John Cole at Balloon Juice says this is how the Democratic Party will come together in the next couple of months:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJrj4Qi27k4

(Steve Martin & Heather Graham in "Bowfinger"
Duration 14 Secs.)

Indiana

...Clinton is going to pull this off. Barely.

And she does...

wins Indiana.

99 percent reporting

% -- Dels
Clinton 51 -- 32
Obama 49 -- 29

Vote margin: 22,019

That's about 1 1/2 percent margin, not the kind of win that allows you to brag about marching toward the White House.

North Carolina (Winner: Obama)

99 percent reporting

% -- Dels
Obama 56 -- 45
Clinton 42 -- 37

Vote margin: 232,762

Bob Cesca Live Blogging excerpts:

11:40

Ultimately, the fact that Senator Obama won NC and came damn close (so far) in Indiana despite all of the horseshit he's faced in last six weeks is a truly remarkable thing. Senator Obama pushed through and managed to reclaim momentum against the most popular Democratic brand in the world. And now, he's going to be widely regarded as the presumptive nominee.

11:46
Whoa! 51-49. 19,000 vote margin in Indiana.

11:53
Russert says that Senator Clinton has cancelled her appearances on tomorrow's morning shows.

12:09
Chuck Todd with the math... After tonight, regardless of Lake, you can count Florida and Michigan and Senator Obama would still lead by 200,000 in the popular vote and 100 in delegates.

12:11
Russert to Olbermann: "We now know who the Democratic nominee is going to be."

12:12
Senator Clinton has also cancelled her public appearances for tomorrow.
(Earlier she canceled her television appearances.)

12:20
Via Markos, the media narrative: "It's over."

12:25
Olbermann on what changed tonight: "No more money. No more money. No more money."

12:46
MSNBC chit-chat has turned to discussions about Senator Obama's running mate. I agree with Maddow in that Senator Obama has to pick someone who will carry on his message of changing the way politics is done. If he picks a polarizing Cheney type, it will dilute his message.

1AM
That's all for me. It's been another historical night and now it's time for us to make up and be friends again. That is, as long as Senator Clinton can holster the attacks. The mission now will be fight off the McCain Media Machine and we'll need all the help we can get. As Senator Clinton said tonight: "We can choose not to be divided..."

The tide has definitely turned...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s9ubMQX7WE

Obama is now the Presumptive Nominee...

Obama Dominates In North Carolina... Clinton Wins Indiana By Less Than 2 Points ... Russert: Obama Is The Nominee... Obama Shifting To General Election Strategy... Hillary Cancels Morning Show Appearances... Clinton Advisers Expect Calls To Resign From Supporters...

Clinton cancels Public Appearances...but attends a private fund raiser in the evening. Clinton Campaign "Close To Broke," New Loan From Hillary Suspected

Exit Polls: Limbaugh Effect Seems To Rear Its Head
.. Seen As Strongest Vs. McCain
Hardcore republicans voted in droves in Indiana...see Hillary as an easier target for McCian.

The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.
-- F. Scott Fitzgerald

Why the Obama-Clinton Race Ended Tonight
by: tremayne at Open Left
http://openleft.com/

Although many of us have argued for months that delegate math made Barack Obama’s victory nearly inevitable, this point has taken a long time to penetrate the traditional media narrative. Sure, some big media voices made this point, but math is rather boring compared to the drama of a “candidate on the ropes,” a feisty and unpredictable minister, a “tenacious fighter,” etc. And besides, a close race sells papers and helps cable talk show ratings. Clinton vs. Obama was good for ratings in a way that McCain vs. Romney never could be and that even Obama vs. McCain is unlikely to match. So, how do we know the race is over?

1. The math argument has penetrated the media narrative in a way it hasn’t before tonight. The media didn’t even portray this as a split decision, one for Obama and one for Clinton. It was clear to almost everyone that Obama would pad both his delegate lead and popular vote lead tonight. You know the message has penetrated the beltway media when even Timmeh says it’s over:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lklfIPBK4Zg

2. As Russert mentions, the money for Clinton’s continued campaign is gone. After her victory in PA, a cash-poor Clinton campaign got a new infusion of money to continue the fight. Supporters could still see a path to the nomination. Where will the money come from after a very narrow Indiana win and a big NC loss?

3. You could see it on Bill Clinton’s face. He knew something others did not. Likely he knew that a decent chunk of uncommitted superdelegates were giving Clinton one last shot or that donors were. It must have become increasingly difficult to try to sell these groups on a path to victory that didn’t involve increased character assassination of the likely nominee of the party.

4. Although “nothing changed tonight” as Chris noted, there is a perception among MSM that something changed. It could be the math argument is now unassailable (given the small number of delegates left) or it could be they’ve wrung all the rating points they can out of Clinton-Obama and now it is time to make some money on McCain-Obama. At any rate, for a candidate of the establishment in particular, MSM perception is political reality.

Clinton the Anti-intellectual -- James Hrynyshyn at Science Blogs attended a Clinton rally and after seeing the “appeal to an anti-intellectual strain” fears she would give us “more of the last eight years.”

http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2008/05/clinton_and_the_politics_of_fe.php

"Not only did Clinton’s speech avoid anything remotely resembling a respect for the challenges and contributions that science poses and offers society, but she seemed to go out of her way to appeal to an anti-intellectual strain that her advisers must have told her holds sway in the largely Republican county in which she found herself.

First there was the repetition of her support for a gas tax holiday, which, as Jake has ably pointed out at Pure Pendantry, is perhaps the stupidest idea yet mooted in this campaign. How she squares this with her not-quite-a-plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions 80 percent by 2050 is beyond me. Or anyone else, I would think.

Such an idea is, as an educated friend of mine who very much wants to support Clinton told me as we waited for Clinton to arrive, an insult to her intelligence. But then, there was Clinton, insulting the intelligence of her audience every chance she got. The only common theme to emerge from the 30-minute ramble was an attack on our enemies. China is the enemy for selling us lead-contaminated toys and poison pet food. The Saudis are the enemy for exploiting our addition to oil. The rest of OPEC, too. And worst of all are those evil, parasitic “middlemen” who pop up in every corner of the economy, ready to take a cut and give back nothing.

Only ordinary Americans, and, because this Clinton campaign stop was in a rural corner of the state, only small-town Americans, can be trusted to do what’s right. It’s sad, really. Not only is everyone else the enemy, but intelligence itself is suspect. What we need, she seemed to be saying between the lines, is someone at the top who’s just a simple yokel. More of the last eight years, in other words."

How things have changed since 1992. Back in 1992, Bill Clinton cited endorsements from economists as reason to support him in a campaign ad (video below)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwXtJvm1Zws

In 2008 Hillary Clinton not only ignores the economists after she adopted John McCain’s idea for a gas tax holiday. She even brags about ignoring economists.

A group of economists has responded. Bloomberg reports:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aza2XQB.kk0k

"More than 200 economists, including four Nobel prize winners, signed a letter rejecting proposals by presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and John McCain to offer a summertime gas-tax holiday.

Columbia University economist Joseph Stiglitz, former Congressional Budget Office Director Alice Rivlin and 2007 Nobel winner Roger Myerson are among those who signed the letter calling proposals to temporarily lift the tax a bad idea. Another is Richard Schmalensee of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who was member of President George H.W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers.

The moratorium would mostly benefit oil companies while increasing the federal budget deficit and reducing funding for the government highway maintenance trust fund, the economists said.

“Suspending the federal tax on gasoline this summer is a bad idea, and we oppose it,” the letter says. Economist Henry Aaron of the Brookings Institution is among those circulating the letter. Aaron said that while he supports Obama, the list includes Republicans and Clinton supporters."

This issue has allowed Barack Obama to create a sharp contrast between himself and his two like-minded opponents after going through several weeks in which the race was distracted by non-issues ranging from flag pins to Reverend Wright. This issue highlights both the weakness of Clinton’s economic views and her willingness to say anything to get votes.

David Brooks also noted this difference between Obama and Clinton, accusing Clinton of “shameless spin.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/opinion/06brooks.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

"She peddled her sham gas-tax holiday and repeated her attempt to blame Indiana’s job losses on outsourcing and Nafta. Stephanopoulos asked her to name a single economist who thinks a tax-holiday plan would work, and the daughter of Wellesley and Yale took the chance to shove the geeks into their lockers: “I’m not going to put my lot in with economists.”

When Stephanopoulos pointed out that Paul Krugman, a Times columnist, has raised doubts about the plan, Clinton lumped Krugman in with the Bush administration and said she wasn’t going to listen to the people responsible for the last seven years.

This wasn’t just shameless spin, it was shamelessness with a purpose. Clinton signaled that she wasn’t going to concede even an inch to the vast elitist conspiracy. She wasn’t going to feel guilty about ignoring the evidence. She was going to stomp on it, flay it and leave it a twisted mass of jelly quivering on the ground. She was going to perform the primordial duty of an alpha dog leader — helping one’s own."

Adrian Blomfield and Mike Smith of the The Daily Telegraph write:

"Mikhail Gorbachev has accused the United States of mounting an imperialist conspiracy against Russia that could push the world into a new Cold War.

