Obama Quest! McCain's Applesauce Avalanche!

It has indeed been a busy week for both Barack Obama and John McCain. Thankfully, John Stewart puts it all into perspective for us:

Obama's Berlin speech: He's back on track

Skeptical and jaded as I am, I have to say that Barack Obama impressed me with his speech in Berlin. I felt as though he has regained some of those attributes that first attracted so many progressives. This is the Barack Obama who gives me hope for a better future for our planet. (This is also the Obama who said he would filibuster FISA.)

The Democratic party broke my heart this year, so I cannot say that I give myself up completely to Obama. But after watching this video, I have a little more faith in his ability to do the right thing if elected to the White House. I have always said that he is a powerful and charismatic speaker. And when he is not being pulled into scuffles over Rev. Wright, etc., he really can unite people. So here's hoping his loony unofficial advisers of all shapes and sizes stay out of this thing going into November. And, that whoever wrote this speech stays around.

UPDATED: Sen. Obama, I'm trying, but you're not making it easy for me

UPDATE: MyBarackObama.com is back up and running. I encourage anyone who's as frustrated by Obama's vote on FISA as I am to sign up for the "President Obama, Please Get FISA Right" group. So far, it seems to be a fairly polite and articulate discussion of the issues. And hopefully if enough of us object to Obama's stand on FISA, our collective voice may be heard.

***

Yes, it's true that I wore an Obama sticker when I marched in the 4th of July parade. The next president of the United States will be either John McCain or Barack Obama, so ....

Part of the reason why I felt comfortable with the sticker is that I had some really good conversations with my cousin in Vermont who is a strong Obama supporter. I felt that he respected my previous support of Hillary Clinton, and that he understood my concerns with Obama's recent stands on issues such as FISA. In fact, my cousin encouraged me to go to the Obama web site, where many progressives who are displeased with this recent move to the center have been leaving comments urging Obama to reconsider some of his recent statements. Enough people have been commenting that it has made the news. Computer World reports:

In a development that shows how users can take Web 2.0 sites in unexpected directions, a group of Barack Obama supporters is using his presidential campaign's official social network to protest the Illinois senator's stance on a bill extending the so-called warrantless wiretapping program.

The social networking group set up on the MyBarackObama.com site to urge Obama to vote against the extension of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) had attracted more than 24,000 member entries as of last Friday, although some of the entries appeared to be duplicates.

So I thought that I'd check it out this morning and see if I left a thoughtful and polite comment, would I be attacked as a "troll" and all the rest of the things I was called at Americablog, Huffington Post, and the rest. Unfortunately, this is what you get today when you go to mybarackobama.com:

I'll keep checking. Hopefully it'll be back up soon ....

Sometimes I hate it when I'm right

Back in February, on the day of the Maryland Democratic Primary, I wrote this:

Watching the coverage makes me anxious. While Clinton's shown shaking hands with workers at the GM transmission plant, Obama's got crowds of young people waving signs and chanting. As Morra Aarons wites over at BlogHer:

Being a Hillary supporter is like being the person in the dorm who yells at her partying neighbors to shut up, because she's studying for a final exam. You know you have a good reason, but you’re a little annoyed at yourself for being such a pill.

I feel like a party pooper because I'm not shouting "Si, se puede!" But Senator Obama, se puede? Could I have some more details on how se puede?

At the time, many of my Obama supportin' friends (and I do have some diehards), thought I was being a stick in the mud by continually asking for more detail from Obama, and because I said my biggest concern about Obama was that we just don't know much about him -- not enough to know what he will do once in office.

And this week, Barack Obama has been very busy proving me right, crassly moving to the center on 3 important issues: gun control, death penalty, and FISA. Where is the "new" kind of politics? Where is the "Washington outsider"? Where is the man who spoke before thousands of adoring followers in Iowa and said:

Years from now, you'll look back and you'll say that this was the moment, this was the place where America remembered what it means to hope. For many months, we've been teased, even derided for talking about hope. But we always knew that hope is not blind optimism. It's not ignoring the enormity of the tasks ahead or the roadblocks that stand in our path.

It's not sitting on the sidelines or shirking from a fight. Hope is that thing inside us that insists, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that something better awaits us if we have the courage to reach for it and to work for it and to fight for it.

I thought that was too good to be true. I thought the Obama supporters were being naive to believe him when he said he would stand up and "fight for it." Now it turns out he's just another politician running for office, saying whatever he has to in order to get elected.

Crap. Sometimes I really hate it when I'm right.

