Happy New Year to All!!

And a just a note-- Joseph Lieberman is not a member of the Democratic Party-- he ran and serves as an Independent. He also endorsed a republican for the upcoming presidential elections...people do change their affiliation from time to time. (do you like Mitt or Norm?) And the name Jeffords comes to mind.....you republicans were real nice to him!

Thought this was an interesting posting, so I decided to do some homework and add to the discussion. Went to the Campaign Finance Board and downloaded the SD42 GOP filings for the last election cycle. Wanted to see for myself how the local GOP spent their money.

In 2006, they gave $1000 to Bill Cullen, $1400 to David Hann with same to Erik Paulsen, $300 to Duckstad, $300 to Stevens and $300 to Young.

In July of 2006 they spent $3500 for office space, and another $1000 in August.

They spent $3550 for what I assume was a generated letter and group lit drop.

In 2005, they gave Duckstad $200, rented Grace for $400 and spent $300 for lapel pins and another $200 for election night entertainment.

The 2007 figures are not due yet, so we don't know how they spent their money last year.

The SD42 DFL did NOT endorse candidates in local elections, and so no money was given to any candidates for local elections. DFL individuals offered time lit dropping or phoning for candidates on their own and not under the umbrella of the party organization.

We also saw the development of the first ever PAC in our little city-- the Taxpayer's Alliance. This group spent approximately $2.56 a VOTE on the campaigns of Duckstad, Young and Stevens, to a total of about $14,000. (found this out at city hall) It is interesting that the members of this group all seem to be members of the SD42 GOP.

So, by saying that little was spent by SD 42 GOP on local elections is technically true, but in reality, the republicans in this city spent a huge sum of money to change our city council to their liking.

And all so they could save less than $11 a year, and get rid of one immigrant woman of color....

Does the fact checker say
Submitted by Gino G on January 4, 2008 - 11:10pm.
Does the fact checker say anything about Vamma's bias towards Republicans?

National DFL candidates will be added to the list. We're concentrating on the big issue discrepancies in what is said and what is actually done. Tax cuts and abortion are big issues for Republicans.

There are 111 entries listed at Fact Checker and we're not going to list them all.

The next entry will be Edwards on special interests, a January 2008 entry.

Watch for it....

The Fact Checker: Truth in Politics

The Debates-

The Washington Post assembled a team of crack fact checkers to truth squad both debates, and call the candidates out for any inaccuracies.

Fact upon fact, the debates revealed that all the candidates exaggerate--eliminate context, slant information, distort, on, on...
A fact is a fact, right? Is the truth more important to the prognosticators or the audience they're trying to reach? That's a good question for them. What seems to count as much to voters and to the candidates themselves are appearances, likability, reputation and whether you're one-of-the-gang?? The later was especially true of the Republican Debate.

Which debate was more civil??

Obama and Clinton-

Issue: Withdrawal from Iraq

The Fact-Checkers say Obama has a clearer timetable for withdrawal and can also claim consistently opposing the Iraq war. Despite this the Washington Post says on substance of this particular exchange, the Clinton camp has the better of the argument.

The Fact Checkers gave Obama two Pinocchios for what they describe as a "somewhat tortuous" position on withdrawal.

On the other hand they've given Clinton one Pinocchio, accusing the Clinton "Fact Hub" for taking "Obama's quotes out of context, and over-simplifiying his position."

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/12/clinton_vs_obama_the...

"Fact upon fact, debates...

It's not the exaggeration, or even the slanting that bothers me; it's the distortion and out and out whoppers."

Yes. Its been pointed out that under the rigors and pressures of a campaign not all of this truth/fact bending is intentional??

After the simpler truths are bent out of shape, the whoppers seem to lose their ability to appear as they really are, intentional distortions!!

Of course, they (the whoppers) are believed, mired in repetitive reinforcement, eventually to become everyone else's inconvenient truth.

I don't think we need examples.

