...Say it!... Say it!... Say it!

Back to the real world after a wonderful vacation at the Washington coast with my family. From the sound of it we picked the perfect week to get out of town. 100 degree plus weather is atypical for Oregon. Six days in a row of that weather is unheard of. Yeesh.

There's a lot of crap going through my head right now. Frankly there's too much going on in the world to write about. I'm just going to share a memory that's forced it's way to the forefront of my thoughts as I've been reading about the faux industry-sponsored protests greeting democratic congressmen back in their districts for townhalls.

On July 23, 1994 I was at this rally (*) at Pioneer Square in downtown Portland. I had waited for several hours in 100-degree heat to see then First Lady Hillary Clinton speak as she kicked off the Health Care Express in the Clinton's doomed effort to modestly reform the health care system in this country.

Clinton was the key note speaker and the reason I was there. I really liked both Clintons and was eager for a chance to see either of them speak live. From what I had seen on the news I knew she had a commanding knowledge of health care and an ability to put a personal perspective on that complex issue. Unfortunately I didn't get to hear a word of what she had to say.

As soon as she took the stage a group of tractor rigs that had been circling the square for hours began blowing their air horns. Unless you were very close to the stage or the speakers you would only catch snippets of what Clinton had to say. (On a related note I had much the same experience a year or so later when I went to see Vice President Al Gore speak at PSU and some wingnut about 10 feet from me spent the entire speech screaming, ruining the experience.)

I struggle with this issue in the context of the First Amendment. On the one hand I loathe the sort of selective crowd control that became commonplace under the Bush administration. Does a bumper sticker on your car, t-shirt, sign or even a provocative question to the president when handed a microphone by organizers really mete expulsion and an arrest? Most of us would probably answer "no" to that question.

When you break it down isn't the difference between those who would shout down a congressman talking to his constituents about health care or a First Lady speaking at a rally and those who would wear an anti-Bush t-shirt to a Bush speech the difference between exercising one's right to free speech or trying to keep others from exercising that same right? Bush supporters may not have enjoyed having to stand next to somebody in such a t-shirt but at least they still had the chance to hear the incoherent babblings of the chimpanzee they lionized.

Does the First Amendment protect the right to shout down those you disagree with? Conservatives and their toadies on the court seem to think so. Much of the continued torpedoing of campaign finance reform laws on First Amendment grounds are based around this idea.

Personally I see shouting down the opposition, whether it's through smothering their message via the airwaves or yelling to the degree that they can't be heard, as a violation of their basic right to free speech. It makes speech solely the province of those who can afford it or those who are willing to be the biggest bullies.

In a larger sense our democratic society cannot function unless all participants are willing to listen. Those that are fighting against health care reform shouldn't be included in the debate at all unless they're as willing to hear as they are to be heard.

(* For bonus fun read through that contemporary account of the rally and see if you can catch the reporter's unmasked disdain for the event expressed through phrases like "...the populism has been carefully crafted." Then, as now, the establishment press tries to make it look like those that want to reform health care are just a front for powerful and shadowy forces. Of course then, as now, the exact opposite is the case.)

You see, the great secret, Eliza, is not a question of good manners or bad manners, or any particular sort of manners.

More stories like this please.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton received a rousing welcome this morning when she arrived at Foggy Bottom for the first time, as cheering foreign service and civil service employee packed every inch of the C Street lobby, including the balcony overlooking the flags of foreign nations.

I can't be the only one that remembers those smarmy articles back in 2001 about how career service workers at the White House were overjoyed to have the classless Clintons replaced with that o-so-cultured George and Laura Bush.

When it comes to the East Wing I would find it hard to believe that tweener hijinks of Sasha and Malia will be anywhere near as offensive to your average janitor at the white house as having to clean up the vomited leavings of the drunken Bush daughters back from an all night bender but you never can tell.

Then there's this rumor that Michelle Obama has never pulled that classy move of committing vehicular homicide of a an ex-boyfriend. I hope the white house staff will find her worthy despite the fact she's never left tire tracks on an old beau.

Don't even get me started on that gentlemanly George "Backrub" Bush and his inability to understand the term "personal space."

I'll gladly take the relieved accolades of thousands of career Civil Servants who've essentially spent the last 8 years as POWs over the back room whining of a few butlers who were upset that president Clinton didn't require suit jackets be worn in the Oval Office.

