Newsflash . . . Hillary Ain't Special

As you all know, I've been pounding the question: "What about the math?"

Yes, I'm one of those people who's biased towards things like . . . um, I don't know . . . FACTS! And I must admit that I'm crazy enough to lend credence to objective standards like . . . um, let me see . . . NUMBERS!

So you can imagine my frustration with the media after weeks of falling for Hillary's long list of ever-changing goal posts.

Well, I'm please to say that the MATH is finally catching on. As such I will begin posting relevant quotes on this subject in my sidebar. Which leads me to today's post: Hillary Ain't Special.

Now, this is not a personal dig at Hillary. Although I don't support her, I am fully aware of the fact that she is an accomplished individual who has inspired her followers and done her fair share of trailblazing for women in politics. No, my charge has nothing to do with her personally, but everything to do with her campaign.

So, again . . . Hillary ain't special. The same applies to my guy, Barack. It also applies to John McCain and a slew of other people involved in this political race.

Let's get down to it.

Word got out yesterday that Senator, and Obama supporter, Patrick Leahy had the audacity to ask Senator Clinton to drop out of the race for the good of the party. In an interview with Vermont Public Radio, Leahy said,

"There is no way that Senator Clinton is going to win enough delegates to get the nomination. She ought to withdraw and she ought to be backing Senator Obama."

Leahy released another statement later that day saying,

"Senator Clinton has every right, but not a very good reason, to remain a candidate for as long as she wants to. As far as the delegate count and the interests of a Democratic victory in November go, there is not a very good reason for drawing this out." - via the Huffington Post.

Oooh! You done did it now, Senator Leahy. I'm 'a tell Momma Clinton what you said! (LOL)

The "nerve" of this guy, right? I mean, where does he get off telling Senator Clinton to step down? How dare he? He has no right to say this. Why are people asking the WOMAN to step aside for the good of the party? It's sexist! It's elitist! It's undemocratic! It's . . .

nothing new????

Let's see. . . stepping aside for the good of the party. Why does that sound familiar?

Oh, there's this:

"It's time for me to step aside so that history can blaze it's path. We do not know who will take the final steps towards Pennsylvania Avenue, but what we do know is that our Democratic Party will make history. We will be strong. We will be unified. And, with our convictions and a little backbone, we will take back the White House in November; and we'll create hope and opportunity for this country." - Former Senator, John Edwards, January 30, 2008.

or how about this:

“Because I love America, in this time of war, I feel I have to stand aside for our party and our country . . .” - Former Governor, Mitt Romney, February 7, 2008.

Now I remember. Stepping aside for the good of the party and/or country is the reason most politicians give when they decide to drop out of the race. It ain't got nothing to do with Hillary's gender. It's not a matter of democracy. No, it's all about the math.

Sorry folks, but Hillary ain't special.

We started this presidential contest with roughly 20 people. One by one we dwindled down to the final three. With the exception of Mike Huckabee, every candidate voluntarily stepped aside before they had to.

John Edwards didn't have to quit when he did. Neither did Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani. None of them were mathematically eliminated from the race. However, each of them (yes, even the Republicans) stepped down when they saw the writing on the wall. Each of them stepped down when they saw that the math just wasn't going to work out.

Romney quit right after a disappointing Super Tuesday and a crucial defeat in California. He could have pressed on, but the math wasn't in his favor. He stepped aside.

Giuliani dropped out after a humiliating third place showing in Florida. He wasn't mathematically eliminated either, but he stepped aside for the good of the party.

John Edwards left the race just before Super Tuesday. Once again, he had every right to stay in it. He could have maintained his 15% showings in each state. He could have drained votes away from Hillary and Barack for the sake of ego or in some grand hope of becoming king-maker. But he didn't. Like the others, John Edwards saw the writing on the wall. He realized that some things are bigger than personal ambition. He stepped aside.

The Clinton camp would like to have people think that this is some travesty of justice. How could anyone even think of asking her to drop out?

I'll tell you how. Let's see if I can give it a try . . .

Hillary Clinton needs to drop out NOW!

My goodness. I'm still breathing. I haven't been struck by a bolt of lightening. Time has not stopped. The gates of Hades have not opened. I guess it is true . . . there really is life after the Clintons.

Ok, let me take a less sarcastic approach . . .

Senator Clinton. You cannot catch up in the pledged delegate race. You've will not win the states race. It is highly unlikely that you can catch up in the popular vote. Meanwhile, you're antics are giving the GOP its talking points for the Fall and both you and Senator Obama are wasting time, effort and money fighting each other while McCain sits nice and pretty taking adulation from your husband, Bill. For the good of the party, Senator Clinton, it's time to step aside.

Just like Edwards, Romney and Giuliani, Senator Clinton should see the writing on the wall. Sure, she's slated for a solid (10-15%) win in Pennsylvania. She'll get positive press and more "comeback kid" praise for about a week. But, just like after Texas and Ohio, Hillary will soon find that most, if not all, of her gains will be erased by subsequent Obama victories. We'll be in the same place we started, only with less money; less time; a weaker (more divided) Democratic Party; and a stronger John McCain.

Ed Shultz said it best when he reminded people that, after throwing the kitchen sink, Hillary is no closer now, than she was in February.

So my challenge remains. Hillary must show the Party and the people her MATHEMATICAL plan to win the nomination without:


1. Using super delegates to reverse the will of the people (Oh, and that "will" is expressed through pledged delegates as it has been in EVERY Democratic race); and

2. Strong-arming the DNC to change the rules at the end of the game by counting MI and FL after declaring that neither state would count.


So, like all the rest before her, it's time for Hillary to call it a day. The same thing happened to Chris Dodd when he dropped out. Same for Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich, Bill Richardson, Fred Thompson . . . the list goes on and on. Hillary is no different. . .

Hillary ain't special.

Recently, MSNBC's Chuck Todd (someone who actually agrees that she has the right to stay in the race) basically admitted that Hillary's best case scenario is the Democrats' worst nightmare.

Hillary's best hope is to muddy the waters so much, that this thing drags out until August whereupon she and Bill can strong-arm the super delegates into handing her the nomination. That means 3-4 more months of party in-fighting; declining poll numbers; and a lack of focus on John McCain. It would also likely have to coincide with the political destruction of Senator Obama and the subsequent defection of both the black vote and the future of the party, voters ages 18-30.

That's a pyrrhic victory waiting for whomever escapes that death match. Say hello to President John McCain.

Senator Clinton and her supporters are no different than any other candidate and their supporters. Each candidate faced this same scrutiny when the math didn't add up. Each candidate faced questions from the media. Hillary is no different.

And don't lie. We all know that Obama would already be gone by now if the roles were reversed.

Sorry folks. Hillary ain't special.
Read more!

Reactions to the Speech

Just wanted to share some reactions I saw to Obama's speech. . .

Jon Robin Baitz, Huffington Post :

"Today we saw and heard a preview of our brightest possible American future in Senator Barack Obama's glorious speech. This, then, is what it means to be presidential. To be moral. To have a real center. To speak honestly, from the heart, for the benefit of all. If there was any doubt about what we have missed in the anti-intellectual, ruthlessly incurious Bush years, and even the slippery Clinton ones (the years of "what is is"), those doubts were laid to rest by Barack Obama's magisterial speech today."

Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post :

"Once again, the conventional wisdom proved stunningly unwise. Barack Obama was supposed to be on his heels, forced
into a backpedaling, defensive crouch after racially charged remarks by his former pastor, delivered from the pulpit years ago, suddenly became the hottest story of the presidential campaign. But instead of running away, Obama issued a challenge to those who would exploit the issue of race: Bring it on. . .

[Obama] might have pulled off something that seemed almost impossible: He not only ventured into the minefield of race and made it back alive, but he also marked a path for the rest of us to follow."

Julie Bergman Sender, Huffington Post :

"Obama is not a conventional candidate. And it is because of all the things he is and all the things he is not. He understands that we ought to respect all of our stories and learn each other's stories to protect ourselves from our destructive patterns and from ignorance. He is working to help us find the connections between all our stories while not losing our distinctive narratives. And to accept our multi-layered memories as the truths they tell us about ourselves and one another. . .

If we choose now to relinquish the opportunity to embrace a leader who sees contradiction with such truth and tolerance we may be doing so at our peril. Because this kind of emotional and intellectual intelligence isn't born from the kind of black and white way of looking at the world we have been living with for the past 8 years. This is a man who dreams in color, and we should seize the opportunity his candidacy offers all of us -- together."

Andam McKay, Huffington Post :

"It didn't make sense. A politician responding to a TV news scandal during an election and he's not on the attack or the defensive. Instead he's asking us to look at the forces that shape our feelings on race and understand them. . .

But it happened. Barack Obama spoke like an enlightened leader from 2008 instead of like the fake cowboy from 1885 that most politicians evoke or like a pharmaceutical salesman talking about change, but "not that much change" at a team building exercise in Tahoe. In other words, he didn't pass the buck to save his own ass. It was a monumental moment in modern American politics. He didn't distract, deflect, or attempt to frighten. He didn't accuse, declare war, or get angry. He didn't game play, scape goat, or blame. Can you imagine? We need to engrave this shit onto a commemorative coin fast."

Alan Wolfe, The New Republic :

"We have been asked to reflect in the most serious of ways about the role that race plays in the life of our country. I cannot recall any leader or potential leader in the last two or three decades asking us to do that. I hope we are up to the challenge."

Maureen Dowd, The New York Times :

"Unlike what the Clintons did to Lani Guinier, responding to her radical racial ideas by throwing her under the bus, Obama went to great pains to honor the human dimension of his relationship with his politically threatening “old uncle,” as he calls him."

Chris Durang, Huffington Post :

"Obama's Speech: He offers real hope, we should take it."

Roland Martin, The Roland Report :

"Sen. Barack Obama has made it clear that [h]is candidacy for president is not about the color of his skin but the content of his character."

There are a lot of other responses out there. Most of them are positive. A few are negative. Some were mixed.

Regardless of the response, most people seem to agree that this will prove to be an historic speech that future generations will reflect upon. Obama did a great job in strengthening the possibility that we might soon reflect on this speech as the moment he became, "President."

A caller to the Ed Shultz show said it perfectly. In the nightmare that was the Jeremiah Wright controversy, we got to see just how Obama answers that 3:00 AM phone call. Not with fear. Not with doubt. Not with divisiveness or anger.

No. Obama answers that 3:00 AM phone call with calm, steadfast resolve. Even more, he challenges us . . . invites us to listen in on the other line.

Yes, Obama did something special yesterday:

1. He declared his faith and trust in the generosity and, yes, intellect of the American people.
   
2. He marginalized the conservative punditry as the haters they are.

As usual, the conservative media overreached when it saw blood in the water.

It wasn't enough to try and raise doubts. No, no, no. The Fox News and Sean Hannity crowd had to go a step further and try to convince the public that Obama was some sort of Manchurian candidate sent to trick the white man and paint the White House black.

They tried to make him into someone who hates America. Well, millions of people saw that speech, yesterday. And, regardless of whom you support, it's safe to say that there is NO WAY you can hear such a heartfelt speech and have any credibility to argue that this man hates America!

I'm willing to bet that there were some who even criticized Martin Luther King's, "I Have a Dream" speech. We don't read much about them in the history books. Wonder why???? I'll tell you. It's because they were on the wrong side of history.

One day, my grandchildren will read about Barack Obama, NOT Sean Hannity!

After months of gotcha politics, Obama gave America a glimpse of what it could be if we are willing to think about it. To think. To have a President ask us to think. How refreshing!

In the words of the Daily Show's Jon Stewart:

"And so, at eleven o'clock AM on a Tuesday, a prominent politician spoke to America about race - as if they were adults."

Read more!

Unbelievable!

No words are needed . . . just listen . . .



Read more!

Finally!

I've been WAITING to see an ad like this one. Please tell me this gets heavy rotation on the airwaves:



Personally, I'd like the ad to have a little more kick to it. They could just replay her speech on the Senate floor.

But this is a good start.
Read more!

Some Thoughts on the Wright Controversy . . .

On Race, Politics and White Comfort:

I'd like to thank the creator of the above image, Oren neu dag. Unfortunately, some may find such an image controversial. It might make some uncomfortable. But, for myself as a black man, this is an image of beauty. Which leads me to my topic.

When Katrina hit, Jesse Jackson lamented that this country has a high tolerance for black pain. Ain't that the truth.

Things like this Wright controversy tell me that my pain does not matter. Why? Because it never has anything to do with what I say . . . no, it has everything to do with how I say it.

Issues like the Wright controversy send the warning that I better keep my place . . . watch my tone. Because black anger is never afforded the opportunity at discussion and/or redemption.

As a black man, I don't have the right to get angry or show emotion. And if I should make a mistake and say something untoward, then I'm not allowed the opportunity to simply apologize. For some reason my fate must be far worse than that given to everyone else.

It proves that my struggles and frustrations must be silenced if it makes mainstream ("white") America uncomfortable.

I, and many other black folk, have NEVER been so privileged so as to think that we could dictate policy or control someone else's life based on how comfortable or uncomfortable something made us feel. Sometimes we get lucky and white guilt throws us a bone. But even that usually comes after some tragedy in the black community.

We know the drill. We're uncomfortable almost every day. It's just that we've learned to live with it and move on.

But now . . . despite everything Obama has done to make white folk feel as comfortable as possible. After an entire year of denying a part of himself and distancing himself from anything remotely "black" just to make white America comfortable . . . you've got the media trying to kill his chances at being president.

NOT because of anything that Obama said. NOT because Obama is an "angry black man." But solely because he has a relationship with a black man whom the media can portray in such a stereotype!!

Let me be honest. Barack Obama is about as "safe" a black man as you're going to see. I've watched in amazement as I've seen him deflect attacks from all sides. . . to have his blackness questioned one day and then be accused of being TOO black the next . . . to avoid race like the plague just to give white America the chance to vote for a black person without being made to feel guilty for the transgressions of past generations. Even now, Obama still speaks of unity and understanding.

As I said before, it's not the comment so much as the IMAGE that makes people uncomfortable. The IMAGE of a defiant, strong black preacher dressed in foreign African robes leading a congregation of equally defiant passionate black people. That's scary to a lot of white America.

THAT is a fear of black aggression and black power. And it don't matter whether your as fiery as Jeremiah Wright or as accommodating as Barack Obama. You ain't gonna get anywhere unless you master the ability to make white America comfortable. And now people say they can't vote for him because they're UNcomfortable.

