Well, the shocks and jolts keep coming today, folks.

Early this morning I got word that the Malibu Planning Commission "denied" the proposal for an ordinance to ban pot dispensaries within the city limits.

Then, on the heels of that heady moment, a news flash confirmed that the Justices at the California Supreme Court "denied the stay" on their ruling lifting the ban on Gay Marriage.

Just as I was catching my breath - and getting ready to head out to the local deli for a salami & rye sandwich - more sh** hit the old fan!

The New York Times fired off a missive heralding Mrs. Clinton's decision to endorse Barack Obama, express her support for the Senator - and egads! - bring her financially-troubled year-and-a-half campaign to a screeching halt.

Today, someone must have given Hillary a whiff of smelling salts!

In a staggering about-face, one adviser confided that Mrs. Clinton would concede defeat - and not only congratulate Mr. Obama for his big-win Tuesday - but also proclaim him the party’s nominee while pledging to do the "right thing".
(McCain would be proud)

Although Mrs. Clinton was reluctant to squelch the torch last night pending an opportunity to discuss her future with the powers-that-be today, even the precious few in the inner sanctum confessed that events on Wednesday signaled it was time to relinguish her sweaty grasp at the old brass ring.

One of her long-time supporters since the halcyon days said it best.

"We pledged to support her to the end. Our problem is not being able to determine when the he** the end is," confessed Charles B. Rangel.             (New York Democrat)

When Walter F. Mondale - and others - announced that they were now backing Mr. Obama - it must have been tantamount to a prize punch in the gut.

"I was for Hillary — I wasn’t against Obama, who I think is very talented," Mr. Mondale said. "I’m glad we made a decision and I hope we can unite our party and move forward."

Traitor.

But, that's all water under the bridge now, eh?

A send-off party is planned for Mrs. Clinton and her supporters for Friday.

Would you attend?

Talk about doom and gloom!

Were I Hillary, I'd take the first flight to Hawaii and chill out on the beach with a bottle of Chivas Regal 'til I got royally sh**-faced, uh-huh.

After all, the party proper had little to say on the heels of her fall-down-go-boom episode except,

"Democrats must now turn our full attention to the general election."

Yeah, it's roll-over time.

Some of Mrs. Clinton’s supporters urged Mr. Obama to take the senator on as his running mate.

In one of those ominous conference calls with members of the New York Congressional delegation on Tuesday, Mrs. Clinton was allegedly asked whether she would be open to joining a ticket headed up by Mr. Obama. Insiders say, if the big cheeze offered up the VP ticket - she would not only accept - but join in the good fight to storm the White House in the fall.

Terry McAuliffe, the Clinton campaign chairman, continued to swear up and down there were "absolutely zero discussions" in that vein on Tuesday.

But today is Wednesday.

Who knows what tomorrow brings?

T-Shirt market went through roof today...
(Chelsea eat your heart out!)

The New York Times reported in a news flash just minutes ago that Democratic candidate Barack Obama has leapt over the threshold of the 2,118 delegates needed to be nominated at the party’s convention in Denver in August.

The daily is touting the accomplishment this evening as a "victory" for Mr. Obama, the son of a black Kenyan father and white Kansan mother, who they note, "broke racial barriers and represented a remarkable rise for a man who just four years ago served in the Illinois State Senate."

In an emotional speech to supporters in St. Paul just a short while ago, Mr. Obama thanked the ralliers for choosing "not to listen" to doubts or fears but "to your greatest hopes and highest aspirations."

Confident about the new path he is now embarking on, he noted with hearfelt enthusiasm,

"Tonight, we mark the end of one historic journey with the beginning of another — a journey that will bring a new and better day to America. Because of you, tonight, I can stand before you and say that I will be the Democratic nominee for president of the United States."

But, there was one cloud hanging over the celebration.

Not surprisingly, Mrs. Clinton was reluctant to hand over the reigns.

"This has been a long campaign and I will be making no decisions tonight," Mrs. Clinton told supporters in New York.

She said she would be speaking with party officials about her next move. In fact, I expect she'll be stomping her foot at Democratic headquarters bright and early in the morning demanding that her supporters "do something!"

Tough ti**y, Hillary.

In what was described by the Times as quite a "combative speech", Mrs. Clinton argued up-and-down "she was the stronger candidate" and that "she had won the popular vote", not Obama.

Denial. Denial. Denial.