Delivering one of his most scathing attacks on the US, Mr Gorbachev told The Daily Telegraph that a US military build-up was under way to contain a resurgent Russia.
From Nato's expansion plans in the former Soviet Union to Washington's proposals for a bigger defence budget and a missile shield in central Europe, the US was deliberately quashing hopes for permanent peace with Russia, Mr Gorbachev said.

"We had 10 years after the Cold War to build a new world order and yet we squandered them," he said.

"The United States cannot tolerate anyone acting independently. ...

"The problem is not with Russia," he said, speaking at a friend's château outside Paris.

"Russia does not have enemies and Putin is not going to start a war against the United States or any other country for that matter.

"Yet we see the United States approving a military budget and the defence secretary pledging to strengthen conventional forces because of the possibility of a war with China or Russia.

"I sometimes have a feeling that the United States is going to wage war against the entire world.""

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/1933223/Gorbachev-US-could-start-new-Cold-War.html

While Gorbachev has criticized Russian President Vladimir Putin in the past, he also has advised him on foreign policy for some time. Putin handed over the reins to Dmitry Medvedev Wednesday, but is expected to be an eminence grise in the new government.

Gorbachev's comments stand somewhat at odds with the Kremlin's stated position, which has softened recently and been redirected at getting security guarantees from the West.

Although the language was stronger this time, the Telegraph interview isn’t the only time the first and last president of the Soviet Union has expressed concerns about deteriorating U.S.-Russian relations.

In December, the 77-year-old Nobel Peace Prize winner was interviewed by Anna Badkhen of the Ideas section of the Boston Globe:

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2007/12/09/q_and_a_with_mikhail_gorbachev/?page=2

"IDEAS: How do you view the latest developments of relations between Russia and the West? You said recently that you see the US plan to deploy a missile defense shield in Central Europe as targeting Russia, not Iran, as the United States claims. Do you see your achievements in ending the Cold War being depleted?

GORBACHEV: What we see is the beginning of a new arms race. The United States has a super-large military budget; its military budget is even larger than it was during the Cold War.

IDEAS: What about your comment regarding the true purpose of the proposed missile defense shield?

GORBACHEV: There is truth in this. It's too early to talk about Cold War, but I think we are seeing some frost."

#5 Nice one, Irv. And not function, as well ;)

#11 Nice one, Irv, nice...#5 was, too. I prefer thin-line pasties.

.

Checking out at the drug store yesterday, I eyed an elderly lady,

who in turn had her eyes on an array of plastic flowers.

The BIG SALE of the day was on 'real' roses and pansies.

Can you guess why she was shopping for dead flowers?

I have no doubt that she had her mother's grave in mind.

Will you remember your mother this weekend? Hmmmm???

goodwednesday everyone,

It looks to be a beautiful day..it also looks like Barak Obama will be the Democratic nominee for the Presidency and that will make many many Democrats happy little campers...I must say, I am, not at all, feeling good about his win. For the most part, I think that the desire for change trumped the desire for solid experience and great qualifications so needed in troubling times, but, just as in the Bush win,...you accept the majority vote and move on. I hope he can undo some of the horrific changes made by the Bush Administration in our Justice system...if he can accomplish that I will be pleased.

Went on a little road trip recently and when I got back gas went up 10 more cents...about 10 cents a week is how it is going...now, 3.85/gal so I figure Memorial Day will be 4.00/gal or over, for sure.

Many folks say we are spoiled in the USA because out gas prices are dirt cheap but if you are not in a city like New York, Boston, or Washington DC you have little to no mass transit so you are dependent on you car for transportation to work. Where, in Europe, mass transit is great. High gas prices in the USA cannot be tolerated for long, especially, when all our manufacturing jobs are leaving the country.

have a great day everyone, ruth

To My Fellow Hillary Supporters at Intent,

Yes, I said "fellow."

No, I am not supporting Hillary Clinton.

But you are my fellows.

You are my friends.

You are my fellow Democrats.

You and I share many policy goals and dreams.

In the end of the day, you and I are on the same team.

And yesterday night, our team's leader has been decided.

That leader will not be your candidate, Hillary Clinton.

The Democratic nominee will be, and is Senator Obama.

I understand and realize how devastating that is for you. To quote Bill Clinton, I do feel your pain, for if the shoe would be on my foot, I would feel the same way.

Some of you will be tempted to stay home in November due to anger and disappointment, just as I would be if Hillary was our leader in the fall.

But when I have made those comments in anger in the past, you have rightly reminded me of the stakes of this campaign. And you were, and are, right.

We must be on the same team.

So I welcome you onboard our united Democratic team. I will make this promise to you: while I may be elated that my candidate won, I will not gloat or make you feel small for supporting Hillary, from now on.

Hillary is a great person, a great candidate, a great Senator, and a great Democrat. I may have disagreed with her tactics during the course of this campaign, and some of the attacks she leveled at my candidate, I will once again reembrace her as my fellow friend.

Just as I embrace you.

Thank you for listening.

And let's go out there and win in November!

McCain's Awful Night: Tens Of Thousands Vote For Romney, Huckabee. 26% of the republicans vote "against" McCain in IN and NC.

***

AMERICAblog: BREAKING: Wesley Clark reportedly called Hillary tonight, urging her to drop out

We've just been told that General Wesley Clark, a strong Clinton supporter and fellow Arkansan, called Hillary tonight to tell her it's over.

In addition to our source, the king of the pundits, Mark Halperin, drops a tantalizing hint that something might be up with Clark:

"The biggest question: Will any of her supporters (including Wes Clark) say publicly or privately she should quit?"

We like General Clark here at AMERICAblog, and have a bit of a history with him. So we hope what we're hearing is true. But the general better watch it - this could be his most dangerous mission to date. When you take on the Clintons, the sniper fire is real.

http://www.americablog.com/2008/05/breaking-wesley-clark-reportedly-called.html

Hello Obama Supporters,

I have been a Hillary supporter since jump street. I continue to believe that she would have had a better chance in the general election than Obama. "Would have had" not "has." Yesterday night's results, while providing another demonstration of Obama's inability to win support from Hillary's coalition, nevertheless portend his almost certain nomination. I congratulate Senator Obama and his team for running an almost flawless campaign. Save for an ill-advised remark and a misplaced and prolonged loyalty to a pastor who is more his enemy than Hillary could ever be, Obama and his team have executed a strategy which will become the sine qua non for future campaigns. From the bottom-up fundraising strategy to the strong emphasis on extracting huge delegate gains from caucuses, Obama's team has run rings around Hillary's.

So where do we go from here. Hillary will continue through the last primary with the knowledge that barring a damning revelation or gaffe by Obama, she will not be the nominee. She will run to preserve her viability for elective office, to solidify her justly earned reputation as a terrific campaigner and to secure the inclusion of all Florida and Michigan delegates at the convention. I would expect her campaigning to focus more on McCain's shortcomings than Obama's. Her spinners will still spin like tops, her surrogates will continue to promote her greater electoral potential that Obama's, but it will be in service of ending the primaries on a high note and will inure to Senator Obama's benefit. Obama is almost certain to campaign almost exclusively against McCain, ignoring Hillary, which is as it should be.

Hillary Clinton, by losing the nomination, has become the most important person in the room. It is her responsibility to insure a seamless transition of her supporters to Obama's camp. She will undoubtedly extract some concessions from him such as employment of some of her staff, debt retirement, a promise to revisit truly universal health insurance (after election) and full recognition of the Florida and Michigan delegations. Knowing Hillary, I am certain that she will work as hard to move her supporters to Obama's camp as she did to gain their support in the first place.

Hillary is not the problem: Obama supporters are!

As Senator Obama's prospects of being the Democratic nominee moved from remote to possible to probable to almost certain, many of his supporters at Intentblog and other liberal blogs have turned from supportive of Obama and dismissive of Hillary to annoying, taunting, insufferable and, tonight, gloating. (I know - Hillary's supporters are no bargain either!) Allow me to humbly suggest that now that it appears you have won, a little humility and respect for your opponents would serve you well. For our common cause it behooves you to be humble. Some Hillary supporters may still strike out at you; they are hurt, they are only now beginning to grieve. Your understanding and patience will hasten this process and promote the unity required to defeat the latest threat to our country - John McCain.

Don't react in kind to threats to sit out the election or vote for McCain. Most will come around if you invite them in. Many may be sabateurs or agents provacateur; I believe we refer to them as "trolls." Ignore them. Be humble. Be good winners. Your job is no different than Hillary's at this point. Handle it well and you may just get the one you've been waiting for.

My fellow Obama supporters. This is a time for celebration. We have won a decisive victory in North Carolina, and although we are just shy, Indiana went about as good as we could have possibly hoped. The message is clear. Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee for President of the United States.

Even the mainstream media and the pundits are finally acknowledging this fact. There will be pressure in the coming days from both the media and those inside Senator Clinton's inner circle for her to suspend her campaign in the coming days. It may be tomorrow, it may be a week from now, or it may be after June 3rd. But one thing is clear. This campaign is winding down, and we have won.

