Hillary Just Lost Her Benefits

No, Hillary has not been added to the 45 million without health insurance. I'm talking about the benefits of doubt that blacks, humanitarians, Obama folk, media, and millions of others have been giving Hillary Clinton for years. Hillary just lost her benefits Friday with her RFK comments.

Early on, it was apparent that her husband cheated on her, more than most, and, incredibly, Hillary stayed with him. Many thought she wanted political power and had made a Faustian deal, sparing Bill a divorce scandal in return for a shot at the White House later. Others gave her the benefit of the doubt, defending her by asserting it was a private matter between Hillary and Bill made ugly and public by a "vast right wing conspiracy".

Later Bill went back on his campaign promise to stop the killing in the former Yugoslavia. Again, some, such as Sally Bedell Smith and Christopher Hitchens, believed Hillary did not want another Somalia disaster threatening her health care reforms so Hill urged Bill to ignore the Bosnian cries for help (See Hitchens' Slate article here). Supporters gave Hill & Bill the benefit of the doubt, despite over 250,000 deaths before Bill intervened, and defended Bill's inaction by asserting Europeans should help Europeans.

In 1994, the unthinkable happened. Over 56,000 blacks per week were being butchered in Rwanda - a murder rate 5 times that of the Holocaust. Clinton was quick to get Americans out and supported Belgium's call to pull UN troops out rather than send more troops in. To get around that pesky UN Genocide Convention, Clinton instructed Secretary of State Christopher and UN Ambassador Albright not to let anyone use the word "genocide" so the US could avoid it's more and legal obligation to intervene. Some say Hillary was behind the policy of inaction that let 800,000 die needlessly (See Hillary's Genocide Problem). Others gave Hillary the benefit of the doubt and believed her when she said during her 2008 Presidential Campaign that she had urged Bill to intervene. Even African-American leaders gave the Clintons the benefit of the doubt about the worse genocide in African history (see Where's Black Outrage Over Rwanda).

During the 2008 Presidential Campaign, Billy Shaheen, her New Hampshire Co-Chair, resigned over remarks he made about Barack Obama's past drug use, and his insinuation Obama not only used, but also dealt drugs. Shaheen claimed he was only raising an issue that Republicans would have raised in the fall (See Clinton Adviser: Obama's Past Drug Use A Liability). Earth to Billy: An attack on a Democrat by a Democrat during a Democratic Primary is a Democratic attack not a Republican attack. Some suggested this was only the latest example of a Classic Clinton tactic of smearing a political opponent, waiting for the smear to get a lot of media coverage so it "sticks" then apologize for the comment. Net result: the smear still gets out there and it's cheaper than paying for an ad! Others (you guessed it!) gave Hillary the benefit of the doubt and resented that Mr. Shaheen made Hillary's campaign look "out of control".

I could come up with a hundred more examples of deeply offensive behavior, or comments, by the Clintons, or their supporters, that require the benefit of the doubt over and over again.

Yesterday, Friday, May 24, 2008, Hillary Clinton lost her benefits (See Hillary's Big Mistake).

When asked whether her remaining in the race was hurting the Democratic Party, she mentioned that her husband's campaign didn't "wrap up" until June (it was over in March, 1992) and that "We all remember that Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California".

WHAT IS SHE IMPLYING???

In the context of a question about why she's in the race still (when she has no real chance to win) she brings up RFK's assassination? Most might say she's implying that, if only someone would take out her opponent, she'd win this thing. Once again, some may give her the benefit of the doubt but, ding-ding-ding, she's all out of benefits.

No more for you, Hillary! You've used up all the good will even your supporters had for a woman and a couple who put themselves first, at the expense of others, for the last time.

It's especially offensive given that her opponent is a black man and blacks have a sad tragic history of losing their leaders to a sniper.

America's heart still hurts from the loss of Dr. King. Colin Powell, although absurdly popular, never ran for fear of assassination.

Is there some nut job out there that will hear her words and "step up to help"? It was a grossly irresponsible comment that I could rant about some more but I thought Keith Olberman said it best, the comments were "Unforgivable".

Looking for Discussion

What happened to the discussion forum? No one has written anything since March 28th? Where did everybody go??????

Adele

(adeleforobama.blogspot.com)

Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School

The University of Chicago Law School


The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors...

to read more ... >>>> http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html

Dean Says Attacks Getting Too Personal

Dean Says Attacks Getting Too Personal

by Nedra Pickler

WASHINGTON — Democratic Party chief Howard Dean says Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton and their supporters should beware of tearing each other down, demoralizing the base and damaging the party's chances of winning the White House in November.
In an interview with The Associated Press, Dean also said he hopes the Democratic nominee will be determined shortly after the voting ends in early June and that he will encourage the superdelegates who will play a role to make up their minds before the August convention in Denver.

to read more .... >>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/28/dean-says-attacks-getting_n_93865.html

Clinton Owes Obama An Apology

Clinton Owes Obama An Apology

by Keith Boykin

I've had it with the Clintons.

The past few months I've tried to defend Bill and Hillary Clinton against some of the more unreasonable attacks from their critics. Just last weekend on CNN's Ballot Bowl, I defended Bill Clinton when critics accused of him of questioning Barack Obama's patriotism. The critics may have misinterpreted Clinton's remarks, I said, giving the former president the benefit of the doubt.

to read more >>>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-boykin/clinton-owes-obama-an-apo_b_93558.html

Front Page

New footage has hit the t.v. screen regarding Italian and other ethnic targets from Rev. Wright's sermons. A Clinton driven slant that Obama is disenfranchising Florida and Michigan is gaining momentum. These spins and absurdities continue to give Barack new and ample opportunities to show what he is made of and that he can indeed deal with confrontation effectively and without compromising his integrity. Bring it on!

