Let's Ignore the Nattering Nabobs and Be Positive.

There is a movement by some to perpetuate the negative feelings between both camps.  

MOST of us (Hillary and Obama folk alike) are moving toward reconciliation...either by awakening or by degrees...but IT IS happening.

But...there are those out there who NEED to continue to perpetuate myths and ill-will to support their agendas.  Common tactics:

1) Spread a rumor/lie about what Obama is doing in (State X) with phone calls/mailings.  Proof is never offered, but such an accusation is meant to outrage and/or enflame certain supporters into action (donation?) or inaction in November.

2) The ol' "Less Filling/ Tastes Great" argument.  Someone proporting to be a supporter of candidate X writes a diary or makes a response/comment that blames to other side for "Starting it", then makes an inflamatory statement of their own, having justified it by the accusation of the other side's culpability.

Both of these tactics are nearly cliched by now, but it doesn't stop the small percentage of those folks who are vocal around here and on other websites.

My advice?  Let's all recognize that just because there is a small number of vocal and active trouble makers out there, doesn't mean that we need to be mislead. We can be smarter and better than they assume we might be.  

The fact of the matter is that no matter what they might be telling themselves privately or between one another...these agruments ONLY help John McCain.  Some of these folks believe that they are helping who they believe to be the best democratic candidate, but this is sadly not the case.

We must however, let them do what they will, and not provide any energy or fuel to the distraction and negativity.  The progressives ARE going to sweep the elections this fall, and we WILL make the changes we need to regain the the greatness of our nation and the respect of the world.  We can do this.  

Ignore the flawed (or in the case of mcCain Trolls...BAD) apples, folks...real progressives/dems WILL come around.

There's more...

Obama VP Playoffs (Poll-Play!) UPDATE

Hey folks.  Let's have some fun with Obama's VP.  What I am proposing is one:  getting on the rec list, and having a "versus" style (choice) polling game designed to create multiple head to head contests.  We'll do a new set of battle every three days.

The eight candidates that get the most votes will move forward, then the top 6, then the top 4, then the top 2

Let's start!

I have removed Jennifer Granhold (no votes) and added Jim Webb due to popular demand.

There's more...

Obama VP With Poll

So, now that the dust is settling and the end game is aproaching, let's examine just what the ticket is going to look like.

There are a number of candidates that make perfect sense, some that defy convention, and others that are unlikely.  What do you all think?

Here are my thoughts (in no particular order):

1) Dick Gephardt:  He is not in Gov't right now, so would not have to be replaced.  He has strong connections to older, white voters, unions, and has experience in Washington to spare. ALSO, he may provide inroads to MO, Kansas, and other states.

2) Wes Clark:  A good friend of the Clintons, Clark might be someone who would act as an olive branch to the Clintons...goving VP to one of THEIR people.  Also, his military cred is unimpeachable.

3) Jim Webb:  Military Cred, he is new (therefore a break from the politics as usual).  

4) Kathleen Sebelius:  A female, very respected in a state that may well be in play and symbolic.  She is a new force.

5) Bill Richardson. Latinos, the Southwest, foreign policy...an old Clinton guy.

6) Hillary Clinton: Her strengths are obvious.  As Harold Ford said, if it happened, they may well be unstopable...the question is, could Obama provide a meaty enough VP role to Hillary?  Would she accept?  

Thoughts?

There's more...

*Breaking*: Brand New Post Debate Newsweek poll

According to a brand new NEWSWEEK poll, Obama is pulling away....big time.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/132721

Despite her campaign's relentless attacks on Barack Obama's qualifications and electability, Hillary Clinton has lost a lot of ground with Democratic voters nationwide going into Tuesday's critical primary in Pennsylvania, a new NEWSWEEK poll shows.

The survey of 1,209 registered voters found that Obama now leads Clinton by nearly 20 points, or 54 percent to 35 percent, among registered Democrats and those who lean Democratic nationwide. The previous Newsweek poll, conducted in March after Clinton's big primary wins in Ohio and Texas, showed the two Democrats locked in a statistical tie (45 percent for Obama to 44 percent for Clinton). The new poll puts Obama ahead among women as well as men, and voters aged 60 and older as well as younger voters. (For the complete poll data, click here).

One of the more devastating results for Clinton was that a majority of all registered voters now see her as dishonest and untrustworthy. According to the poll, just four in 10 (41 percent) registered voters view the New York senator as honest and trustworthy, while 51 percent think the opposite. This compares with solid majorities of voters who see Obama and McCain as honest and trustworthy (both polled 61 percent).

