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 wall and if she stays in much longer, she'll be a bigger joke nationally than Huckabee was.

north...

i hope u are allowed back soon! i did not know u were gone! IB admin are pretty understanding and i am sure they will let u back in...damn!

"IB admin are pretty understanding and i am sure they will let u back in...damn!"--Diablo #73

Why do you think that would be the case without even knowing anything about what led to the ban in the first place?

Anyway, why don't you tell them about the number of times you were banished from this site for your behavior and then was let back in? What did you do to come back again like a fly attracted to dung...you pleaded, repented, begged, what? Why don't you share that experience with those that are banned, like North and Lily S.? Although I don't think it would be of any help, simply because in the case of North she made a personal attack on a contributor, which she could have dome without to make her point. But in your case, your comments are consistently sick, and you just simply can't help yourself from that behavior, and therefore less guilty.

so what happened to ur real name skeptisch? sick too? pot calling kettle what? at least i don't hide under a million aliases...what do u think u'd have to be to pose as women when it's obvious to most? dude...u are not worth the time of day. if u wud take a permanent vacation...this site will begin to attract fun people...

and btw...why do u think we need reg play by play updates of the primaries from a nuisance who uses hi comp as pillow...dont u think we have TVs..%#@@^&&*? i guess when u are as odd as u...u are usually the last to know...hah?

Nobel laureate Toni Morrison on calling Bill Clinton the first Black President and endorsing Obama:

From a new Time magazine interview with Toni Morrison:

"Do you regret referring to Bill Clinton as the first black President? --Justin Dews, Cambridge, Mass.

People misunderstood that phrase. I was deploring the way in which President Clinton was being treated, vis-à-vis the sex scandal that was surrounding him. I said he was being treated like a black on the street, already guilty, already a perp. I have no idea what his real instincts are, in terms of race.

Why did you endorse Barack Obama for the presidency? --Chris Francis Lightbourne, Long Island, N.Y.

I thought about voting for Hillary at the beginning. I don't care that she is a woman. I need more than that. Neither his race, his gender, her race or her gender was enough. I needed something else, and the something else was his wisdom."

Damsel of Distress by Peggy Noonan

http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html

[...]

The Democratic Party can't celebrate the triumph of Barack Obama because the Democratic Party is busy having a breakdown. You could call it a breakdown over the issues of race and gender, but its real source is simply Hillary Clinton. Whose entire campaign at this point is about exploiting race and gender.

Here's the first place an outsider could see the tensions that have taken hold: on CNN Tuesday night, in the famous Brazile-Begala smackdown.

..In case you didn't get what was behind that exchange, Mrs. Clinton spent this week making it clear. In a jaw-dropping interview in USA Today on Thursday, she said, "I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on." As evidence she cited an Associated Press report that, she said, "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."

White Americans? Hard-working white Americans? "Even Richard Nixon didn't say white," an Obama supporter said, "even with the Southern strategy."

If John McCain said, "I got the white vote, baby!" his candidacy would be over. And rising in highest indignation against him would be the old Democratic Party.

To play the race card as Mrs. Clinton has, to highlight and encourage a sense that we are crudely divided as a nation, to make your argument a brute and cynical "the black guy can't win but the white girl can" is -- well, so vulgar, so cynical, so cold, that once again a Clinton is making us turn off the television in case the children walk by.

"She has unleashed the gates of hell," a longtime party leader told me. "She's saying, 'He's not one of us.'"

She is trying to take Obama down in a new way, but also within a new context. In the past he was just the competitor. She could say, "All's fair." But now he's the competitor who is going to be the nominee of his party. And she is still trying to do him in. And the party is watching.

Again: amazing.

Who can save the situation? The superdelegates.

You know them. They're the ones hiding under the rock, behind the boulder, and at the bar.

They are terrified, most of them. They want the problem to go away. They want it handled, but they don't want to do it. They don't want to tell Hillary to stop, because they would likely pay a price for it, and not just with her.

They are afraid of looking as if they're jumping on a train that's speeding down the tracks and is about to roll over the damsel in distress.

Which is how Hillary -- and her supporters -- will paint it. Even though she's no damsel, and she causes distress.

Some insight from a superdelegate I spoke to Thursday:

It's not math anymore, it's psychodrama. If she can't have it, no one can have it. If she has to tear the party apart, she will.

Nancy Pelosi can't make her drop out. The Clintons think the speaker is for Obama anyway, her San Francisco district went for him 70% to 30%; they'll dismiss her. Chuck Schumer can't do it, he'd offend women in New York. Harry Reid can't do it, he'll offend women, period. If black political figures go to the Clintons and make a plea, they'll be dismissed as Obama partisans.

So who, I asked, can do it?

White women have been Mrs. Clinton's most reliable base of support and readiest crutch, the superdelegate said. And maybe they're the only ones who can break through, both to Mrs. Clinton and to the country, and tell her to stop. "If it's a man, she goes back to gender: Men are always picking on me, you just don't want women in power. If it's a black, it's You betrayed us, how can you call on me to get out after what I've done for you?"

Sen. Dianne Feinstein made a feint in the direction of stopping Hillary this week. Mrs. Clinton should offer a rationale for her continuing the campaign at this point, Ms. Feinstein said.

The superdelegate mentioned Maryland's Barbara Mikulski. "I can assure you that Sen. Mikulski is 100% behind Clinton," her office told me. The superdelegate mentioned Kathleen Kennedy Townsend and Ellen Malcolm of Emily's List, the No. 1 political action committee in the country. "They can say, 'We've stood with you, you've got true grit, but now you have to go.'"

The question "Who will tell her, who can make her go?" is really the question "Who will save the Democratic Party in 2008?" It cannot be doubted at this point that real damage is being done to its standard-bearer and to all those who will be on the ticket with him.

[...]

It will be amazing if someone doesn't start up that train, someone doesn't get in the cab, someone doesn't shout, "All aboard!" But then it's been an amazing year.

Listen to the ego scream! Who cares who's name is on the box's! I can't believe its come to this..

YANGON, Myanmar - Myanmar's military regime distributed international aid Saturday but plastered the boxes with the names of top generals in an apparent effort to turn the relief effort for last week's devastating cyclone into a propaganda exercise.

The United Nations sent in three more planes and several trucks loaded with aid, though the junta took over its first two shipments. The government agreed to let a U.S. cargo plane bring in supplies Monday, but foreign disaster experts were still being barred entry.

State-run television continuously ran images of top generals — including the junta leader, Senior Gen. Than Shwe — handing out boxes of aid to survivors at elaborate ceremonies.

One box bore the name of Lt. Gen. Myint Swe, a rising star in the government hierarchy, in bold letters that overshadowed a smaller label reading: "Aid from the Kingdom of Thailand."

"We have already seen regional commanders putting their names on the side of aid shipments from Asia, saying this was a gift from them and then distributing it in their region," said Mark Farmaner, director of Burma Campaign UK, which campaigns for human rights and democracy in the country.

"It is not going to areas where it is most in need," he said in London.

State media say 23,335 people died and 37,019 are missing from Cyclone Nargis, which submerged entire villages in the Irrawaddy delta. International aid organizations say the death toll could climb to more than 100,000 as conditions worsen.

The U.N. estimates that 1.5 million to 2 million people have been severely affected and has voiced concern about the disposal of bodies.

With phone lines down, roads blocked and electricity networks destroyed, it is nearly impossible to reach isolated areas in the delta, complicated by the lack of experienced international aid workers and equipment.

But the junta has refused to grant access to foreign experts, saying it will only accept donations from foreign charities and governments, and then will deliver the aid on its own.

Farmaner said the world needs to move to deliver aid directly to victims in Myanmar, also known as Burma.

"People we are speaking to in Burma say aid must be delivered anyway even if the regime doesn't give permission," he said. "We have had a week to convince the regime to behave reasonably, and they are still blocking aid. So the international community needs to wake up and take bolder steps."

However, aid providers are unlikely to pursue unilateral deliveries like airdrops because of the diplomatic firestorm that it could set off.

So far, relief workers have reached 220,000 cyclone victims, only a small fraction of the number of people affected, the Red Cross said Friday. Three Red Cross aid flights loaded with shelter kits and other emergency supplies landed Friday without incident.

But the government seized two planeloads of high-energy biscuits — enough to feed 95,000 people — sent by the U.N. World Food Program. Despite the seizure, the WFP was sending three more planes Saturday from Dubai, Cambodia and Italy, even though those could be confiscated, too.

"We are working around the clock with the authorities to ensure the kind of access that we need to ensure it goes to people that need it most," WFP spokesman Marcus Prior said in Bangkok, Thailand.

Richard Horsey, a spokesman for U.N. humanitarian operations, said an international presence is needed in Myanmar to look at the logistics of getting boats, helicopters and trucks into the delta area.

"That's a critical bottleneck that must be overcome at this point," he said in Bangkok.

He warned there was a great risk of diarrhea and cholera spreading because of the lack of clean drinking water and sanitation.

"We are running out of time here. This could be a huge problem and this could lead to a second phase which could be as deadly as the cyclone," he said.

Heavy rain forecast in the next week was certain to exacerbate the misery. Diplomats and aid groups warned the number of dead could eventually exceed 100,000 because of illnesses and said thousands of children may have been orphaned.

Survivors from one of the worst-affected areas, near the town of Bogalay, were among those fighting hunger, illness and wrenching loneliness.

"All my 28 family members have died," said Thein Myint, a 68-year-old fisherman who wept while describing how the cyclone swept away the rest of his family. "I am the only survivor."

Officials have said only one out of 10 people who are homeless, injured or threatened by disease and hunger have received some kind of aid since the cyclone hit May 3.

The government's abilities are limited. It has only a few dozen helicopters, most of which are small and old. It also has about 15 transport planes, primarily small jets unable to carry hundreds of tons of supplies.

"Not only don't they have the capacity to deliver assistance, they don't have experience," said Farmaner, the British aid worker. "It's already too late for many people. Every day of delays is costing thousands of lives."

happy mom's day to all mothers!

Everyone but Hillary Clinton knows it is over. Everyone is busy with post-game analysis of why she lost. But the reason is so obvious that it is staring us in the face.

What doomed the Clinton candidacy is of course, her vote in favor of the Iraq war. But, you say, so did most of her Democratic Colleagues in Congress. Yes, but none of them made it either. Clinton was the best among the candidates that voted for the war: not only for her personal qualities, but also because of the formidable machine that she and her husband had built over the years. It's not just her vote, but her subsequent views over the years on war and her defense of the vote during the campaign that did her in.

