Sanders Supporters Begin to Abandon Clinton

Ignore Chris Matthews' aggressive pro-Clinton badgering. Focus on Turner's determination to keep her progressive powder dry ... for the moment.

by Gaius Publius

I'm not saying this is a trend ... yet ... and I'm presenting this just as news, not as something I do or do not want to happen.

Frankly, part of me is watching this drama with a novelist's fascination, or more accurately, with a novel reader's fascination. We're in the middle of one of those turning-point political stories — the fall of Athens perhaps, or the year Atilla showed up — where anything could happen, all of it seems to matter, and everything starts to point to a final transformational clash on a world-historical scale. Or at least so it seems.

As a result I'm riveted, and refuse to preference an outcome. For one thing, I have no idea what it would be best to want, outside of a Sanders presidency. None of the other outcomes seem ... well, easy to live through, to tolerate as a "shape of things to come." But who knows?

Too Many Possible Outcomes

There are way too many possible outcomes for this story. One of the possible outcomes of this watershed election season is a Clinton win against Trump in a two-person race, which will enable the neo-liberal ("we serve the educated 10%") Democratic consensus to keep control of their own party through the next four years, for better or worse. That outcome would also allow the billionaire ("we serve the .01%") Republican consensus to reassert control on their side of the aisle. (After that, I don't think the Republican consensus will come apart, but I think the Democratic Party could split, depending on what Clinton does as president.)

Another outcome is a three- or more likely, a four-person race — Clinton, Trump, Jill Stein, Gary Johnson — with the outcome (or outcomes) very much in doubt. I'll treat those hypotheticals separately.

In any case, the real deciders will be the mass of "radical independent" voters, who have control of the story this time around.

Sanders Tries to Lead the Flock to Clinton...

Let's assume that Sanders is sincerely trying to lead the people empowering the "Sanders political revolution" to support Clinton. (I've read plausible speculation that his motives may be multiple, including making sure that if she does still falter, in the polls or in the courts, he's now tied so closely to her that he's the only one next in line. Still, speculation.)

If Sanders is trying to lead the flock, how is he doing so far? With voters, not that well, though it's clearly early days. Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, is polling above 3% nationally, and there's a fair amount of talk on Sanders-supporting social media about turning to her, and also about getting her above the controversial 15% polling threshold that would make her eligible for the presidential debates. Her star seems to be rising on Sanders media. If interest in her candidacy — and she's doing all she can to spark that interest — reaches critical mass, Clinton could have a problem. She's already on thin ice of her own in the polling, running roughly even with Trump in key battleground states at this point.

Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party candidate, is polling above 5% nationally. We'll know soon enough if those numbers will increase as well.

...While Some of Sanders Leaders Are Defecting from Clinton

Which brings me to the part of the tale that just caught my eye. Within the last week or so, several of Sanders' strongest public supporters, including surrogate Dr. Cornel West, have respectfully but publicly declined to support Clinton, despite Sanders' decision to do so himself.

Cornel West, writing in The Guardian, starts with President Obama's decision to go to Dallas, but not Baton Rouge or Minneapolis, to address racial justice and killing (my emphasis throughout):

Obama has failed victims of racism and police brutality

The president and his cheerleaders refused to engage deeply with systemic problems facing our country. That came back to haunt America last week

A long and deep legacy of white supremacy has always arrested the development of US democracy. We either hit it head on, or it comes back to haunt us. That’s why a few of us have pressed the president for seven years not to ignore issues of poverty, police abuse and mass unemployment. Barack Obama said it very well, following the shootings of Philando Castile and Alton Sterling, that some communities “have been forgotten by all of us”.

And now – in Dallas, Baton Rouge, Falcon Heights and beyond – this legacy has comes back to haunt the whole country.

Obama and his cheerleaders should take responsibility for being so reluctant to engage with these issues. It’s not a question of interest group or constituencies. Unfortunately for so much of the Obama administration its been a question of “I’m not the president of black people, I’m the president of everyone.” But this is a question of justice. It’s about being concerned about racism and police brutality.

I have deep empathy for brothers and sisters who are shot in the police force. I also have profound empathy for people of color who are shot by the police. I have always believed deliberate killing to be a crime against humanity.

Yet, Obama didn’t go to Baton Rouge. He didn’t go to Minneapolis. He flew over their heads to go to Dallas. You can’t do that. His fundamental concern was to speak to the police, that was his priority. When he references the Black Lives Matter movement, it’s to speak to the police. But the people who are struggling have a different perspective. ...

Unfortunately, Obama thrives on being in the middle. He has no backbone to fight for justice. He likes to be above the fray. But for those us us who are in the fray, there is a different sensibility. You have to choose which side you’re on, and he doesn’t want to do that. Fundamentally, he’s not a love warrior. He’s a polished professional. Martin Luther King Jr, Adam Clayton Powell Jr and Ella Baker – they were warriors.

Which leads him to this reflection on neo-liberal notions of justice:

Obama’s attitude is that of a neo-liberal, and they rarely have solidarity with poor and working people. Whatever solidarity he does offer is just lip-service to suffering but he never makes it a priority to end that suffering.

Obama has power right now to enact the recommendations made after Ferguson. Better training, independent civilian oversight boards, body cameras. But he has not used executive orders to push any of these changes through.

This November, we need change. Yet we are tied in a choice between Trump, who would be a neo-fascist catastrophe, and Clinton, a neo-liberal disaster. That’s why I am supporting Jill Stein. I am with her – the only progressive woman in the race – because we’ve got to get beyond this lock-jaw situation. I have a deep love for my brother Bernie Sanders, but I disagree with him on Hillary Clinton. I don’t think she would be an “outstanding president”. Her militarism makes the world a less safe place.

Dr. Eddie Glaude, Jr., prominent black writer and intellectual leader (and frequent guest on the old Rachel Maddow AAR show), writes in Time:

My Democratic Problem With Voting for Hillary Clinton

Eddie S. Glaude, Jr. | July 12, 2016

Eddie S. Glaude, Jr., is the chair of the Department of African American Studies at Princeton University and the author of Democracy in Black.

I'm turning my back on the party that turns its back on our most vulnerable

I am not voting for Hillary Clinton, regardless of her endorsement by Bernie Sanders. My decision isn’t because of the scandal around her emails or because of some concern over her character. My reasons are pretty straightforward. I don’t agree with her ideologically.

Democratic values centered on economic and racial justice shape my own politics. I’m not convinced those values shape hers. Nothing Clinton says or intends to do if elected will fundamentally transform the circumstances of the most vulnerable in this country—even with her concessions to the Sanders campaign. Like the majority of Democratic politicians these days, she is a corporate Democrat intent on maintaining the status quo. And I have had enough of all of them.

What has Clinton offered the American people as a substantive alternative to the status quo? How would her position on free trade, her view of foreign policy, on immigration, her call for “common sense policing” in the face of the murders of Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge or Philando Castile in Minneapolis redirect our course as a nation? Transform the condition of black and brown communities?

Given the state of the country and of black and brown communities, these questions must be asked. But for many, especially for Clinton supporters, these questions reek of the unreasonableness of the American left or of people like me: that somehow to ask them reveals that we don’t understand the incremental nature of American politics or that we have crossed over into some forbidden realm of politics. ...

Will this trend continue? It's early days, as I said, but these events are important enough that I want to put them on your radar now. I don't expect Robert Reich, another Sanders surrogate, to follow Dr. West's lead, but you never know. I do have my eye on Nina Turner, however. Watch her again in the video above and decide if she'll ever drop her coin in the Clinton slot.

Maybe not. The mark of the Sanders campaign is its adherence to principle and policy, not personalities and candidates.