Shooting Oneself in the Foot

Normally I try and steer clear of negative blogging about a candidate and now is no exception…However….CNN and other news stations have recently become quite adept with their reporting of what’s really happening regarding Obama and Clinton, rather than their spin about what’s happening…and I must say it is bringing me much hope. For example…tonight they aired a segment highlighting how quickly Clinton acted out of desperation earlier today as she spoke of what was almost behind us. Bringing up the race issue again (regarding what Rev. Wright said) was one more last ditch “kitchen-sink” effort to try and save herself in this election. Bringing this topic up after a week since Obama’s Philadelphia speech raises more questions about Sen. Clinton’s integrity. I must admit, after so much bias shone on CNN, it is indeed refreshing to see some authentic reporting.

What Kind of Person Likes Obama

Someone wrote to ask me today if everything was alright because I hadn’t posted on my daily blog in six days. I was surprised and happy to hear that someone had even noticed. This makes me think about the nature of Obama supporters. I certainly don’t want to categorize any one type of group, but it does pose an interesting question. What type of person is a Barack Obama supporter? I have to admit, I like to think that the profile would include the following characteristics: authentic, down to earth, intelligent, caring, politically conscious, civic minded, socially sensitive, etc. etc. But truly….what about the person who is average or below average intelligence…who may not know anything about politics, perhaps has not even cared enough to vote, who might be spacey and flighty, self-centered or even lazy? Is that person not able to respond to a Presidential candidate like Obama? Just thinking about it made me laugh. That’s exactly why I care so much for this man….he’s humble and he’s magnanimous, all at the same time. No one is left out. At least, not if they are human.

The documents do not support her claims, made during the presidential campaign, that she helped to negotiate the Irish peace accords

Click on the title above to see the link to the NY Times article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/us/politics/19cnd-archives.html?ex=1363665600&en=fd343235ee119334&ei=5124&partner=digg&exprod=digg

Is there a code of honor in this campaign?

It started many months ago in this campaign (hundreds of years ago in this wonderful Union of ours).

I’m no political expert and not even a very good political news junkie! However, I recall what Gov. Ed Rendell said many months ago regarding the electability of a black person in our Union.

I was shocked then. I was shocked at what he said and more aghast at the lack of media scrutiny and the shallow depth of their coverage of this sort of racial scare “gossip”.

In the ensuing months, this sort of racial attack has become an almost weekly (sometimes daily) occurrence. The point of the variety of these attacks is subtly always the same. It matters not whether the “comments” come from a former president, current political advisor, newspaperman, talk-show host, young person, senior citizen or even Mrs. Clinton herself.

The point is to inject the issue of “race” into the campaign. Of course, they would love to do it subtly and with discretion. It hasn’t turned out that way and they haven’t apologized for this obvious strategy.

They didn’t dare use this shotgun tactic when there were 8 candidates in the Democratic Party race. The other contenders and even the media would have shredded and shamed them over such disgraceful and irrelevant strategies and sullied tactics.

Now there are 2 – two candidates. One candidate pledged and tries with honor to fight this campaign on the high road. The other candidate and her operatives have made no such pledge or commitment.

The campaign has reached a historic juncture. From Mrs. Clinton’s perspective, the campaign is going great for her at this point. It is proceeding with such glee, despite the fact that she has significantly fewer delegates and a much lower total plurality of states and citizens that have voted for her.

She does not seem to have any fear – because she knows that there is no tactic, no card, and no strategy that she will hesitate to use in her quest. She understands and appreciates the honor of Senator Barack Obama. She is thankful for it.

I want this blog post to be positive! Please help me by offering positive feelings and views!!

Obama Speech: 'A More Perfect Union'

Here is the link to today's speech! >>>>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU

Here is the link to the text of the speech posted on Senator Obama's campaign website: >>>>

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gGBbKG

Obama Racks Up Superdelegate Commitments

Obama Racks Up Superdelegate Commitments
By Perry Bacon Jr.After wining the popular vote in the Texas and Ohio primaries on March 4, it seemed that Hillary Clinton had captured the momentum in the Democratic race. The all-important superdelegates don't seem to agree. Since Clinton's two major wins, 11 superdelegates -- as the 796 Democratic officials who get their own vote on the party's nominee are known -- have publicly declared who they are backing. Ten have publicly embraced Obama, compared to just one for Clinton. Her slight gain was canceled out by the loss of one of her superdelegate backers, former governor Eliot Spitzer of New York, who resigned his post, leaving her with a net increase of zero. "I support Barack Obama for president because he is an inclusive candidate who is trying to unite our country, Democrats, independents, Republicans around a common purpose," said Margie Gavin Woods, a superdelegate from Illinois who is on the board of Will County, which is outside of Chicago. While it's hardly surprising that a superdelegate from Illinois would embrace her home state senator, Obama also has collected support from officials in Ohio, Texas, Nevada, Georgia and other states since March 4. Clinton aides said the wins on March 4 helped stem a larger group of superdelegates from heading to Obama and said she is getting some private commitments. "The fact that she didn't lose a bunch during his long winning streak is remarkable," said a Clinton aide is involved in recruiting superdelegates.
Posted at 1:08 PM ET on Mar 17, 2008

Iraq Anniversary

The Foreign Policy Magazine has a "Flashback" article posted today that was written in Jan/Feb 2003. It discusses the war in detail.

An Unnecessary War written in 2003 by the Foreign Policy Magazine:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=169


It is a VERY interesting nonpartisan kind of view of the situation:

On My Faith and My Church by Barack Obama

Barack Obama

Posted March 14, 2008 | 04:28 PM (EST)

The pastor of my church, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who recently preached his last sermon and is in the process of retiring, has touched off a firestorm over the last few days. He's drawn attention as the result of some inflammatory and appalling remarks he made about our country, our politics, and my political opponents.

Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.

Because these particular statements by Rev. Wright are so contrary to my own life and beliefs, a number of people have legitimately raised questions about the nature of my relationship with Rev. Wright and my membership in the church. Let me therefore provide some context.