It appears in hindsight that Clinton's Iraq vote was an early sign of the kind of candidate she would be. At the time she voted for that war, she was a freshman Senator. She was trying hard to establish her National Security credentials. She pulled strings to get on the coveted Armed Services Committee. She toured the world, at least on one occasion with John McCain. She was trying to overcome what she thought would be her biggest liability as a Presidential candidate: a woman has to prove that she is tough, like Margaret Thatcher. What better way to show toughness than to show command of military matters? She worked hard to remove any doubt that she would be qualified to be Commander-in-Chief.

When Clinton stood up to speak on the war on Oct 10, 2002 the war was not a controversial issue among the establishment of this country. Many of the same pundits who escoriate her in the mainstream media today were braying in support of Pres. Bush. After 9/11, the Senator from New York had to be tough on terrorism. Pres. Bush had an approval rating of 64%, down from a high of 88% a year earlier, but still quite respectable. Even VP Cheney was at 54%. Congress had a rating of about 45%: quite good for that body. ( Congress as a whole always polls below individual members in their Districts). The anti-war protests appeared anemic due to the biased media coverage in the aftermath of 9/11. Some Liberal Members of Congress protested the war, but they are easily marginalized as the `loony left'. As in the letter which the DLC(Democratic Leadership Council. See post #50) wrote to the members of Congress calling on them to support the President.

So it was quite easy to make the decision to support the war. She did not find it necessary to read the NIE: she already knew most of the experts personally and knew their views. That much of the evidence for WMD in Iraq was fabricated was obvious to most experts, but it is doubtful that Clinton ever even questioned it. The important thing was not to get caught on the wrong side of history, when most of her colleagues even on the Democratic side of the Senate was going to vote for it. Only true mavericks like Feingold, Wellstone or Kucinich dared to stand in the way. Fake mavericks like McCain rolled over and played nice. The beloved Florida Sen. Bob Graham, after carefully reviewing information and meeting with military leaders, found the evidence provided by Bush government lacking, and pleaded the Congress to no avail. He continues to oppose the Iraq War. She fully expected the Primary for Democratic nomination in 2008 to be a coronation: the real attacks would come from Republicans in the General Elections. So she was looking to the right and not the left as she made her decision. She made a crucial decision that had far reaching consequences based on a mere political calculation.

And in case things went wrong there was always the fig leaf: she could always claim that the resolution only authorized the use of force, so it was not a declaration of war. Such distinctions loom large in the mind of lawyers, but rarely do they matter in politics. So a confident and resolute Clinton spoke in favor of House Joint Resolution for Iraq War:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wyCBF5CsCA
Hillary Clinton Iraq War Full Speech 10/10/02 Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8fknhbB-Xo
Part 2

She knew then that she would be running for President. She did not know that this speech would destroy that bid. How could she? She had no original thought on the matter, no independent analysis to fall back on. She did not know specific classified information that should have raised serious questions because she had not bothered to read the NIE(another good excuse to fall back on just in case.) She was mostly repeating in her speech the administration talking points that had also hoodwinked the New York Times, that Colin Powell had presented to the UN (to his own disgrace). Of course Cheney had pressured the analysts into producing papers that supported his views, because she had not dug deep into the matter.

So who could have known that this war was a dumb war? Only people who paid attention, even without any secret information available to Federal Government officials. Who knew that it was not Saddam Hussein but his mortal enemy the Al Queda that had carried out the attacks of 9/11, in spite of Cheney's claims? Everyone of course. But that was not enough for the pundits, the Congress or Clinton to oppose a war on Iraq. They let the confusion of Hussein and Al Queda stand. It was not lack of knowledge, it was lack of courage to act on what they knew. It was not only Sen. Clinton that failed. Most of the establishment of the country went along, to their everlasting shame: Judy Miller was the worst but opinion makers like Thomas Friedman, Jonathan Alter, establishment news sources like the New York Times, Washington Post, The New Republic, all went along.

But they are not running for President. Clinton is and she has never recovered from her lapse of judgement. Why is no establishment writer pointing to that as the reason why she lost? Because they are all complicit in the original sin of supporting the invasion of Iraq. Notice the deadening silence in the media after the shocking NY Times revelation about the "illegal" paid pentagon pundit propaganda for the Iraq War.

From Wikipedia:

"The goal of the operation, begun after the September 11th attacks, is "to spread the administrations's talking points on Iraq by briefing ... retired commanders for network and cable television appearances," where they have been presented as independent analysts... The Times article suggests that the analysts had undisclosed financial conflicts of interest and were given special access as a reward for promoting the administration's point of view. On 28 April 2008, the Pentagon temporarily suspended the operation."

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

How did a minor American politician, a mere State Senator in Illinois, get it right when all these towering giants did not? It is not that Barack Obama had better information. It is not even because he was smarter. He simply had the courage to say what he knew to be true. He would, strangely, trust that the people he was addressing were adults. This peculiar approach got him elected to the US Senate. It made him repudiate the support of the DLC:

"I am not currently, nor have I ever been, a member of the DLC. It does appear that, without my knowledge, the DLC…listed me in their ‘New Democrat’ directory. Because I agree that such a directory implies membership, I will be calling the DLC to have my name removed, and appreciate your having brought this fact to my attention.” "

As Clinton noted, she brings many years of experience to the table as does McCain. Obama brings a speech he gave in 2002. Here is the text of that speech:

"Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don’t oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.I don’t oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.
I don’t oppose all wars.

And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.
That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain."

Only a few seconds of the film of that speech that survives from 2002, can be found in the opening part of this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtDJqa16-G8

This speech displayed the qualities with which he would defeat Clinton and win the nomination six years later. And six months after that he will defeat McCain in the General Electon and start a historic Presidency.

You are right, Hillary, Obama only brought to the table a speech he gave in 2002.

That was enough.

um ya..Today was a day i would live forever..Biscayne was beautiful so was Key Largo..back to the desert in the morning. Need more of this..Swimming in the Atlantic is the best thing I can think of.. I'm happy and full.

Dear ruth

You wrote "Choosing not to comment or write about a certain topic does not mean people are not concerned or caring there can be as many reasons as there are people for ignoring or bypassing a topic." This I understand. But the numbers were shocking to me: There were many things said about other subjects since Nargis hit Myanmar, and so little was said about Myanmar -- one blog and 15 comments, as compared with 15 other blogs and 250+ comments. I was wondering why it was so.

I know the IB active commenters population is now mostly US and European, whereas there was a significant Asian component in the past. It seems to me that there are fewer individual commenters. I wonder if there are also fewer readers. There is less discussion within threads from contributors, who act as the leaders and motivators, here. I'm concerned that people are turning away from a global, inclusive attitude because of economic stresses in the world, and personal stresses, too.

Thank you for sharing your personal reasons for not writing about Myanmar.

love, h

TOI: US eats 5 times more than India per capita

Even as the world spins into a global food crisis, a popular theory — voiced by the likes of US President George W Bush and secretary of state Condoleezza Rice — is that the Chinese and Indians are responsible. The 'logic': due to zooming incomes, they are eating more, causing worldwide shortages. But is that true? ( Watch )

Due to their huge populations, countries like India and China may appear to consume gigantic amounts of food. But the real elephant in the room that nobody is willing to talk about is how much each person gets to eat. And the answer will shock many.

Total foodgrain consumption — wheat, rice, and all coarse grains like rye, barley etc — by each person in the US is over five times that of an Indian, according to figures released by the US Department of Agriculture for 2007.

Each Indian gets to eat about 178 kg of grain in a year, while a US citizen consumes 1,046 kg.

In per capita terms, US grain consumption is twice that of the European Union and thrice that of China. Grain consumption includes flour and by conversion to alcohol.

In fact, per capita grain consumption has increased in the US — so actually the Americans are eating more. In 2003, US per capita grain consumption was 946 kg per year which increased to 1046 kg last year.

By way of comparison, India’s per capita grain consumption has remained static over the same period. It’s not just grains. Milk consumption, in fluid form, is 78 kg per year for each person in the US, compared to 36 kg in India and 11 kg in China.

Vegetable oils consumption per person is 41 kg per year in US, while Indians are making do with just 11 kg per year. These are figures for liquid milk, not for cheese, butter, yogurt and milk powders which are consumed in huge proportion in the more advanced countries.

A significant proportion of India’s population is vegetarian, and so, this is all the food that they get, apart from vegetables and pulses. But the source of carbohydrates and fats is mainly derived from food grains and oils.

As far as meat consumption is concerned, the US leads the world in per capita consumption by a wide margin. Beef consumption, for example, is 42.6 kg per person per year, compared to a mere 1.6 kg in India and 5.9 kg in China. In case you are thinking that perhaps Indians might be going in for chicken, think again. In the US, 45.4 kg poultry meat is consumed every year by each person, compared to just 1.9 kg in India.

Pork consumption is negligible in India, while it is a major item elsewhere. In the European Union, 42.6 kg pork is consumed per person every year, while in the US, 29.7 kgs are consumed. Pork is a staple for Chinese, and so over 35 kg are consumed per person per year. And, we are not talking about various other types of meat, like turkey.
All these comparisons are for powerful economies, whether of the west or the east.

But the story would not be complete without mentioning the plight of Africa, where foodgrain consumption in 2007 was a mere 162 kg per year for each person, or about 445 grams per day. Don’t forget they are not getting any meat or milk products out there.

Perhaps, it is time to include the lifestyle choices of the West in the whole feverish debate on how to tackle the global food crisis.

These figures are collated by the US Department of Agriculture. US per capita grain consumption rose from 946 kg in 2003 to 1046 kg last year. India’s per capita consumption remained static in this period.

I agree with Aurora and Meike about comments in other threads regarding Myanmar situation. Personally, I feel for the victims and donated a small amount of $10.00 to the Red Cross. It might give some relief to cope from bad news that might disturb you, but I don't think writing a comment here and there on a spiritual blog is going to help the victims directly. This doesn't mean that I am going to stop writing passionately about anything about other topics that interest me; like the presidential race in my case. Nor do I stop eating and entertaining myself, enjoying and partying feeling guilty about the continuing plight of the cyclone victims. I would hate to see anyone commenting on someone who has a smile on his face a few days after he lost a dear one, or judging someone who has an affair/or marries after he lost his(beloved or not) wife. These analogies aren't perfect, but I hope you get the point. I wouldn't expect Dr. Avtar for ex. to stop writing spiritual blogs at IB, but I would have certainly expected DK Matai, for ex., to blog about such a major world human disaster. Granted, the cyclone may not be a black swan or some such animal in his world but certainly, I would expect a post from someone who wrote blogged about tens of deaths from tornadoes in the US.