Joel Stein of the LA Times received much grief for this characterization of Obama:

What the Cult of Obama doesn't realize is that he's a politician. Not a brave one taking risky positions like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich, but a mainstream one. He has not been firing up the Senate with stirring Cross-of-Gold-type speeches to end the war. He's a politician so soft and safe, Oprah likes him. There's talk about his charisma and good looks, but I know a nerd when I see one. The dude is Urkel with a better tailor.

So. What's next, Mr Mainstream Senator Obama?

Obama and the death penalty: He disappoints again

I'm trying. I really am. Hillary Clinton has conceded the nomination to Barack Obama, and as so many people keep telling me, he's way better than that other guy, John McCain. But when I vote in November, I would love to vote for Obama and feel good about it, rather than ... "meh, he's o.k."

But lately it seems that on issue after issue, Obama disappoints me. The latest came yesterday when he publicly announced his disagreement with the Supreme Court decision barring states from executing criminals guilty of child rape. Now don't get me wrong -- this is a horrible, despicable crime, and society should deal with those guilty of this crime in the strongest manner possible. But when the government starts killing people who didn't kill, when we start killing people for crimes that do not involve murder, we begin a deep descent into a special place in Hell.

At a press conference yesterday, Obama said:

I think that the rape of a small child, 6 or 8 years old, is a heinous crime and if a state makes a decision that under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances the death penalty is at least potentially applicable, that that does not violate our Constitution.

Obama agrees with Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas -- all dissenters in this case.

WTF?

There are so many reasons why the death penalty is wrong. Even if you agree with it in theory, you must acknowledge the Chicago Tribune description:

Who gets a sentence of life and who gets death is often a matter of random luck, of politics, of geography, even a matter of racism. Mistakes can occur at every level of the process.

As a state Senator, Obama was a proponent of death penalty reform because he understood the many problems with it as a truly just sentence. From Talk Left:

While an Illinois state senator, Obama was key in getting the state's notorious death penalty laws changed, including a requirement that in most cases police interrogations involving capital crimes must be recorded.

The changes enacted in 2003 reformed a system that had sent 13 people to death row, only to have them released because they were later determine to be innocent or had been convicted using improper methods.

"Without Barack's energy, imagination and commitment I do not believe the very substantial and meaningful reforms that became law in Illinois would have taken place," said author Scott Turow, a member of the state commission that recommended many of the changes.

Surely he understands that the problems were not unique to the state of Illinois. How can he now stand before us and say there should be more executions in this country?

I really am trying to like this guy, but he disappoints again. Because the guy who was supposed to be all about "change" looks more and more like the guy who's walking down the middle of the road.

photo AFP/Getty Images

Still looking for a "different" kind of politician?

Rep. Dennis Kucinich is still standing up in Congress and fighting for what is right. Let's hope Barack Obama can find the same backbone fortitude as Kucinich when the FISA bill hits the Senate floor today.



H/t to AfterDowningStreet, who also includes this from MoveOn.org:

On Friday, House Democrats caved to the Bush administration and passed a bill giving a get-out-of-jail-free card to phone companies that helped Bush illegally spy on innocent Americans.

This Monday, the fight moves to the Senate. Senator Russ Feingold says the "deal is not a compromise; it is a capitulation." Barack Obama announced his partial support for the bill, but said, "It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses."

Last year, after phone calls from MoveOn members and others, Obama went so far as to vow to "support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies." We need him to honor that promise.

Can you call Senator Obama today and tell him you're counting on him to keep his word? Ask him to block any compromise that includes immunity for phone companies that helped Bush break the law.

Obama's presidential campaign: (866) 675-2008.

Barack Obama: Sometimes he makes me feel all lightheaded. But not in a good way.

Before I get accused of hurting Democratic party unity, let me repeat that I will absolutely vote for Barack Obama in November. I mean, what else can I do?

But I still think he must be held accountable for his continued effort to please everyone on the issue of equal marriage for all. His die-hard supporters have always promoted him as a man of strong conviction, a man who will fight for what's right. So when I hear him in an interview like the one he did last night with Jake Tapper of ABC, I am disappointed. His verbal gymnastics as he tries to please everyone and offend no one, are just painful:

TAPPER: OK, last one, and that is same-sex marriage is now going on in California.

OBAMA: Right.

TAPPER: You oppose same-sex marriage.

OBAMA: Yes.

TAPPER: Do you think that the fact that this is now going on in California, does that cause you to re-think your pledge to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act?

OBAMA: No. I still think that these are decisions that need to be made at a state and local level. I'm a strong supporter of civil unions. And I think that, you know, we're involved in a national conversation about this issue.

You know, I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, but I also think that same-sex partners should be able to visit each other in hospitals, they should be able to transfer property, they should be able to get the same federal rights and benefits that are conferred onto married couples.