Spoil sport, if you ask me.

In a bold-faced effort to give the impression she was not being selfish, and that she had the interests of others at heart, the fast-talking Senator used the occasion to twist and distort the facts to make sense of an argument for continuing.

"I want the 18 million Americans who voted for me to be respected."

They will be Hillary.

You don't have to steal an election - or make a fool of yourself in the process - to make that happen

It's not their fault you lost, is it?

Obama, the consummate gentleman responded with proper decorum.

"I am a better candidate for having had the honor to compete with Hillary Rodham Clinton."

Yeah, you've learned how to watch your back, handle yourself in public, and - in spite of your alleged lack of experience - managed to deftly avoid setting off any of the mine fields that old "soldier-boy" keeps exploding on the campaign battleground day-in and day-out.

What a diplomat, that Obama.

Starting tomorrow, I expect the presidential campaign will take on a new twist.

Let the games begin!

No more dashed hopes...

         Since that time...the buzz is building for Hillary Clinton to be his running mate.  Right before this...you started to hear Barack sing Hillary's praises.  Was it a way to "test" the idea before the voters?  This brings to mind the playground antics of scapping students who find a way to co-exist in the same sandbox.  However, each of the two potential nominees have strengths that combine to make a Democratic ticket more enticing to some voters...distateful to others.

         The PR machine has revved up it's engines as Barack is in the process of picking a running mate.  Will it be Hillary?  Or will some other potential running mate make an appearance?   It is too soon to tell.  There is alot of background wrangling going on that we are are not all privy too.

        It won't be long before the Democratic dream team is announced.  Then you will see some movement in the actual presidential race.  The intensity will pick up between the Republicans and the Democrats on the ISSUES before them, in the scramble to the top. 

         This election is critical for our nation.  Getting to the most powerful position in our government is filled with booby traps.  Choosing carefully who should have the priviledge of competing for the opportunity is serious business.  However, I am afraid that the brou- ha has only just begun.  Let the political maneuvering begin.

When I go to www.barackobama.com I expect a pleasant experience, not a gag reflex. Gross. We're not going to talk about what that picture looks like. We're not.

Yes, that was a brilliant little piece of campaigning, to completely shift the dialogue from Hillary Clinton's [yawn] thoroughly predictable landslide win in West Virginia.* Regardless, that is not an image I need to see. The flashbacks. They're traumatizing.

You wanna talk tickets? Honey, I've got tickets.

Obama / Napolitano - Like it a lot, with the exception that it doesn't necessarily bring another state. Of course, it does bring Arizona back into play. She's a Democratic governor in a state that Bush carried in 2004. She's from the West. She's popular. She's good on the issues. And yes, she's a she.

Me also likey...

Obama / Sebelius - Like it a lot, except that I wonder if Kansas is too close to Illinois. Would the rest of the country view it as too many Midwesterners? Does geography really matter to voters outside of the South? She's a Democratic governor in a state that Bush carried in 2004. She won reelection in 2006 - in fucking Kansas - by more than 17 points. She's good on the issues.

And yes, darlings, there is a theme to my choices.

Let's put a woman on the ticket and let's be smart about it. Let's add a governor for some executive experience. Let's add a true Washington outsider to keep with this "change" theme. Let's add a progressive who's demonstrated the ability to win votes in conservative areas. Let's add an experienced candidate who has successfully won a hotly contested race. Let's move forward on and kick some Republican ass in November!

Pretty please?

For what it's worth, now I think I understand why so many people don't like politics. If your only news sources are mainstream media and you feel like you don't have an influence on the process, this does totally suck. Happier thoughts? This will be my last election in DC. By 2009, I will be voting elsewhere. I don't know where, but elsewhere. A mythical place where there are Senators, Representatives and Governors to vote for. Someplace where grassroots democracy isn't just a buzzword, but an actual process in which people are engaged. I'm thinking maybe Oregon.

You think about Janet Napolitano and Kathleen Sebelius.

*If you haven't seen The Daily Show coverage of the West Virginia primary...it's painfully telling about how far we have to go.

While plenty of structural reasons militated for yesterday's endorsement, such as the fact that both Edwards in '04 and Obama in '08 relied up strategist David Axelrod, Edwards likely won't be on a Democratic ticket with Obama.

Edwards was not an asset to John Kerry, whose top supporters still carry resentment towards the lawyer who couldn't carry his home state of North Carolina. Edwards can't help Obama in the South, where John McCain will win. And he hasn't won white voters since 1998.