Dear Mieke

Regarding your comment #33 on the first Myanmar thread (which has been pushed off the main page, so I've linked to it below):

I went to Avtar's first pain thread, and read the comments from the people who posted on that thread, and could find nothing that suggested they wouldn't return -- unless you meant that fewer people commented on Avtar's thread than in the past. If so, that's been a trend on all posts at IB since the aliases began their copy-paste posting. I thought people were still reading, though. But now, after thinking about how quiet IB was about Myanmar, I believe readership is down, too.

I cannot believe that DK would think of you as not good enough. If the project you're referring to was that expansion of the Holistic Quantum effort, that was beset with a number of issues, as I see it from my outside viewpoint. Its initial (and often only) audience was drawn from IB, who are not a community of philosophers or scientists (wrong audience). It required great dedication just to keep up with the reading, and very few of IB's audience is retired or well-to-do with enough spare time and inclination to read and organize the material (IB is a blog, and people read blogs because blogging is shorthand communication). There were many egos involved that would be difficult to manage if one were not given serious authority and budget to allow for effective management. That effort needed strong central direction, a solid budget, and a focused PR campaign to become a viable and successful project, and those things were not given. I know what kind of dedication you bring to whatever you touch. Dedication is a motive and sustaining force, but even dedication becomes hamstrung when the central vision and funding needed for a project is missing. Even the simplest volunteer project falls apart if there is not a central vision that's strongly held in common by the volunteers. There was no great central vision in that project. There was a searching for a great central vision -- but that search can only be completed by the mind(s) that conceived of the ideas -- it cannot be done by the minds trying to organize and present the information to the public.

http://www.intentblog.com/archives/2008/05/myanmar_cyclone.html#comment-176438

love, h

*****

Mom would give me that look--and just--as if,

I had one lone heart-string designated to

the sole purpose of plucking guilty sounds

from the depths of my soul, it would cause me to sing

out loud and clear just how sorry I was, in fact!

Repentance...quickly shown...will sometimes ease the pain and shorten the whoopin'!

Mom always said I would never amount to anything.

And so..I have always tried to subtract from nothing.

.

I am my Mother's keeper of everything ornery.

.

To whom it may concern:

Happy Mother's Day!

Dear Irv

It is fairer to compare consumption between economic strata when doing country-to-country views. India has a huge stratum living at or below subsistence levels, compared with the US, and that creates a huge skew in the numbers. A fairer comparison would be the US in the depression years, when we also had a large stratum living at or below subsistence levels. (My mother lived through those years in poverty, and told us she ate chalk and plaster then.)

As prosperity increases, so does demand for more food, and for high-protein foods such as meat. This is a trend that has already been noted in India and China by economists.

Food wastage also increases. In the US, school trash bins in affluent areas get filled daily with partially-eaten meals (including wasted milk in liquid form), for example.

It is not the lifestyle choices of the West, it is the lifestyle choices of the prosperous.

love, h

Dear Irv

As I implied in my comments to ruth and Mieke, I have now come to think that both participation and readership have gone down at IB. This is why we have not heard from more readers on Myanmar, I believe. I was surprised at the lack of contributor posts on Myanmar.

No one is expecting feeling personal joys, or grappling with personal sorrows, to cease when a crisis happens elsewhere. But for a vocal community of compassionate people, a crisis is a time to underscore the reasons that people are compassionate, and to give information about how to help.

love, h

Over the past two months, I've come to believe that we smile too much at IB. There are so many smileys and LOL's typed in comments, in situations where there is no humor. It is the kind of smiling one does to ensure harmonious relations face-to-face.

But isn't a blog about debate? Isn't it about discussion, challenge, thinking and responding with fresh thoughts? When we watch a formal debate, there is no appeasement smiling going on. When I read comments on fiction, poetry and news forums, there are very few smileys and LOL's.

Personally, I believe that our choices of language when we write can show a respect that acts as a fitting gift for our discussion partners, one that lasts longer than a :-) or an LOL.

This may seem a stern thing to write. But in my personal experience in life, appeasement smiling means little over the long term, whether its offered face-to-face or as smileys. Real harmony and growth are achieved through work, including challenge and confrontation set within an intention for mutual respect and peace.

Here's a very interesting article about rice-flying, an aerial method of seeding rice paddies that's been used in California since the 1920's:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/us/11rice.html

Dear Heath,

Happy Mother's Day!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaLfDnShEn0&feature=related

Dear Keith

And the same to you and those you love. A good song choice for today :).

love, h

Hi Heather,

Thanks for your comments on OT to me. I guess I do not belong anymore to that generation that wants to debate the topics. I guess it has to do with reaching a certain age :) (deliberate smiley!).

I would wish you a very happy mother's day and every mother reading this blog!

I just had a phonecall from my daughter, a mother now too of two healthy youngsters, one of 4 years and one of 6 months.

I told her about my labyrinth effort and she is the first to sponsor under the condition that I call my butterfly labyrinth Meike :).

I truly am in my passion now and as you so rightly mentioned I do everything I do with the utmost dedication. No words from me anymore, but deeds.

I wish you and everybody here most successful debates.

I have written my own alphabet of a Peace Warrior, have placed this somewhere on IB too in the past. It is an ode to my little granddaughter and all the children in the world. But above all it is an ode to the sacred feminine.

And now this really really is my last comment on this beautiful blog!

Much inspiration and friendship to all,

Mieke

Hi Heather,

I too have noticed that the number of indivduals commenting here at Intentblog is way down. It seems like the multiple id'ers have taken hold.

I assumed there were many readers who just do not comment but read, only. Maybe readership is down too, I do not know.

Since the multiple iders have taken hold I tend to think twice about commenting since many times I would comment and 10 to 15 posts would be cut and pasted after my comment, it gets somewhat tiring to scroll through.

For me, I have not been that interested in commenting on world global tragedies, issues, events....I think I am in a funk with it all, sometimes it just seems too overwhelming, and I feel too vulnerable. I think I would have to say that I am feeling more stressed in my personal life with many different contributing factors although it does not compare with what folks are going through in other parts of our world.

It would be nice if those who read only at Intentblog would write some comments too, for me, I do not think I would go to a blog site and not participate, why bother. I go to CNN, or other news sites to just read, but if I go to a specific blog site I would want to participate rather than just read it, it would not be that interesting for me.

well, I best be on with my day....wishing all a very good Mother's Day...ruth

Hi Heather,

Just wanted to comment on your #89, personally, I think you are being a bit too serious, picking on the :)))) or the LOL's....to me, after reading you for quite sometime, here, at IB, I would say you are in a "mood," but you would probably be offended by an offhand dismissive response such as this and I can't say as I would blame you.

Sometimes, I too get frustrated with IB with the nature of the blogs, even with Deepak's, and with the fact that Mallika and Gotham hardly write or even respond....I tend to wonder if we are just not worthy of their time and have moved on but what do I know....I come, I read, I comment, sometimes it is great, somtimes not so much...such is life, real and in bloggersville....

bye, ruth :))))

I too have gotten tired of all the copy/pasting that has gone on here on IB. I don't read them. I only read comments from bloggers that were on here when I joined. So, after the Obama/Clinton campaigns are over MAYBE all the old bloggers will return!

Mieke, I went to your blog but I couldn't read it since it wasn't in English. Do you have an English blog? I agree with you on 99% of what you write. I miss North and now you are leaving.What do the rest of us do since you won't be on IB? My heart aches.

Happy Mother's Day to all mothers.

I too have gotten tired of all the copy/pasting that has gone on here on IB. I don't read them. I only read comments from bloggers that were on here when I joined. So, after the Obama/Clinton campaigns are over MAYBE all the old bloggers will return!

Mieke, I went to your blog but I couldn't read it since it wasn't in English. Do you have an English blog? I agree with you on 99% of what you write. I miss North and now you are leaving.What do the rest of us do since you won't be on IB? My heart aches.

Happy Mother's Day to all mothers.

From the Huffington Post.
Dr Chopra writes:

"Young people in particular are aroused by finding solutions that cross political divides -- they seek fixes where the whole society bands together to help everyone. This isn't pure naiveté by any means. Other societies based on rational goodness are succeeding: Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Holland, for example".

You are so right Dr Chopra, these countries are very strong opponents of the death penalty, torture and all forms of abuse towards humans and animals. They are most generous in terms of helping poor nations, have the best welfare and medicare systems, very high standards of education and are very liberal and tolerant towards gays and lesbians.

Do you think the fact that Sweden, Denmark, and Norway rank No 1, 2 and 3 in Europe when it comes to the percentage of atheists and agnostics living in these countries, has anything to do with their desire to do good?

The majority of citizens in these countries appear to live in the real world, they enjoy what really exists and they don't assign supernatural and paranormal qualities to things they don't understand, a far cry from IDiots (intelligent design proponents), spoon benders and telekinesis practitioners.

Wouldn't it be great if more of us had brains wired to live like that?

I have been in Memphis this weekend and happened to catch an artcile published in the Memphis Daily News on Friday. This article gives deep insight into just why some Superdelegates are not backing Hillary Clinton and a possible reason why a lot of them are, and maybe why some are noncommittal.

http://www.memphisdailynews.com/editorial/Article.aspx?id=37041

Supposedly, Congressman Lincoln Davis of Tennessee, an uncommitted superdelegate, was contacted by the Clinton campaign in hopes that they could woo him to commit to her campaign. The story posted on the front page of The Hill newspaper said that Davis had turned down an invitation to meet with her team.

>>>
"He says that's not true," U.S. Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn., told The Daily News about Davis' refusal to meet with Clinton. "But that's on the front page of The Hill. I told him he might as well go ahead and endorse Barack (Obama), BECAUSE ONCE HILLARY SEES THAT, HE'S A DEAD MAN ANYWAY."
>>>[emphasis mine]

Oh, it gets better. Cooper dishes on Hillary's dirty tactics.

Many of you know the story of how in 1993, Hillary Clinton was tasked with bringing about health care reform. She says she worked with Congress to get a bill passed, but I'd never heard this story before. Apparently, Congressman Cooper had already written a health care bill.

>>>"They turned up their nose at my bill, and that's fine. But then they constructed this secret 500-person task force to draft a whole new bill - and I knew it would go nowhere," Cooper said. "So I went privately to the White House to warn (Hillary Clinton). No publicity. No nothing.