McCain gets the Pinocchio Test

December 2007
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/12/most_revealing_fibs_...

McCain claimed that tax cuts "increase revenues" and that tax hikes have the "opposite effect" which has been disproved by his own senior domestic policy adviser, who was the former director of the Congressional Budget Office.

Here's the math. In December 2005, McCain's adviser "supervised a CBO study that looked at the economic impact of federal income tax cuts. According to the calculations of his experts, a 10 percent tax cut would result in a revenue loss of $1.241 trillion over 10 years. Under the most optimistic assumptions, increased economic growth generated by the tax cut would offset this loss by $345 billion dollars. That is a net revenue loss of nearly $900 billion."

"Asked to explain the candidate's position, the McCain campaign sent an e-mailed statement from his adviser claiming that the senator "has never supported the idea that tax cuts pay for themselves." The email went on:

"Cutting middle class taxes will generate additional growth, especially if it is accompanied by fiscally responsible spending cuts that eliminate earmarks, stop waste, and reform entitlements. John McCain believes that the improved growth will make families better off, and also happen to reduce the revenue lost by lower taxes."

That statement is consistent with McCain's adviser's views, as expressed in the 2005 CBO study. But it is not consistent with the McCain quote to the National Review. The assertion that tax cuts generate economic growth that partially offsets lost revenues is not at all the same as a claim that tax cuts actually "increase revenues."

According to the Fact-Checker, this was not the first time that Mccain's adviser had to clean up after his candidate.

Evidently the master of the "Straight Talk Express" wants cake and cake too. "After voting against the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts in the Senate, McCain has been atoning for his supply side heresy in his latest presidential run."

Fact Checker refers to Mccain as an enigma, because he received their first ever Geppetto checkmark for truth-telling, but then got cranked by three Pinocchios for the claim that the Constitution established the United States as "a Christian nation."

And Fact-Checker says they're revealing fibs??

There is hope for you, Tommy!

First of all, I am happy to welcome you as a regular reader to the SD42 site – congratulations. Admitting your weaknesses is often the first step to finding a cure.

Second, I commend you for admitting that per diem payments (which were increased by a whopping 50% by the 2007 DFL legislature) are a BAD IDEA.

To see how YOUR LEGISLATOR voted on increasing the per diem, click here. You will find that indeed ALL THREE of our esteemed legislators are mentioned. See if you can determine which party – to use your childish language – Republicon or Democrap – is responsible for this boondoggle?

Once again, Tommy, I continue to invite you to raise the bar on your commentaries. Are you capable of posting a comment without slandering anyone or without calling anyone a name? Try it once! Instead of bullying and name-calling, let’s REALLY discuss the issues. How about it?

What is the definition of "socialist", Tommy? Do you know?

Peter are you saying Democrats are ultimately responsible for the idea of an increase, e.g. they sponsored the bill, but Republicans took more money, right? Because locally they did.
Actually Republicans offered amendments to the bill, which were rejected and each party voted for it, the vote was 59 to 7 supporting it. At the end the Republican minority leader said it was a victory for transparency. (See below) Also, the per diem is based on how often you worked at the Legislature. Hann voted against the bill, but ultimately used it the most of any EP legislator. Go figure! BTW, according to Senate text it would seem a Republican started the initial conversation.

Vote-
http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/journals/2007-2008/20070221019.pdf#Pag...

Anderson
Bakk
Berglin
Betzold
Bonoff
Carlson
Chaudhary
Clark
Cohen
Dibble
Doll
Erickson Ropes
Fischbach
Foley
Frederickson
Gerlach
Gimse
Higgins
Johnson
Jungbauer
Koering
Kubly
Langseth
Larson
Latz
Limmer
Lourey
Lynch
Marty
Metzen
Moua
Murphy
Neuville
Olseen
Olson, G.
Olson, M.
Ortman
Pappas
Pogemiller
Prettner Solon
Rest
Robling
Rosen
Rummel
Saltzman
Saxhaug
Scheid
Senjem
Sheran
Sieben
Skoe
Skogen
Sparks
Stumpf
Tomassoni
Torres Ray
Vickerman
Wergin
Wiger

Those who voted in the negative were:
Day
Hann
Ingebrigtsen
Koch
Michel
Pariseau

Per diem resolution approved

A resolution affirming the per diem level of $96, set by the Rules and Administration Committee near the start of the 85th Legislative Session, consumed the bulk of the Wed., Feb. 21, Senate floor session.

