Lester Brown of the Earth Policy Institute and Jonathan Lewis of the Clean Air Task Force write in Tuesday’s Washington Post:

Ethanol's Failed Promise

"The willingness to try, fail and try again is the essence of scientific progress. The same sometimes holds true for public policy. It is in this spirit that today, Earth Day, we call upon Congress to revisit recently enacted federal mandates requiring the diversion of foodstuffs for production of biofuels. These "food-to-fuel" mandates were meant to move America toward energy independence and mitigate global climate change. But the evidence irrefutably demonstrates that this policy is not delivering on either goal. In fact, it is causing environmental harm and contributing to a growing global food crisis.

Food-to-fuel mandates were created for the right reasons. The hope of using American-grown crops to fuel our cars seemed like a win-win-win scenario: Our farmers would enjoy the benefit of crop-price stability. Our national security would be enhanced by having a new domestic energy source. Our environment would be protected by a cleaner fuel. But the likelihood of these outcomes was never seriously tested, and new evidence has shown that the justifications for these mandates were inaccurate.

It is now abundantly clear that food-to-fuel mandates are leading to increased environmental damage. First, producing ethanol requires huge amounts of energy -- most of which comes from coal. Second, the production process creates a number of hazardous byproducts, and some production facilities are reportedly dumping these in local water sources.

Third, food-to-fuel mandates are helping drive up the price of agricultural staples, leading to significant changes in land use with major environmental harm."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/21/AR2008042102555.html

Wow- I get to be the first to comment!

A lot of stuff comes and goes - work, music, people and their dramas...

There was a time when I thought that stuff was important.

But its not, really.

I sleep much more soundly since I gave up thinking that way.

"The time has come, the song is over
Thought I'd something more to say..."

Good night.

Dang it, John, you snuck in there before me!

You Old Whumpsmutheringsmickersmacker!

Yo yogi, " Whumpsmutheringsmickersmacker!"

You got it in -one.

Best leave out the Old'n stuff :) 38?

What a waste of the #1 space!

Creation frowns--all you do is trace.

.

Be the change you want to see?

Corny foods go right through me.

.

What do have to trade today?

All my marbles done gone away.

.

Guess I'll take the fifth.

1?

Did I?

lol! better luck, next time Yogi-2!

:::::::::::::::::::::::::

Election results latest update..

From the Pennsylvania Department of Sate:

http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/

99.07% precincts reporting.

Vote %

Clinton 54.3
Obama 45.7

Dels

C 52
O 46

As far as I can tell, everything has reported except for 40 precincts in Philly, and seven precincts in Obama-friendly Delaware County. If my math is right (and it probably isn't), that could be worth another 7,000 or so net votes for Obama, which might or might not be enough to gain the 0.2 points to round this thing to 8 percentage points. I could try to figure it out, I might put my math skills to test.

The delegate count is still at Clinton +10.

BUT...AP has different numbers....it looks like the PA DoS screwed up. That puts it at:

Clinton: 54.69
Obama: 45.31

That's a difference of 9.38 percent which, if you're going to round, would round down to 9 percent, not 10 percent. That is, unless we decide we're averse to odd number splits.

And there may be more precincts outstanding than just the Delaware County and Philly ones, plus provisional ballots still left.

US warns India on Iran?

Times of India:

No guidance needed on Iran ties: India to US

NEW DELHI: India on Tuesday firmly told the US that it does not want "any guidance" on its conduct of bilateral relations with Iran, with both New Delhi and Tehran being "perfectly capable" of "managing all aspects of their relationship".

This came after US once again waded into the delicately poised Indo-Iranian ties by asking New Delhi to talk tough with Tehran about its controversial nuclear programme during Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's visit here next week. India's swift, and unusually sharp, riposte was a reiteration of its belief that the US is simply barking up the wrong tree by trying to isolate Iran internationally.

... Responding to this promptly, the external affairs ministry said India and Iran were ancient civilisations whose relations spanned centuries. Both nations are "perfectly capable" of managing all aspects of their relationship with the "appropriate degree of care and attention".

"Neither country needs any guidance on the future conduct of bilateral relations as both countries believe engagement and dialogue alone lead to peace," it said.

... India, of course, is opposed to the further spread of nuclear weapons but wants the Iranian nuclear issue to be resolved through peaceful diplomacy, holding that the framework of the International Atomic Energy Agency provides the best forum to address technical aspects of the issue.

... Incidentally, India's long-standing ties with Iran had taken quite a hit when New Delhi had voted against Tehran in the IAEA board of governors' meetings in September 2005 and March 2006.

Though India had taken a position that it did so since it felt Iran must respect its international legal obligations, New Delhi wants to mend fences with Tehran fully.

Read the full report...
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/No_guidance_needed_on_Iran_ties_India_to_US/articleshow/2973623.cms

dear John

It's the Bush admin, not the US -- the majority of people in the US don't back his policies.

love, h

More on US interference in India's approach to Iran...

NEW DELHI: India on Wednesday asked the United States not to take the responsibility of deciding if Iran was manufacturing nuclear weapons, in comments that came a day after its sharp reaction to Washington's advice on bilateral relations with Tehran.

... The CPM also demanded that the US ambassador be summoned to express India's "disapproval" of "gross interference" by Washington in its relations with other countries.

... She said the US statement reflected "the imperialist arrogance of a self-appointed world policeman. We condemn this statement in the strongest term".

... Karat said the US State Department has thought it fit to "indulge in another act of gross interference" in India's relations with other countries.

... She recalled that the Hyde Act passed by the US Congress has called upon India to cooperate with the US to isolate Iran. "This unsolicited advice, once again, highlights that the US considers India a junior partner which it can pressurise to change its independent foreign policy."

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/IAEA_should_decide_Irans_nuke_status_India/articleshow/2976007.cms

Of course, h, *US* is a metonymy for the current *US administration*.

thx for the clarification.

Brent Clark is fighting for his future, after what he said was a rash act in reaction to incessant bullying he suffered at his middle school.

Seventh grade Mesa, Ariz. student Brent Clark was charged with terrorism after he kidnapped and held a classmate at knifepoint, but the teen said bullying made him snap.
(ABC News)The 15-year-old from Mesa, Ariz., faces charges of terrorism, kidnapping and aggravated assault after, by his own admission, he followed a female classmate home from school March 22, 2007, and held her hostage at knife point.
For the rest of the story-
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=4705707&page=1

I would say India thinks quite highly of Bush. Ties have never been better.

she did not win Penn by 10%...that's CNN & MSNBC's BS...she won by a single digit...8.6%. or 9% if u round up...she cannot catch up...almost impossible...

remaining dels to be won...408....remaining fat-ass fence-sitters 311...=719

generously give her 400 of those and she ends up with 1984... way short of the target...time to call it off Billary! Lady....it shudn't be about "me, me, me!" BJB must be giving u bad advice...

A warm Hi to all Open threaders! :)

I know this may sound naive to ya guys but could someone help me set up a video conference? I have never done this before(I know... I know!) I wanna know what hardware & software I will need and how to take off (& sign off) and other stuff.

Please don't question my hibernation in the tech world. I am already embarrassed 'bout it. :(

"But why didn't he win?" by kos

Lots of stupid spin floating around today. One of the dumber ones is the "why didn't he win Pennsylvania if he's so hot a candidate?" The implication being that somehow he's not "electable" since he can't win every single state on the calendar.

So why didn't he win Pennsylvania?

* He was up against the machine. It's my theory that no endorsement matters except those that deliver a machine. Senators have no machine, so they're pretty worthless (like Bob Casey). Mayors and machine-state governors, like Nutter and Rendell, matter. Gavin Newsom in San Francisco, who has no machine, didn't matter, but Antonio Villaraigosa in Los Angeles, who has one of the biggest machines in the planet, delivered strong for Clinton. In Connecticut, Obama won Connecticut in large part thanks to New Haven's mayor John Destefano's efforts. In Pennsylvania, Clinton had the state's machine working on her behalf, and it clearly helped cut Obama's margins in the Philly metro area.

* Demographics. Arguing that Obama's failure to win Pennsylvania points to inherent weaknesses is as silly as claiming the same for Clinton in North Carolina, or Idaho, or Wisconsin, or Maine, or Minnesota, or Mississippi, or Alabama, or Washington, or wherever else. Fact is, we have to fairly different candidates who appeal to different demographics. They both have paths to the nomination, but they happen to be different paths. Clinton runs the same old path that has served us poorly in the last two elections. Obama's is different, putting the Mountain West, North Carolina and Virginia in play.

Fact is, Obama does terrible in Appalachian regions, and that has been death to him in states that share that region. Just watch him get crushed in West Virginia and Kentucky. In the same vein, Clinton does terribly in regions that are overwhelmingly white -- like Maine, Vermont, Idaho, Utah, and so on, and she does poorly with large creative classes (Washington, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina), and of course she does terrible with African Americans. She's also had trouble with younger voters, independents, non-malicious Republicans, and so on.

To claim that Pennsylvania was the only state that mattered when its demographics (Appalachia, older, more blue collar, etc) were heavily slanted toward Clinton is absurd as would claiming that North Carolina is the tie-breaker for everything, given that it's solid Obama territory. Ultimately, Obama won because he won more contests all around the country, not just some single, randomly chosen state.

* Home state advantage. Clinton has roots in the state, and local ties matter in politics a great deal. That's why Obama crushed in Kansas, Hawaii, and Illinois, and why Clinton crushed in New York and Arkansas.

* Initial deficit. Obama came back from around 20 points back, and cut the deficit to 9 points in six weeks.

* Name ID. Clinton isn't just a senator, she's a former First Lady. She isn't some scrub.