You know what, black folk have been uncomfortable for over 400 years. There's not a day that goes by where black folk don't bite their tongue and grit their teeth just to keep the peace.

WHEN are we gonna ask white folk to be a little uncomfortable for a change? I don't mean that in a racist way. I'm just asking.

Is that not the definition of a pluralistic society? Let me check out Webster's dictionary . ..

"pluralism" - "a state of society in which members of diverse ethnic, racial, religious, or social groups maintain an autonomous participation in and development of their traditional culture or special interest within the confines of a common civilization."

If we are truly a pluralistic society, then we must allow everyone, INCLUDING black folk, the opportunity and right of self-definition and self-determination (props to fellow blogger, ronnie b, for pointing that out).

All I know is this . . . White politicians go to the black community all the time and ask for our trust, tolerance and understanding. We always give it to them.

Blacks vote for a white candidate every four years - regardless of his shortcomings; despite OUR OWN DOUBTS AND QUESTIONS (that never get answered); despite OUR OWN DISCOMFORT, we trust that everything's gonna be alright and we'll make it through somehow.

Well, this black man is asking white America to return the favor for once. I don't want to dismiss your concerns. I know it's different. I know we've never seen this before. I know white America has it's questions.

But Barack has done all he can to ask for white America's trust and understanding. He deserves to be judged as being self-autonomous. He deserves to be judged by his own reputation.

He deserves the same chance black folk have been giving white politicians ever since we got the right to vote.

Be Somebody,

B-Serious
Read more!

Uh Oh! Someone's Growing a Spine!

Am I the only one who's noticed or is Democratic Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, gettin' gangsta all of a sudden?

Think about it . . .

First she threatens Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten with prosecution for contempt of Congress due to their roles in obstructing Congressional investigations into the alleged political firings of U.S. Attorney Generals in 2006.

Then Pelosi killed the "dream ticket" talk and called out Hillary Clinton as the reason,

"I think that the Clinton administration (sic) has fairly ruled that [dream ticket] out by proclaiming that Senator McCain would be a better Commander in Chief than Obama.

But Pelosi wasn't finished there. Next, the Speaker challenged President Bush over his remarks that the House's surveillance bill would place the country in danger,

"That's the same question I got in 2001 when they asked me -- when I said the intelligence on Iraq does not support the threat of -- an imminent threat to our country that the administration is contending.

That's what they said to me then. They said, 'Are you saying the president is lying?" I said then and I say now, 'I am stating a fact.'

The president is wrong and he knows it."

Now, in her most recent and refreshing display of conviction, Nancy Pelosi tells ABC's George Stephanopoulos something a lot of us have been waiting to hear . . . super delegates should not reverse the will of the people. Having the courage to finally state the obvious, Pelosi said,

"If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what's happened in the elections . . . it would be harmful to the Democratic Party."

Pelosi went a step further, when she basically told Stephanopoulos that she ain't buying Hillary's "popular vote," spin. When asked what should happen if one candidate gets the popular vote while the other gets more delegates, Pelosi answered,

"But it's a delegate race . . . The way the system works is that the delegates choose the nominee."

What a breath of fresh air. Pelosi's actions over the past few weeks portray a dying breed in American politics: a Democrat with some backbone . . . a Democrat who's willing to speak her mind . . . a Democrat who's not swayed by the political spin that attempts to create alternate realities (be it from Bush or Clinton).

I must admit, I've never paid too much attention to the Speaker. But I'm starting to like her. Now, she might disappoint me tomorrow. But she's definitely got more of my attention.

One important thing to consider is the fact that Nancy Pelosi gets to chair this year's Democratic Convention in Denver. She's remained neutral, but her comments over the past couple of weeks seem to be in line with Obama's positions.

If this comes down to the superdelegates, Obama's going to need a few friends to stop Clinton's politricks. What better friend to have than the chair of the convention itself? Let's not forget, she's the country's highest ranking Democrat. Once again, Pelosi's a good friend to have.

Al Gore is staying neutral as well, but conventional wisdom suggests he'd likely prefer Obama if he had to make the choice. Throw in a Democratic powerhouse like Ted Kennedy and Obama's got an impressive cadre of political muscle to watch his back in those back room deals at the convention.

But that's getting ahead of ourselves. For now, I'll keep an eye out to try and figure where some of these super delegates are leaning. So far, I like what I'm seeing from Pelosi. Let's hope she's contagious.

Bravo Speaker Pelosi. Keep up the good work!
Read more!

Delegates . . . We'll Take 'Em Wherever We Can Get 'Em!

It's like they just keep falling into his lap.

In case you missed it, Obama expanded his delegate lead over Clinton today. By way of the Huffington Post:

"More than half the 14 delegates allocated to John Edwards on the basis of caucus night projections switched Saturday to Obama. Iowa Democratic Party officials said that with all of the delegates picked, Obama claimed 52 percent of the delegates elected at county conventions on Saturday, compared with 32 percent for Clinton. Some of the delegates picked at Saturday's conventions were sticking with Edwards, even though he's dropped from the race since Iowa held its caucuses in January.

Democratic Party projections said the results mean Obama increased by nine the number of delegates he collects from the state, getting a total of 25 compared with 14 for Clinton and six for Edwards. . .

[A]n Associated Press delegate tally showed Obama with 1,617 delegates and Clinton with 1,498."

Hey, every little bit helps!
Read more!

This Guy is GOOOOOD!

On the heals of the Wright controversy, Obama addressed the issue head on in Indianapolis earlier today.

During a speech in Plainfield, IN, Obama stressed the concept of unity through understanding. In doing so he alluded to the fact that uniting the country requires that we strive towards a sense of empathy. It's not enough to share the good times; we must also be willing to come together when times are uncertain . . . when we have questions.

It also means that we can't hide from the frustrations that are inherent in racial discourse. It ain't gonna be some nationwide sensitivity training, y'all. Some people are going to say some things that aren't pc. But it doesn't mean that such statements aren't sincere. You can't sweep them under the rug.

The issue is not what's said. No. True leadership comes in determining how we address those challenging moments when they arise. It is possible to reject the message without killing the messenger.

Take a look:



Memo to Obama's opponents. You don't want to let this brotha get his hands on the mic. That's like giving the ball to Jordan with 3 seconds left! Obama just went from scape-goat to teacher in less than five minutes (LOL!).

Still, the fact remains . . . true reconciliation must allow space for people to vent their frustrations. This nation cannot heal it's wounds if it won't spot the injury. Given his unique background, Obama might be in a perfect position to do that.

I'll say it again. This guy is good!
Read more!

Florida's Settlement Offer

More on the MI/FL debate . . .

Florida Senator, Bill Nelson (Hillary supporter) has offered a proposal to count the FL contest as is, but only seat half of the delegates:

via yesterday's Orlando Sentinel:

"With the Florida Democratic Party's proposed mail-in do-over of its Jan. 29 presidential primary drawing more heat than support, U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson began floating the idea Friday of seating half the state's 186 pledged delegates at the party's national convention. . .

The Nelson plan still gives Clinton the edge, based on her 17 percentage-point win in January. But instead of gaining 38 delegates, Clinton's victory margin in Florida would be reduced to 19."

This is an interesting proposal. Now, I personally think that FL and MI shouldn't count. Those were the rules. Plain and simple. Everyone agreed to those rules and the time to protest was months ago when the DNC made it clear that they would strip the two states of their delegates.

However...