As I have written about in my books, I first joined Trinity United Church of Christ nearly twenty years ago. I knew Rev. Wright as someone who served this nation with honor as a United States Marine, as a respected biblical scholar, and as someone who taught or lectured at seminaries across the country, from Union Theological Seminary to the University of Chicago. He also led a diverse congregation that was and still is a pillar of the South Side and the entire city of Chicago. It's a congregation that does not merely preach social justice but acts it out each day, through ministries ranging from housing the homeless to reaching out to those with HIV/AIDS.

Most importantly, Rev. Wright preached the gospel of Jesus, a gospel on which I base my life. In other words, he has never been my political advisor; he's been my pastor. And the sermons I heard him preach always related to our obligation to love God and one another, to work on behalf of the poor, and to seek justice at every turn.

The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments. But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of my strong links to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to leave the church.

Let me repeat what I've said earlier. All of the statements that have been the subject of controversy are ones that I vehemently condemn. They in no way reflect my attitudes and directly contradict my profound love for this country.

With Rev. Wright's retirement and the ascension of my new pastor, Rev. Otis Moss, III, Michelle and I look forward to continuing a relationship with a church that has done so much good. And while Rev. Wright's statements have pained and angered me, I believe that Americans will judge me not on the basis of what someone else said, but on the basis of who I am and what I believe in; on my values, judgment and experience to be President of the United States.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama/on-my-faith-and-my-church_b_91623.html

Editor of Time - makes a prediction on Edwards ??

Deb Orelup to Vermonters


Did anyone read or hear that Edwards may be coming out in support of Hillary before the next primary? How could he, if this is true? What can we do?

http://www.blognetnews.com/Virginia/feed.php?channel=72&iid=108803&y=2008&m=03&d=16

Barack Morning Buzz - 3-16-08

Barack Morning Buzz-3-16-08
On to Victory in November

(1) "The is Your Campaign"-Obama Brings Grassroots Campaign to Indiana
Mary Beth Schneider-IndyStar.com
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080316/LOCAL0505/8031603

(2) Obama Gains 14 More Delegates in Iowa and California-Gives Him a National Lead of 119 Pledged and Super Delegates
Peter Slevin-Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/15/AR2008031502431.html

(3) Obama Expands Delegate Lead over Clinton
Mike Glover-Associated Press
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jVbCCOVnbwIhoHdCa99s2muTPJRAD8VE8NTO0

(4) Iowa Update-Obama Gains Delegates
Chuck Todd-MSNBC-First Read
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/16/773831.aspx

(5) Democratic Super Delegates Hope the End is Near-Many Tilting toward Obama to Reflect Will of Voters
Adam Nagourney and Jeff Zeleny-New York Times
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/national/stories/DN-superdelegates_16pol.ART.State.Edition1.46d5d45.html

(6) Obama Gets Boost in White House Bid from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
The Press Association-UK
http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hM8FE_1rV7uebgViGQ-Q-appDCqg

(7) Democrats Risk Losing a Generation
Ron Dzwonkowski-Detroit Free Press
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080316/COL32/803160501/1081

(8) Ferraro's View on Obama is Way Off
Les Payne-Newsday
http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-oppay165614748mar16,0,3173385.column

(9) What Obama Means
Melanye T. Price-Hartford Courant
http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-commentaryprice0316.artmar16,0,1670869.story

(10) Silicon Valley Donors' Dream-Obama and Clinton Share Ticket?
Mary Anne Ostrom-San Jose Mercury News
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_8592101

Urgent Request from the Obama Campaign - Pennsylvania Field Director

My name is Jeremy Bird, and I'm the Field Director for the Obama campaign in Pennsylvania. Barack has won twice as many states, more delegates, and more votes than Senator Clinton. However, the Democratic race is still very close, and the Pennsylvania primary is the biggest remaining contest. The primary is still six weeks away, but another important deadline is coming up soon. Anyone who wants to vote for Barack in Pennsylvania must be registered as a Democrat by Monday, March 24th. Supporters from all across the country are coming to Pennsylvania in the next two weeks to help register voters.

Help build our movement and our party by joining us. Sign up to come to Pennsylvania to register voters before March 24th: http://my.barackobama.com/CometoPA If one thing is clear from this campaign, it's that every vote and every delegate matters. Here in Pennsylvania, hundreds of thousands of unregistered voters are ready to support Barack -- but we have only two weeks to reach out to them all. That's why people from all over the country are traveling to Pennsylvania to make sure every potential Obama supporter is registered and eligible to vote in the primary on April 22nd. No prior political experience is required. Sign up to grow this movement and bring thousands of new people into the political process. Join us in Pennsylvania to register voters and support Barack: http://my.barackobama.com/CometoPA All across the country, we've seen people getting involved in politics for the first time or returning to politics after years of frustration. I hope you'll come to Pennsylvania and keep this momentum going. Thank you,

Jeremy Bird **** Pennsylvania Field Director ***** Obama for America

Change US Political Structure

Hi,

I hope we can put some weight behind changing the entire political structure in the US, if Obama has a win this Fall.

I may be ahead of the game here, but we need a multi-party system - as in three or five parties - in the US, not a winner-take-all. (that really still more like monarchy, not democracy)

That means - structural changes to how government is formulated - a coalition type government rather than an excessively strong Executive branch. That means creating positions in congressional committees as percentages of all parties. It means a lot of things.

It means creating openings for more parties at the table. This binary Republican/Democrat back and forth crap has to end. We need a strong tie-breaking voice that can upset the stalemates and position-sitting. Right now 3rd parties are just spoilers. How is this going to open up to more DIVERSITY?

What do you think?

Hoping you can help with a real solution to the FLORIDA and MICHIGAN problem

Hello:

I'm involved in an effort that might interest you, and MoveOn.org. You can read more about what we are trying to do here: http://1stcontact.newsvine.com/_news/2008/03/08/1352290-a-real-solution-to-the-fl-and-mi-problem - a copy of this article follows my signature.