* Multiple targets. Hillary Clinton has the advantage of running against a single candidate -- Barack Obama. Obama, on the other hand, is running against Hillary, against the former President of the Untied States Bill Clinton, and against a Republican machine (McCain included) that has focused its firepower on the frontrunner.

* Rhetorical constraints. Clinton has nothing to lose, so she's thrown the kitchen sink and then some at Obama. Her path to the nomination necessarily requires her sundering the party in civil war, so if she pisses a few people off? Who cares! It's all part of the plan!

Obama, on the other hand, can't take that approach. He's already won this thing, so he has to tread carefully. He gets too aggressive with Clinton, he risks pissing off her supporters more than they are already pissed off (can you believe that Obama insists on staying in the race even though he's won?!). So he can't really open up on Clinton and make the same kind of arguments she's making against him. He's trying to maintain some modicum of unity rather than engage in the sort of slash-and-burn politics that now characterizes the Clinton campaign handbook. The inability to truly go negative is a real disadvantage in politics.

So there you have it. That's why Obama lost Pennsylvania. In two weeks, I'm sure the Clinton people will be just as eager to demand explanations as to why they can't win North Carolina, right?

ZRII is still in PRE-LAUNCH stage!

It is also the very first company that has ever been endorced by the World Famous CHOPRA CENTER FOR WELL BEING!

You are on the ground floor of an amazing opportunity to become a part of a Company with growth potential guaranteed to reach in the millions in a few years!

ZRII Represents... Light... Luster... Splendor... Beauty... Love... Joy... Happiness... Peace... Good Fortune... Prosperity and Wealth!

Don't miss this amazing opportunity, click on my link and sign up today!

Lily S.

why he didn't win: he's too arrogant to realize how arrogant he is. and his supporters likewise, apparently, if they are asking why and they could not see it coming.

why he does terribly in blue-collar areas: he wants fancy cheese, he discusses the beer's quality, he doesn't understand how people who are hurting economically have not yet turned bitter, he wants to have OJ instead of whatever his hosts have ready for him (like coffee), he wants to eat his waffles instead of talking with the people who report about him and will vote for him, he's not willing to suck it up and stop whining, he thinks he's above criticism, he hasn't yet learned you have to work hard to teach people who've had it tough that you can take tough times, too.

some people may say these things are trivial. not so. repeated, as they are, they show a consistent disconnect from people who are not of BO's class. this puts forth a good basis for his being termed arrogant. that BO hasn't gotten this yet, is what confirms the arrogance.

for all his gifts, this is an issue of experience. if he were ten years older, these issues wouldn't be on the table.

a great many of those willing to support HC over BO at the moment would be 100% behind BO if he had that extra experience under his belt.

his dismal performance in the PA debate was because he really was being hit hard, and he hasn't yet learned how to take it. yet to be prez, he has to take it.

this is the experience issue that HC supporters saw before the rest of the US saw it.

everything in the # 16 comment is an excuse.

to continue to ignore the lack of experience, crumbling under heavy pressure, and arrogance, is to ignore the character traits that are preventing more people from supporting BO. if BO, and those who support BO, don't get honest about this, the tide could pull away from BO.

all those who were looking for some clear proof that their doubts about BO justified their support for HC now have that proof.

if BO wants to win, he needs to face and deal with his weaknesses.

it's not that HC supporters hate BO and don't think he's great. it's that he hasn't proven to them that he can roll with punches, that he can stand up no matter what's thrown at him, he can smile and drink a coffee and not question the beer or the cheese, and he'll go hungry in order to talk to the people who want to talk to and about him, and who will vote for him.

he is not yet humble enough, guys. only from humility will he have the strength to draw on, to take the pressures that he'll have to face if he becomes prez. if he showed the humility now, HC would not be running at the moment. he still has a few months to go. if you're a BO supporter, pray that PA will teach him not to get defensive and make excuses, but instead to get honest, and to learn to get down-home with people and understand them from the inside out.

my current prayer: that one of BO's advisers will read this and show it to him.

why is she still in this f^&*($% thing? can she not do simple math? these losers can't take "no" for an answer...even when the writing on the wall clearly spells their name...they must be convinced they have an entitlement to the presidency...that's why they hang around like flies to u know what...shame and more shame on them! and to their ^&*$ supporters.

I just saw this on the NY Times site:

"Clinton supporters call the extended race a healthy exercise, while Obama fans fret about the consequences."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/24/us/politics/23cnd-voices.html?hp

If there were ever a point that better shows the difference between HC and BO supporters, and between the candidates themselves, I can't think what it might be.

HC soldiers on, BO whines. BO is tres fatigue, HC is taking it day by day and sticking it out.

If BO wants to be prez, he can't call a time-out when things get tough.

Maureen Dowd's column today is titled "Wilting Over Waffles." She says, "He’s never going to shake her off. Not all by himself. The very fact that he can’t shake her off has become her best argument against him. “Why can’t he close the deal?” Hillary taunted at a polling place on Tuesday..." Dowd supports BO -- and she, at least, is willing to be honest about what's besetting his candidacy. Her solution is to urge Hillary to drop out of the campaign. But before she comes to that conclusion, she also writes, "...Despite all his incandescent gifts, Obama has missed several opportunities to smash the ball over the net and end the game. Again and again, he has seemed stuck at deuce. He complains about the politics of scoring points, but to win, you’ve got to score points..."

And that, dear people, is exactly the point.

afternoon everyone,

I don't know why HE just doesn't call it a race run the best he could, although, since, it wasn't run totally the way he intended it to run, meaning, he did have to answer a question or two that was clearly beneath a man of his intelligence, to answer, and, he, had to take doodoo from that WOMAN's campaign, and for god's sake, he, even had to bowl too, he did the best he could to win in the big time states but just couldn't pull it off, under the most trying of circumstances(not really, god, has there ever been an easier campaign for anyone, no.) It is clear that Barak Obama cannot win a general election against the Repuglicans in November...time to get back class Barak. So, Long, Farewell...lala..lalalala...

The above is for all the Barak Obama spin machine makers who are calling for Hillary to quit...

The only person of the three Candidates to get hit from all sides...nonstop is Hillary Clinton, it is only when they get bored with attacking her that they remember Barak and McCain are running too....and the Barak campaign have been the biggest crybabies since Richard Nixon ran against JFK.

Hillary's success last night is a testament to the fact that the impatient voice for a vague change is not as strong as the wise and knowing voice of "hold on there folks, let us take a closer look at this....vague ruckus, everyone is jumping up and down for and gettin all silly about, these are troubling times, serious times, and we need to see the way clear before we just throw caution to the wind."

good job Hillary!!!

As you can see from the nature of some of the comments posted above, one of the arguments the Clinton campaign is making to the supers, hoping they will overturn the will of the voters, is that Obama can't win certain demographics. Yet looking at the exit poll numbers, it's clear that Obama has actually been making serious gains the past six weeks.

Obama's percent of the vote for Ohio--Pennsylvania respectively:

60 and older: 28--38
White: 34--38
White men: 39--44
White women: 31--34
Less than $50K: 42--46
No college: 40--38
College: 51--49
Catholic: 36--31
Protestant: 36--53

What was a 10.5% win in demographically friendly Ohio has become an 8.6%-9.4% win in similar Pennsylvania, except the state was even less black and with a much smaller youth voter population (Pennsylvania's seniors accounted for 32 percent of the electorate, compared to 23 percent in Ohio).

And, those gains were made despite the Wright controversy as well as manufactured bullshit about "bitter" and flag pins and whatnot.

On top of that, Obama has had to run against Hillary Clinton, against former President of the United States Bill Clinton, and against John McCain and the entire GOP apparatus, which has trained its guns on Obama hoping to give Clinton a boost.

Yet he continues to gain among most of Clinton's best demographics, is still raising more money, leads comfortably in delegates, leads comfortably in the popular vote, leads in states won, leads in the national polls, and does better in the head-to-head matchups against McCain.

So why should the supers spark an intra-party civil war by overturning the will of the electorate again?

dear D

it's BO who seems to think he's entitled to be the nominee. the people who are voting think otherwise. it's a split. let the process take its course. this is what is was created to do.

this nomination process is one of the few things the US is doing that show the rest of the world that we are what we say we are. this is a free speech democracy that runs on the rule of law and principles set down when the country was instituted.

if your guy is the right guy, he'll grow up fast enough to convince enough voters that he's OK. and if not, not.

whining does nothing to enhance his reputation.

what's going on now is like a cricket match being played, and before it's over, the team that thought it was going to win easily isn't winning easily, so they ask the other side to forfeit.

puleeze, if anyone asked anything like that to happen in the world of sports, imagine what kind of a noise would be created against such a request. and it would be the side that's asking that the game end early that would be criticized.

the game itself is one of the reasons this is a strong country.

let the game play out.

love, h

granny last nite was not a success for that piece o ?...she lost...miserably...can't u see? i dare u...show us how she can ever win the nom...will u ever stop living in fantasyland...old #$s?

"if your guy is the right guy, he'll grow up fast enough to convince enough voters that he's OK. heather...

he already has!

Obama supporters and Democratic supporters in general don't mind a honorable and positive campaign run by Clinton, what even the Clinton supporters(from the exit pols) detest is the tactics of Clinton which is damaging the party.

She seems to be buying time in the hopes to malign Obama with (supportive)right wing attacks of Muslim, terrorist sympathizer, radical, socialist etc...so much so that supers may find him unelectable...that's the only way she can win the nomination. And that's what turns off many Obama supporters.

The New York Times editorial:

"The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it.

Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.[...]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/opinion/23wed1.html?ref=opinion

Ron Paul is still in the race and are the McCain supporters complaining? In Pennsylvania, as one would expect, turnout in Democratic primary was far higher than the Republican turnout. Democrats had 2.3 million votes, and only 0.8 million Republican votes. But check out the percentages:

McCain 72
Paul 16
Huckabee 11

Over a quarter of the Republicans who showed up voted against their certain nominee, John McCain. Combined with the Republicans' failure yesterday to defeat Democrat Travis Childers in heavily Republican MS-01, what we see is a Republican party with some serious problems.

Some will argue that Republican weakness means that there's no damage being done by Hillary Clinton staying in a contest she can't win. That's not true, especially when one considers the tremendous opportunity costs being paid by not running exclusively against a weakened John McCain. But it is heartening to see that while the dems are missing an opportunity to pound John McCain early and work toward exposing him to the American people as anything but a reforming "maverick," there are at least some serious weaknesses in the Republican brand, and some evident dissatisfaction among Republicans with their presumptive nominee.

dear D

If he has, why do so many BO supporters want HC to drop out, even though her votes are so close to his?

The best thing BO supporters and BO himself can do now is let the game finish on its own. And his supporters don't need to protect him -- that's condescending, and it sends a message of weakness to everyone.

Ohe, dear Irv.

love, h

dear Irv

If voters are getting tired of it, their votes will reflect that.

love, h

#27. Now you might ask what's the veracity of claims of opportunity costs being paid in the negative race?

Lets see...

Wikipedia defines "opportunity cost" as the cost (sacrifice) incurred by choosing one option over an alternative one that may be equally desired. Thus, opportunity cost is the cost of pursuing one choice instead of another.

Todays Washington Post artcile:
As Rivals Battle, McCain Builds November Machine
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/03/31/ST2008033102577.html

(Excerpt)

"As his Democratic presidential rivals squabble, Sen. John McCain has moved to transform his ragtag primary campaign into a general-election operation by boosting fundraising, establishing control over the Republican National Committee, and beginning a conversation with voters who live in states where he has not campaigned...

Some Republican strategists have said that McCain has not made the best use of the extra time that the prolonged Democratic nomination battle has given him. They have criticized the pace and direction of his decisions and have questioned why the senator from Arizona has not held more fundraisers to close the huge financial gap between him and his rivals. "

Some people claim that Democrats will benefit more by having a longer primary, even though there's no conceivable way Hillary Clinton can overtake Barack Obama for the lead among pledged delegates, and there's little indication that superdelegates will want to flip the lead to Clinton. Furthermore, it's likely that Obama will amass a lead of superdelegates by the end of the primary and caucus voting. So Clinton's chance of becoming the nominee are essentially nil.

While there are certainly some benefits of mobilizing Dem voters in primaries, the Dems are forgoing the opportunity to define McCain early, to make a sharp contrast between Obama and McCain, and put the race away early, much like Bill Clinton was able to do against Bob Dole as he emerged weakened and broke from a tough primary battle in 1996. There's an opportunity cost that's not being fully considered by those who argue for Clinton to continue her futile effort to become the Democratic nominee.

From the WaPo artcile above, Hhere's what McCain is doing:

"Polls suggest that McCain's position on the sidelines of Democrats' infighting has elevated his stature, at least for now. In some surveys, McCain has a slight edge over Obama and Clinton. And conservative Republicans appear to be growing more comfortable with the sometimes maverick senator as their nominee.

But McCain's advisers acknowledge that the Republican Party still has an image problem. Generic ballot tests, whether for presidential or congressional elections, show Republicans running well behind Democrats, and part of the campaign's goal is to start rebranding the GOP."

Were the Obama campaign not occupied with not letting Clinton back in the race, they could take advantage of the opportunity to define McCain early and deny him the opportunity to try to rehabilitate the image of the Republican party. This is an opportunity cost we are paying by having an extended primary after it's already clear Obama will be the nominee. We're not taking advantage of the opportunity to... to say metaphorically, "kill him in the crib."

Nonetheless, we have to deal with weak arguments for Hillary staying in the race, by her supporter(s) at IB and like this, from Ruth Marcus in the WaPo:

"The unyielding arithmetic of the Democrats' delegate selection rules makes Hillary Clinton's prospects of winning the nomination dim -- and that's the rosy scenario.

The prolonged primary contest, with candidates and aides bickering like cranky toddlers partway through a long, hot car ride, is bad for the Democratic Party.

Still, Clinton shouldn't drop out. Not yet, anyway.

The party adopted procedures for picking the nominee that no one expected would matter. Now, having worked hard and played by those rules, to employ a Clintonian phrase, Clinton is under pressure to quit before the game is over.

Why should she? Clinton trails Barack Obama by at least 133 delegates. At a comparable point in the 1984 race, Gary Hart was more than 600 delegates behind Walter Mondale. At this stage in 1980, Ted Kennedy lagged Jimmy Carter by nearly 1,000 delegates."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/01/AR2008040102141.html

Please, remind me, how did those elections turn out for Democrats, that election in 1980 and that other one in 1984?

To characterize HC's tactics as negative, neocon, etc., is defensive. She's just a politician, doing the politician dance.

IF BO has a new way, let him show it can win by sticking to the new way. If he can't do it that way and he's meant to win, let him fight it out any way he can. But no whinging and whining. It's not becoming of a possible future prez.

The more pieces I read dissing HC's tactics, the weaker BO appears to me.

BO can fight a new way, or he can fight the old way, but fight he must, otherwise he's not worthy of the nomination.

Cantcha see this?? To contend otherwise shows lack of experience and arrogance!

He chose to play the game. Let him play it, for heaven's sake. To suggest he can only win by asking his very strong opponent to withdraw does him no credit!

love & g'nite, h

Forget the spin: the race is where it is. Clinton won Pennsylvania. The overall delegate margin has barely budged, however, and it is now even more assured that there is no reasonable scenario where Clinton can pull out a primary win absent intervention by the superdelegates.

I was never a Clinton fan, in this campaign. In private discussions with friends I have stated my deep discomfort with the notion that the person most deserving of the Presidency of the United States just miraculously happens to be the person married to the last Democratic President of the United States; it smacks far too much of the usual intra-Washington narcissism, and carries the strong whiff of American monarchy, something already wafting through the air after the ridiculous rise of the Boy King.

However, I agree with Heather, there seems little value in debating whether Clinton should or should not LEAVE the race. That is entirely up to Clinton, and any candidate with a mathematical chance -- even if slim -- of pulling out a win has every right to see the race through until that last fateful day. Unlike some like Irvine Welsh, I don't buy the notion that the campaign is hurting the Democratic party: any election that generates this level of excitement among Democratic voters is hardly a bad thing.

What bothers me, however, is the increasingly insulting quality of the campaign and surrogate spin as each successive campaign day wears on. It is fine to CELEBRATE a Pennsylvania win -- by all means, a victory is a victory, and a significant and hard-fought one at that -- but all I ask in politics is that the spinners of each camp try their best to not make it quite so obvious that they think the rest of us really are a spectacular new species of rubes, able to be led by the nose to whatever ridiculous and improbable conclusion would best benefit a particular camp.

Listening to Clinton campaign surrogates before the PA votes ever started to trickle in, was truly painful. Suddenly one state was the only state that mattered. All those other states were merely prelude: if Clinton could eke out a victory in this state, trailing in the delegate count would no longer be significant, and it would be a brand new race, and Obama would be on the ropes, and Clinton would suddenly win a billion dollars, a pony, and the moon; attention must be paid. It is not enough for Obama to simply be winning the nomination according to the rules laid out in advance: no, he must win the "right" way, according to the Clinton campaign and surrogates, or it doesn't count. He has to win the "right" states. And he has to win primaries, not caucuses. And he has to "close the deal", shutting Clinton out of remaining wins entirely, or it proves something ominous (the fact that Clinton has not been able to "close the deal" against him, and is instead trailing him badly and irreparably, barring superdelegate do-over, somehow does not count against her own merits.) And he not only has to win the "popular vote", but he has to win that, too, the right way, which is to say by counting only certain states and not counting others. And he has to win small towns, not just big population centers, because winning big population centers is elitist. Except that if he wins small towns in the West and Midwest, that doesn't count, because it's more important to win the big population centers. And all of this somehow proves that Clinton is a better candidate against McCain than Obama is, even though the polls to date have consistently shown Obama is a better candidate against McCain than Clinton is.

Now, I'm all for surrogates talking up their candidate, assuming they don't insult my intelligence in the process. But with the ever-changing rules and subrules of Clintonball, my intelligence feels fairly insulted, at this point. There seems to be an ever-expanding list of rationales why the delegate counts in front of our faces don't actually matter, or don't actually exist, or are terribly misleading. There seems to be an ever-expanding list of supposedly devastating Obama faults, such as the supposed elitism of the black guy from Chicago (seriously?), and there is a cynical and mocking dismissal of political eloquence from a campaign that once counted the political eloquence of their former president as one of their greatest assets. People have muttered over the negative tone of the campaign of late: hell, go negative. It's about time the Democrats figured out how to competently go negative, even though so far they have only bothered to practice it against each other. More irritating is that the negative attacks presented are, well, stupid, and seem increasingly to be predicated on the notion that voters, the press, the pundits, and we political hangers-on are all idiots seeking to cling to the most shallow of accusations. The press and the pundits? OK, I'll give you that one. The rest of us, however, weren't born yesterday.

All the spin boils down to a simple truth: Clinton now has almost no chance of winning on the delegate count. Barring Obama getting eaten by a bear, it's not going to happen, so the Clinton campaign wants the superdelegates to overturn the primary and caucus results at the convention and appoint her the rightful winner, even though she is, at this point, clearly losing. That's going to be a tough sell, if all Clinton has to offer is one state's worth of "momentum" or the rather odd logic that, since Obama has supposedly not sufficiently proven his campaign viability by kicking her completely to the curb by now, the superdelegates should instead hitch their wagons to a candidate who has been proven to be less viable than him.