The results suggest that Clinton was damaged more by being caught in a tall tale about landing in Bosnia under sniper fire than Obama has been by his recent controversies, including the firestorm of criticism provoked by the Illinois senator's remarks that blue-collar voters "cling" to religion, guns and other issues because of their bitterness. In addition, over half (53 percent) of voters say they believe Obama shares their values, more than those who say the same thing about Clinton (47 percent) or McCain (45 percent).

Even so, the poll indicates that both Obama and Clinton have been harmed by the fierce attacks they have aimed at each other. While Obama has a 57 percent favorable rating among all voters in the latest survey, that represents a 4 percent drop from March, and his unfavorable rating has jumped from 28 percent to 36 percent. Clinton is viewed favorably by just 49 percent, compared to 56 percent in March, while 47 percent view her as unfavorable, compared to 40 percent in the previous poll. Even so, the unopposed McCain has also suffered a setback: his favorable rating has dipped to 52 percent from 55 percent, while his unfavorable rating has increased to 42 percent from 35 percent.

It is not clear to what extent Wednesday night's debate in Philadelphia affected the overall results. Clinton, aided by debate moderators Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos of ABC, kept Obama mostly on the defensive over his associations with Pastor Jeremiah Wright and Chicago professor William Ayers, a former member of the Weather Underground who served on a community board with Obama and once hosted a campaign event for the candidate at his home. Obama was also questioned about his decision not to wear a flag lapel pin. Stacy DiAngelo of Princeton Survey Research Associates, which did the April 16-17 polling, says that of the registered voters who were surveyed 517 were interviewed after the debate and 692 before. She added that the views of those surveyed remained largely constant.

But Obama appears to have the momentum on nearly every front, both among Democrats and general voters nationwide. Clinton's prospects for snatching the nomination from the Democratic front runner at this point depend mainly on her ability to persuade uncommitted "superdelegates"--those who are not bound by particular primary results--that she is more likely to defeat John McCain. But by a large margin (55 percent to 33 percent) Democratic voters now say Obama--not Clinton--is the candidate they believe is more likely to defeat McCain in November. In the March poll Obama's advantage was much smaller (44 percent to 38 percent).

The poll pointed up a trouble sign for McCain as well, which is that no one's forgotten how old he is. While voters have mixed opinions about whether Obama's race will do more to help or hurt his chances of being elected president (20 percent vs. 22 percent, respectively), and Clinton's gender is only somewhat more likely to be seen as a hindrance than a help (27 percent vs. 20 percent), McCain's age may be the biggest vulnerability of all in the eyes of the voters. Nearly four in 10 (36 percent) think the Arizona senator's age--at 71, he would be the oldest president ever to assume office for the first time--will hurt his chances of winning.

From Guns: Well, it is looking better and better for Barack.  Hillary, i hope you and your supporters come back in the fold.  We all respect you, wheter or not some of us are ill-mannered at times.

There's more...

Breaking: Democratic Voters & Trust: Is This Accurate?

Hi folks.

The new Washington Post/ABC News poll shows some very disheartening news for team Hillary, and some disturbing new for ALL OF US who care about beating John McCain in the fall.

The long and short of it is that:

1) Due mostly to the oft-repeated and self-aggrandizing yarn that team Clinton spun about Bosnia, Hillary has inflicted a wound on her already Penn-weakened campaign that is clearly festering.

2) And while Democrats are willing to let this go on for a while yet (though patience is wearing thin) the ongoing and lengthened battle is helping McCain A LOT.  The more we fight amongst ourselves, the more (right now at least) McCain appears to be a vialble, and presidential option.  A lot of HRC folks don't like hearing this, but it is nevertheless TRUE.  

The article is posted below with my comments in CAPS!

From the Washington post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2008/04/15/AR2008041502883. html

Poll Shows Erosion Of Trust in Clinton

PHILADELPHIA, April 15 -- 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.

THIS IS HUGE.  SHE IS THE VICTIM OF AN UNFORTUNATE NARRATIVE/PERCEPTION THAT WAS BORN IN THE 90'S...THAT SHE IS PRONE TO FIBBING.  FOR GOOD, ILL OR INDIFFERENT...THERE IT IS.

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.

Advisers argue that her positive ratings have dipped as she has been defined by her opponents -- a normal campaign occurrence --and that her honesty problem reflects the pounding she took from Republicans in the 1990s. But the Bosnia incident and the way the campaign handled it have left advisers divided over what a candidate can do after such a steep drop in trust.

