New Sheriff In Town, Cowboy Action Fun

All dressed up with no place to go? Cowboy Action Shooting requires an alias (Democratic Chuck) and period dress. I find cowboy boots uncomfortable and these are no exception and this is the first cowboy hat I've owned since I was a kid (you guess that was a while ago?) but it is a Stetson and fairly comfortable. The drawers are Carharts, work pants repurposed, and the string tie and western shirt - well rules are rules.


The firearms are the real fun, that's a matched pair of Uberti single action army Colt .45s with birdshead grips in the custom rig. In the left hand is a Russian Remington 12ga side by side hammered coach gun and in the right is a Chaparral Winchester Model 1873 in Colt .45.

All of the firearms are new makes of historical guns, clones if you will, firing smokeless powder but the beard is vintage stuff, home grown if you will. There's no particular point to this posting, just fun stuff that I enjoy doing. When you were a kid playing cowboys your cap guns went pop not boom and they didn't make metal silhouettes go ding nor did anyone keep score. Yep, it's silly stuff, but it is fun. It is also good practice and a lot more real than a video game.

The New Old Time Politics

There is a program out there to make real once again one of the old time political tools that has fallen away. It is the personal touch of politics, it's the piece that used to happen all the time, a long time ago. There was a time when the Precinct captain knew all the folks in his area, he was the upstream contact to politicians. He took their problems seriously and made sure people knew he was doing something. To be sure the influence peddling is pretty much gone from the neighborhood level of politics, but along with it went the personal touch. That piece, the I/we care about you, your vote matters in a personal way went away. And that's a shame because that giving of a personality to politics is more persuasive than just about anything money can buy. Some of you that have followed this little effort since it was a campaign site might remember that I pitched this idea hard, that your word meant more than anything I could buy to your neighbor or your friend.

The DNC began to put together a program last year that is now close to being activated. It was meant to be rolled out months ago but there have been hang ups. It is called Neighborhood Leader or Neighbor to Neighbor and the link is to DPO. They ask for a commitment that might be difficult to manage for some, but it is realistic for many. For those who can't manage it, something is better than nothing and regardless it may work out to be actual fun. The process of putting a human face on politics isn't new and it isn't to be discounted for its long history. If you can articulate reasons for a political position and like people it's a real opportunity to do something much more meaningful than phone banking or contributing money. Money can't buy what you can bring to the plate.

If you want to take information on specific concerns of voters and bring that back to the Party we'll see that in some form it gets back upstream. Give it some consideration, DPO will see to it that you have what you need and people to coordinate with.

Identification Politics

I missed Hillary's endorsement speech this morning, I'm in PDT and had things going on this morning...OK, sleeping going on. My son had brought home an Xbox game that I've played out to the ending battle and last night being stubborn I battled the "boss" until I beat the game. Stubborn enough to spend too many hours on it. I had wanted to watch the speech, there's a lot riding on such things right now. The reviews have been pretty universally positive and I'm glad of that. I'm glad of that for the Obama campaign and for those who supported Sen Clinton. I'm glad for her supporters that she showed their votes were not for someone small and vindictive but for a master politician.

This however, distressed me. This is one of the more rational reactions but it betrays something I find really troubling.

"I've always thought she would make a better president, even though I won't have any problem voting for Obama."

For a Democrat of something left of the Republican middle this is an entirely reasonable sentiment.

As Hillary Clinton spoke, my son, Nick, who is 16, came into the living room, saw what I was watching and asked if Clinton had officially announced her withdrawal. I nodded, unable to speak, and he noticed for the first time that there were tears on my cheeks.

What? Jeremy Gerard tears up because Hillary is making an endorsement speech? This is not a funeral for hero, it is a politician endorsing another after a close loss. I had tears in my eyes when Obama gave his "victory" speech because a black man could be the nominee of a major Party and I assume that if it had been Sen Clinton I'd have had tears for the same reason regarding a woman finally making it. This was going to be historical in a very large sense no matter which candidate won. I also am quite sure I'd have shed no tears if it were Obama speaking today, instead.

Why tears? If you were a close personal friend of Hillary's with stake in her happiness I'd understand. If you were a full time worker in such a campaign I'd understand, somewhat. But this is somehow personal, the idea that a candidate lost. Somebody does, that is exactly how that goes.

You needn't be a feminist to feel the awful wound, the deflating, business-as-usual aspect to Hillary Clinton's withdrawal from contention for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Now that confuses the snot out of me. I'd hope to the stars that we had an ending that was business as usual, the alternatives are somebody died or a knockdown brawl at the Convention is in order. Now I'm not picking on Mr. Gerard here, if you want to see something completely divorced from politics go read comments on Taylor Marsh or etc. (find your own way, I'm not giving credibility with a link) The point of this exercise is show that an entirely reasonable sounding individual is demonstrating something I find offensive and silly on any candidate's behalf.

This is personal identification with a political candidate, a person who has managed to thrive in a seriously flawed system. This is a person who is as much a product of advertising as dish soap. I don't care what candidate is in question, their life is full of compromises, deal making, and searches for funding. There is a string of unfulfilled promises behind them and questionable associations. For heaven's sake, your next door neighbor probably has a better record of associates and promises kept. People with their own agendas are attracted to politicians and politicians have to work within an adversarial environment once elected. The also have to keep getting elected. Their reality is considerably more tawdry and difficult than a voter's and expecting or thinking they're immune is silliness. It absolutely guarantees very serious disappointment.

The Hitlers and Mussolinis of the world could not have functioned without that cadre of worshipers. The people who personally identified with them, in whom they found more than political appeal, supported and acted on the craziest ideas. You need look no farther than the 28% who believe George W Bush is doing a good job. There is no quantifiable evidence to back such an idea - even if you give them the lack of terrorist attacks in the US. They have identified with Bush, they are driven to rage by opposition to him even as all the core ideals they claim to have voted for are violated. This is not about political philosophy, this is about personal identification. Not one of these people lives in your daily reality, they are not you, they at best loosely symbolize your aspirations.

Work for their election, vote for them, help keep facts straight, advocate, be involved - but do not personalize these people, it is dangerous.

Obama Is A Marxist

You know he is because the termite man crawled back out from under a rock and said so. Tom DeLay told radio host Mike Gallagher that Obama is a Marxist.

"And if McCain does not define him as what he is — hey, I have said publicly, and I will again, that unless he proves me wrong, he is a Marxist," DeLay said.

It would be important to prove such a thing to "Hammer" DeLay, he should know something about communism, he practiced it as a House member. "Wait," you say, "I thought he was a Republican?" Yes, he is. I know he's talking about Marxism, but in practice the way it worked was communism. There was this silly little theory this guy named Marx had about economics but in practice what happened was that the elite used the worker bees to subsidize their life styles and their failures. Whatever the theory had to say about workers' paradise, the hard reality was that the unrestrained elite privatized the profits and socialized the risks. Yes, DeLay calls it by other names, capitalism, Free Market, and evokes the dead hand of Adam Smith. Poke your fingers in your ears and look at the results stripped of all the rhetorical flourishes and you see the same thing.