"She brought in a camera to record the meeting. And she has not released the memos on this meeting. She immediately declared war on me. I warned her we didn't even have the votes (for her bill) in our subcommittee. She said, 'We're going to (politically) CUT YOUR LEGS OFF.' I've never gotten such a cold reception as I got from her.">>>[emphasis mine]

Team Clinton then set up a war room to go against him and defeat his Senate bid in 1994. He says they hired a former Nashville reporter to head the war room. But during this time, President Clinton was as nice as he could be to Rep. Cooper, playing golf with him, running with him, and asking him to hang out at the White House.

Here's what he says about Hillary's supporters:

"I respect Hillary supporters because they haven't had the chance to get to know her like I have. She does not have the political skills of her husband. Or Barack. You need somebody who can bring people together. She criticized my health care bill because it wouldn't achieve universal coverage until 1998. WELL, TODAY WE'D BE CELEBRATING THE 10TH ANNIVERSARY OF HAVING EVERY AMERICAN WITH INSURANCE."(emphasis mine)

So, ladies and gentlemen, be sure to thank Hillary Clinton for killing Cooper's bill. Amazing.

Go read the entire article at the Memphis Daily News. It's eye-opening.

Story in NYT back in February gives even more details on how Cooper's bill was killed: The Cooper Concerns:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/opinion/05brooks.html?_r=1&em&oref=slogin

i hope u had a great mother's day ladies...

and north...we miss u! hope to see u allowed back!

the site is full of unwanted intruders...like mr. limpet! shusshh!

Wow, John, no wonder he's Obama's campaign chair in Tennessee. I don't think I'd be able to support someone who said they'd cut my legs off, politically or otherwise. And I'd think that behavior is precisely why so many are afraid to commit: They don't want to go to war with the Clintons.

That is a chilling story to say the least but I certainly can't say I'm surprised at the reaction of the Clinton's in all of that. Thanks for the post.

I always looked at HillaryCare as a preview of what an HRC presidency would look like. An ambitious, high-minded, heavy-handed, and ineffectual failure. Lots of infighting too.

And a total refusal to accept anything that wasn't their idea or that they won't get credit for, no matter how beneficial it would be for the country. That is the absolute LAST thing we need in a president.

She pulls this shit, then she's out on the campaign trail empathizing with people who are uninsured. It's disgusting.

Not to mention her continuing negative tactics against the presumptive democratic nominee.

SNL turns on Hillary & her "White People Love Me" shtick. The following is a clip of last night's introduction. It was especially cathartic after having to squirm through Hillary's pimping of SNL during the debate. I think the lesson for Hillary on this one is: don't pimp SNL.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLFJTc3oExE

The above clip runs the gamut.

Race card, sex card, low-info voters, Clintonionism, etc. In her own words:

"Unlike Senator Obama, I have no ethical standards. Even my critics would agree that once I get the nomination, I will stop at nothing--absolutely nothing--to win. Whereas, with Senator Obama, there are some things he simply will not do. Take, for example, the race card, which he has been reluctant to play. As in, 'anyone who doesn't vote for me, is a racist.' I, on the other hand, will be happy to play the gender card and claim that anyone who doesn't vote for me is a sexist. In fact, once Senator Obama is out of the picture, I look forward to playing the race card myself. As in, 'anyone who doesn't vote for me is both a sexist and a racist.'

Now for those of you who say, 'she'll never do that, it doesn't even make sense!' I answer, 'if you believe that, you don't know me.' So there you have it: sore loser, racist supporters, no ethical standards, qualities Senator Obama simply can't match."

Oh my!

She's sunk so low that she's lost SNL. Man, even she should see the writing on the wall now, since she was touting SNL not long ago.

Lessons from history...

After watching Cronkite's* broadcast, LBJ was quoted as saying. "That's it. If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost middle America."

Ref.
http://faculty.smu.edu/dsimon/Change-Viet2.html

Think about it......

[Wiki: Walter Leland Cronkite, Jr. (born November 4, 1916) is a retired iconic American broadcast journalist, best known as anchorman for The CBS Evening News for 19 years (1962–81). During the heyday of CBS News in the 1970s and 1980s he was often cited in viewer opinion polls as "the most trusted man in America," because of his professional experience and kindly demeanor.]

...that SNL stands in for Cronkite in this scenario is a sad commentary on our media, imo.

Indeed, SNL in the long run has been more reliable keeping balance than most of the news media.

I think the whole SNL thing was misinterpreted by most people some weeks ago. SNL never was in the tank for Hillary; it's just that Amy Poehler had been mocking HRC week after week, month after month with no corresponding Obama parody, so when Tina Fey returned to the show to host, the women felt that SNL's treatment of the race needed more balance. I don't think they had any idea how that one episode, given its timing, would impact the race and change the media coverage to stack the deck against HRC's opponent; it appears they are taking some responsibility for that with this newest episode. Good for them.

(And let's face it, all politics aside, the brilliant Amy Poehler's take on Hillary is about a thousand times funnier than the usually humorous Fred Armisen's awful Obama impression that sounds nothing like him in voice, cadence, or speech patterns.)

I think it was Cater Phipps in the contributor blog who suggested that we moved beyond parody into into surrealism. But what other assessment makes sense when The Daily Show has become a better source for news and analysis than the major media outlet claiming to be fair and balanced. Particularly when the others are completely focused on pandering to the least informed viewers in an endless competition for audience share.

"...are completely focused on pandering to the least informed viewers in an endless competition for audience share."

It's a major market to be exploited.

Can't blame them really. Just a business decision.

Isn't that what Mafia bigshots have been reputed to say? "No offense; just business."

(I saw "The Godfather." I know these things.)

Lorne Michaels finally woke up and realized that the typical SNL viewer dislikes Hillary, and was thus tuning out because SNL was cutting Hillary way too much positive slack.

I certainly tuned out.

Lorne Michaels does not want to have SNL go down the toilet with Hillary.

And there was nothing wrong with Hillary having had quite a favorable ride with SNL when they first gave her a national stage.

But let's face it by anyones standard she went very negative and more importantly the voters she was courting; uneducated; racist, fearful old people, beltway faithful. Those groups probably aren't the people that the advertisers know and want to reach out to. They advertisers know full well the demographics of the SNL audience.

The insecure uneducated slightly racist factory worker; or the old folks who don't want anything to change - those aren't big SNL audiences.

So I'm happy to see this pretty balsy indictment of HRC. They really didn't pull any punches there.

Re. 88

"As prosperity increases, so does demand for more food, and for high-protein foods such as meat. This is a trend that has already been noted in India and China by economists." --hgquinn

What's interesting in the Times of India artcile in #83 is that Bush and Rice recently claimed "the Chinese and Indians are responsible[for the global grain shortage]. The 'logic': due to zooming incomes, they are eating more, causing worldwide shortages."

The figures don't add up to that claim. TOI: "US per capita grain consumption rose from 946 kg in 2003 to 1046 kg last year. India’s per capita consumption[178 kg] remained static in this period."

It is interesting to know (supported by studies) that it is predominately females(maybe 90-10) who tend to use a lot more emoticons in internet communications and conversations; in forums, usenet groups, email lists and yes, blogs too.

So, it is not so much of a surprise for me to see lols and smileys from mostly women at IB. Some women use it consistently as a matter of personal style. Tammy, Ruth, Meike, Aurora, North, WhiteNoise(Rahul Khanna fan) etc come to mind. I have to yet see a male at IB who uses "lols" and "whoas" in a noticeable manner other than Diablo, who is a pansy anyway.

Personally, I rarely use exclamation marks, and caps or emoticons, lols etc ...sometimes I use them to deliberately being snarkish. But generally I don't feel comfortable using them. But I understand others using them. I don't see any proliferations of such usage at IB by more members or in more messages by other users in the past couple of months. Rather I see a decrease in such usage compared to say a year ago at IB. And I don't think such text styles and modes of expressions are out of place in a proper blog participation and connecting with other people. I agree with ruth on that. That's what diversity is all about. You can uplift a discussion, debate or dialogue by your participation, but not by criticizing others who don't follow your rules or fit into your current perception about this community and how it should/could be.

Hi Irvine, thank you for a balanced view in 114. I really enjoyed seeing how easy it is for you to embrace diversity around this issue.

Heather,
I just read your post nr. 89. I'm sorry that you don't see the humor and joy in life right now. It's always there. You don't have to smile, but you will have to accept that you can't force the world to stop smiling :)))))))
You can start a crusade against a "wrong" world or you can turn your attention to what in you is stopping your smiles. Your choice.

There could be several reasons why IB readership(Asian and Western) might have -- and apparently the IB participation has -- gone down. The most potent reason is the nature and quality of contributor blogs. A community blog is only as good as the blog entries by the contributors. Second is the comment policy. Typekey is a major hurdle to encourage new readers to comment and there by bringing them into regular participation. The first or first few comments by a new commenter at IB, are held for approval, further discouraging participation.

Heath, for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nylrSE08w0U

Emoticon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A portmanteau of the English words emotion (or emote) and icon, an emoticon is a symbol or combination of symbols used to convey emotional content in written or message form.

...In a New York Times interview in April 1969, Alden Whitman asked writer Vladimir Nabokov: "How do you rank yourself among writers (living) and of the immediate past?" Nabokov answered: "I often think there should exist a special typographical sign for a smile — some sort of concave mark, a supine round bracket, which I would now like to trace in reply to your question."

...A list of some of the most common emoticons follows. As displayed here, they all use a relatively consistent form, but each of them can also be transformed by being rotated, having the hyphen omitted, and so on...

:-) smile, happy
:)
A few people turn the smiley around, a "left-handed" smiley (:

:-( sad, depressed
;-) wink
:-D laugh or big grin
:-P tongue out, being silly
:-* kiss
:-O surprised
:-/ uncertain
:-| stoic or waiting, can also mean "meh" or indifferent
:-$ the feeling of greed

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

The question remains - why be ON any of these blogs under these circumstances?

I keep hoping for positive changes, but
on and on we go...

Hey Aurora,

You are welcome! I am not sure if others find it to be a 'well-balanced' view -- the way I expressed it -- though. Yeah...I agree I was trying to strike a balance :) I do like to see others, doing certain things and expressing themselves in ways I may not be able/comfortable doing... I do dislike certain things and behavior in me/others but I won't be too bothered about it; I try to "appreciate" diversity and "embrace" it given I see no question of an "issue", but I should confess, I find it hard to embrace "diversity" around any and all issues :)

***

Hey Freyja,

The most general answer would be this:

Post the very sort of thing, which you would like to see posted by others. If you do, others may follow suit.

Of course, as we see/have-seen in abundance, there is always the 'dog in the manger' on every blog... someone who, by means of sheer cussedness, manages to disrupt every thread, sow dissension, set people against each other, and dares the moderator to do anything about it. LOL!