So I have a simple request for my fellow Obama supporters:

Lets make a promise to end the Clinton bashing. Yes, Hillary Clinton will probably not drop out of the race right away, and she will probably continue to do things that will upset a large portion of this community. I understand that you will be frustrated, but I am asking for my fellow Intentbloggers to look at the big picture, and understand that this is not in the best interest of the Democratic party, and not in the best interest of Barack Obama's candidacy for the presidency.

I'll be honest. This place has gotten pretty toxic towards Hillary Clinton lately. I know that she has done a lot to upset the members of this community. Hell, she's done a lot to upset me. And I've been fairly vocal about that on this site. But more and more lately, it has gone past normal criticisms, and has become pure hostility. The comments have been increasingly filled with name calling and labeling. The discourse has spiraled into a level of discourse that no longer helps Barack Obama unify the party, and only hurts him in that goal.

The truth is, Intentblog used to be an incredibly powerful Democratic leaning spiritual blog. In the last 4 months (about when I started posting, but I lurked for years beforehand), the site went from being Democratic blog (at least in respect to the presidency), to an Obama blog. In the process of doing that, we have managed to be hostile enough to run the majority of Clinton supporters off this site. Now that Obama has secured all but secured the nomination, it is our time to start welcoming these people back. They can help us build this blog to what it once was (don't get me wrong this blog is still incredibly powerful and influential, it has just lost some of it's punch by driving away a fair number of it's members, including many old members who may be put off by politics and partisanship.)

To start to bring these people back into the fold, we need to drop the negativity, and start being more positive. Despite what some may think, calling Hillary Clinton a Republican, or a sexist name, or making a sexual joke about Bill is not the way to make any new friends. All that will do is continue to polarize the party, and make continue to turn people away from this community. So drop the negativity. Resist taking shots at Hillary Clinton, even if you feel you are justified. It will help make us mend the rifts that have been caused by this prolonged primary.

If any of you listened to Barack Obama's victory speech yesterday tonight, he talked about the need to unify the party around the eventual nominee. Let's take to Senator Obama's message and start to behave in the way he would want us to be. That means continuing to enthusiastically support Obama, but to create an environment where all Democrats feel welcome.

In 2009, President Obama will thank us for this.

PS. I don't think we need to give Hillary Clinton a completely free pass on everything. We can, however, frame our arguments in a much more positive manner than we have in the past. Just stating what you think Clinton did wrong and why you think it was wrong is a lot more effective and lot more positive if it's done without the name calling and the mocking that normally accompanies most posts about Clinton (I'm guilty of doing it to). The way we phrase our arguments makes a big difference.

I also don't think I'm suggesting that Clinton supporters were somehow purged or run off this site. People choose to come and go of their own free will, and no one is physically preventing them from coming back. However, you do have to admit that this is a pretty shitty atmosphere for a Clinton supporter to come in to.

PSS. I know that a good number of you may disagreed with my premise, but I am hopeful that it might start an honest discussion on how we should focus in the future.

At this point on we should play nice PERIOD. If something said by a Clinton supporter upsets us to the point that we can't say anything that isn't a furious rebuttal or a negative comment about her, we should say NOTHING.

Sure, keep a watchful eye; if anything is happening that might actually change the outcome of the race, act to prevent it. But don't do that by putting her down or her supporters, no matter how tempting it might be. We need them - or even if you don't believe that we NEED them, Obama's whole message is about getting over division and that every state and every voter counts. Obama has tried to be the bigger person in this campaign and we need to live up to the example he sets.

We need to remember that this is the principle that Barack Obama has built his campaign on. This is why his campaign is holding a 50 state voter registration drive. This is why Obama volunteers have affectionately coined the term "Obamacans". Barack Obama's campaign is about bringing together all people, regardless of race, gender, ideology, political leaning, or candidate they supported in the primary. He has asked us to transcend the politics of negativity and division. Even if others are not keeping up their end of the bargain, let's try to keep up ours. I have failed to do that many times in the past, but this comment is my pledge to do so in the future. It looks like some of you are ready to join me.

On that note, I sign off.

Former Clinton backer George McGovern urges her to drop out, will endorse Obama.

***

Clinton loaned herself another $6.4 million last month.

When Clinton supposedly raised $10 million post-Pennsylvania, many of us pointed out that, if true, that was just enough to cover her campaign debt. We still don't know how much more she raised over the month, but clearly it wasn't enough.

USA Today:

"An aide says Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has lent her presidential campaign $6.4 million over the past month.

The money more than doubles Clinton's personal investment in her bid for the Democratic nomination. She gave her campaign $5 million earlier this year."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-05-07-clinton-funds_N.htm

With $11.4 million of her own money invested in the race, and still likely facing campaign debts, this may compel her to stay in the race. She can raise money while spending little to win West Virginia comfortably.

Of course, Bill could always do a couple of speeches to pay off that debt rather than have her small-dollar supporters foot the bill. Having made over $100 million the past eight years, and with unlimited earning potential, the Clintons could afford it.

Ref # 13

We all know how abrasive Mr Welsh and his associates can be, but they also show their genius in many ways. The ability to look at the big picture, and hone in on what might be wrong and inconsistent with it, is remarkable.

All a citizen of the world can hope for is a Democrat as President and Commander in Chief of the most powerful nation on earth. When it comes to change vs. experience and what may help the world more in the future, all we have to do is examine what experience brought us in the last two terms.

In my own life it is time to do some more wandering not just wondering.
Thanks for tolerating me (sort of).

Seek - make an effort or attempt
Knowledge – Often the opposite of ignorance
Enlightenment - education that results in understanding
Peace - the absence of mental stress or anxiety

Barbara Morrill at Daily Kos: She isn't going anywhere.

For those hoping that Hillary would graciously accept the reality that she isn't going to win the nomination...don't. During a conference call this morning, the Clinton campaign said that they will continue to fight for the nomination because, well, because. The (long) hour boiled down to, she has the best chance to beat McCain, she wins all the really important states, and darn it, white people really like her.

There were two rather comical moments to break up the monotony of listening to talking points being regurgitated for the umpteenth time. The first was when Howard Wolfson said, when talking about Florida and Michigan:

"This is a country of 50 states."

Coming from the campaign that has spent the last three months dismissing as irrelevant any state that Clinton lost, this was laughable. But when Wolfson was asked about overnight fundraising numbers and said that he "hadn't had a chance to look," well, besides being laughable, I think it's safe to say that that was a boldfaced lie.

So it's on to West Virginia.

>>>

HuffPo Exclusive:

Lawrence O'Donnell: Hillary Will Drop Out by June 15

A senior campaign official and Clinton confidante has told me that there will be a Democratic nominee by June 15. He could not bring himself to say the words "Hillary will drop out by June 15," but that is clearly what he meant. I kept saying, "So, Hillary will drop out by June 15," and he kept saying, "We will have a nominee by June 15." He stressed what a reasonable person Hillary is.

Everything about our conversation implied that he had already had this reality-based discussion with Hillary. He said the Clinton campaign plan is to collect as many votes and delegates as they can right through June 3, then take no more than a week or so to make their case to the superdelegates. Nothing he said indicated that he actually expected the superdelegates to move to Hillary in the week after the final election. The Clinton campaign has not lost its grip on reality. Yes, Clinton spokespersons publicly seem to be lost on gravity-free planet Clinton, but privately they know the end is near.

Meanwhile, in his spare time...

...Obama seems to have brought peace to the Niger Delta. No joke.

Obama, in the midst of a hard-fought campaign is using his skills as a negotiator to try and broker a cease-fire agreement between the warring factions in Nigeria.

May 4, 2008 Reuters :

"Rebels who have stepped up attacks on Nigeria's oil industry in the last month said on Sunday they were considering a ceasefire appeal by U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama.

The Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) has launched five attacks on oil facilities in the Niger Delta since it resumed a campaign of violence in April, forcing Royal Dutch Shell to shut more than 164,000 barrels of oil per day (bpd).

"The MEND command is seriously considering a temporary ceasefire appeal by Senator Barack Obama. Obama is someone we respect and hold in high esteem," the militant group said in an e-mailed statement."

http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKL0444578520080504

one man is responsible for 16 of the 19 posts before this one...and 4 posters all together...

talking about who owns the site...hmmmn!

yo granny....get over ur bitternes...u've been backing a loser from the begining...if ur loser has eyes (glasses)...she wud see her name on the wall...LOSER..

she must still believe that the Titanic cannot sink to the bottom of the ocean....what is that called again?

It's the broad encompass of the person, Diab. categorically speaking.(speaking in categories) You sure you are not one of yours?

Granpa is in his pram this morning...strapped in...make of that what you will ;)

Hi Mieke,

Just to let you know that i will be in your part of the world this weekend. I will be in Amsterdam untill Sunday night if you are around there let me know and we can meet up for a coffee if you like.

Love

Simon xx

granpa...i only undastand when u scribble in English!

why is Billary still hanging around? can she not take a ^&**$& hint? damn! it!

Whilst Confucians pass the torch to the top of the world, I (YES!)

ponder and bounce about an idea pertaining to batons.

One baton, in particular, seems to be getting a bit stale.

The perpendicular stick of which I speak is not real.

Whether I feel or not...as if it was given to me is not the point.

You know that story don't you? The one about this guy on a river?

This guy who had the only boat for which to ferry across the Styx?

And before you get to the other side he asks you to take the oar and row for a minute?

