McCain Picks Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin for VP

Wow. Palin????

I'm really not trying to be partisan when I say this . . .

I'm sure conservatives will disagree. But this pick is NOT impressive.

Seriously. This strikes me as a completely reactionary decision. This is John McCain placing his stamp of approval on the idea that this is going to be a "change" election. He can't beat Obama in a "change" election.

It also brings up another consideration. People are starting to ask whether McCain and the Republicans are believing their own spin a little too much. This pick sells women voters short. I've already heard a few people say it's like McCain thinks women will vote purely on identity politics. It suggests that McCain really DOES NOT get it.

Furthermore, this seems like a complete contradiction. People are already asking the question: How does McCain slam Obama for inexperience with Palin one heartbeat away from the presidency?

Plus, she's an unknown. An unknown attached to scandal. What happened to the first rule of veep selection: Do no harm?

I'll have to study up on her. She is an unknown. Maybe she's got some great qualities that people haven't seen yet. But this feels like a reactionary choice. A shallow attempt to trump the "change" card.

Who knows what will happen. But I'm even more confident of Obama's chances after this selection.

I thought the veep selection was the first major decision of a candidate's Fall campaign? What does this say about McCain? Again, it doesn't look like McCain put a lot of thought in this pick.

Again, I'm not trying to be partisan. But this is not an impressive pick.
Read more!

HISTORY!!!

Democratic Party Officially Nominates Senator Barack Obama for President of the United States

It's different once it becomes official. Funny how it just kinda crept up on us. This moment almost got lost in the back and forth of tv punditry. Thank God it didn't.

It was absolutely beautiful! This is a very special moment. To see tears of JOY . . . to see happiness instead of the divisiveness we've seen for months . . . seeing tears of joy at the realization of this historic moment . . . it's a beautiful thing!

I hope ya'll set your tivos. Because this is something I plan to show my grandchildren one day.

Obama is our nominee!

Props to Hillary for what she did today. Her symbolic gesture made it official and will hopefully go a long way towards party unity. I gotta give props where props are due. She came through today.

Now that the drama's over (hopefully . . .lol) . . .

LET'S WIN THIS THING!!!

No more doubts. No more drama. No more second-guessing. It's time to WIN!

OBAMA/BIDEN '08!! YES WE CAN!!!!!

Read more!

Senator McCain vs. Candidate McCain

Props to Senator John Kerry for giving the delegates a little red meat. It amazes me how John McCain has escaped the "flip-flopper" meme thus far.

But Senator Kerry did a good job drawing the distinctions last night. Take a look:



We need a lot more of this!

Just one small critique moving forward: Please STOP prefacing every attack on John McCain with compliments like, "He is my friend, but" or "He is an honorable man, but . . ." or "He has served his country with pride, but . . . " etc. The Republicans have not and most likely will not return the favor next week (people like Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan have promised as much). As I said before, they will go "there."

Still, folks like the Clintons, Biden, Kucinich and Schweitzer have done an admirable job of drawing some of those distinctions. And I think that this convention has done a great job in doing two things that might prove more valuable than attacking McCain. . . 1.) building party unity; and 2.) energizing the base. Combine that with record voter registration/turnout and you've got a solid plan for victory.

My favorite part of Kerry's speech:

"This election is a chance for America to tell the merchants of fear and division, 'YOU don't decide who loves this country! YOU don't decide who's a patriot! YOU don't decide who's service counts and who's doesn't!'

. . . Four years ago I said it and I'll say it again tonight. That flag that hangs from the rafter and that you have waived this evening; that flag doesn't belong to any ideology. It doesn't belong to any political party. It is an enduring symbol of our nation and it belongs to all the American people. After all, patriotism is not love of power or some trick. Patriotism is love of country."

Please remember this when you watch the Republican Convention next week.
Read more!

Senator Clinton Speaks at Convention, Pushes for Unity

Senator Clinton spoke of the need for unity and teamwork leading into the Fall Election,

“My friends, it is time to take back the country we love,” she said. “Whether you voted for me or voted for Barack, the time is now to unite as a single party with a single purpose.

“We are on the same team, and none of us can sit on the sidelines,” she added. “This is a fight for the future. And it’s a fight we must win.” (MSNBC.com)

Credit where credit is due. Now, let's see if she backs it up with action (see post below).

My take: I'll give her a B minus for a grade. It's kinda like when you know you've got a term paper due by the end of the week. But, instead of handing it in on time, you give yourself a few extra days. Sure, that extra time helped you write an A-rate paper. But the professor has to shave off a grade for tardiness.

The distractions and ego coming from Hillary's camp have cost Obama some serious time in this campaign. That's why she starts off with a B at best. And I gotta deduct a few more points because she failed to dismiss any of the attacks she threw at Obama (Commander in Chief Test, etc.) during the primaries.

But I'll give credit where credit is due. This was a very good speech. In the end, I think it'll give Obama a slight boost going forward. This speech was aimed at reasonable Hillary supporters.

As for the post-rational (Rachel Maddow's phrase) PUMA hold-outs???? It's time for Obama to cut his losses and stop waisting time on them. Hillary said it herself. We are on the same team. The roster's set. Anyone not on board should be treated as being nothing more than the distractions they are . . . an enemy of the Democratic Party, its ideals and its candidate.

Read more!

Hillary: One Step Forward, Two Steps Back

The tragic flaw of Hillary Clinton is that she often takes one step forward, but two steps back.

As for her speech at the Democratic Convention? Someone had a great analogy over the radio yesterday. You can't light a stick of dynamite, step back and say you're sorry for whatever happens as a consequence. People are responsible for the consequences of their actions.

A lot of people tried to talk to the Clintons before this went too far. Ted Kennedy tried to talk to the Clintons; Clyburne tried to get to talk to them.

But they've got tunnel vision when it comes to obtaining power. That's a blessing and a curse. It's a blessing when that focus gets used to help others. But it's a curse when that same power gets used for selfish reasons.

