Obama and Trophy

Original photo: Jason Reed/Reuters

U.S. President Barack Obama steps off his campaign plane carrying the head of John McCain, November 5, 2008.

There's more: "Obama and Trophy" >>

35K Attend Obama Rally in Springfield, MO

Barack Obama, his wife and daughters attended a rally tonight at a high school football stadium in Republican stronghold Springfield, MO. This is John Ashcroft's and Roy Blunt's home. This is the headquarters of the Assemblies of God churches. This is where Jerry Fallwell went to Bible college.

The Springfield school district estimates a crowd of 35 to 40 THOUSAND people crowded into ever nook, cranny and cubbyhole in the stadium. It has seating for 8,000. Five times that number came to hear Obama.

Here's a Google map satellite view:

View Larger Map

Photos of the rally after the jump.

People began showing up at 5 a.m. for a rally set to begin at 9 p.m. The line stretched two (2) miles! People had to wait in line for hours, then walk two miles, then stand for a few more hours to see the Democratic presidential nominee. If you don't live in a very, very red section of the country, I'm not sure you can understand the significance of this. I live here and I'm not sure I understand what happened.


Amber Arnold/ Springfield News-Leader

Someone posted this video of people waiting in line:




Some came from Oklahoma, like (from left) Alyssa Siers, 15, and her mom, Tressy.


Amber Arnold/ Springfield News-Leader


Even the rednecks came.


Amber Arnold/ Springfield News-Leader

There were some very happy Democrats.


Amber Arnold/ Springfield News-Leader

Including Betty Burk, of Fair Grove, MO


Bob Linder/ Springfield News-Leader

The late hour made it difficult to get a good photo to show the size of the crowd. Here's the best one I've found.


Amber Arnold/ Springfield News-Leader

I don't think Obama can win in southwest Missouri, but I do believe he's putting a scare into the Republican machine here. And that can only mean good things for the future.

Can Obama win Missouri? I think so, and evidently so does the Obama campaign. Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden and his wife, Jill will be in the Kansas City suburb of Lee's Summit Monday morning. Sen. Hillary Clinton will be in the St. Louis suburb of St. Charles later that day. And all of this is forcing the McCain campaign to send Sarah Palin back to Missouri Monday for a rally at the state capitol in Jefferson City. A few months ago Missouri was a slam-dunk for McCain. Now he's making campaign visits here the day before the election.

For about a year now I've been thinking America might need a second revolution to take the country back from the neo-cons who were destroying her. I'd been thinking of an armed revolution. Now I see I was wrong. There IS a revolution taking place, and not a single shot has been fired.

There's more: "35K Attend Obama Rally in Springfield, MO" >>

Payback really is a bitch!

Ha! More unintended consequences!

After the desperate decision by the idea-free McCain campaign to dive into the cesspool of racial politics and happily cavort in the filth, donations began pouring in...to Obama. Over 100,000 people donated in a single day, and over one third of them were first time donors. "I think John McCain has harmed himself in the last week, really eroding any capital he had built up in terms of what kind of politician he is," said David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager. "But he's really helped our campaign, because so many of you have contributed in the last week. Our field offices had people pouring into them yesterday."

Maybe someone should clue the old fart in to how those of us under 60 think. See, to most of us, race doesn't matter. At all. We all went to integrated schools and most of us have friends of diverse ethnicity. A whole bunch of us have dated outside our race, and our kids certainly did. The only time we even think about race is when some stupid fucking dinosaur tries to play that shit, and then we leap to the defense of our friends. Like so many did yesterday.

And that is just my generation - our kids are really offended by crap like McCain is trying. It might play well on the dead pecker bench in Mayberry, but it doesn't get any traction with us, and like it or not, we have the numbers because they bred like bunnies for a couple of decades.

And on the upside, it is poisoning the republican well for a whole bunch of young people who are just now figuring out where they fit in on the political spectrum. So thanks for that assist, republicans. We couldn't have done it without you.

~BG

There's more: "Payback really is a bitch!" >>

Obama in Independence, Missouri - 30 June 2008

Barack Obama came to Independence, Missouri today to give a speech on Patriotism, and what it means to him.

He spoke for about a half-hour (video and transcript are below the fold) and was well-received by the crowd in Harry's home town - with the biggest applause and longest standing ovation coming when he quoted our favorite son, Mark Twain and his definition of that nebulous word, patriotism... "Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it."

Can I get an "Amen"?

I could blather on - but why should I waste your time? The video and the transcript - and some pictures I took at the event are below the fold.

It was an appearance by a politician - so of course, there were a handful of protesters. Their signs were quite clever - one said "Nope" one said "Change we Can't Afford" and the third one said "Obama (heart) Taxes" - I told you they were just too, too precious!

The crowd, behind the video risers - we lowly slobs in the gaggle who weren't schlepping video equipment and who didn't arrive in a satellite truck were to the left of the risers. That is a great shot of the back of Mara Williams' head...She is a reporter with the KC Star.

I would guess that there were 1250 people in attendance. These are the folks who were positioned between the candidate and the press gaggle.

Representative Ike Skelton, Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. He will cruise to reelection this fall, of course, and retain his gavel - but when he starts campaigning, listen to what he is going to be saying - he is going to point out that no one is thinking strategically. But Ike is, and his campaign is going to bring it to the fore.

My Congressman, Emanuel Cleaver II - for the most part, we are in agreement, and I'm not one to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. So I back him 100%, and when I think he gets it wrong, I am not shy about telling him so. He seems to respect that, or maybe he is just humoring me because I am a loudmouthed, obnoxious, vituperative blogger?

That is Mike Mahoney of Channel 9 on the left, chatting up Jackson County Executive Mike Sanders.

Kraske

Here is the video of the speech:




For those who can't watch video online, here is the transcript of the speech, as released by the campaign immediately following the event.

Remarks of Senator Barack Obama
The America We Love – as prepared for delivery
Monday, June 30th, 2008
Independence, Missouri

On a spring morning in April of 1775, a simple band of colonists – farmers and merchants, blacksmiths and printers, men and boys – left their homes and families in Lexington and Concord to take up arms against the tyranny of an Empire. The odds against them were long and the risks enormous – for even if they survived the battle, any ultimate failure would bring charges of treason, and death by hanging.

And yet they took that chance. They did so not on behalf of a particular tribe or lineage, but on behalf of a larger idea. The idea of liberty. The idea of God-given, inalienable rights. And with the first shot of that fateful day – a shot heard round the world – the American Revolution, and America's experiment with democracy, began.

Those men of Lexington and Concord were among our first patriots. And at the beginning of a week when we celebrate the birth of our nation, I think it is fitting to pause for a moment and reflect on the meaning of patriotism – theirs, and ours. We do so in part because we are in the midst of war – more than one and a half million of our finest young men and women have now fought in Iraq and Afghanistan; over 60,000 have been wounded, and over 4,600 have been laid to rest. The costs of war have been great, and the debate surrounding our mission in Iraq has been fierce. It is natural, in light of such sacrifice by so many, to think more deeply about the commitments that bind us to our nation, and to each other.