There is no Free Market or free capitalism, in the US. Not now and never has been. The feud between Jefferson and Hamilton was about just exactly who it was that was going to benefit from the rigging of the system. Hamilton won. Our system was set up. The system has been continuously jury rigged over the centuries but it is where it now is and a great deal of the credit lays with DeLay and his ilk of name callers. The total tax burden on a factory line worker exceeds by several multiples that of the top 1% of earners. Wealth hides its wealth from the tax burden and you buy the idea they pay huge taxes. Major corporations suck at the federal tit without competition or any real oversight. When the big money loses, a way is found to make sure that the worker bee pays for it.

The DeLays of the world have made sure that most news you get is from the corporate world. They have almost single handed presided over the death of actual news gathering and distribution. There are still a few hold outs, McCaltchy has done some good work on the heels of buying Knight Ridder, but this is still marshmallow news. They have got to be able to sell you papers and to go to war for the average American would put them so far away from their competitors that people wouldn't buy their papers. It is really easy to smell really good standing next to a sewer a week out from your last bath.

Tom DeLay is a human cockroach masquerading as a politician. Some people still take his nonsense seriously because they pay no attention to the man behind the current. Behind the curtain is K Street, Abramoff, Republican messes of broken government, corruption on a scale unseen since the Civil War, and a degradation of those who do the work to make the system wealthy. With tongue firmly in cheek they talk about family values to voters whose families skirt disaster daily thanks to their version of economics. They will talk about socialized medicine as the policy holders bear the cost and pass investment bank money onto the insurers.

These battles they wage are not about the common American, they are about keeping the wealth flowing upward. Their concern about health care regards the top of the insurance corporations and the investment banks intake of huge amounts of their money. Do you honest to god think your appendectomy is their concern? It is of huge import to you because without it you'll die and done improperly you'll die and you think it matters to someone with dollar signs and decimal points driving all their thinking?

Well sure Tom DeLay says Obama is a Marxist, any concern whatever with the welfare of the worker bees is in his mind Marxist. No one worker bee amounts to the life or death of the system, but the general health of them drives the health of all. DeLay could care less. I'm well left of Obama and I'm a capitalist so that might tell you something about what DeLay is - beyond an indicted money launderer.

Hillary Quits Friday

There have been those who have scoffed at my analysis of Hillary Clinton's next moves. It now appears that Charlie Rangel put together a conference call that was supposed to have involved the NY delegation and blew up into a bunch of Congressmen. This was followed by a Senate conference call with 8 of them brought in by her supporters. The NYT reports on this.

The speech Tue night was a mistake, it was graceless. Hillary has harmed herself with Party leaders by dragging her heels to the point of them having to push at her. The best result was if this had looked like her own idea, that is gone now. There will be payment made for this with voters and she bears that responsibility

People I'd Be Happy To Never Hear Again

Well, I'll have to qualify the title a little with "a few" since there is a rather long list of liars, cheats, and obfusticators in and departed from the Bush administration. I don't include John McCain, I'm happy to watch him squirm and lie.

Terry McAuliff heads my list. It isn't so much his delusional Hillary talking points that offends me, it is the fact of his political disasters. He left the DNC in wreckage and discredited his candidate in the late Primary. Anyone who takes his idea of political strategy seriously asks for more of the same.

Lanny Davis is an obnoxious twit. His complete inability to keep together his past as a reformer and what has happened through this Primary shows that principle has become disposable. His slash and burn approach to fellow Democrats is mind boggling. I cannot think of a good political move he's made through this Primary. His latest move is to try to blackmail the Obama campaign to make Hillary VP. This couldn't be more counter-productive. He has been a major player in causing the FL/MI meltdown.

Mark Penn. Mark Penn. If anyone beyond McAuliff deserves credit for submarining a juggernaut campaign he's the guy. Anyone who could take an inevitable candidate with over 100 superdelegates and a huge warchest into defeat deserves to be ignored. Scorned might not be too strong a word.

McCain Change Is Same Speech 6/3/08

If you weren't paying attention last night the TV had McCain, Clinton, and Obama on making speeches. If you missed the McCain effort, it was an effort apparently for him to do and much more so to watch without falling on the floor laughing. McCain is not much good at making speeches and should fire whoever his strategist was that suggested making this at a time where it would be directly compared to Clinton and especially to Obama. A lot of green for a background is not friendly to human complexion and John is somewhat challenged that way. Most of what was unfriendly to McCain is not poor speechifying or grimaces or background; it is what he says. For all of it you can see Politico.

The media often overlooked how compassionately she spoke to the concerns and dreams of millions of Americans, and she deserves a lot more appreciation than she sometimes received. As the father of three daughters, I owe her a debt for inspiring millions of women to believe there is no opportunity in this great country beyond their reach.

Sure John, your pals in the media overlooked Hillary's good points and seem to have played up you publicly calling your wife "c**t" and standing for everything that Hillary has campaigned against. She seems to have stuck by her spouse where you did what, exactly? Yes, John you should put yourself on the same table with Hillary.

Pundits and party elders have declared that Senator Obama will be my opponent.

These are your pals who've let you get away with virtually any lie and any behavior and you're going to diss them?

But, the choice is between the right change and the wrong change; between going forward and going backward.

Here's your frame made for you, now you get to guess where he's going with it.

The right change recognizes that many of the policies and institutions of our government have failed.

Since your Party did everything in its power to smash the mechanism of institutions and they failed I wonder that you make this argument and go on to list the failures your Party has fought all attempts to fix.

some of those changes have distressed many American families — job loss, failing schools, prohibitively expensive health care, pensions at risk, entitlement programs approaching bankruptcy, rising gas and food prices, to name a few. But your government often acts as if it is completely unaware of the changes and hardships in your lives.

At every step I made sure this will be what happens to them. I have been an integral part of making sure that you were ignored in favor of the rich and the corporatist. See my list of advisers.

Our disgraceful failure to do so here in New Orleans exposed the incompetence of government at all levels to meet even its most basic responsibilities.

That's too easy to kick apart.

The wrong change looks not to the future but to the past for solutions that have failed us before and will surely fail us again. I have a few years on my opponent, so I am surprised that a young man has bought in to so many failed ideas. Like others before him, he seems to think government is the answer to every problem; that government should take our resources and make our decisions for us. That type of change doesn't trust Americans to know what is right or what is in their own best interests. It's the attitude of politicians who are sure of themselves but have little faith in the wisdom, decency and common sense of free people. That attitude created the unresponsive bureaucracies of big government in the first place.

Here's your change, we've spent the last seven years playing this card and doing our damnedest to effect it and we're going to sell it to you again. You're not to notice that this is exactly what we ran on in 2000 and 2004, and 2006 and you have the results right now.

You will hear from my opponent's campaign in every speech, every interview, every press release that I'm running for President Bush's third term.

So he tries to drum it into your minds by constantly repeating it rather than debate honestly the very different directions he and I would take the country.

I have voted 95% with the current administration, the GW Bush administration that I am now saying I oppose. I oppose it because I say so.

Americans ought to be concerned about the judgment of a presidential candidate who says he's ready to talk, in person and without conditions, with tyrants from Havana to Pyongyang, but hasn't traveled to Iraq to meet with General Petraeus, and see for himself the progress he threatens to reverse.

He hasn't talked to our political shill in Iraq but seems to have in DC so he just doesn't know how safe I was in a market with hundreds of troops and gunships.

we need a President with a record of putting the nation's interests before the special interests of either party. I have that record. Senator Obama does not.

