e. attacking him for not forcing
individuals to purchase health care even when they can't afford it.
The ads are misleading in attempting to give the impression that they
are associated with John Edwards rather than Hillary Clinton and in
their claims that Sen. Obama's health care plan will exclude 15
million people when in fact every person will have the opportunity to
participate. This dishonesty is giving our union a "black eye" among
many in the media and the progressive community.

But even if the ads were not deceptive, we would object to the use of
our union's funds to attack a long-time friend of AFSCME members, a
candidate who has stood up strongly in support of workers' rights from
his earliest days as an elected official, a candidate who included the
importance of the right to form unions in his announcement speech, a
candidate who has been a forceful advocate for working families.

Supposedly, we are involved in this primary because we're concerned
about "access" to the next Democratic president. So why would we want
to develop a hostile relationship with the man who could be that next
president?

And supposedly, our union's fundamental commitment is to electing a
Democratic president in November. So why would AFSCME's national
political director threaten to dilute AFSCME's efforts in the General
Election if Senator Obama is the nominee? We were stunned to see these
kind of threats being made in the national media by one of our union's
primary spokespersons.

It is our understanding that this attack on Sen. Obama is being
carried out through independent expenditures which are not under your
direction, but that of two members of the International staff. As we
understand it, because of the legal "firewall" that exists, those two
staff members have essentially undertaken this assault on Sen. Obama
entirely on their own initiative without direction from or even
consultation with you. Certainly there has not been any direction from
the International Executive Board regarding this course of action. And
we do not believe that AFSCME members would expect or want their
PEOPLE dollars spent in this manner.

We are calling on you to take whatever action that is within your
legal purview to immediately end AFSCME's attack campaign against Sen.
Obama. In the event that you are not able to legally compel these
staff members to cease these actions, we are calling on you to
immediately take action to discontinue such independent expenditures
in order to ensure that no further attacks occur. And we also urge you
to ensure that no funds are utilized to wage such "attack campaigns"
among our own members.

The behavior of these two individuals-so clearly inimical to the
interests and allegiances of AFSCME members, as well as to
institutional democracy-arguably constitutes chargeable offenses under
the International constitution. It also calls into question the role
of such "independent expenditures" in our organization. We believe
that the IEB needs to carefully review the role that such expenditures
play in our activities in this election season and beyond.

At the last IEB meeting, when we all gathered for dinner, you raised
your glass in a toast to organizational unity, assuring us that we
would all come together to defeat the Republican candidate in
November. Today the actions of a few unelected union staff are placing
that unity in jeopardy and degrading the reputation of our great
union. We urge you to take whatever actions are necessary to see that
both are restored.

In solidarity,

Ken Allen, International Vice-President, Oregon Henry Bayer,
International Vice-President, Illinois Greg Devereux, International
Vice-President, Washington Sal Luciano, International Vice-President,
Connecticut Roberta Lynch, International Vice-President, Illinois George
Popyack, International Vice-President, California Eliot Seide,
International Vice-President, Minnesota

cc: Paul Booth
Lee Saunders
Larry Scanlon
International Executive Board

Linda wrote "Your sarcasm ever present, still you should have stated correctly, being we are normal and you seem to generate from the river of denial."

That seems a little sarcastic.

I'll continue to point out basic statistical concepts as they apply to elections. with three well operated national campaigns in Iowa with a caucus system and viability rules you come out with three "winners" (a tie), but if Richardson had caught fire that would have been the big news.

with only two in the race you just need to get every other voter plus one

with three in the race you have to get more than the other two combined to get a majority

Clinton will have a very hard time winning the nomination with Edwards in the race, so those trying to talk Edwards out are the likely closet Clinton supporters here

I'm not one.

Phil wrote "Clinton will have a very hard time winning the nomination with Edwards in the race, so those trying to talk Edwards out are the likely closet Clinton supporters here."

All right.  Now analyze this statement and give me your honest response: "Obama will have a very hard time winning the nomination with Edwards in the race, so those trying to talk Edwards out are the likely closet Obama supporters here."

Well, most look at the candidate with the highest percentage and call that one the winner -- especially when it's by 8 points as in Iowa.

I imagine to most, calling it a tie just seems a way to spin it as a "win" for Edwards. But it hardly matters since he's only gone downhill since then. 

Clinton will have a very hard time winning the nomination with Edwards in the race, so those trying to talk Edwards out are the likely closet Clinton supporters here

I haven't noticed anyone tring to talk Edwards out of the race and can't imagine why they'd bother with him dropping into Kucinich Kountry more every day.

Both the dream of Edwards as kingmaker and charge of him being a spoiler will fit in a pipe these days.

Obama won the delegate count in Nevada thanks to Edwards.

I  haven't noticed anyone tring to talk Edwards out of the race

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

sleepwalking through the blog again?

you guys are a riot

Obama won the delegate count in Nevada thanks to Edwards.

Can't argue with a statement that has no basis in fact to support it.

Sitka wrote "Well, most look at the candidate with the highest percentage and call that one the winner -- especially when it's by 8 points as in Iowa."

Particularly in the media headlines, but Phil does have a point I find valid.  Obama had a newsmaking victory in the Iowa caucuses but received 16 delegates as a consequence, compared to Clinton's 15 and Edwards' 14.

Clinton’s so-called upset win in New Hampshire, on the other hand, netted her and Obama nine delegates apiece.  Edwards got four.  Her victory in the popular vote in Nevada actually got her one less delegate than Obama. 

Linda wrote "Your sarcasm ever present, still you should have stated correctly, being we are normal and you seem to generate from the river of denial."

That seems a little sarcastic.

+++

Tom -

That "river of denial" phrase was once very overused on this blog.  I guess Linds NM believes in resurrections, that's why she's inferring that you've been to the land of the mummies, to the land of the silted Nile river in Egypt.

Ok, inquiring minds want to know: "Have you white-watered the White or the Blue one ?"

sleepwalking through the blog again?

No Phil, but both of my eyes are open. Try it yourself sometime. 

you guys are a riot

I'm not in any camp. I know it doesn't seem that way to you since I have to spend so much time debunking ridiculous claims made about Edwards. 

I'm making the assumption that Obama is more progressive than Clinton, and the block of Edwards delegates at the Denver Convention show up on his balance sheet in the end.

Those of you that want to argue that Clinton is the progressive in the race, have at it. You're a bowl of laughs today anyway.

Can't argue with a statement that has no basis in fact to support it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

can't argue with someone who doesn't know how to analyse the numbers, the county by county facts are pretty clear

Phil wrote "Those of you that want to argue that Clinton is the progressive in the race, have at it. You're a bowl of laughs today anyway."

Ho ho.  I'd like to hear that argument, too.  I particularly enjoy the one that supporters of the progressive populist campaign of John Edwards are helping deny Clinton a victory because they'd flock to her campaign if Edwards withdrew.

can't argue with someone who doesn't know how to analyse the numbers

Which you certainly didn't do or even provide a link to.

You need to learn that you aren't really a political maven who can throw out unsupported statements and expect them to be accepted at face value. 

All I ask is the you provide the info to back yourself up when you make claims about numbers. 

I particularly enjoy the one that supporters of the progressive populist campaign of John Edwards are helping deny Clinton a victory because they'd flock to her campaign if Edwards withdrew.

Just another unsupported claim. 