We reflect on these questions as well because we are in the midst of a presidential election, perhaps the most consequential in generations; a contest that will determine the course of this nation for years, perhaps decades, to come. Not only is it a debate about big issues – health care, jobs, energy, education, and retirement security – but it is also a debate about values. How do we keep ourselves safe and secure while preserving our liberties? How do we restore trust in a government that seems increasingly removed from its people and dominated by special interests? How do we ensure that in an increasingly global economy, the winners maintain allegiance to the less fortunate? And how do we resolve our differences at a time of increasing diversity?

Finally, it is worth considering the meaning of patriotism because the question of who is – or is not – a patriot all too often poisons our political debates, in ways that divide us rather than bringing us together. I have come to know this from my own experience on the campaign trail. Throughout my life, I have always taken my deep and abiding love for this country as a given. It was how I was raised; it is what propelled me into public service; it is why I am running for President. And yet, at certain times over the last sixteen months, I have found, for the first time, my patriotism challenged – at times as a result of my own carelessness, more often as a result of the desire by some to score political points and raise fears about who I am and what I stand for.

So let me say at this at outset of my remarks. I will never question the patriotism of others in this campaign. And I will not stand idly by when I hear others question mine.

My concerns here aren't simply personal, however. After all, throughout our history, men and women of far greater stature and significance than me have had their patriotism questioned in the midst of momentous debates. Thomas Jefferson was accused by the Federalists of selling out to the French. The anti-Federalists were just as convinced that John Adams was in cahoots with the British and intent on restoring monarchal rule. Likewise, even our wisest Presidents have sought to justify questionable policies on the basis of patriotism. Adams' Alien and Sedition Act, Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, Roosevelt's internment of Japanese Americans – all were defended as expressions of patriotism, and those who disagreed with their policies were sometimes labeled as unpatriotic.

In other words, the use of patriotism as a political sword or a political shield is as old as the Republic. Still, what is striking about today's patriotism debate is the degree to which it remains rooted in the culture wars of the 1960s – in arguments that go back forty years or more. In the early years of the civil rights movement and opposition to the Vietnam War, defenders of the status quo often accused anybody who questioned the wisdom of government policies of being unpatriotic. Meanwhile, some of those in the so-called counter-culture of the Sixties reacted not merely by criticizing particular government policies, but by attacking the symbols, and in extreme cases, the very idea, of America itself – by burning flags; by blaming America for all that was wrong with the world; and perhaps most tragically, by failing to honor those veterans coming home from Vietnam, something that remains a national shame to this day.

Most Americans never bought into these simplistic world-views – these caricatures of left and right. Most Americans understood that dissent does not make one unpatriotic, and that there is nothing smart or sophisticated about a cynical disregard for America's traditions and institutions. And yet the anger and turmoil of that period never entirely drained away. All too often our politics still seems trapped in these old, threadbare arguments – a fact most evident during our recent debates about the war in Iraq, when those who opposed administration policy were tagged by some as unpatriotic, and a general providing his best counsel on how to move forward in Iraq was accused of betrayal.

Given the enormous challenges that lie before us, we can no longer afford these sorts of divisions. None of us expect that arguments about patriotism will, or should, vanish entirely; after all, when we argue about patriotism, we are arguing about who we are as a country, and more importantly, who we should be. But surely we can agree that no party or political philosophy has a monopoly on patriotism. And surely we can arrive at a definition of patriotism that, however rough and imperfect, captures the best of America's common spirit.

What would such a definition look like? For me, as for most Americans, patriotism starts as a gut instinct, a loyalty and love for country rooted in my earliest memories. I'm not just talking about the recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance or the Thanksgiving pageants at school or the fireworks on the Fourth of July, as wonderful as those things may be. Rather, I'm referring to the way the American ideal wove its way throughout the lessons my family taught me as a child.

One of my earliest memories is of sitting on my grandfather's shoulders and watching the astronauts come to shore in Hawaii. I remember the cheers and small flags that people waved, and my grandfather explaining how we Americans could do anything we set our minds to do. That's my idea of America.

I remember listening to my grandmother telling stories about her work on a bomber assembly-line during World War II. I remember my grandfather handing me his dog-tags from his time in Patton's Army, and understanding that his defense of this country marked one of his greatest sources of pride. That's my idea of America.

I remember, when living for four years in Indonesia as a child, listening to my mother reading me the first lines of the Declaration of Independence – "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." I remember her explaining how this declaration applied to every American, black and white and brown alike; how those words, and words of the United States Constitution, protected us from the injustices that we witnessed other people suffering during those years abroad. That's my idea of America.

As I got older, that gut instinct – that America is the greatest country on earth – would survive my growing awareness of our nation's imperfections: it's ongoing racial strife; the perversion of our political system laid bare during the Watergate hearings; the wrenching poverty of the Mississippi Delta and the hills of Appalachia. Not only because, in my mind, the joys of American life and culture, its vitality, its variety and its freedom, always outweighed its imperfections, but because I learned that what makes America great has never been its perfection but the belief that it can be made better. I came to understand that our revolution was waged for the sake of that belief – that we could be governed by laws, not men; that we could be equal in the eyes of those laws; that we could be free to say what we want and assemble with whomever we want and worship as we please; that we could have the right to pursue our individual dreams but the obligation to help our fellow citizens pursue theirs.

For a young man of mixed race, without firm anchor in any particular community, without even a father's steadying hand, it is this essential American idea – that we are not constrained by the accident of birth but can make of our lives what we will – that has defined my life, just as it has defined the life of so many other Americans.

That is why, for me, patriotism is always more than just loyalty to a place on a map or a certain kind of people. Instead, it is also loyalty to America's ideals – ideals for which anyone can sacrifice, or defend, or give their last full measure of devotion. I believe it is this loyalty that allows a country teeming with different races and ethnicities, religions and customs, to come together as one. It is the application of these ideals that separate us from Zimbabwe, where the opposition party and their supporters have been silently hunted, tortured or killed; or Burma, where tens of thousands continue to struggle for basic food and shelter in the wake of a monstrous storm because a military junta fears opening up the country to outsiders; or Iraq, where despite the heroic efforts of our military, and the courage of many ordinary Iraqis, even limited cooperation between various factions remains far too elusive.

I believe those who attack America's flaws without acknowledging the singular greatness of our ideals, and their proven capacity to inspire a better world, do not truly understand America.

Of course, precisely because America isn't perfect, precisely because our ideals constantly demand more from us, patriotism can never be defined as loyalty to any particular leader or government or policy. As Mark Twain, that greatest of American satirists and proud son of Missouri, once wrote, "Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." We may hope that our leaders and our government stand up for our ideals, and there are many times in our history when that's occurred. But when our laws, our leaders or our government are out of alignment with our ideals, then the dissent of ordinary Americans may prove to be one of the truest expression of patriotism.

The young preacher from Georgia, Martin Luther King, Jr., who led a movement to help America confront our tragic history of racial injustice and live up to the meaning of our creed – he was a patriot. The young soldier who first spoke about the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib – he is a patriot. Recognizing a wrong being committed in this country's name; insisting that we deliver on the promise of our Constitution – these are the acts of patriots, men and women who are defending that which is best in America. And we should never forget that – especially when we disagree with them; especially when they make us uncomfortable with their words.