And then when you get to the other side he jumps out and says you just bought the job?

Does anyone want to go for a ride with Me2? FREE Uncle TREE? Wanna start a movement?

What'll ya do for an encore, after Ol' Scallywag leaves behind "nuttin' butt" the legendary branch of an archive?

Nuts~n~firs, stems~n~seeds, fruits~n~gummy bears...say what? Gummy whats? Gummy, yummy, ding-dang-doodlehoppers?

Nuts~n~firs, stems~n~seeds, fruits~n~gummy bears...say what? Gummy whats? Gummy, yummy, dingdangdoodlehoppers?

Dammit!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njXonaBi_7c&feature=related

Ring a bell? "Rich Girl" whooooooooaaaaaaaaa!!!! damn!

Playgrounds breed fiery campfires and very weird participants! What happened?

I mean...it's not like there's a prerequisite to participate. Art is useless, isn't it? D.K. was right!

Not that I am an artist.
Not that I am any thing at all.
Not that I am angry and disenchanted.
Not that I am this or that or the other, brother.

Sister, sister...if I had one I'd kiss her! Wouldn't you?

Goodnight, ladies and gentlemen! But before I go--the encore, by Sir Elton John

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkGDrV_2ehI&feature=related

for the clintons to continue to fight against all odds shows their true colors...they are in this not for us the people but themselves...they shud be ashamed of them selves...they have lost all respect with a lot of their own supporters...BJB once said..."my family is not big on quitting"... i wonda what will he do when the door is completely sealed shut and reality finally hits home...damn!

Hi Simon,

# 23. Thanks :)

It is so good to know someone like you!

Have sent you an email.

Love xx

Mieke

Hi Keith,

# 31. Remember the good old days?

I have an idea......

I made this 3D Virtual Butterfly labyrinth on my computer and it got me wondering. We have created here on IB a beautiful labyrinth in itself.

What if there would be a possibility for every blogger here to be "engraved" in this butterfly labyrinth with his/her picture and name?

Wouldn't that be a great memory for everyone?
One can actually virtually walk such a labyrinth on the computer and by doing this, one is in a way always connected to each other :)

Would this be something for a weekly intent?

Wishing everybody a nice weekend!

Love, Mieke

Hilary's margin of victory in Indiana (with 99% reporting) was widely reported in the media that she won by 2% [1.6%]

The actual final vote totals from the Indiana Secretary of State are in at last.

They show that the final contest in Indiana was even narrower than the difference popularly reported.

According to the Indiana Secretary of State, the official totals were:

100% precincts reporting:

Hillary Clinton: 637,814 -- 50.4%

Barack Obama: 626,642 -- 49.6%

Vote margin: 11,152 -- less than 1 %

This difference, was almost surely caused by Rush Limbaugh and operation Chaos (who at least according to ABC made up 7% of Clinton's voting base of 50.4%.) The claim that Rush won it for Hillary is accurate.

From Newsmax:

Rush Limbaugh Blamed for Obama Loss in Indiana
Wednesday, May 7

...Clinton’s lead in Indiana is attributed to Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos” — his campaign to have Republicans cross over and vote for Clinton to prolong the nomination fight and damage the Democratic nominee.

Exit polls appear to back up [the] claims. Results of the Indiana exit poll found that that 17 percent of primary voters said they would vote for Republican John McCain over Clinton in the general election. And 41 percent of those voters still cast a vote for Hillary in the primary.

...7 percent of the votes in Indiana could be attributed to the “Limbaugh effect.”

Clinton won the primary by about two percentage points — 23,000 votes out of 1.2 million cast.

...As the polls were closing in Indiana on Tuesday night, the Indianapolis Star reported that it appeared droves of “hardcore” Republicans were crossing over to vote in the Democratic primary in several GOP strongholds.

John K. Wilson wrote on The Huffington Post that the “Limbaugh effect” “easily provided enough votes to give Clinton her 23,000-vote margin of victory in Indiana.”

...Limbaugh declared Operation Chaos a success in Indiana. He told the San Francisco Chronicle on Tuesday night: “I’m extremely proud of the Operation Chaos volunteers. I never doubted they would triumph in Indiana.

Markos at Daily Kos:

Clinton: But whites like me!

What the f--?

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

"There's a pattern emerging here," she said."
[USA Today, May 8]

How is that not race-baiting?

Are African Americans not hard working? Are Americans with college degrees not hard working? And this obsession with race!

And she's wrong, too. Look at Obama's support in these relevant categories over the last six contests, spanning eight whole weeks in TX OH MS PA IN NC

So let's see what Clinton is claiming again -- that "Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

* Obama's support among whites is actually increasing compared to Ohio, Mississippi and Pennsylvania. She lied about that.

* Obama's support among "hard working Americans", which is code for poorer Americans, has also increased over those in previous contests, save for Mississippi, where the under-$50K vote was overwhelmingly black.

* Obama's numbers among college grads is static to increasing. We don't have exit poll breakdowns for education by race, and we can assume North Carolina's huge numbers with "no college" are due to the large African American percentages in the state. But what about Indiana, a state that is whiter (83.9%) than Pennsylvania (82.1%), Ohio (82.9%) and Texas (48.3%)? Despite the demographic disadvantage, Obama actually increased his support among voters with no college degrees.

So how can Clinton be so wrong? Because she's citing an AP-Yahoo News poll from back on May 3rd. Rather than cite actual voter data, she is basing her claims on an old poll taken before the Indiana and North Carolina primaries.

Yup. That's what Hillary Clinton has been reduced to. Ignoring actual votes and cherry picking polls.

Which really, shouldn't surprise anyone. She's already ignored and belittled every state and voter demographic that doesn't support her. So it only follows that since in her world, the only things that are important are things that support her, she'd ignore election results in favor of the one (outdated) poll that confirms her manufactured reality.

Gallup: Obama's support among whites equals Kerry's. The pollster calls hogwash on Hillary's claims of being the only candidate who can deliver white voters in November:

"PRINCETON, NJ -- Barack Obama's current level of support among white voters in a head-to-head matchup against John McCain is no worse than John Kerry's margin of support among whites against George W. Bush in the 2004 presidential election.

Much of the talk following Tuesday's Indiana and North Carolina primaries has focused on just how electable Obama -- now the highly probable nominee -- will be in the general election. The Clinton campaign has argued that Obama's weaknesses among white voters and blue-collar voters will hurt him against McCain in the fall.

But it appears that the way Obama stacks up against McCain at this point is similar to the way in which Kerry performed against Bush in 2004 within several key racial, educational, religious, and gender subgroups."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107110/Obamas-Support-Similar-Kerrys-2004.aspx

It seems -- in her last desperate act -- Hillary is using the "black guy can NEVER be America's president, at least NOT when I am running for presidency" argument to claim the nomination.

In another bad sign for Hillary Clinton's sinking campaign, the blogosphere is all over her racially divisive comments to USA Today about her white support, and the verdict is not good.

On MSNBC's post-election coverage on Tuesday night, all the male commentators were gushing, some with their eyes welling up, over Hillary's election night speech, calling it "whistful" and saying she was clearly going to end her campaign with "grace" and "dignity." But Maddow said she heard something completely different in Hillary's speech, and predicted that Clinton would continue her scorched-earth strategy. Maddow was roundly pooh-poohed by all the commentators, including KO, but it turns out, sadly, that she was spot on. It is beyond too late for Hillary to end her campaign with grace and dignity.

Hillary's "white Americans" comment has caused a quick firestorm in the blogosphere:

Kate Phillips at the New York Times Caucus blog (under the headline "Hillary Touts White Support"):

"As if the divisions between race and gender in the Democratic Party hadn’t been further exposed through Tuesday night’s exit polls — and by a very heated exchange on CNN between high-profile Dems Donna Brazile and Paul Begala, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s interview with USA Today on Wednesday is further mining those tense depths."

>

Ben Smith at Politico is suspicious of the timing of Hillary's "white Americans" comment, and surprised by how upfront Hillary is becoming with her racially divisive ways:

"Now, the press has talked about the race in these terms constantly, so I won't feign shock. But it's a bit strange to hear it so bluntly from the candidate's mouth, and probably not a great way to endear herself to African-American voters.

And it's also noteworthy that the blunt talk on appealing to whites surfaces the day after the last round of primaries in which there's a substantial number of black voters."

Translation: Hillary's comments were carefully orchestrated.

>

From Jack and Jill Politics, a leading African American political blog:

"Apparently not satisfied with her plummeting approval ratings among black voters, Hillary Clinton decided to remind us again that our votes don't actually count...

This kind of comment is less a description than an agitator, it's meant to give white voters the impression that they would be "disenfranchised" by an Obama win. It's a not so subtle effort to evoke racial resentment over Obama's success...

That's what the "elitist" charge has always been about, appealing to the sentiment that "this black guy thinks he's better than you." It will be the same against the Republicans. The difference is that they now have Democrat saying the same things to further legitimize this line of "argument"."

>

And from Mike Barnicle over at Huffington Post:

"Now, faced with a mathematical mountain climb that even Stephen Hawking could not ascend, the Clintons -- and it is indeed both of them -- are just about to paste a bumper sticker on the rear of the collapsing vehicle that carries her campaign. It reads: VOTE WHITE.