Monica,

Many thanks for the work you are doing in the recount and also for this magnificent blog. I found it very interesting -- not just the counting procedures similar to those in North Central Florida, but the the history and use of the school and hospital there.

Those of you that want to argue that Clinton is the progressive in the race, have at it. You're a bowl of laughs today anyway.

Haven't seen many if any like that around here. If they are here, they keep it quiet.

I'll use 92 as the example.

Would Bill Clinton have won in a head to head with Bush I ? maybe, but it was easier with Perot in the race

but in a head to head with two strong campaigns 48-52 is a blowout

the difference?

to get the nomination you needs a majority of the delegates not a plurality

you can believe the Clinton campaign would like their chances better with Edwards out of the race

All I ask is the you provide the info to back yourself up when you make claims about numbers. 

~~~~~~~~~~

Denise and Reed both gave the links sitka, do your own work, although I realize clicking is a hard concept for some people

Would Bill Clinton have won in a head to head with Bush I ? maybe, but it was easier with Perot in the race

That's conventional wisdom -- which is always wrong. 

Clinton was in third place until Perot dropped out (before returning later) at which time he vaulted into first. Draw your own conclusion from it. 

In 1992 Bush was VERY unpopular and my guess is that Clinton would have won without Perot. 

Phil wrote "I'll use 92 as the example.  Would Bill Clinton have won in a head to head with Bush I? maybe, but it was easier with Perot in the race."

Clinton would have lost in 1992 without Perot in the race, because Perot voters were disgruntled Republicans by and large.  Will his wife win the nomination in 2004 in a head to head with Obama? Maybe, but it will be much easier with Edwards in the race, because Edwards voters are disgruntled progressives and populists with a blind spot regarding Edwards' voting record.

Denise and Reed both gave the links sitka, do your own work, although I realize clicking is a hard concept for some people

You have to provide your own links and not let others back up your statements for you if you want to be reputable (you could at least cite their posts if you're too lazy to repost the links.) 

my guess

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

welcome to the world of politics, which poll do you want to back that up with, lol

you're too lazy to repost the links

~~~~~~~~~~~

not as lazy as somebody that didn't bother to click on them

not as lazy as somebody that didn't bother to click on them

You just don't get it that when you say something, YOU have to back it up. 

Yikes!  You may have already noticed I erroneously wrote about Clinton's prospects in 2004 instead of 2008. 

I called the correct final result with 89% of the totals in yesterday that Obama was going to win the national delegate equivalent count and Clinton the raw count. Better than any of the MSM guru types so I'm in a bragging mood and realize it is unseemly to rub sitka's face in it, not to worry, I have cows and football to attend to and will let sitka return to picking on linda or audrey

welcome to the world of politics, which poll do you want to back that up with, lol

I use the word "guess"  because I'm not trying to fool myself or anyone else that I know when I don't, or can predict like a circus fortune teller.

You and Mike are certainly legends in your own minds.

And it just so happened that the NV results were very close to the RCP average. So I guess I "predicted" it too since I posted it a day before the caucuses. 

Phil wrote "Those of you that want to argue that Clinton is the progressive in the race, have at it. You're a bowl of laughs today anyway."

Ho ho.  I'd like to hear that argument, too.  I particularly enjoy the one that supporters of the progressive populist campaign of John Edwards are helping deny Clinton a victory because they'd flock to her campaign if Edwards withdrew.

+++

Phil -

Tom's assessment of your idea of progressive Edwards staying in the race takes away votes that would normally go to status quo Clinton, is spot on by Tom IMO.

The only reason I could understand you saying such a thing -- that a vote for Edwards takes away from a vote for Clinton -- is actually that you are subconciously inferring that some white people are voting for Edwards but that if he's out of the picture, then they'll vote for the next white candidate -- Clinton (I didn't mention Kucinich or Gravel becuase I'm talking about the top three tier dem caandidates).

is this a correct assessment on my on part Phil, of your reasoning ?

Tom Bearse
Sun, 01/20/08

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Perosnally, Obama and Hillary even suggesting the name Ronald Reagan is 100x worse than Edwards' voting record......................especially Obama, get him in ofice and that will be the final piece of the puzz;e as far as the Demcratic party, or whats left of it being absprbed by the Republican party...............

Let me put this in terms, we all can understand..................think of both parties as, well Norman bates.......norman, the weaker i th democrats...the Mothr side of Norman, the bad side is the Republicans.....................ever watch psych? the  end....................the Mother half completely takes over ..and there ya have it.........................

Im on a roll this weekend..good karma..Maryland knocks off UNC yesterday.................I have a cigar on hand for about 9.30 tonite................now, all i have to do is find all my NY Giants stuff around here somewhere.............

typo -  is this a correct assessment on my on part Phil, of your reasoning ?

s/b -  Is this a correct assessment on my part Phil, of your vote-for-Edwards, is-one-less-vote- for-Clinton reasoning ?

sitka

you have said you are going to let your six year old daughter make your pick

in a close race the "jaywalk all stars" decide the election, they are one step above the bar stool crowd that has their chain yanked by a negative smear too late to respond to, and since Clinton and Obama will be in a close race many places, I would just prefer to let John Edwards personally over-ride those two groups

just me

because I know there are voters like you out there

Mike wrote "Personally, Obama and Hillary even suggesting the name Ronald Reagan is 100x worse than Edwards' voting record."

It has nothing to do with anything.  You can read Frank Rich in today's NYT for a post mortem of that cadaver.  The story didn't even survive the 24 hour newscycle.

rdorgan

do the math

don't read more into it than that

I'll be back to warm up after early chores and will answer more then if you like

Edwards in the race helps Obama's final chances against Clinton, keeps Edwards own long shot hopes alive, and keeps progressive/populist agendas in the mix, and gives more states more choices