And so, you know, as president, my job is to make sure that the federal government is not discriminating and that we maintain the federal government's historic role in not meddling with what states are doing when it comes to marriage law. That's what I'll do as president.

TAPPER: Does it bother you, what California's doing?

OBAMA: No.

Please! Someone get me the Dramamine, 'cause all this back and forth is making me seasick!

4094 US deaths in Iraq: Let's put a Democrat in the White House and end this madness

For about the past twelve months, we Democrats have allowed ourselves to be distracted by the mainstream media, who has done nothing more than promote and exaggerate minor political points -- all the while ignoring the war, death, poverty and corruption that is "Operation Iraqi Freedom."

I'm sure I'm going to get some angry commenters who question my patriotism for this statement above. But does patriotism mean blind faith in political leaders who have a proven business interest in the outcome of war? Does it honor the men and women in uniform who serve us? Is it justice for the innocent civilians caught in the crossfire?

Two stories caught my eye this morning. First, this from Think Progress:

Bush administration blackmailing Iraq over long-term military agreement

Yesterday, the UK Independent reported that the Bush administration is trying to push a secret deal to “perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely.” Today, the paper has more troubling details about the Bush administration’s shady tactics:

The US is holding hostage some $50bn (£25bn) of Iraq’s money in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to pressure the Iraqi government into signing an agreement seen by many Iraqis as prolonging the US occupation indefinitely, according to information leaked to The Independent.

US negotiators are using the existence of $20bn in outstanding court judgments against Iraq in the US, to pressure their Iraqi counterparts into accepting the terms of the military deal.

The Bush administration is arguing that some of the Iraqi funds would lose immunity protection if the U.N. mandate “is not replaced by the new agreement.” But the Washington Post reports today that the Iraqi government may request an extension of the mandate. Juan Cole and Spencer Ackerman have more.

Next, from antiwar.com, please read

Sunday: 2 US Soldiers, 28 Iraqis Killed; 18 Americans, 58 Iraqis Wounded

A suicide bomber killed a U.S. soldier and wounded 18 more Americans in northern Iraq. Anoother U.S. soldier was killed during a roadside bomb blast in Baghdad yesterday. At least 28 people were killed and 58 were injured across Iraq. Meanwhile, Turkey reported striking suspected Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) targets in northern Iraq.

In al-Rashad, a suicide car bomber attacked a U.S. base, killing one soldier and wounding 18 more. Two Iraqis were wounded as well when the bomber drove a bomb hidden under a pile of animal skins into blast walls protecting the base. Police added five civilians to the tally of wounded. A conflicting report said that more soldiers were killed.

So, while the media tries to distract us with stories about Hillary Clinton's cleavage and Barack Obama's lapel pin, it is our duty as citizens of this most powerful and fortunate nation to filter out this detritus. Already we see shoddy reporting on the rising cost of gas -- stories that address neither our dangerous oil dependence nor the fact that supplies of oil are actually quite high, with the rising cost mostly a reflection of speculators and investors -- have we learned nothing from the housing crisis?

I cannot begin to tell you how disappointed I am in the outcome of the Democratic primary race. And if you've read this blog much, you know how I feel about how unfair the crowning nominating process in the Democratic Party was this year. But I do believe this debacle will bring about major changes in the DNC rules regarding primaries, caucuses, delegates, and superdelegates. Next time. But at this point, we must all get behind the presumptive nominee Barack Obama and work to end the war in Iraq. The worst case scenario at this point is John McCain in the White House, and you will surely help him get there by either voting for him, or by not voting at all in the fall.

Obama wins it, but that's not my biggest disappointment

The airwaves will be full of pontification today, and I don't want to add to the ridiculousness of it all. As a Clinton supporter, of course I am disappointed at the final outcome. But let me tell you what disappoints me most about this entire Democratic primary race.

First and foremost, I am disappointed in many of my fellow Democrats, and with the Democratic leadership. I make no excuses for Hillary Clinton's defeat -- it was a very close contest, and she came close to winning. In the end, counting the Michigan voters, Clinton won the popular vote, with 17,790,119 votes to Obama's 17,495,726. Without the Michigan voters, Obama won the nomination by 0.1 percent. The popular vote is a little tricky to get a true handle on, because some states have not released their final votes tallies. Even with the best estimates, however, Obama won the popular vote by 0.2 percent. In the end, I think Barack Obama had a better marketing team and better fundraisers.

And as Hillary Clinton decides where she goes from here, so do her women supporters. You see, we all got a little beaten up during this race. I thought it would be over by now, but this morning I turned on CNN to get the final numbers, and was subjected to Obama supporter former Congressman Ben "Cooter" Jones. I wouldn't have believed if I had not heard him twice refer to Senator Clinton as "Miss Clinton."