Some of her aides believe that after Clinton told the Bosnia story -- of having run from her military aircraft into a hangar to avoid sniper fire -- when television images of the event showed otherwise, the campaign had no choice but to say she "misspoke." Communications director Howard Wolfson first did so on a conference call with reporters, and Clinton repeated the explanation over the course of several days.

Other Clinton advisers thought that response did not come quickly enough -- and that when it did, without further explanation or talking points for surrogates to use, it only worsened the perception that she had lied. Making the situation more difficult was a split within the campaign over whether Clinton had exaggerated, or simply confused the landing with another trip. One Clinton insider announced in a strategy meeting it was ridiculous to have imagined the first lady ever having been in danger, or for Clinton to have thought she was -- a slap at the senator from New York that other advisers described as disrespectful.

ANOTHER SCHISM IN TEAM CLINTON?  I WONDER IF THIS WAS BEFORE PENN GOT DEMOTED.  CLEARLY, HER TEAM HAS BEEN, AND GIVEN THE RECENT ATTACKS...STILL IS FLOUNDERING.

At the same time, die-hard Clinton loyalists thought her communications operation did not defend her heartily enough, which press aides said they thought was impossible. "Continuing to say it did happen when it didn't happen is not a strategy," one adviser said.

The problem was exacerbated when Bill Clinton, in defending her confused memory of the Bosnia event, got key details of the incident wrong, before later saying his wife had told him to stay out of it.

Two staffers from the Clinton White House years, Lissa Muscatine and Melanne Verveer, wrote a New York Times op-ed article recalling the perils of the trip, trying to justify why Clinton had gotten the story wrong. "As has been reported, Mrs. Clinton's trip to Bosnia included a U.S.O. component with the comedian Sinbad and the singer Sheryl Crow. The helicopters that carried them to performances at American base camps zigzagged just above the trees to avoid potential ground fire, according to Carey Cavanaugh, who was then a State Department official traveling with Sinbad, and helicopters flew alongside to deal with the threat of anti-aircraft fire or snipers. These facts explain why many of us, including the first lady, believed that the conditions on the ground were precarious. We were worried about sniper fire and were prepared to rush off the tarmac when we landed," they wrote.

OK. WHERE WERE THESE STAFFERS AT THE HEIGHT OF THE DRAMA?  WHY DIDN'T THE CAMPAIGN TROT THEM OUT IN FRONT OF CAMERAS AND TALK SHOWS TO DIFFUSE THE STORY OUTRIGHT?  HRC FOLKS...DONT BLAME OBAMA SUPPORTERS FOR THIS....BLAME HILLARY'S HAM-HANDED AND FLAT-FOOTED RESPONSES.  SHEESH.  EVEN THOUGH THESE STAFFERS WOULD NOT HAVE TOTALLY DEFLECTED THE CONTROVERSY..THEY SHURELY WOULD HAVE CREATED REASONABLE DOUBT, RATHER THAN EXACERBATING THE SITUATION.

Senior Clinton advisers argued that the Bosnia story would not have developed the way it did if it were not for a story line about Clinton that goes back to the 1990s, when scandals involving the first lady, including the firings in the White House travel office and her financial dealings, resulted in widespread doubts about her trustworthiness. That framework, they argue, made it easier for Clinton to be perceived as dishonest, a problem that first arose in her presidential campaign in a debate last fall when she gave conflicting answers on whether she supports allowing illegal immigrants to obtain driver's licenses.

Among whites, the percentage saying Clinton is honest and trustworthy has declined 10 points, compared with 26 points among nonwhites. That number has declined more sharply among liberals (down 30 points) than among moderates (down 13) or conservatives (down 4 points). Head to head with Obama on honesty among Democrats, Clinton faces a 23-point deficit overall, 17 points among whites and nearly 50 points among African Americans.

EVEN WITH THE WRIGHT "CONTROVERSY" AND "BITTERGATE"...VOTERS VIEW OBAMA AS MORE TRUSTWORTHY.  WHY DO YOU ALL SUPPOSE THIS IS SO?  REALLY.

I THINK THAT IT IS FOR TWO REASONS:

1) OBAMA SEEMS TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MISTAKES AND GAFFES SIMPLY AND ELOQUENTLY.  

2) HE DOES NOT HAVE THE BAGGAGE ASSOCIATED WITH HAVING BEEN IN NATIONAL POLITICS FOR 16 YEARS.