I posted it a day before the caucuses

~~~~~~~~~

link? lol

terps and Duke both win Mike? that was a good day

first team to put the QB on his back five times wins tonight Mike

<>Obama and Hillary even suggesting the name Ronald Reagan is 100x worse than Edwards' voting record.........

<>Just the opposite. Voting for the worst of Bush, as Hillary and Edwards did, is infinitely worse that a handful of words -- bad as they were. 

Phil wrote "Edwards in the race helps Obama's final chances against Clinton, keeps Edwards own long shot hopes alive, and keeps progressive/populist agendas in the mix, and gives more states more choices."

You must also feel that Thompson's continued presence in the race is helping Huckabee's final chances against McCain.

In west Michigan, it is 6 deg and a wind chill down to -10.
People going to fast and ending up in ditches.
I think McCain is the next Pres regardless of who his VP is. He beats whoever runs against him.
My bigger worry is we loose control of Congress.

Edwards in the race helps Obama's final chances against Clinton,

Edwards presence is a more likely a wash. But he is fast becoming as irrelevant as Kucinich. 

sitka

you have said you are going to let your six year old daughter make your pick

You have said that voting for Kucinich is a waste. But that's not why I'm letting her do it. It's to teach her how to vote and get her in the habit early.  

because I know there are voters like you out there

And I know there are voters like you out there who vote on a pretty face -- or a look in the eyes -- and  ignore the records which actually tell where candidates really will stand after the promises and pandering grow cold and stale.

Monica ... again, MANY thanks!

**********
And no one here will bring me *down* because some continue to *dis* all the candidates ... even though I see that the Nance Greggs *rant* from DU might be worth reposting here again. Nance speaks for me ... and I would guess that she speaks for one heck of a lot of us who are getting tired of being told which candidate we *should* support and that the candidate we may have chosen according to our personal criteria is not the appropriate one according to self-styled *expert* others. She just says it better.

But no one will bring me *down* because I get to meet Howard Dean this week, live and in person. And I am loving the thought and anticipating the event with great pleasure.

70. is this a correct assessment on my on part Phil, of your reasoning ?

It seems Phil has decided to put the race card back in the deck. 

Fron Juan Cole...
Iraq is still a bad bargain.

http://www.juancole.com/

[snip]
The current round of optimism about Iraq in the Washington press corps will eventually falter against the country's hard realities, just as have previous such rounds. Or maybe worrying about Iraq and continued US troop deaths there is so yesterday for the punditocracy in DC.

The optimism is a planted story, a sleight of hand produced by looking at tactics rather than at strategy, or by making comparative statements (Iraq has less violence today than it did in the volcanic period a year ago) which obscure absolute reality (Iraq is very unstable and dangerous).

From this week's Newsweek newsletter:

FACT CHECK
Sliming Obama
Dueling chain e-mails claim he's a radical Muslim or a 'racist' Christian. Both can't be right. We find both are false.
By Jess Henig and Emi Kolawole | factcheck.org
Jan 11, 2008 | Updated: 10:17 a.m. ET Jan 11, 2008

quote
Dueling chain e-mails claim he's a radical Muslim or a 'racist' Christian. Both can't be right. We find both are false.

Summary
If these two nasty e-mail messages are any indication, the 2008 presidential campaign is becoming a very dirty one.
unquote

http://www.newsweek.com/id/91424?rf=nwne...

And no one here will bring me *down* because some continue to *dis* all the candidates ...

Some are mad at me because I haven't been dissing Obama enough lately. 

I roundly condemned his remarks about Reagan, but that wsn't enough. 

The US MSM has been deliberatley ignoring this story for so long that there just may be some real substance to it.

WHY are they ignoring it? It would explain a lot of things.

=================
From The Sunday TimesJanuary 20, 2008
FBI denies file exposing nuclear secrets theft

The FBI has been accused of covering up a file detailing government dealings with a network stealing nuclear secrets.

The assertion follows allegations made in The Sunday Times two weeks ago by Sibel Edmonds, an FBI whistleblower, who worked on the agency’s investigation of the network.

Edmonds, a 37-year-old former Turkish language translator, listened into hundreds of sensitive intercepted conversations while based at the agency’s Washington field office.

She says the FBI was investigating a Turkish and Israeli-run network that paid high-ranking American officials to steal nuclear weapons secrets. These were then sold on the international black market to countries such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

One of the documents relating to the case was marked 203A-WF-210023. Last week, however, the FBI responded to a freedom of information request for a file of exactly the same number by claiming that it did not exist. But The Sunday Times has obtained a document signed by an FBI official showing the existence of the file.

Edmonds believes the crucial file is being deliberately covered up by the FBI because its contents are explosive. She accuses the agency of an “outright lie”.

[...]
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/wo...

Sorry for the misspellings ...

*********
Sitka ... you don't bring me down generally anyway. You have too clever a turn of phrase and make me chuckle too much.

So does Tom Bearse. ;)

My bigger worry is we loose control of Congress.

A valid concern considering DCDems have betrayed and alienated the very voters who put them over the top in 06. 

Whoops ... no matter which candidate I support, I am very sorry to see this from anyone.

==================
January 20, 2008

Women turn on ‘traitor’ Oprah Winfrey for backing Barack Obama
Oprah fans leave a barrage of negative messages on her official website in response to the talk show host's support of Obama
Tony Allen-Mills, New York

AMERICA’S favourite television presenter is paying a painful price for her intervention in the US presidential campaign last month. Oprah Winfrey has been dubbed a “traitor” by some of her female fans for supporting Barack Obama instead of Hillary Clinton.

Winfrey’s website, Oprah.com, has been flooded with a barrage of abuse since the queen of daytime chat shows joined Obama on a tour of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina in mid-December.

Her intervention was widely credited with broadening Obama’s national appeal - especially among women - and with helping him to an upset victory over Clinton in the first vote of the election year in Iowa.

[...]
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/wo...

Anyway y'all, do try to be kind to each other. Remember what Thankful says. It's good advice.

Gone now.

It seems more and more that when when criticizes Obama on this  log that they are sort of condemned and marginalized in a way much like the right ing christian zealots do when speaking of those they deem the ignorant, faithless heathens.

Is Barack Obama a savior?  Because there are a few supporters of his on this blog that seem incapable of responding to an Obama criticism, or Edwards praise, with nothing less than disdain and sarcasm in a language akin to Pat Robertson rant.

I for one find no solace in any of the remaining Democratic candidates.  They are all lightweights with little or no substance, passion or strength.  And yes, I am including Kucinich is this assessment, sorry.  He may have some good ideas but in no way does he have the kind of strength it takes to lead.  Obama is not progresive, neither is Edwards.  They are both new types of politicians, afraid in a real sense of taking a strong, certain stand on the issues that would have a true positive effect on the general populace.  And yes, Tom, this means that I wll once again be personally responsible for electing the greater of two evils as I did in 2000, this time with my vote for a candidate who will not even be on the ballot.

Have at it, folks.  This blog is quickly turning into an ugly place to spend an hour or so.  And that's a shame. 

Yesterday, my wife and I saw the hilarious movie Juno.  That was the best thing we watched yesterday (the news frankly, sucked, so when we came home from the movies, we watched the next best thing to American humor, as evidenced by Juno, we watched some Brit comedy --Vicar of Dibley, etc.).

Here's Juno ! :

http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1809834191/video/4267626/20070927/151/4267626-100-flash-s.45093793-,4267626-300-flash-s.45093804-,4267626-300-wmv-s.45093779-,4267626-1000-wmv-s.45093788-,4267626-1000-flash-s.45093823-,4267626-700-flash-s.45093817-,4267626-100-wmv-s.45093772-,4267626-700-wmv-s.45093780-,4267627-10300-qtv-s.45093844-,4267627-6800-qtv-s.45093838-,4267627-2700-qtv-s.45093830-