The problem is those arguments simply aren't credible. You can't spin away an insurmountable delegate disadvantage with declarations of mulligans or claims of an "electability" that hasn't been able to actually get you elected. And with the ongoing declarations of which states should and shouldn't count (Pennsylvania yes, North Carolina no, one half of Texas yes, one half of Texas no, etc.), Clinton surrogates are rapidly running out of states and people to dismiss or insult. It has been a very, very nasty habit of her campaign -- seemingly Mark Penn inspired, but expansively used by any number of surrogates.

If Clinton wants the superdelegates to overturn all the voting up until now, fine: she's got every right, according to the rules of the contest, to campaign for that. All I'm asking is for her surrogates to come up with rationales that aren't absurdly premised and/or dismissive of the electorate. Given that I can't think of any such non-absurd arguments, that may pose a problem.

To D and IW....I have plenty of crying towels if you need'em....god, these tears of frustration you both shed everytime Hillary pulls through are soaking the beautiful wood stain on these nice polished floor in OT! Such hissy fits I have never witnessed.

Intresting note....anyone catch Oprah today? Well she was doing a show with a news guy who hired actors to play out certain situations such as Muslim Lady being discriminated against in a store, a woman getting beat up by a male companion, a drunk getting into a car with kids and filming it to see who get involved.

Turns out it is the WOMEN, almost always, who try to help! Rarely the men.

Last night, all I heard from the news folks was how negative this race is and how bad it is for the Democrats and I am thinking....WHAT? NEGATIVE? are they kidding? They talk like there have been mass murders, blood baths, and, how it is tearing the Democratic Party apart, when, in fact, the only thing being torn apart is the Barak Obama spin machine :)))) Oh, Hillary, you meanie you!!! You just stop it, now! You are playing against the men, and they INSIST that their Women play nice-nice:))))))))

I'm sorry but D, made me do it with his #24 hissy fit tantrum:)))

by all, have a lovely evening, ruth

Yeah Hillary is "just a politician, doing the politician dance", while Obama supporters or the commentators when they 'criticize' her for that or anything, it is transposed to Obama and shows the presidential candidate in a bad light.

"If he has, why do so many BO supporters want HC to drop out, even though her votes are so close to his?"

Its the pledged delegates won with the votes that's not even close.

Before that... "The best thing BO supporters and BO himself can do now is let the game finish on its own. And his supporters don't need to protect him -- that's condescending, and it sends a message of weakness to everyone."

Well, we can have a debate on whose supporters are protecting whom, and how much. We can talk about surrogate spin and who is trying to cover up their weaknesses and how much. Point is don't make generalized and extreme statements. Its true that more than 90% of the liberal blogs(and almost all major ones) now are pro-Obama, for a good reason. For exceptions go to the liberal blog MyDD.com for pro-Clinton stuff. I suggest people not to show their intolerance and knee jerk reactions to opposing views with their bias and blanket statements.

Back to "closeness" of popular vote.

Obama surrogates I must say that thus far I have been generally very unimpressed with them as a group. They flub around, they let themsleves get bullied and they never make super-easy points.

These are three obvious points, and uses concrete examples. If you do not understand these three things, you are a total failure as a surrogate and supporter(Diablo?)

Point Number 1: If the popular vote determined the nominee, no candidate would ever go to Iowa or New Hampshire. They'd spend all their time in big urban areas all over the country from the outset of the campaign, racking up raw numbers. What would be the point of even visiting New Hampshire if you could camp out in Brooklyn? Concrete Example: Barack Obama would not have spent only a day and a half in California before the Feb 5 primary. He would have never gone to Idaho. Duh.

Point Number 2: If the popular vote determined the nominee, no state in its right mind would ever hold a caucus, instantly disenfranchising itself. Concrete example: Minnesota-Missouri. Minnesota gets credit for 214K votes, and Missouri gets 822K votes, but they each get 72 delegates. Is Missouri's voice 4 times more important than Minnesota's?

Point Number 3: The arbitrary distinction between who gets to vote in these primaries is nothing like the general election, where everyone registered gets to vote. In the primaries, sometimes it's just Dems, sometimes Dems and Indies, sometimes anyone. Concrete example: Texas gets a million more votes than similar overall population New York (2.8M to 1.8M), even though New York is far more Democratic, simply due to this arbitrary restriction on who can vote (NY = closed, Texas = open).

Overall point: regardless of the fact that Obama will win the popular vote, it is completely illegitimate in this race. THIS IS NOT LIKE POPULAR VOTE IN THE GENERAL ELECTION.

When the Clintons and their surrogates deceptively argue for the popular vote, they appear at first glance to be making a simple, moral, populist argument, that all votes are equal. Right? That's the implication, and why it rolls off their tongues so easily.

But where is the inherent morality in open versus closed primaries that arbitrarily limit turnout and whether Republicans and independents get to pick the Democratic nominee in some states but not others?

Are caucuses inherently immoral? Many states chose them as their form of selecting a nominee.

Is it moral to alter the game strategy only after the fact?

What it makes is, form that absurd position, a moral case that Minnesota = 1/4 of Missouri, because their populist argument insists that it should. So Clinton surrogates argue from a principle standpoint that Minnesota = 1/4 of Missouri. It exposes this whole can of worms.

ruth and h...interchangeable...

it is u who shud start crying...because...HC will neva be president...period! when will u get it? the train has already left the station...and u are still waiting for it to arrive...the joke's is on u! duh!

The Atlantic: The State Of The Race by Marc Ambinder

"Clinton has the burden of explaining why a potentially quixotic quest is worth the damage that might be accruing to the Democratic Party. Two weeks from tonight, the overall delegate number will probably not have changed much, and Obama, if he wins Indiana and North Carolina, will have made up the net popular vote gain that Clinton takes away from tonight. Obama will focus heavily on John McCain over the next two weeks; Clinton will do largely what she's been doing."

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/04/the_state_of_the_race.php

Well just how moral is it, IW, for Barack Obama and surrogates to assume they are somehow superior simply because of their *political awareness* and have sold themselves on the illusion that their's is the only moral high ground. When in fact, it is Barack Obama who showed his arrogance and elitism by using condescending prepackaged class identities.

And yet we are told that he is the one to lead us back to the American Idealism. When one of those ideals is that we are all *equal.* I think that Mr. Obama needs a little additional work on his own inner liberation before he assumes that role.

Until then, what he says rings as hollow as the Dub and Laura telling us they have gone green while unashamedly shopping for a gasoline powerd windmill for the Crawford Ranch. "We're doing our part." the president waves from his custom Silverado HD 3500 longbox truck with the matching green 6,700 pound hauling capacity and the matching air conditioned gooseneck trailer. Well it's a green ranch allright, green being the color of the Crawford spread. They say even the pistol shoortin range in the basement has green carpet. (I kid you not)

Still not buying his pity-party kool-aid! Hillary is not the one crying. And I say well done Hillary!

Two superdelegates for Obama from Colorado and Nebraska today (Hillary: zero)

Someone is Lying. Guess who. (Not Clinton!)

As President Carter came out his meeting with Hamas, there were varying opinions about whether his visit had made significant diplomatic process. However, one thing was very clear. When asked, Jimmy Carter said that the administration had not warned him against meeting with Hamas. Then Condoleeza Rice said that he had been warned.

Rice said in Kuwait on Tuesday: "We counseled President Carter against going to the region and particularly against having contact with Hamas."

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2344166420080423

Today, Carter had an explanation for this discrepancy: Rice is lying.

"Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter on Wednesday accused Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice of not telling the truth about warnings she said her department gave Carter not to speak to Hamas before a Middle East trip."

No matter what you think of Carter's visit, there's one thing that indisputable. Jimmy Carter tells the truth, even when -- maybe even especially when -- it's politically dangerous.

On the other hand, Condoleezza Rice has a record of twisting the facts way, way, way past the breaking point. Her demonstrated integrity involves eight years of misdirections, misstatements, and outright lies.

"No one in the State Department or any other department of the U.S. government ever asked him (Carter) to refrain from his recent visit to the Middle East or even suggested that he not meet with Syrian President (Bashar) Assad or leaders of Hamas," [a statement from the Carter Center]

Is there still anyone, anywhere this side of Bill O'Reilly who is silly enough to believe Rice over Carter?

Irv, check this...

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/clinton-campaign-reports-surge-of-online-donations/

I know about that. Thanks.

The Hillary Clinton for President website URL re-directs you to their fund raising page. 10 million, and about 100,000 donors are sure impressive numbers. She made a similar spike after her Super Tuesday victory speech, when she advertised her website in her speech, saying that she is broke and need their help. I hope she makes that ten million and pays off her debt. Clinton camp don't be too ecstatic, I am following the Obama fund raising, and even after his defeat he will match what Clinton raises in the same 24 hr period, both in new donors and donation amount. The Obama Campaign doesn't brag about it yet.

It's not bragging, it's just noticing the before & after contrast, and thinking about why. HC's site's redirecting the visitor to a f/r page is annoying and maybe counterproductive. I avoid her site just because of that stupid redirect, and I doubt I'm the only person with that reaction. It may be one reason her web f/r numbers are much lower than BO's. Her mentioning her website on air is evidence of the relative unsophistication of the Internet side of her efforts, but it's also evidence of how plucky she is -- if the word isn't getting out this way, she will get it out that way. (The article gives full mention to how BO is doing, it's not her vs him, it's her versus her past-her.)

g'nite again -- watching Das Leben der Anderen, while on death watch for Bear... love, h

Lets see what momentum (apart from fund raising)Hillary is carrying...in the words of an Indianapolis resident...