That's the underlying message propping up a failed candidate. Check it out, you superdelegates: the buttoned down black guy is having trouble with blue collar white guys so cast your vote with the white chick who has transformed herself into an arm-wrestling, shot and a beer, kitchen table advocate for the working class and now it's on to West Virginia and Kentucky where she'll prove it.

So, after all the years they have been with us, after all the triumph and tastelessness, the accomplishments and embarrassments, we're about to watch them act out an updated, mixed gender re-make of Thelma and Louise with Bill behind the wheel, the two of them sharing a knowing look, a wink, in the front seat as they take the Democrat (sic) party right off the cliff, the whole thing crashing and burning in a racial divide both he and she sought to heal all those years ago in Little Rock and then Washington."

Barnicle ends by noting that Hillary is "on the edge of writing a truly ugly chapter for all to see." She's not on the edge of writing that chapter. The chapter has been written and is at the publisher.

>

Pam Spaulding over at Pam's House Blend points out how Hillary's message was very carefully crafted, honed and targeted, and that Hillary has clearly decided to throw all subtlety out the window in her latest attempts to use race and race-baiting as a political tool -- a sure sign of the desperate last throes of her campaign: "White dog whistles no more":

"You see the problem and beauty of Senator Clinton's statement is that it boldly embraces the undiscussed fear in this Reagan Democrat demographic, the people who do consider race a major factor -- concern that white privilege is being threatened, that somehow Barack Obama as president would exact retribution against "hard working white Americans" for past or present institutionalized racism...

The frame is specific -- that's why Clinton referred to hard working white Americans. What happened to "blue collar Americans?" Oh wait, there are a lot of hard working black and brown blue collar/working class Americans, and many of them they voted for Obama, so she had to slice that demo down to the bottom line. Dog whistles no more."

It might have been OK if Hillary kept campaigning without tearing down our nominee. But I guess she just couldn't help herself. USA Today said she made "blunt" comments about race, and that is an act of criminal understatement. She's not even trying to hide it anymore.

Ref. #39 by John.

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

"There's a pattern emerging here," she said."

There is indeed a pattern here. She is getting less and less subtle about it. Notice how "hard-working Americans" and "white Americans" have become synonymous in Hillaryland.

Apparently she was called on this, and she defended herself:

"Clinton rejected any idea that her emphasis on white voters could be interpreted as racially divisive. "These are the people you have to win if you're a Democrat in sufficient numbers to actually win the election. Everybody knows that."

If they didn't know it before, they know it now. Please allow me to translate:

'Sure, in a Democratic primary loaded up with wealthy educated voters Obama can do just fine. But in the general election, the real Americans -- working-class white people -- will never vote for a black man. So if you want to beat McCain, vote for me -- the Democratic Party's Great White Hope.'

I think the restraint we all hoped Hillary would show on the campaign trail from now until the end is not going to happen. If these are her words, I can only imagine what she will send Bill out to say in future. (He already made "race and elite" comments against Obama in Kentucky two weeks ago, which has been discussed at IB.)

I think we all hoped (Ref. Post #1-17) that we could relax and let this primary end naturally in two weeks, but Hillary is playing too ugly for that.

While the situation is understandably upsetting, the real problem is the less-noticed part of the quote:

"There's a pattern emerging here."

Contrary to what some of her defenders say, this is not merely an astute and objective evaluation of the electoral trends(see #39, 40 by John). This is a calculated strategy to shift the narrative over to why Obama can't attract white voters -- not those sissy college-boy whites who only have one testicle, but the hard-working whites, the real Americans. Watch and see how West Virginia and Kentucky add to this narrative.

Whether this is true or not is beside the point. Whether political correctness permits us to discuss these things out loud is beside the point. Whether it is a permissible strategy to warn superdelegates about the terrible dangers of nominating a black man is beside the point -- maybe it would have been OK if she said this in February. Many people seemed to think it was OK when Bill Clinton made the same point after South Carolina.

But this is not February, and that is the point. This nomination fight IS OVER, and it is unacceptable for Democrats to attack their nominee this way in the national media. Hillary Clinton proved that she won't go gracefully or promote party unity.

Obama Camp Faces Major Obstacles In Plan To Help Clinton Pay Off Debt
Thomas B. Edsall
The Huffington Post

Top officials of the Barack Obama campaign are privately exploring ways to help Hillary Clinton discharge her debts[over 20 million?] and pay back the $11.43 million she has loaned her organization, but they are running into two major stumbling blocks.

The first is obvious: the deep and growing animosity of Obama supporters towards Clinton, whom they see as raising issues of race and 'elitism' that will hurt the Illinois Senator in November. [the interview with USA Today for example,...]

The second is less obvious: Mark Penn.

For many Obama backers, Penn, the former chief strategist for Clinton and head of one of the biggest PR-lobbying conglomerates in the nation's
capital, is the quintessential Washington insider, capitalizing on political connections to become a multi-millionaire.

The immediate problem with Penn is that if Obama helps Clinton pay off her debts, a big chunk of those debts -- an estimated $10 million or more -- is owed to Penn.

...Consideration by the Obama camp of providing financial help to Clinton would be part of a peace-making process in the event that she withdraws from the presidential nominating contest.

Under federal campaign finance law, the Obama campaign cannot directly pay off Clinton's debts, or the $11.43 million she has loaned the campaign,
because that would violate campaign contribution limits. But if Obama is the nominee, he and his donor base could provide invaluable help to her in
raising money through signed appeals, joint fundraisers and by other methods.

...Many of Obama's grassroots and netroots backers appear to be outraged at the thought that the Obama campaign might step in to lend a hand to get
Clinton out of a financial hole -- and out of the race -- as was reported Wednesday.

...Money is a central issue in the delicate negotiations that many expect to lead to a Clinton withdrawal. A winning candidate often offers to do
whatever is legal to help a loser pay down debts. In this case, there is exceptional animosity between the two camps. Furthermore, Penn's interest in any negotiations are sure to be pressed very aggressively by the Clinton
campaign's new Chief Operating Officer, Howard Paster. Paster was brought in immediately upon Penn's retreat, and, as it happens, Paster is Penn's boss. Paster is the executive vice president for public relations and public
affairs at Burson-Marsteller's parent company, WPP.

In his new capacity as COO of the Clinton campaign, Paster is almost certain to be central in deciding how much of any money Obama might help
raise for Clinton is used to pay off the debt to Penn. This set of relationships will undoubtedly impact the enthusiasm of Obama donors for a
Clinton-Obama pact.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/08/obama-camp-faces-major-ob_n_100928.html

Hi Mieke!

Although I am unfamiliar with your labyrinth's,

I would be a willing participant. A bit unworthy, perhaps. Bye, now!

.

A good thing it is
Mean ways into the mean while
Wasted moments go

Despite being behind in number of delegates, the popular vote, and number of states won, Hillary Clinton continues to believe she is entitled to the nomination. It is her turn within the pattern of the Bush/Clinton Dynasty and matters such as the will of the voters must not be allowed to interfere with the planned succession.

Clinton has tried taking her case to the Democratic National Committee. Unfortunately for Clinton, she still does not get it. She continues to use Michigan and Florida as rational for her to remain in the race. As Matthew Yglesias at The Atlantic has pointed out, “this makes no real sense. Nothing would do more to help resolve the Florida and Michigan issue than for CLINTON TO DROP OUT AND ENDORSE OBAMA.” If Obama didn’t have to worry about Clinton trying to use Michigan and Florida to steal the nomination he would have no reason not to seat the two delegations.

Even with Florida seated as is, Clinton trails by about 100 delegates when the Michigan Party's plan of splitting delgates 69-59 is enacted. Further, since Edwards has declined to make an endorsement, his 32 delegates are now effectively uncommitted superdelegates. So, this means that the best case-scenario for Clinton right now is that she trails by 97 delegates with 550 delegates remaining. So, even in Clitnon's best case scenario, Obama only needs 225 of the remaining 550 delegates, or 40%, to win the nomination.

Clinton's best-case scenario still overwhelmingly favors Obama. So yes, the outcome of the nomination campaign is now a FOREGONE conclusion.

Her argument, like virtually every other argument made by Clinton during this campaign, does make no real sense. The never ending flow of nonsense arguments has only increased questions about both her INTEGRITY and COMPETENCE. Her arguments with regards to Michigan and Florida have been pretty transparent LIES which only her die hard followers believe–similar to those Republicans who still believe what George Bush has said about Iraq.

The DNC is especially unlikely to be impressed by these arguments considering that they are based upon Clinton supporting violations of the rules made by the Democratic National Committee. When Clinton appeals to the DNC for support based upon Michigan and Florida she is in essence saying, “I am a liar and a cheater, therefore you should support me for the nomination over the person who has won fair and square.” That is simply not an argument which will go anywhere.

One good thing about Clinton using this argument is that she has made it very difficult for herself to compete in a future nomination battle. In backing Michigan and Florida she is demonstrating a disregard for Iowa and New Hampshire, as well as other states more recently moved to the start with permission of the DNC. The manner in which she did not take up this cause UNTIL after Iowa and New Hampshire voted further demonstrates her DISHONESTY. Unless the primary and caucus calendar is totally overhauled, the voters of Iowa and New Hampshire will most likely put a quick end to any future campaigns of Hillary.