If shoring up Obama's shortcomings on military affairs and foreign policy weren't such an important need, I'd expect Obama to turn to a politician who could help with them. Prime candidates include Robert Casey of Pennsylvania and Jim Webb of Virginia.

The highly coveted John Edwards endorsement was hand-delivered to Barack Obama on Wednesday in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Edwards broke rank with his wife, who is pro-Hillary and said he believes Obama shares his vision to cut poverty in half within ten years. Pundits are wondering whether this is a glimpse of the Democratic Dream Ticket or if the Dems orchestrated this endorsement to resuscitate Obama's standing with blue collar "whites" who have categorically been flocking to Hillary Clinton, as evidenced with her landslide victory last night in West Virginia.

Edwards, who received a thunderous ovation when Obama introduced him to a crowd of several thousand, said, "brothers and sisters, we must come together as Democrats" to defeat McCain. "We are here tonight because the Democratic voters have made their choice, and so have I."

Editor's Note: Now, although I do agree that an Edwards endorsement is great for the Party, I don't believe Democrats are directly addressing the issue at hand in West Virginia. Those rural blue collar whites aren't interested in Edwards policies, they are vehemently non-supportive of the "black" candidate and grouping him with a "handsome" white young senator from North Carolina isn't going to stem that distrust. A staggering 77% of voters said race played a factor at exit polls and the "Rev. Wright" issue doesn't help. I find it funny that when whites invoke the "racial" divide into their argument they just haven't "moved on" but when "blacks" mention it then they're radical or separatists. Again, another clear example of the double standard which clearly exists.

I want to be clear: adding Hillary to the ticket will do nothing to rid Obama of the stain of Jeremiah Wright. It will only serve to open up a whole new series of problems, not least of which is Bill Clinton. People are voting for Hillary because they'll vote for any Democrat in this election cycle (see post below) and she's the only one left who is white. Remember that these same voters were thought to loathe Hillary Clinton less than a year ago.

All this is beside the point because, luckily, there is a brilliant alternative to Hillary for VP, and that is Senator Jim Webb of Virginia. Webb is a conservative Democrat and citizen-soldier who will bring blue chip political and military experience, along with a dose of white, working class authenticity, to the ticket. He is honest, direct, and tough. As Obama deals with the Wright issue, having Webb speak for him will be convincing.

Hillary is tough too. But she does not bring balance to Obama's ticket, she brings a heavy weight that can be measured in tons.

I have to say, this whole having audio on my blog thing is a dream come true. I absolutely love it. I try to pick relevant songs...but sometimes they will just be songs I just love.

But I want to use this space today to discuss some of the controversies surrounding Obama recently.

Let's get right into it:

1. Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Trinity, and Obama as a secret muslim/Christian Zealot/Secularist (AKA the religious kitchen sink strategy, just throw every offensive term out there and see which one will piss off the most people)

This Rev. Wright certainly has some folks worried.

Instead of trying to deal with the hate that comes out of Fox News and Glenn Beck, I'll just try and deal with the facts.

a) Senator Obama is a bible-believing Christian. Below is his testimony, which he described in a speech to the UCC convention in 2007:

"It's been several months now since I announced I was running for president. In that time, I've had the chance to talk with Americans all across this country. And I've found that no matter where I am, or who I'm talking to, there's a common theme that emerges. It's that folks are hungry for change - they're hungry for something new. They're ready to turn the page on the old politics and the old policies - whether it's the war in Iraq or the health care crisis we're in, or a school system that's leaving too many kids behind despite the slogans.

But I also get the sense that there's a hunger that's deeper than that - a hunger that goes beyond any single cause or issue. It seems to me that each day, thousands of Americans are going about their lives - dropping the kids off at school, driving to work, shopping at the mall, trying to stay on their diets, trying to kick a cigarette habit - and they're coming to the realization that something is missing. They're deciding that their work, their possessions, their diversions, their sheer busyness, is not enough.

They want a sense of purpose, a narrative arc to their lives. They're looking to relieve a chronic loneliness. And so they need an assurance that somebody out there cares about them, is listening to them - that they are not just destined to travel down that long road toward nothingness.