CAMPAIGN 2008
In The Shadow of Bush
The president has left his party in a precarious state. But the GOP candidates running in the wake of his wreckage can learn much from his failures.
By Evan Thomas | NEWSWEEK
Jan 28, 2008 Issue

quote
The modern Republican Party has indulged in more than a little mythmaking during the past 30 or 40 years. Its greatest hero was a Hollywood actor, Ronald Reagan. Morning in America was a brilliant bit of feel-good theatricality. Still, the GOP's core ideology—lower taxes, stronger defense, conservative social values—was a story that voters could follow. The GOP's long ascendancy in American politics was based on performance, not just showmanship.

President George W. Bush has squandered that trust. His presidency has been, in essence, faith-based—not just faith in God, but faith in Bush. After 9/11, he asked the nation to invest in his narrative of good versus evil. He seemed to be saying, "I'm taking care of this, you have to trust me." Critics and naysayers were scorned as ditherers or cowards. Bush wanted to appear resolute, but at times he just seemed bullheaded and oblivious. As Jacob Weisberg shows in the following excerpts from his new book, "The Bush Tragedy," the president constantly changed his rationale for invading Iraq—indeed his entire foreign policy—as inconvenient facts popped up or the mood moved him. Other crises, like Hurricane Katrina and more recently the sinking economy, seemed to catch him by surprise.

The Democrats have a fundamental advantage in 2008: none of them is George W. Bush.
unquote (article continues)

http://www.newsweek.com/id/96527?rf=nwne...

Cockburn on the race card.

Another view of Hillary and Obama.
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn0119...

I don't think Alexander likes the Clintons...neither do I.
[snip]
Other well known landmarks in the Clintons' relations with blacks include Bill Clinton's set-up of Sister Souljah and his disgusting treatment of Lani Guinier and Jocelyn Elders. The Clintons reach out when they have no alternative and stab you in the back when it seems marginally to their advantage. They are without doubt among the most unprincipled duos ever to have operated in the upper tiers of American political life.

95,
I think there are enough naysayers for every candidate.
The top three have their plusses and minuses...all are severely flawed. Some people dislike all of them.

someone else dislike all the candidates...except the one who will not run.
Sopme of the comments are really funny; all are spot on.

http://www.counterpunch.org/green0119200...

s/b some of the candidates

It seems more and more that when when criticizes Obama on this  log that they are sort of condemned and marginalized in a way much like the right ing christian zealots do when speaking of those they deem the ignorant, faithless heathens.

81.

dog

don't worry about it.  McCain is not going to win in November. Here's why:

Assault Weapons

John McCain opposes restrictions on so-called "assault rifles" and voted consistently against such bans.

He's a Republican alright. Lock the kids up, give them bullet proof vests and send them off to school with hope in your heart.

101,
And that may be what the middle-to-right want and they vote.
His website plays well to those folks.
To be a good repub...tax cuts yes, abortion no, guns yes, god yes, gays no, econ say nothing, kill things with the guns yes, big army yes, leave mess for the next generation yes.

McCain has it all covered.

Phil is spot-on, re: how caucuses work; as well as *delegate counts* (depends upon the apportionment per precinct(s) in question).

Google it, people (or check previous 2 threads fmi). Try _NYT_'s Politics section.

Burnrate is what may be a deciding factor (thru Super Tues.).

http://tinyurl.com/2x2mdc

Hope you got to meet Jean F2F for a bit, Monica.

Great peeps.

I'd wager that Jean & David will morph up another book, based upon the experience.

They're both ethical; and are attuned to the nuts-n-bolts of elections (although, it doesn't always work w/our shady county Dem. committee). Most took off/dropped out.

Go, Jean~

http://brightberrypress.com/

51,53,57,70,73,74,78, etc.

"Those of you that want to argue that Clinton is the progressive in the race, have at it. "

It might be time to acknowledge that there is no progressive in the race.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/18/AR2008011801184_5.html?tid=informbox

Says Open Left's Matt Stoller
<http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3263>: "There are many
reason progressives should admire Ronald Reagan, politically speaking.
He realigned the country around his vision, he brought into power a new
movement that created conservative change, and he was an extremely
skilled politician. But that is not why Obama admires Reagan. Obama
admires Reagan because he agrees with Reagan's basic frame that the
1960s and 1970s were full of 'excesses' and that government had grown
large and unaccountable.

"Those excesses, of course, were feminism, the consumer rights movement,
the civil rights movement, the environmental movement, and the antiwar
movement . . .

"It is extremely disturbing to hear, not that Obama admires Reagan, but
why he does so. Reagan was not a sunny optimist pushing dynamic
entrepreneurship, but a savvy politician using a civil rights backlash
to catapult conservatives to power."

95.

Have at it, folks.  This blog is quickly turning into an ugly place to spend an hour or so.  And that's a shame. 

paz

If disagreeing with you makes this an ugly place, I suppose agreeing with you with also make it a very happy place for you.

Bush's voodoo econ package.

http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney01142...

[snip]
30 years of Reaganism has destroyed the country. It's eviscerated our industrial base, broken the social contract, crushed our unions, savaged our schools and infrastructure, and shifted the nation's wealth from the middle class to the upper 5 per cent. Wages have stagnated, the dollar is nosediving, the banking system is paralyzed, and subprime poison is surging through the global system shuddering banks and businesses around the world.

I have to run for the day.
'till we meet again...

Paz wrote "Have at it, folks.  This blog is quickly turning into an ugly place to spend an hour or so.  And that's a shame."

I think it's a beautiful place.  I can think of few places I would prefer to spend an hour.  Sorry you don't like it.

104.

It might be time to acknowledge that there is no progressive in the race.

It depends on your understanding of "progressive" and the degree thereof.

Kucinich is a progressive but too much so to be elected president in this country -- yet!

Clinton is old school and so rejects progressiveness because she sees it as hostile to her career.

Moderate progressives are what Obama and Edwards are.

Whoops ... no matter which candidate I support, I am very sorry to see this from anyone.

==================
January 20, 2008

Women turn on ‘traitor’ Oprah Winfrey for backing Barack Obama
Oprah fans leave a barrage of negative messages on her official website in response to the talk show host's support of Obama
Tony Allen-Mills, New York

AMERICA’S favourite television presenter is paying a painful price for her intervention in the US presidential campaign last month. Oprah Winfrey has been dubbed a “traitor” by some of her female fans for supporting Barack Obama instead of Hillary Clinton.

...

+++

JudyforDean -

Thanks for posting that disturbing piece.

I admire Oprah for all the work that she has done in America (the Angel Network, that along the lines of Habitat for Humanity, has likewise built homes for poor people, AA, white, etc), done in South Africa (built a school for low-income girls).

To have to see her get hate-mail is disgusting. 

Well, 1996 was dubbed the year of AWM (angry white male) --

what about 2008 ?

Paz Peace and Nance Greggs have said it all for me today.

I now quote Phil:

with only two in the race you just need to get every other voter plus one

with three in the race you have to get more than the other two combined to get a majority

to get the nomination you need a majority of the delegates not a plurality

Edwards in the race helps Obama's final chances against Clinton, keeps Edwards own long shot hopes alive, and keeps progressive/populist agendas in the mix, and gives more states more choices

***************************

Unless you BO people are absolutely sure that BO can beat HC in a two way race, what's not to understand about the above?  Majority and plurality are different.  JE keeps HC from getting the majority and the nomination.  And if he ends up kingmaker, he certainly won't support HC.

Am I sure HC would beat BO in a two way match?  No

Am I sure BO would beat HC in a two way match?  No

Do I want to take that chance, with JE outta the race?  No 

As long as he's in, BO stands a better chance of winning the nomination since eventually JE votes go to BO. 

This is not a who's cand is better or not...this is a stop HC measure and a workable one if JE stays in the race.