It appears that everyone except for Hillary Clinton and her more fanatic supporters realize that for all practical purposes the nomination battle is over and Barack Obama has won.

AP describes Clinton as a “dogged but deluded also-ran.” She has yet one more ridiculous argument in considering West Virginia a test, thinking that a win in a state where she is expected to win will somehow make people forget that Obama has already won more delegates, states, and votes than she does.

As already pointed by John and Chris, just as Clinton is continuing to argue that certain states (i.e. those she did not win) do not count, she is also arguing that winning the black vote does not count. In an interview with USA Today, Clinton said:

“I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,” she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article “that found how Sen. Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”

Clinton dug an even deeper hole during the same interview when she justified her concentration on white voters by saying, “These are the people you have to win if you’re a Democrat in sufficient numbers to actually win the election. Everybody knows that.” What’s next? Will argue that blacks only county as three-fifths of a person and recalculate all the primary results to to make herself the winner on this basis?

There’s already been plenty of discussion of the racial implications of this interview around the blogosphere (see post No. 41 by Chris.) Simply looking at this as a matter of political strategy her argument does not hold up very well. No More Mister Nice Blog notes:

"According to CNN’s 1996 exit poll, Bill Clinton lost the white vote (Dole 46%, Clinton 43%, Perot 9%). He lost the white male vote by an even larger margin (Dole 49%, Clinton 38%, Perot 11%). And he lost gun owners badly (Dole 51%, Clinton 38%, Perot 10%). However, Clinton won the popular vote overall 49%-41%-8%, and he won 70% of the electoral votes.

In 2000 — when Al Gore won the popular vote by half a million votes — he lost white males to Bush by a whopping 60%-36%, according to CNN’s exit poll. He lost men overall 53%-42%. He lost whites overall 54%-42%. He lost gun owners 61%-36%. He lost small-town voters 59%-38% and rural voters 59%-37%. He lost the Midwest overall 49%-48%."

http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2008/05/white-people-all-important-just.html

Democrats should certainly hope to do better than this, but this does demonstrate the weakness of Clinton’s argument. What Clinton ignores in claiming to be more electable is that her support which is largely based upon the backing of the elderly and the uneducated is hardly a blue print for long term victory. Even if we take the most benign possible interpretation of Clinton’s argument, it remains flawed if she is discounting the black vote because they consistently vote Democratic.

Obama’s support goes well beyond the black vote which normally votes Democratic. He brings in the young voters and independent voters to add to the Democratic base, while Clinton’s support is merely a subset of the Democratic base. Most of these core Democratic voters who back Clinton will continue to vote Democratic regardless of who wins the nomination.

Clinton has been claiming that her greater strength among working class voters makes her more electable, but fails to understand that her turn to populism has been counterproductive. She has picked up more working class votes, but these voters are going to back Obama over McCain. Democrats can only win a national election when they have a candidate who can win the support of both wings of the party. Obama can do this, but Clinton cannot.

(From Der Untergang...)

Hillary in the Bunker

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6Lstkiexhc

This is both accurate and hilarious. (Subtitles may not be suitable for under-14 Intent Blog readers.)

Hillary is arrogant, not racist -- so says Eugene Robinson in a Washington Post column today entitled The Card Clinton is Playing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/08/AR2008050802807.html

As per usual with Robinson, he offers keen insight and an ability to sum things up precisely. Note especially his penultimate paragraph:

"Clinton's sin isn't [playing]racism[card], it's arrogance. From the beginning, the Clinton campaign has refused to consider the possibility that Obama's success was more than a fad. This was supposed to be Clinton's year, and if Obama was winning primaries, there had to be some reason that had nothing to do with merit. It was because he was black, or because he had better slogans, or because he was a better public speaker, or because he was the media's darling. This new business about white voters is just the latest story the Clinton campaign is telling itself about the usurper named Obama."

Just the latest story. . .

After all, Clinton was not the only one saying that Obama could not win:

"In private conversations last year, several of Clinton's high-profile African American supporters made that same argument to me -- that America wasn't "ready" for a black president, that this simple fact doomed Obama to failure, that a Clinton Restoration was the best result that African Americans could realistically hope for. Polls at the time showed Clinton leading Obama among black voters, a finding that reflected not only Clinton's greater name recognition but also considerable skepticism about a black candidate's ability to draw white support."

As we all know, Obama began to disprove that beginning in Iowa. And although Robinson does not go through the litany, if we look at some of the states Obama has won, they are about as white as they come: Maine, New Hampshire, Wyoming, and Utah are just a few of those he won overwhelmingly which lack significant numbers of African-Americans.

Until Iowa most African-Americans themselves were like the prominent ones supporting Clinton, unable to believe that it was possible for a black man to win the nomination. And there was loyalty to the Clintons. But that is no longer the case, and since Bill's remarks during the run up to South Carolina, we now have a situation that the Clintonian arrogance has alienated one of the most loyal Democratic constituencies. And Clinton's argument, as Gene Robinson puts it, is

"a repudiation of principles the party claims to stand for. Here's what she's really saying to party leaders: There's no way that white people are going to vote for the black guy. Come November, you'll be sorry."

Let me offer just a few other lines from this Robinson piece:

"Assuming that Obama is the eventual nominee, he will have some work to do in reuniting the party. But there's no reason to think he won't succeed -- unless Clinton drives a wedge between important elements of the party's historical coalition."

As to why Clinton could reunite the party and Obama could not? Why would self-described Democrats vote for a self-described Conservative Republican over a black Democrat?

"the answer, which Clinton implies but doesn't quite come out and say, is that Obama is black -- and that white people who are not wealthy are irredeemably racist."

Somehow this brings to mind the normal pattern of Clinton supporters at anyone who dare challenge them. I think particularly of the words of James Carville when the Paula Jones issue arose and he called her "trailer park trash," words which may have led her to be more willing to publicly pursue her complaint to the detriment of Bill's presidency. And it is incredibly insulting to lower-income whites, and reminiscent of the kinds of fear-mongering that has so often been used in the past by those in power to attempt to play off poor whites and blacks so that those in power would not be threatened.

But that does not complete the Clintonian arrogance in this case. Robinson calls the notion that Clinton could expect enthusiastic support from the Black community - after this kind of campaign and the results Obama has achieved - were she to get the supers to give her the nomination as "just nots." And he demolishes the arrogance of this belief in two cogent sentences:

"Only in Camp Clinton does anyone believe that his supporters will be happy if party leaders tell him, in effect, "Nice job, kid, but we can't give you the nomination because, well, you're black. White people might not like that.""

Let us be generous for a moment. Even we briefly ignore the notion among many, that Clinton's campaign has morally disqualified her from the presidency. Acknowledging the internal efficacy required to run for high office, the belief necessary to put oneself through the rigors of the campaign, let us grant that Hillary Clinton honestly believes that she is the most qualified to be President, and that in the perfect world and if others had the wisdom to see things as she does, she would be better positioned to beat McCain than is Obama. That would still require her to hold on to core Democratic constituencies while expanding the pool of support. She is not capable of winning without the strong support of the African-American community. And to take them for granted is arrogant, and also dangerous. And while she may draw stronger support among lower-income and less-educated white voters in primaries in some states, someone had better remind her that it has been a long time since a Democratic presidential candidates won a majority of the white voters in the general - her husband was elected twice because of his strong African-American support. Lose that support and a lot of states flip to the Republicans, even some without large black populations, but which have been critical for Democrats in recent contests (Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, anyone?).

Perhaps all that is going on now is Clinton is pushing the envelope to be better positioned to negotiate the terms of her withdrawal. And we can argue whether or not she is entitled to any consideration - I would argue her recent campaign efforts have disqualified her from any entitlement, because she has chosen to act as if she is playing Samson, prepared to pull the temple of the Democratic party down upon her and us if she cannot be the victor. And maybe those around her (especially Bill) who are insisting on going the limit should pay attention to the response Obama got in the House at Hill yesterday, and realize that if she insists on pushing the limits of the tolerance of people in the party she runs the risk of public humiliation - of having prominent supporters publicly abandon her in favor of Obama. She is being given a small window to withdraw gracefully, and if she does not take it, she will have only herself to blame. Herself, her husband, the arrogance of both of them. An arrogance which refuse to acknowledge that she can no longer win, and can only damage the party and its nominee.

But Robinson says it so much better:

'"It's still early," Clinton said Wednesday, vowing to fight on. At some level, she seems to believe the nomination is hers. Somebody had better tell her the truth before she burns the house down.'

Peace.

It's clear that this race is virtually over. It's all but a mathematical impossibility for Hillary Clinton to come out on top. The only realistic way she could prevail is if she somehow convinced the superdelegates that Obama was so badly damaged he simply could NOT be elected. Of course we know she's been trying to do that all along, sometimes with subtlety, sometimes not. But now it appears she may have something else in mind.

There had been hints at this before, but since the votes in North Carolina and Indiana, talk is getting louder: It looks like Hillary might be angling for VP.