Your thoughts?

There's more...

Of Silver Bullets, Bitterness, Wisdom and Fatal Attraction.

As an observer of the last few weeks, I have to share some thoughts.  Four weeks ago, the fact was that Hillary was up by 20+ points, establishing a rather easy bar for her to limbo under.  All she had to do was maintain that lead or not lose any more than 5 points to meet the conventional and easy-to-quantify wisdom.  Many around mydd in fact did a fair amount of understandable chest thumping over the 20+ point lead, daring Obama to even consider beating Hillary.  I was very nervous.

I am an Obama supporter, believing that neither race nor gender have ANYTHING to do with how we should be selecting our next president.  We owe nothing to either candidate based on either shallow concept.  Both race and gender are mere happenstance...not a reason to infer whom is the best candidate.  Anyway, I know (as any honest student of politics and social science would tell you) that in order for Hillary to win, she needs to turn the 20+ point lead in PA into a 20+ win (maybe 15 would do), which in theory will propel her to subsequent 20+ leads and wins in IN, NC, and OR and the rest. That is the only legitimate path remaining for her to the nomination, and frankly, if she meets the threshold above...she'll deserve it and will get my support if she does.  

However, things seem to be in flux, to the detriment of this narrative.  In the last 3 weeks, Obama has closed the gap AGAIN.  By most standards/polls, he is within 10 points or so.

Why?

1) Obama's campaign is smart and agile.  He and his team had the wisdom to build and execute a great plan.  Key endorsements were gathered and announced, a highly successful bus tour was executed, and his performances on the stump have been excellent.

2) The Clinton campaign has been troubled; not even the most stubborn HRC supporters could deny this unfortunate fact.  The Penn disaster finally came to its predictable and sickening end. While that was good news for HRC, it is probably too damn late to make a difference (that fool should have been shown the door weeks and weeks before).  BUT, the Bosnia gaffe was truly a problem for her. For good, ill, or indifferent, that oft-repeated and self-aggrandizing yarn reminded many of the sort of things that we didn't like about the Clinton years; namely the not-so-honest (but creative) story-telling.

In concert, these are the reasons why the "bittergate" fiasco was so embraced and met with glee by HRC, her team, and her supporters.  It seemed on its face, to be a possible silver bullet, fatally wounding the competition with one brief shot.  Unfortunately, this silver bullet, like those before it (using Jeremiah Wright, Rezko, and Power as a means of attack), was a dud.

I respect Hillary, and loved her husband, but this is getting tiring. This is not about gender or race, but about being wise enough to see the forest for the trees.  Conservatively, if the balance of this process goes all the way through the to the end, Obama will have approximately 1925 delegates to HRC's 1700. This means that he needs only 33% of the supers to Hill's 67%.  That is just not going to happen..look at the list for pity's sake if you don't believe me...and let's not even discuss the notion that SOME of Hillary's SD's WILL defect at the end.  

The longer it goes on the more it helps McCain; a man who just earlier this very week declared he'd RATHER face Hillary than Obama (for obvious reasons).  

If Hillary was really smart about this, what she'd do is suspend her campaign NOW...or at least right after PA.

Why?  

1) She would be viewed as a truly magnanimous candidate and player.  She would engratiate herself with the Obama supporters and party elders/leaders who are growing impatient, if not didsdainful with the manner in which her campaign has and is behaving.

2)The numbers aren't going to change appreciably relative to delegates.  She would enter the convention with very nearly the SAME number (some Sd's might drop off, but it would be close)!  Should Obama implode or something tragic occur, she could enter the convention with her delegates, take advantage of number 1 above, and become the standard-bearer.

3) Most importantly, it will be easier for Obama to focus on McCain with his 40 million-dollar mountain of money.  The more $$ he is forced to spend on a protracted battle with HRC, the more money is NOT spent fighting the real enemy...the GOP.  Obama could campaign throughout the summer, leaving McCain in the dust.

I fear however..that this won't happen.  There seems to be no end to the desperation and slash and burn tactics that Hillary's team is capable of, and all too willing to use.  Sure, there is being a "fighter", but there is also being a counter-productive nincompoop... snark ahead:

Every time I see Hill these days I am reminded of "Fatal Attraction" when Glenn Close screams, "I WILL NOT BE IGNORED, DAN!!!!"