I'm not asking anyone to agree with me, Joan.  Just making an observation that there are not nearly as many different individuals blogging anymore as there were even a year ago.  Obviously, there are many factors that have gone into this phenomenom, but I would believe that the disgreeable tone that the blog has taken for the past year might be a factor.  When someone as grounded as Phil starts to be drawn into the dirt then, yes, I do believe that there is a problem.

And like anyone else, people agreeing with you would surely make you happy, also.

I'm a white male taking off tomorrow as a holiday. 

IMO MLK holiday is just as important as a holiday as is Thanksgiving -- because I'm "Thank"ful that a Southern Baptist preacher stood up to help make a better America for whites, AAs, Hispanics, American Indians, Asians; for garbage collectors, anti-Vietnam war activists, Appalachian farmers, etc. 

seashell wrote "Paz Peace and Nance Greggs have said it all for me today."

Make sure to drop a line to Edwards with your contribution to let him know you think he is a lightweight with little or no substance, passion or strength, and that you will once again be personally responsible for electing the greater of two evils as you did in 2000.

well, I'm off to watch PBS's Travels in Europe   (I'm too nervous to watch the N E Pats vs S D Chargers game)

For whom else has Paz said it all today?  Just curious.

AMERICA’S favourite television presenter is paying a painful price for her intervention in the US presidential campaign last month. Oprah Winfrey has been dubbed a “traitor” by some of her female fans for supporting Barack Obama instead of Hillary Clinton.

Apparently some people still aren't ready to cope with anything but the traditional selection of  WASP male candidates.

JE keeps HC from getting the majority and the nomination. 

As I pointed out above, he's rapidly becoming as irrelevant as Kucinich. 

And if he ends up kingmaker, he certainly won't support HC.

Who can read a calculating mind?

New England holding and jerking back the arm of the Sandy Eggo receiver in the end zone, who almost held the ball anyway. Any penalty? Nope. One reason I quit watching most football games.

112.

And like anyone else, people agreeing with you would surely make you happy, also.

paz

Of course.

But there were seven candidates to begin with and we did plenty of fighting here about them and the prospect that Al Gore might run too.

Just making an observation that there are not nearly as many different individuals blogging anymore as there were even a year ago.

True, but that observation has been made over a period of four years ever since Dean dropped out of the primary. Many have left, a few come back now and then.

This blog is all but being run by the commenters and by few at DFA. I think given that fact we are hanging in pretty well. I'm still here partly to see what will happen to Howard Dean after Jan. 2008.

I don't know how many remember that Howard campaigned for Obama in 2004 when BO ran for the Senate. Just though I'd throw that in.

Ya'll stay warm and cozy. It seems to be very cold everywhere.

New England holding and jerking back the arm of the Sandy Eggo receiver in the end zone

Leggo my Eggo! 

'Revisiting Martin Luther King's Bowdoin Talk'

Story posted January 07, 2008

"On May 6, 1964, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. came to Bowdoin College to speak about the civil rights movement and the importance of ending segregation and discrimination in America.

[...]

As part of Bowdoin's observance of Martin Luther King Jr. Day and upcoming Black History Month, a recording of the speech can be heard on the Bowdoin Web site. Listen to King's speech here"

[....]

http://tinyurl.com/2rj97j

Obama dropped a depth charge into the presidential nomination campaign with his powerful address at the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta today.  I had the opportunity to see at on C-Span a little while ago.  I presume they will rebroadcast it if it's not available by as a podcast on their website.  Here are just a few excerpts:

"What Dr. King understood is that if just one person chose to walk instead of ride the bus, those walls of oppression would not be moved. But maybe if a few more walked, the foundation might start to shake. If a few more women were willing to do what Rosa Parks had done, maybe the cracks would start to show. If teenagers took freedom rides from North to South, maybe a few bricks would come loose. Maybe if white folks marched because they had come to understand that their freedom too was at stake in the impending battle, the wall would begin to sway. And if enough Americans were awakened to the injustice; if they joined together, North and South, rich and poor, Christian and Jew, then perhaps that wall would come tumbling down, and justice would flow like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream.

"Unity is the great need of the hour – the great need of this hour. Not because it sounds pleasant or because it makes us feel good, but because it’s the only way we can overcome the essential deficit that exists in this country.

" . . . .

"It’s not easy to stand in somebody else’s shoes. It’s not easy to see past our differences. We’ve all encountered this in our own lives. But what makes it even more difficult is that we have a politics in this country that seeks to drive us apart – that puts up walls between us.

"We are told that those who differ from us on a few things are different from us on all things; that our problems are the fault of those who don’t think like us or look like us or come from where we do. The welfare queen is taking our tax money. The immigrant is taking our jobs. The believer condemns the non-believer as immoral, and the non-believer chides the believer as intolerant.

" . . . .

"And yet, if we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that none of our hands are entirely clean. If we’re honest with ourselves, we’ll acknowledge that our own community has not always been true to King’s vision of a beloved community.

"We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them. The scourge of anti-Semitism has, at times, revealed itself in our community. For too long, some of us have seen immigrants as competitors for jobs instead of companions in the fight for opportunity.

"Every day, our politics fuels and exploits this kind of division across all races and regions; across gender and party. It is played out on television. It is sensationalized by the media. And last week, it even crept into the campaign for President, with charges and counter-charges that served to obscure the issues instead of illuminating the critical choices we face as a nation.

"The stories that give me such hope don’t happen in the spotlight. They don’t happen on the presidential stage. They happen in the quiet corners of our lives. They happen in the moments we least expect. Let me give you an example of one of those stories.

"There is a young, 23-year-old white woman named Ashley Baia who organizes for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She’s been working to organize a mostly African American community since the beginning of this campaign, and the other day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.

"And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that’s when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.

"She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.

"She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.

"So Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they’re supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who’s been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he’s there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, 'I am here because of Ashley.'

"By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.

"But it is where we begin. It is why the walls in that room began to crack and shake.

"And if they can shake in that room, they can shake in Atlanta.

"And if they can shake in Atlanta, they can shake in Georgia.

"And if they can shake in Georgia, they can shake all across America. And if enough of our voices join together; we can bring those walls tumbling down. The walls of Jericho can finally come tumbling down. That is our hope – but only if we pray together, and work together, and march together."

123.

Tom

I caught the end of the replay of the Ebenezer Church visit by Obama today, just the signing of We Will Overcome.

C-span didn't indicate whether it would be replayed again, I will be watching and hoping.

Thanks for the info above.

109
"Kucinich is a progressive but too much so to be elected president in this country -- yet!"

Agreed.  Dennis strikes me as the member of Congress most prepared to govern in Star Trek's United Federation of Planets.  I present that forward looking observation as a compliment, not to ridicule him.

In his historical work, Wealth and Democracy, author Kevin Phillips
convincingly likens President Bill Clinton's terms to those of President