It's the kind of subtle diminishing of our accomplishments that women have endured for our entire lives, and the kind of talk we thought was unacceptable. But in the glow of Obama's victory, not a word was said to 'ol Cooter.

Because it's still o.k. in American society to belittle and make fun of women.

You might say, well Sue J., did you just wake up to this fact? Of course not -- I've spent a lifetime competing with boys, then men. I've heard the comments around the conference room table, in the lunchroom, on the playing field. But where I hadn't heard it before was from my fellow Democrats. And that has been the biggest disappointment of this election, by far.

A while ago there was a story in the news about a man in Georgia selling t-shirts with a picture of Obama looking like the character Curious George. There was -- quite rightly -- public outcry at the racist overtones of the image. That seems to be then end of the t-shirts.

Compare that with the public reaction to the "Hillary Nutcracker." These items were proudly sold in gift shops throughout America. Because it's still o.k. in American society to belittle and make fun of women.

Many feminists have tried to co-op this language and these items, as oppressed groups often do in order to gain some control over their destiny. So, we see women buying the "Nutcracker" and declaring it to be funny. And we see the slogan "Bitch is the new black" arise as we try to take back control of language used to belittle us.

Throughout this campaign, Hillary Clinton has been subjected to (almost) unbelievably sexist comments from all angles. I won't list them all here -- Shakespeare's Sister has done a wonderful job of keeping track of the most egregious examples with the Hillary Sexism Watch, which is currently at 104. So disappointing about many of those examples is the fact that no one in the Democratic party stood up and defended this woman. Especially since the attacks often came from members of the Democratic party itself.

Of course I am proud of this country and our party for electing a man of color as the nominee. But that pride is balanced with the another truth, which -- until this year -- I naively thought was history:

It's still o.k. in American society to belittle and make fun of women.

Equal time for comments taken out of context: Obama's turn

There was so much furor and uproar over Hillary Clinton's recent comment including Bobby Kennedy's assassination recently, that I thought I'd give equal time to highlight the ridiculousness of the media rush to judge Barack Obama over his harmless mistake in telling a family history.

In the past, I've written about my concern with Obama's tendency to be more concerned with telling a good story than with getting all the facts right. This is different. This is a harmless mistake: wrong camp. From Crooks and Liars:

Speaking in New Mexico on Memorial Day, Obama said a great-uncle had helped to liberate the Auschwitz death camp at the end of World War II. “I had a uncle who was one of the, who was part of the first American troops to go into Auschwitz and liberate the concentration camps,” Obama said (a YouTube clip of the remarks quickly went viral online).

He continued: “And the story in my family is that when he came home, he just went into the attic, and he didn’t leave the house for six months. All right? Now, obviously something had affected him deeply, but at the time, there just weren’t the kinds of facilities to help somebody work through that kind of pain.”

That may be a fact, the RNC noted gleefully — but only if Obama’s uncle had served in the Red Army of Joseph Stalin, which liberated Auschwitz on Jan. 27, 1945.

Obama’s campaign said yesterday that he had erred in naming the camp but not in describing the role of his great-uncle, who partook in the liberation of Buchenwald.

C&L rightly describes this as "one of the dumber outrages of the 2008 presidential campaign this week."

In case you missed it, please read the Politico defense for promoting such trivial, un-newsworthy stories such as this, un- self-consciously entitled "How small stories become big news."

It's all about the traffic, baby.

Clinton should fight for the Democratic nomination, as well as for anything else that's on the plate

Yes, I'm back from vacation and I'm all fired up again about the democratic primary. I pretty much avoided watching the news all week, just trying to stay current with the natural disasters in Myanmar and China, equal marriage legislation in California, and the weather forecast for Cape Cod. But yesterday I had a lot of time to read the newspapers , and I'm really starting to get annoyed (again) at the way Hillary Clinton is being treated by the Democratic Party.

Here's the thing: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are very close in this contest in both total votes and delegates. Yes, she's behind. But she's close. Very close. In fact, after winning several early large contests with his stadium style rhetoric, Obama hasn't continued his pace, but has instead basically maintained the same lead, not really gaining much more.

So why should she drop out? It's not unprecedented that a candidate should take this contest all the way to the convention. In fact, one of Obama's earliest supporters, Sen. Ted Kennedy, did just this in 1980, when he tried to get Jimmy Carter's delegates released at the convention in Madison Square Garden so that he (Kennedy) would get the nomination.