Since NC and IN, Harold Ford Jr. has taken every opportunity to proclaim that Hillary would be great for the ticket. Paul Begala has done the same. Bill Press, and probably others I've missed. I think Ford's attitude is particularly important, considering he's the chairman of the DLC (Democratic Leadership Committee)... whose most prominent member is none other than Hillary Clinton. I imagine the DLC realizes that their power is gonna be greatly diminished once Obama is elected. (Obama is not a member of DLC, and doesn't agree with their work.)

What convinced me that Hillary is going to try to demand the VP spot is her comments yesterday about "hard-working white voters". Up until that, I thought she was gonna play nice for the rest of the way, so as not to hurt Obama. But obviously I was wrong. So I can see only three reasons she might be willing to keep up these divisive, harmful attacks:

1. She really, honestly believes she still has a chance of winning; that the superdelegates would hand it to her under certain circumstances. But I don't believe even the sometimes delusional Hillary can really believe that.

2. She wants to damage Obama so much that he loses in the fall, giving her another chance in four years. But, again, I think she's smart enough to realize that if she's seen as the reason for Obama losing, her political future is over.

3. She's playing a game of extortion. She's gonna keep playing dirty until someone comes to her and says, "Ok, Hillary, what will it take to make you stop?"

I'm really starting to believe #3 is what's going on. Apart from the obvious deal to pay off Hillary debts and her 11 million personal loan...

Yeah, it could be that she's angling for something like Attorney General or the powerful position of Senate Majority Leader, but I don't think so. I think that, even though she's not happy with the thought of playing second-fiddle, she believes that she can still have some real influence. Once she's in, I think she feels that, with the help of Bill and the DLC, she'll be able to have some major influence over Obama in areas where he disagrees with her and the DLC.

#49 Correction, DLC is Democratic Leadership Council(not committee)

I am sure many Hillary supporters are not aware of DLC, their work, and Hillary's role.

Democratic Leadership Council
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Democratic Leadership Council is a non-profit 501(c)(4) corporation that argues that the United States Democratic Party should shift away from traditionally populist positions. The DLC hails President Clinton as proof of the viability of third way politicians and as a DLC success story while progressives assert that Bill Clinton won campaigning as a populist only to abandon those positions after getting elected. Critics contend that the DLC is a powerful, corporate-financed mouthpiece within the Democratic party - or "The Republican Wing of the Democratic Party"

...The DLC's current chairman is former Representative Harold Ford, Jr. of Tennessee, and its vice chair is Senator Thomas R. Carper of Delaware. Its CEO is Al From and its president is Bruce Reed. U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is chair of the DLC's American Dream Initiative.

2003 invasion of Iraq

The DLC gave strong support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Prior to the war, Will Marshall co-signed a letter to President Bush from the Project for the New American Century endorsing military action against Saddam Hussein. During the 2004 Primary campaign the DLC attacked Presidential candidate Howard Dean as an out-of-touch liberal because of Dean's anti-war stance. The DLC dismissed other critics of the Iraq invasion such as filmmaker Michael Moore as members of the "loony left". Even as domestic support for the Iraq War plummeted in 2004 and 2005, Marshall reprised his right-wing credentials and called upon Democrats to balance their criticism of Bush's handling of the Iraq War with praise for the President's achievements and cautioned "Democrats need to be choosier about the political company they keep, distancing themselves from the pacifist and anti-American fringe."

...The DLC has become unpopular within many progressive political circles.

Some critics claim the strategy of triangulation between the political left and right to gain broad appeal is fundamentally flawed. In the long run, so opponents say, this strategy results in concession after concession to the opposition, while alienating traditionally-allied voters.

...Others contend that the DLC's distaste for what they refer to as "economic class warfare" has allowed the language of populism to be monopolized by the right-wing. Many argue that the Democrats' abandonment of populism to the right-wing, shifting the form of that populism from the economic realm to the "culture wars", has been critical for Republican dominance of Middle America. (See, for instance, Thomas Frank's What's the Matter with Kansas.)

Still other critics believe the DLC has essentially become an influential corporate and right-wing implant in the Democratic party. Marshall Wittmann, a former senior fellow at the DLC, former legislative director for the Christian Coalition, and former communications director for Republican senator John McCain, and Will Marshall, a vocal supporter of the war in Iraq, are among those associated with the DLC who have right-wing credentials.

Finally, detractors of the DLC note that the DLC has received funding from the right-wing Bradley Foundation as well as from oil companies, military contractors, and various Fortune 500 companies.

Hi Keith,

Thanks for your comments :)

A few weeks ago I have written a few essays about the labyrinth on a blog. I mentioned it here on IB a couple of times but no one seemed interested. So I put them off again and have given all the texts to Harb, who wants to make a book of it :)

If you want to know exactly what a labyrinth is you can visit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labyrinth

And hereunder one of my essays. Me am doing Yoga now for more than 30 years. Combined with the labyrinth in nature, this is a wonderful experience.

How to use the 7 path labyrinth as a walking meditation combined with Yoga exercise

Start by standing in front of the left or right entrance of the Labyrinth, with hand palms together before the chest, thumbs against the chest (the heart). For a few moments quietly breathe in and out and become aware of your breathing.

Wait until your first thought enters your mind and start walking. Watch your feet when you slowly walk step by step. At each turning point wait a few seconds and become aware of your breathing. Then walk on, carefully watching your feet.

You will notice that you sometimes are very close to the middle, sometimes far away.

After a while you enter the middle.

Stand again with hand palms together before the chest, thumbs against the heart. Become aware of your breathing. Breathe in and move your hands and arms above your head and stretch yourself. By slowly breathing out spread your arms in a wide circle around you until they hang alongside your body. Stand relaxed for a few moments and repeat the above exercise another two times. Give thanks for everything you receive.

Then slowly turn around and walk back from the middle. Just walk back in your own (relaxed) way towards the exit again. When arrived, turn around and give everything you experienced back to the labyrinth with gratitude.

When walking the labyrinth a few times in this way, you will notice your steps become lighter and lighter and even may end into a little dance. It is a very joyous and special feeling.

Labyrinths can be found all over the world and so also in your country.

In order to find one in your neighbourhood go to:

http://www.labyrinthsociety.org and click on the Worldwide labyrinth locator in the upper right corner.

Love, from the heartphone,

Mieke

P.S. It is my intention to make this Butterfly labyrinth in nature in my country for real, with same intent of letting people who will help to build it with me and everyone who is interested to walk it, engrave their name in it.

This splendid idea was given to me by North.

It is such a pity that she is not allowed to blog here anymore!

The UN takes the ball and leaves the sand box because, someone else calls the shots.
Stupid control freaks!

YANGON, Myanmar - Myanmar's junta seized U.N. aid shipments headed for hungry and homeless survivors of last week's devastating cyclone, prompting the world body to suspend further help on Friday.

The U.N. said the aid included 38 tons of high-energy biscuits and arrived in Myanmar on Friday on two flights from Bangladesh and the United Arab Emirates.

"All of the food aid and equipment that we managed to get in has been confiscated," U.N. World Food Program spokesman Paul Risley said. "For the time being, we have no choice but to end further efforts to bring critical needed food aid into Myanmar at this time."

Myanmar's government acknowledged taking control of the shipments and said it plans to distribute the aid itself to the affected areas.

In a statement e-mailed to The Associated Press, government spokesman Ye Htut said the junta had clearly stated what it would do and denied the action amounted to a seizure.

"I would like to know which person or organization (made these) these baseless accusations," he said.

The WFP's regional director, Tony Banbury, directly appealed to Myanmar's military leaders in an interview with Associated Press Television News.

"Please, this food is going to people who need it very much. You and I, we have the same interests," Banbury said. "Those victims — those 1 million or more people — who need this assistance are not part of a political dialogue. They need this humanitarian assistance. Please release it."

More than 60,000 people are dead or missing and entire villages are submerged in the Irrawaddy delta after Saturday's cyclone. Many of the survivors waiting for food, clean water and medicine were crammed into Buddhist monasteries or camped outdoors.

Aid groups warned the area is on the verge of a medical disaster and that thousands of children may have been orphaned. The U.N. estimates 1.5 million people have been severely affected and has voiced concern about the disposal of dead bodies.

"Many are not buried and lie in the water. They have started rotting and the stench is beyond words," Anders Ladekarl, head of the Danish Red Cross.

About 20,000 body bags were being sent so volunteers from the Myanmar chapter of the Red Cross can start collecting bodies, he said.

In the village of Kongyangon, someone had written in Burmese, "We are all in trouble. Please come help us" on black asphalt, a video from the Norway-based opposition news network, the Democratic Voice of Burma, showed. A few feet away was another plea: "We're hungry."

In Yangon, the price of increasingly scarce water has shot up by more than 500 percent, and rice and oil jumped by 60 percent over the last three days, the Danish Red Cross said.

The U.N. has grown increasingly critical of Myanmar's refusal to let in foreign aid workers who could assess the extent of the disaster with the junta apparently overwhelmed. None of the 10 visa applications submitted by the WFP has been approved.

"The frustration caused by what appears to be a paperwork delay is unprecedented in modern humanitarian relief efforts," Risley said. "It's astonishing."

The junta said in a statement Friday it was grateful to the international community for its assistance — which has included 11 chartered planes loaded with aid supplies — but the best way to help was just to send in material rather than personnel.

