Why Not Just Label Yourself an Ignorant, Racist Ass?

The ignorance and bigotry of some Americans is both shocking and embarrassing, as illustrated by the individuals with the sign in the photo above. Why not place a sign on your forehead that states "I'm an idiot," "I'm a moron," or "I'm a bigot"? Apparently such folks are so stupid and uninformed that the whole Rev. Wright affair and Obama's CHRISTIAN CHURCH membership went over their heads. I guess they would also believe the old Nazi propaganda against Jews and believe the Christianist claims that all gays are child molesters too. These voters also show how demagogues Rush Limbaugh - and now Hillary and Bill Clinton - are able to influence these idiots. These folks should do the nation a favor and STAY HOME on election day. For democracy to work, an educated and informed electorate are essential. These folks are apparently neither by any standard. Here are a couple of e-mails Andrew Sullivan reports having received about Obama:

*
This guy is a muslim trying to take over religion, rights, gunns, and lastly our country.

*

Does anyone remember 911. He's cunning and a racists. He is connected with dirty money and bad connections in the rest of the world.

*

The irony, of course is that it is Bill Clinton that is connected with dirty money and who has bad connections in the rest of the world, not Obama.

"Saturday Night Live's" Message From Hillary Clinton: "I Have No Ethical Standards"

Saturday Night Lives calls it correctly

Obama Now Takes The Lead in Superdelegates Too

While the methods of counting superdelegate support vary, ABC News for the first time is stating that Obama has moved ahead of Hillary Clinton in this key area. As the momentum picks up, I suspect he will move into a much more substantial lead. Once again, in my view, Hillary needs to withdraw now and go out garciously and with class - something the Clintons are not know for. A gracious exit would benefit the Deocratic Party and which would potentially position HRC for leading roles in the U.S. Senante or perhaps even a nomination to the Supreme Court down the road. The question is, will she face reality and do the right thing? Here are highlights from ABC News:

*

ABC News' Karen Travers Reports: For the first time this campaign season, Barack Obama has surpassed Hillary Clinton's support among superdelegates, according to the ABC News delegate estimate. Sen. Obama, D-Ill., picked up two superdelegates this morning giving him a new metric to tout in addition to his current commanding leads in pledged delegates, popular votes, states won, and money raised.

*
Rep. Donald Payne, D-N.J., switched his endorsement from Clinton to Obama and Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., endorsed Obama. DeFazio was previously uncommitted. With these endorsements, Obama has the support of 267 superdelegates and Clinton has 265 superdelegates.

*

Despite several rough weeks on the campaign trail, Obama has maintained momentum in picking up superdelegates. Obama has outpaced Clinton at every marker of this campaign since Super Tuesday -- after the controversial comments of Rev. Wright came out, after Clinton’s big win in Pennsylvania and after the Indiana and North Carolina primaries.

Shameless Pandering

New York Magazine has an interesting story that conjectures that Hillary's shameless pandering to voters on the gasoline tax holiday may have been part of her undoing in Indiana. Hillary has consistently demonstrated that she will say and do anything to further her megalomaniac quest for power. It is one reason I cannot stand her - one needs to have some basic level of principle in my view besides "it's all about me" and "I want this, so I should have it." Perhaps even less sophisticated voters who are not daily news and political junkies saw through Hillary this time. I again have to wonder what precisely Hillary has gotten from her vastly expensive consultants - other than bad advice. Here are some story highlights:

*

It’s easy to see why Clinton was tempted to hop aboard the Pander Express, once John McCain floated the idea of suspending the federal gas tax of 18.4 cents a gallon for the summer. Giving some badly needed relief to truckers, farmers, and vacationers fit right in with the hash-slinger-in-a–Wal Mart–pantsuit image Hillary honed in Ohio, perfected in Pennsylvania, and was deploying all over Indiana. And when Obama derided the idea by saying it would only save consumers “pennies,” he seemed to be handing the Clintons one more opportunity to portray him as an out-of-touch elitist.

*
But as things turned out, when Hillary called for suspending the gas tax, she threw Obama the kind of rope he desperately had been seeking to pull himself out of the Wright train wreck. Wright screwed Obama as hard as any noncandidate has ever screwed an American presidential contender. And even after counterattacking and distancing himself from his former pastor, Obama was noticeably off his game. But the gas tax became a rare instance where Clinton and Obama directly and diametrically opposed each other on a policy issue, automatically generating headlines and coverage that helped push Wright out of the local news in Indiana.

*
Further, the gas tax turned the national media against Hillary over the weekend, because the Clinton campaign hadn’t bothered to line up (or just couldn’t find) a single expert to support suspending the tax. That left Clinton herself and surrogates like Senator Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) insulting economists on national television, which looked ridiculous. It also left the media free to report the story without trying to be evenhanded and essentially to tell viewers that suspending the tax is a stupid idea.

*
Most importantly, the new debate let Obama rediscover his voice. . . . And he took full advantage. Six days ago, Obama introduced the single most brilliant ad of the Indiana campaign, called “Truth.” And, palpably relieved at the partial change of subject, he incorporated a detailed denunciation of the gas-tax suspension into his stump speech, in which he hit full stride again on Monday night.