No, what's unprecedented is that this time it's a woman who is challenging the authority. So when Hillary Clinton stands up and says "I'm in this for everyone who's ever been down and kept fighting," it rings true for every woman who has ever worked hard only to be shut out. Oh, it's usually quite subtle, the shutting out. When I was a kid, we didn't have organized sports for girls, so for this tomboy it just became "sorry, you can't play." In the working world it's much more subtle, with women simply not being considered for certain opportunities, and then being offered less salary for the same positions.

And before you say, "yeah, and see what happened in 1980 -- we elected Ronald Reagan!" Please remember our state of affairs in 1980. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter had horrible approval ratings, inflation was through the roof, hostages had been taken in Iran, and along came the Hollywood Actor Playing the Part of President, Ronald Reagan.

Add to this the fact that Kennedy never really supported Carter once he became the presidential candidate. Hillary Clinton has vowed many times to support the democratic candidate for president, whomever it may be.

Hillary Clinton is an incredibly smart and dedicated woman. She has worked diligently to be where she is today. She deserves a fair shot at the presidential nomination. To suggest she simply "drop out" because she's behind is to diminish all that she has done, and to diminish how far we have come as women in American society. If you doubt that she has done more than Barack Obama and has the more substantive knowledge of politics and world affairs, please read the front page story from yesterday's New York Times, The Story of Obama, Written by Obama, which examines the story behind his two best-selling books. The books deserve a close look, because that's just about all we have to go by if we want to understand who Obama is. Unfortunately, in his effort to tell a good story Obama uses devices such as composite characters and changing the chronology of events to better suit the story.

“The book is so literary,” said Arnold Rampersad, a professor of English at Stanford University who teaches autobiography and is the author of a recent biography of Ralph Ellison. “It is so full of clever tricks — inventions for literary effect — that I was taken aback, even astonished. But make no mistake, these are simply the tricks that art trades in, and out of these tricks is supposed to come our realization of truth.”

It has worked out well for the Junior Senator from Illinois.

“Barack is worth millions now,” Mr. Osnos said. “It’s almost all based on these two books, two books not based on a job of prodigious research or risking one’s life as a reporter in Iraq. He has written about himself. Being able to take your own life story and turn it into this incredibly lucrative franchise, it’s a stunning fact.”

I'm sorry if you think she's being "divisive" and not working for "the good of the party." He's only ahead by a small margin, and he's not the better candidate. I've spent my entire life watching my mother put the needs and wants of others before her own. Just once I'd like to see her take the last brownie on the plate. But she won't. We won't. Because women are taught to compromise and to take care of others.

Take the brownie, Hillary. You deserve it.

My Clinton post of the week

O.k., so I wasn't going to write anything serious this week because I'm on vacation, but we did watch Hillary Clinton's victory speech last night, and I did happen to see the headline on the Boston Globe today that read "Clinton crushes Obama in WV Primary," and then I saw this:

Those who are responsible for putting Democrats in the broken place we are in right now with regard to Barack Obama had better own it to the end. Leave those bumper stickers on and wear those campaign pins until the bitter end folks because YOU OWN IT. And people are going to want to know whose to blame.

And as for the superdelegates, just an FYI, we have the list with your names, you will be held accountable on Election Day and beyond, too. This time around, everybody's going to be looking for accountability.

What's even more astonishing is that this post was on HuffingtonPost, of all places! (Well, the incorrect grammar should have been a tipoff, I suppose.) The article, "You Broke It, You Own It, Obama Style" is by Kristen Breitweiser. She continues:

Flash forward to Election Day 08. Can you imagine the backpedaling going on when it comes to explaining how Barack Obama -- the Democratic nominee by math not by sensibility -- loses key states? What will those pundits say?
...

In August when the Republican attack ads unroll with a screaming, ranting, raving, railing, and dancing like a chicken lunatic Reverend Wright juxtaposed with an angry Obama with an outstretched pointing finger overlayed by Obama's voice saying that he can't disown Wright anymore than he can disown his grandmother, will the superdelegates feel good and justified about their decision to try and kick Hillary out of the race before she won a state like West Virginia or Kentucky? Will those same superdelegates apologize for their bad judgment in thinking a candidate who lost 40% of the Democratic vote in a state primary -- a mere 5 months before Election Day -- should even still qualify to be the best candidate in a general election?
...

To me, it's the difference between buying cereal for the picture on the box rather than the ingredients on the nutritional label. Clinton supporters want to know what they are eating for breakfast--they don't get swayed by the fancy packaging that often hides the sugar and artificial additives hiding inside. They check the label. They read the ingredients.

The fact that Clinton won by such a landslide last night is important. I don't know what the Democratic powerful should do. But I do know that if they try to pretend that once Clinton drops her campaign, Obama will win the presidency, they are wrong. They (and we) need Hillary Clinton. So instead of insisting she drop out, let's figure out a win-win solution. For the country.