I remain of the opinion that she HURT the Democratic Party and its chances by extending the primary season well beyond what was necessary. She could have finished the primaries without trying to sabotage Obama like she did. In fact, many of those Hillary statements being used by McCain right now were spoken well after she lost a realistic, mathematical chance, to win the nomination. She could have done a Mike Huckabee and stayed in the race without going negative and writing 6 or 7 campaign ads for McCain. . . without endorsing McCain at Obama's expense.

She did not do that. The damage has been done, and her speech (as great as it was) will not make up for that.

She's got to follow her speech with action. Concrete action. She needs to campaign like crazy for Obama this Fall. That means campaigning in places like OH and PA as much as possible.

And she needs to tell her surrogates to chill out as well. She sends mixed signals far too often. She'll say she supports Obama, but then one of her aides, or supporters (super delegates like Rep. Sanchez of CA) say something stupid and divisive that undercuts Obama's campaign. She might not have control over the PUMAs (though I'm not completely sold that she doesn't), but she should have a lot more control over some of those super delegates and her husband, Bill Clinton . . . Bill Clinton, who just this past week praised John McCain's energy plan.

Again. One step forward and two steps back.

I appreciate her speech today. But I'm not jumping on the bandwagon to say that this makes up for her past transgressions.

Again. . . I really liked her speech. She did a very good job tonight. And I thank her for that. Furthermore, I'm pleased as punch if she's really on board to make this happen.

But those McCain ads are still out there. She helped write them.
Read more!

We'd Be LUCKY to Have a First Lady Like Michelle Obama!

Truly inspirational.

I don't see how anyone wouldn't be proud to have a woman like her in the White House. Her story of perseverance, professionalism, hard work and dedication to family is a reflection of what America is and CAN BE.

Again, we'd be LUCKY to have Michelle Obama as our FIRST LADY.
Read more!

Michelle Obama to Headline First Night of Democratic Convention

The Democratic National Convention kicks off tonight in Denver, CO.

Michelle Obama will headline tonight's line of speakers.

Broadcast coverage begins at 10pm EST. Although cable networks, including TVOne will be covering the entire convention from start to finish.

I am really looking forward to hearing what she has to say tonight. It's high time that this country start getting used to seeing a beautiful, strong black woman like Michelle. So make sure you tune in to get a good look at the next First Lady of the United States!

In other news, speculation has it that Senator Kennedy might make a surprise appearance at the convention. Tonight's schedule lists a tribute for the Liberal Lion. I heard that Kennedy hasn't missed a convention in something like 40 years.

This promises to be a an exciting night. Coverage begins at 7:00pm EST on MSNBC.

Read more!

Introducing . . . Obama/Biden '08!

The presumptive Democratic presidential and vice presidential candidates greeted thousands of supporters in Springfield, IL, Saturday afternoon.

To the joy of many Democrats, Senator Biden forcefully attacked the failed McCain/Bush policies of the past eight years:

“You can’t change America and end this war in Iraq when you declare — and again these are John’s [McCain's] words — ’No one has supported President Bush in Iraq more than I have,’ end of quote. Ladies and gentlemen, you can’t change America, you can’t change America when you know your first four years as president will look exactly like the last eight years of George Bush’s presidency.” (via MSNBC.com)

Read more!

Obama Picks Biden!

BREAKING NEWS:

CNN Reports Barack Obama Picks Senator Joe Biden to be his Vice Presidential Running Mate

CNN reports that Presumptive Democratic Nominee, Senator Barack Obama, has offered the vice presidential slot to Senator Joe Biden of Deleware.

The news is said to have come from two credible Democratic sources on highly sensitive information.

This follows earlier reports that members of the Secret Service have been sent to Biden's home.

UPDATE: It's official. The Obama/Biden ticket has been confirmed via text message.

Read more!

Remember . . . This is What We're Up Against (Part 2)

Because they’re willing to 'go there.'

One of the other reasons why Republicans keep winning elections is because they have no problems “going there.” And by “there” I’m referring to the politically taboo . . .

those imaginary lines in the sands of “decency” and “honor” . . .

those subjects that are supposedly so “out of bounds” or “beyond the pale” that no true statesman would dare cross them for fear of seeming distasteful, dishonorable or . . . well, straight up trifling!

You know. . . things like attacking a man’s patriotism; smearing a war veteran; politicizing our troops; using fear as a wedge issue; or evoking emotions of September 11th for partisan gain. Republicans never do that, right??? (wink, wink)

It might not be McCain himself. Heck, it might not even be a Republican. But someone is going to “go there” when the Republicans hold their convention in a little over a week from now. Even if McCain has to distance himself from the attack, expect some type of "Oh no he didn't!" moment when the Republicans meet in Minnesota.

So let’s take a walk down memory lane.

Exhibit A: Zell Miller’s keynote speech at the 2004 Republican Convention . . .


Wow. And that was just the Democratic speaker at the convention.

The Democratic Party should learn from past mistakes. See, back in 2004, Democrats tried doing the “honorable thing.” They figured that resentment towards Bush was so high they didn’t need to waste much time hammering the Republican ticket. So instead, they focused primarily on two goals: 1.) building John Kerry’s war hero status; and 2.) providing a new vision for the future . . . a post-partisan America.

Enter Senator Barack Obama and his memorable speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention.
In retrospect, Obama's introduction might have been the only shining moment from that entire convention. For Democrats did fail in one regard: They didn’t give their supporters enough red meat.

At the end of the day, most people have two major considerations when they step in that voting booth:

1. Why my guy should be president.
2. Why that other guy should NOT.

The weight for both of these considerations varies from person to person. Some people vote FOR what they like while others choose to vote AGAINST what they dislike. But, whatever the motive, a party must draw a clear and unequivocal picture of what they’re for AND against.

This is part 2 of an ongoing reminder to my left-of-center friends. I railed against the circular firing squad a few days ago. But this post is meant to take direct aim at the Democratic leadership. For while a lack of focus often serves as an Achilles heal in the Democratic base, a lack of fight has weakened our Democratic presidential candidates for far too long. It's another part of the equation that is necessary if we are to get out of own way and actually win this thing.