Beyond a loyalty to America's ideals, beyond a willingness to dissent on behalf of those ideals, I also believe that patriotism must, if it is to mean anything, involve the willingness to sacrifice – to give up something we value on behalf of a larger cause. For those who have fought under the flag of this nation – for the young veterans I meet when I visit Walter Reed; for those like John McCain who have endured physical torment in service to our country – no further proof of such sacrifice is necessary. And let me also add that no one should ever devalue that service, especially for the sake of a political campaign, and that goes for supporters on both sides.

We must always express our profound gratitude for the service of our men and women in uniform. Period. Indeed, one of the good things to emerge from the current conflict in Iraq has been the widespread recognition that whether you support this war or oppose it, the sacrifice of our troops is always worthy of honor.

For the rest of us – for those of us not in uniform or without loved ones in the military – the call to sacrifice for the country's greater good remains an imperative of citizenship. Sadly, in recent years, in the midst of war on two fronts, this call to service never came. After 9/11, we were asked to shop. The wealthiest among us saw their tax obligations decline, even as the costs of war continued to mount. Rather than work together to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and thereby lessen our vulnerability to a volatile region, our energy policy remained unchanged, and our oil dependence only grew.

In spite of this absence of leadership from Washington, I have seen a new generation of Americans begin to take up the call. I meet them everywhere I go, young people involved in the project of American renewal; not only those who have signed up to fight for our country in distant lands, but those who are fighting for a better America here at home, by teaching in underserved schools, or caring for the sick in understaffed hospitals, or promoting more sustainable energy policies in their local communities.

I believe one of the tasks of the next Administration is to ensure that this movement towards service grows and sustains itself in the years to come. We should expand AmeriCorps and grow the Peace Corps. We should encourage national service by making it part of the requirement for a new college assistance program, even as we strengthen the benefits for those whose sense of duty has already led them to serve in our military.

We must remember, though, that true patriotism cannot be forced or legislated with a mere set of government programs. Instead, it must reside in the hearts of our people, and cultivated in the heart of our culture, and nurtured in the hearts of our children.

As we begin our fourth century as a nation, it is easy to take the extraordinary nature of America for granted. But it is our responsibility as Americans and as parents to instill that history in our children, both at home and at school. The loss of quality civic education from so many of our classrooms has left too many young Americans without the most basic knowledge of who our forefathers are, or what they did, or the significance of the founding documents that bear their names. Too many children are ignorant of the sheer effort, the risks and sacrifices made by previous generations, to ensure that this country survived war and depression; through the great struggles for civil, and social, and worker's rights.

It is up to us, then, to teach them. It is up to us to teach them that even though we have faced great challenges and made our share of mistakes, we have always been able to come together and make this nation stronger, and more prosperous, and more united, and more just. It is up to us to teach them that America has been a force for good in the world, and that other nations and other people have looked to us as the last, best hope of Earth. It is up to us to teach them that it is good to give back to one's community; that it is honorable to serve in the military; that it is vital to participate in our democracy and make our voices heard.

And it is up to us to teach our children a lesson that those of us in politics too often forget: that patriotism involves not only defending this country against external threat, but also working constantly to make America a better place for future generations.

When we pile up mountains of debt for the next generation to absorb, or put off changes to our energy policies, knowing full well the potential consequences of inaction, we are placing our short-term interests ahead of the nation's long-term well-being. When we fail to educate effectively millions of our children so that they might compete in a global economy, or we fail to invest in the basic scientific research that has driven innovation in this country, we risk leaving behind an America that has fallen in the ranks of the world. Just as patriotism involves each of us making a commitment to this nation that extends beyond our own immediate self-interest, so must that commitment extends beyond our own time here on earth.

Our greatest leaders have always understood this. They've defined patriotism with an eye toward posterity. George Washington is rightly revered for his leadership of the Continental Army, but one of his greatest acts of patriotism was his insistence on stepping down after two terms, thereby setting a pattern for those that would follow, reminding future presidents that this is a government of and by and for the people.

Abraham Lincoln did not simply win a war or hold the Union together. In his unwillingness to demonize those against whom he fought; in his refusal to succumb to either the hatred or self-righteousness that war can unleash; in his ultimate insistence that in the aftermath of war the nation would no longer remain half slave and half free; and his trust in the better angels of our nature – he displayed the wisdom and courage that sets a standard for patriotism.

And it was the most famous son of Independence, Harry S Truman, who sat in the White House during his final days in office and said in his Farewell Address: "When Franklin Roosevelt died, I felt there must be a million men better qualified than I, to take up the Presidential task…But through all of it, through all the years I have worked here in this room, I have been well aware than I did not really work alone – that you were working with me. No President could ever hope to lead our country, or to sustain the burdens of this office, save the people helped with their support."

In the end, it may be this quality that best describes patriotism in my mind – not just a love of America in the abstract, but a very particular love for, and faith in, the American people. That is why our heart swells with pride at the sight of our flag; why we shed a tear as the lonely notes of Taps sound. For we know that the greatness of this country – its victories in war, its enormous wealth, its scientific and cultural achievements – all result from the energy and imagination of the American people; their toil, drive, struggle, restlessness, humor and quiet heroism.

That is the liberty we defend – the liberty of each of us to pursue our own dreams. That is the equality we seek – not an equality of results, but the chance of every single one of us to make it if we try. That is the community we strive to build – one in which we trust in this sometimes messy democracy of ours, one in which we continue to insist that there is nothing we cannot do when we put our mind to it, one in which we see ourselves as part of a larger story, our own fates wrapped up in the fates of those who share allegiance to America's happy and singular creed.
Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.

There's more: "Obama in Independence, Missouri - 30 June 2008" >>

Hill wins, Bolton gets a big "L" for his forehead

Ah, appeasement...The rumors that started swirling about two days ago were confirmed earlier today when the bu$h administration officially moved to remove North Korea from the "State Sponsors of Terror" list. In a Rose Garden statement, the current occupant also suspended sanctions on North Korea that were enacted under the "Trading with Enemies Act".

Christopher Hill is dancing over the eviscerated Neocon ideology as John Bolton loses control and his moustache quivers uncontrollably.


I guess that todays announcement answers the question we posed a month ago.

Hill has been amazingly successful at tamping down the threat of a nuclear North Korea, but the greatest test is looming...Will North Korea give up their Plutonium stockpile and pledge to make no more weapons from it?

That is the $64,000 dollar question.

How long can Hill maintain his perch on the tightrope? He has managed the impossible thus far - he has managed to commit actual diplomacy while dealing with an administration that finds peaceful resolution of conflict anathema, and will only accept a diplomatic solution if there is no other alternative.

All the while, chickenhawk Übermensches have awaited his failure with bated breath, and the administration has been less than pleased with his successes. Indeed, they have denied him plaudits he richly deserved, just to remind him who works for whom.

It appears the answer to the "how long" question turned out to be "long enough."