And this restlessness - this search for meaning - is familiar to me. I was not raised in a particularly religious household. My father, who I didn't know, returned to Kenya when I was just two. He was nominally a Muslim since there were a number of Muslims in the village where he was born. But by the time he was a young adult, he was an atheist. My mother, whose parents were non-practicing Baptists and Methodists, was one of the most spiritual souls I ever knew. She had this enormous capacity for wonder, and lived by the Golden Rule. But she had a healthy skepticism of religion as an institution. And as a consequence, so did I.

It wasn't until after college, when I went to Chicago to work as a community organizer for a group of Christian churches, that I confronted my own spiritual dilemma. In a sense, what brought me to Chicago in the first place was a hunger for some sort of meaning in my life. I wanted to be part of something larger. I'd been inspired by the civil rights movement - by all the clear-eyed, straight-backed, courageous young people who'd boarded buses and traveled down South to march and sit at lunch counters, and lay down their lives in some cases for freedom. I was too young to be involved in that movement, but I felt I could play a small part in the continuing battle for justice by helping rebuild some of Chicago's poorest neighborhoods.

So it's 1985, and I'm in Chicago, and I'm working with these churches, and with lots of laypeople who are much older than I am. And I found that I recognized in these folks a part of myself. I learned that everyone's got a sacred story when you take the time to listen. And I think they recognized a part of themselves in me too. They saw that I knew the Scriptures and that many of the values I held and that propelled me in my work were values they shared. But I think they also sensed that a part of me remained removed and detached - that I was an observer in their midst.

And slowly, I came to realize that something was missing as well - that without an anchor for my beliefs, without a commitment to a particular community of faith, at some level I would always remain apart, and alone.

And it's around this time that some pastors I was working with came up to me and asked if I was a member of a church. "If you're organizing churches," they said, "it might be helpful if you went to church once in a while." And I thought, "Well, I guess that makes sense."

So one Sunday, I put on one of the few clean jackets I had, and went over to Trinity United Church of Christ on 95th Street on the South Side of Chicago. And I heard Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright deliver a sermon called "The Audacity of Hope." And during the course of that sermon, he introduced me to someone named Jesus Christ. I learned that my sins could be redeemed. I learned that those things I was too weak to accomplish myself, He would accomplish with me if I placed my trust in Him. And in time, I came to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death, but rather as an active, palpable agent in the world and in my own life.

It was because of these newfound understandings that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity one day and affirm my Christian faith. It came about as a choice, and not an epiphany. I didn't fall out in church, as folks sometimes do. The questions I had didn't magically disappear. The skeptical bent of my mind didn't suddenly vanish. But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side, I felt I heard God's spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth and carrying out His works."

It is a faith that he has written about in both of his books and that has been a palpable and verifiable agent in his life. His legitimacy as a Christian and legitimacy in reaching out to people of faith, including evangelicals, has the GOP and those who profit from using religion as a bludgeon scared. So they will try and condemn Obama and his faith. Evangelicals and born-again Christians especially should be weary when the media starts to make a man's Christian faith deplorable...they've been saying the same thing about us for years.

b) Trinity and Rev. Wright

As you may have noticed above, Obama didn't join Trinity after hearing one of the 2 or 3 clips that cable news has been playing of one of Rev. Wright's sermons...no. It was his message on "The Audacity of Hope." A sermon that, for Obama, spoke of how, with God, anything is possible.

A few points:

I have sat in the Chapel and heard ideas that I completely disagreed with, particularly when Pastor Al Cockrell was preaching. This only happened maybe five or six times, but I would be shaking my head when he'd say something I didn't agree with. I didn't feel compelled to express my disagreement. I didn't feel it was my duty. I also didn't feel like I had to leave the Church. I didn't feel like I had to do this because my impression of Pastor Al was much different than that of the ideas he sometimes espoused. I have an overall opinion of Pastor Al that is very positive and I believe him to be a good and decent man of God who seeks to be grounded in the word of God.

Now, had I heard Pastor Al for the first times on one of those occasions he said something I disagreed with, I probably would have been hesitant to continue at that Church.

We are all imperfect vessels.

Now, after making this point, someone made the point to me that Trinity's website had a mission statement that was deplorable and that, sure Rev. Wright may be ruthlessly characterized, but this stuff is on their website.

I looked at the website and this is the mission statement. You can view it for yourself here.

This is the "About Us" section.

The mission statement, to me, is not extreme or out of the mainstream at all. The two references to race are saying that they are not ashamed to be a black church and that they will work to eradicate color lines.