Make sure nobody mentions Chuck Keating or telecoms or my advisers like Black and Gramm. I'm pure as driven snow for the last week or so...

Senator Obama proposes to keep spending money on programs that make our problems worse and create new ones that are modeled on big government programs that created much of the fiscal mess we are in. He plans to pay for these increases by raising taxes on seniors, parents, small business owners and every American with even a modest investment in the market. He doesn't trust us to make decisions for ourselves and wants the government to make them for us. And that's not change we can believe in.

On the other hand I advocate that the very rich not pay for any of the benefits they reap and the real tax load remain on those I just mentioned to you. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain - George II.

Lowering trade barriers to American goods and services creates more and better jobs; keeps inflation under control; keeps interest rates low; and makes more goods affordable to more Americans. We won't compete successfully by using old technology to produce old goods. We'll succeed by knowing what to produce and inventing new technologies to produce it.

You can all see how well this has worked out for you, trust me, my hand isn't in your wallet.

We are not people who believe only in the survival of the fittest

We absolutely believe in the socialization of risk to protect the incompetent plutocrats and boost the ones that don't manage to fail.

The sweeping reforms of government we need won't occur unless we change the political habits of Washington that have locked us in an endless cycle of bickering and stalemate. Washington is consumed by a hyper-partisanship that treats every serious issue as an opportunity to trade insults; impugn each other's motives; and fight about the next election. This is the game Washington plays.

And I've played it to the hilt with every filibuster I've voted for.

But he hasn't been willing to make the tough calls; to challenge his party; to risk criticism from his supporters to bring real change to Washington. I have.

I did this, way back in time, before I became a Bush clone and caved every time.

as we did in the weeks after September 11th.

Make sure to bring this up and make sure to remind everybody about all the crap you Republicans rammed through.

There you are, vote for John McCain, he'll tell you doing exactly what the Republicans have for the last several decades is new and it is change. He'll call himself a maverick while he toes the Party line. Here's some sort of Leader You Can Believe In.

Hillary Diplomacy

I've watched a lot of freaking out on TV and in blogs and other reports regarding Hillary's speech preceding Obama's St Paul speech. Oh no, she didn't suspend or concede or... She did start out referring to SD as having the last word, just over an hour later MT was the last word where Obama did win. She did make a few possibly flawed arguments and patted herself on the back and managed to compliment Obama on a great campaign. She wants to look at where to go and how to care for her 18 million voters. She wants leverage.

Hillary has a very narrow window to make any plays with her leverage. All her voters are not fixed in place, some are. The some are the question, the ones who won't vote Obama per the exit polls. Those voters are a minority and not a coherent group, there are those who await Hillary's word, there are those who will ignore any unity call. Most of Hillary's supporters are Democrats who will back the Party nominee, they won't be held hostage by a losing candidate.

It is surely the case that the voters awaiting Hillary's unity call will wait for her and absent it what they would do is questionable. These people are an important piece of the Democratic vote and not to be lost lightly. But here is the rub for Hillary whatever her level of Party loyalty may or may not be, the Party has the power to destroy her. If the Party sees Hillary playing too loosely with its chances for November the warnings will be stark.

I do not buy into the school of thought that places Hillary in some totally egocentric category where the Party that has allowed her and her family to thrive has none of her loyalty. I believe that she and her advisers ran the campaign they knew how to run and that it took her very nearly to the nomination - at the expense of driving up both candidate's negatives. If you look at Hillary and the people surrounding her and their histories the campaign makes perfect sense. I may believe it was fatally flawed in strategy and tactics both for her and the Party, but it very nearly worked for the Primary. It may have been a good General Election operation, though I believe the strategy would have come up short, the tactics might have been good. She benefited tremendously in her tactics from running against a candidate who did not take off the gloves. Her campaign does not signal a Party disloyalty, it does not signal egomania, it does signal an old style attack politics.

Hillary does not want this Primary to be her swan song, she wants to be a power in Democratic politics and a player of national import. This is an important piece, what has happened in this election just created a new power bloc, Obama's. Obama should be able to win this election, with Hillary's help, but that will mean four to eight years of time for a new power center to entrench itself and begin drawing to itself the strands of power and it will not be the Clinton power bloc finding a new home beyond what Hillary can carve out. The McAuliff DNC is now officially dead. Terry McAuliff and Harold Ickes are done, they can be bit players here and there but their model of Democratic politics is done for the foreseeable future and they're not young.

The road to keeping a Clinton power base is not in the Vice-presidency, the office holds no actual power. Dick Cheney is an aberration (and some other things). If Hillary took the VP Obama would be forced to bury her - and more importantly, Bill. Hillary must know this, this has to have been discussed late at night where only walls could hear, she hangs with some hard ball players. The VP is a place to go and watch her power slowly drain away. Cabinet posts might give her a basis to actuate some things she cares about, HHS would put health care very much in her hands - beneath the President - but it is also an invisible position. Anything inside the Executive Branch is a place for political power to dissipate.

Her position of 34th in Senate seniority doesn't hold a lot of swat, in itself. She is now a Senator with a powerful public voice in her own right; not as Bill's wife with a so-what junior senator ship on his coattails. Majority Leader isn't in the cards, there are way too many experienced and well senior Senators between her and it. She can make a case for a Chair and with a President's backing and a grateful Party that case could be strong.

There has been speculation about the Supreme Court, her legal background is very thin in that regard, but that has not been a bar previously. With election politics removed she might well find a backbone on the matter of principles. I am not comfortable with her stance on some issues involving the Bill of Rights and I'd probably oppose her (for all that counts). I do have to admit that there would be a certain amount of enjoyment to be found in watching the wing nuts' heads explode. This would remove her and her family from influence in electoral politics, pretty completely. That might be a trade I could live with.

If Obama wins the General Election Hillary is done in Presidential politics, her power base is now falling apart - witness the DNC RBC. Alliances based on influence are beginning to wane and that process will only accelerate under Obama. Other women will begin to gain national prominence whether Obama picks one as VP or not. Even if Obama were to pick a male for VP that would not bar changing to a woman for a second term if the male were an older man.

Hillary Clinton will be an asset to Obama's campaign because she will want a Democratic victory and because strategically she has no choice. If people don't lose their minds and start throwing conniption fits this will be fine. So, let's get to work getting Obama elected.

Obama Ties Up The Nomination

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was 44 years ago; a few years later cities were burning and the Democratic Party Convention of 1968 very publicly exploded. Today a black man named Barak Hussein Obama takes the delegates needed for the Democratic nomination as Presidential candidate. June 3, 2008.

Hillary R Clinton has made history, she just very nearly became the first female Presidential candidate for a major Party. Just very nearly, for those who haven't paid close attention to the real numbers that separate the two, the difference is tiny. Very small differences could have made the Clinton campaign the winners today. They aren't.

Tonight and tomorrow Barak can celebrate, he has earned it. He has waged a come from behind campaign that was calculated on a 50 state strategy with small beginning resources. He has kept his head in the face of some real severe problems and finally come out onto the top. Perhaps it seems odd to say, but he has now finished the easy part. Whatever difficulties Hillary has made for Obama this was a Democratic Primary, certain restraints obtained. Opinions of how far Hillary went to that edge are varied and what restraints Obama observed then versus McCain are considerably different.