So my message to the Democratic leadership is this: GIVE US SOME RED MEAT!
It's hard to fight on an empty stomach. And, regardless of what the media tries to tell us, the words “fight” and “change” are not mutually exclusive.

It’s all about balance. I’m not looking for a convention filled with negativity. I'm not asking Obama to adopt Rovian style tactics or attack McCain's family. However, I am saying that the Democratic ticket shouldn't hesitate to defend itself. Nor should it shy away from making sharp, unrelenting criticisms of McCain and his platform.

I’m confident that an Obama/Biden ticket will fight back. But, make no doubt about it, this is the time to start fighting. The onus falls on the party to, not only tell us why Obama’s good for America, but to also remind us why McCain is BAD for America. Such a distinction might make the difference of a few dozen volunteers in a swing state. It might persuade an undecided voter. Democrats must give themselves every opportunity to win.

This is not the time to be shy. There’s no reason to think that Republicans won’t “go there" when it's their turn. Trust . . . they will.

Remember . . . this is what we're up against!
Read more!

Ohio Voting Machines EXPECTED to Lose Votes . . . Company and Sec. of State Say Glitch CAN'T Be Fixed by Nov. 4th!

WOW! It's not like they even try to hide it anymore. It's almost like they're straight-up TELLING us they're gonna screw this election . . .

via The Columbus Dispatch:

The maker of touch-screen voting machines used in half of Ohio's counties has admitted that its own programming error is to blame for votes being dropped in some counties.

The problem can't be fixed before the Nov. 4 election, so Premier Election Solutions and Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner are issuing guidelines to counties for how to avoid the problem. . .

[I]n a letter Tuesday to Brunner, Premier President David Byrd admitted that further testing showed a source-code error that can cause votes not to be recorded when memory cards are uploaded to computer servers under certain circumstances.

"We are indeed distressed that our previous analysis of this issue was in error," Byrd wrote. . .

Forty-four counties, including Licking and Fairfield in central Ohio, use Premier touch-screens.

UN-BE-FRICKIN'-LIEVABLE!!!!
Read more!

Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs-Jones

via AP and The Huffington Post:

Clinic spokeswoman Eileen Sheil says Tubbs Jones died at 6:12 p.m. Wednesday after suffering a brain hemorrhage caused by an aneurysm that burst and left her with limited brain function.

The 58-year-old Tubbs Jones was the first black woman to represent Ohio in Congress and a strong critic of the Iraq war. She suffered the hemorrhage while driving her car in her east side district Tuesday evening.

Terribly sad knews. There are a lot of things that are bigger than politics. This is one of them. My condolences to her family.

God bless.

Read more!

Remember. . . This is What We're Up Against!

So I'm traversing the "internets" in absolute disgust over the amount of sabotage (though, always shielded in the name of "speaking truth to power") I see in some segments of the "progressive blogosphere" and the Democratic establishment.

Yes, like clockwork, that circular firing squad is right on schedule.

I had to power down for a moment as I realized just how the PUMA sites linked to the "Not black enough" sites, linked to the "McCain for President" sites. Just the same, I took a deep breath after noticing how some of these same sites have begun to parrot each others arguments.

Amazingly, some of the most "progressive" sources (both black and white) have started championing Republican talking points on matters of authenticity, race, religion, worldview and, yes, bottom line. For if you stay long enough, you'll see a common motive that links many of these groups beyond party-politics . . . a bottom line obsessed with keeping Obama out of the White House.

The method to do so is by way of creating distractions through unreasonable standards and countless political litmus tests on peripheral issues.

Many of these sites feed from a fear of Obama change. Conspiracy theories abound. And both liberal and conservative bloggers have assumed a mantle of righteous indignation wherein their only goal is to "EXPOSE the real Obama."

These are sites where cynicism is mistaken for courage and "hope" is openly mocked in want of some ominous life lesson wherein all critics can turn in unison to proudly proclaim . . . "I TOLD YOU SO!"

Don't get me wrong. I have no desire to squelch healthy debate or silence dissent. It's always healthy to have a certain amount of cynicism and to keep our candidate on his toes. And there are people who can be critical yet remain focused on the larger picture.

But, on that same note, I also have no desire to argue for the sake of argument alone or to be cynical for the sake of being cynical. And at a time where skepticism is easily, and oft-times undeservedly, labeled as "truth," I'd ask that people be consistent and "courageous" enough to have a healthy skepticism of the skeptics. For my take is that some of these left-wing and right-wing groups share a second common goal . . . to maintain a status quo for partisan political dogma; a dogma that, despite its admirable passion, has grown stale, preditctable and nonproductive.

You might realize that demagogues on both the right and left do not like nuance. For while they'll go on and on about their particular theories of "truth" to power, too many lack answers or ideas to test said truth in practice. Though quick to fire a stream of automated responses based on a set of trigger words, they don't do quite so well when people begin to think for themselves. Which is why I've long seen the "cult" meme as a Rovian spin. People ARE thinking for themselves. People are more involved in this election than in any time I can remember. Record voter registration, turnout and inclusion into this political process is a good thing. It should not be mocked.

Indeed, some of these sites work together to form a political twilight zone wherein groups turn so far left that they end up on the right-wing of the political spectrum. Thus, you'll have self-proclaimed "liberal" sites that spend most of their time bashing other self-proclaimed liberals . . . sites where you'll see countless posts bashing Obama, but rarely any posts attacking John McCain . . . sites so consumed with speaking "truth" to Obama's "power" that they forget to take equally passionate measures to keep John McCain out of power.

So, oddly enough, it's times like this when I'm appreciative of the Rush Limbaugh's in the world. For it's only after listening to some good ole' right-wing hatred that one can remember just what we're up against.

hat-tip to JJP commenter, Town . . .