"Grover Cleveland during the Gilded Age."  Each of them "showed how a
Democratic chief executive can coexist with and largely accept these
values (elevation of self interest rather than community, and belief in
Darwinian precepts such as survival of the fittest) during a boom era in
which corporate and financial interests predominate."

I think Phillips' point is a very good one.  It coincided with my personal recollections of what Clinton failed to do as opposed to the relatively positive impressions of what he prevented
the Gingrich Contractors from carrying out in their time.

Historically, Presidents must play with the hand they are dealt.  Whatever else Bill Clinton
was, is, wasn't, isn't - he was, and probably still is, an ultimate political warrior.  This primary campaign is developing in a way that suggests if Obama is to win the nomination, he may have to out duel Bill Clinton to get it.  If BHO can do that, he will be a better candidate and President than he otherwise would have been. 

Personally, I think Gore is the person most qualified to be President now.
He isn't going to be and I don't know who places second in the qualifications contest. 

The internecine nature of this primary campaign, reflected in this blog and in other locations, is a real concern for anyone who does not wish to squander this electoral opportunity to begin to repair the damage of Bush/Cheney and to reaffirm that the New Deal was a Good Deal for Americans.

Whichever of the Dem frontrunners secures the nomination, he or she will have enough difficulty convincing the rest of America to elect a President like no other before. 
HD himself has asked us to strongly support the eventual nominee.

The Clintons are not the enemy.  Progressives' best prospects depend on adding more progressive muscle in the Congress and seeing to it that the hand dealt to the next Prez is a progressive one.

RC 

Obama dropped a depth charge into the presidential nomination campaign with his powerful address at the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta today

The depth charge I heard he dropped was in the form of calling the Clinton's to the carpet for the ugly campaign they've been running. 

Stanford (The Voice of King):

http://tinyurl.com/2d9sn8

Fanny Lou Hamer (Obama needs to re-educate himself--it wasn't about Rosa Parks)! As does Billary--LBJ was hardly "kindred" to the AA Civil Rights movement (nor was the Democratic Nat'l Convention). Let's not sugar-coat systemic racism *within* the systemic proclivities of the DNC, folks.

Truthiness rules.

[...]

"In 1963, the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (MFDP) was formed because no help from the Federal Government regarding the right to vote was apparently coming. The party registered 60, 000 new black voters across the state of Mississippi. Delegates from the party were sent to the 1964, Democratic Convention in Atlantic City, New Jersey where they challenged the seating of the Mississippi delegation.

[...]


Fannie Lou told the convention that as a result of this beating, she suffered permanent kidney damage, a blood clot in the artery of her left eye, and a limp when she walked. Her riveting testimony to the convention, which was interrupted by a hastily called speech by President Johnson, informed the country about the treatment blacks were receiving at the hands of whites in the state of Mississippi and the rest of the south."

[....]

"Fanny Lou Hamer. “Testimony,” July 22, 1964.


Occasion: Speech given at the Democratic National Convention in 1964."

http://tinyurl.com/2mzdm6

“But the eyes are blind. One must look with the heart...” 

Antoine de Saint-Exupery 

ttfn 

well, I'm off to watch PBS's Travels in Europe   (I'm too nervous to watch the N E Pats vs S D Chargers game)

>

What?  Dude!

#123

Thank you, Tom. I have tears in my eyes.  Tell me this man is a half-hearted progressive, a talker, a fence sitter, a panderer.  This is someone who gets it, who presents a new paradigm that we desperately need.  

I thought again of my and Phil's disagreement: Barack Obama says that we, the people, have to drive the change.  The other candidates, in my perception, say that they will drive the change, will fight for us, will take on the battle of the downtrodden, the discriminated against.  That's why Barack Obama began to resonate with me.  I began to listen and to hear a real difference.

Just as in the old ways of battles (the war against drugs, the battle to do this and that Obama speaks of a new paradigm of synthesis, of recognizing the commonalities that bring our our best values and still respect the different ways of thinking, believing, working, living, and interacting.

This man is new, folks, look closely.  He is not the same, though he comes closest to Howard Dean who said, "You have the power"; Democracy requires participation, more than just voting: "voting is not enough".

Thanks again, Tom, yes, that's why I hope we'll have the wisdom as a people to reach for a new paradigm, to realize that the old wars and polarities are defunct and bringing only misery and potential catastrophe. 

Live cam

http://www.packers.com/multimedia/live_cams/

http://www.packers.com/

Pat wrote "Thank you, Tom. I have tears in my eyes.  Tell me this man is a half-hearted progressive, a talker, a fence sitter, a panderer.  This is someone who gets it, who presents a new paradigm that we desperately need."

Thanks Pat.  To be candid, I was crying uncontrollably as the speech concluded.  

Finally, I don't need a savior who will fight for me, tell me what to do, carry the burden of leadership and I will follow adoringly.  I need someone who will inspire me to do what I must do, make myself  be the peace while I am living and interacting with people I live with and those with whom I disagree. 

I don't need Hillary Clinton's authoritarianism and grit to protect me and force people to do the right thing.  I don't need John McCain's experience and war record to protect me.  I don't need John Edwards' pledge to fight for me.  This fight belongs to all of us and for too long we've let others do it, expected our leaders to do it, and those with more money to get to them  and got their attention instead of us. 

Green Bay

 2* F / -16.7*C

Me too, Tom.

Pat and Tom, The speech was so much than a speech. My husband and I were speechless (and that rarely happens with me). Incredible.

------
There will be an interview with Obama on ABC's morning show. Obama finally directly confronts the gutter dweller, Bill Clinton.

Tom and Pat

what speech were you guys watching?

I had no idea that anything other than NFL Football was taking place, today.

Isn't today a holiday?  If not, then why is my Packer Angle on display?

Angle s/b angel

Well, I spent the day sewing up a toddler dress and pantaloons with a little lace.  Our daughter brought forth a daughter who likes to dress up.  So, now the grandmothers are competing.  LOL

For a more timely summary of the progress of the NH recount, you need to go here.

I only spent one day in Concord and haven't done any comparison of results.  So far, the consensus seems to be that paper ballots and opti-scanners work fine, as long as there's a random audit that would catch malefactors, if there were any.  An auditable system is only good when it actually gets audited. 

We the people have to drive the change?  What people? The ones who don't vote?  The ones who *drive* big cars?  The ones who vote w/o knowledge?  The ones who would rather watch "American Idol" than Bill Moyers?  The average citizen who doesn't read the papers?  The people who watch FAUX news?  The people who wanted Iraq to end?  The anti-war crowd? 

IMO, and looking at the comings and goings of our electorate will substantiate this - is that the people don't want to drive anything becuz they either are too busy with their stuff, or are working too many jobs, or are busy tending children or are too poor to care, or are sick, jobless, homeless...and we have to factor in apathy.

Maybe the people who let Pelosi keep impeachment off the table will drive the change.

Just how are we going to drive the change?  What the heck does that mean?  

Why aren't ANY of the cands. talking about fascism and stolen elections and Israel and getting outta the ME?

that's it for now.  :-) 

Imn2paine wrote "what speech were you guys watching?"

Obama spoke this morning from Martin Luther King, Jr.'s home church.  It was broadcast this afternoon.  I haven't found a video link for it yet, but the text is available here.

Oh, I see Tom and Pat... 

If a link has not yet posted

from archives:       http://www.c-span.org/videoarchives.asp?CatCodePairs=,

Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), Campaign Event in Atlanta, GA
Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) speaks at a campaign event in the Ebenezer Baptist Church, in Atlanta, Georgia.
1/20/2008: ATLANTA, GA: 45 min.

seashell wrote "Just how are we going to drive the change?  What the heck does that mean?"

You have the power.  

134.

Great comment Pat.

John Edwards Campaigns In St. Louis

Last Edited: Sunday, 20 Jan 2008, 11:32 AM CST