Obama certainly needs most of the voters who chose Clinton in the Primaries. Most of this should be fairly easy. I know about all the heat surrounding Clinton or McCain and it is primarily based on a very small very vocal number. Some of these are quite simply lost to Obama and not worth any of the effort that might be expended on them. The expense that is worth time, effort, and expense is the defusing of the nonsensical issue that Obama is sexist or misogynistic. Along with this effort is the issue of showing voters at large that he identifies with them, that his background is not one of privilege and elitism, it is in fact one of struggle. I could suggest to the Senator the apostasy of supporting the 2nd Amendment, but that is a fairy tale.

There seems to be an idea floating around that blue collar white voters are racist in orientation, I don't buy it. I would put them more in the category of dubious about Obama. These voters see sudden serious change as untrustworthy. The sudden changes of the past 20 years have been almost universally to their detriment. Change has not been kind to them and Obama needs to show them why it is in their interest.

This piece of work by the Democratic Party is something that shows this nation in the very best possible light. You will search the world and history with little luck trying to find such an event involving a person of such a minority race and from as challenged a background to have ever been in the position of Barak Obama today in this nation. I do not pretend to predict the outcome of the General Election, that piece of history will wait awhile, yet.

Congratulations Senator Obama and congratulations Democrats.

Hillary Open To VP

At about 3:00PM on June 3rd, 2008 AP reported that Sen Barak H Obama will obtain the delegates needed to take the Democratic Party nomination with the MT & SD votes. The result tonight would be historic whichever candidate won, the first woman or the first black. If you were to time travel less than 40 years back you would find a fight going on in this nation to end segregation. Does the mind boggle?

Evidently not if you are the Clinton campaign - as AP reported regarding a Clinton conference call with NY supporters.

Clinton's remarks came in response to a question from Democratic Rep. Nydia Velazquez, who said she believed the best way for Obama to win key voting blocs, including Hispanics, would be for him to choose Clinton as his running mate.

"I am open to it," Clinton replied, if it would help the party's prospects in November.

You can make of this announcement what you will. I can definitely make something of the timing. The Clinton camp knew this evening was coming days ago or longer and while the voting she's claimed to be protecting was still going on she made this statement. She has managed to interject herself into the Obama headlines. That's something in itself.

The strategic part of this should be clear. Clinton has now publicly made a form of claim to the VP position and done so with timing that could not be of more impact on her supporters. Obama is quite publicly put in the position of either caving to her or seeming to dismiss her. This is an example of political hardball, and while it can be played this way it certainly is not exactly the way to create amity. I have no window into the Obama campaign, but I would expect that the reaction has not had anything to do with happiness.

If Obama supporters have had some problems with a Clinton Vice-presidency this will blow them up. This will go from opposition to explosion. This is another example of Clintonian short term thinking for short term gain. There is no other moment for her to make a more powerful pitch for VP than now, any point from here on out places her in a lesser position of force. The operative word is force. The opposing approaches are force and persuasion. Persuasion can have public elements, but is not based on threat while force rests exclusively on threat. The very simplest measure of outcome is to look at two adults in a disagreement and see which approach has what outcomes.

Whether this had occured or not there was never a chance that I would advocate for a Clinton VP slot. What this has accomplished is to prove my point once again about Clinton's short-comings. It is also quite true that I have exactly no say in the matter.

Dangerous To Predict Hillary, So I Will

Making a prediction about any candidate's switch in direction is pretty risky; I submit that with Hillary Clinton it is particularly risky. Since a dropped ball on that score is unlikely to harm my national prominence (how many Iraq war boosters lost their jobs?) I think I'll risk it.

I believe that Hillary will follow up the Tue Primaries with applause for her campaign and warm words for her supporters. She will note that she believes she's the one to get the best results and that Obama can win if we all pull together now that she has suspended her campaign. I believe the concession will be that Obama seems to have the delegates and she will begin to work to ensure a Democratic victory in November.

Suspension will be a matter of practicality, campaign debts that need to be retired. She will be able to piggy back appearances for November with appeals to help retire her historic campaign's debts. There is nothing contradictory in this nor is there something distasteful in it. Whatever you think of Hillary and her campaign, it has been a very close election and this is the first time any woman has had a credible shot at being a Presidential nominee. The campaign deserves to be able to retire as much of its debt as it can.

People have predicted or advocated Hillary taking the race to the Convention. Hillary may well believe that the Democratic Party's chances are reduced by Obama; but that does not mean that she is not surrounded by political professionals. The pros look at the Democratic Party and know the costs of a split Party going forward. The pros look at that and know who will get the blame for even the appearance of a Party split and do not want that for Clinton.

The political reality of these two candidates is that there is not enough difference in their policy ideas for either to find the other insupportable. The over riding need of the Party for a strong candidacy will drive how things play from MT/SD to November. I am not stating nor could I what Hillary Clinton feels about the whole thing, I am trying to lay out the hard reasons for doing what I'm predicting.

DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, Reflections

This Saturday the Rules and Bylaws Committee of the DNC met and sorted out the Florida and Michigan appeals. A lot of people were displeased, some were very displeased. There is an incredible amount of ignorance floating about that certainly enhanced that displeasure.

State Legislatures can offer to finance Primary elections for Parties and many do. These offers of financing often carry conditions such as open or closed Primaries or the date or... These election financing offers are just that, the State government does not control Party Primaries. The State Parties control their elections with in National Party rules. In this case we are interested in the FL & MI Primaries and the DNC. The FL & MI Legislators passed bills containing primary dates outside the DNC rules, the DNC had warned the States previous to their votes and after their votes that there would be serious consequences, the State Parties of both States told DNC to shove their consequences and went ahead. There were remedies available to both State Parties, the most affordable and legal was to refuse the Legislatures' funding and self-finance caucuses. This is the most basic reason caucuses exist, they are affordable.

The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee sanctioned both states with both the automatic 50% penalty and for, essentially, egregious behavior took the other 50% for a 100% penalty. The DNC further asked all the candidates to pledge not to campaign in those States. The candidates agreed. In the voting for sanctions the Clinton contingent voted 100% for 100% sanctions.

The States held their illegitimate votes on their proposed dates, in FL all candidates names were on the ballot because FL law did not allow them to withdraw them. In MI several candidates did withdraw their names before the deadline. This effectively separated the States into two different categories. Despite clear evidence of vote suppression in both states, the case could be made in FL that all suffered equally, in MI this was not the case.

The RBC held that FL would be subject to the automatic 50% penalty, this was in the face of no actual good faith attempt to remedy the situation. The question in FL was how the penalty would be applied, whether it would halve the delegation or their votes, the vote penalty favored the Clinton count. In MI with no valid vote measurement the choice came to either the DNC disallowing entirely the MI delegation or allowing the State Party to assign delegates on some relatively reasonable measurement of voter intentions. The State Party made a good faith effort and came up with a number to which a 50% vote penalty was applied.

Both States were ill served by their Legislatures, their Governors, and especially their State Parties. Regardless of the intentions of the other parties involved the State Parties are elected to serve the interest of the Democratic voters and candidates. Their loyalty is not to their legislatures or governors, their loyalty is to the interests of the Democratic Party. In particular, their loyalty is not to a candidate or even to all candidates, it is to the Party the candidates purport to represent by putting a (D) after their name. The DNC is by Charter neutral in a contested Primary and most if not all State Parties are, also. Whether a candidate expects to do well in one sort of vote or another is not within the scope of the Parties' interest.