The about us section has that word that Glenn Beck loves to use to scare folks: liberation. As far as I can tell, the Black Liberation theology, in this context, simply is a theology that connects God's will to the liberation of Blacks out of slavery. I don't know about you, but I believe it was God's will that blacks were freed.

Also, as Rev. Wright writes on the Trinity website:

"To have a church whose theological perspective starts from the vantage point of Black liberation theology being its center, is not to say that African or African American people are superior to any one else."

So my first point is that, if you understand history and the Black Church, then there is nothing offensive on that website whatsoever. Let me remind you that the United Church of Christ is a 99% white denomination, and that 99% holds Trinity up as an example. Trinity is one of the most respected churches in Chicago. Rev. Wright is a respected theologian and scholar.

Secondly, the idea that members of the church are unwilling to separate the political values of their Reverend with his biblical teaching is not a sound one. Imagine if we carried that over. That would imply that every Christian who watched 700 Club voted for Giuliani. That would imply that every Catholic is against the war in Iraq. I'm only on my second point and I am having a hard time not just dismissing this "controversy" as the most manufactured, ignorant and just plain stupid thing I've ever heard.

However, I have more points...

Third, imagine if we held every statement of belief of a Church or personal belief of a Christian, and made all sorts of crazy insinuation and assumptions about how that person would act as a public official. For instance, my Church has a statement of belief on its website that says the following:

"We believe in the bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, the everlasting conscious suffering
of the lost, and the blissful joy of the saved, which demand a literal Heaven and Hell."
"We believe in the existence of a personal devil, the old deceiver, a liar from the beginning, who is still
working in the world to destroy the souls of men and that he and all his angels and all who receive not Christ as their Saviour will eternally perish in the lake of fire."

"We believe that man was created in the image of God, that he sinned, and thereby incurred not only physical death, but spiritual death, which is separation from God; and that all human beings are born with a sinful nature and those who reach moral responsibility are sinners in thought, word, and deed."

Now one can only imagine the types of assumptions about policies that one could make from those statements.

However, we know that there is a difference between the righteous reign and judgment of God and that of our own. We know that we understand humility. In other words, even if you find that a church that is almost all black supports black business and the betterment of black people, even if you find that to be surprising and reprehensible, to automatically carry those things over to Obama, even though he has never espoused such things, and THEN to carry over how he understands the mission and culture of his Church to how he understands his duties as President is foolish. He has been a U.S. Senator for years! He has a record! He won Iowa!

The choice is simple:

Do we want to choose our President by accepting the frames given to us by Keith Olbermann and Sean Hannity. Do we want to accept that our choices for President have come down to a war-mongering hot-head, and a racist, elitist, manchurian candidate?

And then, like idiots, we complain about the polarization of politics. It's our fault! We're too lazy to accept anything other than characterizations that are made to offend our sensibilities. We have 50-50 elections not because of policy differences, but because half of the country hates unpatriotic people more than anything else and half the country hates uncompassionate, racist people more than anything else.

We have a war in Iraq, our planet is in peril, a health care crisis confronting the most vulnerable of us, open borders, an economy in recession, crime in our communities...And we're going to pick our President on the basis of a wikipedia-level knowledge of a Church in which a candidate has attended? We're going to pick our President based on how his last name sounds?

People, wake up!

Finally, this whole bitter thing. I could write more on it, but here is the quick opinion:

Obama likes to consider how Americans think and what problems confront them. He is an intellectual who likes to think and discuss. He considered the thoughts and lives of Americans well in the UCC speech posted above, he did so poorly in San Francisco.

It was a campaign mistake. It was a political mistake. Other than the fact that Obama thinks that our country needs economic policies that work, it has absolutely no implications about Obama or the policies he'd enact.

I am done for now.

Thanks for reading.

I hope to do my entry on the April 9 forum in the next few days.

Feel free to comment if you have anything remotely insightful to say or ask.

The Long Defeat

So I just watched the full sermon in which Rev. Wright made the comments about "America's Chickens are coming home to roost!" It is on Marc Ambinder's blog.