Rush Limbaugh: "Obama's patriotism is not being attacked in an ad. McCain's just out there saying he's putting his own personal political ambition ahead of the country's. It's -- you know, it's just -- it's just we can't hit the girl. I don't care how far feminism's saying, you can't hit the girl, and you can't -- you can't criticize the little black man-child. You just can't do it, 'cause it's just not right. It's not fair. He's such a victim." (emphasis added)(MediaMatters.org)

Here's Rush in an earlier broadcast:

"[I]t is striking how unqualified [Sen. Barack] Obama is and, and how this whole thing came about with, within the Democrat [sic] Party. I think it really goes back to the fact that nobody had the guts to stand up and say no to a black guy." Limbaugh went on to say: "I think this is a classic illustration here where affirmative action has reared its ugly head against them. It's the reverse of it. They've, they've ended up nominating and placing at the top of their ticket somebody who's not qualified, who has not earned it." Limbaugh added: "It's perfect affirmative action. And because of all this guilt and the historic nature of things, nobody had the guts to say, well, wait a minute, do we really want to do this?" (emphasis added)(MediaMatters.org)

Arguendo, perhaps good ole' Rush would like to tell us what race (i.e., affirmative action) has to do with Obama's alleged lack of qualifications for president. This isn't Rush's first attack against Obama. Who can forget his classical rendition of Barack, the Magic Negro (an act that wouldn't be as disheartening if it hadn't echoed claims of racial inauthenticity from the "Not black enough" crowd last year).

All of this is consistent with the cynical view that Obama is nothing more than a hustler pretending to be something he could never be . . . president. And we, as supporters, are nothing but fools . . . kool-aid drinking, cultists (a meme repeated by all critics regardless of political affiliation) who are naive and childish enough to still believe in such "fairy tales". People like Limbaugh laugh at us. And they rest assured that Obama is no more than a phase that we'll all grow out of once reality sets in.

Never realizing that chants of "hope" and "yes we can" are and have been much larger than Obama for some time, now. . . never realizing that the beauty of Obama's campaign is found, not in his rhetoric or charisma, but in the sea of new faces being brought into the political spectrum.

This goes to the heart of a highly psychological battle that each of us has between "hope" and "doubt." For it's always safe to doubt. And it goes well beyond politics. Whether it be a question of pursuing that career in our professional lives, or exposing our vulnerabilities in our personal relationships, it seems that a lot of people tend to trust their doubts more than their hopes.

Again, we assume a security in our cynicism, never wondering just how many opportunities we've missed for no other reason than we've convinced ourselves that something is too good to be true. See, a doubter is never out of fashion. Doubters are never asked to commit and their cynical disposition shields them from ever having to face the fear of rejection . . . the fear of being chastised . . . the fear of being wrong(ed).

No wonder there's such a thirst for Obama's message. It IS the "audacity of hope." Not Obama's hope, but the collective hope of a nation that wants to do better than the last eight years have told us is possible. Particularly in the wake of 9-11 and the fear of unsure times, people are flirting with hope, not because it's cool, but because we sincerely believe that something better is possible.

Sorry, but I can not mock people's hopes. Even if it's cooler to be a cynic . . . even if it's safer for my ego and reputation to insist that this can never happen, I'm through apologizing for being optimistic. Particularly in times such as these . . . in case you haven't noticed, the cynics have been controlling things for quite some time.

Which is why I always force myself to listen to right-wing radio . . . if for nothing more than to remind myself that cynics like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Anne Coulter and Michael Savage have been kicking our collective left-of-center as*es in these elections for the past generation in modern politics. . . if for no other reason than the thought of Rush Limbaugh lighting another victory cigar on November 4th.

So please keep that in mind the next time you see the left begin to form its circular firing squad. The next time you hear a PUMA rant or fancies of a protest vote . . . be aware of the fact that you might be doing more than "teaching Obama a lesson" or "speaking truth to power." You just might also be rewarding those cynics with another four more years in the White House.

Remember . . . This is what we're up against!

I'll leave you with a snippet from Bloggingheads.tv between John McWhorter and Glenn Loury. I disagree with bothon a lot of things (though I tend to agree more with McWhorterin the context of his more recent debates with Loury on Bloggingheads.tv). Despite his conservative appeal, McWhorter is a long-time Obama supporter. Glenn Loury was (and I get the sense, still is) a major Clinton supporter. But they bothgrapple with this idea of hope vs. cynicism. Enjoy!



Psst! . . . we're down to two viable choices. It's okay to be "a fan." After all, somebody's gotta win. Why not us?
Read more!

Disingenuous McCain? Doubts Raised after Faith Forum

Something smells fishy after this weekend's faith forum. Many feel McCain was a little too prepared for Pastor Warren's questions.

That sentiment has only grown over the past two days as revelations raise concerns over the credibility of Pastor Warren's forum and the sincerity of McCain's answers.

via NY Times

Senator John McCain was not in a “cone of silence” on Saturday night while his rival, Senator Barack Obama, was being interviewed at the Saddleback Church in California. . . The matter is of interest because Mr. McCain, who followed Mr. Obama’s hourlong appearance in the forum, was asked virtually the same questions as Mr. Obama. . . Mr. Warren, the pastor of Saddleback, had assured the audience while he was interviewing Mr. Obama that “we have safely placed Senator McCain in a cone of silence” and that he could not hear the questions. . . Mr. Warren started by asking Mr. McCain, “Now, my first question: Was the cone of silence comfortable that you were in just now?”. . . Mr. McCain deadpanned, “I was trying to hear through the wall.”

Read more!

Obama Raises $51 Million in July

Reports say Senator Obama dwarfed Senator McCain in fundraising for the month of July.

via Washington Post's, The Trail:

"We are proud of the millions of volunteers and more than two million donors to the Obama campaign who will provide the backbone of our campaign to put America back on track and reject the old politics and failed Bush policies, which is all John McCain is offering," said David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager.

The DNC reports to have outraised the RNC in July as well, though total cash on hand (party + candidate finances) for both candidates is roughly equal.
Read more!

Obama and McCain to Attend National Forum on Faith - Tonight, 8pm EST

Obama plays a road game tonight as he'll go before an audience of Evangelical Christians to discuss his faith, politics and how the two should (or should NOT) intertwine.

Some (myself included) wonder whether this is a mistake on Obama's part. Does he stand to gain from tonight's appearance? Will he get trapped by a comment or position that alienates his base? Can he honestly expect to make indroads with a solidly Republican demographic?