"If anyone doubts that Hillary Clinton has regained the momentum in this race, they need look no further than the massive turnout today for Hillary Clinton's rally in downtown Indianapolis. Held during lunchtime within walking distance of a large state university (IUPUI) and offices where thousands upon thousands of Hoosiers work, the rally drew, uh...dozens -- yes, literally, dozens -- of supporters.

From the Indianapolis Star:

" Fresh off her victory last night in Pennsylvania, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton returned to Indiana this afternoon, speaking before a group of about 500 supporters on the American Legion Mall Downtown."

That's so much momentum, it's practically "Joe-Mentum." I haven't seen this many people in downtown Indianapolis since, well...it would have to have been at the Farmers' Market last week.

But, to be fair, Senator Obama held a rally last night in Evansville. And, limping along after his soul-crushing defeat in Pennsylvania, he could muster few supporters:

"Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama told about 8,000 cheering supporters at Roberts Stadium on Tuesday night that he sees better news ahead."

Now, in all honesty, Senator Obama did take the podium last night a little before 10 p.m. local time. For those of you unfamiliar with Southwest Indiana, that's usually when most folks in Evansville like to head out to Roberts Stadium in search of change, hope, and general inspiration on a Tuesday night. Obama was just lucky he happened to showed up there, too. Right time, right place.

On the other hand, Hillary's supporters would have had to brave today's sunshine and unseasonable warmth to make the five minute walk for a chance to bask in the presence of the next President of the United States.

Or not.

We may be Hoosiers, but we're not dumb.

.....

Here's something positive we can do by just clicking:

Dockworkers block Zimbabwe arms shipment from China.

http://www.avaaz.org

....

A trailer park sized hole in the Clintons' electability argument -- Obama does just as well as Clinton in the states of her strength. But the converse is not true --

NY Times Thursday: Assessing Strength of Contenders in Swing States

"Yet for all of her primary night celebrations in the populous states, exit polling and independent political analysts offer evidence that Mr. Obama could do just as well as Mrs. Clinton among blocs of voters with whom he now runs behind. Obama advisers say he also appears well-positioned to win swing states and believe he would have a strong shot at winning traditional Republican states like Virginia.

According to surveys of Pennsylvania voters leaving the polls on Tuesday, Mr. Obama would draw majorities of support from lower-income voters and less-educated ones — just as Mrs. Clinton would against Mr. McCain, even though those voters have favored her over Mr. Obama in the primaries.

And national polls suggest Mr. Obama would also do slightly better among groups that have gravitated to Republican in the past, like men, the more affluent and independents, while she would do slightly better among women.

...“Among all these groups that people have been focused on — blue-collar workers, white working-class folks — we did better in Pennsylvania than we did in Ohio, so we’re continually making progress,” Mr. Obama told reporters in Indiana, which holds its primary on May 6. “If you look at these states that I’m supposed to win, if you look at the polling, I actually do if not as well then better than Senator Clinton relative to Senator McCain.”

In recent weeks, Clinton advisers have been challenging Mr. Obama’s electability in a general election, and her victories in Ohio and Pennsylvania are perhaps her best evidence yet to argue that she is better suited to build a coalition across income, education and racial lines in closely contested states.

But the Pennsylvania exit polls, conducted by Edison/Mitofsky for five television networks and The Associated Press, underscore a point that political analysts made on Wednesday: that state primary results do not necessarily translate into general election victories.

...Mr. Obama appears better poised than Mrs. Clinton to pick up states that Democrats struggle to carry, or rarely do, in a general election, like Colorado, Iowa, Missouri and Virginia, all of which he carried in the primaries. Obama advisers say their polling indicates he is more popular with independents, and far less divisive than Mrs. Clinton, in those states.

“Hillary goes deeper and stronger in the Democratic base than Obama, but her challenge is that she doesn’t go as wide,” Mr. Hart said. “Obama goes much further reaching into the independent and Republican vote, and has a greater chance of creating a new electoral map for the Democrats.”

Indeed, if Mr. Obama does become the first African-American nominee of a major party, the electoral landscape of the South could be transformed with the likelihood of strong turnout of black voters in Republican-leaning states like Georgia and Louisiana, which Mr. Obama carried this winter. (Mrs. Clinton has also argued that, given the Clinton roots, she could put at least Arkansas in play in the fall.)"

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

White working class voters have been voting for Republicans for years which is a fact ... even during the Clinton years, that's when Hilary said "screw them, Bill"(contrast that with "bitter".) They're called Reagan Democrats. They are elusive, and for the most part, undependable. The few who are voting in the Dem Primary are just a portion of the much larger crowd who will vote for McCain in the General and scoff at the Dems from the sidelines. Ask Keith. Or Ambasteve.

Bill Clinton himself never managed to come close to win the White vote 39% and 42% respectively in his two terms. He won over 80% of Black vote.

The truth is this is an election that will be won in the middle ground, among independents. In Pennsylvania, Obama wins the Independents...

In California, Obama won Independents 58%-34%

In Missouri Obama won Independents 67%-30%

In Wisconsin Obama won Independents 64%-33%

In Virginia Obama won Independents 69%-30%

The pattern is clear... Independents + Core Democratic Groups like Youth and Minorities create Obama victories. The General Election is very different than a closed Pennsylvania Primary. Independents are the middle ground, the holy grail of the DLC, the place where the battle takes place. There are essentially three general rules of the General Election:

1. Democrats vote for Democrats
2. Republicans vote for Republicans
3. Independents decide the Election; Electability starts and ends with these often educated, often affluent voters who are allergic to Hillary's Brand.

(Apprx. 40% Americans lean Democratic, 30% Republican, 30% Independents; The Republican figure is going down in the past 8 years, Independents are gaining, Democrats are constant.)

Of the remaining candidates, only Obama has a shot at matching or besting McCain's hold upon Independents... and that my fellow Intentbloggers is what I'd call Electability.

From the NY Times artcile:
"...the record-setting voter registrations among both Democrats and independents across the nation also suggest that each candidate is capable of stirring excitement among voters in the fall and would be positioned to defend their bases of support against Mr. McCain, who is a popular figure among many independents and some Democrats.

Representative Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, a strong backer of Mr. Obama, said she believed that the thousands of new voters being drawn into the primaries would coalesce around the Democratic nominee once the candidate and the party begin to define Mr. McCain better on issues like the war.

“I think that will turn the tide for the people who are going in that direction,” Ms. DeLauro said of Democrats who have said they could not vote for Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton."

The Raven by Edgar Allan Poe(1985)

Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered weak and weary,
Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore,
While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping,
As of some one gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door.
`'Tis some visitor,' I muttered, `tapping at my chamber door -
Only this, and nothing more.'

Ah, distinctly I remember it was in the bleak December,
And each separate dying ember wrought its ghost upon the floor.
Eagerly I wished the morrow; - vainly I had sought to borrow
From my books surcease of sorrow - sorrow for the lost Lenore -
For the rare and radiant maiden whom the angels named Lenore -
Nameless here for evermore.

And the silken sad uncertain rustling of each purple curtain
Thrilled me - filled me with fantastic terrors never felt before;
So that now, to still the beating of my heart, I stood repeating
`'Tis some visitor entreating entrance at my chamber door -
Some late visitor entreating entrance at my chamber door; -
This it is, and nothing more,'

Presently my soul grew stronger; hesitating then no longer,
`Sir,' said I, `or Madam, truly your forgiveness I implore;
But the fact is I was napping, and so gently you came rapping,
And so faintly you came tapping, tapping at my chamber door,
That I scarce was sure I heard you' - here I opened wide the door; -
Darkness there, and nothing more.

Deep into that darkness peering, long I stood there wondering, fearing,
Doubting, dreaming dreams no mortal ever dared to dream before
But the silence was unbroken, and the darkness gave no token,
And the only word there spoken was the whispered word, `Lenore!'
This I whispered, and an echo murmured back the word, `Lenore!'
Merely this and nothing more.

Back into the chamber turning, all my soul within me burning,
Soon again I heard a tapping somewhat louder than before.
`Surely,' said I, `surely that is something at my window lattice;
Let me see then, what thereat is, and this mystery explore -
Let my heart be still a moment and this mystery explore; -
'Tis the wind and nothing more!'

Open here I flung the shutter, when, with many a flirt and flutter,
In there stepped a stately raven of the saintly days of yore.
Not the least obeisance made he; not a minute stopped or stayed he;
But, with mien of lord or lady, perched above my chamber door -
Perched upon a bust of Pallas just above my chamber door -
Perched, and sat, and nothing more.

Then this ebony bird beguiling my sad fancy into smiling,
By the grave and stern decorum of the countenance it wore,
`Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,' I said, `art sure no craven.
Ghastly grim and ancient raven wandering from the nightly shore -
Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.'

Much I marvelled this ungainly fowl to hear discourse so plainly,
Though its answer little meaning - little relevancy bore;
For we cannot help agreeing that no living human being
Ever yet was blessed with seeing bird above his chamber door -
Bird or beast above the sculptured bust above his chamber door,
With such name as `Nevermore.'

But the raven, sitting lonely on the placid bust, spoke only,
That one word, as if his soul in that one word he did outpour.
Nothing further then he uttered - not a feather then he fluttered -
Till I scarcely more than muttered `Other friends have flown before -
On the morrow he will leave me, as my hopes have flown before.'
Then the bird said, `Nevermore.'

Startled at the stillness broken by reply so aptly spoken,
`Doubtless,' said I, `what it utters is its only stock and store,
Caught from some unhappy master whom unmerciful disaster
Followed fast and followed faster till his songs one burden bore -
Till the dirges of his hope that melancholy burden bore
Of "Never-nevermore."'