The Day After

Pretty much anyone who is not on drugs or delusional is finally figuring it out that its over for Hillary's campaign. True, out of meanness, an ego and sense of entitlement that knows no limits, and a refusal to accept the hand writing on the wall, she will likely persist a while longer, spreading nastiness wherever she goes. But hopefully, the superdelegates will find some balls and tell her point blank that it's over and she needs to hang it up. The American citizenry is suffering from Clinton fatigue and wants both Hillary and Bill to fade away. Change is afoot and they are not the agents of change wanted and needed. Bob Felton at Civil Commotion has a good analysis of this reality, although I do not agree with some of his views on where Obama will lead us. Here are some of Bob's comments I agree with:

*

Between Barack Obama’s shellacking of Hillary Clinton in North Carolina, and her razor-thin margin in Indiana, there is now all but universal agreement to the prediction I made months ago: Barack Obama will be the Democrats’ nominee. We don’t know when or how evil-tempered will be Hillary’s withdrawal, but there can no longer be any serious question that she is finished. That’s the good news — but it’s not an unmixed blessing.

*
The pathologically nasty politics perfected by James Carville and exemplified by the Clintons’ has been rejected, and rejected decisively. Good. Our public life has been fouled for too long by their cynical, Goebbels-like, shout-loudest dishonesties. Invariably, however, propagandists come to believe their own lies — and that is, just as invariably, the thing which undoes them. They fail to recognize that propaganda does not persuade anybody, that what it does is serve as a lens that focuses already-latent discontents.

*

The malcontents exploited by the Clintons, and their doppelgangers on the right, will remain discontented and susceptible — but the meaning of Hillary’s defeat is that the discontents of the majority are now focused on the propagandists and noisemakers themselves. Obama was first to recognize that, and has exploited it with extraordinary skill, with the result that the efforts to slime him according to the now-standard Carville play book have done him no injury while furthering irritation at the Clintons et. al.

*
The noisemakers understand clearly that there is something afoot in the public mood, and they understand clearly that the locus of the threat to their cynical manipulations is Barack Obama, and that is why the noisemakers of the left and the noisemakers of the right have so easily joined hands to trash him. Their business — Sharpton, Jackson, Limbaugh, Hannity, on and on — is keeping simpletons unbalanced with rage, and Obama threatens the good times. So they will ramp-up their already-cynical, noisy, and dishonest attacks on Obama and, probably … elect him, because they just can’t ‘get,’ or accept, that disgust with them is Obama’s secret, right-out-in-plain-sight weapon.

North Carolina Primary Results

I am watching the primary returns with my friends Martin and Christopher in the offices of Equal Spaces, P. C., their architecture firm, on CNN, which is not my favorite channel. Lanny Davis from the Clinton campaign, who in my opinion is little better than a lying whore, just finished talking in an effort to spin for Hillary. Get me my barf bag!! The more I hear from the Clinton campaign, the more disingenuous they appear. The returns so far show that Hillary is continuing to lag behind, yet she is such a self-centered egomaniac that she will likely never willingly concede defeat. It is ALL about her and Slick Willie's egos and sense of entitlement no matter how much harm they do to the Democratic Party or the country. I truly hope the final returns will force the superdelegates to declare for Obama and drive a much needed stake through Hillary's heart to kill the monster. A few silver bullets and some wolfbane and garlic might not be a bad idea either. Here are some highlights from America Blog and Andrew Sullivan, repectively, that echo my thoughts:

*

First, John's comments: "Her only way to win is to bring it to the convention."- Rachel Maddow, May 6, 2008. Oh but don't tell Hillary that. She's on TV right now saying that she's staying in race. She's claiming that she won Indiana - and that's not at all clear. She's begging for donations so that she can stay in the race and continue to maim Obama. Her plan is obvious. She wants to so hurt Obama that he loses in the fall, that way she can run again in 2012 against President McCain, the man she's about to put into office.Enough already. I can't think of a better way to tell Hillary that it's over, that she has lost, that she is now simply doing harm to our nominee and our party, than to make a big fat donation to Barack Obama for President. Click the blue box to the left and make your donation to Senator Obama.Remember how after Pennsylvania Hillary claimed to have raised millions, and she and the media used that to "prove" that somehow Pennsylvania "changed everything"? Well, nothing changed. And tonight, Hillary is reeling after having lost North Carolina in a rout (that's ABC's word), and all the pundits are saying that she is in big trouble after not being able to win Indiana by a landslide.

*

Next, Andrew's thoughts:

*

No Democrat can win the White House without black votes - and a lot of them. And yet, Clinton has gone backwards fast in this segment for the past three months. . . . And while Obama has done solidly - and increasingly well - among white voters, Clinton's black support has cratered. Judging from my email in-tray, black voters are actually incensed and deeply disillusioned by the tactics of both Clintons. Bill has gone from being viewed as the first black president to being persona non grata and playing up his white Bubba act in rural counties. This is a fatal weakness in a Democratic candidate. And Hillary Clinton is now a fatally wounded politician.

The Obama Revolution

Andrew Sullivan has a great analysis of what Barack Obama has done in terms of turning the old political donor system upside down and in the process creating a new sense of participation and empowerment on the part of everyday citizens. Naturally, the old powers that be - including Bill and Hillary Clinton - do not like this new reality. It makes backroom deals and inflated influence on the part of party insiders and large donors far more difficult. In my view, this is a good thing and, like Andrew, I agree that thinking Democrats should embrace the change and push aside Hillary's posioned Kool-Aid. Here are Andrew's comments:

*

$1.5 Million. That's how many people have now donated to Obama. No one has ever come close to this in history. And it was done by the Internet, destroying the power of major donors to control a candidate, empowering so many to make a difference and altering the face of campaign finance for ever. And yet the Democrats are seriously considering rebuking this astonishing achievement in favor of an old nepotistic pol whose campaign, when it hasn't been incompetent and complacent, has been straight from the Rove playbook.