Here is something to think about:

Q: What is the difference between genius and madness?

A: The genius uses madness constructively, while the madwo/man uses genius destructively.

The above is important to realize.

Further; mere smarminess has no healing or rectifying powers. It is merely the continuation of the mediocrity which a discussion 'blog' is supposed to transcend. If anyone demands the mean (average) and the norm, and uses that as a scale of grading, what results is merely an online replication of social 'business as usual', or 'status quo'.

Effort is required, in order to excel. In this case, to 'excel' is to don the hip-waders of patience and wade into the shit, and then to float above it like a happy lotus. Overall, it is an exercise in personal integrity.

#114 Lol Irv, if D is a pansy, you must be a stinging nettle! (very medicinal)

Great Expectations!
Disappointment prevails time~
Doo-wah-ditty blues : (

.

Newcomers where now
Lazy is relaxing beans
Count them one finger

Aldous Huxley:

"The course of every intellectual, if he pursues his journey long and unflinchingly enough, ends in the obvious, from which the nonintellectuals have never stirred."

John Sauget:

"Sit at the feet of the master long enough, and they'll start to smell."

well ...the limpet...is calling a real man a pansy...whoa dude...wud u like to say that to my face if i was standing face to face with u?

u are such a coward hiding behind all those alises, using each one to throw barbs my way...u are a gross pot-bellied, computer addict who never gets out to get some fresh air...so, what happended to ur real name skeptisch...a couple a weeks ago...u surfaced under it...what ...was the amnesty short-lived?

pretty soon if u keep it up u will the space all to urself...have u not noticed how the conversation has diminished lately because of u? damn!

IW wrote:
"I do like to see others, doing certain things and expressing themselves in ways I may not be able/comfortable doing... I do dislike certain things and behavior in me/others but I won't be too bothered about it; I try to "appreciate" diversity and "embrace" it given I see no question of an "issue", but I should confess, I find it hard to embrace "diversity" around any and all issues :)"

On the road of life you meet only two kind of things: things you like, and things you don't. On meeting things you like, don't fall in love.

Things you like are always going the other way, they will whisk by, let them go. Can't make a U turn on the road of life. You can't chase things
into the past. Try it and suffering will result.

Things you don't like are always going your way, if you try to flee away, they will keep up. wish to escape, and suffering will result. Stop your mind, and what you don't like will speed up and be gone. Oh, by the way, there is no destination on this road, wherever you decide to stop is the
end of the road.

John Sauget:

"Sit at the feet of the master long enough, and they'll start to smell."

That is the way of the nature to compel you to move forward from the master, even if the master is Ramana. That is the way nature's evolution moves forward.

String beans in theory
Clockwise climbing to heaven
Sky hooks are needed

#126 Harb,

Indeed. That was a quote partly inspired by our previous discussion about Ramana and gurus, originally intended to be posted as a comment on "intellectualization" along with the Huxley's quote in the Avtar's latest thread. But I thought, it could be misconstrued by Igor ...or rather sidetrack from discussion in his posts, some quoting Mahesh Yogi.

Lazy dandelions
rocking in a sea of green
the sound of mowers

John #128, Thank you. And that was thoughtful of you.

Harb

Dear Aurora

I beg you, please stop taking my words here and extrapolating things about my internal life from them.

My #89 is not much different in its intent from your note to Grace in #16 on her thread. What makes you conclude "that you don't see the humor and joy in life right now" about me? And why do you think I have "start[ed] a crusade against a "wrong" world"??

I recommend that, each time you have the urge to correct or advise me, you reread my words five times, and then take a break of several hours. then reread again, then examine your own motives. If you still feel a need to correct or advise me, then fire away at that point. But even then, you'll likely to be wrong in your understanding of me, I would bet.

You have me shaking my head in wonderment at an apparent stubborn insistence within yourself to read me wrong and proceed on that faulty basis.

love, h

Dear Irv

How disingenuous of you, in your #116.

love, h

Dear ruth

In your #95, you think I'm in a mood. I'm not offended by your perception, but I'd like to tell you my reality.

I am frustrated with IB, as you are. And that's it. This year, I have more courage to say what I really think. And that's it, too. :)

love, h

Dear Irv

Good to see you :)ing and L'ing_OL in #120.

Dear Ed

Your horticultural diagnosis is spot on.

love, h

Irvine, your confession makes you really easy to like :)))

Dear Heather,

My motive in trying to show you the connection between the inner and the outer world is that I care. It is very possible that I read you wrong, I don't deny it. I'm doing my best from what I read in your posts, of course, and I won't point to which paragraphs and words, because I'm not out to prove anything. You either hear me, or not.
In general, these last days I've seen you frustrated and angry (your words, not mine), I've seen you writing that people -should- discuss more of a certain issue and -should- smile less. I see you talking about courage to speak your mind. I applaud that, and I thought I'd point to the source of human feelings of anger and frustration, which is always inside ourselves. If you prefer to continue to believe that the world (IBers or whomever) is causing your emotional state... then so it is :)))
A friend can only say what she sees and then leave it to you. So now I do.

Dear Aurora

You simple don't know me, my love. For example, despite being sick yesterday (and I still am today), I wrote a blog about an Anime film for a design forum I manage. It took eight hours to do the work to write the blog. If you have time, check it out, here.

http://v-d-and-c.blogspot.com/2008/05/paprika-balancing-analog-and-cgi-art-in.html

Then guess how passionately engaged I am, with both people and the creative process, to do that even though I was sick. I'm filled with joy and humor, and love, and thoughtfulness, and lots of other cool things. And I work hard, too, because I care about others and my effect on them. You don't know me.

Irv can vouch for my character, and that I have both joy and humor. Right, Irv? :D

love, h

Dear Aurora

About your #135, and other comments.

You are totally projecting on me. It's beginning to seem quite strange. I wonder what your motive is. Actually I don't wonder about that. I wonder if you understand your own motive.

love, h

Heather, I KNOW you are loving, humorous, passionate and talented. I KNOW you care about people, I know you work hard and all the rest. Of course I know, and you seem to think I'm somehow talking about your character. Not at all. It's not about your character friend.

I'm just so surprised to notice that you, of all people, believe that your frustration comes from the outside. I care too much about you to not pull your sleeve and make you aware that you demand that life/people/IB or whomever should be in a certain way so your frustration goes away.

Maybe I've misinterpreted you, maybe you don't believe that you "are frustrated with IB" and you realize that you "are frustrated", which is another thing alltogether. Tell me if so :) then I'll stop pulling your sleeve :D

Btw, Paprika looks great. And your blog on it too. I'll show it to my daughter, she's passionate about drawing and will surely like this.

"I wonder if you understand your own motive."#137

Generally, if someone project he/she wouldn't know by definition:

In psychology, psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism in which one attributes one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions to others. Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted subconscious impulses/desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them.

"You are totally projecting on me. It's beginning to seem quite strange. I wonder what your motive is." #137

Also, Jung writes that "All projections provoke counter-projection when the object is unconscious of the quality projected upon it by the subject."

The concept was anticipated by Friedrich Nietzsche:

"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you."

Dear Aurora

Where you make your biggest error about me is when you think I am telling anyone they "should" (your word, not mine) do anything at all, or that I am making a "demand" (your word, not mine) of anyone, about anything.

Please go back to my words, and see if anything I wrote is anything more than me expressing my personal opinion in a public forum.

Are you trying to pressure me to be silent? Are you asking me to hide my real thoughts and feelings? Are you placing too much weight on my words?

Kya? Ce qui? Che cosa? ¿Qué?

Regarding IB, I am frustrated with it and angry about things that have happened in the past, and continue even now. Do you have any problem with my feeling these things, and saying I feel them?

And can you also find a way not to squeeze my words in your mind to make them bleed all over your perceptions of me, my inner world, and my feelings about things other than IB?

Why do you feel the need to pull my sleeve? Do you understand your motive with that?

love, h

Dear John

This is a feminine thing -- you may want to stay out of it :).

love, h

Dear Aurora

Thank you. I hope your daughter enjoys it, if she has the time to read it. If she likes Anime and hasn't yet had the chance to see Paprika, I recommend it highly. The Special Features section of the DVD has lots of commentary from Kon (including a full film commentary), from which one can understand a lot of his philosophy and creative process. The speech is in Japanese, but there are decent English subtitles.

love, h

Heather, it's not personal. I was trying to show you something hard to see. My motive is friendly, and now I'll leave it at that. Zip. Nada. Silence. Sound of mowers in the distance...

I'll show her and if she likes it, we'll check it out. She watches so much Manga that she has started to speak a little Japanese :) thanks for the tip.

{{{{dear Aurora}}}}

She probably knows of Satoshi Kon, then. (Terminology: Manga is the comic books, Anime is the films.)

love, h

I'm sure she does, she is drawing, watching, talking and reading "manga" and now I know it's Anime when she watches them on youtube :D Who can keep pace with it all ?? She IS staring at me now, waiting for her computer time... so it's time for some Paprika :) Bye Heather, thanks for the hug!

says the flower to the fly...

"Dear John

This is a feminine thing -- you may want to stay out of it :)." if he has any shame, he wud!

Just now catching up on reading IB.

Heather
Your efforts to wake up IB to more diverse voices are appreciated. For me, at least, after scrolling through so many aliased cut and pastes, reading imaginary conversations between the same person regarding politics and blah blah, is like watching too much television. It just gets tuned out. Your motives and intent should be obvious to anyone who's paying attention.

Love
Bonnie

Hi Heather,

I love that you are speaking your mind!! Saying what you think and feel about the goings on here at IB....you are a great voice here at IB.

No need to gussy up the comments I like them in all flavors! :)))

have a wonderful day, ruth

Dear Aurora

I can understand her deep involvement, for sure. It would be so cool if this developed into a career for her. I just found Satoshi Kon on Facebook, and became a fan.

Dear Diablo

What happened to your long grass taunts, love? Will you write us a poem? (Yeah, I know... but there's no harm in expressing a wish to read one, isn't it?)

Dear Bonnie

The diversity, peace, thoughtfulness, and intelligence of your comments often start a thought process, rather than conversation, for me. This creates more depth and interest at IB, I think. Thank you.

Dear John

I was just teasing, please fire away with all you have.

Dear Irv

Good morning, my dear sir.

love, h

dear ruth

I love the thought of not gussying up stuff. Naked thoughts and feelings, expressed with a little delicacy, are on the menu. :)

love, h

7.8 MAG QUAKE ROCKS CHINA...

Shakes buildings in Beijing, Bangkok, Hanoi...