To place this in context, the votes in FL & MI might as well never have happened for all the validity or concern of the State Parties. The Parties had remedies available to them. This blog pointed this out very early in the process and you can be assured that both Parties knew this. Both Parties knew that caucuses were their realistic solution. Both Parties ignored this. One candidate, Sen. Hillary R Clinton interfered in this process. The Clinton campaign had demonstrated poor performance in caucuses. If you wish, you can infer a motive for her interference, the fact is that she did so. Neither State was going to finance a general re-vote and FL claimed a physical inability to do so and MI law prohibited private financing in such an endeavor. It has been claimed that the Obama campaign interfered, factually they did not and could not.

The final responsibility lays at the feet of the Michigan and Florida State Democratic Parties. It is not the fault of DNC, which could not interfere. No matter what the stand of any candidate, the elections were in the control of those State Parties. The responsible people were elected by the State Parties and if they apportion blame correctly those people will no longer hold any positions of authority where they can once again so poorly serve their Party. The news media was complicit in this mess, they made little to no effort to make the actual story of authority and responsibility clear to the voters in those states or to the public at large.

Those choosing to criticize the RBC for its ruling are playing at partisan politics to the detriment of the Democratic Party and further the members so engaging are being liars by omission or actual commission. Harold Ickes is a flagrant offender, he voted for 100% penalty, once his candidate had a use for or necessity for those votes became an advocate of counting all votes - as long as they were his candidate's votes. At the meeting he used offensive, divisive, and inaccurate language to describe the motion in regard to Michigan. I do not advocate a blanket loyalty to Democratic candidates, I do state bluntly that an official of the Democratic Party owes it his allegiance and its best interests his full attention - or resign. I do advocate that supporters of candidates with equally good Democratic politics deserve the loyalty of Democrats. There is nothing in Democratic politics that justifies a vote for McCain over either Democratic candidate. John McCain is a straight line Republican and if those are the policies you prefer, then you are not a Democrat and should not claim to be now or to ever have been. If you make any sort of claim to racial or gender justice John McCain cannot possibly be seen as a reasonable alternative. In point of absolute fact as proven by votes, John McCain is George W Bush with a lot more years on him.

It is apparent that the mantle of Democratic Party leadership has been passed to a new group. I have heard and read pundits state that the party is now Obama's. I do not believe that is quite accurate, it has become the Party that Howard Dean fore saw and built for. Barak Obama has used the Dean 50 State model to great advantage and through force of charisma and organization has expanded on Deans's start.

In this article I predicted this collision, though I missed slightly on the timing:

...it is absolutely required by the state of the Democratic Party. We are going to have this out. We are going to use the process for what it was intended, to determine who and what the Democratic Party is. The process of proportional delegate apportionment is going to finally come into its own. The smaller pieces of State Parties are going have a say, the ability of underdog campaigns to flourish in that environment is going to come to pass, we are going to find some things out. We are going to find out where the Party officials and the elected Democrats want to go. We are going to find out what works and does not work in Democratic Party politics. The Howard Dean and the Terry McAuliff visions of the DNC are going to collide. This is going to be a brawl and it will go to the final round and end in a knock out. Sending the doctor into the ring will be pointless, because one is not going to get back up, ever.

I figured at that date, slightly after Ohio, that this had to go to the Convention to be sorted out. This meeting of the RBC accomplished it without the bloodbath at the Convention. I do not take seriously the Ickes reservation of right to take the delegate fight to the Credentials Committee, it would be political suicide for Clinton to do so. She is now in the remarkable position of being a Junior Senator with more Democratic Party exposure than the most senior members. She can wield tremendous influence in the Senate if she chooses to keep her political gains. Keeping those gains will require soothing the injuries to the Party and being a real part of a November victory for her rival. Her political base in the DNC is mortally wounded already, the lead up to the RBC meeting delivered that blow. Her alliance with Terry McAuliff guaranteed it.

Hillary Clinton stands at a cross roads, she can be a true power in the Senate and a guardian of the values she claims or she can lose it all on the altar of ego. She has a week or so to make up her mind, if she waits long enough to force the Party to slap her down - she is done. Despite her short comings, once the lure of the Presidency is out of the way Hillary Clinton could become standard bearer for progressive Democratic politics. She'll always bear watching, though.

Geraldine Stamps Her Feet

This election has been hard fought. Well, in certain respects it has been hard fought. One need only to look at the official statements of the campaigns and candidates to see the differences in strategy. Hillary has played the old style politics and Barack's campaign has hewed to something different, a less evident style of opposition. Politics is a messy business, close attention shows that neither candidate's hands are completely clean and that is exactly what will happen. Has either campaign appealed to race or gender? Please...is one a white female and one a black male? They need not even open their mouths and an appeal occurs. Both communities have eyes and what they do with that information is a foregone conclusion with certain members of those groups. Geraldine Ferraro's Op-Ed expresses something a bit different.

Perhaps it's because neither the Barack Obama campaign nor the media seem to understand what is at the heart of the anger on the part of women who feel that Hillary Clinton was treated unfairly because she is a woman or what is fueling the concern of Reagan Democrats for whom sexism isn't an issue, but reverse racism is.

This argument seems odd to make, are any of Hillary's supporters a part of reverse sexism? Geraldine knows perfectly well they exist and not in small numbers, they are in fact clear about it - including Geraldine.

We feel that if society can allow sexism to impact a woman's candidacy to deny her the presidency, it sends a direct signal that sexism is OK in all of society.

That sexism impacted Clinton's campaign, I have no doubt. Did she lose a close election because of sexism? I don't know. But I do know that it will never happen again as long as women are willing to stand up and make sure that it is just a one-time bad experience.

I am quite sure that sexism has been evidenced in this campaign and it needs to not happen, and Ferraro seems to agree.

If you're white you can't open your mouth without being accused of being racist. They see Obama's playing the race card throughout the campaign and no one calling him for it as frightening. They're not upset with Obama because he's black; they're upset because they don't expect to be treated fairly because they're white.

Is there a pattern emerging here?

They don't identify with someone who has gone to Columbia and Harvard Law School and is married to a Princeton-Harvard Law graduate.

Where was it Hillary went to school and what was her parent's economic background? Where did her husband go to school? What was his last job again?

They may lack a formal higher education, but they're not stupid. What they're waiting for is assurance that an Obama administration won't leave them behind.

And Geraldine's contribution to this is what? This Op-Ed?

So Ferraro's argument is that Hillary has been screwed by sexism and reverse racism? So she hasn't benefited from racism and reverse sexism? (really that is just plain sexism) There is an agenda going on here and it is not to analyze this election and it is not to straighten out the malfunctions - it is to create a victim status for Hillary.

I don't fault anyone for supporting a candidate. I think there are basis of support or opposition that are ludicrous and race and gender happen to be two of them. To the limited extent that Ferarro addressed this I agree, the plain fact is that she addressed this in not only a stupid manner, but a divisive manner. She makes it very easy to dismiss her as a spoiled brat stamping her feet. Maybe someone should ask Hillary is she agress with this tripe.