Some days, you just get some good new. This looks like one of them. And the popping sound you hear? That is the sound of wingnut heads exploding. And fans of diplomacy popping champaign corks. There is quite a bit of that, too.

The indispensable Steve Clemons had this to say about todays announcement.

This is huge news -- and is a giant step in putting US-North Korea relations on a new and more constructive track. This is a success for the Bush administration -- and more importantly for Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian & Pacfic Affairs Christopher Hill who has been a punching bag for former US Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton who has been spitting on Hill's deal-making for the last year.

There are still a lot of questions ranging from the interesting issue of North Korea cooperation with Syria's alleged nuclear facility that was destroyed by Israel and other issues -- but when President Bush gave Colin Powell the positive nod in the first week of April 2003 to proceed with the Six Party Talks, Bush and Cheney ignored Iran's offer of a structure for normalized US-Iran relations the very same week in 2003.

The contrast in circumstances between where America is today with North Korea and where we are with Iran is vital to note. We 'engaged' North Korea and blew it with Iran.

Congrats to Christopher Hill, John Negroponte, Condoleezza Rice, the former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs R. Nicholas Burns and his successor William Burns. And for those who want to knock China around, they should know that this entire process was impossible without China's impressive, collaborative diplomacy.

Barack Obama's inclination towards engagement with problematic leaders around the world now is now buttressed by an experience of the George W. Bush administration. Too bad so much of the rest of America's foreign policy portfolio didn't get this same kind of attention.

I am particularly gloating over the fact that todays announcement bolsters Obama's foreign policy plans and undermines John $idney's "bomb Iran/endless war" agenda.

There's more: "Hill wins, Bolton gets a big "L" for his forehead" >>

June 14 news roundup and analysis

Obama the neolib?

At TPM Café, Jim Sleeper does an EXCELLENT job of explaining how Obama really is a neoliberal in many ways. Many at TPM didn’t like the idea.

Saudis claim will pump more oil

Color me among the skeptics. And, I’m not alone.

DOE has 10-cent hybrid bone, for U.S. companies only

As Wired notes, just $30 million in Department of Energy money for plug-in hybrids is a pittance. Second, as I note on my blog post, could this type of grant be a WTO violation?

Nutbar love for Barr?

Ron Paul seems to be getting more comfy with Libertarian prez candidate Bob Barr. I already blogged recently, Obama can win without taking Ohio, Pennsylvania or Florida. Barr could well put Virginian, Nevada and maybe Arizona into play.

Passive Pelosi, Denny the Impeacher and Miss Cindy

With Speaker Pelosi getting pretty passive on the idea of impeachment, is she trying to protect 2002 prowar Democrats from Bush subpoenas before House Judiciary on Iraq war impeachment articles? Or protecting herself from similar testimony on warrantless spying articles?

And, with that, I remind you that Cindy Sheehan is still running for Pelosi’s seat.

Reminder two: There’s a petition to remove Pelosi from the Speakership.

A Godless campaign?

Timothy Egan gets a gold star among MSM pundits for this simple suggestion.

$2 a pop for pop

No more free sodas on U.S. Airways — it’s $2 a pop for pop now.

Further comment and analysis on all these at my blog.

There's more: "June 14 news roundup and analysis" >>

Obama Plays Offense - Part II

Obama took the fight to McSame on Monday, kicking off a two-week campaign tour of battleground states, and he came out swinging, attacking the economic policies of John Walker McBush, and making the economy the central theme of this leg of the general election campaign.

In his most pointed and sustained attack on Mr. McCain’s economic agenda, Mr. Obama said that a McCain presidency would be a continuation of President Bush’s faltering economic policies. And he highlighted his own proposals to aid economically beleaguered Americans: tax cuts for middle-income families and retirees, a $50 billion economic stimulus package, expansion of unemployment benefits, and relief for homeowners facing foreclosure.

The speech was made at the North Carolina State Fairgrounds, the heart of red country, a state that hasn't gone to the Democrat since fellow southerner Jimmy Carter in 1976.


Obama is ceding nothing, instead he is going into the heart of the fever swamp and throwing down the gauntlet. He went to North Carolina with a message not of limiting government, but of effective government. He drew sharp contrasts between himself and the republican nominee, especially on issues of economics, where by McCain's own admission he is ignorant as dirt.

Obama spoke of hard working people, hard pressed to buy food and gasoline, and he laid the blame where it belongs, at the feet of aWol bu$h and his rubberstamp cornies in the congress, chief among them McCain, who, when he has bothered to cast votes in the Senate over the last year has voted the way bu$h wanted him to 100% of the time. He highlighted More-of-the-Same's insistence that tax breaks for corporations are what will get us out of trouble, because as we all know, applying the same thinking that got you into trouble always gets you out!

“We did not arrive at the doorstep of our current economic crisis by some accident of history. This was not an inevitable part of the business cycle that was beyond our power to avoid. It was the logical conclusion of a tired and misguided philosophy that has dominated Washington for far too long,” Obama told a crowd of about 900 people. “We were promised a fiscal conservative. Instead, we got the most fiscally irresponsible administration in history. And now John McCain wants to give us another. Well, we’ve been there once. We’re not going back.”

Congress dealt up a dissing of the squatter that currently occupies the oval as well, announcing that they would work with Barack Obama to craft solutions to palliate America's ills, bypassing the current president and moving on to the next one. Illustrating this fact, the House Democrats said they intended to force a separate vote this week — possibly Thursday — on extending unemployment benefits for those whose aid is running out. The extension is opposed by bu$h and many congressional republicans, and bu$h has threatened a veto. The Democrats are drooling over the political hay they could make out of a veto, and are all but daring him to do it.

There's more: "Obama Plays Offense - Part II" >>

Obama Plays Offense

When I opened my New York Times this morning and saw the headline that Obama is taking the offensive, and challenging McCain in traditional republican areas, I did the happy dance! Barack Obama is openly embracing the 50 State Strategy and spurning the cynical DLC model of falling back on traditional liberal enclaves and writing us off out here in the middle.

It's a glorious day! It is a day that this red-state riffraff has been waiting for with bated breath since the day John Kerry punked us in October 2004 and sealed our fate to suffer four years of Blunt-force trauma at the hands of a couple of juvenile brats posing as a governor and his lobbyist brother.

Some of us have been pissed off at Rahm Emanuel and the DLC limousine liberals ever since.

Dr. Dean resonates with us because he listens to our concerns and treats Missouri like our eleven electoral votes matter - because in 2000, they sure as hell did. In 2000, aWol took this swing state by a mere 80,000 votes, and if he hadn't, our votes would have swung the electoral equation to Gore, even without Florida, and spared the entire world the abortion of government that has been the bu$h administration.

So yeah, we matter, god-damnit. Not only that, we have traditional Democratic roots that predate the founding of the state! Yes! There were Democrats in Missouri before there was a Missouri! The Missouri Democratic Party is the oldest continually-operating political party west of the Mississippi River, and the wingnuts only seized the state lege in 2000 (thanks to term limits, which have been a monumental disaster for the state).