Lord, I feel like we are ALL Dan.  We, as progressives and the like-minded indies & enlightened GOP, have had our fleeting and passionate moment with Hillary...but it as in the movie, we, like Micheal Douglas, realize that the affair was a terrible mistake and must return to logic and our ideals.  

Please, please Obama folks...GOTV and get it within 10...PLEASE!..before she boils our pets!

Guns

There's more...

Forget the Gallup HORSERACE POLL! The Real...

...polling data provided by Gallup that everyone is talking about, both on "the street", and in Superdelegate circles, party elders...by EVERYONE but Mark Penn and his sorry, desperate gang of folks seeking additional billable hours is this:

Print E-mail March 31, 2008
Dems, Reps Agree: Obama Tougher Opponent for McCainPerceived as having better chance than Clinton of winning in NovemberUSA Democrats Election 2008 Republicans Americas Northern America by Jeffrey M. Jones

PRINCETON, NJ -- A new Gallup Panel survey finds a majority of both Republicans and Democrats saying Barack Obama has a better chance than Hillary Clinton of defeating Republican John McCain in the November presidential election.

The survey was conducted March 24-27, interviewing a nationally representative sample of 1,005 Gallup Panel members. Democrats were asked whether Clinton or Obama has the better chance of defeating McCain in November:

59% say Obama does; 30% say Clinton.

Republicans were asked whether McCain has a better chance of defeating Clinton or Obama on Election Day.

64% say McCain has a better chance of beating Clinton, compared with only 22% choosing Obama, meaning Republicans view Obama as the more formidable candidate.

Before anyone starts suggesting that this is made up: http://www.gallup.com/poll/105904/Dems-R eps-Agree-Obama-Tougher-Opponent-McCain. aspx

______________ ________

All of this data explains why Limbaugh, and the rest of the knuckle-dragging ilk is propping up Hillary at every turn, and why see this phenomenon:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080401/ap_o n_el_pr/vote_switching;_ylt=AryU44YA9Oqi NlO2MhdN79xh24cA

Clinton-Obama race spurs party switches By JULIA SILVERMAN, Associated Press Writer

PORTLAND, Ore. - Matthew Buckingham, a stay-at-home father in Portland's suburbs and lifelong Republican, is fired up about voting for Sen. John McCain in November.

But on May 20, the date of Oregon's unexpectedly consequential presidential primary, Buckingham's choice for the primary is still up in the air: Should it be Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, or Sen. Barack Obama?

Some renegade conservatives will admit to switching in order to drag out the Democratic primary as long as possible in the hope of bruising both candidates along the way.

Talk radio hostess Victoria Taft, a familiar Republican voice in the Democratic-leaning Pacific Northwest, said that even in her wildest dreams, she never imagined urging her listeners to vote for Clinton.

But these days, Taft is firmly on the New York senator's bandwagon, along with national conservative talk radio heavyweights like Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham...In Oregon alone, in the past seven weeks, nearly 10,000 voters have refiled as Democrats, more than 1 percent of the state's 764,000 registered Democrats. More than 3,500 of them were Republicans; almost all of the rest had been nonaffiliated voters.

In Pennsylvania, where the primary is set for April 22, the Democrats have registered a staggering 235,000 new voters since last fall, pushing their numbers to more than 4.1 million for the first time. In West Virginia, which votes on May 13, the increase has come in the form of a swell in nonaffiliated voters, said Democratic Party executive director Tom Vogel, after the Democratic primary was opened to independents for the first time in recent history.

"We are sure there are Republicans who are switching to vote in our primary, whether they honestly want to vote or if they have more malicious purposes to try to get the candidate of their choice to run against," Vogel said.

Elections officials in two other late-voting states with closed primaries, North Carolina and South Dakota, said there was so far no evidence of widespread party switching there. And in Kentucky, where the primary is scheduled for May 20, there won't be any chance for party-hoppers, thanks to a state law specifically designed to prevent so-called "party-raiding."

In Ohio and Texas, the two key states widely acknowledged to have kept Clinton's presidential bid alive when she won their March 4 primaries, Republicans and independents voted for Clinton and Obama in roughly equal numbers, helping to solidify her wins.

That was a departure from previous states with "open primaries," like Virginia and Missouri, where anyone can vote for any candidate despite their affiliation, in which Obama had won handily among Republicans and independents.

Nick Shapiro, Obama's communications director in Oregon, said that if an organized effort to strategically cast conservative votes for Clinton did exist, it was a sign that "conservative Republicans are worried that Barack Obama can unite this country, and will get support from not only the Democrats, but independents and Republicans and propel him into the White House."