Still, recent changes among that group's younger voters might make this a risk worth taking.

Feel free to leave your thoughts on the forum.
Read more!

"Half of House Dems may vote Hillary at DNC"

That's the direct headline from Politico.com and further reason why this whole roll call nonsense is a bad idea.

This is not a headline most politicians want to see heading into their convention. But here it is, inviting thoughts of division, confusion and a weakened candidate. Which is why the Clinton roll call is a bad idea . . . because this may or may not be the beginning of a string of headlines with similar titles.

What's worse is the fact that we're talking about super delegates, here. It's one thing to have a symbolic vote for party activists, but these "House Dems" are supposed to be professional. House Democrats shouldn't need a "catharsis."

Please, don't try to make any sense of this. Don't think too hard, but just trust your instinct that it makes absolutely no sense for super delegates to do this.

Try not to pop a brain vessel when you hear a super delegate attempt to convince you that the best way to unite the party behind Senator Obama is to . . . vote AGAINST Senator Obama at the convention.

Add in a little PUMA action with some of your regular GOP talking points (gee whiz, I guess the timing is pure coincidence) and this convention is off to a weird start.

That feeling has not been lost on those who will be forced to cast their votes in an awkward situation . . .

via Politico.com:

“I think that most superdelegates, including myself, are going for Obama,” said New York Rep. Anthony Weiner, who campaigned with Clinton around the country. “I made my decision for Obama, and I’m not switching again.”

Other onetime Clinton backers are reluctant to reverse course for fear of angering their black constituents.

“My boss is totally conflicted about it — and pissed Hillary is putting us in this position,” said a congressional staffer for another New York House member. “We still haven’t made up our mind and I don’t know when we are going to.”

To his credit, I'm confident that Obama has things under control. This is supposed to be a short, relatively painless symbolic vote.

But he can't control the headlines and media spin. Those words, "division," "confusion," and "weak" aren't my words, they're the words of cable media and GOP pundits who are already asking, "If Obama can't stand up to the Clintons, how can he stand up to foreign dictators?"

It might not be a fair question (after all, the stakes and circumstances involved in conventions and foreign crisis are not the same). But it's a question Obama better have an answer to if he wants to come out of this convention looking strong.

In the meantime, let's hope that this roll call doesn't get used in Republican campaign ads. Because, "Half of House Dems may vote Hillary" ain't a good look, no matter how you try to slice it.

Especially when lines like the following don't necessarily leave a good taste in your mouth:

“The convention is about nominating Barack, so his people want to speed through the vote as fast as possible so it won’t take too much TV time,” said a Democratic delegate who plans to vote for Clinton. “They also want to avoid a scenario where she’s leading at any point.” (emphasis added)(Politico.com)

Read more!

Obama Fights Back: Releases 40 Page Attack on Smear Book

"Corsi has penned a litany of bigoted, hateful comments-- crossing the line so thoroughly that even the right-wing operatives behind Swift Boat Veterans for Truth disavowed him. This is a man who smears the Catholic Church, calls the Pope 'senile,' and regularly demeans public servants in vile sexual and racial terms . . . In short, his record of attacks is disgusting and false, and so is this book." (The Huffington Post, quoting Obama Response, Unfit For Publication)

Read more!

Growing Diversity in Swing Counties Could Shape Election

AP via MSNBC:

Minority Americans have been flocking to the nation's "swing counties," hotly contested areas that could play a crucial role in this year's election.

That's got to be good news for Barack Obama, bidding to become the first black president.

Blacks and Hispanics are moving to counties that already were racially diverse, such as Osceola in central Florida and Mecklenberg in North Carolina, home to Charlotte. They also are moving to key counties that remain predominantly white, such as Lake in Northeast Ohio, Lehigh in eastern Pennsylvania and Oakland outside Detroit.

Voter registration and turnout is the path to victory in this 2008 Presidential Election.

Obama hopes to win the presidency by changing the electoral map. The success of that effort will rely on new voters from younger and more diverse backgrounds. The opportunity is there. And reports like this suggest that the face of American politics and the American voter could change by November 4th.

Read more!

Who's Convention is This!?!?

The Huffington Post and Associated Press are reporting that Senator Clinton will officially have her name placed in nomination at the Democratic Convention:

Clinton will speak on Aug. 26, the second night of the convention.

The next day, the state-by-state roll call of her name will take place.

While Democrats say the mechanics of how that will play out still are being determined, Clinton _ herself a superdelegate who gets a vote _ is expected to release her delegates to Obama, announce her support for him and ask her backers to do the same.

Her husband is slated to address the delegates that day, too . . . (The Huffington Post)

I really don't like this.

I understand the strategy behind it. I've heard the arguments for unity. And perhaps Obama stands to gain more by giving the Clintons no excuses than by resisting them on this point.

But I just don't like it. I know the media wants to ignore this little fact, but Senator Clinton is NOT some type of co-nominee. SHE LOST . . .

Yet she and Bill get two major speaking roles and a roll call??? All while some of her die hard supporters protest Obama's nomination in the streets of Denver and campaign for John McCain???

Please tell me . . . Just what. in. the. hell. . .has Hillary sacrificed for the sake of party unity?

I've seen her be a part of maybe two campaign events for Obama (both of which spent more time praising her than supporting him). The rest have been fundraisers to help pay off her campaign debt.

And, all this time, her surrogates and fundraisers have dragged their feet and Bill Clinton has done all he can to show that he could care less about whether Obama wins or loses. That's right . . . doing just enough to avoid criticism, but nowhere near enough to seriously expect to help elect Obama.

Sorry, but I'm almost positive that, if the roles had been reversed, Obama would have been forced out of the race in FEBRUARY; there would be no role call; and the Clintons wouldn't give a damn about Obama's "historic campaign" or how his supporters "want to be heard."

Nope, the Clintons would have probably treated Obama the same way Obama should have treated the Clintons all of this time. . . as nothing more than the distraction that they are. . . as nothing more than the threat that such distraction entails.