*

Any Democrat who spurns this achievement is destroying their own party, and its future. This has been a revolutionary campaign already. Because it has been built as much from below as from above. And because it has brought so many to believe in their country and its politics again. I don't care if I am thereby tarred as an Obama kool-aid drinker. The facts remain, and one day, the MSM will absorb them.

Possible Clinton Ties to North Carolina "Ro-bo Calls" Targeting Blacks

With North Carolina leaning strongly towards Barack Obama in the upcoming primary, it is distressing to learn that "ro-bo calls" and bogus voter registration packets targeting blacks are being used to disseminate misleading information with an apparent goal of surpressing the black vote. The obvious beneficiary of such an effort which migh reduce the number of blacks voting in the upcoming primary is Hillary Clinton who is proving more and more that she will say and do anything to win no matter how low and disgusting. At the rate she is going, the Chimperator will look principled before it's all over. Who cares if she destroys the Democratic Party - not Hillary. It's all about Hillary and Slick Willie. Facing South has a story that exposes the operatives behind the calls and their possible ties to Hillary Clinton. Do we really want another unsrupulous president after Bush? I don't. Here are some story highlights:

*

Who's behind the mysterious "robo-calls" that have spread misleading voter information and sown confusion and frustration among North Carolina residents over the last week?Facing South has confirmed the source of the calls, and the mastermind is Women's Voices Women Vote, a D.C.-based nonprofit which aims to boost voting among "unmarried women voters."What's more, Facing South has learned that the firestorm Women's Voices has ignited in North Carolina isn't the group's first brush with controversy. Women's Voices' questionable tactics have spawned thousands of voter complaints in at least 11 states and brought harsh condemnation from some election officials for their secrecy, misleading nature and likely violations of election law.

*

First, a quick recap: As we covered yesterday, N.C. residents have reported receiving peculiar automated calls from someone claiming to be "Lamont Williams." The caller says that a "voter registration packet" is coming in the mail, and the recipient can sign it and mail it back to be registered to vote. No other information is provided.

*

The call is deceptive because the deadline has already passed for mail-in registrations for North Carolina's May 6 primary. Also, many who have received the calls -- like Kevin Farmer in Durham, who made a tape of the call that is available here -- are already registered. The call's suggestion that they're not registered has caused widespread confusion and drawn hundreds of complaints, including many from African-American voters who received the calls.

*

The calls have been denounced by the N.C. State Board of Elections, as well as by voter advocacy groups including Democracy North Carolina, which called them "another in a long line of deceptive practices used in North Carolina and elsewhere that particularly target African-American voters." Yesterday, I placed a call to the Virginia State Police, which had investigated similar suspicious robo-calls before that Virginia's primaries last February. Their investigation concluded that the source of the calls was Women's Voices Women Vote.

*

Some have also questioned the ties between Women's Voices operatives and Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton. Gardner, for example, contributed $2,500 to Clinton's HILLPAC on May 4, 2006, and in March 2005 she donated a total of $4,200 to Clinton, according to The Center for Responsive Politics' OpenSecrets.org. She has not contributed to the Obama campaign, according to the database. Women's Voices Executive Director Joe Goode worked for Bill Clinton's election campaign in 1992 as a pollster; the group's website says he was intimately involved in "development and implementation of all polling and focus groups done for the presidential primary and general election campaigns" for Clinton. Women's Voices board member John Podesta, former Chief of Staff for President Bill Clinton, donated $2,300 to Hillary Clinton on April 19, 2007, according to OpenSecrets.org. Podesta also donated $1,000 to Barack Obama in July 2004, but that was well before Obama announced his candidacy for president.

*

Democracy North Carolina's Bob Hall tells Facing South . . . At this moment, our first priority is to stop the robo-calls and prevent the chaos and potential disenfranchisement caused by this group sending 276,000 packets of registration forms into North Carolina a few days before a heated primary election. We need their immediate cooperation."

Thoughts on the Pennsylvania Results

T o say I am disappointed is an understatement. I wanted a strong enough showing for Obama to knock the bitch out of the race. I am beyond sick of the Clintons. If Hillary continues the slash and burn tactics of Karl Rove at his worse, I honestly believe she is guaranteeing defeat for the Democrats in November. Of course, she could care less as long as her ego is satisfied. She is engaging in precisely the type of campaign that will make young voters (like my youngest daughter), blacks and former moderate Republicans (the majority of my extended family) stay home or vote for McCain out of disgust. And, yes I got an e-mail from my 80 year mother who had watched the returns and was not happy. There's one older white woman vote Hillary will NEVER get. Andrew Sullivan has a great assessment of Hillary and what is happening here:

*

But she won't leave. She will never leave. Ceding to someone younger is unthinkable to her. It's a form of death for her.

*
But here's what she does have: total shamelessness, and an absolute belief that she is the rightful nominee. Shamelessness: the appropriation of the message and even the words of her opponent; the portrayal of one of the most privileged and advantaged candidates in memory as an insurgent underdog; the eager embrace of the tactics - and message! - of the Rove right if it could help in any way; the picture of a candidate who saw a 20 - 25 point lead dissipate into single figures as a candidate for momentum. What sustains her is this deep, deep sense of entitlement and an absolute refusal to let the next generation take over. She will take this to the last day of the convention if necessary.