If you could just take a moment to read the linked article. Then if you are interested in helping do just three things:

Make a few phone calls - preferably to the Obama campaign (866) 675-2008 - once the voice system starts in press 6 to speak with a volunteer.
The offices of Nancy Pelosi - (202) 225-4965 Tell her, inviting the Carter Center in to mediate a solution the FL and MI mess is something EVERY democrat would respect.
Go to the MoveOn.org website suggestion page and email them about this effort - ask for their help. We need it now - things are unfolding fast in FL. You can find their suggestion page here: http://pol.moveon.org/feedback/fb/form.html?tp=suggest
Forward this email to eveyone you know who might be interested.
Go to a Yahoo group that has been set up for the purposes of coordinating this effort and join us. The group was set up today - so it's still small. But, the last few days 100s of people from both MI and FL have been calling the Obama campaign offices. We are getting though too - they are starting to notice - but we have to keep the pressure on. This group was started today - so that we can all work together. So, please, after you make a few phone calls, forward this to your friends, take just a few moments and join the group. You can access the group here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CarterCenter/
Obama's website tells us:

I'm asking you to believe, not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington.... I'm asking you to believe in yours.
Let's do the work of living up to what he is asking of us, let's be the change we've been waiting for and do the work of getting the Carter Center involved in this process

Michelle Meyer 1stcontact@charter.net
***********************************************************************************

A real solution to the FL and MI problem
While the democratic national party leadership wrings its hands over FL and MI and allows the media to have a field day with the whole situation, there is a real solution that is fair to all parties.
Ask the Carter Center to come in and mediate a solution between all involved parties. That's what the Carter Center does, well its one of the things the Carter Center does. And it does it very well too.
The Carter Center has been in operation for 25 years now. Founded in 1982 by former Democratic President, Jimmy Carter and his wife Rosalynn Carter, the Carter Center helps resolve conflict in the world. Its mission statement calls for the prevention and resolution of conflict as well as the enhancement of democracy.
The Carter Center lists dozens of elections that it has been involved in. From small local elections in China, to elections in South American Countries and the Mideast, former President Jimmy Carter and his team have developed a reputation for fairness. The Carter Center Democracy Program claims to have assisted 69 elections in 27 countries. They will only become involved in an election if they are invited.
The Democracy Program describes its duties on the Center Website:___________________________________
Before an election, Carter Center observers meet with election officials and party leaders to discuss electoral procedures. Sometimes they mediate election disputes and help all sides to agree on election rules. During this phase, assessments are made of the voter registration process, voter education efforts, and the fairness of the campaign "field of play."
On election day, observers are dispatched with systematic survey forms to urban and rural areas to witness preparations at poll openings, voting, and vote counting to try to determine whether the vote was secret and fair at the sites they visited. In addition to talking with polling site officials and party witnesses, observers talk with citizens and note any complaints.
After polls close, delegates observe the counting of votes and the delivery of ballot boxes. Then, the entire delegation meets to discuss its observations and issue a statement of findings as a group. If necessary, qualified high-level observers can serve as mediators to facilitate the peaceful transfer of power.___________________________________
Barack Obama has called America to a new kind of politics. He has called for a politics of bringing people together and solving our problems by sitting down at the table with all involved parties and working out solutions. The problems of super delegates and the FL, MI primaries could derail the Democratic nomination process. If there were ever a problem in politics that demanded all sides to come together and find an equitable and peaceful solution this is it.
The Carter Center specializes in mediating and observing election processes. But, they will not become involved unless invited. The leadership of Democratic National Party seems to be doing nothing but wringing its hands over the whole mess. Barack Obama's campaign is focused on uniting this country and solving problems by consensus. That is why he has so much appeal with so many people.
We (constituents of the Democratic Party) have a vested interest in moving beyond the division of this primary season - we've every right and responsibility to take charge of our own party. So, I've a few suggestions:
On Monday morning:
1. Call Barack Obama's campaign headquarters. Request that they ask the leadership of the Democratic National Party to invite the Carter Center for the purpose of mediating a solution to the FL and MI primary problem. Obama Campaign Headquarters: (866) 675-2008 - once the voice system starts in press 6 to speak with a volunteer.
2. Call The Democratic National Party headquarters. Request that they invite the Carter Center into this process for purposes of mediating a solution to the FL and MI primary problem. The phone number is: (202) 863-8000
3. Call Democracy For America. Request that they call on the Democratic National Party to invite the Carter Center into this process for purposes of mediating a solution to the FL and MI primary process. The phone number is: (802) 651-3200
4. Use the weekend to email all your friends and relatives about this plan. Link them to this article. Let's draft the Carter Center for an equitable solution to this problem and live up to the hope of Barack Obama's campaign - that America can move beyond the divisive politics of the past.
5. Use this weekend to link this article to every website you can think of who would have an honest interest in a fair and equitable solution to this problem.
6. If anyone knows the phone number for MoveOn.org (3.3 million members we can tap into) or any other phone numbers we can flood on Monday morning, post them here. Let's draft the Carter Center and bring this problem to a fair solution for all.

Clinton's tepid response to Ferraro is shameful

Olbermann: Senator, you must correct the wrong done to Obama

Olbermann on Ferraro uproar March 12: Keith Olbermann gives a special comment on the presidential campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y and Geraldine Ferraro connection.

Keith Olbermann
Anchor, 'Countdown'

By way of necessary preface, President and Sen. Clinton, and the senator’s mother, and the senator’s brother, were of immeasurable support to me at the moments when these very commentaries were the focus of the most surprise, the most uncertainty, and the most anger. My gratitude to them is abiding.

Also, I am not here endorsing Sen. Obama’s nomination, nor suggesting it is inevitable.

Thus I have fought with myself over whether or not to say anything.
Senator, as it has reached its apex in their tone-deaf, arrogant and insensitive reaction to the remarks of Geraldine Ferraro, your own advisers are slowly killing your chances to become president.
Senator, their words, and your own, are now slowly killing the chances for any Democrat to become president.
In your tepid response to this Ferraro disaster, you may sincerely think you are disenthralling an enchanted media and righting an unfair advance bestowed on Sen. Obama.
You may think the matter has closed with Rep. Ferraro’s bitter, almost threatening resignation.
But in fact, Senator, you are now campaigning as if Barack Obama were the Democrat and you were the Republican.
As Shakespeare wrote, Senator, that way madness lies.

