In spite of the fact that sexism has been such a prominent dynamic in this campaign, the thrust of much mainstream public conversation is that Obama should pick a Republican or conservative Democrat to balance the ticket. Even when we're talking about Democrats, that almost always means someone willing to occasionally defenestrate women's rights or health. I don't want to get started on what a slap the anti-choice Chuck Hagel (R-NE) would be, but Jim Webb wouldn't be much better.

And while all and sundry Obama supporters bask in the joy of his ascendant, dudely vibe, it's becoming readily apparent that feelings are raw beyond all civility, even if people are probably going to unify. The Democratic Party is very popular right now, yet while the nomination might be in the bag, the general election isn't, and Democrats should have learned about the consequences of giving the finger to large constituencies during the NAFTA fight. Remember, the clusterfrak that took the wind out of the sails of the other Clinton's presidency?

Any discussion about the selection of the vice presidency can't be held in a vacuum as if the primary hadn't happened, infighting and all. Some caveats, though ... There are a lot of legitimate reasons a person might have had to support someone besides Hillary Clinton for the nomination. They were both good candidates, there's no cause to make assumptions without evidence about why anyone in particular supported one of them.

The only major demographic group still supporting Clinton to the tune of 51% or more is women aged 50 and older. This group's preferences have changed little during May, at the same time that Clinton's support among younger men (those 18 to 49) has declined by nearly 10 points. - Gallup

... Pundits debated whether Clinton's tears were "real" or "manufactured" -- that is, whether she was some weak sob sister who couldn't hack the rough-and-tumble of a man's world, or just a power-grabbing witch who would do anything to hang on to her broomstick.

A few, such as San Francisco Chronicle reporter Carla Marinucci, offered more cogent appraisals. She pointed out that female voters didn't seem to be responding to Clinton's tears so much as to their outrage at men's reactions to those tears (in particular, men in the media). ... - Susan Faludi

The Diarist gunslinger pledged not to post any more diaries until the votes of 2-5-2008 were known. So what does he do, he posts a diary today contrary to what he promised. I challenge the people that run this blog to call

this out. Here is a link to his promise.Click here for proof Scroll down to the 9th comment, the proof is in the pudding.

Does Sen. Obama practice what he preaches.  The Federal Government has sent A letter to Sen. Obama questioning his campaign tactics.

Mr. "Constitutional Law Professor" should be held accountable to the same standards as the other candidates.

Do other candidates have 40 volunteers manning tables outside their choice of faith conventions promoting their candidate?

Click Here to Read Official Government letter

Hillary Clinton is a loyal Democrat. She will support the Dem nominee, even if it's not her.

Barak Obama is a loyar Democrat. He will support the Dem nominee, even if it's not him.

more reality check below the fold.

The early news from the ground is that the two top tier candidates have South Carolina locked up.

It is my opinion that if Edwards cannot even win the state he grew up around, or prevail against his opponents in the heart of the land where he was born - then he will never prevail on super tuesday.

So I will make this simple. After Saturday, Edwards will drop his presidential bid. Just my view. What do you think? Am I chasing parked cars?

First, I want to say, I have resisted calling out Obama's campaign for the most part, however, when I have stood up for Obama in several diaries against the Clinton smear machine, I took comfort that both campaigns had a common adversary - Clinton. Furthermore, most people here agree that Clinton has resorted to these attacks as a sign of desperation and illustrates the sinking of her campaign.
Now, Obama, less than a week later, is engaging in the exact same type of politics against Edwards. And these attacks are so baseless. It would have been different if Obama's campaign manager - who was Edwards' campaign manager in 2004, was not contradicting himself on Edward's record. It reeks of political desperation and to be fair to Obama, he should not be blamed for Axelrod's idiocy. (Stop listening to him Obama- he is making you look bad)
more below...

As we know, the last year has shown an influx of unsafe products filtering into America from China. I guess the days of buying American with pride have ended with all these ill-advised idiotic trade deals that only serve to murder American middle-class jobs. These deals also allow companies to import products that were made by virtual slave labor in Asia, among other places, where workers have no rights, benefits, or fair wages.