Cutting through the fog on the Iraq Authorization vote

Ambassador Joseph Wilson has an extremely well-reasoned essay on the the Iraq War and what the experiences of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have to do with it. Ambassador Wilson knows a bit about foreign policy. Taylor Marsh posts it here, but here is a brief excerpt:

Obama's campaign has been built upon his supposed transcendent qualities and intuitive judgment. His foreign policy experience is limited to having lived in Indonesia between the ages of 6 and 10, and having traveled overseas briefly as a college student. He further claims that a speech he gave against the war in Iraq six years ago to extremely liberal supporters in a campaign for state senator in Illinois is sufficient proof of his superior judgment in national security matters and qualifies him to be president and commander-in-chief of U.S. Armed Forces at a time when we are fighting two extraordinarily difficult wars. As with his relationship with Wright, a closer examination is warranted.

In the U.S. Senate, to which he was elected in 2004, a year after the launching of Operation Iraqi Freedom, he has done little to act on his asserted anti-war position, and has said repeatedly that had he been in the Senate at the time of the vote on the authorization for the use of military force he doesn't know how he would have voted. As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee on Europe, with jurisdiction over NATO, he has held not a single oversight meeting because, as he admitted, he was too busy running for president, even though NATO's presence in the Afghanistan war is critical to success in that venture.

One of my biggest concerns with Obama has been just this: while he says he is anti-war, what has he done since getting elected to the Senate? As for Hillary Clinton's vote to give the president authority, Ambassador Wilson explains it clearly:

Obama repeats the incorrect and politically irresponsible mantra that Sen. Hillary Clinton voted for the war and that therefore he is more qualified to be president. Unlike Obama, as the last acting U.S. ambassador to Iraq during the first Gulf War, I was deeply involved in that debate from the beginning.

President Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell made it clear publicly and in their representations to Congress that the authorization was not to go to war but rather to give the president the leverage he needed to go to the United Nations to reinvigorate international will to contain and disarm Saddam Hussein, consistent with the resolutions passed at the time of the first Gulf War.

With passage of the resolution, the president did in fact achieve a U.N. consensus, and inspectors returned to Iraq. Hans Blix, the chief U.N. inspector, has said repeatedly that without American leadership there would have been no new inspection regime.

Just to be clear, I'll say it again: If Barack Obama wins the nomination, I will vote for him. But I'll still always think Hillary Clinton would be better.

Pa. primary results raise real issues of electability

With Hillary Clinton's win in yesterday's Pennsylvania primary come some real concerns about Barack Obama's ability to win over voters. Or rather his lack of ability. The Obama campaign's defense is that Clinton had a stronghold on Pennsylvania and so her win there should not be a surprise to anyone. My issue with that defense is that these voters are just the type that he will need to win over in the general election. And I'm not sure he can do it nationally, if he couldn't in Pennsylvania, where he outspent the Clinton campaign by a 3 to 1 margin.

Both candidates have their strong and very loyal base, and that's how the voting went. CNN has the exit poll data -- click there to read all the numbers. But to summarize, the results don't show me that Obama is making any inroads with the voters he will need to win the general election in November.

Obama won
Younger voters
Blacks
College grads
Philadelphia and suburbs
Independents
Liberals
Candidate quality: Change


Clinton won
Women and older voters
Whites
Church-goers
All regions except Philly area
Gun owners
Democrats
Moderates and conservatives
Candidate quality: Cares about people, experience, electability
Voters worried about the economy
Union members

But by far the most interesting result to me was this oddity (click to enlarge):



Does anyone want to explain that one to me? Because what I see is that only 79% of Obama's supporters believe he will be the Democratic nominee, and I find that stunning.

Barack Obama sends secret message to "Obama Nation" What could it possibly mean?

Wow. Or as one of my favorite bloggers would say, Yikes! The more I try to come to terms with the fact that Barack Obama is the frontrunner and quite possibly will be the Democratic nominee for president, the more he personally tries to turn me off.

My message to him: I'd like to end our dysfunctional relationship, where I keep trying to forgive you for all the "boneheaded" things you do (your word). Maybe we should meet over a drink in a public place (in case it turns ugly). "I'm sorry, but this just isn't working out for me. It's not you, it's me."

No, Barry, turns out it is you.

From Yikes!:

Obama Finger-gate: Oh no he didn't!

From No Quarter:

Obama Stands Accused of Conduct Unbecoming a Presidential Candidate [Updates: Chicago Tribune, more MSM]

And from Tennesee Guerilla Women:

Obama Gives Hillary the Finger (Video)



h/t to Yikes! Oh yes he did ....