Three Red Cross aid flights loaded with shelter kits and other emergency supplies landed in Myanmar Friday without incident.

"We are not experiencing any problems getting in (unlike) the United Nations," Danish Red Cross spokesman Hans Beck Gregersen said.

It is not clear how much of the aid has been delivered to the victims in the Irrawaddy delta.

"Believe me, the government will not allow outsiders to go into the devastated area," said Yangon food shop owner Joseph Kyaw.

"The government only cares about its own stability. They don't care about the plight of the people," he said.

One relief flight was sent back after landing in Yangon on Thursday because it carried a search-and-rescue team and media representatives who had not received permission to enter the country, the junta said. It did not give details, but said the plane had flown in from Qatar.

According to state media, 23,335 people died and 37,019 are missing from Cyclone Nargis. Shari Villarosa, who heads the United States Embassy in Yangon, said the number of dead could eventually exceed 100,000 because of illnesses.

Grim assessments were made about what lies ahead. The aid group Action Against Hunger noted that the delta region is known as the country's granary, and the cyclone hit before the harvest.

"If the harvest has been destroyed this will have a devastating impact on food security in Myanmar," the group said.

The U.N. was putting together an urgent appeal to fund aid efforts over the next six months. Spokeswoman Elisabeth Byrs told reporters that the exact amount of the appeal would be specified later Friday.

The International Organization for Migration says it is asking for $8 million as part of the appeal. The U.N. refugee agency says it needs $6 million to fund the immediate shelter and household needs of 250,000 people.

France was sending a navy ship loaded with 1,500 tons of humanitarian aid to Myanmar, President Nicolas Sarkozy's office said Friday.

Private donations also were flowing to aid organizations, including a luxury river cruise liner donated by a British travel company to transport relief and 25,000 shoes sent by a U.S.-based group.

But Myanmar has snubbed a U.S. offer to help, refusing to take advantage of Washington's enormous ability to deliver aid quickly, which was evident during the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami that killed 230,000 people in a dozen nations.

Obama takes lead in superdelegate count

267-266

That is a huge shift since the days when Clinton boasted about a 60-plus vote lead among the party's pros back on Super Tuesday.

Yet another Clinton talking point falls ....

Drip, drip, drip. Today the New York Times weighs in on Hillary Clinton continuing her campaign, saying that while she has the right to to do so:

"...we believe just as strongly that Mrs. Clinton will be making a terrible mistake — for herself, her party and for the nation — if she continues to press her candidacy through negative campaigning with disturbing racial undertones. We believe it would also be a terrible mistake if she launches a fight over the disqualified delegations from Florida and Michigan.

The United States needs a clean break from eight catastrophic years of George W. Bush. And so far, Senator John McCain is shaping up as Bush the Sequel — neverending war in Iraq, tax cuts for the rich while the middle class struggles, courts packed with right-wing activists intent on undoing decades of progress in civil rights, civil liberties and other vital areas. [...]

We endorsed Mrs. Clinton, and we know that she has a major contribution to make. But instead of discussing her strong ideas, Mrs. Clinton claimed in an interview with USA Today that she would be the better nominee because a recent poll showed that "Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again." She added: "There’s a pattern emerging here."

Yes, there is a pattern — a familiar and unpleasant one. It is up to Mrs. Clinton to change it if she hopes to have any shot at winning the nomination or preserving her integrity and her influence if she loses."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/09/opinion/09fri1.html?ref=opinion

Ok Deepak here is what I want, please contact Mr. Richard Brandson ask him to donate the use of 10 of his planes to fly fresh water and supplies to Myanmar, NOW when the people of the world see that it is not up to the UN or random governments, its up to us as humans, you and me as individuals to get this done, hurry up every moment counts.

It is not up to the UN how, when and if the aid is distrributed, it is are job to just get them WHATEVER is needed. ASAP, no questions ask. You are in a position for a reason make the call please, please

Hi Mieke,

you write,"This splendid idea was given to me by North.

It is such a pity that she is not allowed to blog here anymore!"

Is this true? North is not allowed to blog at Intent?...if so, what is the reason? confused...ruth

Hi Ruth,

The reason has been her comments on:

http://www.intentblog.com/archives/2008/05/time_article_on.html

which comments of her have been removed in the meantime.

I had a feeling about it all that it was not fair.
But then I have to ask myself: who am I? :)

Love, Mieke

Hillary - we barely knew you - I thought you would be the most amazing President.

Smart - caring - and after 8 years of George W. Bush - a breath of fresh air.

For many years - I had truly wanted the opportunity to vote for a woman President - and to almost see it happen -

hearthbreaking...

Because what happened Hillary?? -- I thought we knew you - thought we knew you to be honorable and honest. Thought that you wanted what was best for America instead of what you that was best - just for you.

What happened to your decency - to your sense of right and wrong?

Hillary - my friend - it is time

You know what to do....

Sara

Campaigns don't build character; they reveal it. She has been doubling down on the nastiness and race baiting at every opportunity. Why expect her to change at this point?

Hi Mieke,

Thanks for the info., I will miss North there were times I was impatient with her comments as I am sure many are with mine, a lot.

There is, right now, here, at IB, only few bloggers that you can count on who are blogging under one ID, pretty soon, all that will be left will be the ONE blogger who cuts and pastes as the many....so, in that respect North, an original, individual voice, will be missed.:((((((

thanks Mieke tell North she will be missed at IB....have a grand day and weekend...over yonder!!ruth

In Pennsylvania we saw Hillary reinvent herself as a gun-toting, beer swilling, bible thumping good-time gal just being friendly with the good ol' boys. With West Virginia coming up, and Hillary refusing to go down with the ship, my guess is her recent comments about white support were meant to boost her numbers in this Tuesday's primary election for a possible 75-25 victory i the Appalachia. She's throwing raw meat to the "stars and bars" on the pick-up crowd.

With everything she's done so far would anyone be surprised if she went all the way and put on the white hood and sheet so she can prove she can burn a cross as good as she can chug beer and pack a pistol?

Hey Sara, I am feeling sorry for her and disgusted at the same time. I wanted at least some good memories of her run, but alas none seem to be forthcoming.

Wow, sara - i'm amazed and i'm sorry about how it's all played out with your candidate. For what it's worth, i would also have loved to vote for a great female candidate for president... but i couldn't do it this time, with this one.

Sara,

even though I went to Obama before you did, I agree, it's

"heartbreaking"

that after wishing for a female president for my whole life, I can't wish for this one.

You rock sara.

I'm sorry.

- this is just too sad ---

Don't be sad sara. We have a lot of work to do to heal our fractures. We have a really great candidate. It really is upsetting. Even for those of us who supported Obama from Day -30

mini(sara),

your comment (#58) expresses how I felt in 2006.

I'd been really hopeful in 2000 -- I thought Hillary Rodham Clinton would be a GREAT Senator, and voted for her eagerly.

Then she wasn't. She was tolerable, but it seemed like every time there was a major issue, she wouldn't step up to do the right thing until NY progressives put major pressure on her -- and not necessarily then.

After many plaintive emails which got form-letter responses, and after the AUMF and the proposed ban on flag-burning -- and after reading Chasing Hillary -- I was feeling exactly like this:

"Because what happened Hillary?? -- I thought we knew you - thought we knew you to be honorable and honest. Thought that you wanted what was best for America instead of what you that was best - just for you."

(So I voted for Jonathan Tasini.)

I sympathize quite a lot.

(Of course, even after all that I didn't expect her to sink to these depths. I think she really is obsessed. I hope she gets help.)

Sara,

I may have reached the point you're at sooner, but I totally understand your feeling of sadness. I too would have loved to vote for and support the first female president. Hillary used to be someone I respected, and for awhile much earlier I was torn between her and Obama. I think some of the anger expressed from some people has come from that place where you are now - a kind of disappointment and feeling of disbelief.

It's very sad. Hugs from me...

I'm sorry sara. After I felt elated two nights ago, I felt really sad that this fight has gotten to where it has. My anger has gotten the best of me on too many occasions. There really was that moment, early on, where both candidates seemed so bright.

I remember many of pro-Hillary posts from earlier in the year at IB. And how hard they defended her. Sorry that it had to end with bitter feelings for people like Sara.

But if it is any consolation, I think she shows guts and integrity to voice her disillusionment here.

And yet another nail in the coffin of Hillary Clinton's failed bid for the Democratic nomination. Rasmussen agrees, it's over:

"Rasmussen Reports has been tracking the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination daily for nineteen months...

However, while Senator Clinton has remained close and competitive in every meaningful measure, she is a close second and the race is over. It has become clear that Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee. [...]

With this in mind, Rasmussen Reports will soon end our daily tracking of the Democratic race and focus exclusively on the general election competition between Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama."

You know, it's going to be hard to argue that you've won after this. When you've lost Rasmussen, you've lost. Seriously, they are going to drop the daily tracking poll of the Democratic Race because as far as they're concerned, it's over.

I think Hillary needs to be careful with what she says, take the West Virginia win she'll get next week, accept the fund raising dollars, then concede on the evening of May 20 after the Oregon primary.

The handwriting is clearly on the wal