*
If Obama thinks he has a right to actually be nominated by the Clinton Democrats because he has won more votes, more states and more delegates, he is sadly mistaken. They will never let such a person win without a death struggle. And that is where the Democrats are now headed.

*

I find Hillary utterly loathsome. Lets hope stories break soon on Billary and dirty money or a bimbo erruption with Bill.

It's All About Me - The Hell With the Party

For some time now I have believed that Hillary Clinton is willing to destroy the Democrat Party if she cannot have her way and be the Perty nominee. If she willing to put her self interest/egomania ahead of the interests of her Party, will she do the same to the country if she were to be elected president. Based on her husband's tenure, I think the safe bet is a resounding "YES." With Bill and Hillary, it is ALWAYS about them. The almost obscene amount of money they have raked in since Bill Clinton left office is but one example. As this Wall Street Journal story indicates, some in the Democrat Part y are waking up to Hillary's true ruthlessness and indifference for the Party's welfare. I truly hope today's primary results will force her from the race. Neither the Party nor the country can afford any more of Hillary self-centered agenda. Here are some highlights:

*

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton unveiled new negative television ads and attacked each other personally from the stump this weekend ahead of Tuesday's Pennsylvania primary, stoking more worries among Democrats that the party's eventual nominee will head into the general election badly damaged. The rising vitriol is prompting more Democrats to demand that party leaders do something to end the battle.

*

[S]ome party leaders are quietly planning to try to end the clash, said people familiar with the matter. After the primaries end in June, these influential Democrats -- led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- plan to push the last uncommitted party leaders to endorse a candidate, in hopes of preventing a fight at the August presidential convention, party insiders say.

*

While the Clinton camp insisted its volleys are in response to the Obama side's attacks, polls indicate Sen. Clinton comes in for more blame. "I'm really sick of it," says Mary Vilter, a 50-year-old Paoli, Pa., lawyer who initially supported Sen. Clinton but will vote for Sen. Obama.

*

The party leaders' aim: To thwart the Clinton campaign's vow to fight all summer long to a final, nationally televised round at the Denver convention, so the party can get on with the battle against the likely Republican candidate, Arizona Sen. John McCain. Convention fights in past decades -- notably in 1968, 1972 and 1980 -- left deep divisions that contributed to the nominees' losses and hurt lesser candidates on the ballots.

*

With Democrats protective of the House and Senate majorities just won in 2006, "Do you think for one minute that Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid will allow this fight to go on and on and on?" says Donna Brazile, an uncommitted superdelegate as an official of the Democratic National Committee, and manager of the 2000 Gore campaign. "There's a group around [Sen. Clinton] that really wants to take the fight to the convention. They don't care about the party. It scares me, and that's what scares a lot of superdelegates."

*

But come June 4, Mrs. Pelosi's Capitol suite could become the closest thing Democrats have to the proverbial smoke-filled room as she presses her members to endorse. The 233 House Democrats comprise nearly 30% of the superdelegates, and several scores remain uncommitted. Mrs. Pelosi will remain neutral, aides say, since as Speaker she will preside over the Aug. 25-28 convention. But Clinton advisers say they're convinced she favors Sen. Obama.

Hillary Clinton - Anti-Feminist

I spoke last night by telephone with my mother and as is the norm in my family, part of the conversation drifted to politics and her wish that Hillary would get out of the campaign for president. In fact, she said she's so sick of hearing about Hillary and/or clips of her speaking that she has cut back on watching TV news programs. She just wishes Hillary would go away and again commented about other former Republicans who would vote for McCain rather than Hillary.

*

While never a militant feminist, as the youngest of three daughters, my mother was raised by her dad as if she were the son he never had, for many years had her own career - plus significant assets of her own - and was never the meek house wife completely dominated by "the man of the house." She would and did put my father in his place. Perhaps she should have done it more often, but Tammy Wynette she wasn't. Thus, I think she typifies many older women in the voting pool. And her views are much like those of Camille Paglia based on Paglia's column in today's Daily Telegraph entitled "Why women shouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton."

*

In many ways Paglia is right on point. Hillary makes use of the feminist mantra, but in fact acts quite the opposite - particularly in staying married to sleaze boy, Slick Willie. A number of my female friends still back Hillary because "she's one of us." Truth be told, she's not, but they cannot see it and do not want to hear it explained to them. Perhaps coming from another woman, the criticisms will sink in. Here are some column highlights:

*

All women, on pain of excommunication from the feminist claque, must now support Hillary. Never mind her spotty record or her naked political expediency. Any woman with the temerity to endorse Barack Obama (as I do) is condemned as a "traitor" to her sex. "Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life," trumpeted Steinem earlier this year in an article promoting Hillary in the New York Times. Barriers of race, class or economics are waved away as mere frippery.

*

Hillary's voter base consists of middle-aged to elderly white women who identify with her caustic, stubborn, bulldog resilience. Humiliated and upstaged by her philandering husband, Hillary is the champion of an army of women who were stymied, betrayed or outmanoeuvred by men. Over the past year, whenever her cowed male opponents mildly rebutted Hillary in debate, her campaign jumped into über-feminist mode: male bullies, they screeched, "ganging up" on a helpless damsel.