And by the way, "Obama Nation" is from an Obama supporter. The irony is not lost on me .... you say potAto, I say abomination .... let's call the whole thing off.

Debating the debate: Hello? McFly? Has anyone been paying attention?

I wasn't going to write anything about last night's debate, but after traveling around the blogosphere as well as writing some comments here, I find that I do have just one point I'd like to make.

Where have all these outraged viewers been all season?

I tuned in to the debates halfway through without expecting much — and I guess the fact that I didn't feel compelled to watch from the beginning says something right there. The part of the debate that I saw could be characterized as (1) questions consisting mostly of issue-oriented topics, and (2) both candidates were taken to task a few times by the moderators when they seemed to avoid giving a straight answer.

Over coffee this morning I said to Un-named Partner that I thought it was a pretty good debate (compared with the rest of the debates this season), and that Clinton seemed composed, while Obama seemed tired. I also said I thought the moderators were tougher than they have been in the past, which is also how many saw it overseas and here at home. Little did I know that there was a storm brewing amongst the Obama supporters over planted questions, and "trivial" topics.

Where have all these outraged viewers been all season?

As a Dennis Kucinich supporter, I watched in disbelief as Kucinich waited patiently to get asked a question, only to have Tim Russert ask him about UFOs. The man is leading a movement to impeach the President of the United States for taking us into an illegal war, and you ask him about UFOs?

Where have all these outraged viewers been all season?

In the Republican debates, Ron Paul was regularly shunned and otherwise ignored. While I don't agree with much of what he says, he was a candidate on the debate stage. And deserved equal time. But the mainstream media ignored him. The mainstream media ran the show.

Where have all these outraged viewers been all season?

So you'll have to pardon my lack of sympathy for Barack Obama having to answer questions that some people think are "trivial." These topics of who he associates with and choices he has made in his past are an issue to many people, and while they may not have merited 45 minutes of primetime coverage, I am astounded that anyone is surprised it happened.

Where have all these outraged viewers been all season?

photo credit Jae Hong

Bitter? You bet!

If Barack Obama wants to meet some bitter voters, he should start with this woman from Florida. I don't know who she is, but I sure wish some cable news show would hire her, because she cuts right through the crap and tells it like it is. She is one voter citizen (sorry, Florida, you don't count), who's clearly had enough of Obama's rhetoric and the media's forgiveness.



ht/t to Yikes! for this one!

Polls, polls, and more polls! Clinton up by 20 points

The Pennsylvania primary is a week from tomorrow, and there will be many more polls popping up in the coming the hours, I suspect. The candidates have had a very busy weekend, and it will be interesting to see how the Pa. voters react. But first out of the gate is the poll from American Research Group, which has Clinton up by 20 percentage points (click image to enlarge it):

Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama 48% to 44% among men (45% of likely Democratic primary voters). Among women, Clinton leads 64% to 31%.

Clinton leads 64% to 29% among white voters (82% of likely Democratic primary voters). Obama leads 79% to 18% among African American voters (14% of likely Democratic primary voters).

Clinton leads 52% to 43% among voters age 18 to 49 (50% of likely Democratic primary voters) and Clinton leads 62% to 31% among voters age 50 and older.

10% of all likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Hillary Clinton in the primary and 24% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Barack Obama in the primary.

23% of likely Democratic primary voters say that excessive exposure to Obama's advertising is causing them to support Clinton.

What's going on with that last item? People have complained about Clinton "attacking" and running a "negative campaign" in the past, but it looks like Obama's campaign is it's own worst enemy in Pennsylvania.

Obama's delegates: California dreamin'

If you think this election season has been out of control, you ain't seen nothing yet! Are you ready for today's civics lesson? Good! Today we'll examine California's system of electing delegates to attend the Democratic Convention this summer. You probably thought California voters already did that, right? No, silly, it has to be much more complicated than that, because if you really understood how our election process worked, you'd be storming the Bastille! From The RawStory:

Party caucuses scheduled for Sunday will elect a slate of delegates for each candidate — 134 for Clinton and 107 for Obama, for a total of 241. More than 2,000 candidates are running statewide.

So in the California primary, voters gave Clinton 134 seats at the convention, and Obama 107. Who will be sitting in those seats will be decided in yet another vote this Sunday. And here's where the fun begins. Yesterday, it turned out that the Obama camp had purged almost a thousand names from the list of potential delegates. And most of those names were "progressives," the kind of people who work for causes and issues rather than for candidates. The kind of people who could potentially be swayed on the convention floor.

Earlier this week, Obama's and Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign took advantage of party rules to purge scores of potential delegates in a bid to ensure that only their loyalists travel to the August convention in Denver where the party will anoint a presidential nominee.