Playing God's Spy

This is a very rocky road, the one ahead. I don't envy any of these people the decisions they have to make. Me, in my chair by the window, I have only one decision between now and this November — try to keep you caught up on the unfolding drama played by better men and women than I.

As one of those better men once wrote:

So we’ll live,
And pray, and sing, and tell old tales, and laugh
At gilded butterflies, and hear poor rogues
Talk of court news, and we’ll talk with them too—
Who loses and who wins, who’s in, who’s out—
And take upon ’s the mystery of things
As if we were God’s spies.

Not sure there's much else for us to do. Those with real "agency" (as the kids say today) are the mass of Sanders supporters, the millions who turned out for him, plus the few with "names" who joined him in those stadiums offering public introductions and praise. We in the bleachers are relegated to a less prominent position — "God's spies."

As long as that's our role, we may as well watch.

GP
 

Today's feel-good story: In West Virginia, old-fashioned local Dems learn they can work together with Obama campaign activists

"'It's a different era,' she muses. 'I accept it.'"
-- Waneta Acker, 88-year-old Democratic Party doyenne in Ohio County, WV, quoted by Amar C. Bakshi in his Washington Post report today, "How W.Va. Democrats Came to Terms with Obama's Rise"

by Ken

"Almost as soon as Obama locked up the Democratic presidential nomination," reporter Bakshi writes, "the order came from Washington to merge the operations of the Democratic Party and the Obama campaign from the top down to the local level."

In June Bakshi visited Wheeling, West Virginia, to see how the "merger" was working there. The answer seemed to be that both sides thought it would be difficult if not impossible. "Fast-forward five months to October," he writes, "and it feels like five decades have passed."

What he found on his revisit makes for my feel-good story of the month, or maybe year, if not decade. I encourage you to read the whole account, but here is a clumsy abridgment:

The predominately elderly, white organizers who have run the county Democratic Party here for a generation were uneasy about integrating their operation with the Democratic presidential campaign, which was filled with new, unknown faces, many of them minorities. . . .


Back in June, if you asked longtime Democratic activist Waneta Acker what she thought about merging the Obama campaign with her party's local operations, she'd just strain her neck and tense up.

For the past two decades, this 88-year-old retired insurance saleswoman has run the one-room Democratic headquarters downtown.

She collected $600 per month to rent the space, set up the phone bank, and organize the candidates' promotional material on a table: local commissioner here, prosecuting attorney there, state assessor here, President of the United States there.

From morning to night Acker held court. Factory workers, union representatives, and retirees came by to snatch buttons and talk politics. You'll all get healthcare, she assured them. . . .


With friends and acquaintances, she discussed their concerns.

"Race is one issue," she said then. "That's the biggest issue." . . .


If the Obama campaign and the Democratic headquarters merged, Acker worried, maybe Obama supporters wouldn't work hard for their local Democrats. Maybe they wouldn't pay their dues. Maybe they'd try to oust her. . . .


Back in June, some Obama supporters were anxious too. Aaron Wilkinson, a divorced 25-year-old with a black father and white mother lives just a few blocks from Acker. Wilkinson was the first African American student president of West Liberty State College. Now he sells shoes in the morning, volunteers for local Democratic candidates in the afternoon, and plots politics by night.

"I wouldn't be surprised if there's people that work for the Democratic Committee in West Virginia that are not too thrilled that there's an African-American running for president" he said.

If the Democratic Headquarters and the Obama Campaign merge, Wilkinson wondered, couldn't some disgruntled white party officials try to "tear it [the Obama efforts] apart from the inside?" Or, at least, ignore Obama and focus entirely on the local races? . . .


FAST-FORWARD FIVE MONTHS to October, and it feels like five decades have passed.

On Sept. 2 the Obama Campaign and the local Democratic Headquarters cut the tape together inaugurating the joint "Democratic Headquarters for Change."

Acker dates the beginning of the two camps' integration to July 24, the opening of the Italian Festival on the waterfront. She was busy setting up the Democratic Party booth when some of the Obama newbies approached her and offered their help passing out local politicians' fliers and registering voters.

"I didn't know them from a load of coal," she remembers, "But they knew what they were doing" with their forms, their talk of health care and their relentlessness. "Just talking to them, I saw what nice people they were." . . .


And the same local white Democrats kept coming to the headquarters, despite the life-sized cutouts of Obama. "I was surprised so many of them [white Democrats] have changed," says Acker. "Where they didn't accept the fact that he was colored, now they've changed their attitude. Really."

"I also had some concern because he was colored that they [Obama volunteers] might turn the table on us here, but now when I see the way people have really worked together and banded together, I see a different way."

"It's a different era," she muses. "I accept it."

The 2008 presidential campaign is shaping up as a now-typical GOP one -- and, alas, an all-too-typical Democratic one

ON THE GOP SIDE --

[The usual drill: Click to enlarge.]

AND ON THE DEMS' SIDE --

by Noah

I often suspect that, after he apparently won the nomination, Obama was pulled into a room and told by the folks who really run things that he had done a nice job and now THIS IS HOW IT'S GONNA BE. It's like the Clintons smiled knowingly and told him they would be his initiation guides into the secret club, while the masters smiled approvingly on the other side of the two-way mirror. The Obama CHANGE is more than running left in the primary and moving right in the general, it's a personality change. Forced or chosen?

Sleep well. :) We may just live in the 9th Circle. Read the sign on the door. Hope? My ass.

#

Senator Clinton saves her best for last, and (most) everyone agrees: It's on to victory in November!

"The way to continue our fight now, to accomplish the goals for which we stand, is to take our energy, our passion, our strength and do all we can to help elect Barack Obama the next President of the United States. [applause] Today, as I suspend my campaign, I congratulate him on the victory he has won and the extraordinary race he has run. I endorse him and throw my full support behind him. And I ask all of you to join me in working as hard for Barack Obama as you have for me."

--Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, in her speech today

I didn't watch the senator's speech. It would take . . . well, I don't know what it would take to get me to watch a political speech these days. But everyone I'm hearing from seems agreed that it was an all-time speech, including these comments from some pretty hard-boiled political types:

* "The best speech of her career -- I've never been prouder of Senator Clinton"

* "One of the best speeches I've ever watched" (from a self-described "hardcore Obama partisan")

* "She carried herself with pride, grace, and style -- she deserves our admiration today, with no reservations"

* "Do I hear 50 states?"


CROOKS AND LIARS HAS VIDEO . . .

. . . and also provides YouTube links for the entire speech:

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxWrl9W9pf4

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=em8dWlgxsiY

Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b594Ia2jXYg

Part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oc1fTJizJ-M


UPDATE: AND HERE'S A LINK . . .

. . . for a transcript of the speech.


SENATOR OBAMA RESPONDS

"Obviously, I am thrilled and honored to have Senator Clinton's support. But more than that, I honor her today for the valiant and historic campaign she has run. She shattered barriers on behalf of my daughters and women everywhere, who now know that there are no limits to their dreams. And she inspired millions with her strength, courage and unyielding commitment to the cause of working Americans. Our party and our country are stronger because of the work she has done throughout her life, and I'm a better candidate for having had the privilege of competing with her in this campaign. No one knows better than Senator Clinton how desperately America and the American people need change, and I know she will continue to be in the forefront of that battle this fall and for years to come."


AND HOW DID FOX BUSINESS CHANNEL COVER THE SPEECH?

Well, I didn't watch those douchebags either. All I know is that on Google's news page, there's a prominent "FOXBusiness" link as follows (apparently reminding us that in the past):

Sen. Clinton Attacked Obama's Character And Judgment

Unbelievable.

You have to wonder about these people. How do they live with their polluted selves? How can they bear to look in a mirror without being overpowered by an impulse to pump their teensy brains full of lead?

Unbelievable.