But the raven still beguiling all my sad soul into smiling,
Straight I wheeled a cushioned seat in front of bird and bust and door;
Then, upon the velvet sinking, I betook myself to linking
Fancy unto fancy, thinking what this ominous bird of yore -
What this grim, ungainly, ghastly, gaunt, and ominous bird of yore
Meant in croaking `Nevermore.'

This I sat engaged in guessing, but no syllable expressing
To the fowl whose fiery eyes now burned into my bosom's core;
This and more I sat divining, with my head at ease reclining
On the cushion's velvet lining that the lamp-light gloated o'er,
But whose velvet violet lining with the lamp-light gloating o'er,
She shall press, ah, nevermore!

Then, methought, the air grew denser, perfumed from an unseen censer
Swung by Seraphim whose foot-falls tinkled on the tufted floor.
`Wretch,' I cried, `thy God hath lent thee - by these angels he has sent thee
Respite - respite and nepenthe from thy memories of Lenore!
Quaff, oh quaff this kind nepenthe, and forget this lost Lenore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.'

`Prophet!' said I, `thing of evil! - prophet still, if bird or devil! -
Whether tempter sent, or whether tempest tossed thee here ashore,
Desolate yet all undaunted, on this desert land enchanted -
On this home by horror haunted - tell me truly, I implore -
Is there - is there balm in Gilead? - tell me - tell me, I implore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.'

`Prophet!' said I, `thing of evil! - prophet still, if bird or devil!
By that Heaven that bends above us - by that God we both adore -
Tell this soul with sorrow laden if, within the distant Aidenn,
It shall clasp a sainted maiden whom the angels named Lenore -
Clasp a rare and radiant maiden, whom the angels named Lenore?'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.'

`Be that word our sign of parting, bird or fiend!' I shrieked upstarting -
`Get thee back into the tempest and the Night's Plutonian shore!
Leave no black plume as a token of that lie thy soul hath spoken!
Leave my loneliness unbroken! - quit the bust above my door!
Take thy beak from out my heart, and take thy form from off my door!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.'

And the raven, never flitting, still is sitting, still is sitting
On the pallid bust of Pallas just above my chamber door;
And his eyes have all the seeming of a demon's that is dreaming,
And the lamp-light o'er him streaming throws his shadow on the floor;
And my soul from out that shadow that lies floating on the floor
Shall be lifted - nevermore!

The Maverick
(With humble apologies to Edgar Allan Poe)
by Bill in Portland Maine at Daily Kos

.

Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered drunk and weary,

Over how John McCain, the candidate, could be such a frigging bore

While I watched him, taped, on Fox, thinking I'd rather be from a rafter hanging, suddenly there came a banging,

As of some one violently haranguing, haranguing the butler outside my condo door.

"'Tis some hothead," I muttered, "pounding on my condo door -

If it's that Girl Scout harassing us with her cookies again, I'll buy no more." (I mean it--she's way too pushy.)

.

Open here I flung the ornate mahogany door (imported from Italy, y'know), when, with many a wheeze and mutter,

In there stepped a codger of the Great Depression days of yore.

Not the least effort to wipe his shoes made he; not a minute stopped or stayed he;

But, with mien of lord or lady, coerced the condo maintenance guy to bring up a ladder which he climbed and then perched above my condo door --

Perched upon a bust of Gore just above my condo door --

Perched, and scowled, and drooled a little, and nothing more.

.

Then this blindingly pale maverick beguiling my sad fancy into smiling,

By the grave and clueless decorum of the countenance he wore,

"Though thy hairline be receding and thy whiskers shaven, thou," I said, "sureth looketh liketh a craven,

Ghastly grim and ancient media-hypnotizing maven wandering aimlessly from thy Straight Talk motor coach –- but since yer up there,

Tell me what thy lordly number-one campaign issue is. Is it above reproach?

Straight talk now -- if I pull the lever for you, what am I voting for?"

Quoth the maverick, "Forever war."

.

Startled at the stillness broken by reply so carelessly spoken,

"Doubtless," said I, "what it utters is its only stock and store,

Caught from some Chimp-like 'Decider' whom unmerciful disaster

Followed fast and followed faster till his poll numbers fell through the floor --

And this maverick thinks it's just swell to continue -- more, more more???

'Forever -- forever war.'"

.

"Neocon!" said I, "thing of evil! -- prophet still, if warmonger or devil! --

Whether Cheney sent, or whether Lieberman tossed thee here ashore,

Desolate yet all undaunted, on this desert land enchanted -

On this home by dwindling Bacardi stock haunted -- tell me truly, I implore --

Is there -- is there nothing stopping you from fulfilling thy pledge to Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran? -- tell me -- tell me, I implore!"

Quoth the maverick, "Forever war."

.

"If that's all yer gonna say get the hell out of my place, you dipwit or fiend!" I shrieked upstarting --

"Get thee back to thy Straight Talk Express and thy ass-kissing media barbeques!

Leave no white hair as a token of that hawkish wet dream thy soul hath spoken!

Leave my reality-based mind unbroken! -– and quit farting above my door!

Remove thy Aqua Velva fumes from out my olfactory canal, and take thy dimpled lardass from off my door!"

Quoth the maverick, "My friends -- Forever war."

.

And the maverick, who apparently knows how to climb up a ladder but not down, still is sitting, still is sitting

On the now-crumbling bust of Gore just above my condo door ("Jeeves, call security!");

And his eyes have all the seeming of a demon's that is destruction-dreaming,

And the lamp-light o'er him streaming throws his grim-reaper shadow on the floor;

And my soul from out that Democratic victory that lies seven months away according to the Garfield calendar hanging on my refrigerator door

Shall be vexed by this trigger-happy jerk -– nevermore!

Clinton Campaign Logic: Who Can't Win in November
by DHinMI@dKos

Barack Obama can't win, because he couldn't beat Hillary Clinton among older voters, and we can't win in November if we don't win older voters.

Barack Obama can't win, because he couldn't beat Hillary Clinton among white working class voters, and we can't win in November if we don't win white working class voters.

Barack Obama can't win, because he didn't win the primaries in California and New York and Pennsylvania, and Democrats can't win if they can't win those big states in a general election.

Barack Obama can't win, because any state or demographic group that went with Hillary Clinton didn't really prefer Clinton, they opposed Barack Obama. Therefore, all Democratic primary voters who didn't vote for Obama, like single women and members of AFSCME, are possible or maybe even likely McCain voters in November.

Hillary Clinton can't win, because she couldn't beat Barack Obama among younger voters.

Hillary Clinton can't win, because she couldn't beat Barack Obama among black voters.

Hillary Clinton can't win, because she didn't win the primaries in Illinois and Maryland and Connecticut, and Democrats can't win if they can't win those solidly Democratic states in a general election.

Hillary Clinton can't win, because any state or demographic group that went with Barack Obama didn't simply prefer Obama, they opposed Clinton. Therefore, all Democratic primary voters who didn't vote for Clinton, like people for whom the Iraq war is the most important issue or members of SEIU, are possible or maybe even likely McCain voters in November.

And while we're at it, we should point out that John McCain can't win, because he couldn't beat Mike Huckabee among conservative evangelical Christian voters, and they can't win in November if they don't win conservative evangelical Christian voters.

John McCain can't win, because he couldn't beat Mitt Romney among Mormon voters, and they can't win in November if they don't win Mormon voters.

John McCain can't win, because he didn't win the primaries in Georgia and Kansas and Utah, and Republicans can't win if they can't win those heavily Republican states in a general election.

John McCain can't win, because any state or demographic group that went with Mike Huckabee or Mitt Romney didn't really prefer Huckabee or Romney, they opposed John McCain. Therefore, all Republican primary voters who didn't vote for McCain, are possible or maybe even likely...

Wait, who the heck would they vote for?

Gee, if you follow through on the logic of the Clinton campaign, nobody will win in November.

Gosh, I guess that means that if Nancy Pelosi doesn't want to be president, Senate President Pro Tempore Robert Byrd will be our next president!

Why can't Clinton close the deal?
by kos

John Cole:

"If Barack is such a bad candidate, and he is so unelectable, and it is such a bad idea to have him as the Democratic nominee, why can’t Hillary beat him?

Why is she behind him in every conceivable metric? Why is she behind in pledged delegates? Why is she behind in the popular vote (and don’t insult my intelligence by trying to pass that sheer nonsense the morons at certain pro-Clinton blogs are lapping up)? Why are super delegates flocking to Obama, while Hillary has picked up only a handful in the past few months. Why has she won fewer states? Why is she trumpeting her narrow delegate pickup in PA, when it is less than the number of net delegates Obama picked up in a variety of other states? Why is she behind in fund raising? Why was she unable to turn her double digit lead a year ago into any actual primary wins? Why, with her starting financial advantage and name recognition, was she held to a tie on Super Tuesday?

Why to those questions and a hundred more like them. If your candidate is so much better, why is Obama kicking her ass? Why?"

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=10203

Because IF Obama wasn't black, and IF millions of people weren't supporting him, and IF he didn't raise all that money, and IF his campaign hadn't been run better than hers, and IF Red states hadn't had the gall to vote, and IF those damn activists didn't disagree with her on war in Iraq and nuking Iran, and IF MoveOn wasn't so effective, and IF latte sippers didn't vote, and IF we had the same system as Republicans, and IF the news networks weren't more like Fox News, and IF small states that don't matter didn't count, and IF Keith Olbermann didn't have it out for her, and IF Pennsylvania was the only state that mattered -- then Clinton would be the nominee.

You know, simple answers to simple questions.

10 MILLION? (really?)

(Like Clinton her campaign has the habit of misspeaking and distorting, I guess...)