Even if we give in to the dubious proposition that Bill and Hillary "trashed the white house" then we're still left with fact that George and Laura trashed the nation. The General Accounting Office can't even put a dollar figure on that last bit of damage, unlike Clinton's missing "W" keys.

The adults are back in charge, even if they don't wear their suit jackets at their desks.

The point is that you sort of have to take off those jackets should you actually want to roll up your sleeves and get to work.

Mr. Magee, don't make me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry.

I assume everybody is up to speed on the Harry Reid/ Joe Lieberman melodrama of last week. It won't come as any surprise that I come down on the side of those that want to have Holy Joe lose his chairmanships, be expeled from the party and then summarily tomatoed to his knees in the public square. But that doesn't even come close to expressing how I really feel.

When I think about the possibility that the slimy traitorous little weasel Lieberman might retain those chairmanships when loyal, true-blue Democrat Hillary Clinton doesn't chair any committees of her own, I'm filled with a Hulkian rage giving me the strength to tear a toaster in two with my bare hands.

Seniority be damned. Give his committees to Hillary. She's more than earned them and she won't be stabbing us in the back.

Now I see this clearly. My whole life is pointed in one direction.

More bits...

I don't know why and I don't even know what it is but I really wanted the Arte y Pico award and was really tickled when Doctor Zaius tapped me to win it.



The origin of the award is here.

Because I'm always the bridesmaid when this is passed around I think I'm just about the last one on our little circle of friends that recieved this thing. As such I really don't think there's anybody on my blogroll that hasn't been to this dance already. If I'm wrong please let me know and I'll tap you right away.

----------------------------------------------

Hillary Clinton's speech was great. The only thing I would've liked was more digs on McCain. That problem isn't isolated to Clinton. It's something I've been complaining about regarding the convention since before it began.

----------------------------------

Having said that- Clinton and Montana Gov. Schweitzer and two of the stand out lines with regards to McCain. Clinton had the great "Twin Cities" jab and Schweitzer had a good line with regards to drilling for oil in John McCain's back yards "if he could remember where they are."

Humor is great but the fact of the matter is negative ads work and the Republicans are going to turn their entire four day convention into one big negative ad against Obama. I guess it's up to Biden tonight to go for the throat because there's no doubt Obama won't throw much red meat into his speech tomorrow night.

----------------------------------

I'm muting the network hosts altogether. They're worthless and it just gets my blood pressure up.

---------------------------------

I can't find the article now but I read something yesterday that labeled House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer as a "partisan firebrand." I got a chuckle out of that. Most of know Hoyer as the chief capitulator representing the Blue Dogs. He's all hat and no cattle.

----------------------------------

At an outside press conference Nancy Pelosi was confronted by a group of McCain supporters shouting "drill now!" Her response? "Can I drill your brain?" Sure it's juvenile but I like it.

----------------------------------

I won't be watching the Republican convention. Their candidate, and their party, are bankrupt in every sense of the word. I'll be declaring next week Animal Blogging Week and in honor of that I'll post some great pictures of a doe and her fawns that wandered into our camp while we were camping a couple of weeks ago.

There's no limit to what he could do. He could destroy the Earth.

I haven't made the blogger rounds in a couple of days but I imagine the news that Clinton may seek convention vote with a reaction approaching the hysterical rending of garments by my fellow Obama supporters.

In this case I think Clinton is absolutely correct when she says “I happen to believe that we will come out stronger if people feel that their voices were heard and their views respected. I think that is a very big part of how we actually come out unified.”

With such votes having a distinct and rich history during past Democratic conventions I really don't see what there is to complain about here.

Read what my medal says: "Courage". Ain't it the truth? Ain't it the truth?

Thank you Senator Clinton.

I thought the speech yesterday was wonderful.

Not because you conceded. But because you insisted we're all in this together.

At times watching that speech I was moved to the point of tears, but I do have small confession- there were a couple of occasions when my mind wandered and I focused on the enthusiastic crowd of your supporters and thought of John McCain of all people.

I don't think he and his Republican party, George Bush's Republican party, have a clue what's coming at them.

There is a tsunami of change sweeping over this country.