Now to people who aren't Christians, they may still find the Reverend's comments offensive. The Rev. calls believers to examine their personal relationship with Jesus Christ. That is the point of his message. I am fine with the Gospel being described as controversial: Jesus was controversial. What I am not cool with is the church of Christian believers not defending Rev. Wright's right to preach from the pulpit of Trinity and in some cases, Political christians have attacked Jeremiah Wright. Now whether folks like Tony Perkins think 9/11 happened because of gays, or because of America's foreign policy, if Tony Perkins is more committed to the Bible than he is to the GOP he should keep his mouth shut on both accounts or he should have blasted Robertson and Falwell for their comments following 9/11.

I did not blast Robertson and Falwell and I will defend Rev. Wright. I believe that the nature of America is found in our good works...I believe the heart of America is good. Rev. Wright's sermon indicates that following 9/11, he felt otherwise. While I, and Sen. Obama, disagree with him, when you get into the weeds of what he's saying, it's really a philosophical and academic case he is making, based in U.S. history of a scale many of those criticizing him have no clue about.

Political christians can do what they want, but Christian politicians, other Christians, and those of good conscience, should defend Senator Obama and not allow the media to once again bash Christianity and Christian leaders under the guise of journalism. Let's judge our candidates' on what they have said or think, and not on 10-second sound-bites of a black preacher shown over and over with the intent of scaring whites.

By the way, I would like to second the Obama campaign's thank you to Chris Wallace. He is clearly a Republican-leaning journalist who is often harder on Democrats than he is on Republicans...but today, he was fair.

If you don't know what I'm talking about, here is the link.

I am so proud of Huck.

Obama, on the other hand, gave one of the most sweeping, substantive speeches of the last 50 years in American politics. It was an honest speech that showed why he is the man to lead this country. He could have pandered to whites who wanted him to disown his pastor and leave his church, but he didn't. He could have called white suspicion naive and ludicrous, but he didn't. It was a remarkable speech.

I am currently planning for the big April 9 event and doing some schoolwork, so I have not been able to blog as much as I would have liked. I can tell you what, if I had time, I would be blogging on:

1. If Hillary can donate 5 million dollars to her campaign, could she donate some money to her wardrobe!? If I have to see that bee looking pantsuit one more time, I swear...!

2. By the way, about Hillary, the only campaign she still has a chance of winning is the campaign to destroy the Democratic Party.
I don't know how many Democrats think a continuation of the failed policy in Iraq, or a third-term for Bush, is better than Senator Barack Obama in the White House.

3. I love the black church. I think it is one of the best parts of our country. However, conspiracy theories aren't helping no one.

4. Tony Perkins and the FRC should pay more attention to the Bible and less attention to the political fortunes of the Republicans in Congress. In my latest FRC Action Alert E-mail...I was sent a paragraph of Ken Blackwell criticizing Obama's Pastor and Obama for being in favor of a liberation philosophy and socialism. None of which, to my knowledge, were discussed in his speech. This paragraph by Ken was FRC's response to Obama's speech. One would think that FRC Action would rather protect the black church, which is with them on the social issues, then castigate the church because it doesn't vote Republican. In the lead-up to April 9, I will be blogging a bit more about why the Religious Right has been led astray and if they can ever get back on a path when their eyes are on the Lord, instead of power in D.C.

5. Buffalo Sabres are going to the playoffs baby! (knock on wood)

I think it is an awful thing to consider that Spitzer was weighing his options, considering if he would be able to survive. The man should have dropped out right away. He should be ashamed of himself. He is a disgrace to the office and he is a despicable man for dragging his wife out for a press conference.

What I find equally distressing is that we have heard, watched and read things that are questioning whether prostitution is bad or not. For the man or the woman. The man had a wife and three children. It was wrong. For some people, Spitzer pushing for a gay marriage bill would be more legitimate if he wasn't simultaneously dishonoring his own.

It is a sad statement if the feminist movement has transformed into a movement which defends prostitution. I love the men who frame their support for prostitution or abortion as "a woman has a right to do whatever she wants with a woman." And women embrace that as part of being a woman, expressing their femininity. When in actuality, it's at least partially men who want to be able to have sex with anyone and without any consequences.

But I digress...

There is no such thing as privacy for a public official. I believe that the public and the press should stay out of some things, but for Spitzer to call his using a prostitute and breaking the law a private manner is pure folly. Public officials should be held to a higher standard.

Between this and Clinton, I have never been so consumed with disgust at political officials in my party.

Which brings us to...Clinton.

I have a lot to say on her.

1) Electability

Hillary Clinton's argument is that she wins democratic voters, which are the voters we'll need in November. And that Obama wins big cities, which Democrats will win anyways.