Given the past eight years, and the indignities this president and the party he poisoned have heaped upon this nation - all of us, not just blue-state Americans - are pissed off and ready to put up a fight. I want a champion, someone who will throw down the gauntlet and challenge the conventional wisdom. Someone who will take the fight to them in every state and keep them on the defensive. While they are still scrambling to explain the latest lobby-gate revelation (Lindsey Graham didn't even try this morning, he just mouthed platitudes) Obama is hiring the mastermind behind Hillary Clinton's Ohio win and setting up the chessboard to take the state, and with it McCain's queen.

Oh, my, yes. Reading todays paper brought a long-overdue thousand-watt smile to my face.

Mr. Obama has moved in recent days to transform his primary organization into a general election machine, hiring staff members, sending organizers into important states and preparing a television advertisement campaign to present his views and his biography to millions of Americans who followed the primaries from a distance.

In one telling example, he is moving to hire Aaron Pickrell, the chief political strategist of Gov. Ted Strickland of Ohio — who helped steer Mrs. Clinton to victory in that state’s primary — to run his effort against Mr. McCain there. In another, aides said, he has tapped Dan Carroll, an opposition researcher who gained fame digging up information on opponents’ records for Bill Clinton in 1992, to help gather information about Mr. McCain. That is the latest evidence that, for all the talk on both sides about a new kind of politics, the general election campaign is likely to be bloody.

Mr. Obama’s campaign is considering hiring Patti Solis Doyle, a longtime associate of Mrs. Clinton who was her campaign manager until a shake-up in February, the first of what Mr. Obama’s aides said would be a number of hires from the Clinton campaign.

[I have made the map clickable to the interactive NYT site ~~BG]

I don't pretend to be an expert or anything, but I do have a working knowledge of Missouri history, and how that history dovetails with the politics of the state.

For instance, I know that no Democrat has won the White House without carrying Missouri since the 1850s. In fact, this state has only gone to the loser once in the last century - when our grandparents voted for Stevenson over the sitting President Eisenhower in 1956. Not exactly a traditional republican stronghold, are we?

In fact, I think if the New York Times had done a bit more research they would have made Missouri a battleground state leaning red instead of reliably republican on that map. Look at the primary results from the Secretary of States office:

[Image is clickable to the SoS results page]

If you do the math, you see that of over 1.4 million ballots cast in Missouri on Super Tuesday, 58.27% were Democratic ballots. McCain and Obama both won the state, but the numbers paint a bleak landscape for the McCain camp. McCain won 33% of the republican vote, with a raw vote tally of 194,053. Both Democratic frontrunners garnered more than double the votes McCain was able to muster.

Then there is the latest Rasmussen Missouri poll, which shows Obama a one-point favorite (43% to 42%, with 15% choosing "other" (9%)or "not sure" (6%). You can look at the poll here, and see just how out of step McCain is with the concerns of Missouri voters.

And worse for him still are the 31.5% of republicans in this state who voted for Mike Huckabee. With over 185,000 republican ballots cast for Huckabee, that is a lot of republicans that might opt to sit on their hands this November and skip the presidential race. Remember, 80,000 votes in 2000 made the difference. With the mobilization Obama has mustered, it won't take too many aggrieved Missouri conservatives opting to vote for Bob Barr, skip the race at the top of the ticket and only vote in the state and local races, or simply go fishing on election day to have an impact which color the photoshop wizards use to color Missouri on the map the night of November 4.

This is one red-state Democrat that is fired up and ready to go, and has been since January 1995, when the Contract on America was executed, and I have been absolutely spoilin' for a bare-knuckled brawl since the supremes selected in December 2000.

This is the political season I have been waiting for my entire life. It is high time the Democrats came out swingin' - and hot-damn if we don't have someone this season with a hell of a reach.

There's more: "Obama Plays Offense" >>

Pumping up the specter of the bogeyman

As they jockey for position heading into the general election, McCain and Obama are both guilty of overstating any "threat" posed by Iran.

On the campaign trail, both of them are guilty of taking a little bit of known information and blowing it up to ominous proportions. I expect fearmongering and lying from McCain - he's a warmongering old republican fuckhead. But Obama? I have standards where Democrats are concerned, and if he wants to bear the standard for me, and a whole bunch of other people who know what the fuck is going on, he needs to get some fact-checkers on the job and stop asserting facts not in evidence.

What has me pitching this bi-partisan hissy-fit so early on a Tuesday morning, you ask? For starters, it pisses me off to hear people who know better - or should, at least - assert as fact the unsubstantiated allegation that Iran is, without a doubt, developing nuclear weapons.

It gives me pause. Have they even bothered to look at the public record? Or are they both selectively, yet deliberately, dishonest?

Given the Iraq fiasco and the way we were lied into it, I am in no mood to brook any foolishness or abide any willful and deliberate distortion of fact when they turn their sights on Iran.

We all know that where Iran is concerned, every word out of McCain's mouth is distorted, including "and" "the" and "of." His speech to AIPAC yesterday was unwatchable, so palpable was the bloodlust. This does not surprise me.

But when Obama says "Iran is stronger now than when George Bush took office. And the fact that we have not talked to them means that they have been developing nuclear weapons," I call bullshit.

And so does McClatchy.

The 16 agency-strong U.S. intelligence community said last November in an unclassified National Intelligence Estimate that it concluded with "high confidence" that Iran had halted an effort to develop a nuclear weapon in fall 2003.

A senior U.S. intelligence official, who requested anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak publicly, said that U.S. intelligence agencies stuck by the NIE's judgment of "moderate confidence" that Iran hadn't reactivated the alleged effort.

There is no evidence that Iran is pursuing the ends that American politicians accuse them of, and Obama plays into the hands of the republican AIPAC fluffers and warmongering chickenhawks when he cedes them even an inch and repeats even watered down versions of their lies.

There's more: "Pumping up the specter of the bogeyman" >>

So much for the horse race, let's look at track conditions

All right Democrats. It is time to get our collective act together and put the past behind us. It isn't about anyones hurt feelings. I voted for Hillary in the primary and one of the checks I wrote this primary season was to her campaign. But I can read the tea leaves, and Obama is going to be the nominee.

So take the long weekend to lick your wounds, and when Tuesday rolls around, start with mending fences. It is time to get over yourself. It isn't about you, or me, or even the candidates. It is about electing a Democrat and saving the Supreme Court.

Looked at through that lens, Obama is perfectly suited for the job, because he was a Constitutional Law professor. That is hugely important with a Supreme Court that has a liberal wing that is as chronologically advanced as our liberal justices are. Especially with Roberts as Chief. Ugh...

McClatchy has an article on the importance of Missouri this fall. Obama carried the state - narrowly - on Super Tuesday - because of St. Louis and Kansas City. In the outstate areas, Hillary is the overwhelming choice. At the State Democratic Convention I saw Hillbillies for Hillary t-shirts, and my father in law, who has voted in the primary for the guy who eventually won the White House since 1980 is a huge Hillary Clinton supporter. I have been telling everyone since September, when we went to the country for bow season, that she is the outstate favorite.