Apart from the fact that Governor Richardson has delivered  for New Mexico,  taken a pioneering stance on the war, and other issues - I thought it fair to ask the question, which candidate best deletes the instilled methodologies and practices of Karl Rove, either in campaign or office.  Viz. What would a celebrity deathmatch,  between Karl Rove and Bill Richardson?

Thanks to Rove's recent resignation, and of course, the GOP finally waking up to the fact that fact that he was given a candidate opposition in 2000 that had refused to associate himself with one of the most successful presidencies in the history of the United States, and had "Joementum" Joe Lieberman as the running mate - he was unable to deliver a knockout blow. I imagine, since he's the title champ -  Rove would get to walk around first, in the ring, holding the 2004 belt up in the air. Crickets. And then, both to their respective corners.

In the red, on the right. Weighing in at.. oh forget it. You don't want to know.. Karl Rove, the "architect" , would stand in the corner. At his side would be his trainer and friend, his grandfather  - wearing the  extensive, comfortable dealings with the Third Reich that are his public family history.

Rove would open up with partisanship, maybe use sexual orientation as a political weapon, and then, if he really was desperate he might even resort to breaking and entering (at least what we know of from his police record). And finally, he'll deliver the "catch phrase". Maybe it will be "freedom fries" Ok so maybe freedom fries wasn't his idea, I know he will deny it.  But we all know he tried to remove the blue christmas ornaments from the white house christmas tree. We have the negatives.

In the blue, coming in hard from the left, and striking at the center of the ring, Bill Richardson - Opening up with a workable 1-2-3 Iraq solution roundhouse kick.  200 billion dollars would slams back into American bank accounts!   He'd then back it up with a shattering early round voices against the war (2003 - three years early),  deliver a strong Homeland Security department(2002) and then maybe he'll reach over and pull the towel off the towelheaded  Osama Bin Laden (attempted to capture him by extradtion, 1998, negotiating with the Taliban). The crowd will go wild.

So the next round, would be campaign tactics. Rove is dangerous here. Did the opposition ever expect  the attack ad to bounce off , and a positive and extremely competitive Richardson campaign message  re-define the tone of the entire campaign?

Rove would be flying his man over the Katrina death zone, and then staging photo ops with firemen while they're trying to work there. Then he would follow up with a smothering "sign a loyalty oath, to participate in this debate" whenever his boy gets out there.  Richardson, on the other hand, actually came down to Atlanta and met people. He sets up town halls. He goes to Moveon.org Town hall debates.  Rove would be fast with his hands, trying to select the best questions that would set up his deadly "catch phrase" pollster knockout.

But Bill Richardson would take it like a man and straight from the floor. If you go to any of his campaign events, I bet you'd find this out. Rove would reel back, having spent his last 20 million dollar punch and connecting with nothing. All of his best punches were sized for hitting Hillary down south of the belt. And rrrrrRove is down for the count. The decision is for Richardson.  Birds sing! Puppies Dance! Cheney admits Iraq was a mistake! (click the shirt for a free prize)

I honestly feel its a good metric. IMHO Rove's tactics and especially his ability to tie everything to corporate campaign contributions have changed the american political landscape. And as Nancy Pelosi said, there is a huge swamp to be drained. (still!)(hey she's off to a good start!). Unique among all other candidates, Richardson has changed the tone and content of this race , in my view, with his position to remove all troops from Iraq and then following up with a series of sharp campaign ads to back up the idea that the presidency actually includes , among many other things, diplomacy. Who here, really believes that Bill Richardson would be the kind of President that would not be able to figure out which door to open, during a press conference?  This was , or is a gedankenexperiment meant to test how well your candidate can obliterate the atmosphere of partisanship in DC. Try it with your candidate, it might help? Just speaking as a person from the south, be careful with this if you are an HRC fan,  I think the opposition was planning to hit a girl this year. >.)

And actually, the real reason I would go is so that I could see Bill Richardson wrap Karl Roves head up in the ropes, like a twist tie, and then flip him out over the crowd like a pudgy zeppelin.

Whats interesting, is that the the race in Iowa is tightening.  This might mean that one or all of the other candidates could do the same? Tag Team?   ... Did I miss any good moves here?