She also selectively picks out states, and makes the ludicrous claim that a primary victory correlates with general election performance. As I remember, Obama won Maryland, Wisconsin, Virginia, Louisiana, Missouri. All states with primaries, all swing states. See the Clinton's have done with electability what they have with everything else since February 5. They have thrown the kitchen sink at Obama and at the voters. Throwing whatever crap they could against the wall and seeing if anything will stick.

But you see...here's the problem...None of her arguments make sense. In the general, Democrats will back Obama. What is not certain is that the independents and Republicans that will back Obama will support Hillary. Actually, it is pretty certain...they won't. In a Zogby poll, Clinton starts off the general with 47% of the country saying they would NEVER vote for her. That's a ceiling of 53%.

Clinton supporters can be as delusional as they want about her general election prospects. They could pretend that she is as gifted of a politician as Bill. They could pretend that she will win the commander-in-chief argument against McCain. They could pretend that people won't be affected by the possibility of both Clinton's back in the White House. They could pretend that the Republicans won't play as dirty with her as she has with Obama. However, none of these things will happen.

2) Florida and Michigan

First of all, let's take Michigan off the table. Obama wasn't on the ballot. When he signs a pledge, he means it.

With Florida, yes, Clinton has an advantage in the state. However, let's not forget that she held fundraisers in the state, and that even before South Carolina she began to pander to Florida and Michigan. So her advantages in the states are partially due to her breaking the spirit of the pledge she signed, as well as her stabbing NH and Iowa in the back as soon as the cast their votes for her. The NH Union Leader told NH voters they had been duped.

I believe that there should be a revote. Clinton is going to lose. The writing is on the wall. Obama is and should support a revote, beat her in Michigan, and maybe that will shut her up.

3) Ferraro

The Clinton's have repeatedly used surrogates to run a smear campaign. Ferraro's comments are another step in that direction. They use surrogates to state explicitly what Hillary only says implicitly. Hillary talks about how Obama won Louisiana because of the pride of African-Americans, Ferraro goes on Fox News and says that he is in his position because he is black. That will get that blue-collar vote!

I am done with the Clinton's. I am through.

I guess the one good thing about that is that the Democratic Primary Voters have spoken: And they are done with her too.

They try and play two or more different messages to win over opposed groups. They try and tell undecideds, superdelegates and their own supporters that Obama is unfit to be Commander-in-Chief, that he is unprepared and that he is too inexperienced. Then they tell those who are undecided but lean towards Barack that that black guy could have his shot in eight years and they should vote for Hillary because its her time 

A year ago I was an Obama supporter, but I liked Hillary. I would have never imagined that this campaign would have destroyed the Clinton legacy for me as much as it has. I am so sick of their excuses and their “for the moment” reasoning. They have no shame. Hillary has no shame. I can not trust someone who has fabricated convictions which can be thrown away and dismissed whenever the circumstances would call for it. It goes beyond politics with them. It is a pattern of behavior. 

Obama is going to win Mississippi tomorrow. He is going to be up by over 100 pledged delegates by the time all of the states have their say. He is going to be in the strongest position to beat McCain.

Senator Obama is the candidate for right now. He is the candidate we need. 

So, sorry Hillary. Bill has cheated you once again.

Obama will win the most delegates out of Texas and word is that the campaign has 50 or so superdelegates in their pocket.

I expect the campaign to announce some of those this week.

It looks like,  much to my chagrin, my predictions might turn out to be accurate.

However, Clinton's path to the nomination is still difficult, if not impossible. She will have to win about 65% of the vote in the rest of the states to TIE Obama.

It looks like Obama's going to get killed tonight and tomorrow by the unrealistic, ludicrous expectations the media set on this Tuesday.

If you look at the exits, assuming they are accurate, it would be a miracle if Obama came within 5 points in Ohio. She won white men and woman, religious voters, killed him among voters over 60, those who thought NAFTA was a bad idea...I'm surprised it's as close as it seems to be.

It will be interesting to see what happens in Rhode Island. I think RI will be more important than previously thought.

I think he will lose three out of the four. He will only win Vermont.

He will lose Texas by 1-3 points. He will lose Ohio by 4-8. He will lose Rhode Island by 6-10.

The Clinton's have had a masterful couple of weeks of press. Her media appearances have been well-executed and she has been likable. The media has been afraid to call her desperate or as lashing out because the Clinton's have effectively embarrassed the media into submission.