You have missed a critical opportunity to do what was right.
No matter what Ms. Ferraro now claims, no one took her comments out of context.
She had made them on at least three separate occasions, then twice more on television this morning.
Just hours ago, on NBC Nightly News, she denied she had made the remarks in an interview; only at a paid political speech.
In fact, the first time she spoke them, was 10 days before the California newspaper published them, not in a speech, but in a radio interview.On Feb. 26, “If Barack Obama were a white man, would we be talking about this, as a potential real problem for Hillary? If he were a woman of any color, would he be in this position that he’s in? Absolutely not.”
The context was inescapable.
Two minutes earlier, a member of Sen. Clinton’s Finance Committee, one of her “Hill-Raisers,” had bemoaned the change in allegiance by superdelegate John Lewis from Clinton to Obama, and the endorsement of Obama by Sen. Dodd.
“I look at these guys doing it,” she had said, “and I have to tell you, it’s the guys sticking together.”
A minute after the “color” remarks, she was describing herself as having been chosen for the 1984 Democratic ticket purely as a woman politician, purely to make history.
She was, in turn, making a blind accusation of sexism and dismissing Sen. Obama’s candidacy as nothing more than an Equal Opportunity stunt.
The next day she repeated her comments to a reporter from the newspaper in Torrance, Calif.

“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”
And when this despicable statement, ugly in its overtones, laughable in its weak grip of facts and moronic in the historical context, when it floats outward from the Clinton campaign like a poison cloud, what do the advisers have their candidate do?
Do they have Sen. Clinton herself compare the remark to Al Campanis talking on Nightline on Jackie Robinson day about how blacks lacked the necessities to become baseball executives, while she points out that Barack Obama has not gotten his 1,600 delegates as part of some kind of affirmative action plan?

Do they have Sen. Clinton note that her own brief period in elected office is as irrelevant to the issue of judgment as is Sen. Obama’s while she points out that FDR had served only six years as a governor and state senator before he became president?
Or that Teddy Roosevelt had four-and-a-half years before the White House?
Or that Woodrow Wilson had two years and six weeks?
Or Richard Nixon, 14, and Calvin Coolidge, 25?
Do these advisers have Sen. Clinton invoke Samantha Power, gone by sunrise after she used the word “monster” and have Sen. Clinton say, “This is how I police my campaign, and this is what I stand for,” while she fires former Congresswoman Ferraro from any role in the campaign?
No.
Somebody tells her that simply disagreeing with and rejecting the remarks is sufficient.
And that she should then call them “regrettable,” a word that should make any Democrat retch.

And that she should then try to twist them, first into some pox-on-both-your-houses plea to "stick to the issues," and then to let her campaign manager try to bend them beyond all recognition, into Sen. Obama’s fault.
And thus these advisers give Congresswoman Ferraro nearly a week in which to send Sen. Clinton’s campaign back into the vocabulary ... of David Duke.
“Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let’s address reality and the problems we’re facing in this world, you’re accused of being racist, so you have to shut up.
“Racism works in two different directions. I really think they’re attacking me because I’m white.
“How’s that?”
How’s that?
Apart from sounding exactly like Rush Limbaugh attacking the black football quarterback Donovan McNabb?
Apart from sounding exactly like what Ms. Ferraro said about another campaign, nearly 20 years ago?
“President Reagan suggested Tuesday that people don’t ask Jackson tough questions because of his race. And former representative Geraldine A. Ferraro (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday that because of his ‘radical’ views, ‘if Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn’t be in the race.’”
So, apart from sounding like insidious racism that is at least two decades old?
Apart from rendering ridiculous Sen. Clinton’s shell-game about choosing Obama as vice president?
Apart from this evening’s resignation letter?
“I am stepping down from your finance committee so I can speak for myself and you can continue to speak for yourself about what is at stake in this campaign.
“The Obama campaign is attacking me to hurt you.”

Apart from all that?
Well. It sounds as if those advisers want their campaign to be associated with those words, and the cheap, ignorant, vile racism that underlies every syllable.
And Geraldine Ferraro has just gone free-lance.
Sen. Clinton:This is not a campaign strategy. This is a suicide pact.
This week alone, your so-called strategists have declared that Sen. Obama has not yet crossed the “commander-in-chief threshold.”
But he might be your choice to be vice president, even though a quarter of the previous sixteen vice presidents have become commander-in-chief during the greatest kind of crisis this nation can face: a mid-term succession.
But you’d only pick him if he crosses that threshold by the time of the convention.
But if he does cross that threshold by the time of the convention, he will only have done so sufficiently enough to become vice president, not president.

Senator, if the serpentine logic of your so-called advisers were not bad enough ...
Now, thanks to Geraldine Ferraro, and your campaign’s initial refusal to break with her, and your new relationship with her, now more disturbing still is her claim that she can now “speak for herself” about her vision of Sen. Obama as some kind of embodiment of a quota.
If you were to seek Obama as a vice president, it would be, to Ms. Ferraro, some kind of social engineering gesture, some kind of racial make-good.
Do you not see, Senator?
To Sen. Clinton’s supporters, to her admirers, to her friends for whom she is first choice, and to her friends for whom she is second choice, she is still letting herself be perceived as standing next to, and standing by, racial divisiveness and blindness.
And worst yet, after what President Clinton said during the South Carolina primary, comparing the Obama and Jesse Jackson campaigns; a disturbing, but only borderline remark.
After what some in the black community have perceived as a racial undertone to the “3 A.M.” ad, a disturbing but only borderline interpretation ...
And after that moment’s hesitation in her own answer on 60 Minutes about Obama’s religion; a disturbing, but only borderline vagueness ...
After those precedents, there are those who see a pattern, false or true.
After those precedents, there are those who see an intent, false or true.
After those precedents, there are those who see the Clinton campaign’s anything-but-benign neglect of this Ferraro catastrophe, falsely or truly, as a desire to hear the kind of casual prejudice that still haunts this society voiced and to not distance the campaign from it.
To not distance you from it, Senator!