HILL-BILLIES FOR CLINTON!

West Virginia country folk keep distance from Obama: 'I heard he's a Muslim ...' That's the kind of ignorant folks she is courting with her recent tactics...

The good punishment for Hill and Bill is to send them after the Hillbillies in Appalachia for Obama in the general election contest.

If Obama manages to get more than 24% of the vote in West viginia, he wins against McCain (as a presumptive nominee,) who got just 24% of the vote in the Missouri contest which Huckabee won after he became his parties presumptive nominee.

I suspect Obama will get a somewhat better over 30% vote in WA.

Oh, btw, Ohio official vote tallies are in. They show that Clinton lost her double digit margin of victory; 10.4 as reported to 8.6.

Thousands dead in Chinese quake

At least 8,500 people are killed by a strong earthquake in south-western China, state media says.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7396400.stm

Photos of the earthquake damage:

http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2008/05/12/world/0512-CHINA_index.html

That's a great report, Irv. Thanks for sharing it here.

love, h

I wonder how recovering from this earthquake will affect the Olympic games. The damage looks to be massive.

B

u sucking up to the mindless, cut-n-paste limpet socket? damn!

says multiple..."I suspect Obama will get a somewhat better over 30% vote in WA."

this is the same 'pundit' who predicted billary taking indiana by 10%...eeuuuhhh!

"this is the same 'pundit' who predicted billary taking indiana by 10%...eeuuuhhh!"

My predictions were spot on for both Indiana and NC:

"My predictions

NC: Obama strong double digits.
(There is no way Clinton wins NC, or Obama win by less than 5 points.)

Ind: Clinton by under 5 points.
(There is a posibility Clinton may win by over 10 points, but equally likely Obama might win this thing.)"

110. Posted by John on May 6, 2008 05:27 AM

I mean the post titled "My predictions" by John (not my predictions) was spot on for both Indiana and NC. This was when pollsters were predicting a single digit victory for Obama in NC and an above 6 point victory for Hillary in IN.

says multiple...

"I mean the post titled "My predictions" by John (not my predictions) was spot on for both Indiana and NC."

see...he is tripping all over his 'selves'....eeek!

Could Obama Redraw the Map?

Here's an excellent analysis:

http://progressillinois.com/2008/05/11/features/obama-over-the-top

"Diablo and John, can we talk about pragmatism versus idealism, in the context of the Democratic race for prez?"

"...but, what about after, when if he wins? :)"

--hgquinn on March 27, 2008

Jo Becker and Christopher Drew's lengthy New York Times' Front Page article yesterday, entitled "Pragmatic Politics, Forged on the South Side" on Barack Obama's "evolution from Hyde Park independent to mainstream Chicago politician" is meant to inform our understanding of how the Democratic nominee will build a viable electoral coalition this year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/us/politics/11chicago.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1210652206-t5KnKwtJLLNIzQzgcCgKig&pagewanted=all

But the piece is more valuable for it's insight into how an Obama administration might govern if elected.

Take this quote from the artcile by Will Burns, a former aide who consulted on Obama's now famous 2002 anti-war speech[transcript in #80 by IW]:

“What’s fascinating about Barack is what he’s trying to do is reframe and change the discourse so you build support for liberal alternatives within the electorate. He has an ability to frame stuff so it’s not an all or nothing proposition.”

This statement embodies the hope that his backers on the left see in Obama. Unlike the last Democratic nominee, who was badly damaged by the idea that his rhetoric was hollow and politically opportunistic, Obama seems to understand that a progressive agenda, while favored by voters on its merits, doesn't yet enjoy a popular political mandate. To get there, Obama seems focused on acknowledging and discrediting conservative policies while cultivating support for his own nuanced positions among a variety of voters who hold divergent views.

This "pragmatic" approach is rooted more in his experiences as a community organizer than his rise through Hyde Park. It will hopefully put him in a stronger position to not only win the race in November, but once elected, to push progressive policies more forcefully than any recent Democratic president.

On my hairy chest
Gazillions--one by one--jump
Happy landings, you

.

Only NOW, oh sure
All in one bite--casserole

.

Individual taste, my friend
Whatever do you mean by
Mistaken for something else?

.

What rules are leftovers!

.

Inconsistency...like lumpy gravy
slowly dribbling out of the side of my bowl.

.

Dare to be happy!

.

It is Super Duper Tuesday, isn't it?

John McCain gave a speech about the US Constitution and he got a fundamental fact about the Fifth Amendment wrong. He says:

"There is hardly a clearer principle in all the Constitution than the right of private property. There is a very clear standard in the Constitution requiring not only just compensation in the use of eminent domain, but also that private property may NOT be taken for 'public use.' But apparently that standard has been 'evolving' too." (From YouTube. Source: C-Span)

but the Fifth Amendment reads:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." (From Wiki)

McCain's campaign, embarrased by yet another Gaff by the Senior Senator from Arizona, tried to cover this up by posting an edited video on his website and altering the transcription to read:

"There is a very clear standard in the Constitution requiring not only just compensation in the use of eminent domain, but also that private property may be taken only for 'public use.' But apparently that standard has been 'evolving' too." (www.johnmccain.com)

Poor John McCain. He doesn't yet realize that in the age of YouTube, nothing can be disappeared down the Memory Hole.

*************************************************
Daily Kos entry uncovering the cover up:

BREAKING: McCain Loses Bearings in Speech on Constitution; Campaign Covers Up Error

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/12/05425/2994/579/514017

"A few minutes after I tuned in, they started showing McCain's speech at Wake Forest University last week, which I figured was suitably boring, and had the advantage of being too annoying for me to watch or listen to very intently; after several months of Obama's speeches, I can barely tolerate McCain speaking.

But since it was on a subject that I'm familiar with and somewhat interested in, I kept one ear tuned in. One ear was just barely enough; if I'd been paying any less attention, I might have missed John's Big Boo-Boo -- and it really is a big one. Follow below the fold for the latest reason this man should not be elected president....

...I smirked but didn't get too excited when he said he was glad to be at "West Virginia," rather than Wake Forest, when he pronounced the word "relevance" as though it was spelled "revelance," when he talked about the people in "Warshington," or even when he laid this little gem on the Wake Forest students:

"I'm the living proof that an undistinguished academic record can be overcome in life -- or at least that's the hope that has long, long sustained me."

But then he started getting into the substance of his speech -- basically that judges have become too activist. A few minutes into his discussion of this topic, this is what I thought I heard:

...My head whipped around, and I thought, "HUH?????" Granted, it's been 25 years since my Constitutional Law class, but . . . isn't the whole point of eminent domain that the government CAN take private property for public use, as long as the owner is fairly compensated for the taking?

Quickly went to Wikipedia to make sure that I hadn't lost my own bearings and misremembered some relevant nuance of the Fifth Amendment....

[...]

...I think it's a big deal when a candidate for the Presidency of this country, who starts a speech talking about how the President must swear an oath to protect, preserve and defend the Constitution [insert emphatic hand motions here], just a few minutes later erroneously alters his scripted speech to completely change the meaning of a phrase describing what he says is one of the clearest principles enunciated in the Constitution.

Yes, there is a clear principle in the Consitution, but it is not what he said it is. Does he really not understand what eminent domain is? Did he forget, because he is tired from his hard work on the campaign trail? Who knows?

To those who have been saying that bringing up McCain's age is "ageism," or that it is beneath us as the supporters of a man who is seeking to avoid the politics of personal attack, I say, res ipsa loquitor -- one of those fancy Latin legal phrases meaning, "The thing speaks for itself." His age is a legitimate issue."
**************************************************

On the other hand, it seems just as likely that McCain divides the universe of social organizations into three parts--private, public and government. If so, then it's likely that the notion of equating government with a public purpose doesn't even occur to him--that in his universe there are private corporations and public corporations and government hovering over them to dole out rewards and provide punishment.

I don't think he's alone in this perception. The outspoken proponents of "limited government" all seem to assume that it means the functions of government are limited to just that--punishing and rewarding behavior. Which is why they can argue that if religion is more successful in inculcating good behavior, the cost of government will be less. Besides, it's only extraordinarily good behavior that needs to be rewarded--i.e. the top one percent who are good at creating wealth.

So, it seems entirely possible that McCain meant what he said. In his mind, government does not serve a public use and so, while it may take property and pay compensation, it won't be for a public use.

Dear Heather,

Just time for a few lines in support of what you have been trying to get across here. You are not alone in your frustration about the blog.

There are perhaps a number of things that have brought it on and if I thought it would help I would give an opinion. Unfortunately I think those who can/could have/should have taken control seem to have lost interest. This place lost its zing a long time ago for me but I do enjoy it in small doses now.

As Ruth so aptly put it, I like it too when someone speaks their mind rather than hold back, as long as the intention is right. I know both your hearts are in the right place.

Dara

I agree with #89 by hgq.

"...There are so many smileys and LOL's typed in comments, in situations where there is no humor."

Obviously I wasn't paying enough attention as seen from some of my previous remarks regarding emoticons and lols.

I said:
"So, it is not so much of a surprise for me to see lols and smileys from mostly women at IB. Some women use it consistently as a matter of personal style. Tammy, Ruth, Meike, Aurora, North, WhiteNoise(Rahul Khanna fan) etc come to mind. I have to yet see a male at IB who uses "lols" and "whoas" in a noticeable manner other than Diablo, who is a pansy anyway."

You can add Harb to that list. Ed too. That makes it two males. In case of Ed, his witty comments make the usage original and seamless, sometimes showing the feminine and emotional side of his.

Sounds like I need to go cry over some spilt milk, Irv?

the real pansy is the poofter who uses female aliases while pretending to me macho...it must be a brain abnormality...but he's too ill to know...

granpa ed...look out ...he may surface as vanessa and ask u out! yikes!

From BrietBart, May 13:

'Albert Einstein described belief in God as "childish superstition" and said Jews were not the chosen people, in a letter to be sold in London this week, an auctioneer said Tuesday.

The father of relativity, whose previously known views on religion have been more ambivalent and fuelled much discussion, made the comments in response to a philosopher in 1954.

As a Jew himself, Einstein said he had a great affinity with Jewish people but said they "have no different quality for me than all other people".

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.

"No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this," he wrote in the letter written on January 3, 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind, cited by The Guardian newspaper.

The German-language letter is being sold Thursday by Bloomsbury Auctions in Mayfair after being in a private collection for more than 50 years, said the auction house's managing director Rupert Powell.

In it, the renowned scientist, who declined an invitation to become Israel's second president, rejected the idea that the Jews are God's chosen people.

"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions," he said.

"And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people."