It will be a hell of a lot of work and a tough fight to win the presidency. It's for means certain. I'm realistic about that.

But I still hold out hope that together as Democrats Americans we can end this horrible period in our country's history.

Do you remember the sorry everybody photo pages where we left our apoligies to the world at the results of the 2004 elections?

We -Hillary Clinton and all of her loyal supporters and everybody else who wants to undo the Bush presidency - have a chance to make it up to the world.

Thank you for that Hillary.

It's injustice I hate, not the Normans.

If I had to reduce down all the stuff that's important to me in this presidential election to one thing it would be that we elect a democrat to replace and undo legacy the most destructive presidency in the history of the Republic.

At the core of my being that's the thing that drives me.

To that end who we picked to be the actual candidate was secondary. Sure, I had my preferences. I supported Kucinich then Edwards then Obama. But in the end the actual candidate was just a vessel towards my dreams of ending the stupid war in Iraq and restoring constitutional government to the United States.

Along the way my fellow Democrats did something incredible which I'm proud to be associated with: they narrowed the field down to a woman and an African-American man thus assuring that whomever the Democratic nominee would be that individual would be making history.

But just because I recognize this fact and respect the importance of such to the individual constituencies within the party to which this possibility represents the fulfillment of a dream I'm still left with the number one thing that's important to me being the election of the democrat as the President of the United States. In this sense it's less important to me that we're making history rather than the Bush presidency IS history.

We could argue about tactics and electability with regards to Clinton vs. Obama vs. McCain until we were blue in the face but I would like to say that, from a purely strategic level, I agree with Rachel Maddow that a nomination fight that goes to the convention will mean with absolute certainty that John McCain is elected president. A convention fight means a Bush third term.

John McCain has carefully cultivated a public persona which the help of a pliant press in which he's a moderate, centrist politician. The Democratic candidate for the presidency is going to have to break that image down and show McCain to be the lying, dishonest, corrupt, warmongering pol that he is. This is going to take some time. Two months isn't enough.

Put aside everything else that's taken place this primary season and take away this central fact: the candidate that decides to take the primary fight to the convention will be hurting the chances that we will elect a democrat as president in November.

They'll be hurting the chance that we'll end the war in Iraq.

They'll be hurting the chance that we'll bring some balance back to the federal courts.

They'll be hurting our chance to slow global warming and our dependence on foreign oil.

They'll be hurting our chance to restore the constitution to it's rightful place as the backbone of our government.

They'll be ensuring that we get courts that refuse to protect the rights of women to make their own decisions over their own bodies, a Civil Rights Department that believes it's mandate is to protect the rights of corporations when threatened by employees and a Justice Department that believes torture and detainment without representation actually fit within the framework that the founders built this country on.

Finish the voting and work out a solution to Florida/ Michigan at the Rules & Bylaws Committee meeting on the 31st but then end this damn thing. The consequences are too great to play political games.

We need a Democrat to be the one sworn in come January.

Or we'll all be history.

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers.

What's important to us?

That's the question we've all had to ask ourselves again and again for over a year now as this presidential primary has dragged on longer than a Bergman film. It's the question we use to check ourselves against the candidate we support to make sure they conform to our own values in the leadership they espouse.

I don't think it's too much of a leap of faith to say that most of us who consider ourselves progressives answer that question with some more nuanced and detailed version of the following --

• Ending the war in Iraq and focusing on the projection of influence through diplomacy and the return of our international prestige.



• Appointing progressives to the federal courts, especially the Supreme Court.



• Working to fix our broken health care system.



• Returning the role of science and education to the forefront of our national priorities.



• Tackling the economic challenges of the middle and lower classes of the United States.



• Taking seriously the threats to our environment and enacting appropriate energy policy to save same.



• Returning some sense of a constitutional government to the United States.
  

These are just some of the things we as progressives hope will come to pass under a Democratic President. These are our dreams.

My list of progressive dreams is by no means comprehensive. For example; on our side of the aisle there are those whose biggest dream is that we will someday have a woman or a black man sitting in the Oval Office. To these progressives all the other progressive dreams are secondary to seeing this worthwhile goal realized.