Maria Jimenez Dies For Profit

The Sacramento Bee reports that Maria Jimenez was until May 16th just another 17 year old undocumented farm worker. That is until she died of heat working for Merced Farm Labor pruning grape vines for West Coast Grape Farming. Gov Ahnuld showed for her funeral. Water and shade were the problems, probably compounded by being 2 months pregnant.

Cheap labor is provided by people with no legal right to employment. People with no right to employment and in the country illegally don't have a lot of avenues to pursue with complaints about working conditions. So, there you are; they'll work cheap in bad conditions and not complain. Sounds like a real winner if profit is your god, doesn't it? Oh, that's right, they'll do the work Americans won't. They also won't interfere in the system by voting and stuff like that. Damn good deal for the plutocrats, real rough on the serfs - what do you call right less workers? It also is kind of rough on legal labor, drags wages down something fierce and reduces employment opportunities.

The creation of a serf class in this country is an abomination and a return to the age of the Robber Barons. Democrats and Republicans are equally guilty of this for different and equally short sighted reasons. I oppose it. Maria is one of the reasons I oppose it. You enablers killed this girl, face it, this is what you advocate tolerance of. I keep trying to tell you that there are real serious problems with your tolerance of illegal labor and you keep pooh-poohing. I keep trying to tell you that you harm everyone involved in labor for the benefit of plutocracy and you call me names. That's fine, you go there and tell Maria's family all the benefits of a disenfranchised serf class.

Life In A Bubble, Scott McClelland

I'll be damned, I'm going to do exactly what I said I wouldn't do - say something about Scott McClelland. People have been flooding into this site, sort of, onto an article from 11/07 about the pre-release of McClelland's book. An odd confluence of title, opening words and Google search protocols puts that article #1 in as search result and everybody is interested again, driving site numbers by a factor of 10. One incoming took the time to comment, on a six month old post - I get email notification - so I emailed him and we had a discussion ending with me saying I wouldn't slam or praise Scott McClelland. Some other things have intervened and changed my mind.

I've watched McClelland get slammed for being turncoat traitor to being a profiteering cowardly rat. How could he know this stuff and not say anything OR how could he not know this stuff?

First off, BushCo has turned the Press Secretary job description into information suppression. You have to get that part first. Now of the BushCo dissemblers I liked Scott best, he actually seemed uncomfortable, the rest when pushed:

Ari - pissed off tough guy with spit to back it up - loathed this guy, a good slapping would help

Tony - jokey dismissive we're all pals shut up - oh puke, HS pretty boy jock get away with any stupidity on popularity - laugh hysterically at your hired gun empty suit till you wilt

Dana - blond DUH - take her out, buy her some nice clothes, put her someplace decorative, stuff sock in mouth.

Sure, these are snarky thumbnails but these people aren't to be taken seriously. Come on, these are hired parrots paid to be intellectually inactive and incurious. They do need pretty good memories to keep up with the positions and to be intellectually shallow enough to believe the stuff.

If you're thinking I'm going to set McClelland apart on those grounds, I'm not. He believed for a long time, until his face was pushed in it. So we're going to start out acknowledging a lazy mind. But now I'm going to do something that surprises me, I'm going to defend him, somewhat.

The proposition that the bubble doesn't exist and how could you not know and not speak up misses something important. Very few of us work in a very high stress environment that involves very important issues and very determined opponents. Further, few of us work in such a closed environment composed of not hired guns but believers. This environment is so stressed and so closed that family and social life disappears and the "cult" becomes your family and society. This is true in any Administration and I propose that it is especially true in BushCo. Add into all this the fact of being with the organization from its start and growing with it, growing with an organization that prizes loyalty above all and promotes from within to the very pinnacle of power in the US and you've got something potent.

People are molded by their associations, Alcoholics Anonymous does this, it can be slow or quick and it can be shallow or deep; but the molding occurs. Scott McClelland started out with a small time clique and moved to the eyes of the nation, the mouthpiece of the most powerful man in the world, there might have been some effect. It is easy in our varied life of different exposures to information and personalities and variable loyalties to look at McClelland and not understand. I have functioned inside such a unit and we were relentless - hotshot firefighters. We believed, oh boy did we, because what we did was not reasonable. My life now is completely different and I couldn't understand a bubble from the outside, using today.

Scott McClelland lived and breathed BushCo, seeing it for what it was and is would be difficult, the critics, the unbelievers were all outsiders, the opposition. The opposition had agendas, the opposition were liars and hypocrites. You see and you deny it, you have to, you would be questioning your family and your life. You are satisfied with rationalizations that to an outsider are silly, because you build a structure for them. It is foundated on the personality, George II, and the walls are all your fellows keeping out the raving mobs and the roof you build together out of rationalizations, justifications, and reality to keep out the rain of criticism - you are talking about wrecking your house where you all live if you question.

If you get smacked in the face with the reality that things are not as they seem in one particular instance and your family turns against you leaving becomes real. But it is only leaving and only a single instance and it will take quite awhile for the forced questioning to broaden out into the whole of your life. Questions with answers and outside input generate more questions and more answers and the thing can become an avalanche. It does sound as though Scott has tried to salvage one piece of it all, the foundation, George. Standing in the midst of wreckage something must stand for something. So you get an idea that George had the seeds of greatness before it fell apart.

I expect that if Scott McClelland is honestly trying to make up for his years in BushCo he sees himself as having participated in a pretty sad endeavor and he is a man disappointed in the track his life took. He surely is still trying to have something good left and some excuse. He may well lose those, also. You must figure he's done for in politics and that he doesn't have many Republican friends. The opposition doesn't see him kindly - hell, I don't - and it is an open question how much economic good the book will do him once the initial steam wears off. His reputation is beat up enough that journalism probably isn't too viable, Tony Snow is an aberration. He's not a real smart witty guy who had lots of power, he's a regular guy, nice guy who got to be a mouthpiece, so being a pundit or analyst isn't happening. It's probably a pretty grim looking prospect for him over the long haul. He could have stayed quiet and loyal and gotten table scraps - he didn't.

I don't know if I feel sorry for him, that'd be a bit much. Does he deserve to be slapped around, I don't know, a lot of bad things have happened that he was a part of, but he's also just slapped himself around pretty good. What I do know is that he doesn't deserve to be treated like a piece of human excrement by his former opposition. He didn't make the policies, he wasn't going to change them - just get fired, and chances are real good that his professed ignorance wasn't deliberate. It was a product of a culture he wasn't smart enough to stay out of.

(this site's hits on Tue. was 2x all after 5PM, Wed 10x,Thur @12PM on track for 10x)

George II Holds Hands With These

folks and kisses them. The President of the United States of America calls these pigs our dear friends. Maybe he wishes to run the US their way:

Saudi Arabia frequently convicts persons for alleged insults to religion. Hadi al-Mutif, who belongs to the minority Isma’ili creed in Shia Islam, remains on death row for allegedly insulting the Prophet Muhammad with two words in 1993; a court convicted teacher Muhammad al-Suhaimi in 2004 of insulting religion for his unorthodox views expressed in a classroom; teacher Muhammad al-Harbi was found guilty of blasphemy in 2005; and a different court charged Rabah al-Quwai’i with apostasy for internet writings in 2005.