And he added: "As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."

Previously the great scientist's comments on religion -- such as "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" -- have been the subject of much debate, used notably to back up arguments in favour of faith.

Powell said the letter being sold this week gave a clear reflection of Einstein's real thoughts on the subject. "He's fairly unequivocal as to what he's saying. There's no beating about the bush," he told AFP. '

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080513122249.m3ds3b6j&show_article=1

I hope people like Deepak Chopra, Avtar Singh at IB, and other's who argue for supernatural and paranormal phenomena at large stop bastardizing Einstein's beliefs and quotes and abusing science to bring credibility to their claims and arguments in pushing their New Age agenda.

"I hope people like Deepak Chopra, Avtar Singh at IB, and other's who argue for supernatural and paranormal phenomena at large stop bastardizing Einstein's beliefs and quotes and abusing science to bring credibility to their claims and arguments in pushing their New Age agenda." bemoans skeptisch...

Dear Dara

Your words took me right back to autumn 2005, and the thrill I used to get reading the open expressions of strong thought and emotion (always expressed with sensitivity) here.

Dear Irish

I'm giving respect where it's due.

Dear John

My concern is BO's lack of pragmatism, if he's elected.

love, h

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6YBchdz3Uyo

Dance With Me (Orleans, 1975)

...let it lift you
off the ground,
starry eyes,
and love is all around us.
I can take you
where you want to go.

Dance with me,
I want to be your partner.
Can't you see,
the music is just starting.
Night is falling,
and I am calling,
dance with me.

Re #165...Here's another one for you
The Veggie Life

Cabbages, beans and bell peppers vie
for the glossy centerfold of Nature's Hand

where this month the vulgar Hubbard squash
reclines with succotash of questionable origin

I've grown to prize passivity; I've learned the word "vegetable" comes from Medieval Latin--

vegetabills, and vegetare, which means "to animate, to grow"
though I can think of half a dozen ways to squander

an afternoon as Destry Rides Again, Dietrich and Stewart...
and my doctor friend Lenny who calls to tell me

that broccoli has a nervous system, that it suffers
when you pick it. If form follows function,

it stands to reason that pain is the fate of all "brainy" things---
cauliflower, coral and raspberry clumps, the florets that sizzle

in my spiced tahini. I've heard potatoes described as "thuggy and plotless," but never
"aristocratic"

as it says on page seven's "The Stately Spud,"
where tubers possess an enviable pedigree,

popular back to 4000 b.c. when Incas made urns
in the shape of russets--

long reds, round reds and Yukon golds,
best for sauteing, excellent in fritatas.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for ambition,
but some days I'd rather steep in my own kettle.

Give me chamomile, cowboys, cornelian cherries.
Let me sink, once again, into purposeless sleep.

I would be more concerned about Hillary Clinton who is a polarizing figure in political solutions on the question of pragmatism, and ghetting things done, though. Her Health Care disater (Ref. 99, 100, 102, 103) as Irvine Wlesh put it "I always looked at HillaryCare as a preview of what an HRC presidency would look like. An ambitious, high-minded, heavy-handed, and ineffectual failure. Lots of infighting too."

Ref. NYT artcile By JO BECKER and CHRISTOPHER DREW quoted in #164... Obama the "Ultimate Pragmatic":

" An untraditional politician who at times uses traditional political tactics, Mr. Obama, 46, was portrayed in dozens of interviews with political leaders and longtime associates in Chicago as the ultimate pragmatist, a deliberate thinker who fashions carefully nuanced positions that manage to win him support from people with divergent views.

“Most Americans are getting a small glimmer into the rough and tumble world of the South Side of Chicago politics, which is very, very difficult to navigate,” said Representative Jesse L. Jackson Jr., an Illinois Democrat and ally of Mr. Obama’s. But Mr. Obama did it with skill: “It’s very unusual to have various factions agreeing with you and your politics,” Mr. Jackson added. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/us/politics/11chicago.html

The artcile was not just about winning election, as I mentioned previously but about his politics and getting things done(both in State and US Senate), which brought him so much praise from his republican colleagues that the GOP issued a directive asking them to refrain from making such candid remarks in light of the race.
His work in getting bills passed regarding videotaping interrogations of detainees in the Illinos State and passing the Ethics Reform Bill in the US Senate - the toughest bipartisan bill to be passed in 4 decades, speak for themselves.

Hi Dara

I agree with all you say in your #167.

B

Pragmatism: A practical, matter-of-fact way of approaching or assessing situations or of solving problems.

Obama is definitely a politician. He has never claimed otherwise.

What some of the more skeptical observers of Obama's campaign fail to see is that everything about Obama's comunity service and politcal life represents compromise and making things work. From his race to his life circumstances to his political affiliations. Some people find it strange that he would ally himself to such a diverse, and seemingly, contradictory groups of people. They wonder what his intentions are. Is he merely a soulless opportunist only out for political gain? But in a political system built on a Machiavellian value system, one based on associations and friendships built through ruthless scrutiny and calculation, Sen. Obama seems to have subverted the system. He has turned the game inside out.

It is laughable -- we have been hearing from Hillary that Obama is too pie-in-the-sky, ie not enough of a tough politician like she is, so we should not support him.

Now we will hear he is a politician, so we should not support him.

Actually, politicians have a horrible reputation because of the way many of them behave, not because of the term. Obama's conduct and record has been what I am looking for in a leader, in a politician, and in a president.

If his rhetoric is lofty he's too much of an idealist. If he makes the usual alliances politicians make on the way up, he's "the ultimate pragmatist" (read: a sell-out).

How does anyone run for the presidency with perfect scruples? and without a powerful grip on realpolitik? Isn't it better to have someone who can make common cause with a lot of factions? Didn't the Clintons turn away from some of their own progressive allies (read: Lani Guinier) as they tried to govern from the center? Weren't FDR, JFK and LBJ master tacticians?

Yes, there are lines that should never be crossed and scruples that should never be tossed overboard. But this is a big, diverse, polarized country. And as we've seen, politics can get extremely ugly, even for principled people.

That said, it's fine for the New York Times and other media to probe into Obama's background, ask questions about it., and be thorough in their own "vetting" of a major candidate. They should do that vigorously, with him and McCain. I just hope that the so-called "liberal" press (read: mainstream) doesn't do the job they did on Gore and Kerry, while letting Bush off the hook. In fact, I think if they gave this level of scrutiny to any highly successful politician in America, they'd get a similar story.....

What the NYT artcile well illustrates is that Obama doesn't merely react to situations as they happen but is always looking forward, seeking alliances, finding consensus. His demeanor during this campaign shows just this disposition as well. He didn't match Hillary's brute tactics with brute tactics not just because he's a decent person, but because such sniping would get in the way of the bigger picture - building a broad alliance to win the White House and change the way this country works. Even his major difference with Hillary - his opposition to the war - was based on a view to the long term, not simple, immediate political expediency. Where Hillary reacted, Obama acted. In other words, he behaved like a leader while she was simply being a follower. Even now, while Hillary divides the electorate along racial lines, Obama's moved far past her, leading a path breaking nationwide registration drive with eyes on November.

I like the NYT artcile description of him, and even though it's slightly negative, I think it's the PERFECT way for a politician to go.

The ultimate politician - President, even - needs to be able to compromise when necessary, and take ALL of his or her constituents into account... and in a country like the US, those people are often very different, with opinions that are precisely the OPPOSITE of each other's.

Instead of playing favorites or taking sides - which a lot of politicians do - a good Presidential candidate will campaign for EVERYONE, will include EVERYONE, will figure out at expense of his or her own health and fortune how to do the right thing not just for the "majority", but for EVERYONE.

It's a hard job, and it takes some deft maneuvering - political and otherwise - to do it.

So right. Not all politicians are bad, and not all are good.

It's the GOOD politicians we need working for us - the ones who can get the job done, who can become chameleons when they need to, but who at the same time NEVER sacrifice a core sense of ethics and the their political principles --in case of Obama he is a quintessential Progressive.

The United States has always benefited from pragmatic Presidents ... FDR accepted the New Deal when his Elite background really didn't predict it ... Theodore Roosevelt was the anti-Republican for most of his term when it came to making significant changes to American Society ... even Abraham Lincoln equivocated in terms of Slavery until the die was cast and it was obviously going to be eliminated.

Presidential Pragmatism is of great benefit when compared to the blind conservative ideology that has driven the US for the last 28 years.

I wouldn't consider Clinton's presidency to be one of blind conservatism by any stretch. You can view a Presidency in terms of the peace and prosperity of that specific era, but what defines a Presidency is the long term influence of enacted legislation that outlives it. Like John McCain, I don't know much about the economy, but from what I do understand the prosperity under the Clinton adminitration was due more to the Tech Bubble and dot-com explosion rather than to anything Bill did.

I hope Obama wins the presidency. I will be extremely curious to see how his approach will work with Congress and with those with opposing viewpoints.

I do hope that he gets a chance to appoint a few Supreme Court justices and that one of his first acts would be to undo all the damage Bush and Co have done to our Constitution and civil liberties.

I think some of his supporters are in for a rude awakening though because I don't think he is going to get us out of the Iraq war after 16 months, nor do I think he can change the nature of politics in itself in a short span. The grassroots progressive movement and activism will go on in a more conducive environment. I thought the NYT article was well-written. He *is* a politician and that's fine with me. I'm not into sainthood.

"I *support* what s/he says"

"Thanks for speakin out!"

"I agree with post #X. Period"

You know... back-patting and substance-less mediocrity ... is yet another reason apart from those I mentioned in #116 -- added to the blandness, lack of creativity, originality and those trying to be pseudo witty -- that is destroying IB participation numbers.

Dear Irv

While you're right to some degree, there are many situations that provide valid context for back-patting. For example, to encourage a minority viewpoint to continue to be aired, to offset back-stabbing, to mend a connection, to encourage a new one.

I'd go as far as to say back-patting always needs to be present. Without it, there can't be any real community, even if there is persistence in participation, a core group of participators, and otherwise-expressed mutual respect.

Dear John

Nice post -- good writing.

love, h

"While you're right to some degree, there are many situations..."

I would call it a "well-balanced" view.

***

The dead are always such optimists... Bush's official statement for Mother's Day:

"Laura and I want to wish everybody a happy Mother's Day. It's just a special day to give thanks to our Moms; appreciate the hard work that Moms do. And I understand that for some, however, Mother's Day is a sad day for those who lost their lives in Oklahoma and Missouri and Georgia because of the tornadoes, are wondering whether or not tomorrow will be a bright and hopeful day."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/05/20080511.html

Well, if you lost your life, you might have good reason to not be all that hopeful, but I suppose today isn't going to get any 'worse.'