How can we take issue with that? The hope that someday a woman would break the through the ultimate glass ceiling in the Oval Office or an African-American would put the final nail in the coffin of Jim Crow by taking the oath of office of the presidency has been at the forefront of the the progressive movement since this country was founded. I would go so far to argue that this is why this country was founded, even if our leaders have spent every day since then denying that truth.

It is to our great shame as a nation that these final barriers to the presidency still exist in the 21st century. We lag behind Pakistan (PAKISTAN!) in our gender bias towards who will lead this country. It's been thirty years since the other great English-speaking democracy has had a woman at it's helm. For all of our talk about the great melting pot of the United States the portraits of the faces of our U.S. presidents since the inception of this country are embarrassing in their lack of diversity.

In his wonderful speech on race in Philadelphia Barack Obama returned again and again to the idea that "my dreams don't have to come at the expense of your dreams." For the most part I agree with that sentiment.

But there is a blind spot to Obama's formulation. The biggest dream of the grandchildren of suffragettes and slaves cannot both be realized in this presidential election. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama can't both have the nomination. Somebody's going to have to set aside their dream for now.

In a year where the Democratic candidate for the presidency is a virtual shoe-in, you could see why this idea is doubly difficult for many of those who see their dream just out of reach. This could go a long ways towards explaining why this campaign has gotten so ugly these last few months.

This idea became clear to me in an exchange with the the fabulous BAC last month. She's fought tooth and nail for Hillary Clinton this primary season and you couldn't find a bigger Clinton booster on the net. In her comment section I glibly wrote something to the effect that "we'll see a woman as President in our lifetime." BAC responded something along the lines of "in your lifetime, maybe. I'm getting up in years."

This broke my heart. I realized that in arguing for Obama, I was asking BAC not just put her dream on the back burner but in a sense to give up that dream. At least the opportunity to see it fulfilled with her own eyes.

As this primary winds to an end I would ask you to please keep BAC in mind in your discussions with friends and family, or your posts to your own blogs. It behooves those of us who supported other candidates to demonstrate a bit of magnanimity in light of the gravity of what we're asking of Clinton supporters. By all means celebrate Barack but don't tear down Hillary. She represents a hell of lot more than a gas tax holiday to millions of people. Please remember that.

Ask yourself what's important. Most of us as progressives, Clinton and Obama supporters, would answer with the same checklist of dreams. We want to fix all the garbage from the Bush years. We want to heal this country.

We are family, after all.

Good mood, bad mood, ugly, pretty, handsome, what have you, the right person will still think the sun shines out your ass.

I'm not happy that Barack Obama went on Fox this last weekend.

Who the hell is his audience here? Certainly not the base of the party which is PISSED that he broke the Democratic Fox boycott. Check out Markos' comments today raking Obama over the coals.

Along those lines Hillary Clinton is once again off her nut.

"My opponent, Senator Obama, opposes giving consumers a break from the gas tax," Clinton said at a firehouse. "I understand the American people need some relief," she added, implying that Obama doesn't get it.

Gas tax? Are you fucking kidding me?

The biggest reason progressives like myself think McCain's cut the gas tax idea is stupid is that there's absolutely no guarantee that will transfer to a price cut at the pump. The current tax is 18.4 cents/ gallon. Does anyone really believe that cutting that temporarily will mean the price of gas will drop accordingly?

Gas companies will drop the cost of gas by a couple of cents and pocket the difference. And the deficit will grow...

Hillary/ Barack please, I'm begging you - STOP PANDERING TO THE GODDAMNED RIGHT WING FRINGE OF THE COUNTRY!

The dead-enders that make up the FOX viewership (Dick Cheney) and the knuckleheads who think cutting the gas tax will really help consumers represent the radical extreme of American politics today. You don't need to suck up to those crazies. They'll never vote for you anyway.

Please bring you respective campaigns back to a focus on actual, red-blooded Americans.

Conservatives don't count.

Update-

Spirula points out in the comments that Shell and BP just posted records profits. Amazing that they can do that with gas taxes as high as they are.

Arkonbey linked to another blogger's take that a federal gas tax holiday sends the wrong signal to consumers and is "tantamount to feeding chocolate bars to a fat kid to make him feel better about his weight." Crass, but true.

You have just said the secret word, Alice. You have just won a trip to the moon.