*

Losing ground with other core groups - notably her own cohort of upper-middle-class, baby-boom career woman - Hillary played the gender card to the max. When polling showed she had seemed too harsh to the caucus-goers of Iowa, she rolled out teary eyes for New Hampshire, which handed her a primary victory. Hillary will scratch, claw, and morph through every gender trick if it rakes in votes.

*

Whatever her official feminist credo, Hillary's public career has glaringly been a subset to her husband's success. Despite her reputation for brilliance, she failed the Washington, DC bar exam. Thus her migration to Little Rock was not simply a selfless drama for love; she was fleeing the capital where she had hoped to make her mark. In Little Rock, every role that Hillary played was obtained via her husband's influence - from her position at the Rose Law Firm to her seat on the board of Wal-Mart to her advocacy for public education reform.

*

The argument, therefore, that Hillary's candidacy marks the zenith of modern feminism is specious. Feminism is not well served by her surrogates' constant tactic of attributing all opposition to her as a function of entrenched sexism. Well into her second term as a US Senator, Hillary lacks a single example of major legislative achievement. Her career has consisted of fundraising, meet-and-greets and speeches around the world expressing support for women's rights.

*

She's a crucifix-wearing, Methodist do-gooder who confidently thinks she's God's agent. There's no room for random eroticism in her calendar. . . . Hillary's recent remarks about politics as a "boys' club" resistant to uppity women was sheer demagoguery. By progressing farther than any woman presidential candidate, she has become a role model for future aspirants. But by attaching herself so blatantly to anti-male rhetoric - particularly in view of her debt to her husband - she is espousing a retrograde brand of feminism no longer applicable to the US.

Philadelphia Daily News Endorses Obama

The Philadelphia Daily News has endorsed Barack Obama for the April 22, 2008 Pennsylvania Primary. As I have stated a number of times, Obama is not perfect, but he represents in my view the best chance for the nation to move forward in a new direction in the future. Hillary, despite her claims to the contrary, would gurantee a return to the worse aspects of the 1990's - constant partisan attacks and no doubt countless bimbo erruptions or worse from Bill Clinton - without a chance of making need changes. The country needs someone who can be a uniter. Hillary will only bring division and rancor. Here are highlights from the Daily New's endorsement:

THE CHOICE in Tuesday's Democratic presidential primary is not only the one between a white woman and a black man. It's a choice between the past and the future. More specifically, the nation must decide how to face the future racing toward us in the form of slumping home sales, unstable financial markets and increased joblessness - and staring at us from the Green Zone in Iraq and the beds at veterans hospitals.

This is a campaign that really began six years ago, on Sept. 11, 2001. Not only was the U.S. attacked and seriously wounded, it did not bounce back the way "the land of the free and home of the brave" should have. In fact, it still suffers from post-traumatic stress.

Contrary to Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign slogan, we believe Barack Obama is more likely to be "ready on Day One" to lead us in a new direction. Because of his experience.

Sure, Clinton has more "experience" of a sort. For one thing, she has 14 more years on earth. How much of this experience is directly applicable to the job of president is, at best, debatable.
We are frankly troubled by her assumption that her husband's administration and accomplishments were her own. And if her equation holds, that the first spouse is an equal partner in the administration, then the reappearance of Bill Clinton in the White House is a prospect we have a hard time reconciling with the work that needs to be done.

THERE IS a way to match Clinton's and Obama's performances on a relatively equal playing field: their campaigns. A candidate's campaign may be the best indicator of how she or he will govern. If so, an Obama administration would be well-managed, inclusive and astonishingly broad-based. It would make good use of technology and communicate a message of unity and, yes, hope.

It would not be content with eking out slim victories by playing to the narrow interests of the swing voters of the moment while leaving the rest of the country as deeply divided as ever. Instead, an Obama administration would seek to expand the number of Americans who believe that they have a personal stake in our collective future - and that they have the power to change things.

Obama's unprecedented appeal to younger voters is significant not only because it expands the electorate, which is vital. It's also a validation of his promise as a president to be free of the baby-boomer/Vietnam/segregation-era hangups. Younger people are more egalitarian, more accepting of diversity, and more comfortable with rapid change. They also are less confined by old resentments or regrets. AND AN OBAMA administration would lower the tone of the rhetoric that separates us. Most candidates claim that they will change the way business is done in Washington. Barack Obama has made us believe that, yes, he can.

Nearly 6 in 10 Say Hillary is Not Honest and Trustworthy

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll reveals that nearly six in 10 surveyed said that she [Hillary] is not honest and trustworthy. And now, compared with Obama, Clinton has a deep trust deficit among Democrats, trailing him by 23 points as the more honest. My only question is: what took them so long to figure out what they should have known even before Hillary announced her campaign? The Clintons have always been challenged when truth and veracity are involved. The recent flaps over Hillary's rewriting the history of her trip to Bosnia, her false account of a pregnant woman who died, and her depiction of herself as a beer drinking, gun toting, Bible reader have only demonstrated what was in my opinion always in plain view if one but looked for it. Increasingly, her campaign looks like an example for future candidates of how NOT to run a campaign. Her expensive advisors are robbing her blind. Here are some highlights from the Washington Post:

Lost in the Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign's aggressive attacks on Barack Obama in recent days is a deep and enduring problem that threatens to undercut any inroads Clinton has made in her struggle to overtake him in the Democratic presidential race: She has lost trust among voters, a majority of whom now view her as dishonest.