10 million, 100 thousand donations, 24 hrs... nice figure isn't it? (Wonder how much of that came from her fat cat supporters who are, as I learn, are encouraged to donate via internet, and how much of that goes to general election campaign.)

I don't trust their numbers anyway. Sure this is good propaganda to encourage more potential donors and to keep their supporters happy, for now.

Wednesday:

(Reuters) "Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who has trailed rival Barack Obama in fundraising, is set to bring in some $10 million (5.05 million pounds) in the 24 hours since she won Pennsylvania's primary election, her campaign said on Wednesday."

Thursday:

(AP)"Hillary Rodham Clinton raised $10 million in the 24 hours after winning the Pennsylvania primary, aided by contributions from 80,000 new donors, her campaign said Thursday.

The $10 million came from a total of 100,000 donors, spokesman Mo Elleithee said."

Remember Super Tuesday?

February 10:

"The Clinton campaign today announced that it raised $10 million online from more than 100,000 donors since the polls closed on Super Tuesday."

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=5890

Spin? Micah Sifry thinks so:

"Daou confirmed for me that as of this morning, the Clinton campaign had tallied about 100,000 donations since Tuesday night, of which about 80% was from new donors. I retract whatever skepticism I had about the NYT and WP reports above, given these new numbers about total donors."

"[G]iven how funky this stuff is, I'm thinking that all of us should start referring to claims about money raised online with the word "alleged" as a modifier. As in, yesterday, Clinton "allegedly raised $10 million" and Obama "allegedly raised $XX." Or, the word "claimed" as in "the McCain campaign claimed to have raised $YY."

Because we really don't know, and we won't know until weeks or months after the fact, unless the campaigns start opening up and post their actual donor data (names, city/state, amount) in real time, and in searchable form, the way Ron Paul did. There's no technological reason why they can't do this, by the way, and I've argued that it would help their fundraising more than it might hurt them (in terms of letting their opponent know some deep dark secrets about who is supporting whom)."

http://www.techpresident.com/blog/entry/24473/show_us_some_real_money_hillary

It used to be about delegates
by kos

Ahh, the good ol' days when the Clintons insisted that this election would be decided by the delegate count.

January 9, 2008:

"WOLFSON: I guess one other thing I'd add is that, as you know, THIS IS A RACE FOR DELEGATES. And we currently enjoy a lead in delegates, thanks to the great -- some of the great super delegates that we have on this call and around the country."

See, it mattered because Clinton then led in delegates. Same day:

"MCAULIFFE: [...] I've said from day one, and this is the point I tried to make yesterday on television when everybody was asking me questions about after Iowa and New Hampshire what happens, I've always viewed it sort of as a 27-state contest.

But, listen, I always said we're going to win some, we're going to lose some. And at the end of the day it's getting a basket of delegates."

January 25, 2008:

"WOLFSON: Well, you know, as you know, all of the polls have Senator Obama ahead. I think he has run a strong campaign in South Carolina. He began there ahead; he remains ahead.

And we have said since Iowa that this is a race for delegates. It's a race that we are ahead in. We have more delegates than Senator Obama."

February 6, 2008:

"CECIL: Well, our goal at the end of last night was to be ahead in super delegates and overall delegates. And, in fact, this morning, Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama in delegates to the Democratic National Convention.

...[WOLFSON] We think that we are in the poll position because we have a lead, overall, in delegates. We think it is going to be very difficult for Senator Obama to make up that lead because of the way in which the party allocates its delegates proportionately.

So we feel very good about that. But this is going to be a neck-and-neck contest for the foreseeable future.

Senator Obama does enjoy some advantages in the contests in the rest of February, but not in a way that should permit him to overcome our lead in delegates.

WOLFSON: And overall, we have a significant lead among delegates, overall, which, obviously, at the end of the day is what is going to positively determine which Democrat is our party's nominee."

Ha ha, Wolfson said it was "obvious" that the delegate race would determine the nominee. But that was when the Clinton campaign still had the lead. Then the lead disappeared, and it became about the "popular vote", and about "electability", and about IF, IF, and IF.

Mark Nickolas, who compiled these quotes, says:

"Maybe it's hard to blame Wolfson, McAuliffe and Cecil for pushing these story lines, as they know too well the media isn't going to spend a minute holding them accountable for anything they say."

Maybe. Sure, they get away with what the media lets them get away with. But regardless, note how the Obama campaign NEVER disparaged the system or the role of the delegates while they trailed in those metrics. They knew the rules of the game, and decided to operate within their confines. They have never attempted to rewrite them for their own benefit. The Clinton campaign, on the other hand, appears to have as much respect for the rules (and reality, for that matter) as the Bush administration they are seeking to replace.

North Carolina mayors go heavy for Obama, split in Indiana
by kos

I've written before, and likely will write again, that the only endorsements that matter in a presidential race are mayors. Many (not all) have patronage machines that they can wield to move votes to their endorsed candidate.

I learned this the hard way after Dean was endorsed by the likes of Al Gore and other party luminaries to no discernible effect in 2004. Big non-machine endorsements matter lower on the ballot. But at the top, people will make up their own minds on who to support. Senators and congressmen have no machines, since they have no patronage to dole out. Mayors, on the other hand, can deliver thousands of jobs to loyal backers.

That's why Philly mayor Nutter and Gov. Rendell (an old-school machine politician) were able to limit Obama's gains in the Philly metro area to Clinton's big benefit. In fact, Clinton had at least 100 mayors working for her in the Keystone State.

The mayors were big for Clinton. Obama's endorsement by Sen. Bob Casey? Pretty much irrelevant.

So let's head to North Carolina:

"In a sign of Senator Obama’s broad, statewide organization, the Obama campaign today announced the endorsement of 43 North Carolina mayors, mayors pro tem, and former mayors, representing cities large and small, from Raleigh to Roper. To encourage North Carolinians to vote early, more than a dozen of these mayors will be voting early today at 1 p.m. at their local One Stop Early Voting locations."

Actually, "former mayors" are pretty irrelevant. No machine. But the campaign did score endorsements from the current mayors of all the biggest cities in North Carolina.

In Indiana, both candidates are getting these endorsements...

Both candidates have also gotten lots of smaller town endorsements. But the big prize, Indianapolis, will be fought sans machine given its (newly elected) Republican mayor.

Evan Bayh's endorsement of Clinton in Indiana? It'll be about as useful as Bob Casey's was for Obama in Pennsylvania.

Rep. Rahm Emanuel who is close to both candidates but has made no endorsement:

"The way the loser loses will determine whether the winner wins in November."

Democrats Divided Over Effect of Long Campaign
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/24/us/politics/23cnd-voices.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

One guess who he's talking about. Though really, why not just say it explicitly already?

Propaganda War: The silence is deafening

BarbinMD at Daily Kos writes:

After last Sunday's blockbuster New York Times report on the propaganda program run out of the Pentagon for more than five years:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html?_r=1&sq=Pentagon&st=nyt&oref=slogin&scp=3&pagewanted=all

"To the public, these men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as "military analysts" whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world.

Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance...

...represent[ing] more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants."
---------

...let's follow-up with a look at the coverage this propaganda for profit scandal has received.

* Questions by the White House press corps: None

* Frontpage coverage in major newspapers: None

* Discussion on T.V. talk shows: None

* Questions to Defense Secretary Gates: One

Gates response?

"I suppose in a flip sort of way I could say, the good-news side is there are now so many it doesn't really matter. If there were still just a handful out there they might actually have some real influence."

Gates claimed to have read the article, but apparently he missed the part where a Pentagon official said:

"We were able to click on every single station and every one of our folks were up there delivering our message. You’d look at them and say, ‘This is working.’"

It's not surprising that the traditional media chooses to ignore this story given that they are the willing accomplices of the White House.

Just Imagine

BarbinMD at Daily Kos writes:

Tuesday:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080423/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq;_ylt=Ajm5Vf4eAr3DuAd4mE6T54ms0NUE

"The No. 2 U.S. commander in Iraq expressed hope on Wednesday that radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr would use his influence to stop his followers from attacking U.S. and Iraqi forces as clashes spread to the outskirts of Baghdad. [...]

Despite heightened rhetoric by al-Sadr and his followers, U.S. commanders have been careful not to directly link the cleric to the current fighting...

"We do not attribute what we've seen to JAM," said Lt. Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, using the Iraqi acronym for the Mahdi Army.

But he acknowledged that al-Sadr could stop the attacks."

Now imagine the reaction had a Democrat traveled to Iraq three days ago and:

"...mocked anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr as a coward Sunday, hours after the militia leader threatened to declare war unless U.S. and Iraqi forces end a military crackdown on his followers."

Think of the outcry and the outrage. They would be denounced by the White House, with every T.V. talking head and newspaper dutifully repeating that those irresponsible words have endangered U.S. troops and threatened all of our success in Iraq. But since it was Condoleezza Rice who said it, there's been nary a word.

Rice went on to say:

"I know he's sitting in Iran. I guess it's all-out war for anybody but him. I guess that's the message; his followers can go to their deaths, and he's in Iran."

It seems that Ms. Rice got everything right but the country.

Pakistan enjoying IPL like movies: Pakistan Skipper
Press Trust Of India

cricketnext.com

"New Delhi: Jaw-dropping action, nerve-wrecking thriller, high glamour quotient and song-and-dance to boot, the Indian Premier League is threatening Bollywood's popularity across the border, according to Pakistan cricket captain Shoaib Malik

Popular Hindi movies have traditionally, and often stealthily, managed their ways to the other side of the Line of Control. But of late, the Pakistanis have discovered a new source of wholesome entertainment in the form of the ongoing IPL, said Malik.