A couple of things to consider:

1. The bigger picture says the DNC should not alienate two swing states like FL and MI because it could come back to bite them in November; and
2. If you notice, the Obama camp has acquiesced to "seating" the delegates in some fashion. The reason for this is clear. It would be a public relations nightmare to come out against the voters . . . even if the rules are on your side.

In truth, there should be NO negotiations on this matter. Obama played by the rules. Clinton wants to change the rules.

CNN contributor, Roland Martin doesn't want to hear it. On his Essence blog, The Roland Report, Martin discussed the MI/FL debate, saying:

"If it were my call, I would tell them, 'See ya in four years.'

Sure, that’s pretty harsh, but 48 other states followed the rules. There is no doubt some of those states thought this would be over by Super Tuesday on February 5 and wanted their state to have a say in who the nominee would be, but they chose to be patient and wait their turn. Michigan and Florida didn’t. . .

No. Enough. Let’s end this madness and tell Florida and Michigan that they had their shot. They blew it. It’s time to move on and let the people who know how to play by the rules get on with this process. They made their bed. Now sleep in it."

And the people in Michigan and Florida should throw out the bums who stiffed them. "

I definitely hear Roland's point. I feel bad for the people of MI and FL, but the time to protest was months ago, not now.

Still, negotiations are all about the endgame. 19 delegates won't make a big difference in the math. Obama will still have an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates. Plus, this deal would take the issue off of the table (thus removing one of Hillary's talking points/excuses for prolonging the race and delaying an Obama nomination).

My personal preference would be to either:

1. "Split the baby" - Seat the delegates 50/50 in each state. Thus allowing participation without the ability to determine the nominee (a position that Roland Martin agrees with as well); or
2. Say, "No mas. No pass go. The rules were set. The parties agreed. The states knew the consequences. You don't get to change the rules in the middle of the game."

But, given the fallout and assured headache of a prolonged nomination process, I MIGHT be open to Senator Nelson's idea on the following condition:

Florida's popular vote does not count.

You see, that's what Hillary really wants out of this. She knows she can't catch Obama in the delegate race. However, she has a chance (although still highly unlikely) of catching Obama in the popular vote. To do that, she'd have to beat Obama by landslides in PA, FL and MI. We're talking a 200,000 to 300,000 vote spreads in each of those states. It's unlikely, but still slightly better odds than her catching Obama in the delegate race.

Let's not forget. The DNC picks its nominee by way of DELEGATES, not the popular vote. To suggest otherwise would be like ignoring the electoral college in the general election.

But that won't stop Hillary from trying to change reality to make it a popular vote issue. That would be the worst possible nightmare for all parties involved . . . to have one candidate with the delegate lead and the other with the lead in popular votes.

Obama would still be in good shape. He'd have the best 2 out of 3 (states won and delegates vs. popular vote). But a popular vote lead for Hillary would at least give her a moral argument (however, weak in comparison) to try and persuade the super delegates.

Obama could agree to a Nelson-type deal in both FL and MI; thus killing a big part of Hillary's spin machine. She wouldn't be able to claim that she "won" FL and MI because both contests would be seen as compromises rather than elections.

Even more, agreeing to end the drama over these two states would quite possibly enhance Obama's math argument. Two less states means two less opportunities for Hillary to catch up in delegates and the popular vote. Every time Hillary fails to make a gain in the math is a time where her hurdle gets even higher. It would mean that she'd have to wipe the floor with Obama in the remaining states, including states like North Carolina and Oregon where Obama is favored to win.

I'm not necessarily sold on Senator Nelson's proposal. But it definitely makes for a good discussion piece. I'd like to know if the magic 2025 nomination threshold changes with this proposal. That might be a deal breaker if it does.

Soooooo . . . what do you guys think?

Put on your thinking caps. It's time for a little aternative dispute resolution.

What are the positives and negatives of going through with Nelson's proposal? Don't forget, Nelson is a strong Hillary supporter. What does he get out of this? Am I missing some ulterior motive that the Clinton camp might gain out of this? Or does this look like a good deal, given the alternative of a prolonged campaign and a weakened Obama candidacy in the Fall?

Or . . .

Would you rather play hardball and stick with the rules that say the states should not count?

I yield the floor to my readers. Let me know what you think.

Read more!

The Message Has Not Changed! YES WE CAN!

With all of the controversy surrounding this past week. I just thought I'd give y'all a little reminder.

Listen. I know what is right. At the end of the day, I don't need a bunch of cynics defining my beliefs . . . my experiences . . . and denying MY VOICE.

Like millions of others, I've found MY VOICE reciprocated in Barack Obama's campaign. No Hillary spin . . . or Fox News propaganda . . . or Jeremiah Wright controversy is going to change that.

In Obama, I see a political leader who, for the first time in my life, RESPECTS my intellect . . . who has placed his political career in the belief that the American people are much smarter than their leaders often give them credit.

That's what I believe in. I believe in myself. I believe in my ability to think and act for myself. And that's something the cynics will never get. It's the message, not the man!

I made my judgment a long time ago. No one is perfect. But I chose to think for myself.

As such, I choose to judge Obama by his own words . . . his own deeds . . . his own reputation.

It is a reputation that he's EARNED.

So my advice . . .

DO NOT lose focus!

DO NOT take a defeatist attitude!

DO NOT let people distort reality!

TRUST in your own instincts!

APPRECIATE your involvement in this campaign . . . your involvement in actively reclaiming your country. And never let anyone spin the truth: Barack Obama is WINNING.

He's winning because of US! He's winning because his campaign is the quintessential embodiment of active participatory/civic engagement and critical thought.

Every phone call you've made. Every argument you've had with a coworker. Every email you've sent or blog you've posted or meeting you've organized . . . ALL of that has created a lead that will (by all objective standards) catapult Obama as the Democratic Nominee. That same hard work will make Obama our next President of the United States.

People, it's gut-check time. This is about YOU. This is about US. The way I see it, we've worked far too hard to let ignorance and fear steal it away from us now.

So . . . if you're unsure or feeling a little down, just remember that it was never going to be easy. Hope has never been easy. Change has never been easy.

But, in times like this, it's important that we stop to remind ourselves of what we stand for. And, regardless of the Sean Hannitys of the world, we must recommit ourselves to our greater angels. We're worth fighting for!

So, I just wanted to re-post this video as a little reminder. It embodies the spirit of this movement. It is a spirit that cannot be denied.

Yes we can!




Read more!

On Hateration and Keith's Special Comment

How do you argue against blatant, unapologetic and self-righteous stupidity?

I honestly can't tell you.

I've long learned to NEVER argue with a genius or a fool.

Which is why I decided not to do a post on the latest case of foot-in-mouth disease from former congresswoman (and first-ever female vice presidential candidate), Geraldine Ferraro. In case you've been living under a rock, here's what she had to say.

In an interview with The Daily Breeze, Ms. Ferraro said the following:

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she continued. "And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

Of course, those who aren't stuck-on-stupid heard this and asked a very reasonable question . . . "WTF is she talking about?"

Upon being confronted by those of us who've actually read a history book, Ms. Ferraro resorted to a tactic commonly exercised by the Clintons when faced with unfavorable facts: create you're own reality . . .

Back to the The Daily Breeze:

"Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world, you're accused of being racist, so you have to shut up," Ferraro said. "Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white.
How's that?"

Ok. Stop. I will not . . . I cannot attempt to argue with this woman. Why? Well, let's just say it's not because she's a genius.