*
Her advisers' efforts to deal with the problem -- by having her acknowledge her mistakes and crack self-deprecating jokes -- do not seem to have succeeded. Privately, the aides admit that the recent controversy over her claim to have ducked sniper fire on a trip to Bosnia probably made things worse.

*

Clinton is viewed as "honest and trustworthy" by just 39 percent of Americans, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, compared with 52 percent in May 2006. Nearly six in 10 said in the new poll that she is not honest and trustworthy. And now, compared with Obama, Clinton has a deep trust deficit among Democrats, trailing him by 23 points as the more honest, an area on which she once led both Obama and John Edwards.

*
Among Democrats, 63 percent called her honest, down 18 points from 2006; among independents, her trust level has dropped 13 points, to 37 percent. Republicans held Clinton in low regard on this in the past (23 percent called her honest two years ago), but it is even lower now, at 16 percent. Majorities of men and women now say the phrase does not apply to Clinton; two years ago, narrow majorities of both did.

*

The new poll suggests that much of her problem is with men. Nearly two-thirds of men said Clinton is not honest and trustworthy (an increase of 19 points), compared with 53 percent of women (up 12 points). Democratic men, in particular, have shifted: About four in 10 now do not believe Clinton to be honest and trustworthy, nearly triple the percentage saying so in 2006.

More Insincerity from Hillary

I have read the comments made by Barack Obama the other day which have now set off a lot of pontificating and in my view disingenuous commentary:

*

And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

*

Personally, I do not see what the big deal is. Once again, Obama's sin, if any, is that he dared to speak the truth. From all my reading of various Christianist web sites, Obama correctly assessed the situation in a nutshell. The followers of the James Dobsons, Don Wildmons and others of that ilk in this country ARE bitter and they DO cling to their guns and religion in an attempt to live with the often bleak economic and/or emotional realities of their lives. The outgrowth is fear and hatred towards anyone who is different or provides a scapgoat for perceived woes. Thus, gays are blamed for undermining the family, immigrants are blamed for job losses, and those of other religions are depicted as threats to America. Any one or anything that disturbs the fragile mental construct of small town voters in the end must be opposed.

*

True to form, Hillary Clinton is jumping on the band wagon to bad mouth Obama. Not that Hillary has a clue of what the financial realities of those Obama described. Between her Senate salary, the millions her Slick Willie gets for speaking engagements, and the other unexplained funds that Bill has been sucking in, Hillary lives in an utterly different planet from these folk. Unfortunately, that will not stop her from saying and doing anything she can think of to try to destroy Obama. I truly dislike Hillary more with every additional insincere and disingenuous thing she does. At least one person is bitter - me. I'm bitter that no one in the main stream media has the guts to slam Hillary for her sleazy tactics.

*

Over the last decade or more, one of the biggest problems in this country has been that politicans do not tell the voters the truth, be it about government spending or the bigotry and prejudice that may underlying voter views. Unfortunately, the main stream media is no better when it comes to calling a spade a spade. Because of this, we have ended up with the toxic regime of the Chimperator and the Iraq War disaster. The surest way to continue down this ill-advised path is to elect McCain or Hillary as president. Here are highlights from MSNBC concerning Hillary's scorched earth tactics:

*

But the Clinton campaign fueled the controversy in every place and every way it could, hoping charges that Obama is elitist and arrogant will resonate with the swing voters the candidates are vying for not only in Pennsylvania, but in upcoming primaries in Indiana and North Carolina as well.

*

They handed out "I'm not bitter" stickers in North Carolina, and held a conference call of Pennsylvania mayors to denounce the Illinois senator. In Indiana, Clinton did the work herself, telling plant workers in Indianapolis that Obama's comments were "elitist and out of touch." Clinton attacked Obama's remarks much more harshly Saturday than she had the night before, calling them "demeaning." Her aides feel Obama has given them a big opening, pulling the spotlight away from troublesome stories such as former President Clinton's recent revisiting of his wife's misstatements about an airport landing in Bosnia 10 years ago.

*

One of Clinton's staunchest supporters, Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., acknowledged there was some truth in Obama's remarks. But he said Republicans would use them against him anyway.

Obama Talks All Things LGBT With The Advocate

Even though Barack Obama has been making many public statements before large audiences in favor of gay rights and has LGBT issues readily identified on his campaign website - unlike Hillary Clinton who only makes strong statements in support of gay rights when in a friendly gay media environment and has made gays invisible on her website - I am glad that Obama has done a substantial interview with The Advocate. Perhaps this action will silence some of the self-important members of gay media editorial staffs that are peeved because Obama has not kissed their asses like Hillary.

To me, members of the gay media are more concerned about having their fragile egos stroked than about which candidate has the balls to support gays vigorously even in front of potentially hostile audiences. I think Obama is correct that he has been far braver and supportive than Hillary who has kept gays as a special interest to be milked for money but kept hidden from the spotlight. If a candidate will not support gays now in general public audiences, it is foolish to believ they will vigorously support gays if elected. I encourage all to read the full article. Here are some highlight's from the Advocate's coverage (http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid53285.asp):

But in a wide-ranging interview this Monday, Obama discussed "don't ask, don't tell," the Reverend Wright, and why LGBT folks should lead on marriage equality, not politicians. Some may call the chat a shrewd political move by the Obama camp ahead of the April 22 Pennsylvania primary. We call it access.

