Update [2008-6-1 16:37:46 by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner]: Now with photos of the real-life people alongside the actors.

And now for something completely different (and less serious)...

I was reading Zack Dennis' diary at dKos a couple days ago, in which he attempted to cast "Primary '08."

There's been other "casting the primary" discussions before, and I thoroughly enjoy 'em. It's fun matching actors to the real-life politicos who've been occupying our TVs for months and years.

Below is the list I've put together (with a few borrowed from Zack and others).

Puertorican newspaper El Vocero has published a poll done with Univisión Network

Hillary Rodham Clinton resultó ser la precandidata demócrata a la presidencia de Estados Unidos que favorecieron los puertorriqueños en una encuesta de EL VOCERO y UNIVISION, por un cómodo margen de 13 por ciento frente a su contrincante Barack Obama. El segundo hallazgo de la encuesta es que no importa quién resulte ser el o la aspirante demócrata, entre los boricuas cualquiera de los dos tiene una ventaja arrolladora de 62 por ciento frente al contendiente republicano John McCain. La encuesta reflejó que la Senadora por Nueva York obtuvo un 51 por ciento del favor de los encuestados frente a un 38 por ciento del Senador por Illinois. El 8 por ciento de las personas expresó que no votará por ninguno y el 3 por ciento no sabe o no contestó.

One upon a time I was a Robin Morgan fan.  Her voice guided me as a budding feminist of the 70's.  One of the things she was famous for was her 1970 essay, "Goodbye To All That" in which she "[broke] free from a politics of accommodation especially affecting women"  http://blog.fair-use.org/category/chicag o/.

But I'd forgotten about Robin Morgan.  

This morning I just read her essay "Goodbye to All That #2."
( http://www.womensmediacenter.com/ex/0201 08.html ) Apparently it's been around since February, but I missed it.  I'm glad I found it.  It blew me away.

Why did she write #2?  Because: "During my decades in civil-rights, anti-war, and contemporary women's movements, I've avoided writing another specific 'Goodbye . . .' But not since the suffrage struggle have two communities--joint conscience-keepers of this country--been so set in competition, as the contest between Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC) and Barack Obama (BO) unfurls."

In this essay you will hear why she says:

"Goodbye to the double standard . . .
Goodbye to the toxic viciousness  . . .
Goodbye to the news-coverage target-practice . . .
Goodbye to a misrepresented generational divide . . .
And goodbye to the ageism . . ."

Okay, I'm gonna rip the band aid all the way off.  I do it not to be devisive, but to clean out the wound out (more)completely.  That promotes healing, or so I've heard.  

I  believe that we need to look at all the issues.  As you know if you read my diary yesterday and any of my occasional comments, I've been nursing my (real or imagined, depending on your point of view) feminist injuries.  Yet I've had an unsettling feeling that there's more to my disquiet.  The situation is pretty complex, so it's been hard to articulate.  Then this morning I read a comment written in response to an article by a gentleman on another site--Mother Jones,to be exact.  Whoa, what this guy said really resonated with me.

No need to rewrite it, he did an excellent job, and rather than cut and paste his stuff, which seems plagaristic, I'll give you the link to the article.  Read the article if you want, but that's not what I'm talking about:  find Tony Smith's comments below it (he has one long one, and then another in answer to a response).

Now I don't know anything about Tony Brown, other than what I read.  I'm concerned that he will be immediately discredited.  Please don't do that.  Whether he is who he says he is (and this is what I believe) or a "secret-agent-Republican-operative" is wholly beside the point.(If he is, ya gotta admire him, cause he's extremely articulate and cogent regarding the Democratic primary situation, LOL)

Then, I hope we can talk--civilly--about his points.  After all this site is, I hope, more about discussion than about cheerleading...  Like I said, the idea is to heal the wound, right?