Obama - and the state and national party apparatus - have challenges in this bellwether state - but they can be overcome with grassroots organization, and most importantly - presence. When Missouri voters in outstate areas are asked about Obama and the response ranges from

"I feel like I just don't know him yet."

to

"I can't vote Republican. I'll either vote for Obama or not vote. If it were today, I would not vote. There's still six months . ... He's gonna' have to convince me. I haven't seen it yet."

Our mission is clearly defined. Convince voters. I spoke to my father in law before the state convention and asked him if there was anything he wanted me to impart to the leaders of the party. He said I should tell them to make their presence known, that no one was going to vote for them if they didn't bother to ask.

So here is how Obama wins in Missouri, and helps deliver the Missouri Sixth congressional seat to Kay Barnes, the Democrat opposing the odious Sam "96%" Graves, (as in he votes the way aWol wants him to 96% 0f the time), and takes a congressional enemy off the chessboard.

It's politics 101. What Howard Dean did for the nation with the brilliant 50 State Strategy, the Obama campaign and the Democratic Party (national and state need to get their act together and combine resources for this) need to do in Missouri. Call it a 114 County Strategy.

Get someone on the ground in every county - it can be as simple as a dedicated cell phone and someone willing to answer and return calls, and store yard signs, bumper stickers, lapel pins and campaign literature in their garage or basement and pass it out when people ask for it, and put an add in every county paper every single week.

If Obama campaigns hard in Kansas City, St. Louis, and the Sixth Congressional District...He wins. KC and StL are reliably Democratic. The Sixth is vulnerable and due to flip. The Sixth is also huge in area - the population isn't dense, but the people aren't either. They know that republican policies have damaged them economically and sent their kids to fight and die in a senseless conflict that should never have been undertaken. A couple of stops in St. Joseph would pull supporters for both Kay Barnes and Representative Nancy Boyda of the KS 02 and fill the stadium at Missouri Western. Do the same thing in Hannibal and bolster democratic turnout among rural voters in three states. What's not to love about this plan?

Now the Democratic Party needs to get their act together and start plotting strategy. Ask any veteran and they will tell you - It is always - always - a bad idea to cede the hill country in any fight.


[Crossposted from Show Me Progress]

There's more: "So much for the horse race, let's look at track conditions" >>

Obama isn't flinching

I can live with this guy. He wasn't my first choice, but for crying out loud, look at the deep bench we had, and if I am anything, I am a reliable Democrat and gracious about finishing somewhere south of first. (But my first choice didn't get lambasted like the two still standing have been, and I decided to "support the Nominee" in January...so it is probably a lot easier for me to say that than it would be if I had been aboard either train early on.)

Anyway, If Obama is going to stand up to Der Shrubenfuhrer, Joe LIE-berman, and John $idney McSame - and say things like “They’re trying to fool you. They’re trying to scare you. And they’re not telling you the truth [because] they can’t win a foreign policy debate on the merits,” and then go on to call the Bush/McCain approach “naive and irresponsible,” I can say with certainty that I will have no reservations about canvassing and phone banking, and of course my vote is guaranteed.

Democrats don't appeased the enemy - unless you count the republican party as the enemy - then they are the only threat to the republic that Democrats have "appeased."

Those days are over. We are not appeasing those bastards any more. They started this shit, and then when they get hit back, they whine like little bitches.

Well suck it up, because you are about to reap what you did sow.

And the old schtick of screaming "Eeeekkkk! A terrist!" while grabbing your skirts and jumping up on the table grew tiresome a long frickin' time ago. The writers strike has been over for months, so get some new material already.

Someone pass the popcorn. This is pretty damned close to a stemwinder, and if this is the kind of pushback we are going to get from Obama from now to November..."pass the popcorn" pretty much covers it.

There's more: "Obama isn't flinching" >>

This is one hell of a speech!

If you haven't seen the speech Obama delivered today, you need to watch it right now.

While I am sorry we aren't in a post-racial society by now, I'm sorry he had to make this speech. But damn, did he ever rise to the occasion!

There's more: "This is one hell of a speech!" >>

At the End of the Day - February 19, 2008

Sorry, but this stuff doesn't happen by accident. Later in the broadcast, Matthews stated, "You may have noticed a graphic over my shoulder -- a picture we showed over my shoulder -- that was a mistake earlier in the broadcast. We apologize for the error." He provided no further explanation of the error or why it occurred. No one has asked me, but if they did, I would recommend we deal with this sort of idiocy the way good teachers deal with consistent discipline problems. Networks need to start suspending entire staffs when the Osama / Obama juxtaposition happens. Tweety definitely needs a good checking. If it knocks him on his ass, all the better.

Wheeeee! Oil prices shot up over a hundred bucks a barrel on Tuesday, in the wake of a weekend refinery accident in Texas.

The refinery, located in Big Spring, Texas, processes 70,000 barrels of crude per day, and could be closed for as long as two months. Don't be surprised if the price remains at or above a hundred bucks - for a while. OPEC has hinted at reducing production next month.

Always ask that follow-up question...When the latest employment figures were released in January, 52 consecutive months of job expansion ended with a contraction of 17,000 lost jobs. The Bush administration immediately dismissed the lost jobs by pointing to the low overall unemployment rate.

Fortunately, McClatchy asks the follow up questions. When they looked behind the numbers touted by the Bush administration, they found that jobless Americans are spending more time looking for work and that those who can't find work now make up a greater share of the unemployed.

But where the picture changes rapidly is when the long-term jobless (over 27 weeks out of the workforce) are added to the equation. The long term jobless comprised 18.3% of all the idle workforce in January. "Long-term unemployment is really very interesting and in some ways a more telling indicator," said Jared Bernstein, a labor economist with the liberal Economic Policy Institute in Washington. "It basically says that given the particularly low level of unemployment, you'd expect a much lower share (of long-term unemployed) on the jobless rolls. Job creation has been anything but robust."

Foreclosures really can destroy entire neighborhoods...As the foreclosure epidemic rocks middle America, there is a brutal irony for many homeless people. In many cities, on any given night, they are outnumbered by vacant homes. This has led to street people squatting in recently foreclosed homes. Recently foreclosed homes have a tremendous advantage over boarded up dilapidated buildings - often the utilities are still on. "That's what you call convenient," said James Bertan, 41, an ex-convict and self-described "bando," or someone who lives in abandoned houses.

If someone can cut through the BS here, would you please explain it to me? And can Democrats stop with the infighting and get busy scrutinizing the Straight Jacket Express, please? I'm no wizard with finances, but my instinct is this doesn't pass the smell test.

Wow. Wisconsin handed down a definitive decision. Obama took it standing up - 60-40 is what you call "decisive." But look at the totals - Approximately a million Democratic ballots were cast, to less than 350,000 Republican ballots. Hillary, finishing a distant second, garnered more votes than all the Repugnant Ones put together. So when the nomination is sewn up, lets keep the momentum going all the way to November. It's the only chance we have of restoring what we've lost these last seven years.

Well, that's it for Tuesday.

There's more: "At the End of the Day - February 19, 2008" >>

Obama steps to the fore

The dynamic of the presidential race shifted Wednesday, as Barack Obama assumed the mantle of Democratic frontrunner, and he and John McCain turned their fire on one another.