The Advocate: Let’s start with what’s hot -- why the silence on gay issues? You’ve done only one other interview with the LGBT press. I know people wish they were hearing more from you.

Senator Obama: I don’t think it’s fair to say "silence" on gay issues. The gay press may feel like I’m not giving them enough love. But basically, all press feels that way at all times. Obviously, when you’ve got a limited amount of time, you’ve got so many outlets. We tend not to do a whole bunch of specialized press. We try to do general press for a general readership.

But I haven’t been silent on gay issues. What’s happened is, I speak oftentimes to gay issues to a public general audience. When I spoke at Ebenezer Church for King Day, I talked about the need to get over the homophobia in the African-American community; when I deliver my stump speeches routinely I talk about the way that antigay sentiment is used to divide the country and distract us from issues that we need to be working on, and I include gay constituencies as people that should be treated with full honor and respect as part of the American family.

So I actually have been much more vocal on gay issues to general audiences than any other presidential candidate probably in history.

I guess my point would be that the fact that I’m raising issues accordant to the LGBT community in a general audience rather than just treating you like a special interest that is sort of off in its own little box -- that, I think, is more indicative of my commitment. Because ultimately what that shows is that I’m not afraid to advocate on your behalf outside of church, so to speak. It’s easy to preach to the choir; what I think is harder is to speak to a broader audience about why these issues are important to all Americans.

Tha Advocate: If you were elected, what do you plan to do for the LGBT community -- what can you reasonably get done?

Senator Obama: I reasonably can see “don’t ask, don’t tell” eliminated. I think that I can help usher through an Employment Non-Discrimination Act and sign it into law.

A Stark (and Realistic) Look at Hillary Clinton's Campaign

Jon Baltz at the Huffington Post has a scathing commentary on Hillary Clinton's campaign which unfortunately, in my opinion, is all too true. In his column, Baltz looks at the mis-steps of both Hillary and Bill Bill Clinton and their willingness to sacrifice all to win, even their long term reputations. As Baltz argues, Hillary and Bill are the strongest arguments as to why the country cannot afford for Hillary to be the Democratic Party nominee. Here are some highlights (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robbie-baitz/not-until-the-fat-lady-si_b_94360.html):

Let me be clear: I believe that the Clinton campaign has been simply tragic. It is an object lesson in failed promise and panicked, unstable, virulent war-game tactics. It has been marked by shallowness of the first order, and by the relentlessly divisive behavior of a cynical staff. She is fatally compromised in her stature as a credible voice, even perhaps in the senate, and her husband, an ex-president of the United States, is in danger of squandering what is left of his tattered reputation. The utter absence of statesmanship from the Clintons actually is painful to watch. There are lies about being under fire, there are semi-secret conduits to Matt Drudge, there are methods worthy of the Nixon playbook, in terms of sheer cynical zero-sum brinksmanship. There is an endless contempt for Obama's brilliant oratory, his ability to speak to adults like adults, which makes the Clintons suddenly seem like Bushesque boors, frankly. The sneering at his ability to connect reeks of school yard pique. It need not have been this way. There were early signs of a different kind of race, and they evaporated a long time ago. One day, we may live to see such a race. I doubt it.

And frankly, there is something admirable about the indefatigable Clinton appetite for power. I find it morally vacuous, not to mention shallow as hell when Bill remarks that if you can't take the hits, you shouldn't run. Really, Bill? Did you love your ongoing and disgusting hazing at the hands of right wing zealots so much that you think those tactics are a reasonable litmus test for the presidency, rather than say, oh, profound and inspirational moral force and an utterly unifying presence? Just asking. And as stomach turning as is the new college campus mini-trend of questioning of the Clinton's daughter about Ms. Lewinsky, well, so long as the Clintons are willing to put her out there to play that particular game of tennis, well then, who are we to stop 'em? Go. Go. Go. Go to town.

No, Hillary should remain in the race. As Frank Rich pointed out last Sunday, she knowingly fabricated the details of her landing in Bosnia, and she did so repeatedly, shamelessly, even after she was entirely revealed as a fabulator worthy of the hoariest backlot Hollywood schlockmeister. So -- Let it go on and on and on and on. The truth, as it did in the case of her trip to the "war zone", will come out. It always does. the last aria has not been sung, and the Valkyrie has yet to exhaust her lungs. And as the race continues to the bitterest end, I hope that Senator Clinton's many supporters are entirely satisfied that she did this to herself. That she exhausted her every chance.

Gay Paper Has Hissy Fit: Obama Refuses To Talk With Gay Media

The Huffington Post is reporting (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/05/scathing-editorial-obama_n_95210.html) that the Philadelphia Gay News is having a hissy fit over Barack Obama's alleged failure to talk to gay media outlets and saying that "Sen. Barack Obama would rather talk at the LGBT community than with them." I cannot help but find it ironic that Obama is being taken to task by self-appointed gate keepers while nothing is being said about the fact that Hillary's campaign website leaves the LGBT community completely invisible and she only makes gay supportive statements to friendly gay media outlets. In contrast, Obama has made many truly public statements supporting gays and LGBT equality, including at venues such as Atlanta's Ebenezer Baptist Church where there is mainstream media coverage.