AND FINALLY, MAY WE SAY, HUMBLY AND PROUDLY:

Well done, Senator Clinton!

#

With Senator Clinton THIS CLOSE to endorsing the Democratic nominee, maybe we shouldn't rock the boat -- her supporters can be SO touchy

We're hearing, after all, that the senator may pony up her endorsement as soon as Saturday! So let's all tiptoe very gently, and try not to cause any agitation.

Difficult as it's proving to bring Senator Clinton around, the really big task, we're constantly reminded, is bringing her supporters into the Democratic fold. So far the people who claim to speak for them will only say that putting their candidate on the ticket will do it. Since it's looking increasingly as if there's not a whole lot of enthusiasm for this option in the Obama camp, and since some of the Clintonites with supposed inside knowledge of the senator's actual beliefs claim that she doesn't want the nomination anyway (although some of those insiders insist that she does want to be asked, that leaves the question of what else the loyal Clintonistas would accept in exchange for their support.

I'm just throwing this out, and I may be way off-base, but has anyone thought of offering them a pony?


OKAY, THAT WAS PRETTY SNARKY AND CONDESCENDING

Let me say straightaway that, owing to some quirks of blog scheduling, the above post was actually written before I saw our colleague Jon's "Lost in the Historic Moment With a Bitter Asterisk," which wound up being published earlier. Well, the scheduling quirk isn't all that mysterious. As soon as I read what we've presented as Jon's "personal reflection," I considered it a priority to get it up as quickly as possible. I may be biased, but I was overwhelmed by it.

In recent weeks I've been hearing an assortment of stories of the disappointment, heartbreak, even despair felt by supporters of the Clinton presidential candidacy. Some of them have really moved me. But none has hit home with me as forcefully as Jon's description of his mother's pain, and the unexpected gulf that has opened between them.

I might add that I've never met Jon's mom. But from the way he's talked about her, and about his dad too -- a pair of small-town Southerners who brought up their two sons to cherish and live according to the noblest of traditional liberal values -- I feel as if I know them, and they've become two of my favorite people. His mom's pain has really hit me personally, and I would hate to do anything to add to it, (For Pete's sake, don't anybody tell her about this tactless post!) I just wish I weren't the sort of person who would do most anything for a cheap laugh. Sigh.

#

Lost In the Historic Moment With a Bitter Asterisk (a personal reflection by Jon)

by Jon Dodson

My thoughts have been swimming this week, and several times I've teared up over nothing, or felt at a loss for words. This will not be the most graceful or organized blog post, but it's important to try to express what I'm feeling, so I'll just start writing.

It would seem the stars of posterity have aligned. After a long, dark nightmare where the vision and ideals we had for ourselves and our country were seeming more and more like Mother Goose, we're left stunned, pinching ourselves. This week, we began a new chapter in the romantic story of our country, in a way almost too poetic to be true. I'm not talking about Obama's pretty words, although they were, as usual, perfect for the occasion. I'm talking about the culmination of everything that has occurred in the past 5 months, the past 16 months, the past 4 years, 8 years, 40 years, and 400 years. As if everything that has come before us was purposefully timed for this moment. And despite the tedious length of the primary process, the moment snuck up on me.

A moment that comes at a time when our nation has never, ever faced such a mind-boggling array of vast, interrelated problems -- each capable of completely undermining life as we know it. A moment where our government and society are so dysfunctional that we seem incapable of addressing even the easiest of problems. And at a moment where many people worldwide had lost all faith in America and her ideals, someone was nominated whose words and apparent capacity to deliver are too good to be true. At the same time, we've somehow managed to take a vast, huge, people-powered step for our democracy. We have vindicated every democratic ideal I've ever held. Through Obama, we've proven that we can do politics without the special interests, without the beltway "knowledge" or methodology, without the lobbyist contributions, without going negative, without dishonesty, without fear, and without avoiding the tough questions or tough issues. These are problems that seemed to me insurmountable less than a year ago, notwithstanding my high hopes for Net-based democracy. And today's news from the DNC shows just how quickly the Democratic party establishment are following Obama's example, and just how quickly things can change for the better.

And of course, that's not even the most significant aspect of our moment.

I'm only 26. I barely remember the Reagan years, I certainly wasn't alive during the five-year span when America lost three of her greatest heroes, and I can't imagine what I'd do at the sight of a sign demarcating the "colored" rest room. So maybe I have no excuse, and maybe I'm just a sap, but I'm overwhelmed with emotion.

Never let it be said that people from my generation don't care, or don't understand, or don't pay attention, because many of us do. My parents grew up in the segregated South, and they instilled in me the values of the civil rights movement, which was reflected in our conversations, movies, TV, books, values, our politics, and, ultimately, my career. We were always the only white people to go to the only local church that acknowledged Martin Luther King Day, the black First Baptist Church.

The most formative moment of my childhood was in 1993, when my father brought me to the 30th anniversary of the March on Washington, an extremely hot and humid summer day, where I learned the words to "We Shall Overcome," the Negro National Anthem, and other freedom songs; where me and my dad waded in the reflecting pool, under the shadow of Abraham Lincoln, while we watched Coretta Scott King, Rosa Parks, and so many others reflect on the import of that day. As me and my dad took the Metro back to Virginia, we listened to an older black man tell stories of his participation at the sit-ins in Greensboro, North Carolina. That night when we got to the hotel room, Dad told me to call my mom. I did and began excitedly telling her about everything I'd seen that day. She got choked up and began crying. In my innocence, I told her, "I'm sorry you missed it." She tried to explain that that wasn't why she was crying, but she just couldn't find the words.

It's worth noting that my parents could've never known how important and empowering those experiences would be for me as I grew older and came of age, a gay teenager in the heart of the Bible Belt.

And so, my heroes were always my parents' heroes. Today is the 40th anniversary of the assassination of the last American hero, and the 2nd day since the coronation of the next. And how I've yearned to call my mom and share the moment with her. But I can't. She is basically incapable of appreciating this moment. Because she is one of the many women who feel deeply hurt and betrayed by the loss of Hillary. And there's nothing I can say or do. I can only try to understand the great hope and anticipation she felt at seeing a woman in charge -- another hope she's been waiting her entire life to see realized, a hope which she was told (by an irresponsible press and a recklessly cocky campaign) would be inevitably fulfilled in January, and a hope dashed, in her mind, because of the often sexist coverage of the media.

For all of the poetry and timing of this moment, how bittersweet that it has come at such a high cost, and I'm not talking about the general election. I don't care who my mom votes for, or whether she votes at all. I do care that she is hurting. I care that she apparently thinks I don't understand the depth of her pain and disappointment -- a disappointment so profound that she can't bring herself to celebrate with her son the epic turning of the page that she raised me to care about. What a bitter irony, that when I called her on Tuesday night, she didn't understand why I was crying.

#

Not that we Americans care what other people think, or that we necessarily trust the Washington Post to tell us, but this is interesting, isn't it?

WaPo caption: British papers heralded Obama's victory in the
Democratic race. Reaction was not enthusiastic everywhere;
Israel and China have policy concerns.

"For much of the world, Sen. Barack Obama's victory in the Democratic primaries was a moment to admire the United States at a time when the nation's image abroad has been seriously damaged."
--lead paragraph of Kevin Sullivan's report, "Overseas, Excitement Over Obama," in today's Washington Post

The report continues:

From hundreds of supporters crowded around televisions in rural Kenya, Obama's ancestral homeland, to jubilant Britons writing "WE DID IT!" on the Brits for Barack discussion board on Facebook, people celebrated what they called an important racial and generational milestone for the United States.

"This is close to a miracle. I was certain that some things will not happen in my lifetime," said Sunila Patel, 62, a widow encountered on the streets of New Delhi. "A black president of the U.S. will mean that there will be more American tolerance for people around the world who are different."