McCain accused Obama of "lacking specifics" in his speeches, and of being a (cue the sinister voice...) *liberal.*

Obama, speaking at a factory in Wisconsin, unleashed some scathing rhetoric toward his rivals, Democratic and Republican, blaming Washington for the economic woes that are currently gripping the nation. “We are not standing on the brink of recession due to forces beyond our control,” Mr. Obama said at the Janesville General Motors assembly plant. “The fallout from the housing crisis that’s cost jobs and wiped out savings was not an inevitable part of the business cycle, it was a failure of leadership and imagination in Washington.” Just yesterday General Motors reported that the company had posted the largest loss on record for an American automotive company.

And of course, being at an automotive assembly plant, he took the obligatory shot at NAFTA. “You know, in the years after her husband signed Nafta, Senator Clinton would go around talking about how great it was and how many benefits it would bring,” Mr. Obama said. “Now that she’s running for president, she says we need a time-out on trade. No one knows when this time-out will end. Maybe after the election.”

But he also took a frontrunners position in proposing solutions to our nations infrastructure problems and our need to move away from fossil fuel consumption.

In his speech in Janesville, Mr. Obama proposed creating a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank to invest $60 billion over 10 years and create nearly 2 million new jobs in the construction field. He said the program would be paid for by ending the Iraq war. He also renewed his call to create an energy plan to invest $150 billion over 10 years to establish a “green energy sector” to add up to 5 million jobs in the next two decades.

“It’s time to stop spending billions of dollars a week trying to put Iraq back together and start spending the money on putting America back together instead,” Mr. Obama said. He added, “We’ll also provide funding to help manufacturers convert to green technology and help workers learn the skills they need for these jobs.”

No doubt about it, the next president is going to face a crumbling infrastructure. The next president will also be charged with starting us down the path to recovery for our addiction to fossil fuels. The challenges ahead are daunting, and the solutions that will be effective will not be simple. They will, in fact, meet stiff resistance by entrenched interests and obstinate fools.

Fortunately, as a society, we are approaching critical mass, and the numbers of the sane and reasonable are growing while the dinosaurs are dwindling faster than the fuels derived from their dead predecessors.

There's more: "Obama steps to the fore" >>

Obama Runs the Table; Huckabee Snookers McCain

Barack Obama showed the world - and more than a few doubters - today that his MO ain't faux by making a clean sweep of the nominating contest in three states - Louisiana, Nebraska and Washington - and in all three he won by wide, decisive margins. In Nebraska and Washington, he won by a 2-to-1 margin over Senator Clinton, and in Louisiana, with 2/3 of precincts reporting and the vote still being tallied, he was leading 53% to 39%, and projected to win. Every state saw Democrats turning out in numbers that were roughly double the 2004 turnout.

"Today, voters from the West Coast to the Gulf Coast to the heart of America stood up to say 'yes we can'" told a cheering crowd of Democrats at the Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Richmond, Va. "The stakes are too high and the challenges are too great to play the same old Washington game with the same old Washington players and expect a different result," he told the crowd of loyal Democrats. "People want to turn the page. They want to write a new chapter in American history."

With 158 delegates at stake, and Obama winning so decisively, he certainly narrowed the delegate gap. Going into todays contests, Obama narrowed the lead held by Hillary to a less-than-100 spread, going into a week where he enjoys strong support in states that go to the polls over the next few days. Maine will hold caucuses on Sunday, with 24 Democratic delegates at stake. Tuesday, it's the Potomac Primary, with Washington D.C., Maryland and Virginia holding primaries. It is conceivable that Obama, with decisive victories in two or more of those states on Tuesday, could pull even in the delegate count.


On the Republican side, McCain was bitch-slapped by Kansans who went for Huckabee by a humiliating 60% to 24%. Here is what I want to see in Kansas: The county numbers. I want to see how Leavenworth, Geary, Riley and Sedgewick counties voted, and how overall Democratic votes stack up against overall Republican numbers. Those are the four counties that are home to the states three major military installations - Forts Leavenworth and Riley, and McConnell Air Force Base. In 2006 the military vote in the KS-02 (both of the Army Forts are in the 02) didn't turn out for the incumbent conservative Republican, former Olympian Jim Ryun, and the district is now represented by Democrat Nancy Boyda. I keep telling anyone who will listen that the service personnel most likely to vote are the ones most likely to have families - and when they have kids in school, they vote local, not absentee back home.

If Huckabee beat McCain in those counties, he has to reassess his level of support among military personnel. I don't think it is half as strong as he has tried to portray it to the media and the masses, but the numbers will tell the tale.

McCain had a rough day - just two days after he managed to muscle aside Mitt and his millions, he was humiliated in Kansas and it was followed up with additional repudiations in Louisiana and Washington, with Huckabee leading in both states.

I find the psychology of Huckabee and his voters fascinating. There is no way he can win the nomination. He trails by more than 500 delegates and he has been, for all intents and purposes, mathematically eliminated. Yet he forges on, and his supporters continue to vote in droves, and probably in defiance, of the McCain candidacy. Conservatives really, really hate him. Couple that vehement hatred with the uncomfortable feeling that it's 1996 all over again, this time with a bad candidate.

There's more: "Obama Runs the Table; Huckabee Snookers McCain" >>

Public May Be Ahead Of Candidates On Medical Marijuana

Testifying before Congress last summer, the chief scientist in the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, Dr. David Murray, reportedly said that the medical use of marijuana had sparked violence and robberies in California.

I suppose I've seen too many silly old movies like Reefer Madness. I envisioned, in grainy black and white, wild-eyed, pot-crazed cancer patients, knocking over convenience stores to get at the Milk Duds stash.

More seriously, this season's leading Republican presidential candidates seem to be toeing the White House line on this issue. The Democrats, characteristically, have been more open-minded. But they all seem to be trailing the American public.

As long ago as 2002, a Time/CNN survey found that 80 percent of Americans support the use of marijuana as medicine. And in the same survey, 72 percent said nonmedicinal users should be fined, not thrown in the hoosegow. In other words, they favored decriminalization.

Here's a video sampling of what some of the candidates, current and former, have said about medical marijuana.

Onward.


From Barack Obama, who admits having inhaled his share as a young man:



From Mitt Romney, evasion and swill:



Here's Hillary Clinton. At least she answered the question:



Now John McCain. He makes one thing perfectly clear -- he's opposed to incarcerating the dead:



This from recent dropout John Edwards. Even with some problems, I'm sad he's not still in the running:



Last, but not least, heeeere's Ron Paul. True to 19th-century American values, he's for states' rights on the issue:



That's all we have time for today, folks. Until next time, 2012, don't get diagnosed with a terminal illness.

Crossposted at Manifesto Joe.

There's more: "Public May Be Ahead Of Candidates On Medical Marijuana" >>

Wasn't there something I was supposed to blog about today?

Oh yeah - I remember now.

There's a Republican primary election in South Carolina and both parties held their caucus in Nevada today.