Let me say this - I'm with most of my bloggy friends, most recently Blue Gal, in that it's well past time for Clinton to pull the plug on her campaign. It's near mathematically impossible for her to win the nomination despite yesterday's victory and drawing out the contest is just hurting the party's chances against McCain.

Here's an analogy that I think works pretty well-

This primary has taken the form of a knock-out, drag down fight with your spouse. There's been screaming, swearing and even the occasional accusation of infidelity or flirting with that McCain guy that lives down the street. Once in a while there's even an empty threat of divorce.

Occasionally this fight takes the the form of what might be considered hitting below the belt. Words are taken out of context. That old friend from college who tried to break you and your spouse up comes up yet AGAIN even though you haven't talked to him in years.

On rare occasions you find yourself sitting on the porch next to the dog, pouring your heart out to him. So you goofed up the laundry a little bit. So what? It wasn't your turn to do the laundry anyway, you made dinner. What's the big deal that you mixed the reds with the whites? It was just underwear. What does she care if it's white or pink? It's not like she's wearing it out in public and, well, um...

Ahem.

It seems to me that a lot of us are kind of feeling like this fight is going on longer than usual and are getting impatient for the make-up sex. That is, as they say, the best sex of all.

But as long as we're on the porch with the dog there will be no make-up sex.

In the meantime some of us try and tide ourselves over by the candidate masturbation offered at Taylor Marsh on the one side or Daily Kos on the other. Let's face it; this will never be a good substitute for the real thing.

So forgive us if we seem a tad impatient to get to the good part. Who can blame us? Nobody enjoys fighting. There's make-up sex to be had and there are things that are much, much more important than pink underwear.

People are being duplicated. And once it happens to you, you're part of this... thing.

Apologies in advance because I'm going to comment on "Bittergate," but I'd just observe that I have no doubt in my mind that Hillary Clinton and most of her supporters understand exactly what Obama meant by his remarks. If they didn't understand that that the last thirty years of the economy have left some Americans bitter then they wouldn't be Democrats.

So if Clinton understands Obama's remarks then what does that say about the outrage she's shown about those same remarks over the weekend?

I've said many times that the whole issue of choosing a candidate based on which of the demorcratic candidates had been vetted is silly. Republicans don't care if the mud is all ancient history. They'll just dredge it up again or, more likely, make up new mud to throw at the Democratic nominee.

So why are Democrats doing the same thing?

You're gonna eat lightnin' and you're gonna crap thunder!

Tooling around the net yesterday made me feel a little silly with my lame attempt at an April Fool's joke. At least I wasn't the only one taking a stab at it. There were a ton of sites that tried throwing their readers for a loop. Most of the stuff was lamer than mine so I got that going for me. It wasn't a good day on the interwebs.

Some of the stuff on my mind and in no particular order-

At Swinebread's suggestion I just finished reading Alan Moore's "The Watchmen." Better late than never, eh? It's an amazingly layered piece of art that really transcends it's genre. Perhaps "transcends" isn't the right word. It elevates it's genre and shows what's possible.

I am concerned that there's so damn much there it may be unfilmable but, like Swinebread, I'm now excited to find out. If it's successful it might kill superhero movies for a while. There's going to be no way the other that's come out will be able to match the psychological depth of the characters in this story.

Jess Wundrun won a story contest where she's going to get to go to California and eat at that "Hell's Kitchen" guy's restaurant. If you haven't read her story it's pretty good. It's sort of Michael Jackson meets Martha Stewart.

I'm not sure Hillary Clinton picked the best metaphor for her campaign with "Rocky." If you remember the end of the original movie you'll know what I'm talking about.

Oh, and Mash did a nice tribute to journalist Dith Pran who died this week. I had a pretty right wing buddy in high school that was always dragging me to movies like "Invasion America USA" and "Red Dawn." He took me to see the "Killing Fields" and it really had a profound effect on my thinking about governments and totalitarianism. Pran was a very brave soul.

One has to ask some very strange things in the job I have.

Just a question --

If, at last night's debate, Tim Russert asks stupid questions that piss off Clinton supporters and Tim Russert asks stupid questions that piss of Obama supporters, shouldn't the ire of all of us be focused on Tim Russert instead of at each other?

Which brings up a larger question -- who really benefits when Democrats are ripping into each other because of a funny picture of one of the candidates or because of the contents of a mailing?