Yes, an Obama in Hillary's position would have been painted as a threat if the roles were reversed. . .

A threat to the election; a threat to health care, the economy, foreign policy, a woman's right to choose . . . a threat to everything at stake in this election.

So this is not about "Hillary's supporters." This is about Clinton ego . . .

This is about an ego that felt entitled to a prolonged race despite being rendered mathematically insignificant months ago. . .

This is about a Clinton ego that couldn't congratulate Obama on the night he clinched the nomination and wouldn't cede the race until her own supporters twisted her arm to make her do it . . .

This is about a Clinton ego that demanded Obama help repay a debt Hillary raised trying to smear him (attacks that are now being used by John McCain). . .

This is about a Clinton ego that endorsed John McCain and a campaign that injected race at every possible turn (i.e., "the black candidate can't win x voters" or "x voters are less likely to vote for a black candidate")(check the wiki) . . .

This is about a Clinton ego that has done everything in its power to undermine the Democratic nominee (and Party) in a crucial election year. . .

This is about a Clinton ego . . .

wait . . .

that's the problem. . .

This is STILL ABOUT THE CLINTONS.

So instead of praising an inspirational acceptance speech by Obama, the media will be more than happy to spend all of its time obsessing over how many votes Hillary Clinton got and just how that WEAKENS Obama heading into the Fall campaign.

The Clintons aren't stupid. They know this is what could happen.

Hillary doesn't have to beat Obama or pull off a coup at the convention. No, she just needs to weaken him; place that asterisk next to his name and give her supporters more reason to harp on what could have been. . . all with the hope of seeing Obama lose a narrow race in November. That way, Hillary gets to say "I told you so" while escaping blame for the loss.

This is not about Clinton's "supporters" (as if 18 million pro-Clinton votes were somehow anti-Obama). This is about Hillary Clinton. And so far, this convention is shaping up as though it will be all about . . . Hillary Clinton.

Sorry, but there will be no unity so long as 18 million people are patronizingly seen as "Hillary's supporters" and not "Democratic voters." There comes a time when this has to stop being about her crushed ego and start being about Obama's election as our next President of the United States.

Still, I'll trust that Obama knows what he's doing, here. After all, he's already gotten this far.

And I'm still as enthusiastic about his campaign as ever. But it's because of that strong support that some of us get a little tired of seeing Obama bend over backwards to make Hillary feel comfortable when she rarely (if ever) returns the favor. I want a winner, NOT a political martyr. I plan to see Senator Obama take his Oath of Office in January 2009.

Since they have no more excuses, I'll hope that this is the last time Obama has to deal with a Clinton distraction. And I hope that Obama realizes the sense of urgency that this needs to be the LAST time.

In the meantime, you'll have to pardon me for asking this question:

Senator Obama. . . just who's convention is this anyways?
Read more!

Talk About Presumptuous . . . Oh, I Forgot, We Call it "Strength" When McCain Does It

So . . . Obama can't meet with foreign leaders without looking "uppity." But McCain can send his surrogates to a warring nation as third parties (speaking on behalf of the US?), unilaterally grant all Americans dual citizenship with Georgia and has long threatened to kick Russia out of the G8 Summit?

Is the media calling McCain presumptuous? Has the media held hour-long discussions focusing on McCain's need to steal the spotlight away from the President in a time of foreign crisis?

McCain's recent boast of bravado has political implications that are not so subtle . . .

If there was any doubt that the McCain campaign would try to use this week to emphasize McCain's foreign policy credentials in light of the current conflict in Georgia then today's town hall put those to bed.

. . . McCain's Straight Talk Express bus drove into the Toyota Arena here today beneath a large American flag and with the theme from Rocky blaring over the P.A. system. McCain emerged with Sen. Joe Lieberman and former-Governor Tom Ridge by his side. Both introduced the senator and stuck to the campaign's talking points of the day.

Lieberman kicked things off by saying, "We've just seen over the last few days as the Russians invaded a sovereign nation, Georgia, and watch the response of this man, John McCain, to that crisis, right, strong, clear, principled, the kind of president we need in the White House over the next four years, to be there to protect our country, our security and our freedom." (MSNBC's First Read)

If you listen to the media, Senator McCain is merely flexing his muscles as a potential Commander in Chief.

Listen, I don't claim to be a foreign policy expert. This is not a critique on the merits of the Russian/Georgian conflict or the candidates' responses. However, I do want to acknowledge a growing double standard in the media.

It is a double standard that trusts McCain to take risks on matters of war and foreign policy that it would never allow Obama. . . a media that laughs at "bomb, bomb Iran," songs, excuses gaffes confusing Sunnis and Shiites and doesn't question the ethics of a candidate's boisterous response to a foreign conflict when that candidate's own foreign policy advisor was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to lobby on behalf of that foreign government.

It is a double standard that gives conservative talking heads the benefit of the doubt on foreign policy matters despite 8 years of incompetence, moving goal posts, and changing rationales for military action.

The kid gloves with which the media has handled McCain's recent rhetoric is disappointing to say the least. The coverage has been nothing like the month long media narratives thrown at Obama. Where are the round-table discussions on John McCain's hubris? What of his arrogance to speak over, if not for, the President throughout this Russian/Georgian conflict?

I probably wasn't the only one who worried that McCain's unchecked chest-thumping might get us involved in a war with Russia this week.

And I'm also probably not alone when I say it's confusing to hear the media trumpet the following narrative on foreign policy:

Getting cheered by 200,000 Germans waiving American flags=BAD . . . but getting tangled in an escalating foreign conflict when you have no authority to speak on behalf of the President=GOOD???

You'd think the mainstream media might ask whether McCain's tough talk is a little . . . I don't know . . . presumptuous?

Instead the media has said very little, allowing McCain to escalate his political rhetoric without asking whether his words might have unanticipated consequences. And, unlike Obama's trip over seas, few in the media have the audacity to question McCain's motives or intentions despite the sense of political opportunism at play.