The primary race generated unprecedented interest outside the United States, much of it a reflection of a desire for change from the policies of President Bush, who surveys show is deeply unpopular around the globe. At the same time, many people abroad seemed impressed -- sometimes even shocked -- by the wide-open nature of U.S. democracy, and the history-making race between a woman and a black man.

"The primaries showed that the U.S. is actually the nation we had believed it to be, a place that is open-minded enough to have a woman or an African American as its president," said Minoru Morita, a Tokyo political analyst.

While Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has admirers, especially from her days as first lady, interviews on four continents suggested that Obama is the candidate who has most captured the world's imagination.

"Obama is the exciting image of what we always hoped America was," said Robin Niblett, director of Chatham House, a British foreign policy institute. "We have immensely enjoyed the ride and can't wait for the next phase."

The presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain, who has extensive overseas experience, is known and respected in much of the world. Interviews suggested that McCain is more popular than Obama in countries such as Israel, where McCain is particularly admired for his hard line against Iran.

"Although no one will admit it, Israeli leaders are worried about Obama," said Eytan Gilboa, a political scientist at Bar-Ilan University in Israel. "The feeling is that this is the time to be tough in foreign policy toward the Middle East, and he's going to be soft."

In China, leaders are widely believed to be wary that a Democratic administration might put up barriers to Chinese exports to the United States.

But elsewhere, people were praising Obama, 46, whose emphasis on using the Internet helped make him better known in more nations than perhaps any U.S. primary candidate in history.

There are indeed lots of opinions from lots of places. For example:

Obama also has strong support in Europe, the heartland of anti-Bush sentiment. "Germany is Obama country," said Karsten Voight, the German government's coordinator for German-North American cooperation. "He seems to strike a chord with average Germans," who see him as a transformational figure like John F. Kennedy or Martin Luther King Jr.

His father's journey to America as an immigrant resonates with many foreigners who hope to make the same trip. Many people interviewed said that although the candidate's living in Indonesia for several years as a child doesn't qualify as foreign policy credentials, it may give him a more instinctive feel for the plight of the developing world.

"He's African, he's an immigrant family; he has a different style. It's just the way he looks -- he seems kind," said Nagy Kayed, 30, a student at the American University in Cairo.

For many, Obama's skin color is deeply symbolic. As the son of an African and a white woman from Kansas, Obama has the brownish "everyman" skin color shared by hundreds of millions of people. "He looks like Egyptians. You can walk in the streets and find people who really look like him," said Manar el-Shorbagi, a specialist in U.S. political affairs at the Cairo university.

In many nations, Obama's youth and color also represent a welcome generational and stylistic change for America. "It could help to reduce anti-U.S. sentiment and even turn it around," said Kim Sung-ho, a political science professor at Yonsei University in Seoul.

In terms of foreign policy, Obama's stated willingness to meet and talk with the leaders of Iran, Syria and other nations largely shunned by Bush has been praised and criticized overseas.

And if Israelis fear that Obama's Middle East policies may be "too soft,"

Obama's candidacy has generated suspicion among Palestinians as well. Ali Jarbawi, a political scientist at the West Bank's Bir Zeit University, said that even if Obama appears to be evenhanded in his approach to the Middle East, he would never take on the pro-Israel lobby in Washington. "The minute that Obama takes office, if he takes office, all his aides in the White House will start working on his reelection," Jarbawi said. "Do you think Obama would risk his reelection because of us?"

In Iraq, views on Obama's victory were mixed. Salah al-Obaidi, chief spokesman for Moqtada al-Sadr, the Shiite Muslim cleric who opposes the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq, said the Sadr movement favors having a Democrat in the White House on grounds that McCain would largely continue Bush's policies.

But in Samarra, a Sunni stronghold north of Baghdad, Omar Shakir, 58, a political analyst, said he hoped McCain would win the election and combat the influence of Shiite-dominated Iran.

#

Can the culture clash between Obama and Clinton supporters be bridged by November? Remembering the disasters of 1968, Harold Meyerson hopes so

June 5, 1968: The assassination of Sen. Robert F. Kennedy didn't end the culture clash between his supporters and those of his antiwar presidential rival, Sen. Eugene McCarthy.

"[W]hen two distinct political groups, each convinced that it brings something new and historic to its party and its nation, campaign against each other, bringing them together is no easy task, even when no policy matters divide them."

--Harold Meyerson, in his Washington Post column today,
"Patching Up the Democrats"

Mrs. Clinton has already blundered into the subject of the ill-fated 1968 Democratic presidential race, which went through a famous series of convulsions of which she seemed blissfully unaware: the decision by little-known Minnesota Sen. Eugene McCarthy to challenge President Lyndon Johnson's reelection bid on the issue of the Vietnam War; the president's abrupt decision not to run for reelection, leaving the field -- he thought -- to Vice President Hubert Humphrey; New York Sen. Robert Kennedy's long-delayed decision to enter the race; and then, in June, Senator Kennedy's assassination the night he won the California primary.

Harold Meyerson remembers that night with personal vividness:

Forty years ago tonight, I was one of a number of very young staffers on Eugene McCarthy's presidential campaign crammed into a Los Angeles hotel room, where we watched on television as Robert Kennedy, a few miles down Wilshire Boulevard at the Ambassador Hotel, claimed victory in the California primary. A few minutes later, the networks reported that Kennedy had been shot. The rest of the evening was a mix of anxiety, nausea, tears, misgivings and despair.

What Meyerson also recalls vividly is how different, and all but incompatible, the ranks of McCarthy and Kennedy supporters were while both candidates were in the race, even though "on matters of policy, there were really no significant differences" between the candidates.

We'll never know how that split would have played out. Meyerson notes, "McCarthy himself had planned to stand down and back Kennedy if Kennedy won California and began racking up establishment endorsements." But of course circumstances prevented that from happening.

Then Kennedy was killed. And there was no one to go over to, no one who could lead the antiwar forces to victory in Chicago or the general election. McCarthy did not drop out, and those in the Kennedy column who couldn't stand him persuaded George McGovern to be a last-minute candidate simply to show the flag in Chicago. Four years later, the McCarthy people and the Kennedy people of '68 came together to be the core of McGovern's successful campaign for the nomination. By then, though, Richard Nixon was president, the Vietnam War still raged, and the onetime Gene and Bobby loyalists had to think for a moment to recall what it was that had once so divided them.

I tell this tale, of course, not merely to remind us that the better world of which Robert Kennedy so movingly spoke died aborning 40 years ago in Los Angeles. I also tell it because I see a dynamic similar to that between the Kennedy and McCarthy campaigns in the relationship between Barack Obama's and Hillary Clinton's equally historic campaigns, and because today's Democrats have been given a chance -- as they were not in 1968 -- to come together and make the kinds of changes they have only dreamed of over the past four decades. You would think -- well, hope -- that after 40 years, this time they'd get it right.

#

Hillary Has Done A Great Job To Strengthen The Democratic Party

Sure, she has some psychotic supporters and some naive supporters. But she has put up a stupendous and admirable fight. Even if my skin crawled every time I was subjected to whining on cable TV by the hideous likes of Lanny Davis, Terry McCauliffe and that Icky person, Hillary has inspired millions of Americans in every demographic group and in every region. My support for Obama was never an anti-Hillary statement-- even if I detest her horribly corrupt advisors (probably almost as corrupt as McCain's)-- and, in fact, there were two major factors they nearly kept me from endorsing Obama. One is that, though on the whole, they both have moderately progressive voting records, Hillary's is consistently-- if not gigantically-- better than Obama's.