This is a time for serious people, Bob, and your 15 minutes are up

Did you watch the debate last night?

Did you see it?

Did it finally sink in with you that either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton will be the next President of the United States?

Did it hit you that the next president will begin pulling our troops out of Iraq?

Will appoint Supreme Court Justices who don't take the constitution to be silly-putty?

Will see science as something to be supported not subverted?

Will finally try and do something to fix the health care mess?

We're going to have a president who can ride a Sedgway without falling off, can string together more than one sentence without coming across as a total idiot and won't be challenged by the push/ pull factor when opening a door.

We're going to have a president who, by the very act of their swearing in, will send the message to the world that when America talks about things like opportunity and equality it's more than just talk.

We're going to have a President who, when they get a briefing saying "Bin Laden determined to attack in the United States," will do something about it.

Cynic all you want. Lord knows I've done my own share of that. You wouldn't have to read far through these pages to find instances of me tearing into both Obama and Clinton. They are politicians after all.

But when I watched that debate last night I couldn't help but see IT. It was standing squarely in the middle of the stage behind Obama and Clinton and it was impossible to miss.

It was hope.

They're stuck with each other and they've got to ride all the way to the end of the line and it's a one-way trip and the last stop is the cemetery.

While we're in the midst of one of the most contentious primaries I can remember one cannot help but stop in and visit the comments sections of any of the major "neutral" progressive blogs without reading some form of the following remarks espoused by supporters of one or the other of the two remaining democratic candidates:

"I will never vote for Senator xxx if they win the nomination. I'd sooner vote for John McCain."

Curious as to why self-identified Democrats would prefer a Republican Senator and new BFB (Best Friend of Bush) to a Senator from their own party I quickly came to the conclusion, as I often do, that I must be in the dark about something. As an example: that whole line dancing phenomenon a few years ago caught me completely flat-footed. Don't even get me started on the Hannah Montana thing.

The obvious solution would be to dive into the candidates positions and try and figure out what is about John McCain that is so appealing to so many Democrats. There has to be something more than his pension for angrily swearing at fellow Senators and propensity to akwardly hug George W. Bush that appeals to blue-state progressives.

So I did a little research. By which I mean I screwed around with "the google." What I found surprised me. Clearly my fellow Democrats were right and McCain was the superior choice. Just consider the following issues --

Abortion/ Stem-Cells

Barack Obama voted against the ban on late term abortion. He supports "legalized abortion in accordance with Roe v. Wade." He has voted against parental notification and for expansion of Embryonic Stem-Cell lines.

Hillary Clinton voted against the ban on late term abortion. She voted against parental notification and for expansion of Embryonic Stem-Cell lines. She has a 100% NARAL voting record.

John McCain voted for the ban on late term abortion. He voted for a continued ban of abortion on military bases, for mandatory parental notification, has indicated he would like to see Roe v. Wade overturned and has a 0% NARAL rating.

Clearly John McCain is the best choice for those of use who want to protect the right to choose.

Judiciary

Barack Obama voted no on confirming Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. He voted no toconfirming John Roberts as Chief Justice.

Hillary Clinton voted no on confirming Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. She voted no to confirming John Roberts as Chief Justice.

John McCain voted yes on confirming Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. He voted yes toconfirming John Roberts as Chief Justice.

Once again McCain appears the clear choice for progressives who fear the court has moved to far to the right in recent years.

Iraq

Barack Obama promises to "...immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."

Hillary Clinton promises to "...end our military engagement in Iraq's civil war and immediately start bringing our troops home. As president, one of Hillary's first official actions would be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of Defense, and her National Security Council. She would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration."

John McCain promises to keep us in Iraq for a hundred years.

Obviously for those of us who want U.S. troops out of Iraq McCain's the answer.

I could go on and on about this but I think it's clear that, on issue after issue from global warming to ethics to the economy John McCain would obviously make a better President than that Democratic Senator running against your candidate who you hate with every fiber of your being.

I don't know why I didn't see that sooner.

It turns out the results of Joe's I.Q. test had caught the attention of the highest levels of government.