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/arch ives/2008/05/8284_clinton_camp_fl.html

Now that Clinton's full disclosure form has been released, it raises some interesting questions.  Here's the source:

Daily contribution totals

Now for some quotes from the Clinton camp and the respective realities:

The Clinton camp claims:

From the AP

Her campaign said she was on track for raising $10 million in the first 24 hours after her victory.

Also from the AP

By midday Wednesday, the campaign estimated the total haul at $10 million raised online in the 24 hours since Pennsylvania's polls closed, and claimed it was her best fundraising day ever.

The report, however, shows:

April 23, 2008         1,738,154.61

The Clinton camp claims:

From ABC

As of 11:30 p.m. Tuesday, the Clinton campaign claimed it had raised nearly $2.5 million since the state was called for the New York senator. Eighty percent of that money came from new donors to the campaign, it said, calling it their "best night ever."

The report, however, shows:

April 22, 2008         226,294.60

...note that this number plus the April 23rd number doesn't come close to the much-vaunted $10 million figure.

However...

This isn't quite an open and shut "she lied," since there's a very curious entry on the last day:

April 30, 2008         9,504,619.08

...anybody have any idea what that's all about?  Is this some weird delay in the reporting date?  Did she lend herself some cash?

Update [2008-5-21 1:54:31 by randomscientist]: According to lizardbox,

Campaigns usually bundle all non-itemized donations (basically, all donations of those who did not meet the itemization requirement of $200, are bundled together and listed on one line with the date set to the last day of the month).

Some simple math shows that if we round to $2 million for the 24 hours post-PA (a generous rounding) for itemized donations, she'd have needed $8 million in small-dollar donations for that same time frame to get to the $10 million number. Let's call it $7 million to grant her some leeway from $9 million to $10 million. That means that 74% of her small-dollar donations would have had to occur on one single day last month for her to even be close to the $10 million figure. I'm fairly skeptical that that is possible...

We have a decision to make as a party. Are we going to worry about the people who say they will refuse to vote for Senator Obama when he is the Nominee, or are we going to move forward.

That's the very real question we are facing here. Watch this video and listen to these people and their reasons on why they would not vote for Senator Obama in the Fall.

These are supposedly 'good Democrats', most of them have Hillary buttons on and have never voted for a Republican.

More below the fold...

{Cross-posted at DailyKos> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/19/ 10411/6254

UPDATED:
Now also the NYT tells it like it is.

"We endorsed Mrs. Clinton, and we know that she has a major contribution to make. But instead of discussing her strong ideas, Mrs. Clinton claimed in an interview with USA Today that she would be the better nominee because a recent poll showed that “Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again.” She added: “There’s a pattern emerging here.”
Yes, there is a pattern — a familiar and unpleasant one. It is up to Mrs. Clinton to change it if she hopes to have any shot at winning the nomination or preserving her integrity and her influence if she loses."


I hope Hillary still reads the NYT


Eugene Robbinson has been cautiously more positive about Barack Obama than about Hillary Clinton for awhile now, but now he is, in his quiet, humorous, diplomatic way, really firing all guns at Hillary. He is not amused by her comments in an AP interview yesterday.
"that found how Senator Obama's support ... among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again. I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on."
And to be absolutely clear about what she was saying, in the polls she was referring to, there was no category "hard-working Americans" defined.
It must be so difficult for a man like Eugene to heara himself being disqualified from the hard working Americans category by Hillary. Of course she is dissapointed, of course she would have liked to get a bigger share of the African American vote, but for her to so bluntly disrespect non-white voters is really hard to swallow for me, and I am white.
I can imagine that for honest hardworking blacks like Eugene, it is impossible.

I'm reading comments in diaries here that have made me so upset recently, that I was not sure I would continue to read here.
My blood pressure is high enough as it is.  

But this is MyDD - and we are all Democrats.  
Whether supporters of HRC, BHO, John Edwards or others, what is supposed to hold us together is our party and the battle to win against McCain in the fall.

The Democratic Party has changed since I was a child in the late 40's & 50's.