_____________________

Do you want more evidence, O constant reader that BOTH democrats and Republicans agree that Obama is the stronger GE opponent?  Look no furhter than:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/2 9/politics/main3979266.shtml

Which states, "...With the Democratic battle continuing, the GOP is getting a head start on the general election planning. The Republican National Committee and various surrogate operations have been kicking into high gear over recent weeks, raising money and laying out organizational muscle for the battle to come. Undoubtedly a luxury, such advantages will do little to stem the overall tide running against the party.

McCain alone now represents the party's best chance to hold onto any hope of avoiding a complete blowout in November. While a "generic" Republican candidate is swamped in the polls by a Democrat, McCain fares much better when his name is inserted.

Universally, Hillary Clinton is seen as the best candidate for Republicans to run against. She has the highest negative ratings of any of the three remaining candidates. And, at this point, her unlikely nomination would almost certainly rip the very fabric of the Democratic Party's coalition.

But while some believe Barack Obama to be almost invincible in a general election matchup, McCain is holding his ground. The most recent CBS News poll shows him within five points of Obama and trailing Clinton by just two. More importantly, McCain leads among independent voters, leading Clinton among that group by 11 points and beating Obama by eight.

Campaign 2008 is shaping up to be a contest of personalities as much as party or policy. The Democrat will be a historic candidate, either the first black or woman nominee of a major party. And everything is going their way - eight years of Republican rule, a struggling economy, a war and uncertainty about the direction of the country.

______________ ____

So, the questipon becomes...what is going to happen?  DO any of really think that this sort of thing is lost on the Superdelegates and well-educated democratic voters?  I think not, which is why ever since Super Tuesday (or as Mark Penn may have called it, the end of the campaign, when I collect my bonus...payable [snark] perhaps in donuts) that Obama has been adding Superdelegates like gangbusters and HRC has picked up a few to moderate a few defections.  This also why Obama keeps on raising mone hand over fist, and HRC can't seem to keep up with the bills, including nearly 300K she owes for her salaried employee's health care costs, which presumably these days, includes a LOT of Rx Xanax.

The second question becomes, at least to the HRC folks out there who think that it is A-OK that the GOP is propping up your candidate on FOX, on the EIB network, etc....

WHAT ARE YOU THINKING?!

These are the same people who called Chelsea names when the Clintons took over in 1992.  The same people who worked tirelessly to unsuccessfully destroy Bill (and Hillary), going so far as to suggest that she had Vince Foster & Ron Brown killed.  The same people who undid Al Gore in 2000.  The same people who want to overturn Roe V. Wade, and maintain the status quo.  

Just think for a moment.  Rather than accepting, rather blindly the idea that these people have somehow seen the light and truly think Hillary a reasonable option as a force for unity..think again.  These people have demonstrated in the ugliest and bitterest means possible, that they only want to demean and destroy the Clintons.  THAT IS ALL THEY HAVE EVER DONE.  

They want to prop her up so that they can WIN in Novemeber, and USE her as the vehicle for the defeat of the Democrats in an election that is otherwise a cakewalk for the stronger democratic nominee!

Look, I am not going to be one of those people who suggests she get out on any other timetable than her own.  As I have said often (without getting any credit for it, save once from Texas Darlin') given Obama's meteoric rise..aided by a terrible Clinton campaign and a sometimes friendly media...that is the price he must pay.  ANY OTHER candidate would be expected to get out, but we owe Hillary and Bill the chance to do what they think is best.

Given the data and Super-delegate movmement, even they can't keep this up...especially if the fund spigot starts running even drier than it has.

However, I am also not going to give HRC and her folks a free ride on making wild, desperate claims that undermine their own credibility and value to the body politic...specifically:

1) That Obama doesn't want people to vote, and as such is unamerican.  HE HAS NOT gone out and told her to drop out.  He has in fact done the contrary. Before anyone whines about his surrogates and what THEY say...be aware that Hillary's surrogates have said plenty of things that she dare not too.

2) Obama is a racist.  If I read just one more Diary that suggest he is Wallace, or worse, I swear to the Lord himself, I will do everything in my limited power to make the diarist of such repugnant and loathesome BS miserable here.  Barack Obama LOVES his country and his countrymen.  Just as Hillary does.

It is shameful and ill-becoming of intelligent, reasonable people (which rules out SOME of you of course) to continually act like the people we have been compaling about for a decade.  It saddens and shocks me EVERY time I see a diary that calls into question Obama's honor and integrity just as it does whne some Obama goon does it to Hillary.