To not distance you from that which you as a woman, and Sen. Obama as an African-American, should both know and feel with the deepest of personal pain!
Which you should both fight with all you have!
Which you should both ensure has no place in this contest!

This, Sen. Clinton, is your campaign, and it is your name.
Grab the reins back from whoever has led you to this precipice, before it is too late.
Voluntarily or inadvertently, you are still awash in this filth.
Your only reaction has been to disagree, reject, and to call it regrettable.
Her only reaction has been to brand herself as the victim, resign from your committee and insist she will continue to speak.
Unless you say something definitive, Senator, the former congresswoman is speaking with your approval.
You must remedy this.
And you must reject and denounce Geraldine Ferraro.
© 2008 MSNBC Interactive

Mississippi: 'Limbaugh Effect' Softens Blow For Hillary Clinton

Posted March 12, 2008 | 09:33 AM (EST)

---

In the voting during January and February, Republicans were an average of 3.8% of the voters in the Democratic Primary, and they heavily supported Obama. But for the primaries in March, in Texas, Ohio, and Mississippi, Republicans have been 8% of the voters in the Democratic primary, and now they heavily support Hillary Clinton. This is definite proof of the "Limbaugh effect" coming through. Overall, 1.36% of the voters in the January and February primaries were Republicans who marked their ballot for Clinton; yet, 5.67% of the voters in the March primaries were Republicans voting for Clinton. Barack Obama's Republican numbers in the March primary showed only a modest increase, probably from moderate Republicans who shifted their support to Obama once John McCain's campaign was assured of victory.

In Ohio and Texas, 9% of the voters were Republicans, and they split almost evenly between Obama and Clinton. These votes, more than doubling the percentage of Republican voters in earlier primaries, gave Hillary Clinton a big advantage since Obama typically won more than twice as many voters as she did in previous primaries. In other words, about 3% of the voters in Ohio and Texas were Republicans newly voting for Hillary Clinton out of purely tactical reasons, to try to ruin the Democratic race.

The "HillPublicans" (insincere Republicans voting for Hillary) became a much larger force in the Mississippi election. Fully 9% of the people voting in the Democratic primary were Republicans voting for Clinton. That means that almost one-quarter of Clinton's votes in Mississippi came from Republicans, nearly all of whom hate Clinton but wanted to distort the results of the Democratic primary. By contrast, Obama's Republican vote, at 3%, was similar to his historical average throughout the primaries.

The exit polls in Mississippi proved that these "HillPublicans" are not sudden converts to the Clinton campaign. As this diary noted, 70% of those who have a strongly favorable opinion of McCain picked Clinton. In addition, 6% of the voters in the primary voted for Clinton and said they would be dissatisified if she won the nomination; only 1% of the primary voters went for Obama and said they would be dissatisfied if he won.

According to a Pew Research Poll in February, substantially more Republicans would support Obama (8%) rather than Clinton (5%) against McCain, so we know this voting is tactical.

Hillary Clinton's loss in Mississippi would have been far more dramatic if not for the concerted efforts of Republicans to save her campaign and damage Barack Obama. Of course, some Clinton supporters might claim that these numbers simply reverse what was happening earlier in the primary, when Obama had the support of Republicans and independents. However, this is highly doubtful. Obama's support came from moderates who are likely to switch parties in the fall. The votes he got came consistently during the early primaries when the Republican nomination was a hotly contested battle. It is unlikely that many Limbaugh supporters were voting for Obama back when they were so busy trying to deny McCain the nomination.

The "HillPublicans" had a dramatic effect on the analysis as well as the results. Pat Buchanan declared during the MSNBC coverage of the Mississippi vote, "Apparently Clinton's voters don't like Obama." That's probably because more than one-quarter of Clinton's voters were Republicans, and nearly all of them were voting in an effort to hurt Obama.

Rarely in American politics have so many people ever intentionally voted for a candidate they hate so much. Approximately 40,000 Republicans in Mississippi decided to vote for Hillary Clinton in order to help her destroy the Democratic Party this year with a divided convention. Hillary Clinton's "big wins" in March failed to help her close the delegate gap, and she cannot possibly win the pledged delegate race against Obama. The only hope for Hillary Clinton is that Republican voters will help her reduce the gap against Obama, and that the superdelegates will somehow be convinced to obey the will of Rush Limbaugh and his acolytes by stealing the election from the legitimate voters.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-k-wilson

HILLARY IS THE 9TH MOST WEALTHY PERSON IN THE US

I often find the claims made by the Clinton campaign to be founded on the
most perverse distortion of facts. Among the most questionable is the claim
that while she represents the working class, Obama is the voice of the
"latte liberals." To test this claim, I decided to check their most recent
personal financial disclosures to see who was really closer to the working
class - Barack or Hillary?

It turns out that while HILLARY IS THE 9TH MOST WEALTHY PERSON IN THE US
SENATE, Barack is only the 66th. In fact, Hillary's income for 2006 is
listed at $10,665,528, while Barack's is $572,490. According to my math,
that puts Hillary about 10 MILLION DOLLARS further away from the working
class than Barack is.