The current nonsense about a god that can't seem to take care of himself?

On May 5, the prosecution service in Jeddah charged Ra’if Badawi with “setting up an electronic site that insults Islam,” and referred the case to court, asking for a five-year prison sentence and a 3 million riyal (US$800,000) fine.

And this one:

In a second case, the Mekka appeals court on May 1 upheld Sabri Bogday’s death sentence issued on March 31, 2008 for “cursing the name of God.” Bogday, a Turkish national who had worked in Jeddah for 11 years as a barber, allegedly insulted God during an argument with a Saudi client and an Egyptian neighbor. Bogday, who did not have a lawyer in court, denied cursing God, but the three judges of the lower court regarded the testimony by the Saudi and the Egyptian witnesses as sufficient proof that Bogday had committed the crime of apostasy, or defection from Islam.

Would it be piling on to mention 9 of 11 hijackers Sept 11 were Saudi?

Hey, I have an idea; let's elect John McCain and see where he kisses them...

By the way you savage pieces of camel dung, any god that supports that should be stuffed in pig intestines and left to draw flies... oooooohhhhh that wasn't nice. It certainly is reassuring that there are Muslims who abhore that kind of god and worship a different one - too bad about the name similarity. There are some Christians right here at home that could thake a lesson from this...

Lanny Davis Whines

There are some things you need to know about Lanny Davis. He was one of Hillary's supporters who voted to strip FL/MI of 100% of their delegation. All of them did, but he is the one under discussion here.

He's the guy who wrote and article on a "compromise" for FL/MI that has some really swell reasoning:

One principle is based in law, the second in pragmatic politics.

Watch closely now, we're going to dive off the edge of the world.

In U.S. contract law, the party breaching a contract usually has the right to "cure" the violation during the term of the contract. But if the other party stands in the way of that cure, the breaching party cannot be further sanctioned — and certainly, as a matter of fairness, the party preventing the cure should not stand to benefit.

This will get really strange in a little while, but let's do pragmatism first:

If more than 2.3 million Democrats in Michigan and Florida are told their votes didn't count even though their party leaders were willing to revote, that could anger them, to put it mildly. If they blame Obama for not supporting the revote while still blocking a fair solution by the Rules Committee, essentially not permitting their January votes to count, they are likely to be angrier still — if, that is, he is the Democratic Party's nominee. In a close election that could mean the difference between the Democratic candidate carrying or losing Michigan and Florida.

They surely will get ticked off, you folks have fanned the flames real well.

Now the Obama campaign would say that they neither objected nor approved; they just raised "concerns." That is a fact. But here is an unavoidable inference from other undeniable political facts: Had Obama instructed those supporters in Michigan and Florida who were opposed to the revotes to support them, and joined with Clinton in endorsing the revotes, the new rounds of voting would have occurred.

Here is where this got really strange, the "concerns" were quite valid, like the little matter of the complete illegality of the scheme under one state's laws, MI, and the other state's, FL, refusal to have anything to do with it. Oddly enough there was a completely legal and feasible remedy, called self-financed caucuses - but Hillary doesn't like them and froze the deciding entities, the State Parties. The actual impediment to a solution was Hillary. Does this qualify Lanny as a liar? I know the popular word is spin. (puke)

Or perhaps one Solomonic compromise, more generous to Obama than to Clinton, would be to divide the remaining delegates approximately 50-50 between the two of them, 28-27 (giving Clinton the extra delegate since she led in all the latest statewide polls prior to Jan. 15).

What do you make of the idea that Hillary ought to get not only the votes with her name on them but also the ones that didn't want her? This from an election she said didn't count. So people who cared enough to vote anybody but her in an election that didn't count are hers? I sincerely hope that the Greek concept of hubris bites him. Remember the night of the fake Florida election when Hillary said, "I'll do everything in my power to make sure your votes count?" Who was it exactly that interfered in any possible fix? She lied to those people by telling them she had a power she didn't have. Oh I know all about the wiggle words "my power" since she had none.

How about this, Lanny, delegates at 0.5 vote, uncommitted to Obama, and since the supers interfered along with Hillary (offender shouldn't benefit) 0 super delegates. Besides which, the State Parties deserve none for their willing boosterism of the original offense and the elected officials could have had sway and chose not to.

But wait, this "concerned Democrat" wasn't done making an ass of himself, nope, more stuff for Obama. You see Obama had the temerity to be winning. Four things pissed him off:
1)Edward's announcement stepped on Hillary's WV win
2)majority of delegates speech stepped on Hillary's KY win
3)announce head of VP search while Hillary still breathes
4)Bill Richardson - Judas

Ummm...Heat...Kitchen

Lanny, you are a puke and you guys ran a stupid and divisive campaign and you've lost in delegates and minus a complete bolt by automatic delegates to you it is over. I really like the juxtaposition of your compromise and your political strategy whining. From the time you wrote that stupid compromise post I've been waiting, knowing you couldn't, just could not refrain from further asininity in pathetic rhetoric blaming Obama for a bit more.

Obama has divided the Party, he's mean, he sucks, he deserves no votes, it was our turn, he can't win without our votes and we'll make sure he gets as few as possible and he can't win anyhow and I'm a girl and I can play politics anyway I want and if you say anything I'll cry and...

Holy Cow. Hillary has played a rough game for a Democratic Primary, it is politics and it does get rough, but she's used some Republican boosting methods and then claimed victim hood. Your campaign has been out maneuvered and out PRed at every turn, almost, and you try once again to use the victim card to justify freezing your supporters? Your campaign whines about caucuses and black votes while your candidate would be no one at all without the last name?

I don't find either of you to be the be - all - end - all of possible nominees, but I do find yours to be the lesser. Your candidate has a record of "old news" that was never addressed that goes right to the heart of her qualifications to be a President and you had not one battle on that front. You dragged every possible association and even imaginary ones in on your opponent and you claim dirty pool? You claim the opposition is alienating Hillary supporters? Does this sound like kicking a horse that's down? If it is, you and yours need to not be in any position of power and if this is what it takes, so be it. You ginned up the sexism card while you played on the edge of the racism card. Obama and his campaign have never hit you with sexism, it may have played a part with some, but you've seen to it Obama was blamed for it.

I objected from the beginning to your candidate's short term thinking and I'd say your campaign proves my assertion.

Fix This

I've spent some time on a friend's very reasonable blog trying to persuade a person that voting McCain rather than Obama was a bad idea. I've had some people get rather ticked at me for suggesting some are not reasonable. I've pulled a comment that is rather representative from a Hillary blog and one of the politer ones:

We have been sounding the warning bell to the DNC for months now -- they ignore it at their peril.

People will do what they want to do come November, but I certainly hope, if, haven forefend, this empty suit gets nominated, that voters won't forget or forego their promise NOT to vote for him.

This newbie Senator, with his arrogance, inexperience and his vile and evil campaign does not deserve the Presidency.
ani 05.27.2008 - 11:28 pm #

I won't let people forget. If I have to post the comments of the trolls here on a blog, or the trolls in other places or the Iron my shirt or the condescending remarks made by Obambi -

If I have to post these things a million times a day, I'll do it. we cannot forget. It is time for change, all right. But not the kind Obambi was expecting.

I will actively work against Obambi at every opportunity.