I do not understand this kind of reasoning. Is it because Obama has not stroked the egos of the Philadelphia Gay News editorial board and made them feel more self-important or what? I have a real problem with a candidate like Hillary who consistently fails to mention gays in mainstream venues, yet says the right things to small, safe, freindly LGBT audiences. What takes more leadership: denouncing black churches' homophobia directly to the face of many of those homophobes like Obama did, or doing a safe interview in a small non-hostile setting like Hillary? Apparently, the Philadelphia Gay News puts more value on Hillary kissing the ass of the Philadelphia Gay News' staff - knowing that most main stream media outlets would never publish her interview remarks - than making bold, widely public remarks supporting LGBT equality.

Hillary's supporters within the gay community can drink the Kool-Aid if they want, but personally, my view is that if Hillary will not be seen supporting gays when speaking to large non-gay audiences, she won't be supporting us later if elected to office. Her actions are tantamount to those of someone who says they support you to your face but who then will not be seen with you publicly. Yes, actions are important, and the Philadelphia Gay News has totally misread what counts.

Ohio Hospital Contests a Story Clinton Tells

In today's world of 24/7 news, news and political blogs, video replay capabilities, and many other ways to record and disseminate information - AND also to refute false information - one would think Hillary Clinton would know enough not to recite stories without first verifying they are true. What is wrong with her campaign staff that they do not confirm information before Hillary begins to parrot it? First, there was Hillary' version of her Bosnia trip which amounted to revisionist history. Now, Hillary is getting called out on a story she has been telling about a preganant woman she heard about who lacked health insurance. It turns out that the facts are not as Hillary has been stating. Is Hillary just plain stupid or is she so desperate to beat Obama that she feels that she needs to make up compelling stories? I do not get it. All she is doing is making herself look like a liar and anything but presidential. Here are some highlights from the New York Times ( http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/05/us/politics/05woman.html?_r=1&ei=5090&en=7824b4f8ea3b363d&ex=1365134400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin):

Over the last five weeks, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York has featured in her campaign stump speeches the story of a health care horror: an uninsured pregnant woman who lost her baby and died herself after being denied care by an Ohio hospital because she could not come up with a $100 fee. The woman, Trina Bachtel, did die last August, two weeks after her baby boy was stillborn at O’Bleness Memorial Hospital in Athens, Ohio.

But hospital administrators said Friday that Ms. Bachtel was under the care of an obstetrics practice affiliated with the hospital, that she was never refused treatment and that she was, in fact, insured. “We implore the Clinton campaign to immediately desist from repeating this story,” said Rick Castrop, chief executive officer of the O’Bleness Health System. Linda M. Weiss, a spokeswoman for the not-for-profit hospital, said the Clinton campaign had never contacted the hospital to check the accuracy of the story, which Mrs. Clinton had first heard from a Meigs County, Ohio, sheriff’s deputy in late February.

“We reviewed the medical and patient account records of this patient,” said Mr. Castrop, the health system’s chief executive. Any implication that the system was “involved in denying care is definitely not true.” Although Mrs. Clinton has told the story repeatedly, it first came to the attention of the hospital after The Washington Post cited it as a staple of her stump speeches on Thursday.

Bill Clinton's Tirade Stuns Some Super Delegates

I have made no secret of the fact that I do not like Bill Clinton and never have even though I voted for him in 1992 as opposed to the Chimperator's father who I deemed at the time to be utterly out of touch with reality (admittedly, Bush Sr. now looks down right good compared to the Chimperator). Over the weekend, Bill Clinton again showed himself to be a peevish ass while endeavoring to win over some super delegates in California. What "white trash Bill" does not seem to get is that no one has an entitlement to hold the presidency and live in the White House, and that includes both him and Hillary. The sad reality is that if Hillary were to be elected president, we'd have another 4 or 8 years of Bill's scandals and obnoxiousness to live with. The nation does not need that! Here are some highlights from the San Francisco Chronicle (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/04/02/BAVNVU2PJ.DTL&type=printable):

The Bill Clinton who met privately with California's superdelegates at last weekend's state convention was a far cry from the congenial former president who afterward publicly urged fellow Democrats to "chill out" over the race between his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Barack Obama. In fact, before his speech Clinton had one of his famous meltdowns Sunday, blasting away at former presidential contender Bill Richardson for having endorsed Obama, the media and the entire nomination process. "It was one of the worst political meetings I have ever attended," one superdelegate said.

Rachel Binah, a former Richardson delegate who now supports Hillary Clinton, told Bill how "sorry" she was to have heard former Clinton campaign manager James Carville call Richardson a "Judas" for backing Obama. It was as if someone pulled the pin from a grenade. "Five times to my face (Richardson) said that he would never do that," a red-faced, finger-pointing Clinton erupted. The former president then went on a tirade that ran from the media's unfair treatment of Hillary to questions about the fairness of the votes in state caucuses that voted for Obama.

When delegate Binah - still stunned from her encounter with Clinton - got home to Little River (Mendocino County) later in the day - there was a phone message waiting for her from State Party Chairman Art Torres, telling her the former president wanted him to apologize to her on his behalf for what happened. Still, word of Clinton's blast shot all the way back to the New Mexico state Capitol, where Richardson spokesman Pahl Shipley reiterated Tuesday that his boss had never "promised or guaranteed" Bill and Hillary his endorsement.

Interesting Sale Items - Do They See What Hillary Doesn't Yet Get??