I will not attempt to explain the obvious. I will not waste seconds of my life trying to convince someone of the fact that it is, indeed, NOT "lucky" to be a black man in America. In fact it is and has always been hard to be black (male or female) in America.

Which is why I try to stay away from such conversations of competitive victimology created by Ferraro and her ilk.

I almost popped a blood vessel when I read Gloria Steinem's article that claimed women (read, white women) had it harder than black men because we got the right to vote before they did (a fact that, although true, ignores the years between 1870 and 1965 where matters such as poll taxes, the grandfather clause and the KKK denied that "right" to black men; disenfranchising and killing black men for even trying to exercise the 15th Amendment. . . but let's stay on topic).

Her argument, like that of Ms. Ferraro, attempts to cheapen the struggle of black men for political gain. It is intellectually dishonest, misleading and factually inadequate.

She is a hater. That's all that she is. She's salty. She's bitter. Ms. Ferraro, Ms. Steinem, Ms. Jong, Ms. Clinton . . . all of them can't stand that this young black man cut in line. See, in their world of oppression there's a social hierarchy: white women before darkies.

And what's worse is the fact that he's beating them by their rules at their game.

It burns don't it?

Go 'head Obama! Brush your shoulders off, playa!

The irony is that Obama leaves them with little, if anything, to be salty about. Ask a Clinton supporter to list Obama's transgressions. They'll have a hard time doing it. That's because he's run a relatively clean campaign. When all you've got is "the stare" or "the snub," it's safe to say he's been more than cordial to his opponent.

So, Ms. Ferraro and Ms. Clinton are salty for no reason. They have misplaced their anger (anger at the media, etc.) and directed it towards a man who's biggest sin is the fact that he just keeps on winning.

In other words . . . they hate him 'cause they ain't him. Thus, their frustration boils over into out-in-out hysteria. That's why people like Ferraro say stupid things. It's easier than admitting defeat.

So I will not try to argue with Ms. Ferraro. It would be an exercise in futility.

I could not show her enough photos of lynched bodies . . . there are not enough statistics on black men in prison; black unemployment; the education gap . . . reports of death, disease and despair to prove what is patently obvious to those of us who try to exercise the gift of critical thought: that life is anything but easy for black men in America.

You might as well ask me to prove that the earth is round or that water is wet.

Knowing that Ferraro's comments ignore history, deny facts and distort reality leaves little to argue over. It's like trying to argue against someone who tells you the sky is green or that 2+2=5.

Such people are either really smart (in which case you're just too dumb to comprehend) or they're incredibly . . . stubbornly . . . hopelessly STUPID (in which case you might as well argue with a brick wall).

However, in the wake of Ferraro's ignorant comments, I was more than pleased to see one brave commentator attempt to do the impossible . . .

Argue with a FOOL.

I must say, Keith Olbermann did an exceptional job.

See for yourself:



Bravo to Keith! His statement, while much kinder to Clinton than I'd prefer, is sincere. I respect him for that. Likewise, I am appreciative of others who are starting to see Hillary Clinton for who she is.

For those of you who are beginning to question the value of unconditional loyalty to a name and/or party that has long lost its purpose and conviction. . . for those of you who would rather change the world than rule it for the sake of power alone . . .

I thank you.

Michelle Obama once said that this election would test us, the American people. She said that it would test our willingness to fight for the change that we want to see.

There are days when I fear we'll fail that test. However, comments such as Olbermann's give me . . . HOPE.

Yeah. We've got a fight on our hands. But it all starts and ends with hope.

Yes We Can.
Read more!

Remember That Whole Pledged Delegate Scandal?

You might remember that, back on February 19th, I made a post that discussed the Clinton Camp's plan to steal ELECTED delegates.

Yes, that's right, a story leaked in which the Clinton camp was rumored to be developing a plan to woo pledged delegates away from Senator Obama.

While this was technically within the rules, the Clinton camp received a swift backlash to the idea, prompting them to flat out deny that they ever had any such plans.

Well . . . they must have had their fingers crossed when they said that. Because TalkingPointsMemo released a story wherein Hillary Clinton admitted that she might just try to swing those elected delegates if she gets the chance.

In an interview with Newsweek's Mark Halperin, responding to her math problem, Hillary Clinton flat out stated:

"It doesn't look bleak at all. I have a very close race with Senator Obama. There are elected delegates, caucus delegates and superdelegates, all for different reasons, and they're all equal in their ability to cast their vote for whomever they choose. Even elected and caucus delegates are not required to stay with whomever they are pledged to. This is a very carefully constructed process that goes back years, and we're going to follow the process."

There you have it. Once again, Hillary shows that you can't trust her word.

Now, it's up to the media and the Obama campaign to blow the lid off of this story.

Read more!

My Plan Going Forward . . .

A lot of Obama supporters are questioning how Obama should respond to Clinton's negative attacks. Some want him to stay above the frey. Others want him to fight back.

I kinda take the middle road here. He doesn't have to get nasty and personal, but Obama must be strong and harsh as a matter of self-defense. But he's got to do the following:

1. Put an end to the V.P. talk.
2. Define Hillary Clinton for what she is.
3. Improve his surrogate game.

I give you, my plan moving forward for an Obama victory.

Re: Clinton's V.P. spin,

If I were advising the Obama campaign, I'd suggest the following:

Obama needs to schedule a public press conference. He needs to make it unequivocally clear: He will not accept a V.P. slot. He should tell the public that we need to make a choice . . . that, as hard as it may be for some (not hard for me at all), the Democratic Party needs to make a clear and decisive CHOICE between he and Hillary. There is no "two-for-one." It's either/or. End of story.



Re: Defining Hillary Clinton for who she is.

He should then restate that the purpose of his campaign is to shift away from the negative, divisive politics of the past two decades.

He should then present a laundry list of Hillary's tactics and DRAW A LINE IN THE SAND. Challenge the people. Put Hillary on the spot.

Finally (and I've said this before on my blog) Obama needs to highlight Hillary's praise of McCain at the expense of a fellow Democrat. Take every crazy comment McCain's ever made and tie it to her endorsement of McCain's supposed "presidential threshold experience." HE SHOULD MAKE HER WEAR THAT LIKE A SCARLET LETTER! He should note that no other Democrat in this campaign has ever praised a republican nominee at another democrat's expense.

Define her as placing herself above the party. MAKE HER OWN IT. Debunk her assertion of experience (read direct quotes from her speech on the senate floor leading up to the Iraq invasion) and publicly state that she should apologize for giving the RNC its first political add of the general election.

I saw someone post the following as a comment on one of the major blogs (I think, TalkingPointsMemo). Obama should list Hillary's negative tactics. And, in response, Obama's new slogan should be: "WE'RE BETTER THAN THIS." Simple as that. A great slogan from a message board.

That's not negative. But it's strong. It's direct and to the point.



Re: Finding a tough surrogate,

Obama definitely needs a strong surrogate. I'm thinking liberal talk show host, Randi Rhodes.

She'd be an unconventional choice with the potential for greater influence than a political insider.

In case you didn't hear it, Randi went on a tirade Friday. She finally came out of her neutral stance and called it like she saw it.

Like a lot of us. She said that people should do everything in their power to DEFEAT Hillary in PA. She went all out.

Randi is tough. She holds no punches. She has an inside track to politics and perhaps the largest audience in all of progressive radio.