As noted by TPM:

The idea is to showcase himself [McCain] as a man of action during a time of international crisis and to remind people that the world is a dangerous place that's still filled with aggressive actors, something that the McCain camp presumably thinks will play in his favor.

McCain's announcement of his key campaign allies' trip abroad also seems designed to shoulder Bush aside as the primary GOP leadership figure here.

Pushing the President aside? Presumptuous???

Nah! It's McCain.

See, we call it "strength" when he does it, despite the confusion and danger his tough talk might provoke. . .


Read more!

New Poll Says Obama Leads Among . . . CHRISTIANS

via The Huffington Post:

A new nationwide survey of people's candidate preference conducted by The Barna Group some movement over the past two months, with Sen. Obama maintaining a substantial 43% to 34% lead among those who are likely to vote in November, with 5% selecting minor party candidates. ...For the most part, the various faith communities of the U.S. currently support Sen. Obama for the presidency. Among the 19 faith segments that The Barna Group tracks, evangelicals were the only segment to throw its support to Sen. McCain. Among the larger faith niches to support Sen. Obama are non-evangelical born again Christians (43% to 31%); notional Christians (44% to 28%); people aligned with faiths other than Christianity (56% to 24%); atheists and agnostics (55% to 17%); Catholics (39% vs. 29%); and Protestants (43% to 34%).

Let's Hope this puts an end to rumors about Obama's faith.
Read more!

Republican Lawyers Prepare to Purge New Voters

The Wall Street Journal reports on the ensuing legal battle for ballots between Democrats and Republicans.

Many have lauded Democratic Nominee, Barack Obama's, massive voter registration drive. Building off of historic turnout in this year's Democratic Primary, Obama's registration drive could swing a few Republican-leaning states to the Democratic column by election day.

However, the power of this phenomenon has not been lost on the Republican Party.

The Wall Street Journal (via TPM):

Republicans are moving to examine surges in voter registrations in some states. A Republican lawyers group held a national training session on election law over the weekend that included campaign attorneys for Sen. John McCain and other Republican leaders. One session discussed how party operatives can identify and respond to instances of voter fraud.

So continues the disturbing, but predictable pattern wherein Republicans respond to high registration and turnout with legal tactics to disqualify Democratic voters. Lawyers have played a major role in the past two elections. This year promises to be no different.

Read more!

Obama Leads Electoral College: 284 to 157

The math still looks good for Senator Obama. The latest results from Pollster.com would give the presumptive Democratic nominee a landslide victory if the election were held today.

In other news, Obama maintains his national lead over Arizona Senator, John McCain. The latest Gallup Daily Tracking Poll has Senator Obama with a steady 5 point lead, 47% to 42%.

State polls give Obama a slight advantage in the swing states of Colorado, Montana and Virginia. Obama trails McCain by low single digits in Florida (-1%), Missouri (-5%), Nevada (-3%), North Dakota (-3%) and North Carolina (-3%).

Bottom line: Obama has reason to feel confident, but more than enough incentive to stay on the grind.

This race feels like it's at a tipping point. It could either tighten or swing heavily in Obama's favor. Look for a bounce once Obama names his vice presidential candidate and an even bigger bounce after the convention.

Perhaps MSNBC's Chuck Todd put it best: This looks like Obama's race to win.

Read more!

Obama/Hagel? Obama/Kerry? Obama/Reed? Obama/Clarke???

Speculation reached a new level after Senator Obama sent an email to supporters saying he'd pick his vice presidential running mate in the near future.

That speculation got a little more interesting Monday morning when a conference call with the Obama camp revealed that the vice presidential candidate will speak on a night dedicated to veterans' issues:

via Huffington Post:

On a conference call on Monday morning, Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius and top ranking aide Anita Dunn announced that the theme for Wednesday -- the night on which the vice presidential candidate is scheduled to speak -- will be national security and honoring veterans. The choice, a reporter noted, lent itself to the interpretation that Obama would choose a running mate with background in military affairs -- like, say, Sen. Chuck Hagel or John Kerry.

When considering military experience, the names Wesley Clark and Jack Reed also come to mind. Was this a slip of the tongue or is The Huffington Post making something out of nothing? After all, just last week many in the media had Democrats prepared to slap an Obama/Bayh bumper sticker on the back of their cars. The week before, Tim Kaine got all the press.

This could be a wild goose chase . . . or maybe not.

A veep with military experience could help on several different levels. First, take the electoral map. Virginia is said to be a state that's big on veterans' issues. An Obama/Hagel or Obama/Reed ticket might play well in that state where 13 electoral votes are up for grabs. Second, there's no reason to doubt that Republicans will try to use military service as a sledgehammer in the Fall. It would help to have someone on the ticket who's biography won't be as susceptible to that ever-present "He doesn't respect the troops" meme that Republican officials love to trot out every time someone questions their foreign policy. Finally, conventional wisdom suggests that Obama should consider picking a veep that solidifies his foreign policy/national security bona fides. Hagel, Reed, Kerry and Clark could all help in that department.

Again, this could all be a distraction meant to shift media attention away from Obama's real pick. I still think Obama could go with Senator Joe Biden. Bayh is still the media favorite. And I'd be interested in seeing an Obama/McCaskill (Missouri is a swing state) or Obama/Sebelius ticket.

But the prospect of an Obama/Hagel/Kerry/Clark or Reed ticket leaves a lot to ponder . . .

Obama/Hagel?

I've always felt that this pick would signal supreme confidence from the Obama campaign, showing that they intend to play offense in the Fall. It's a hard play for the Independent vote and Hagel could do wonders to paint McCain as the man who lost his way on foreign policy . . . a man who let the wings of his better angels get clipped by Republican partisanship.

Indeed, picking Hagel would be a "maverick" move by Obama. What better way to beat McCain than to out-maverick "The Maverick"?

But Hagel's biggest draw could also be his biggest weakness. He's a Republican and it's hard to know whether Obama's base would stomach a candidate who agrees with them on the war, but disagrees with them on a host of other issues.