Obama will have to brave a week of stories claiming that every time he wins that the voters get doubts.

I think that if tomorrow goes how I predict it might...Clinton will have regained frontrunner status.

However, hopefully I'm wrong, and I have faith in the Obama campaign staff that they are prepared and will surprise me.

Regardless, it will be a very interesting night tomorrow.

Barack the vote, from New York to New Delhi!

And, for you non-Hindi speakers, a rough translation of the lyrics is here.

So, John Edwards finally threw his endorsement to Barack Obama yesterday.  Perfectly timed to steal the thunder from Hillary Clinton's mega huge winning margin in WV I'd say.   Showboating his way in for a possible Democratic ticket in November, perhaps?  

Mr. Edwards could potentially help Mr. Obama with that group. A Southerner, he had directed his candidacy at the same white and working class voters Mr. Obama is trying to woo.

“I’ll just point out the obvious,” Mr. Edwards told one audience when he was campaigning in Iowa last year. “In the last — can I do the math, 45, 50 years — what is it, the last two Democrats who actually got elected president? Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton. Both of them talk like I do.”

 While John Edwards promises to help with the working class whites (you know, the ones that are bitter and clinging to their guns and religion), where is his wife, Elizabeth? 

Missing from the event was Elizabeth Edwards, Mr. Edwards’s wife, who has been a passionate proponent of universal health care. The Edwardses were said to be split on the endorsement, with Mrs. Edwards said to favor Mrs. Clinton because of her preference for parts of the Clinton health care plan.

Mr. Obama, who accepted Mr. Edwards’s endorsement with praise for the speech and the man, also praised Mrs. Edwards and her commitment to health care. Asked if she would endorse him, he said, “I would not speak for Elizabeth.”

Wonder how this will effect the Edwards household...

Read Full Article:  CLICK HERE

Dear Senators Clinton and Obama,

Please promise me you know what you're doing, that both of you really are present enough to be a good president and neither one of you will do anything that might deliver this election to McCain. It's not so much that I hate John McCain, because I don't. He's a patriot who served his country nobly throughout his adult life. I don't even hold his widely acknowledged anger issues against him. Sometimes a little righteous indignation is highly motivating, as long as he demonstrates better impulse control than the inmate who's been running the asylum for the last almost eight years. We just really can't afford to stay on our current path. I mean, we literally can't afford it, can't pay for it, don't have the money to wage endless, expensive wars that, more than anything else, prove the points of those who hate us, fan the flames of anti-Americanism, make the world more dangerous for us and us lame broke. Haven't we had enough of leaders who say one thing and do the opposite?

Barack, Hillary, please just promise us you have a plan, that you'll drag this out only long enough to keep yourselves and your party atop the news cycle to fill this gap 'til the conventions, but that you'll do it without drawing too much blood. Then, find a way to make a true and lasting peace for the good, not just of your party, but of your country. Walk the damn walk. There sure has been enough talk. You can prove what great presidents y'all would be, prove it, by bringing peace and harmony to the Democratic Party. At this stage I don't care which one of you is atop the ticket, or if the other is on it, just that, whatever happens, it is genuinely without animosity (or you do a grand job of making it look that way - and that you make some important place for John Edwards). First, you must make peace. Kiss and make flipping up.

Demonstrate what a great president we're going to have, 'cause we're going to need one with the mess this disastrous administration has left for you to clean up. If y'all can come out of this forging party unity I'll believe you're more than just ordinary presidential candidates, you're patriots and diplomats, totally prepared to meet the challenges of the presidency.

I've been watching John Adams on HBO and I'm deeply touched by the enormous sacrifices our founding fathers and mothers (and their families) made when they gave birth to this country Their wisdom and commitment are now so clear in the difficult choices that yielded our republic, as well as in the well-chosen words that became their Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. We need the next president to respect the foundation on which this country is built and care about individual rights. Put the good of the nation ahead of your own goals and ambitions, and please start now. 

So, stop pointing out each others' weak spots, or else the boys and girls on the other side of the aisle will be laughing all the way to the White House. Show us you're ready before day one.  Really be living conduits for change. Take the high road. Both of you. Work it out. Senators, I believe that you each think you'd be a great president. I don't care which one of you it is. The good news is that you have before you a great chance to show us how it's done.

Either that, or both of you go to time out.

Yours, in Momness,

Sophmom