To see the Clintons - multimillionaire residents of ritzy Chappaqua, NY -
accusing Barack of being a "boutique" liberal is utterly absurd; in fact,
it's demented. In the meantime, Clinton Finance Committee member Geraldine
Ferraro says the "truth" is that Barack has only risen as far as he has
because of some sort of affirmative action excercised by the millions of
Americans who voted for him, i.e. "because he's black." What does it all
mean? Quite clearly, the Clintons are trying to use class anger and race
animosity to lock down white working Dems in PA as they did in Ohio. Here
we have the Clintons, who are supposed to be close to the African-American
community, trying to rouse the race-baited anger of working whites to their
own advantage. Here we have Hillary Clinton - the 9th most wealthy person
in the millionaires club that is the US Senate - calling her opponent a
limosuine liberal. Where has any semblance of regard for the truth vanished
to? More importantly, where has any regard for building a diverse coalition
of Americans under the banner of the Democratic Party gone? Barack has
never called Hillary's voters names. He has never said that McCain is
qualified to be president while Hillary is not. He has never insinuated
that her voters all come from one demographic group (a demographic group
that, whether latte-drinkers or African Americans, should presumably be
ignored so that we can focus on the important people who vote Hillary -
remember Bill shrugging off the South Carolina landslide by saying "Well,
Jesse Jackson won here."?). Barack has walked the high road all along, and
for that - and for so much else about this Senator - we can be truly proud
to call ourselves his supporters.

If you're as stunned as I am - please share this information with people.

Here are links to my sources:

For Hillary
http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/CIDsummary.php?CID=N00000019&year=2006
For Barack
http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/CIDsummary.php?CID=N00009638&year=2006


This email was sent from Michael Brown mjbrown55@gmail.com

How Clinton Loses Matters

Fellow Obama folk,

Please – don’t abandon the victims of the Rwanda Genocide again.

In 1994, the U.S., led by Clinton, had a UN obligation to intervene. Clinton avoided our obligation by denying it was genocide – even though Hutus were killing 56,000 Tutsis each week – a murder rate 5 times the Holocaust.

Incredibly, the media, Democrats, even African-American leaders, all trusted Clinton and abandoned Rwanda.

At least Bush is calling the crisis in Darfur what it is – genocide.

If you can hold Bush responsible for not intervening in Darfur (we do), then you must hold Clinton responsible for what happened in Rwanda:

Don’t abandon Rwanda a second time by keeping silent about it in a 2008 Presidential Campaign between Obama and one of the 1994 leaders. We’re not talking about infidelity – this is about genocide. It’s not a personal attack. It’s about a human rights disaster and a huge U.S. foreign policy mistake - very serious.

We’re all humans and we care about other humans, don’t we? If you can’t care about 800,000 humans dying needlessly than what do you care about.

If remaining silent about a genocide is winning with dignity, I’d rather lose my dignity, lose the election and speak out – wouldn’t you?

Fortunately, Obama’s on track to win the nomination anyway. So why bring up Rwanda?

It matters how the Clintons lose.

If Clinton is seen as losing to the rock star first African-American Obama phenomenon, we win the election and little else. We can do better.

If Clinton loses, in part, because America held them responsible for abandoning Rwanda – we win the election, earn a little more respect in the world, especially in Africa, and we take a step towards healing the wounds in our soul from 1994.

Can Obama raise this issue tactfully? Yes he can!

Perhaps his campaign can produce a counter to the 3am ad that says, "In 1994, the phone rang at 3am for 100 days in a row. It was the victims of the Rwanda Genocide. The Clintons denied it was ringing while 800,000 blacks were butchered to death.".

OK, maybe Obama's team can come up with something more gentle, but you get the point.

This small amount of justice for Rwanda may again give hope to African children and pride for American children.

Elise is at it again! "Easy actions you can take today"

http://www.obamastraws.blogspot.com/

Wild and woolley... facts on a roller coaster...

http://www.barackfacts.blogspot.com/

Insist on the truth ....

I think Obama has to strike back at Hillary by insisting on the truth. First, get her to release her tax returns. She will undoubtedly ask for another debate. Obama should simply say that there will be no further debates unless and until she releases her tax returns and provides information about donations to the Clinton library and contributors to her campaign, including Normal Hsu, and her itineraries as First Lady. If she refuses, then there are no more debates and it will really show she has something very serious to hide.

Donna Christensen

Chittenden County Democrats meeting this Wednesday, March 12th,

Hi, Folks.
This is a reminder that Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin will be our guest at the Chittenden County Democrats meeting this Wednesday, March 12th, 7:00 PM, at the IBEW Union Training Hall, 3 Gregory Drive, South Burlington. Sen. Shumlin will present the status of the legislature in meeting the goals of the Democratic agenda as well as the obstacle(s) to achieving them.

I'm sure there will be a lively discussion of the 2008 gubernatorial race as well. Come and let us know what you think about Democratic party support or lack thereof for one or another of announced or potential opponents to Gov. Douglas. One of the items on the agenda for the State Democratic Committee meeting this weekend is a discussion of whether to invite Anthony Pollina to speak before the Committee at a later date.

Finally, we will preview the March 22nd Presidential Delegate Selection Caucuses. If you are interested in representing your town at the state convention...and perhaps representing Vermont at the national convention, attendance at a caucus is important. The state convention will be in Barre on May 24th. The national convention is in Denver in August. A list of the caucus times and venues are at the CHITTENDEN COUNTY DEMOCRATS' WEBSITE -- http://chittdems.blogspot.com/.

I hope to see you on Wednesday.