Even more, she's an assertive, intelligent middle aged white woman (I hate to go to identity politics here, but it's a definite advantage). She can hopefully identify with Hillary's strongest base of support and soften her strangle-hold on that demographic.

Obama doesn't have to use her as an attack dog (i.e., Stephanie Tubbs-Jones style). But he could utilize her talents to show that you can be a strong, middle-aged white feminist who doesn't think Clinton is best for this country. Randi doesn't hate Clinton (I think that's important because I find Hillary's use of black surrogates to be highly offensive). She's one of many feminists who think a woman President would be great . . . just not this particular woman.

Randi's criticism can focus on Hillary's harm to the Democratic Party(that's not personal or gender specific). Randi can describe in detail how she's grown disgusted with her tactics. Randi has unequivocally stated that Hillary needs to be stopped before she destroys the party.

Have Randi go around PA with Senator Claire McCaskill and Arizona Governor, Janet Napolitano.

Next Obama should have Tom Daschle, Edward Kennedy and Chris Dodd camp out in PA for the next month. Have them focus on economic issues in rural PA. Once again, soften Hillary's advantage in one of her stronger demographics - working class whites (particularly working class white men).
Read more!

Hillary's "Big State" Spin . . . "That dog won't hunt."

You know, it's interesting to watch the media's reaction to Hillary's hollow "comeback" spin of late.

I've always been weary of the gullible media. I saw them get manipulated by Bush in the aftermath of 9/11 and in the run up to the Iraq invasion.

But, here's the deal. I've also been disturbed by the manner in which the Hillary campaign goes after the press in a similar manner. Like the Bush Administration, the Clinton camp never attacks the message, rather they ALWAYS attack the messenger. This has been discussed by various media figures (most recently, conservative pundit, Tucker Carlson).

For the Clintons, their objective in a debate rarely concerns the topic of a given question. Instead, the Clintons question the character and motives of the person asking the question. Thus, for many Clinton partisans, any negative press for Hillary is spun as having nothing to do with the merits of the argument, but everything to do with some deeply held, personal, irrational animosity on the part of the critic.

Well, I've been paying attention to the media's response to the Clinton's bully tactics and it appears that:

1. The television media is buying the whole "poor Hillary" talking point hook, line and sinker.

2. However, thankfully, the blogosphere and talk radio are a little more independent-minded. True, some still do buy all of Hillary's talking points. But some do not.

Which leads me to an excellent article by Robert Creamer of the Huffington Post, titled, "Clinton's 'Big State' Myth." See the entire article, here.

You all know that I've been screaming about the math for the past few days. And I'm happy to see that I'm not the only one.

In his article, Mr. Creamer does a great job of dissecting Hillary's spin and bringing us all back to reality. Like me, he appears to be driven by one inescapable question. . . WHAT ABOUT THE MATH.

Mr. Creamer argues,

"Most of the 'Big States' she has won are not battleground states in the fall. New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and California are solid blue states where Obama would do as well or better than Clinton in a general election against McCain. . . .

Obama puts in play a panoply of states where Clinton would have a much tougher time. Obama could potentially win Virginia (13 electoral votes), Missouri (11 electoral votes) and even Mississippi (whose population is 40% African American --6 electoral votes). He would be considerably more competitive than Clinton in other battleground states like Colorado (9 electoral votes), Iowa (7 electoral votes), Wisconsin (10 electoral votes), Minnesota (10 electoral votes) and Michigan(17 electoral votes). The same goes for New Hampshire (4 electoral votes) -- a state where McCain will work hard to woo
independents among whom Obama did much better than Clinton in this year's primary. . . .

Clinton will have a difficult to impossible time winning the pledged delegate battle. Her only path to the nomination is convincing Super Delegates that she is the most electable. That dog won't hunt."

Indeed, that dog will not hunt. But that depends on whether or not the public is willing to continue accepting Hillary's ever-changing standards.

She says her "Big State" approach is more important because . . . um . . . well . . . yeah, because she says so.

I'm sorry, but I need more than that. The super delegates should require much more than that.

Why? Because accepting her argument would require allowing the super delegates to:

1. Reverse the will of the people (as represented through elected/pledged delegates.

2. Hand-deliver the nomination to a candidate who will have won fewer pledged delegates, fewer states, and (most likely) fewer popular votes.

Truth is, Hillary's "Big State" argument defies all sense of democracy, logic and common sense. Lending credibility to such an argument requires a level of ignorance and/or arm twisting that would prove deadly for the Democrats in the fall.

Either Hillary thinks we're all that stupid or she believes she's that powerful.

Whichever it is, her "Big State" spin spells bad news if she gets her way. It will not only speak poorly of her tactics . . . it will also shed light on how gullible we actually are.

Read more!

March 5 . . . What About the Math?

Let's get this out of the way. Last night was disappointing. Not because I buy this media spin about a "Clinton Comeback." Whatever.

Remember . . . WHAT ABOUT THE MATH?

Still, the dissapointment resides in the fact that Hillary just guaranteed 7 more weeks of scorched earth, gutter politics in the Democratic Party. It's time to get tough. One thing's for sure. When Obama gets sworn in as our next President, NO ONE will be able to say that he didn't earn it.

So again . . . WHAT ABOUT THE MATH?

The fact of the matter is that the MATH is the basically the same. At best, Hillary might net a total of 14 delegates. All of that hoopla for 14 delegates. Guess what folks, Pennsylvania is the only big state left out there. And the math is still not on her side. Where is she going to make up a deficit of over about 150 delegates?

So, despite all of the fireworks, we're right back where we started. Obama has more states, more delegates, and Hillary CANNOT win without 1.) using the super delegates to reverse the will of the people; and 2.) seating MI and FL.

So, everyone is asking: Should Obama go negative?

I don't think so. Why? Because he cannot afford to be the "angry black man," especially not against a female candidate. Trust me, that's exactly how it will get spun the second he raises his voice or invades her personal space. "My goodness. Barack is so angry." I can literally see Hillary going on some "Real World" type ish: "Obama, I don't feel safe with you in the house."

I know it's tempting, but keep your cool, Obama.

But Obama can, and most definitely should GET TOUGH!

But the fact still remains. Obama has got to take control of this thing. Hillary Clinton has been allowed to make the unacceptable acceptable. That’s what happens when you’re allowed to keep moving the goal posts. She’s spun it so that the standard for Obama is perfection (11 straight wins) and that any loss (even a loss in a state where she lead by 20%) is somehow a sign of “buyer’s remorse.”

We’ve allowed her to move the posts so much that we’ve lost all sense of the Democratic process for picking a nominee. We pick our nominee based on delegates. Hillary cannot give you a mathematically plausible scenario in which she overtakes Obama in pledged delegates. Her only hope is to seat MI and FL (change the rules) and use the super delegates to overrule the choice of the people. This is undemocratic - there’s NO WAY around that. And Obama better do his job and make it clear just how undemocratic it actually is.

Now we’re supposed to give her the nomination because she won the “right” states??? States that are important because she says so??? Last time I checked, Missouri, Wisconsin, and Colorado were swing states. And you’ll have a hard time convincing me that Obama can’t win Democratic strongholds like New York, California and Massachusetts.
Her arguments are not based in fact.