The other reason is harder to quantify. Hillary-without-the-advisors could have been one of the most inspiring political stories in American history, the country's first-- and long overdue-- woman president. The symbolism was powerful enough for me to almost look the other way on McAuliffe, Davis, Icky and the rest of the monsters she surrounded herself with. The shattering of the ultimate glass ceiling is, in itself, something so powerful and such an ultimate good, that it nearly negated-- for me-- her vote to support Bush's attack against Iraq. There is no way to know what Obama would have done were he in the Senate. Congressional Democrats were split on this vote. Most Democrats in the House voted against war; most in the Senate (including Clinton) voted for war, showing colossal, and possibly fatal, bad judgment.

Today we hear that the Clinton campaign has sent pink slips to numerous staffers and that they're meeting in New York tomorrow to plan out the endgame. The least palatable and most corrupt of her senior advisors want to fight it out to the end regardless of how much harm it will do to Democrats and no matter how helpful it will be for McCain. For me a wonderful ending would be for Lanny Davis to become an official McCain surrogate as Democrats rally around Obama. Serious Democrats who have believed in Hillary have told her it's time to turn her tremendous energy and talent towards making the general election a blow-out for Democrats up and down the ticket.

Obama will need Hillary and, unlike Gore (who, after all, preferred Joe Lieberman), will seek to use Bill Clinton to help Democrats retake the White House. On paper it looks like an easy job. But Rove isn't in prison-- let alone solitary confinement-- so we can be sure it will be a hard fought campaign. And make no mistake: Team Bush is running the show. McCain is tired, old and incapable of raising any money. Bush is bringing in all the money and its all going to the RNC, a criminal organization dedicated to using every dirty trick they can dig up. They have hired Rove, Jr., Tim Griffin, to lead an anti-Obama effort, despite any tepid McCain posturings about a "clean campaign." CIA spy Larry Johnson is already circulating some kind of racist red-meat-for-the-brain-dead tape targeting Michelle Obama.

Obama supporters owe Hillary a lot for the inspiration and leadership she has provided during the campaign. There's no reason to believe she won't be as energetic and powerful between now and November... and beyond.

How Badly Have The Clintons And Their Venal Surrogates Poisoned The Well?

Lucky for Obama that many mainstream Republicans, uncomfortable with the wildly extremist and hate-filled bent of their party of late, have decided to support him. He'll need that support to make up for racists and bigots-- many, though not all, harboring grudges because they couldn't get their way on Hillary-- among the Democrats who have decided that John W. McCain is their man. Today at Daily Kos Meteor Blades took a look at the disgruntled Hillary supporters, Joe Lieberman and the McCainocrats:

If your shrieking can be believed, you McCainocrats are premeditating ballot support for an exclusive club of racist, union-busting, woman-suppressing, bedroom-peering, rights-scoffing, warmongering, torture-backing, buccaneering, global warming-denying, privatizing, public land-grabbing, Supreme Court stuffing, empire-building, Constitution-shredding raptors. All for self-indulgent revenge. You’re unhappy that your candidate has not won the nomination. I understand that. Mine didn’t win either. But you’re not just unhappy, you're also willing to contribute to the election of someone who stands against most of what your candidate has been promoted as standing for. That, I don’t comprehend at all. Emotionally, intellectually or morally. I get the feeling you would vote for George W. Bush in 2008 if the 22nd Amendment weren’t in the way.

Yesterday Jane posted a very sad clip on YouTube that should help people understand this particular kind of derangement. It ain't pretty, but take a look because it is real:



A couple weeks ago we met the mother of a friend of mine. She and her gal-pals are all well-off Jewish ladies, of a delicate age, from South Florida. And all have decided not just that they love Clinton, but that they hate Barack Obama. Let me quote my friend: "They hate Obama so much they want to send a message to the Democratic party." When I told him his mother and her friends are a bunch of racists he took great umbrage (especially since he is too). "Some of our best friends are colored people and we help them all the time," he told me without a trace of irony.

I don't know what kind of an effort it will take from Hillary and Obama to bring the fraying party back together again and I don't know if the moderate Republicans and fed up independents who understand Obama's message will make up for the racist and selfish, disgruntled Democrats like the lunatic in the video and the one who gave birth to my friend. This morning Tim Shipman, the DC correspondent from the British newspaper, The Telegraph writes about a dignified exit strategy for Hillary. He'd be offering her an opportunity to take Mike Leavitt's job as Secretary of Health and Human Services. Doesn't sound like much-- her husband wants her in the vice presidency (just in case)-- but it would give her the opportunity to finish the job she botched so badly in the 90's: bringing universal health care to America, likely to be one of the grandest achievements of a Democratic administration.

Sam Stein was at the Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting yesterday and he has some interesting observations about how the Clintons have indeed poisoned the well and helped turn some of their supporters into actual Republicans:

A sampling of their punditry:

"[Obama] is a cult. His campaign is an anti-woman cult."

"I will actively campaign against him."

"You know who is backing him is George Soros. It'll be George Soros, not Obama, who is running the country."

"South Dakota is totally rigged for Obama because of Tom Daschle. Obama's going to win South Dakota because he's buying it and rigging it."

"[Obama] is a socialist! You know what the Nazi Party was before it was the Nazi Party? It was the Socialist Party."

It was not all that different from the mood outside, where signs read, "At least slaves were counted as 3/5ths a Citizen," and some pamphlets detailed Obama's supposed dealings in drugs and gay sex.

"Would you rather have a president who had an affair [Bill Clinton] or one who was a murderer [Obama]?"

UPDATE: DISTURBING ADMISSION FROM A CLINTON BACKER

Rob Andrews is a very conservative New Jersey Democratic congressman who was roundly defeated Tuesday after challenging progressive Senator Frank Lautenberg. Andrews had been, predictably, a big Clinton booster. No more:

A Democratic congressman from New Jersey accused Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign of trying to exploit tensions between Jews and blacks.

Rep. Rob Andrews, who supported Clinton, said in a newspaper interview that he received a call from a top member of Clinton's organization shortly before the April 22 Pennsylvania primary who explicitly discussed a strategy of winning Jewish voters by exploiting tensions between Jews and blacks.

"There have been signals coming out of the Clinton campaign that have racial overtones that indeed disturb me," Andrews said, according to a report in The Star-Ledger in Newark, N.J. "Frankly, I had a private conversation with a high-ranking person in the campaign ... that used a racial line of argument that I found very disconcerting. It was extremely disconcerting given the rank of this person. It was very disturbing."

Parties

Andrew Rice and 3 California bloggers

Today the chair of Oregon's Democratic Party, Meredith Wood Smith, one of the state's superdelegates, made her endorsement. She's a 65 year old woman who has been scrupulously neutral and her endorsement came as somewhat of a shock because it was not for Hillary Clinton. "I have a visceral understanding of the fight for gender equality," she wrote in this morning's Oregonian. My deep respect for Sen. Hillary Clinton and what she means to that fight continues and will continue in the years to come. As a senator, an advocate and as a candidate for president, she demonstrates the absolute importance and ability of women to lead. Her strength as a candidate has forever expanded the possibilities for other women. While we have come a long way in securing both gender and racial equality, we still have lots of work to do."

That said, she went for Obama for several reasons: "he received the majority of the votes in the Oregon primary, and he demonstrates the leadership needed to get us out of Iraq, restore our economy, begin the tough job of providing health care for all Americans and, most of all, heal the divisions in our nation."

His commitment to grassroots organizing, similar to Howard Dean's "Fifty State Strategy," will help Democrats win our down-ticket races. His deep understanding of our Constitution ensures that he will appoint judges, to both the Supreme Court and lower federal courts, who will truly defend our constitutional rights and freedoms.

In 1960, I was too young to vote, but I was so inspired by John F. Kennedy that I worked on his campaign and continue to be motivated by his legacy of social and civic responsibility. He is one of the reasons I became chairwoman of Oregon's Democratic Party. I believe that Obama is providing that same inspiration for our next generation of leaders.