Created: Sunday, 20 Jan 2008, 11:32 AM CST


John Wards Campaigning In St. Louis
MyFoxStLouis Reports

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards electrified a crowd of hundreds at the Carpenters Union Hall in West St. Louis Saturday morning.

"You are looking at a President of the United States who will be as strong for the union movement and organized labor than any president could ever be," said Edwards.

Many of Edwards' supporters are among the state's organized labor force, 34,000 strong. He has already garnered the backing of the Carpenters Union and Steelworkers Union.

"When you are walking that picket line, the one thing that will be true when I am president," said Edwards, "is that nobody no body will walk thru that picket line and take your job away from you."

The Democrat made it clear that the only job he's interested in taking, is George Bush's.

"Suppose we had a President of the United States that actually believes in the Constitution of United States and the Bill of Rights," says Edwards.

Edwards criticized Democratic rivals Senators Clinton and Obama for taking money from special interest and big business. He told supporters that candidates, who do so, cannot effectively make any big changes to the country, and "change" is an idea all three candidates are stumping on.

Edwards talked up everything from enacting universal healthcare to ending the war in Iraq within the first year of his administration. His message was clear, and so was his frustration that some are already calling this a two-candidate race on the democratic side.

"We have two celebrity candidates, 100 million dollars each and the national media seems to want to tell voters what their choices are, and the key for me is to fight through all that," says Edwards. "I am the underdog there is no question about that."
Edwards will continue his campaigning down south.

http://www.myfoxkc.com/myfox/pages/News/...

interception in end zone by san diego.

Linda quoted from the Fox Kansas City site "'You are looking at a President of the United States who will be as strong for the union movement and organized labor than any president could ever be,' said Edwards.

"Many of Edwards' supporters are among the state's organized labor force, 34,000 strong."

Sounds suspiciously like Nevada.

"You are looking at a President of the United States who will be as strong for the union movement and organized labor than any president could ever be," said Edwards.

>

Linda, and all other strong supporters of Edwards, it looks as though the momentum is to Obama and Clinton. 

I would love to see Edwards as the next Sec of Labor.

San Diego punts!

stockholm syndrome here on the blog.

don't give up your principles to the likes of sitka.

in fact he isn't the sitka that used to post long ago.

he has become a troll the likes of robert oler, who left long ago.

don't give up YOUR principles.

Imn2Paine wrote "Linda, and all other strong supporters of Edwards, it looks as though the momentum is to Obama and Clinton." 

If you truly believe this, I'm afraid that you may be accused of seeming to generate from the river of denial.

http://www.c-span.org/

RECENT PROGRAMS >>

Programs 1-10 of 922
Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), Campaign Event in Atlanta, GA
Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) speaks at a campaign event in the Ebenezer Baptist Church, in Atlanta, Georgia.
1/20/2008: ATLANTA, GA: 45 min.

A great video of a Rally

Edwards in Atlanta

Tracy Russo in Georgia
1/20/2008 at 2:45 PM EST

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR9XV2wsL...://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2008/1/20/144557/465

A great video of a Rally

Edwards in Atlanta

Tracy Russo in Georgia
1/20/2008 at 2:45 PM EST

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR9XV2wsL...://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2008/1/20/144557/465

In his final stop today, the candidate will attend the NAACP's annual Martin Luther King, Jr. celebration at Zion Baptist Church in Columbia.

152 Tom

<

Do you intimate that I will be attacked for my sincere comment?

The Palm Beach Post, a longtime major newspaper in Florida, has today endorsed Barack Obama.

There is a shiny brand NEW THREAD!

Touchdown, Patriots!

LOL, linda b

Imn2Paine wrote "Do you intimate that I will be attacked for my sincere comment?"

I hate to break the bad news, but yes.

I was wrong.  JE IS talking about facsm.

Unfortunately, the coup "change" has already happened and we are now a facst state.

HC........would grab her unitary executive powers and continue along the facst path.

BO ...... would try and "negotiate" with facsm...good luck with that.

JE.....would at least try, like Howard, tobust up the corporations who are married to the neo-cons. (facst).

We're prolly toast no matter who wins, since we don't dare talk about facsm in polite circles.  People disappear that way.

A Gore/Dodd or Gore/Dean ticket, IMO, is our only hope.

Kudos to JE for at least identifying the crux of the problem.  .. the marriage of state and corporations....facsm. 

Sorry to disappoint paine, but Tom's the one who attacks, he just doesn't like when I point his failures out.

What's with you, linda b?  I don't recall such vitriol from you before.  What's really bugging you?

Darn, I like you, and this is just something that you didn't do before.  Why now?

 Stockholm syndrome?  What's with that?  Frankly, I don't understand the anger against Obama. I don't see that same irrationality even against Clinton.  Is it racism? Is if at the heart of things that people can't bear the idea of someone who calls himself African American to be president? I honestly don't get it.  It seems to have turned formerly pleasant, fiiendly, tolerant people into monsters of name calling, judging, and labeling.  Is this what's in the dark heart of this country?

Sorry for all the typos in my posts.  My fingers just aren't patient, and I make mistakes and don't catch them

Is it at the heart of things....

formerly pleasant, friendly, ... 

Problems are just opportunities, Tom. 

Opportunities to provide helpful smelling salts.

Linda wrote "Sorry to disappoint paine, but Tom's the one who attacks, he just doesn't like when I point his failures out."

The tide on the River of Denial is rising.  Ths thread's become waterlogged.

Imn2Paine "Problems are just opportunities, Tom."

Well, to be accurate, Edwards supporters are normal and you seem to generate from the river of denial.

Obama didn't cry himself but he did bring tears to the eyes of some people today:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080120/pl_afp/usvote2008obama_080120221259

Obama urges unity in rousing speech at King's church

by Alain Jean-Robert

16 minutes ago

ATLANTA, Georgia (AFP) -

...

Speaking to hundreds of people at Atlanta's Ebenezer Baptist Church in the southeastern state of Georgia, where King launched the civil rights movement, Obama evoked the ongoing racial and ideological divide in America.

"We have walls, barriers to justice and equality that must come down," Obama said as King's sister Christine listened and nodded from her spot in a front pew.

...

Some worshippers -- who spilled outside the tiny red brick church and braved frigid temperatures to watch the speech on large screens -- sang "We shall overcome," and wiped tears from their eyes at the end of the speech.

...

Linda NM

Sorry, it just doesn't look good for John E

I would love to see the three fight it out until the convention, but ...

OK, Tom.

Poor Tom, I must get under your skin. But appreciate how much imporantce I seem to carry with you.

Lets see, Tom wrote:Your points seem sensible to me, but Linda and Phil are Edwards supporters, so normal logic doesn't seem to have the same influence on them.

Linda wrote:Your sarcasm ever present, still you should have stated correctly, being we are normal and you seem to generate from the river of denial.

Thank you for pointing out your logic to know why you claim I would be attacking.

Linda" Poor Tom, I must get under your skin. But appreciate how much imporantce I seem to carry with you."

Yes, you really bother me.  Your appreciation is gratefully acknowledged.

Paine, it is a shame John Edwards isn't a Front runner, But things change, as they always do, so anything can happen. Appreciate your support.

My pleasure Linda.

-1.0*F

5:02CST

My pleasure, Linda. 

FBI files on MLK:

http://tinyurl.com/2lmbz9

"162. seashell :-):

A Gore/Dodd or Gore/Dean ticket, IMO, is our only hope."

Reality check time.

Dean is DNC Chair, Dodd is still a Senator/withdrew (fight like hell in the Senate--it needs all the help it can get!); and Gore is NOT running, seashell (occupied elsewhere).

As of today, three are still in the race (viable, and running out of $$$, pronto--see burnrates upthread).

That's it. Three (see delegate counts upthread fmi).

I don't care for any of 'em (not at all "progressive"); however, we don't always get what we want in this life.

A.B.H.

150.

Does anyone else find it sad and bad that linda b only drops in to smear me?