Grow UP!

To Sum:  

Gallup, setting aside the horserace that is in Obama's favor for the last week, shows someting even MORE POWERFUL...by 2-1, democrats and republican AGREE that Obama is the stronger candiate, and has the best chance of besting John McCain.

The GOP knows this and continues to send in their footsoldiers to help Hillary

HRC campaign and her supporters seem to embrace this, conveniently forgetting for the moment just with whom they are accepting help from.

I won't be a jackass and call for her to get out as some have, but at the same time I will not tolerate GOP-Troll-Rovian attacks on the character and spirit of the likely, and almost presumptive Democratic Nominee any longer.  WE ALL NEED to GROW UP.

There's more...

Of Cankles & Gluteous Maximus (and DO I mean MAXIMUS)

Throughout the ages the greatest leaders of the world, regardless of race, color, creed, or orgin, have been noteworthy for any number of characteristics.  Great men and women alike through the ages have inspired loyalty, leadership, and long-lasting, if not languid love by the power of their intellects and personal prowess.  

Among these characteristics that these leaders have universally shared, however, are NOT truly expansive hindquarters, and calves (you those calves, I call 'em holstiens! Yowza!) that somehow swallow up an area that SHOULD contain those sometimes attractive things we call ankles.

This is why Hillary cannot win. Queen's classic, "Fat Bottomed Girls" aside...there is literally no cultural or popular clue to support that there is an appetite on behalf of the public to partake of a vista that include a posterior the size of a buick wobbling and bucking beneath a polyester pantsuit on a daily basis.  

Some of this of course has to do with the real fears associated with the repurcussions of fat:  

The Sanfrancisco Chronicle published on the 27th of March the following:

Middle-aged people with excess visceral fat - usually apparent in the thick waist or pot belly of an apple-shaped body - are nearly three times more likely to suffer from dementia in their 70s and 80s than people with little to no belly fat, according to a study of Kaiser Permanente patients.
Researchers have long connected obesity, diabetes and heart disease to dementia. The new study - published today in Neurology, the journal of the American Academy of Neurology - suggests that the effect of fat on the body is more complicated than just a number on a scale.
"People need to think not just about weight, but where they carry their weight," said Rachel Whitmer, a research scientist at Kaiser's Division of Research in Oakland and lead author of the study. "They need to know if they're apples or pears."
People with *pear-shaped bodies
tend to carry most of their weight below the waist, in the hips, buttocks and thighs. People with apple-shaped bodies are at greater risk of having too much visceral fat surrounding internal organs deep in the abdominal cavity. Visceral fat is more common in people who are overweight, but even a very lean person with a small pot belly could have hidden visceral fat.
Researchers don't yet understand why visceral fat is particularly dangerous, but the fat is metabolically active and doctors think it may release toxins associated with atherosclerosis or plaque build-up in the brain that is apparent in people with Alzheimer's disease, Whitmer said.

In the Kaiser study, researchers looked at records from patients in their 40s and 50s who had their abdominal fat measured in the 1960s and '70s. Of the 6,583 patients studied, 15.9 percent had been diagnosed with dementia by 2006.

Among patients with the most visceral fat in middle age, the rate of dementia was 324.3 cases per 10,000; patients with the least belly fat had a rate of dementia of 214.6 cases per 10,000.

When the data was adjusted for factors that can affect dementia - including age, education, sex, and medical conditions such as stroke or heart disease - people with the most belly fat were 2.72 times more likely to develop dementia than those with the least fat.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg i?f=/c/a/2008/03/26/MNJSVQR4T.DTL

Clearly this study points to the subconscious need on behalf of the electorate to shun chubby leaders, particularirily in the age of understanding medicine and psychology.

Face it, no one, save perhaps for similarily "saddled" sychophants want a leader to go starkers while in office...why invite such terror by electing such a person...especially someone who may or may not be experiencing hormanal fluctuations associated with the rigors of middle age?  

In this Presidential race we do have a choice.  A choice between a THIN, and less likely to go mad individual who inspires people and frankly, according to the women of "The View", looks sexy:

(http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/03/liv eblogging_barack_obama_on_v.html?imw=Y)  

Even John McCain, who is older than kerosene, is fairly lithe.