Finally, the contrast between Obama and Sen. John McCain could not be clearer. On bringing troops home from Iraq. On commitment to our Constitution. On telling the American people the truth. Obama has the ability to build-- not just talk about-- a governing majority to actually solve the major challenges facing America.

As you know, I don't get out among people much. Yesterday, though, I went to a wonderful and genteel party across town. It was warm and friendly and I met more people than I had in years. The reason for the party was because Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate in Oklahoma, Andrew Rice, was in town and his aunt and her partner were introducing him to Oklahoman ex-pats living in southern California as well as to some other friends interested in the race. Andrew was, as always, wonderful and Irwing, John Amato and I were all impressed by his passionate talk about how Oklahoma was changing. He told the story of a young girl, Stephanie Collins, and her family's struggle in his state, a story that is encapsulated on this YouTube clip:



It's a health care and insurance story too many families in America are going through. It's why candidates like Andrew Rice are going to win in November.

But, to be honest, it wasn't just to share that video that inspired me to write this post. It was actually because of a woman I met there who is well-placed among Democratic donors. She had just come back from DC the day before. She told me she had spoken to several Democratic elected officials-- senators and congressmen-- and that they were all telling her the same thing: they were getting barraged with phone calls from the Clinton camp that were very threatening. Typically a stooge like McAuliffe would call, be extremely unpleasant, threaten that the Clinton's would make sure they were defeated in the future and hang up. Soon after a very sweet Hillary would call asking if she could see the battered senator. No one wants to see her anymore. This is a horrible tragedy and anyone who thinks they plan to withdraw gracefully, is in for a rude awakening. I'm so glad that Blue America has decided to stay out of the presidential race.

Oh, and speaking of Blue America... our contest is still on. Short version: AirAmerica is paying us to be their guest blogger this week and we're donating the entire amount to the Blue America candidate of your choice. Vote by adding one cent to your contribution to any of our candidates here. The whole story about the contest is right here. Last time I looked Debbie Cook, the progressive mayor of Huntington Beach who is taking on lunatic fringe Dana Rohrabacher, is ahead. (UPDATE: Eric Massa is catching up... fast and furious.)

KENTUCKY AND OREGON RESULTS-- PLUS CLAY COUNTY

When I woke up this morning CNN had a little feature of Clay County, Kentucky. I was only half-awake so I don't recall exactly how many people they interviewed but I'd guess that-- apart from the normal-looking mayor or Manchester, there wasn't a full set of teeth between at least half a dozen people. I'm usually sympathetic when I see a place mired in poverty and misfortune-- and, although Clay County is mired in both, sympathy isn't what the CNN report drew out of me. I'll explain in a minute but let me give you some of the facts first. Clay County is the poorest county in Kentucky and the 18th poorest in America, most of the poorer ones being desolate Indian reservations. The per capita income is $9,716.00. As of the last census the population was 24,556, of whom around 15,000 are registered to vote-- 13,092 Republicans and 2,013 Democrats. That's right. Clay County, dirt poor, rampant unemployment and it's overwhelming Republican.

The county is also 94% white and 40% are living below the poverty line. Early this morning CNN was making the point that there was scant interest in today's election in Clay County. Today 649 Democrats voted (32%) and 2,569 Republicans voted (19.6%). Hillary took 85% of the Democratic vote and McCain took 74% of the Republican vote. On the Senate side Lunsford got 48.5% of the Democratic vote and Greg Fischer got 26.2%.

The first and the last person they interviewed was a kind of elderly obese woman sitting in a cheap restaurant sharing her tales of woe. At the end the reporter asked her what she thought about Hillary Clinton. She started shouting about the Bible and how a woman's place is in the home.

That said, Kentucky Democrats gave a corrupt Zell Miller type quasi-Democrat, Bruce Lunsford, their nomination for the U.S. Senate, virtually guaranteeing another term for an even more reactionary and more corrupt Mitch McConnell. Statewide 459,093 (65.5%) voted for Hillary and 209,869 voted for Obama (30%). On the GOP side, McCain took 142,836 (72.5%) and the runner-up was Huckabee with 16,367 (8.3%). Obama, in losing to Hillary, took more votes than all the Republicans combined.

In Oregon we were following several races but let's get the presidential race out of the way. As expected, Obama won. With 50% of the returns counted, Hillary took a few remote counties but Obama won all the big ones for a 58%-42% win. He took 9 delegates to her 2. Tomorrow's NY Times: "Under the rules used by Democrats, Mr. Obama’s showing in Kentucky and his victory in Oregon appear to be enough to allow him to secure a majority of the delegates up for grabs in primaries and caucuses." And it looks like Senator Chuck Hagel will be the Republican foil for the treacherous Joe Lieberman expected to transform himself into Zell Miller at the GOP Hate Fest this summer. "The Republican Senator from Nebraska was a political thorn in McCain's side on Tuesday night, repeatedly lavishing praise on the presumptive Democratic candidate and levying major foreign policy criticisms at the GOP nominee and the Republican Party as a whole. At one point, Hagel even urged the Arizona Republican to elevate his campaign discourse to a higher, more honest level."

It looks like Jeff Merkley beat Steve Novick 45-41%. Blue America will have Jeff on at FED Thursday evening. But my favorite race of the night was for the useless right to represent the GOP in the congressional race in OR-05 (to fill the seat of retiring Democrat Darlene Hooley). Mike Erickson, after being exposed as a coke freak and pervert, beat the favorite, Kevin Mannix. Erickson is expected to lose to Kurt Schrader in November.

Watch Obama's speech tonight in Des Moines:




UPDATE: OREGON GOP CIVIL WAR

Loser Kevin Mannix has refused to endorse the coke sniffing abortion practioner Mike Erickson (backed by the Oregon anti-choice loons). "I cannot support a dishonest man," he said. No word on how he plans to handle McCain's candidacy.

AND NOW A WORD FROM HILLARY'S BASE

That Ken endorses Obama every time I'm not looking. And today Nancy Keenan, John Arovosis and John Edwards all conspired against her. So I figured, to be fair, I'd see if there was someone whose political judgment I could trust who would probably be a Hillary supporter and get that opinion up at DWT. Mags hasn't posted here for awhile and we've been poorer for it. I figured she'd be perfect for the other side of the coin. Here's Mags' report:

I am part of Hillary’s base, or so the logic goes. I am a woman over 50 and a feminist. My husband is a hard working blue collar white man. Our income is way less than $100,000 a year. We are hardly a member of an elite circle. That should pretty much seal my fate as a Clinton supporter. But, as we all know polls and pundit predictions are tools used to make trends we do not understand, more understandable. At least that is the main idea. So it flies in the face of Hillary’s spinners and those touting the common “wisdom” regarding her base.

Obama is my candidate of choice.

He is my husband’s, a skilled tradesman in manufacturing, candidate of choice. A couple of years ago, we dined with some folks who were hard working white people, just like us (other statistical members of Hillary’s base). Truck drivers, writers, tellers, etc….they hated Hillary. Once her name came up the conversation turned very unpleasant. The men without exception hated Hillary for various reasons not all that well articulated, but hatred well recognized for what it was.

Arguments which claim Hillary to be a veteran politician are certainly not without merit. But, if Hillary is a veteran politician just now making it to her place in line for dynastic rule, then Barack is a rocket of popularity and inspiration who didn’t need a dynasty behind him.

Terry MacAuliffe our sleazy DLC tour guide reels off for us the fantastic and incredible (literally) plan for Hillary’s win. It is not so much a plan as a wish. Even then, such a win would tap into what is wrong with the political system rather than what is right. A “win” wrenched from the candidate of the people would set us back 8 years to the theft of the 2000 presidential election with the mere substitution of super delegates in place of Supreme Court Justices.