it is a shame John Edwards isn't a Front runne

In 5 years as a candidate he's never been one. Welcome to Klub Kucinich.

Seashell....

That indeed is the question. will it be the rainbow chasers? Great question.

Pat ....163

Yes, you do make mistakes, and that post was one of them.

Carefully the accusation was not precise, but the intent was clear. Linda hasn't changed, nor have the rest of us "racist monsters who live in the dark heart of our country". How dare you?

I think this teary Obama enlightenment has gone a little over the edge.

I watched his speech, he puts on a good performance, but that's all it was. Nobofy hates your candidate that's something in your own mind, for whatever reason.

#182,

 I dared, Audrey, because I don't understand  what has happened to the tenor of discussion.  When there is this kind of accusation and vitriol, something is really amiss.

Why do you think "this teary Obama enlightenment has gone a little over the edge"?  See what I mean about sarcasm, dismissal, characterization (we are all deceived, maudlin dupes, etc.)?

This wasn't typical of you  nor others.  Why? What's going on here? Yes, I dare to ask the question and I dare to say that I think it's awful, it's not necessary, it's destructive, it's so angry that I don't have any idea how even to address it.

But, that's my response, and if there's no new knowledge coming from this exchange, let's just agree to be mutually dismayed. 

Pat....

You didn't innocently "just ask a question". Are you enamored of your words? You need to go back and read some of them and pretend you're on the receiving end. Dismay mode.

My questions:

"What's with you, linda b?  I don't recall such vitriol from you before.  What's really bugging you?

Darn, I like you, and this is just something that you didn't do before.  Why now?

 Stockholm syndrome?  What's with that?  Frankly, I don't understand the anger against Obama. I don't see that same irrationality even against Clinton.  Is it racism?"

 Yes, I'm enamored with words, sometimes my own.  Again, why the insult?  

I have been on the receiving end.  

Dismayed mode agreed. 

Pat...

You point to an imaginary anger that others have against your candidate, and then throw in "Is it racist?"

I have a long history of working with and associating with black people. What about you?

So, you'll have to answer is it racist? Maybe you need to take a look inside and ask if it's Racist guilt?

No, I'm pretty sure I'm not racist.  That's maybe just luck or the privilege of working with other ethnic groups as well. I have worked with other ethnic groups: Samoan, African American, Chinese, Latino, Native American, Cambodian, Vietnamese etc. for most of my teaching life.  It has been a privilege and a wealth in my life, probably the high point.

When the second grader told me that i wasn't his teacher because I was white and white people ate little black children, I had to look at my arm to see what color it was.

No, I"m lots of things, but probably not racist because I don't even believe in race.  It's a phony concept.  

You haven't asnwered my question.  Why the anger?  It's not imaginary, Audrey.  Look at the insults, the posts, over and over.  The name calling: rainbow chasers for one.  Calling Obama names, lots of names from someone who is just talk, who has no substance, to who doesn't know who he is. There's been nothing comparable with respect toHillary or John Edwards.  I don't get it.

You haven't been generally insulting, nor has Linda b.  But, frankly you and others  have been repeatedly lately . I don't know why. What has changed the tenor?  

I've never asked that question before, is it racism.  But, I am asking it now.  What is the anger against Obama and those who support him? Why?  

Going to watch The Wire now on HBO about the inner city of Maryland.  It's an amazing show.

Thanks for the reply at least, Audrey.  It wasn't insulting.  It didn't answer my question, but it was at least civil, a dialogue, not a prounouncement and sarcasm.

If you want to reply, I'll check back in after The Wire. 

Is it racism? Is if at the heart of things that people can't bear the idea of someone who calls himself African American to be president? I honestly don't get it. It seems to have turned formerly pleasant, fiiendly, tolerant people into monsters of name calling, judging, and labeling. Is this what's in the dark heart of this country?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Within the week, rdorgan asked me if I was racist because I used the "word" "Iffin" ~~ Never in my life has any ever asked that or implied in any way that I was racist. He basically did it, as nearly, as I can figure, because supporting Obama, he could. I definitely over-reacted. But it still stings.

I would like my grandson, who is black, in his lifetime to see a black president. Just as I would like to see a woman president. I simply don't happen to believe the two who are running this year are the best choices.

I remember too clearly this blog screaming BETRAYAL as Obama took his seat and began voting. Cries that he'd taken our money, our endorsement, and was doing us dirty. I remember also at the time Robert laughing himself silly at the outrage displayed here. And at us. He'd be delighted to see the amnesia displayed here, lol!

As for me and my house: VOTE GORE!

Pat....

For the most part you haven't been iistening. I don't care what anyone says about Edwards, I might respond if I think they are incorrect.

What I care about is if someone says anything about Obama, the question of race is raised.
It's like when someone criticized Bush, the Repugs all came out and made accusations of "You just hate Bush", therefor your criticism is irrational. Nobody wants to be accused of just hating, so the Repugs
stem the tide of criticism.

From the very beginning of the campaign, if someone questioned anything about Obama, they were immediately confronted and asked why they hated Obama.

This is Howards' blog, there are no racists here
so, why the hate and racist buzz words? Can you see why someone might think it is a Rovian tactic to squelch criticism?

So, there is the clue, stop accusing people of hate and racism and they will be unlikely to complain about it.

Puddle....189

Excellent point about the betrayal. I guess I feel major disappointment about him.

http://www.blogforamerica.com/view/23572...

New Thread

Well, I guess I have no answers.  I wasn't aware that people were screaming racism if someone disagreed with Obama, though Puddle, I do remember the comment when you used dialect.

I honestly don't recall anyone except me asking the racism question tonight, oh, I did accuse Seashell of making anti Jewish, racist and anti religious remarks, but that had been going on for a long time.  Hmmm.  

What I've been aware of is the name calling, the sarcasm, the kind of hysterical remark that linda b made about Stockholm syndrome and Sitka being paid by the Republican party.

Maybe, I need to get off the blog.  I don't like the tones much.  If you all feel betrayed by Obama, there's nothing I can say to change that.  I personally feel he has extrordinary potential.  I want a thinker, a philosopher, someone who will unite, who won't make the kinds of statements that Howard made and give the impression he is radical, angry, and partisan.  I love Howard Dean and what he does and is, but in restropsect, I don't think he could have been elected president because there was in the media and in the minds of the average American that he was angry and out of control.

I want a new paradigm thinker. The old ways of confrontation, anger, demands haven't worked, but that's me. 

Edwards is being compared to William Jennings Bryan, a fiery orator who was not elected president. While I don't doubt his passion or sincerity, I don't think that he'll be the nominee, though I could be wrong.

 So, Audrey and Puddle, I apologize if you thought I was calling you rascist.  I wasn't. I was asking the question that does this anger come from rascism, and I'm not convinced one way or the other that racism isn't a factor here. In my opinion there's been constant sarcasm and denigration of Obama. Sitka has refuted statementsabout Edwards with wit mostly.  I just don't see that Edwards' followers have been called rainbow chasers, maudlin, and other names.

So, I'm off.  Puddle, I think so much of you and am grateful for the beauty you bring, and Audrey, I've liked you also.  You seem to bring a willingness to talk, to understand.  I can't say the same for everyone.  So, it seems that as I've perceived sarcasm and anger, I've been angry about it.

I'm off for a while.  Guess a cooling down is necessary. 

 aargh racist, racism, can't even spell it.

Pat.....

Don't stay away too long.

Pat, no. I in no way thought you were calling me a racist. You are one of the most globally loving peeps on this blog!

But, as cC pointed out, I do use my local (West Virginia) dialect all the time. And have since I started blogging, both here and at other blogs.

Hope you don't stay away too long: you have one of the most loving and sane voices here.