Just another small reminder of why a Democratic president (Clinton/ Obama) would still be preferable to McCain. On Saturday the scientific advisory teams of Clinton and Obama had a debate sponsored by the American Society for the Advancement of Science. Wonder of wonders they pretty much agreed on everything --

Either Clinton or Obama would reverse the Bush administration ban on federal funding of certain embryonic stem cell research and both have multiple plans to ameliorate climate change through technological advances, carbon trading and more engagement with other nations.

Both representatives promised more scientific freedom, ending what they characterized as extensive political interference in science and technology policy decisions. Ross said "instead of having politicians make those decisions, let's have scientists make those decisions," and Kalil adding Clinton "is committed to signing executive orders to prevent political appointees from muzzling scientists."

Nothing in the article about Obama's previously stated preference to cutting space exploration so I don't know if that ill-considered position still stands.

I did love this bit where Republicans were apparently invited to the debate as well but just couldn't make it--

...John McCain's science advisor had declined due to scheduling problems and that they had not received any reply to the invitation from the Mike Huckabee or Ron Paul campaigns

Huckabee's science advisor couldn't attend because he's busy doing field research into "The Water-based Effects of Submersion of Supernaturally Tainted Women with Black Pointy Hats."

Ron Paul's advisor couldn't get a hall pass from his middle school.

Even as a dog! And I'll stay till the end. I'll live and I'll die under this rock!

Congratulations to Donna Edwards and Senator Obama. Great wins for both last night.

The consensus of political analysis I've seen shows Senator Clinton would need at least a 60% margin of victory in all the remaining contests to catch Obama in the pledged delegates. Of course that's not including the Supers or Michigan and Florida so there are still a lot of factors still up in the air.

I toodled around the progressive blogs after the returns came in and I have to say that I find the debate between Clinton and Obama supporters that've really consumed most of the forums on the left-side of the blogsphere to be partly amusing but almost entirely annoying.

To begin with this debate has a silly Swiftian air about it with Clinton and Obama supporters at war over which end of the egg to open first. Both Clinton and Obama are establishment candidates with very little policy difference between them. As an example the big argument over the last couple of weeks has been whether Clinton's health care plan has mandates or whether Obama's plan relies to heavily on private insurance. Both plans are comparatively modest to what we need in health care reform. Neither would bring the sea change necessary to truly fix this issue.

But what's really chapping my suspenders is the "I'll take my ball and go home" attitude among some of the Clinton supporters I've read in comments sections on big lefty blogs. Here's the journey I and a lot of progressives had to take already during the course of this election-

Me: "I really like Al Gore. He's the most articulate when it comes to slapping down the excesses of the Bush years. Run, Al run!"

Gore decides not to run.

Supporters of the other candidates: "Get behind somebody else for the good of the party."

Me: "Fine. This Kucinich guy seems to be the most progressive."

Kucinich drops out.

Supporters of the other candidates: "Get behind somebody else for the good of the party."

Me: "Sigh. Well Edwards is right about the war and social justice."

Edwards takes a hike.

Supporters of the other candidates: "Get behind somebody else for the good of the party."

Me: "Grrrrr. At least Obama didn't vote for the war."

Obama starts to sew-up the nomination.

Supporters of the other candidate: "I'll NEVER vote for Obama."

Me: "What the fuck?"

If the rest of us can compromise and compromise until our compromiser is worn out those of you who support Senator Clinton can, at the very least, start to back down of the rhetorical ledge you've talked yourself out onto. The rest of us have absolutely no sympathy.

We might even shout "jump!"

Can you imagine anything so ridiculous as majority rule?

Happy Super Tuesday! I trust this holiday finds you and yours well. Are you burning the traditional Hanging Chad Log? Will you be singing election carols? It really is the most wonderful time of the year.

It seems there's a real possibility that this thing will go down to the wire and there might even be a brokered convention. The conventional wisdom is that this is a bad thing for the two Democratic candidates. It always is.

Apparently the fact that the Republicans will have chosen their candidate today and the Democrats will be forced to continue campaigning is a bad thing. The Republican candidate will get to rest and begin fundraising and will have all sorts of advantages. Whatever.

Do we really think that after eight years of Bush the eventual Democratic candidate is going to be hurting for money? Donors big and small are going to be climbing all over each other to throw money and Obama or Clinton once they've received the nomination. For many of us this is going to be like paying to clear the Bush stink from our country. Money is no object.