As I was saying, I am purportedly part of Hillary’s base, but here is the clincher, I am NOT. She has pandered and flipped on issues from the war to immigration. She is not quite sure where she is from or what region in the country she calls home. She identifies with the women from Wellesley as well as the women in West Virginia who are just the teeniest bit scared of a black man as president. She is one of us even though she cannot run a coffee machine or a pump gas. She exemplifies the American Spirit as long as it does not include a parable about fair and square. But, she is a great gal when you wanna do some whiskey chasers with beer.

I voted for Bill Clinton. I was once part of his base. Yes, until the effects of NAFTA, his sell out of single women to Welfare Reform and his great work for the Black community as he rolled back Affirmative Action provisions. (Did I mention I was a feminist?) Bill Clinton lined his campaign pockets with cash from big corporations. And, why shouldn’t he? He allowed the fairness doctrine to fall victim to GOP mischief and he bowed continually to the Newt Gingrich brigade in order to get them off his back. A ploy which never worked [for him-- or America].

What did America pay for Bill Clinton’s sense of false security? Who pulled him out of the fire when his good buddies of the GOP impeached him? The PEOPLE did. MoveOn did. But, we the people lost jobs through NAFTA; we lost balanced viewpoints in the media. We lost ground in the battle to lift poor women and children out of killing poverty. The meanness and the label “entitlements” still sticks. We lost the moral high ground as we watched our guy stumble time and again into tawdry behaviors. We stuck with him even though it dirtied our faces too. We had no voice. Hunted or not hunted, Bill Clinton did not care about this country more than his own gain until his gamble to save his ass from the GOP impeachment landed at his door.

Hillary takes big corporate money. She is a darling of the lobbyists. Check it out. Her foray into populism by trying to introduce national health care ended in failure of massive proportions for us, but not so much for her. And, well she should get the big bucks; business prospered under the Clinton administration. However, I do not remember people getting good raises and having job satisfaction at that time. My memory of that time is the rise of temporary workers, decreases in benefits, and the increase in responsibilities for those employed in any position I know of. It was the decade of engineers losing jobs to become temps. It was the decade of downsizing and job loss. It was the decade of entry level jobs being grabbed by the experienced and educated. Are these things related? This is hard to say. But, this has accelerated as NAFTA comes of age and begins to produce the massive profits harvests it was set up to do.

The great celebration of Bill’s election by the left turned out to be rather embarrassing as his administration turned out to be more and more conservative, an administration whose leader has been referred to as the best Republican President in history.

But, you will say, Bill is not Hill. No, he isn’t. His speeches of late remind me of a husband who really would rather his little lady stay home. His mood and his manner are off putting. As we relive certain aspects of history, we are reminded as Democrats that our icons, the Clintons, are not as appealing as we once imagined they were. Compared to Bush, yeah… stunning. Compared perhaps to a McCain… again a likely winner, but compared to Barack Obama, not in this universe.

Barack Obama was not my first choice for a nominee. I am a cynic, a skeptic of sorts with a Pollyanna undercurrent. I did not know Obama. I never listened to him. The criticism is that Obama is a speechifier, a charismatic with little experience. However, Obama has proven his ability to manage himself, his campaign, and his progress. He is building a coalition of supporters that include the new voters and the disenfranchised voters and the weary, sick to death of the “same old same old” voters. Is Barack inspirational? You damn betcha! What a wonderful quality for a leader who is proving himself at a young age. Do we really want the shrill Hill pseudo-Democrat instead of a Charismatic choice? I don’t.

Many argue that charisma is not enough. Well, it was for Bill Clinton who was then a young governor with little experience as well. Why do I like Obama’s speeches? I like them because they remind the people that they need to be involved to make change. I like them because we all know that Obama cannot do anything without the Congress and without the people of this country. We need change. We must have change, and that change involves us, all of us. Obama can get us on board. He got me on board.

When and if change comes to America that change will be debated in the halls Congress and in the media (I hope). With our time and attention, we may be able to direct and demand change. Americans appear ready to join the dialogue from young to old. If we are to do so, we need a leader who can inspire such a response from US. Obama is that leader!

I am for Obama. Obama is right on the war. He is working in the right direction toward Health Care reform. He is talking about education and infrastructure. Obama is inspiring. Obama is strong, strong enough not to be baited by nonsense that passes for journalism today on many networks.

Obama will tackle the issues with a calm rationale and with logic. He will be a calming influence on the electorate.

As for the skeptics, the naysayers and the doomsdayers, I apologize. You have every reason to be doubtful about anything, but my Pollyanna side says to me, if we have a chance, this is it. If we are going to stand up and be counted, then this is the man who will listen. If, like you say, I am wasting my time voting, then by God, I will vote for someone who can inspire me, because it is not something that happens often.

Who is Obama’s base? Those with hope. Those who crave change. Those who want a reason to put their shoulder to the wheel and press on toward saving our Democracy. Democracy is us, it is the people. Obama is not the answer, WE ARE, that is why we need him.

NANCY KEENAN FEELS THE LOVE

In DC, it doesn't get worse than this

Although the ole Hilldog went on CNN today and endorsed Obama over McCain-- "Anybody who has ever voted for me or voted for Barack has much more in common in terms of what we want to see happen in our country and in the world with the other than they do with John McCain"-- she still has every intention of using every means available to win the nomination for herself. And she has every right to-- as long as we don't learn about more precincts in Harlem and Bed-Stuy coming in with 100% of their votes for her.

But if you heard any of the worst of the hard-core Clinton dead-enders-- especially Howard Wolfson, Terry McAuliffe or Lanny Davis-- you know they're not getting ready to toss in any hats, regardless of what it does to the Democratic Party or Obama's ability to win in November. Ed Rendell seemed to indicate she'd back off if Obama makes her his running mate but with new polls showing Hillary could beat McCain-- albeit not by as much as Obama could-- she ain't giving up and playing nice.

When NARL president Nancy Keenan endorsed Obama today, the Clinton camp came out with all guns firing. Clintonistas started calling all the Democratic-affiliated groups in DC and demanding-- to put it politely-- that no one else follow suit... or else.

I've had my differences with NARL-- the incredibly stupid Lieberman endorsement first and foremost-- but today they showed some real leadership and some clear big picture thinking. McCain-- who says he is eager to appoint federal judges like Alito, Scalia, Thomas as Roberts (judges he fought for in the past, all of whom would do anything they could to destroy Roe v Wade)-- doesn't have an opponent challenging him on NARL's one and only issue: Choice. McCain doesn't deserve a free pass on that-- especially not with the corporate media trying to pass him off as "moderate" (meaning pro-choice in the minds of millions of moderate women) and with his campaign sending out disingenuous trial balloons about loosening up the virulently anti-choice Republican platform. Today Keegan-- unlike Wolfson, McAuliffe, Davis and the Clintons-- had her eye exactly where it should be: on the prize.

Other Insider groups with their own sets of loyalties and their own axes to grind-- particularly Emily's List-- jumped on NARL for Clinton but, let's be real: Obama is just as pro-choice as Clinton; there is no difference in the woman candidate and women are being manipulated with false hope and a sense of grievance is being developed by the Clinton campaign against Obama as though he is cheating her and them out of a woman President. Every day Clinton talks about swing state and white voters or hard working voters voting for her, she is implicitly saying these voters will not vote for Obama-- and if she doesn't it implicitly, her most venal surrogates (see above) are less subtle. Clinton and her campaign are giving white working class and women voters permission-- and a quasi-legitimate excuse-- to oppose Obama without having to think of themselves in any unflattering terms.