All of her arguments are based in spin. And the only reason they hold water is because we have 24-hour news networks filled with pundits who have nothing better to do than pontificate on political hypotheticals. HER ARGUMENTS FOR THE NOMINATION DON’T MAKE SENSE. Hold her feet to the fire!

Hillary wants to say that her wins mean she's more electable. Wow! Hey, here's an idea. The more electable candidate is the one with the most elected delegates. Is it really that hard???

Another thing. Hillary Clinton has been successful in getting the public to mistake familiarity for “experience.” People don’t necessarily think she’s more experienced - it’s just that we’ve seen her face and heard her name for the past two decades. We’re familiar with her, but that does not mean that she’s more experienced. Obama needs to get the media to call her on her ish.

Take away her last name . . . take away her husband . . . where is her experience? What jobs did she create? What crisis did she manage? The questions are endless so long as you don’t buy her BS about “35 years of experience.” She’s been calling Obama an empty suit. Well, it’s time we see just how “empty” Hillary actually is.

Seriously, the next time your arguing with a Clinton supporter, turn the tables. Spring it on them and ask, “Name me 2 or 3 things she’s done as a senator” . . . “name me a crisis she’s handled.” You’ll get the same blank look that they accuse Obama supporters of having when asked the same question.

And don’t let them weasel out of it. Focus on Hillary specifically. Don’t let them tell you what her husband did.

Finally, don’t let her get away with destroying the party. You know that comment she made about John McCain having experience and Obama just having a speech? That comment where Hillary basically ranked Obama below herself AND John McCain? Obama or his surrogates should make her wear that comment like a Scarlett letter. He should hound her as to her intentions and motives and DEFINE her as being all about herself and not about the Party. Why else would she say such a thing. Make her APOLOGIZE; take responsibility for giving John McCain his first campaign commercial to use against Obama in the fall. And frame it the right way (she’s good at throwing stuff back). When has Obama EVER praised a Republican at Hillary’s expense. Is that what Democrats do? Is that who we want to be our nominee?

Obama cannot give the Clintons an inch. He needs to challenge her on every single issue; on every single statement. He needs to challenge her claims of media bias; challenge her on the war; challenge her “experience.”

He also needs to get out there on the tv. I swear, I couldn’t turn my head without seeing Hillary on some tv show. Obama can do that. The people think you’re a rock star, Obama. Give them what they want. . . MORE OBAMA! I think it’s time to schedule an hour long heart-to-heart with your pal, Oprah.

Most importantly, he needs to stop letting the Clintons set the rules of engagement. He needs to set a standard for Hillary and HOLD HER TO IT.
Read more!

Remember . . . WHAT ABOUT THE MATH?

Tonight should be interesting. The polls are going crazy and it's hard to tell how this thing is going to go.

However, regardless of how tonight ends up, it will be Obama's RESPONSIBILITY to push the math. I don't care if he wins all four or looses them. He has got to push the math.

The longer he allows the Hillary camp to pretend like this thing is close, the longer he leaves the door open for a stolen nomination.

Please understand this. Some Clinton supporters might respond by saying, "Well, neither Obama nor Clinton can get to 2025 without the super delegates." That may be true. But DO NOT let them spin you into believing that this somehow opens the door for a no-holds-barred, anything-goes, approach to choosing the candidate.

Think of it this way. The goal of a heavyweight boxing match is to knock your opponent out. However, if both are still standing at the end of 12 rounds, the judges award the match based on points. Think of the delegates as you would points in a boxing match.

Regardless of momentum; regardless of the highlights (and lowlights), the points are all that matter barring some type of knock out or disqualification. Both Obama and Clinton might be "standing" when the dust settles. If that's the case, it is the duty of the DNC and the responsibility of the American people to demand that the powers that be score the points.

Those "points," are PLEDGED DELEGATES. And the math is crystal clear when it shows that Obama would have to practically fall off the face of the earth to lose that delegate lead.

Just listen to what MSNBC's Chuck Todd had to say about it yesterday :



Obama has been racking up the points all throughout this campaign. He has taken a 50-state approach; he hasn't neglected any state primary or caucus. This has rewarded him with a commanding lead in PLEDGED delegates that is nearly impossible to overcome in a Democratic Primary system where the delegates are allocated PROPORTIONALLY. Always remember. This is NOT a winner-take-all system.

So don't let the Clintons fool you. Don't let the media fool you. From here on out, at the end of every water cooler argument or political debate with a Clinton supporter, always ask this one question:

WHAT ABOUT THE MATH?

It's as simple as that folks. Ask that question and DEMAND that they give you a plausible game plan wherein Hillary can comeback and take the delegate lead without:

1. Seating the MI and FL delegates after the DNC said that they would not count; and

2. Using super delegates to reverse the will of the people.

If they can't do that, then DEMAND that they tell you EXACTLY why Hillary Clinton should stay in the race knowing that every attack she makes from here forward will do no more than add ammunition for the Republican party.

Beware! You will be called a "hater." You will be called arrogant. Don't be swayed. At the end of the theatrics and philosophical talk about "swing states," and "big states," just ask, "WHAT ABOUT THE MATH?"

Newsweek's Jonathan Alter has been taking his fair share of heat from Clinton supporters, but he is pressing this point, anyways:

So no matter how you cut it, Obama will almost certainly end the primaries with a pledged-delegate lead, courtesy of all those landslides in February. Hillary would then have to convince the uncommitted superdelegates to reverse the will of the people. Even coming off a big Hillary winning streak, few if any superdelegates will be inclined to do so. For politicians to upend what the voters have decided might be a tad, well, suicidal.

For all of those who have been trashing me for saying this thing is over, please feel free to do your own math. Give Hillary 75 percent in Kentucky and Indiana. Give her a blowout in Oregon. You will still have a hard time getting her through the process with a pledged-delegate lead.

Trust me. Do yourselves a favor and read Alter's article. He breaks it down very nicely. He gives Hillary the benefit of the doubt in every state from now until the end of the process. Given her best case scenario . . . ignoring the states where Obama is heavily favored . . . EVEN giving her wins in MI and FL . . . Hillary still comes up about 58 delegates short.

So . . .when your head is spinning because of all of the spin. When you feel disoriented because up seems down and down seems up . . . just ask this question . . . WHAT ABOUT THE MATH?
Read more!

McCain/Clinton '08???????

According to an article by Ben Smith at Politico, Senator Clinton just gave McCain his first solid campaign commercial to use against Senator Obama in the 2008 Presidential Campaign.

"I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002 . . ."

In case you missed it, that was Hillary Clinton ranking Senator Obama below herself AND REPUBLICAN nominee, JOHN McCAIN!?!?!?

Who's side is she running on?

If that weren't enough, Hillary might have just embraced the Republican tactic of fear mongering:



Let me just repeat Rachel Maddow's comment on Hillary's latest dig in SUPPORT of REPUBLICAN John McCain:

"That's what you say when you want to be John McCain's Vice Presidential choice. That's not what you say when you're trying to become the Democratic nominee for president."
Read more!

It's the Math, Stupid!

"It's a numbers game, but sh*t don't add up somehow . . . it's all mathematics" - Mos Def, Mathematics

Someone give Hillary Clinton a Mos Def CD! Tell her to listen to track 16 on Black on Both Sides!

Keith Olbermann, host of MSNBC's COUNTDOWN, discusses the prospects of a Hillary Clinton comeback.

When considering the math, Olbermann (a member of the media who, apparently, is NOT intimidated by the recent cries of media bias from the Clinton camp) does something quite remarkable.