Keep the conflict coming

By Gordon Robison, Special to Gulf NewsPublished: March 11, 2008, 23:41

Generals, it is said, often make the mistake of re-fighting the last war. Can the same charge be levelled against political journalists?
The ever-extended contest for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination is, for the Democrats, a terrible thing. Sooner or later either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton will win, but by that time the party will have been so thoroughly ripped asunder that John McCain and the Republicans will have little trouble winning November's general election. Or so the theory of the moment holds.
It's odd, actually. America's political class has spent decades complaining about the ever-more-compressed way the US picks its presidential candidates. The system puts a premium on money and name recognition. It gives Iowa and New Hampshire outsized roles in winnowing the field of candidates. It is designed (particularly on the Republican side) to avoid messy fights at the party convention by handing someone the nomination as quickly as possible.
Everyone (outside Iowa and New Hampshire) professes not to like this system. Yet every four years we go through it again, usually starting — and finishing — a bit earlier than we did the previous time around.
Suddenly, however, the Democrats have a real contest on their hands, and the consensus among people who practice (or talk about) politics for a living is that the messiness on display can only hurt the party.
The theory is that parties must, above all, present a unified face to the world because nobody wants to vote for a party that can't make up its own mind who should represent it. In American politics this is especially reinforced by memories of the 1968 Democratic convention, where clashes between police and protestors outside the hall came to overshadow the highly contentious debates inside it.
Not scripted
Over the weekend Joe Trippi, a political consultant who ran John Edwards presidential campaign until the former North Carolina senator dropped out just before Super Tuesday, noted that the last two conventions not scripted as a love-fest honoring the nominee were those of the 1976 Republicans and the 1980 Democrats. Both of these parties, like the 1968 Dems before them, lost the November election.
So messiness is bad. It must be avoided at all costs, at least if one wants to win. The problem with this theory is that this year's "messy" Democratic race is energizing voters in ways no one has seen for a generation or more. Obama and Clinton have each gathered more votes than any previous Democratic presidential hopeful. Why? Because despite the best efforts of the party planners, we have a real contest for the nomination, and real contests are exciting.
I have voted in every election since 1984. Over the years I have lived, and voted, in California, Florida, Georgia and my home state of Vermont. Yet last week, in Vermont, I voted for the first time in a presidential primary that meant something. In all six of those previous elections the nominating contest was effectively over by the time it made its way to wherever I was living. Having my vote matter, needless to say, made the entire process mean a lot more.
Which may explain the results of a much-discussed Washington Post-ABC News poll that was released on the day of last week's Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont primaries.
A whopping 67 per cent of Democrats polled said Clinton should stay in the nomination race if she won just one of the large states that voted last week: Texas and Ohio. As it turned out, she won both. Even more telling, however, were the 45 per cent who said she should keep running even if she lost both of those states. It's not a majority, but it is still a pretty big number. This, at a time when the conventional wisdom held that losing either state would doom the New York senator's campaign.
The short term lesson is that instead of wringing their hands Democratic strategists ought to be exulting. The Clinton-Obama race has created excitement where none has existed for decades.
That poll, and last week's vote also, however, contain a warning. All of this excitement is not happening in spite of the long, hard fought nominating contest but because of it. No one likes to lose, but most Americans are willing to concede defeat when they believe their side has been fairly beaten.
Avoiding an ugly political fight on national television come August appears to be the priority right now among party elders. But this pales beside their need to get both sides to acknowledge the eventual outcome — whatever it is — as a fair one, fairly arrived at. Fail this test, and it will not really matter who leads the party ticket into November.
Gordon Robison is a journalist and consultant based in Burlington, Vermont and Cambridge, Massachusetts. He has lived in and reported on the Middle East for two decades, including assignments in Baghdad for both CNN and Fox News.

Caucuses on March 22nds

I've written to Neil Jensen of the Vermonters for Obama group that we (Barack supporters) need some assistance for the caucuses on March 22nd. We had a lot of new people come into the process which, on the front end, the primary, is great! However, now, its a little more difficult to get them to commit to caucus on March 22nd. Many put aside their personal lives for some time PRIOR to the Primary March 4th and some have actual become physically ill from being outside for 12 hours in the rain on March 4th. The other issue in my town is that our Caucus convener is the town organizer for Hillary and our first time Obama people do not believe she will be fair with us. Additionally, first timers who don't know what a caucus is, want to know what it looks like. Others are put off by the possibility of being elected a delegate and not wanting to travel to Barre. Soooo, for a whole lot various reasons, there is still some work to do here in Bennington.

Obama rejects Clinton offer of 'dream ticket' and goes on attack

Barack Obama has forcefully rejected Hillary Clinton's suggestion that they would make a Democrat dream ticket for the White House if he was her vice-presidential running mate.

It was, he said, a brazen attempt to "okeydoke, bamboozle and hoodwink" his supporters. "I am not running for vice-president," he told an enthusiastic audience of mostly black students at Mississippi University for Women. He denounced Mrs Clinton's offer as another example of "Washington double-speak".

How could it be, Mr Obama asked, that he could be such a great vice-president when Mrs Clinton was saying he was not up to the job of commander in chief? "You cannot say [I'm] not ready one day and the next say [I'm] ready to be vice-president," he said.

In the race for the White House, Mrs Clinton's Achilles' heel is the level of distrust she generates among some voters. By going on the offensive and describing her as yet another duplicitous Washington-style politician, Mr Obama was putting down a marker that he believes she cannot win a presidential election.

"With all due respect, I have won twice as many states as Senator Clinton, more of the popular vote and I have more delegates," he said. "So I don't know how somebody who is in second place can offer the vice-presidency to somebody in first place." The latest poll shows Mr Obama leads his rival by 58 per cent to 34 per cent in Mississippi. He is also still leading in the national polls.

His victory in Mississippi seems assured, but in this racially polarised state Mrs Clinton still leads by 13 points among mostly white independents and Republicans who can vote in the primary. Mrs Clinton is focusing her energies instead on the delegate-rich Pennsylvania race – which votes on 22 April – where she is expected to do well.

Neither Mrs Clinton nor former president Bill Clinton have bothered to campaign in the state since she floated her running mate suggestion last week. That Mr Obama took so much time on the issue in his speech yesterday, suggests that his campaign is worried that Mrs Clinton has continued to dominate the airwaves and the news agenda since her big wins in Ohio and Texas last week.

He pointed out that in 1992 President Bill Clinton said that the most important criterion in selecting a vice-president was his or her readiness to step into the role of commander in chief at a moment's notice.

Despite a convincing win in Wyoming over the weekend, and the optimism about Mississippi, Mr Obama is still being outmanoeuvred by his rival. By going on the offensive, she has dominated the airwaves and turned her victories in Ohio and Texas into a test of Mr Obama's electability.

According to the Associated Press tally, Mr Obama leads by 1,578 to 1,468. A candidate needs 2,024 delegates to win the nomination.


By Leonard Doyle in Columbus, MississippiTuesday, 11 March 2008
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/obama-rejects-clinton-offer-of-dream-ticket-and-goes-on-attack-793988.html