Most of the cuts, about 900 names, were dropped by Obama, leading supporters to complain that they had been unfairly excluded. Clinton's campaign dropped about 50 names from its list of prospective delegates.

There was much unhappiness in the land of Obama! Supporters blogged with stories like Obama Slashes and Burns Through the Delegate List, and even the Obama lovin' Huffington Post ran this story: Obama's "Big Tent" Campaign Cuts Out the Little People in California.

That's pretty bad when Huffington Post gets on the bandwagon. But Obama's team has seemingly realized how dangerous it just might be to piss off the hardworking campaign staffers in the field, and so we have this:

Obama reinstates Callif. delegates

Facing a backlash from supporters, Barack Obama's presidential campaign reversed course Thursday and reinstated hundreds of people to lists that will be used to choose California's delegates to the Democratic National Convention.

Campaign manager David Plouffe said in a letter to potential delegates that all names would be restored to ballots that will be used Sunday to elect the delegates, overturning the earlier decision. The letter did not refer to the complaints.

Driven by fears that some prospective delegates might be concealing their true allegiances, the campaigns searched campaign finance data, scoured the Internet and made telephone calls to weed out people they believed to be dubious candidates.

Excuse me, but my Cynic-o-meter just short-circuited. The candidate of change looks like he's bringing old-style Chicago politics to the national stage ....

Media jumps on Clinton story without checking the facts

I know, I know. I said I wasn't going to let myself get pulled into the mud in the battle between these two. But this is typical of the differing treatment they get in the media, and I can't just sit and watch. First Clinton is dragged through the press for her exagerations about her trip to Bosnia. At least she admitted she was wrong and laughed at herself. By now you've probably read and heard that the sad story Hillary Clinton has been telling about a pregnant woman who died after being denied treatment because she couldn't pay the hospital was false. False! I tell you! (That's what all the papers said, so it must be true!)

Uh, not so much. Now from The Washington Post:

For weeks, Clinton repeated an anecdote she heard in Ohio on Feb. 28 involving a young woman who lost her baby and later died because she lacked health insurance and did not have $100 to gain access to a nearby hospital.

But over the weekend, Clinton came under fire when officials at O'Bleness Memorial Hospital, after reading about her remarks, demanded that she stop recounting it because the patient, Trina Bechtel, was admitted there and did have insurance.

That part, it turns out, is true. But so is Clinton's claim that Bechtel did not get care at another hospital that wanted a $100 pre-payment before seeing her, according to the young woman's aunt, Lisa Casto. "It's a true story," said Casto, 53.

Casto said her niece, who suffered from preeclampsia during her pregnancy, did not seek care at the first hospital she when she fell ill because she knew she did not have the $100 out-of-pocket she believed she would need to be seen. Instead, she went to O'Bleness Memorial Hospital, where her baby was stillborn. Bechtel was later flown to Columbus and died there. She was 35.

There was a time once when reporters checked the facts of their stories before they went to press. This is admittedly a somewhat complex story of our dysfunctional health care system, but one which could have been checked a little closer before publishing. Instead it was picked up by Hillary hatin' sites such as Huffington Post under the headline: Clinton Under Fire Over False Story Of Health Care Horror ... .

Which amazes me, given the number of times Obama has told much simpler tales full of errors, such as saying that his very existence was due to the marchers in Selma who changed society so that his parents could marry and have children. From his speech:

There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born. So don't tell me I don't have a claim on Selma, Alabama. Don't tell me I'm not coming home to Selma, Alabama.

Except that he was born 4 years before the Selma march.

Or how about when he recently tried to establish family ties between the Obamas and the Kennedys by saying his father came to America on a flight payed for by John F. Kennedy. Obama went so far as to say he owed his "'very existence' to the generosity of the Kennedy family."

It's touching. It's profound. It's downright audacious! But it's wrong.

Contrary to Obama's claims in speeches in January at American University and in Selma last year, the Kennedy family did not provide the funding for a September 1959 airlift of 81 Kenyan students to the United States that included Obama's father. According to historical records and interviews with participants, the Kennedys were first approached for support for the program nearly a year later, in July 1960. The family responded with a $100,000 donation, most of which went to pay for a second airlift in September 1960.

No matter ow many times he tells these tall tales, America lets it go. Sure, these details don't change the world. But are they an indication of the man who speaks with a golden tongue? Cane we believe what he says when his stories are so often riddled with errors? I hope his supporters are right, because it certainly does look like he will get the Democratic nomination. But I have to tell you, I have that same feeling in the pit of my stomach when I watched the returns in 2000 and 2004. I hope you people know what you're doing.