Obama could pull it off. A unity ticket would dominate the headlines and capture the imaginations of millions of voters. A Democrat/Republican ticket is certainly consistent with Obama's "Change" theme, and it might be an answer to the partisan gridlock that's consumed Washington for years. But it's the type of "change" that could give some Democratic voters pause. Is the Democratic base prepared to trust a Republican vice president?

Obama/Kerry?

I personally love the poetic justice in this ticket. Who better to help lead the charge against the Republican attack machine than the candidate who faced the swift-boaters himself?

Talk about redemption. I can't think of a better feel-good political story than to see Senator Kerry get payback for the 2004 Republican Convention. Remember those flip flop sandals and purple heart band aides? Well so do a lot of Democrats. Those images have been stuck in their minds for the past four years. Given the left-over emotions from 2004 and the enthusiasm for Obama in 2008, an Obama/Kerry ticket could yield the highest voter turnout from any of the tickets mentioned in this article.

But would Kerry be embraced by the Democratic establishment? A lot of people still blame Kerry for running a weak campaign in 2004. And some progressives still haven't forgiven him for failing to fight charges of voter disenfranchisement in Ohio. Generally speaking, Democrats have a bad habit of disowning their candidates after a loss (convenient that it's always the candidate's fault). They rarely give second chances.

Plus, one can never underestimate the vigor of the Republican attack machine. Make no mistake about it, an Obama/Kerry ticket would require full throttled support from the Democratic party. Republican pundits and conservative talk radio would have a field day drudging up some of their old Kerry material.

It's a winnable fight, but Democrats would have to stay focused and united in order to make it work . . . that's ALL Democrats, whether they be moderate or progressive. Indeed, the success of an Obama/Kerry ticket might say more about the vitality of the Democratic Party (moderate and base support) than the candidates themselves.

Obama/Clark?

Clark showed he can play offense when he took the fight to McCain in June. I've always seen him as the best option from the pro-Clinton crowd. He's a familiar face and his Arkansas roots might play well in Southern states vulnerable to an Obama upset.

Plus, speculate on this:

via Huffington Post:

According to USA Today, the theme for Wednesday, Aug. 27 is "Securing America's Future," which just also happens to be the name of Gen. Wesley Clark's political action committee.

This would be another bold choice for Obama because of the type of fight Clark is willing to have with McCain. His recent dust-up over the relevance of military service to be president strikes at the heart of McCain's message. If successful, an Obama/Clark ticket could challenge the conventional wisdom that surrenders any and all things military to Republican partisanship. It's a fight that many on the left have been wanting for some time. An Obama/Clark ticket could rally the Democratic base.

But the success of an Obama/Clark ticket could hinge on Obama's willingness to fight. Obama distanced himself from Clark's statement in June, and the Republicans would try their best to paint an Obama/Clark ticket as anti-troops and anti-service. Democrats (both moderate and base) would probably be up for that fight. But would Obama? Does that fight play well among Independents? Would such a fight ultimately benefit McCain, taking most attention away from traditionally Democratic issues like the economy, education and health care?

Obama/Reed?

Senator Jack Reed is a veteran with strong credentials (senior member of the Armed Services Committee) who's support for the troops would be hard to question. Senator Reed has visited Iraq eleven times and has a history of voicing support for the troops and advocating for better armor and armored vehicles. Progressives will appreciate the fact that Reed voted against the Iraq war. Perhaps most importantly, Reed is seen as having a sensible voice on Iraq. Just listen to this stellar review:

"Jack travels to Iraq, he has friends in Iraq, and because of his many connections, Jack sees things in Iraq that a lot of us don't get to see,"
- Senator John McCain of Arizona. (Senator Reed on Iraq)

So is there a downside? Well, Senator Reed is an unknown quantity in national politics. Reed would be a stable force on the ticket, but the campaign might have to waste time and effort introducing him to the national audience.

Plus there's not a lot to say just how well Senator Reed campaigns. Is he sharp and tough enough to withstand attacks on his character? Can he stand up to Republican smears?

Finally, does an Obama/Reed ticket excite the Democratic Party? Reed seems like a safe pick, but does he help excite Democratic voters?

Only time will tell who Obama picks as his running mate. But it's always fun to speculate. Picking a military veteran might focus the election on foreign policy and Iraq. Is this a fight Obama wants? Or would he rather use his veep choice to shift national focus onto traditionally Democratic issues like the economy?

Regardless of who he picks, the spotlight will continue to rest on Obama (for better or worse). Barring any vice presidential scandal (ahem . . . on second thought, that Obama/Edwards ticket wouldn't have worked out so well), rest assured that this race will be won or lost at the top of the ticket.
Read more!

Continuing the Fight Against Felony Disenfranchisement

Nationally, an estimated 5.3 million Americans are denied the right to vote because of laws that prohibit voting by people with felony convictions. This fundamental obstacle to participation in democratic life is exacerbated by racial disparities in the criminal justice system, resulting in an estimated 13% of Black men unable to vote. (The Sentencing Project)

There's an interesting piece in the Washington Post , For Those Once Behind Bars, A Nudge to the Voting Booth, that focuses on the continuing effort to restore the franchise for millions of ex-felons nationwide:

All but two states -- Maine and Vermont -- limit voting rights for people with felony convictions. Some felons are banned from voting until they have completed parole and paid restitution, others for life. Kentucky and Virginia have the most restrictive laws . . . (Washington Post)

Anyone who's ever studied this subject knows that felony disenfranchisement has a dark history. Its roots are one with racist discriminatory practices of yesteryear. The poll tax, grandfather clause and a host of other practices were created to suppress the black vote shortly after Reconstruction and the ratification of the 15th Amendment. Felony disenfranchisement was yet another in a string of "race neutral" tactics meant to disproportionately impact African Americans.

This practice also flies in the face of the time-honored tradition that those who "do the crime should do the time." In fact, millions of Americans have already done their time. They have paid their debt to society as handed down from a "jury of their peers," authorized by the courts and enforced by the criminal justice system. They've done the time, yet still suffer the penalty (a penalty that often results from nonviolent offenses).

This reminds us that voting, while a right in theory, is treated as a privilege in practice.
Read more!