"People there have lapped it up like movies. It's like enjoying a cinema with popcorn. The three-hour duration (of the matches) also helped to create the craze," Malik, part of the IPL Delhi Daredevils squad, said here on Thursday.

Along with the rest of the people in Pakistan, Malik and his teammates were also hooked on to IPL matches even when they were playing against Bangladesh in the just-concluded ODI series.""

A memo demonstrating why Barack Obama is best positioned to defeat John McCain in November:

Who's the strongest candidate to take on John McCain?

After 45 contests, Senator Obama has won more delegates, twice as many states and territories, and more of the popular vote. He's won in every part of the country, and has scored victories among every segment of electorate. He's inspired Democrats, Independents, and Republicans, building an unprecedented coalition of more than 1.4 million contributors. And when it comes to head-to-head match-ups versus John McCain, Obama performs better than Clinton in key states and shows the potential to put new states in play for Democrats up and down the ballot.

Polling data from across the country, from large states and small, reflects the advantage Senator Obama would bring in a race this fall. His ability to expand the Democratic base, and his ability to capture the crucial Independent vote, make him a stronger candidate than Senator Clinton, who would enter the fall campaign with the highest unfavorable ratings of any nominee in half a century.

Big States:

* California: Obama beats McCain by 27, Clinton beats him by 23. (SurveyUSA, 2/23)
* New York: A February poll of Clinton's home state shows her beating McCain by 11, while Obama beats McCain by 10. (Quinnipiac, 3/18)
* New Jersey: Obama and Clinton both beat McCain by 5. (Farleigh Dickinson, 3/30)
* Illinois: Obama beats McCain by 29 in his home state, while Clinton wins by 9. (SurveyUSA, 2/28)

Traditional Battlegrounds:

* Iowa: Obama up 7, Clinton down 6. (SurveyUSA, 4/17),
o Among Independents: Obama up 9, Clinton down 31. (Rasmussen, 3/31)
* North Carolina: Clinton trails McCain by 11, Obama ties him. (Rasmussen, 4/10)
o Among Independents: Obama up 8, Clinton down 16. (Rasmussen, 4/10)
* Oregon: Obama up 9, Clinton up only 1 (SurveyUSA, 4/17) A march poll showed Obama up 6 and Clinton down 6 (Rasmussen, 3/26)
o Among Independents: Obama up 11, Clinton up 4. (Rasmussen, 3/26)
* Wisconsin: Obama up 5 while Clinton ties. (SurveyUSA, 4/17) A March poll showed Obama up 4 and Clinton down 4. (WPR, 3/26)
o Among Independents: Obama up 17, Clinton up 2. (Rasmussen, 3/26)
* Michigan: Obama trailing by 1, Clinton trailing by 3. (Rasmussen, 3/25) A February poll showed Obama up 8 and Clinton tied. (Rasmussen, 2/17)
* New Mexico: Obama up by 3, Clinton down by 3. (Rasmussen, 4/8)
o Among Independents: Obama up 8, Clinton down 5. (Rasmussen, 4/8)
* Nevada: Obama leads by 4, Clinton leads by 1. (Rasmussen 3/19)
* Minnesota: Obama up 14, Clinton up 5. (Rasmussen, 4/22)
o Among Independents: Obama up 9, Clinton down 14. (Rasmussen 3/19)
* Pennsylvania: Clinton up 9, Obama up 8 (Rasmussen, 4/9)
o Among Independents: Obama down 1, Clinton down 19. (Rasmussen, 4/9)

Making New States Competitive:

* Colorado: Obama up 3, Clinton down 14. (Rasmussen, 4/19) A February poll showed up Obama up 9 and Clinton down 6. (SurveyUSA, 2/28)
o Among Independents: Obama up 9, Clinton down 13. (Rasmussen, 3/17)
* North Dakota: Obama up 4, Clinton down 19. (SurveyUSA, 2/28)
o Among Independents: Obama up 9, Clinton down 29. (Survey USA, 2/28)
* Virginia: Obama down 8, Clinton down 16. (SurveyUSA, 4/17)
o Among Independents: Obama up 10, Clinton down 8. (SurveyUSA, 3/16)
* Montana: Obama down 5, Clinton down 18 (Rasmussen, 4/6)
o Among Independents: Obama down 2, Clinton down 12 (Rasmussen, 4/6)
* Texas: Obama down only 1, Clinton down 7 (SurveyUSA, 2/28)

Remember the silly scandal that was "Bittergate?" Well, Thomas Frank, author of "What's the Matter with Kansas?", which has been cited too many times to count in the last month, actually did write an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal. It is elegantly written:

""Elitism" is thus a crime not of society's actual elite, but of its intellectuals. Mr. Obama has "a dash of Harvard disease," proclaims the Weekly Standard. Mr. Obama reminds columnist George Will of Adlai Stevenson, rolled together with the sinister historian Richard Hofstadter and the diabolical economist J.K. Galbraith, contemptuous eggheads all. Mr. Obama strikes Bill Kristol as some kind of "supercilious" Marxist. Mr. Obama reminds Maureen Dowd of an . . . anthropologist.

Ah, but Hillary Clinton: Here's a woman who drinks shots of Crown Royal, a luxury brand that at least one confused pundit believes to be another name for Old Prole Rotgut Rye. And when the former first lady talks about her marksmanship as a youth, who cares about the cool hundred million she and her husband have mysteriously piled up since he left office? Or her years of loyal service to Sam Walton, that crusher of small towns and enemy of workers' organizations? And who really cares about Sam Walton's own sins, when these are our standards? Didn't he have a funky Southern accent of some kind? Surely such a mellifluous drawl cancels any possibility of elitism...

If Barack Obama or anyone else really cares to know what I think, I will simplify it all down to this. The landmark political fact of our time is the replacement of our middle-class republic by a plutocracy. If some candidate has a scheme to reverse this trend, they've got my vote, whether they prefer Courvoisier or beer bongs spiked with cough syrup. I don't care whether they enjoy my books, or would rather have every scrap of paper bearing my writing loaded into a C-47 and dumped into Lake Michigan. If it will help restore the land of relative equality I was born in, I'll fly the plane myself."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120873309012529689.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

Amen! You must read this essay in its entirety. I found myself nodding and chuckling throughout it. The cartoon of Obama sipping a latte while everyone else is doing shots is also pretty funny.

This is surprising -- and disappointing. Despite increased modernization and the growth of a college-educated middle class, couples in India still prefer baby boys, according to an Associated Press report, link below:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/india_lost_girls

Sex-selected abortions are actually on the rise as families make more money and scale down on the number of children they have. From the AP artcile:

"According to UNICEF, about 7,000 fewer girls than expected are born every day in India. According to the British medical journal The Lancet, up to 500,000 female fetuses are being aborted every year. This in a country where abortion is legal but sex-determination tests were outlawed in 1991 — a law nearly impossible to enforce, since ultrasound tests leave no trace.

For a recent report, the group ActionAid sent interviewers to 6,000 households in five north Indian regions. In Punjab state, researchers found rural areas with just 500 girls for every 1,000 boys, and communities of high-caste urbanites with just 300 girls per 1,000.

Around Morena, in an increasingly urbanized part of Madhya Pradesh state, the 2001 census found a total of 851 girls per 1,000 boys — a number ActionAid found had dropped to 842.

Researchers say pressure for smaller families is the most immediate problem."

Ironically, India's growing middle class has used its newfound wealth in the worst way: gaining access to ultrasound tests to abort baby girls. Meanwhile, it's cultural biases and prejudices remain unchanged:

" Boys don't need the dowries that can cripple a family financially; boys stay home after marrying and help care for aging parents; Hinduism dictates that only boys can light their parents' funeral pyres.

Over the past decade, the government and aid agencies have spent millions of dollars on everything from poster campaigns to television ads to soap operas, all urging families to accept daughters. Governments have repeatedly vowed to crack down on clinics that perform sex-determination tests, yet these remain readily available.

Around here, they cost about $60, or five times the cost of a legal ultrasound. Prosecutions are extremely rare.

The number of lost girls is almost sure to increase."

This last anecdote is heartbreaking and infuriating:

"Clusters of grandmothers stand outside the delivery room, waiting to carry their newborn grandchildren to the recovery rooms.

When it's a boy, their faces are lit with a protective gaze.

But if it's a girl the grimness is often palpable. And the mothers-in-law plod behind the mother's gurney, walking unlit hallways scattered with litter."

This is effed up. What does it take to reverse a centuries-long injustice?

Timothy Lange at Daily Kos writes:

Every day, a bunch of us have been wondering what Mark Penn, the former chief strategist for the Clinton campaign, has been doing with his spare time since he became former. Apparently, he's trying for publication in the Consulting Poetry Journal. His latest submission seems to have gone awry and found its way into our e-mail spambox. Our advice: Don't quit your day job. (Whoops!)

If

If you can keep running when all about you
Are afraid of losing and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself alone when your party doubts you
And trusts another far more, too,
If you can wait for superdelegates to turn,
Lying will help, there's no harm in lies,
Or being hated, don't give a damn about haters,
But don't hesitate to feign hurt, and sometimes cry:

If you can bowl--and not make the blue collar your master,
If you can do shots--and not lose your game;
If you can sit down with both Russert and Blitzer
And charm those two jagoffs to advance your aims;
If you can bear to hear your name cursed
By the best in the the party you claim to love,
And watch that party become rent and broken,
And laugh as you focus on rising above:

If you can talk with crowds, yet remember CEOs own you,
Or sit on Wal-Mart's board, yet charm union bigs
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If you can screw them all just for the top gig,
If you can destroy the progressive movement
With a rank selfishness borne of certainty,
Yours is the donkey and what's left of its carcass,
And--which is all that matters--you'll be the nominee!