Rather than orchestrate a pro-Hillary comeback scenario in the name of "fairness," Olbermann decides to (gasp!) report the truth. And the truth hurts if your Senator Clinton.

After looking at the numbers, Olbermann comes to the conclusion that her chances appear to be either, "shaky, pyrrhic or suicidal." That would be:

Shaky - as in shaky logic, ignoring the math a la Mike Huckabee style . . .

Pyrrhic - as in destroying the Democratic Party's chances of winning in November for personal, political gain . . .

or

Suicidal - as in committing political suicide and forever soiling the Clinton name; being remebered as the person who (almost) single-handedly splintered the Democratic Party.

Fact is, Clinton would have to destroy Obama's chances in November (and perhaps his political career) in order to overcome the 162 delegate deficit in a proportional Democratic primary system. She would almost certainly divide the Party; practically handing McCain the election for 2008 and clearing a path for her to try again in 2012.

Here, Olbermann interviews Newsweek Magazine's Jonathan Alter to do something few other media outlets have done . . . FOCUS ON THE MATH! Please pay particular attention to the math in this clip:



But, then again, we all know that the media is biased and MSNBC hates Hillary Clinton . So, once again, I guess the truth doesn't matter so long as it's bad news for Hillary. Just add it to the growing heap of her ready-made excuses.

Man. The Democratic Party could be heading for a train wreck if they're not careful. The sleeping giant has awoken. And we got our eye on Clinton and her "politricks." You thought we were restless after the 2000 election? See what happens if you steal the nomination in 2008.

DO NOT allow the Clintons to overrule the voice of the people!

Say it Mos . . .

"How did one straw break the camel's back, here's the secret. There were a million other straws underneath it. It's all MATHEMATICS!" - Mos Def, Mathematics
Read more!

My Rant Leading Up to March 4 . . .

I can't repeat this enough . . . Hillary is positioning herself (quite well) to STEAL this nomination.

The Obama camp is not doing a good enough job of pushing the MATH. The media is gullible enough to accept Hillary's terms of engagement. The goal posts keep moving.

Just think about the back-tracking from the Clinton camp:

1. Hillary will show her dominance in Iowa. If she wins big there, the contest is virtually over;

Oops! Obama wins Iowa! . . .

2. NH made her the COMEBACK KID. Obama's victory in Iowa was an anomaly. We're back to Hillary being the inevitable candidate.

Oops! Obama wins SC after taking on BOTH Clintons and their shameless race-baiting . . .

3. Hillary will end this race on Super Tuesday. Obama doesn't have what it takes to be a national candidate. He won't have enough time to gain familiarity and favor with 22 states in the span of a week;

Oops! Obama actually WINS MORE DELEGATES on Super Tuesday than Hillary. And, he's looking stronger in the February states . . .

4. Obama is favored in the February states. So he must win all of them. Clinton firewalls= Maine, Virginia (maybe), Wisconsin.

Oops! Obama wins sweeps 11 straight by an AVERAGE of 33% . . .

List of Clinton excuses: Obama's winning the red states (you'd think that would be a positive for the Democratic Party); he only wins caucuses; caucuses don't count; he only wins primaries in red states; he only wins primaries with large African-American populations; he can only win states with open primaries ...; Oops! Obama eats into Hillary's base. He wins majorities among people making under 50K; splits the vote among whites; wins women . . . the list goes on.

5. "Meet me in TX!" "Meet me in Ohio!" Hillary MUST win TX and OH by large margins (20%) to catch up in delegates or this thing is over;

Oops! Obama closes the gaps. Effectively ending any talk of a Clinton landslide (which she needs to claim a comeback) . . .

6. Clinton excuses: it's the media's fault; it's harder for a woman than a man (even a black man).

7. Clinton must win Texas or she's done (Bill Clinton);

8. Clinton must win EITHER TX or OH.

9. Obama must win all four (TX, OH, VT, RI) or that'll prove that he's not electable (I swear, I'm not making this up);

10. All Hillary has to do is win Ohio, because OH is a key swing state and this shows that she is more electable than Obama;and now.....

11. By way of morning Joe - Hillary should stay in the race EVEN IF SHE LOOSES EVERYTHING TOMORROW because a spirited campaign is good for democracy. I am not kidding. The media actually went there. And let's not forget this gem;

Bonus: Clinton should ALWAYS stay in the race because we might find some dirt on Obama that is so bad that he'll have to drop out and the Party will have no choice but to choose Hillary (of course, a scandal could happen to anyone, but what does that matter, right?) .

Think I'm making this stuff up. Check it out for yourself. Watch MSNBC's Joe Scarborough and Craig Crawford spin Senator Clinton's nomination prospects from a mathematical improbability (almost impossibility) to a deceptively logical necessity:



Of course! Why didn't I see that. It's all about Ohio, right? I mean, why did we even bother having primaries and caucuses in the other 49 states? Yes, Hillary wins the "big" states that really matter. She wins those swing states. But wait . . . I thought Virginia was a swing state. What about Missouri and Colorado? And, while we're at it, let's not forget Minnesota and Wisconsin? Obama won those . . . there goes another one of her excuses.

Plus, are we honestly supposed to believe that Obama can't win big states like New York and California (states that are traditional Democratic strongholds).

Sounds stupid, right? That's because it is. The fact of the matter is that, regardless of who gets the nomination, that nominee (*cough* Obama) will use the next 8 or 9 months doing something we poli sci majors like to call, "campaigning." You know, making stump speeches, having debates, kissing babies. One constant has been the fact that Obama does very well when given the opportunity to campaign. He's already erased 20 point deficits in both Ohio and Texas. And that was just in two weeks. Think of what he could do in 8 months! That is, if Hillary Clinton just gets out of the way.

Why does she keep moving the goal posts? It's simple. For the same reasons why Bush kept moving the goal posts on Iraq.

The plan is to muddy the waters; muck up the truth so much that we forget which way is up and which way is down. The goal is to make the truth RELATIVE and remove all sense of objectivity so as to to excuse the inexcusable.

The Clintons know they can't retake the lead in pledged delegates. Their only hope is:

1. Super delegates reversing the will of the people; and

2. Re-instating FL and MI.

Therefore, the Clintons want to make things look confusing; so much so that stealing the nomination WON'T SEEM SO BAD when it happens.

The answer should be simple. Neither candidate will reach 2025 delegates. Therefore, if the Democratic Party truly doesn't want to reverse the will of the people, the nominee should be as such:

The person with the most pledged delegates. Bill Richardson just said as much. And he's dead on the money.

It's as simple as that. Democrats pick their nominee by way of delegates. Not popular vote, and not even states won (although Obama even has a strong lead in those two categories as well).

Don't give the Clintons an inch. You'll regret it!

You give the Clintons another MONTH to throw mud at Obama (more Rezko allegations; more Muslim allegations; more fear-mongering, etc.) and you not only further destroy any chance at party unity in November, but you also allow Hillary the opportunity to destroy Obama's chances against McCain even though she has no real shot at winning the nomination herself.

At this point, Hillary is GIVING the Republicans a list of talking points and attacks to use against Obama.

Don't give the Clintons an inch. You'll regret it!


Update:

No kidding. My mother just called to tell me that Larry King just asked the following question:

Should Obama DROP OUT of the race if he looses tomorrow?

Say what???????? Unbelievable!
Read more!