Now I'd like somebody to explain to me just what approach will work with this person. I've already found out what will not work someplace else. Do not, whatever you do, point out that there are serious consequences to such an action. I'll bet you might as well spit into the wind.

The site and commenter are not identified, deliberately. I won't drive traffic there or reward their behavior with "trolls." I also didn't cherry pick or go to the looniest site. You can find any number of them - yourself.

Maybe you can talk to this person who evidently used DPO to CC a lot of people:

Subject: Super Delegates


The voting should be a private primary ballet.


There is too much intimidation and there has been too much money donated to campaign fund for elected Super Delegates. Obama has donated more than $700,000 and Clinton in the range of $200,000. This out spending 3-1 in the state pledges should not carry through in the final SD vote.


The risk of retaliation to voters back home should be a serious concern.


Also, secrete ballet would reflect a fairness needed at this time.


Obama has only won 2 of the last 7 primaries and he has the ego to give a Victory speech in Iowa the same night after the close of the Kentucky primary. Putting out the fire of Clinton's power win and dominating the media exposure.
The same thing was done in WV with an endorsement of John Edwards the next day.


Hillary Clinton has been abuse by the media and her very own Party. I am appalled, and as a 40 year Democrat, I am ready to leave the Party.


I will not vote for Obama in the General Election. He said he did not need WV, KT and it seems FL and MI....... He does not need me either.


He is not our best candidate. We will lose. His baggage is dangerous and the Democrats are too polite to rummage through it.
The Republicans will not be that polite. Clinton's baggage is old news...Yawn.


This latest smear on Clinton about Senator Robert Kennedy is a sham. How can anyone reflect back at that time and not associate the horrible event..... it is burned in our memory.


I regret the direction my Party is taking with this Primary, it is as if the decision was made from the state. Nancy Pelosi has made her opinion very clear and from her seat of power, this is wrong.


The DNC will meet May 31....... If what they are doing is complicated, then what they are doing is wrong. Obama took his name off MI by choice, there was not a rule to do this.
Massive media and radio told voters to vote Undecided if their vote was for Obama or Edwards. 40% did....... Clinton was not the only one on the ballet, how does it make Kucinich feel? He got 7% and Hillary got 53%.
Obama want all of the 40%.


HE IS WILLING TO GIVE AND TAKE.......
Have Hillary GIVE some of her votes in Florida. (any split does this)
And TAKE some of Edwards votes in Michigan.


The solution is simple.... Votes given to Clinton are hers and Votes given to Obama are his with a portion of the undecided in MI.... yes, Edwards has endorsed Obama, but those pledged delegates need to be awarded at the convention. He has already sent troops to MI and they have already claimed ALL of the undecided and the Committee has not even met yet.


I am sorry this is so long, there is just too much abuse going on out there.
This rush to pledge SD before the close of these Primaries is strong arming and pressuring Clinton to quit. I, for one, think this is an insult on our system and may leave a scare for a long time.


Thank you,


Madeline Stewart

Now it might interest Madeline to know that Hillary started this out with 100 SD and that apparently wasn't an effort to short circuit the process? She seems to have the idea that publicly denounced as illegitimate votes are somehow extremely valid. Maybe she's open to persuasion that the Primary hasn't been stolen from Hillary. I have made the point that Hillary has used MI/FL in a cynical divisive manner designed to scapegoat the DNC and harden her supporters. Maybe I've made a valid point?

In Memoriam

A post tonight as Memorial Day passes about what it means. Today has been about those who have fallen in service to this nation, all that they had, they gave. There really is no more to be said for words are insufficient.

Pets, Just Because

A study in contrasts, cute and burly, grace and lumbering, Marlin and Gus.

Yes, this is a 36 inch archway Gus is walking through and I am kneeling, thus face high.
Both of these are intelligent animals, neither cooperates with photography in the least. The photo of Marlin is after 12 attempts spread over 4 hours, the second I would squat down with the camera she would walk up to me, evidently happy to see me down in her region. A photo of Gus laid out is pretty easy to get or one shot from a distance but to get anywhere near him is either an invitation to be smelled or for some reason to leave. Neither is afraid of the camera, although Gus finds it's chirps and snicks peculiar, Marlin shows some interest in the hanging lens cover.

I suppose Gus seems a bit large for a house pet and the first time people see him indoors they are somewhat taken aback. He is a careful animal, he has never knocked anything over, even with his great vast tail (of which he is inordinately proud and extremely reluctant to have brushed). Nothing happens within sixty feet or so of the house that doesn't provoke a warning bark, things vibrate, like window panes and the floor. He doesn't shed much, but when he does it involves great masses of long white hair that the vacuum doesn't appreciate. The real drawback is dog slobber, he drools, shoe strings hanging from his face and when he is pleased he gives his head a shake - I haven't found any on the 9 foot 6 inch ceiling, yet, but some have gotten pretty close. I keep a slobber rag near my recliner that gets regular duty wiping his face. My wife keeps a very clean house so the dog and I are a constant irritant in that respect, but she loves him and tolerates me - most times. Construction workers are filthy beasts after all. One day I'll have to get a picture of Gus sitting in his work truck that he lets me drive, it is a '78 K20 pickup with a utility box, meaning the bench seat is where he rides (one seat, one driver, one dog). Sometimes there's a little shoving regarding shares.

Pyrenees are guardian dogs, their name comes from the Pyrenees Mountains where they guarded sheep. The practice of the time was to take the sheep to the mountains after the snow cleared and leave them and the dogs who kept wolves from being a problem. The dogs were placed with the sheep as pups and they printed on them as the pack. The breed is independent, if you want a fetch dog or immediate obedience dog, find another breed. The dogs are mild tempered and spend a great deal of time lying down, but once they've printed their loyalty is exceptional, protection is to the death. Nothing has ever crossed Gus, so I have no measure of his reaction, it would be a particularly stupid sort of thing to do. Weighing 150 pounds and 31 inches at the shoulder Gus is on the moderately large end of the breed. New Foundland and St Bernard were bred out of the Pyrenees breed. Some sources state they are the oldest established breed, though sometimes mistaken for it, they are not members of the mastiff family. The breed very nearly went extinct and were brought back in the Victorian era. There are two varieties of Pyrenees, the show and the working, Gus is a show, the working variety is somewhat smaller and has a less full coat. The coat is comprised of guard hairs which are long and somewhat coarse and an under coat that is extremely fine, silky, and very dense - it is virtually impossible to find skin - bathes are involved, to understate. Most Pyrenees in our area are show variety used as guardians.

Gus disapproves of all wild animals, trespassing cats, and any square bodied truck and most diesels. UPS, FedEx, and mail trucks are considered particularly bad items, though he cares nothing about the drivers. I've had Gus about 3 years now and he has been a joy. He is as well mannered as can be, stays completely off furniture, is gentle with children, and uniformly friendly with people. His judgement seems good, a drunk once tried to converse with my wife while she was walking him, harmless but unwelcome. Gus' response was to place himself directly between them, and that was all. His idea of a toy is a smashed 12 ounce dish liquid bottle which he has had for these three years, it is quite flat and dented. Nothing else seems to qualify, he is entirely disinterested in balls or other doggy toys and has no clue whatever about catch, if you toss him a snack it will hit him between the eyes.

Well, that's your dog story for the evening.