'I would call it a "well-balanced" view.'

By IT , of course I mean the quoted view: post #180.

***

Bomb blasts in Jaipur, India

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7398989.stm

http://www.ibnlive.com/

7-8 bombs go off in busy shopping areas in the tourist city.

Maybe 50 dead. 120 injured.

Pictures (maybe disturbing):

http://www.ibnlive.com/photogallery/828.html

To put the Jaipur blasts into a relative context of Western big city populations, that is like:

179 d / 535 i -- if it were NYC, US
215 d / 645 i -- if it were LA County, US
159 d / 476 i -- if it were London, UK
49 d / 143 i -- if it were Paris, FR
30 d / 91 i -- if it were Amsterdam, NE
41 d / 143 i -- if it were Stockholm, SW
76 d / 228 i -- if it were Madrid, SP
73 d / 221 i -- if it were Berlin, DE
58 d / 176 i -- if it were Rome, IT

Two Jaipur stories are in the NYTimes World section -- one a by-line story, and the other an AP feed. CNN is carrying one Jaipur story. Jaipur hasn't yet showed up on MSNBC.

If the blasts had happened in any of the cities or areas on my list above, they would have been front page news at the NY Times, CNN and MSNBC.

It is only in the past couple of years that even big US-oriented news organizations like MSNBC and NYTimes.com are consistently and fairly reporting on terrorism and disasters in Asia.

I think this is a contributing factor to why so many US citizens are ignorant about so many things happening outside the US -- and why there is a thick vein of contempt for Americans, by many people outside the US.

* * *

Delhi and Mumbai have been put on red alert. The death count is up to 60.

OK, here's another personal rant. It's about overwriting, in blog comments.

More adjectives, adverbs and words do not a more vivid bit of writing make.

I'm as guilty of this any anyone else -- if not more so. Personally, I overwrite because I think I'm not going to be heard, and I can't see who I'm writing to (it's really talking to, though), and I'm shy. To cover all bases, and make a loud noise in my own ears, I write too dramatically.

I'm going to try to tone it way down in the future.

That's a bit of overwriting. It's hard to see it when you're doing it! Here's what I should have written: I'll try to write better, in the future. It's hard to do -- witness how I slipped up. It'll probably take months to learn how to do it right.

Another thing is too many words with three or more syllables. I do that a lot, too.

I'll try to write better, in the future.

love, h

OK, more localizing of the Jaipur blasts for Westerners, this time on a personal front.

Delhi has been put on red alert. Rahul Pandita lives in Delhi. Mallika Chopra once met with a bunch of IB'ers on a trip to Delhi (about two years ago).

Mumbai has been put on red alert. Shekhar Kapur and Suchitra Krishnamoorthi live in Mumbai.

Many people who read IB live in or near both cities, and some may live in or near Jaipur.

I wish love and safety to you all.

80-20 in WV Predict the Clintons.

Maybe they know something we don't.

Maybe they've lost their damn minds. We'll find out soon enough.

But the Clintons are predicting an 80-20 or even a 90-10 win today in West Virginia.

Yep. You heard me.

" More grand that one can possibly imagine" and with that said, In love I wait..

Yup, West Virginia (and Kentucky next week) will be ugly for Obama. Expect lots of talk about Obama's "white" problem, before he goes on to win white Oregon convincingly next week.

Yes, there are racist voters in West Virginia, but there are racist voters in every state. The primary determinant of the extent to which racism tends to be more manifest is education levels, and so the effects may be more noticeable in West Virgnia, a state with poor academic achievement. But there is no reason to believe that West Virgnians are particularly racist, relative to their education levels.

According to Wikipedia...

"Over twenty million people live in Appalachia, an area roughly the size of the United Kingdom, covering mostly mountainous, often isolated areas from the border of Mississippi and Alabama in the south to Pennsylvania and New York in the north. Appalachia also includes parts of the states of Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Maryland, Kentucky, Ohio,and the ENTIRE STATE OF WEST VIRGINA. The region contains few intermediate-sized cities, and only two large metropolitan areas are located entirely within the region—Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Knoxville, Tennessee."

As you know, even the metropolitan area of Pittsburgh went to Hillary in Pennsylvania 55-45
He won Philly(which isn't part of Appalachia) 65-35.

My WV prediction

Clinton 66
Obama 33

Of course, tonight's results don't matter to the eventual outcome of this race.

it is clear that whoever wins dems nom will win the gen...macsame is irrelevant...no sane person wud waste their vote on him...now u can see why billary is fighting like hell to get the nom...which will happen when hell freezes ova...

and all of u with ur big words like pramatism...just give the dam man a chance to show u want he's capable of doing...when some of u talk about experience...do u really know how ridiculous u sound? this is not a dictatorship... and the prez has one vote...as long as the surrounds himself with capable people, he will lead this country in the right direction and restore some lost pride and respect abroad...damn!

Re. 188

Hillary won by more than 75-25 in almost all Appalachia districts in all states sharing that region so far -- even those states which he won handily. But as noted West Virginia is 100% Appalachia.

Einstein said: Religion is for children.

Jesus said: Unless ye be like unto a little child, you cannot enter The Kingdom Of Heaven.

Me2 said: Everyone is 'supposed to' obey rules leftover from yesterday.

.

Go against societies norms, and what do you get?

.

If you said 'abnormalities', you just lost your head.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9e1cKOVV2sI&feature=related

Shamballa is in India?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDpVS7D9AJs&feature=related

The polls are closed in West Virginia and MSNBC is calling it for Clinton. Exit polls say she will win 2-1. With these numbers, Clinton will get 19 delegates, Obama will get 9.

No numbers in from WV, yet. But to give some perspective, Chuck Todd was just on MSNBC saying that there are 189 pledged delegates left after tonight. For Clinton to overtake Obama, she'd have to win 172 of those delegates or 91%. So congratulations on Hillary's victory tonight, but it doesn't matter. Barack Obama is the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party.

Early results from West Virginia, with 2% reporting:

Clinton 4,980(62%)
Obama 2,473(31%)

4% reporting

Clinton
13,663
58%

Obama
8,488
36%

Clinton will be speaking to her supporters in West Virginia soon.

why is the limpet insulting u by giving u play by play as if u don't own a TV?

Nothing left to do but wait for the remaining results to come in. With 69% reporting, Clinton is up 66%-27%. On the Republican side, McCain is down to 75% of the vote.

More meaningful and exciting to follow are the results for the Mississippi First District special election, filling the seat of Senator Roger Wicker.

93% of Precincts Reporting

Travis W. Childers (D): 53% (54029)
Greg Davis (R): 47% (47361)

The AP has called the race for Travis Childers. Mississippi now has three Democratic Representatives...out of four.

Congratulations to Rep.-elect Travis Childers, his staff and volunteers, the voters of Mississippi's First District, the DCCC...

The NRCC spent over $1.3 million in this race, and that's not counting what shadow groups like Freedom's Watch put in. It's an RED R+10 district. They ran some ads which were nasty as hell. And their candidate, if not outstanding, was not especially controversial.

We beat them anyway, on their turf.

Turnout was astronomical. Especially for a runoff. It's exceeded 100,000 votes, which is insane; turnout was around 64,000 in the first election.

PS: If Clinton's speech was supposed...to be the best she ever delivered, they forgot to tell her audience. They sound fake, tinny, falsely enthusiastic.

This is her LAST time in the spotlight. If she doesn't get superdelegates tomorrow (psst- she won't) the press will move on.

Sure, she'll get KY. But Obama will take the insurmountable lead in pledged delegates via Oregon.

She'll look increasingly desperate.

Her speech is scares me sh*tless...

If she believes half of what she says, she's completely mad.

This woman is delusional...these people are buying her sh*t....she is one scary lady....

Her mantra of taking it to the mountain top...I found to be rather scary...I think she really feels as though she can win...The spin was so bad I had to shut the TV off ...I thought I was going to throw up...

I'm more scared of the voters that are buying it. And Aunt Beckys who might empty their cookie boxes and donate for the first time in their lives into a sink hole called Hillary Africa...

Politicians lie but why can't 'some' people see through even a little of this BS?

Ref # 172

Hey Diablo,

Whenever you post a political opinion, or make a serious comment on world affaires, you often show an analytical mind and common sense. So why spend time on display names instead of taking more of a role in discussions and arguments?

Mr Welsh may have many aliases, but with the exception of a couple of comments many months ago, he has not posted as Skeptisch. So you see Diablo, you may be Irish, young and have relatives in the Caribbean, but when it comes to guessing who is who on IB, you are simply not very good. Skep is not Irv.

Skep would be the first to admit that he has very little knowledge of Eastern traditions. He would admit to be incapable of believing without evidence and he has very little interest in American politics.

Irv, on the other hand, seems to be a political junkie. He is also much more versatile than Skep and has quick responses to almost any subject. Yes, Irv can be a pain with his overpowering presence at IB, but his comments, if you care to read them, are always on topic and well researched.

Why not be the Diablo of the past? The smart young one? Start with an opinion on the following list:
http://www.celebatheists.com/?title=Category:Atheist
and tell us, can you believe without evidence?

yeah my grandparents are retired in paradise...will be there wth them this weekend for some sun and surf...and some parasailing...damn!

and scanner...how do u know all this? how do u know that irv is not skep? or are u he? at least your post #200 is positive and not full of venom...and that's always refreshing...keep it up!

Are we becoming all insane?

Racing inside the living-death of sea-tresors
Are we becoming insane?

Is this wall, really made of stones?
Am I an illusion not made of bones?
Let's paint the walls with false blood to see

Meanwhile
My broken teeth are sold for gold
In the dusty-streets, the children nostrils seek for mother lovely-milks

Life is an illusion
But my suffering is not
Considering its cost
I am sure somebody is REALLY playing...

Well Diablo, I’m definitely not both!
Maybe this will help you?

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

Why would the above be a threat to anybody?

Have a good time on the Cayman, hopefully the young smart one comes back to IB and maybe the venom will disappear altogether?

Hello Blog Scanner

You got the skep but you left out the tic. May I suggest:

Seek
Knowledge
Enlightenment
Peace

Truth
Integrity
Consideration

Regards,
Bonnie

P.S.

Compassion would fit nicely for the C also.

B

"Why would the above(S.K.E.P) be a threat to anybody?"

...especially for those running IB.

Its "tisch"(not tic) that he(Blog Scanner) left out.

dude...u are a master of confusion and deception...i can't understand y u'd even do it! what do u think u are trying to prove?