Clinton is working to move the most loyal Democratic constituencies, African Americans and women, away from what's good for the party-- getting this thing over with and working for the actual nominee-- in ways that could alienate and separate these voters from the party and do really long term harm. Turning off women and African Americans could cost the Democrats in November. And never forget, the repulsive, grasping Clinton crew won't quit for their own loss of power. There is no doubt in my mind that they-- unlike Hillary-- would rather see the party lose, than lose power in the party. I wonder if they'll rip into John Edwards today too.

ELECTION RESULTS IN WEST VIRGINIA, NEBRASKA AND MISSISSIPPI

I just turned on Infotainment TV to catch the results in West Virginia's primary. The first thing I heard was Wolf Blintzer saying how Clinton would probably win and how she is saying that he victory would mirror what could happen in November. What does that mean? Is she planning to run as VP under McCain or Bob Barr? No? OK, then she won't be running in November. Did she mean that in November West Virginia will vote for the Republican? Does she consider herself the representative of the Republican wing of the Democratic Party? Or does she just mean that McCain will be as shameless as she has been in exploiting racism against Obama? Or am I missing something?

The exit polls actually, again, according to CNN, indicate that Obama and Hillary each score almost identically against McCain in November.

Tonight I'm far more interested in seeing the results in Nebraska's senate primary and in the House special election in MS-01.

Nebraska's Democratic primary pits a grassroots moderate, Scott Kleeb against a conservative millionaire Republican who decided to run as a Democrat, Tony Raimondo. He won't even commit to backing Kleeb if he loses today. Kleeb, an actual Democrat, said that of course he would endorse Raimondo and work for his election. Polls in Nebraska close at 8pm Central Time. We'll be watching results here at the Secretary of State's site.

Mississippi polls also close at 8pm, but Eastern time (so any hour earlier). We'll be watching results at the Mississippi Secretary of State's website or, if that doesn't work (as seems likely) at the Commercial Dispatch's site. DeSoto County, the Memphis, Tennessee suburbs (and Davis' home base) is where Davis has his biggest support. Voting there has been very heavy today, a good sign for Davis. Childers' biggest counties were Prentiss (85%), Clay (65%), and Monroe (62%).

Within seconds of the polls closing and before one vote was counted, CNN called the primary for Clinton and said her margin would be big. OK, now we'll wait for the important races to come in from Mississippi and Nebraska.

Establishment DLC hack Howard Wolfson is babbling away on CNN and spinning the Clinton case without anyone giving the position of the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. ABC News just reported some pretty ugly exit polls that show Hillary attracted not just low income and badly educated voters but also the racists she and her husband did her little dog whistle routine for.


UPDATE ONE

Results are trickling in from Mississippi. So far Childers has 1,174 votes (57%) to Davis' 900 (43%); irrelevent.

Now with 39 precincts (of 462) reporting it's Childers with 3,666 votes (60%) and Davis with 2,474 (40%). although these are from Democratic areas and it's not indicative of anything unexpected. No votes in from DeSoto, the big GOP county.

Over at CNN the talking heads are still beating off. They keep pointing out that as income levels go down, Clinton's support goes up. Also as education levels go down, Clinton's support goes up. Does that mean these Democrats are going to turn to McCain in November? Many of them voted for Bush-- twice. Maybe they should look at this:


UPDATE TWO

Nebraska polls have closed but early results are not significant. Kleeb has 72% and Raimondo, who will probably go back to being a Republican if he loses tonight, has 21%. In Mississippi, with 90 precincts reporting Childers has 9,150 votes (55%) to Davis' 7,583 votes (45%).


UPDATE THREE

Democrat Travis Childers beat the Republican Gary Davis 57,276 (54%) to 49,314 (46%), even with Davis winning 75% of the vote in DeSoto County, the Memphis suburbs. With 85% of the Nebraska vote counted Kleeb beat the Republican-disguised-as-a-Democrat (a major repudiation of Nebraska's reactionary Democratic Senator Ben Nelson who had persuaded Raimondo to pull that stunt) 64,573 (69%) to 23,636 (25%). Raimondo has conceded.

Has anyone calculated how much it would cost to get Senator Clinton to go away (relatively) quietly and get her people to vote for the Dem candidate?

A thoughtful reader attached this interesting comment to my post this morning about torture:

wjbill (wjbill49@yahoo.com) said...

I know you dont get many comments here. I also do not know if you read the few that get posted. I do know you think Barak Obama is the right person for the United States. I agree and have donated to his campaign. I can afford to make an additional donation(s) but hesitate as I read about consideration being given by the Obama campaign to give money to the Clinton campaign (and all her staff etc.) to help retire debt. This is NOT what I intended when I made my donation. What do you think?

I started replying in the comments section, and got this far--

Hi, WJ--

Both Howie and I try to keep up with the comments (which do seem to have tapered off since we started including those damned Digg thingies; personally, I would rather have the comments).

I can't speak for Howie, but

when I realized that WJ's post is a perfect demonstration of why it would be such a bad idea for the Obama campaign to pay Senator Clinton to go away (relatively) quietly, and the point seems worth making here out in the open.

In case you hadn't heard, what WJ is referring to is a swirl of rumors that somebody somewhere is talking about maybe what the Obama campaign could do to encourage the Clinton campaign to fold up its tents and get with the program of supporting the now-all-but-certain Democratic candidate against the Republican foe. We're hearing stuff like offering Senator Clinton the vice presidential nomination (a disastrous idea, it seems to me, given the level of animosity between them) or the Senate majority leadership (a bizarre idea, it seems to me; how do you "give" someone the Senate majority leadership?). Or, and this is where WJ and I both get queasy, maybe helping the senator pay off her considerable campaign debt.

This apparently isn't totally unprecedented, falling under the heading of "that's politics," but I'd love to know if there really is a close precedent for having a presidential challenger essentially "bought off," in effect threatening to withhold her -- and her supporters' -- support without the payoff.

Proponents of such an arrangement suggest indignantly that if the Obama campaign were to refuse to consider it, they would be showing lack of respect for Clinton's supporters, and encouraging them to sit out the election or vote for the unspeakable McCranky. Now, this seems to me to show a shockingly low opinion of Clinton supporters. They're so aggrieved by the lack of respect from the rival campaign that they're going to not vote or vote for a Republican -- unless their candidate is paid off, with presumably a showering of jobs for her top supporters if the campaign makes it to the White House.

What the hell is that?

I try very hard not to say bad things about Clinton supporters, because I'm sure they're sincere in their beliefs, and there's no question that their votes are going to be needed in the campaign to keep McCranky out of the White House -- and allow poor Justice Stevens to contemplate the future with some sense of peace -- but sometimes it's hard to top the terrible things the Clintonites seem to be saying about themselves.

It becomes even grislier when you consider the large chunks of money Senator Clinton has lent to her own campaign. Does someone seriously imagine that it's okay for the senator to pay herself back with money supplied by the Obama campaign? Jeez!

It has been pointed out that there's one immediate problem: the possibility that by pouring Obama campaign funds into Clinton campaign coffers, contributors who have already maxed out their allowable giving to the Clinton campaign could be put over the legal limit. But there's a more powerful moral argument: Did Obama contributors imagine that their money could be transferred right into Senator Clinton's pocket?

And here we see an immediate application: If I were WJ, I too would be wary of giving any more money if I thought that money could wind up being used for a political payoff.

A fellow blogger proposed a solution that I for one could live with easily. No money is transferred from one campaign to the other, but Senator Obama assists Senator Clinton in retiring her campaign debt by appearing at fund-raisers for that purpose, allowing anyone who wishes to contribute money for that purpose to do so.

I don't know how serious these rumors are, so I don't know how immediate the problem troubling WJ (and me) is. But I would sure feel more comfortable with an arrangement like the one proposed here.

#