Nevada first...With 88% of precincts reporting, Hillary Clinton was declared the winner with 51% to Obama's 45%. Edwards garnered 4%, and should probably think about withdrawing with his chances for a cabinet position - and his dignity - intact.

On the Republican side, Romney took it standing up with 51%. Ron Paul took 14%, John McCain came in with 13%. Huck and Fred tied at 8%. Rudy brought up the rear with 4%.

I guess the Nervous Nellies among Hillary supporters were a bit over-the-top. For the record, they totally took the wrong tack. They should have approached it from the position of "then you have to hold caucuses in hospitals, too." What judge would want to be seen as the guy who upheld a showgirls right to caucus, but nurses can go hang? It was a no-brainer. Apparently. Some no-brain out there fucked that up from Jump Street.

Okay - South Carolina - that's a Republicans-only primary election, and polls won't close for a couple of hours, but Politico.com has a pretty good summation:

Saturday's most crucial showdown was on the other side of the country, in South Carolina, where the Republican contenders try to wrest advantage from each other — after three different candidates won the first three major contests.

Most polls have shown McCain leading Huckabee, trailed by Romney and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson.

The stakes for the entire GOP field are high if history is a guide — every Republican nominee since Ronald Reagan has won South Carolina.

And the weather is absolutely miserable. Can you believe it's snowing in parts of South Carolina?

Well it is.

In the part of the state where Mike Huckabee's support is strongest.

Wonder what God's own Candidate is thinking right now?

[Updates below the fold]


UPDATE - Pale Rider

God's own candidate, Mitt Romney, did well out in Las Vegas. I've seen some coverage writing it off, basically saying that an overwhelming Mormon vote is the reason for his win in Nevada.

Ron Paul pulling 14% and beating McCain is huge--as is the fact that Ron Paul has a larger constituency within the Republican Party than that of Rudy Guiliani. I'm reminded of Ron Paul explaining why we were attacked on 9/11 and Rudy "not getting it" and trying to belittle Ron Paul for his ideas. As nuts as he is, Ron Paul gets it right on the war and that's gotta be troubling for the overtly pro-war candidates on either side of the aisle.

UPDATE II - Pale Rider 7:45 PM- Eastern

Tucker Carlson is trying to fan the flames of a Hispanic vs Black split in the Democratic Party. As if. We don't even have a nominee yet. We don't have anywhere near enough information to make that assessment. We have yet to see a large, populous and diverse state vote yet. And the Republican shill machine is desperate.

Tucker--talk about Ron Paul beating main stream Republicans with 50 times the name recognition and then ask us about a split among Democrats. The split is on the Republican side, clearly, because they are seeing candidates who have spent millions go down in flames.

The MSNBC coverage is dominated by Olbermann and Russert. Matthews is the third wheel along for the Prom date, and no one wants to give him liquor because he'll get caught and everyone will get busted by the Gym teacher. This makes for stilted coverage. CNN is unwatchable. They have Bill Bennett in there and all I want to do is ask "did that lardass play the one-armed bandit all day?"

UPDATE III - Blue Girl

Lets look at the Nevada numbers:

Women were a strong majority for the Democrats in Nevada. 59% of Democrats attending the caucus were female, to 41% male.

On the Republican side, the numbers are closer, but males are a solid majority - 52% to 48%.

But more telling than the gender demographics are the age demographics.

Republicans

60-up_________45%
45-59_________27%
30-44_________17%
18-29_________11%

Democrats

60-up_________36%
45-59_________32%
30-44_________19%
18-29_________13%

The numbers tell this well-versed-in-stats political consumer that the Republican party is entering the twilight years, along with it's stalwarts. It is sooooo yesterday. People who want to move forward are throwing their lot in with the Democrats, and the demographics on the Democratic side are much more stable and desirable. If you read these numbers as if they were in the respective prospectus of companies competing for your investment dollars, where would you invest your money?

UPDATE IV - Pale Rider

Yes--the voters are turned off by the Republicans, they are identifying themselves as Democrats, and the Republicans can't raise money. It's shocking to see how broke some of them are--Guiliani and McCain are literally broke and running on fumes on a day to day basis. Romney is using his own money and Huckabee isn't spending any money. The only who has a legitimate fundraising machine is Ron Paul and he's not going to piss that money away. In 1999, George W Bush was raising millions and was building a massive war chest with which to run. There is no comparison this year. They are all running on fumes.

How about a shout out to Howard Dean? The Fifty State strategy means we are going to compete with Republicans everywhere, and we will make them play a full-court game. As their "brand" continues to sink, we will make gains in places the Washington DC establishment would have written off four years ago.

There's more: "Wasn't there something I was supposed to blog about today?" >>

Obama and Edwards under attack from Fox News

Democratic presidential candidates John Edwards and Barack Obama have refused to appear on Faux News. Watch the Fox Attacks! video for solid reasons why they haven't and shouldn't appear on the wingnut media network.



You can click over to sign an Open Letter to Edwards and Obama for their decision to reject Faux News to say, "We appreciate your strength and integrity in saying no to the Murdoch machine, and we support your refusal to appear on FOX."

[That's all. No more after the break.]

There's more: "Obama and Edwards under attack from Fox News" >>

Standing Up for Soldiers

“Combat stress and its impact on our soldiers and their families is a serious problem that continues to grow. Reports that our military is unprepared or unwilling to deal with Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome or other mental health problems are unacceptable. Being unprepared for these problems is no excuse for inaction. It is our duty to take care of the brave men and women who have answered the call to duty," Senator Kit Bond.

“Our men and women returning from war should receive mental health care equal to the physical medical care they are given, and anything less is unacceptable. It took this country 15 years after Vietnam to look at the mental health needs of veterans. We can’t do that to another generation of soldiers.” Senator Claire McCaskill

A bipartisan senate panel on Thursday sent a letter to the General Accountability Office (GAO) requesting a review of the mental health care afforded our veterans in light of a flood of damning reports on conditions at Walter Reed and Ft. Carson. (Since I mentioned Fot. Carson, let me say: IG – Fort Carson. - NOW!)

The Senators who have stood up for our veterans by sending this letter are Kit Bond (R) and Claire McCaskill (D) of Missouri, Tom Harkin (D-IA), Barack Obama (D-IL), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Daniel K. Akaka (D-HI), Patty Murray (D-WA), Barbara Boxer, (D-CA), Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT).

Senators Bond, Boxer and Obama get credit for being ahead of the curve on this issue. They have consistently expressed their concerns on mental health and the returning soldier. I wish to thank them for taking up the issue, and also for their steadfast persistence in pursuing it and demanding it get the attention it deserves.

Kudos to all of the Senators of both parties for requesting the GAO review of mental health services. This is a vital and firm first step to rectifying a travesty of abuse, neglect and mistreatment of Veterans by the Department of Defense. Abuse of the 5-13 discharge needs special attention. Especially those issued at Fort Carson.

Remember, folks, I read the GAO reports so you don’t have too. This is definitely one I am looking forward to. (But the white paper I really want to see is an Inspector General’s report on Fort Carson…)

There's more: "Standing Up for Soldiers" >>