A delayed determination of our nominee will force the inevitable Republican swift-boat-make-up-shit campaign to split resources in their search to find slimeballs willing to say anything about Clinton or Obama. Conservatives have been whistling pass the graveyard at the possibility of a Clinton nomination for partly this reason - they think the smear homework is already done on Clinton. I think they're seriously underestimating the desires of their mouth-breathing base for new material.

As for myself my state doesn't vote today but might actually play a factor for the first time in my life in the determination of the party candidate. I've been really crititical of both candidates and do absolutely believe that they are not the best the party has to offer when it comes to leadership but a couple of things really force the issue for me if I have to choose.

The first is Clinton's vote on the 2002 Iraq AUMF. I like Hillary Clinton and fiercly defended her and her husband from all the ridiculous crap thrown her way in the 90s. Today to listen to Republicans talk about her just raises my hackles. What a bunch of childish little boys scared of anyone that doesn't pee standing up they are. That said - I cannot forgive her vote on the AUMF. It was a stupid vote and a horrible indication of her judgement. There is simply no excuse for that vote.

So I've been leaning towards Obama. I continue to believe his message of bipartisanship plays to the bullshit frame that "partisanship" is what's causing all the problems in the country. Only one political party has acted in a purely partisan manner for the last 30 years and it hasn't been the Democrats. We don't need to reach across the aisle for anything other than to pimp-slap the other side.

But then I saw this video and I have to say it's pretty moving. Hope ain't policy. Hope won't feed a single American or provide healthcare or stop the stupid war in Iraq. But maybe, just maybe, hope might get us to a place where we can at least start to work on fixing those things.



Most importantly there's one thing about hope that can't be denied. It's a hell of a lot better than the alternative.

It's like my mom says, "The weak are always trying to sabatoge the strong."

Via Americablog I came across this snippet of a "fact-check" on comments Obama made during the debate yesterday delineating the difference between himself and Clinton. (Before you watch this let me state right out of the gate that Dan Abrams is a douchebag and Rachel Maddow is a goddess.)



Put aside that body language at the State of the Union nonsense at the end of the piece and I do think that the other four issues Obama brings up are actually key issues to most Democrats and progressives. How he and Clinton come down on those topics should be enormously important to progressives.

Here's a little chart I threw together listing out Obama's four points while comparing his record with Clinton's---


THIS is a big part of the reason so many of us are down on these two candidates. On the key issues important to us surrounding the war Clinton and Obama have either voted the wrong way or run away from a vote on those items. Obama's speech against the war is terrific reading but it still leaves us in the position of having to take him at his word that he would've voted against the AUMF had he been in the Senate. If you'll recall during the actual debate on that bill LOTS of Senators made remarks very similiar to Obama's then turned around and voted FOR the stupid bill.

I will say that when it comes down to brass tacks Obama's record is marginally better than Clinton's. Personally I find the vote for the AUMF unforgivable, although I understand a lot of progressives are willing to put it behind them. It was clear to me at the time that we were being railroaded into war and I'm just a simple guy living a middle class lifestyle, not a U.S. Senator. The fact that she voted for Kyl-Lieberman proves that she's learned absolutely nothing.

Neither of the candidates stood up against the Mukasey nomination even though their votes were important, especially if Democrats had been allowed to manuever a fillibuster by leadership. I guess making sure we have an AG that understands that the methods employed during the Inquisition might not fit well into the framework of our own constitution just wasn't a priority for them.

I know that as the campaign progresses and I'm forced to wrap my head around the idea of a "President McCain" I'm going probably going to have to force myself to hold my nose and vote for one of these candidates. In doing so I just want to make it clear that these are not the best candidates the Democratic party, or the country for that matter, have to offer.

Not by a long shot.

I'm gonna make you squeal like a pig. Weeeeeeee!

I'm trying to figure out why these stimulus plan headlines are making me randy.

Oil rises after Bush stimulus plan.

Pelosi: Democrats welcome Bush's economic stimulus package.

Quick stimulus sought, but what kind?

Bush states position on stimulus plan

Bush to talk about size of stimulus plan: official.

What does Hillary Clinton think of Bush's stimulus package?

Clinton: Bush stimulus "falls short"

Oh no, girl you did NOT go there.