Hillary of course is well known for her unfortunate conditions:

*Expansivius Gluteus Maximus & Elephantium Anklitis (or "Cankles")

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c11/Wt art/xHitlery/WhyPIAPS.jpg

______________ _________

All Right...are you mad yet, anyone?  This wee diary is brought to you in the snarky spirit of letting you see just how undeniably stupid some of us here are behaving.  Diaries that declare Obama a racist, then offers up articles and websites to support what is proported to be fact and not opinion...are uncalled for ... just like this one.

Debating how the size of Hillary's ankles and butt will impact her mind and image is pure stupidity.  But then again, so is calling Obama a racist, a Farakahn deciple..or whatever other piece of truly desperate non-issue oriented turd of the day the likes of FleaFlicker, JFK646, and some others pull out of the toilet to prop up Hillary or perhaps, as I suspect, John McCain.

There's more...

HBO's John Adams: Non-Election Entry 1

The first in a series of Gunslinger's observations that while are in the realm of America...have absolutely NOTHING to do with the continuing and bothersome fight between the HRC and BHO camps.

So, tonight...I wish to discuss John Adams.  I have seen some great work produced by HBO films, but ladies and gents, if you have not heard of or seen John Adams...take a load off, take a break from the campaign here and bear witness to the story of REAL fighting and REAL trouble.

The movie is of course a adaptation of McCoullough's brilliant biography of Adams, his family, and his role as the sort of the heart of the revolution.  Where Washington was the man of action, the reluctant but brave general, and Jefferson was the brains and the soul of the revoultion....it was Adams who risks more, and is the heart and guts of the effort...and the one who gets little of the credit.  Washington and Jefferson are the ones, no?

Anyway, the acting is superb, and Tom Wilkinson as Ben Franklin steals nearly every damn scene he is in. It is historically accurate, well-written, and if it doesn't sweep next years emmys....color me shocked.

Oh and it is produced by Tom Hanks too!

There's more...

Things Will Get Better For Hillary

I have been perusing the blogs at both kos and mydd today; have been watching the news; and while I still believe that Obama is likely to be the democratic nominee and will be elected President, I also believe wholeheartedly that whether it's tomorrow or in May, or in July...whenever the presumtive nominee is made known...Hillary WILL Continue to be one of the most powerful, respected figures not only in the world, but on the planet.  

I am not one of those out there demanding Hillary step down.  She is a figure of significance and stature and should not be forced to adhere to a timetable set forth by outside considerations.  Sure it would be better if we had one nominee by now, but for Barack Obama, IMO, the price he is forced to pay for winning the mantle of "presumptive nominee" given his meteoric rise...is having to allow Hillary (who had she run in '04 OR had she a better, more agile campaign staff in '08 would likely have obtained the nomination) to determine when it is time. I trust Hillary to not endanger the greater good at the expense of her own desires.  She's a patriot.  I also have enough confidence in Barack Obama to realize that he's going to prevail.  But for we who understand this to go out and force the issue...it is just WRONG, and does not do anything but engender further ill will for us and our candidate.

I am also troubled by the continuing race-baiting, and Obama bashing that is going on by some of the mydd community.  If I am, as an Obama man going to go out and try to calm down MY like-minded people who sometimes are rude, offensive and sometimes not so slightly mysogynistic...I ask some of YOU folks, to take to task those of you who are rabidly pursuing youtube race-baiting, calling names, and being equally devisive.

The State of the Race this week:
Barack Obama was weathered his flap with Wright well.  He gave the "Perfect Union" speech, and on Friday, on "The View"...said that had Wright not retired, and had some inflamatory language been uttered in his presence...he would in fact have left the church. One of the other things that helped him, is his newness.  There is no reputation for him ot be judged against.

Hillary, for good, ill or indifferent, has the Clinton problem...the existing reputation for exaggeration or falsehood. By misspeaking about Bosnia, she played into that very weakness. It is a story that had legs...and then by bringing up the Wright flap RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE of the Bosnia furor... that is why her numbers plummetted this week while Obama's rose back to pre-Wright levels.  She had a tough week.

But the point of this Diary is to remind people that Hillary is important, and necessary. She may well be President whenever Obama is done with his presidency (wold she run in 12 if Obama's 1st term is rocky?)...so let's all calm down and let this thing play out.  We owe her that for her respected years of quality service.

Let's be kind to one another..and if THAT's not possible, let's at least choose to admonish those among us who are seemingly more interested in cutting deeper than the last guy, or trying to remind everyone about the other candidates' worst flaws.

Peace.

There's more...

Diaries

Advertise Blogads