S.R. 41, authored by Majority Leader Lawrence Pogemiller (DFL-Mpls.), also provides that members voting against the per diem allowance must file a written request for per diem with the Secretary of the Senate, the Senate’s chief administrative officer. Members who vote for the per diem allowance, under the resolution, are not required to take any additional action to collect per diem. Pogemiller said the resolution is about transparency. The written request provision, he said, is intended merely to clarify with Senate staff what a Senator’s intent is regarding per diem.

Sen. David Hann (R-Eden Prairie) said the resolution was unusual. Depending on how you vote, you do one thing or another, he said. Hann said the principle could be extended to spending bills, preventing districts whose Senator votes “no” on a bill from getting state funds. However, Pogemiller countered that the resolution is different from general laws, because it deals only with an internal Senate matter. This is simply about transparency, he said.

An amendment setting the per diem rate at $96, but providing that members may only collect per diem during the interim on days when their presence is recorded at an official committee or commission meeting, was offered by Sen. Thomas Neuville (R-Northfield). Under the amendment, members may collect daily per diem during the session, as under current practice. Conditioning per diem on a member’s vote is disrespectful, Neuville said, because it seeks to punish Senators for disagreeing with the majority. He said the amendment creates a level playing field, since currently members of the Majority Caucus may collect per diem when they come in for general office business, while members of the Minority Caucus may only collect per diem when they come in for a committee meeting. Pogemiller opposed the amendment, saying it reduces transparency by allowing Senators to vote against per diem but collect the payments anyway. Sen. Pat Pariseau (R-Farmington) offered an amendment to the amendment setting the per diem amount at $66, the pre-2007 rate. The amendment to the amendment was rejected on a voice vote. The Neuville amendment failed, 18-48.

Hann offered an amendment requiring members who vote “yes” on the per diem amount to address the Senate for at least 10 minutes before claiming per diem payments. In the spirit of transparency, he said, we can all be clear on why we need the per diem provided in the resolution. The amendment was not adopted, 5-61. Sen. Ray Vandeveer (R-Forest Lake) offered an amendment requiring members to indicate in writing the amount of per diem they wish to claim, up to the maximum of $96, regardless of how they vote on the resolution. We should not give the public the perception that there is any cynical intent behind this resolution, he said. The amendment failed, 20-46. An amendment changing the language in the bill for members voting against the resolution and claiming per diem from a written “request” to a written “statement” was offered by Sen. Michelle Fischbach (R-Paynesville). A request implies that someone will approve or deny the matter, she said. Pogemiller had earlier clarified that the written request was not a matter to be approved, Fischbach said, but just an administrative step. The amendment reflects that more appropriately, she said. The amendment was not accepted on a voice vote.

I am troubled by both the substance and the timing of this resolution, said Sen. Geoff Michel (R-Edina). We can and should have the debate on Legislative compensation, he said, but the right place to start it is in the Compensation Council. If Legislators are undercompensated, then the right solution is to adjust the salary, Michel said. Additionally, the per diem rate was increased soon after the session started, he said. Not many jobs give you a raise in the first month of work, he said. We should perform a little more, Michel said, and then discuss whether we deserve a raise.

Minority Leader David Senjem (R-Rochester) thanked Vandeveer (R) for starting the conversation about the per diem process. This has opened up government and created total participation, he said. Senjem said the process itself, debating per diem on the Senate floor, represents a victory for transparency.

The bill was approved 59 to 7.

Here below is a link to SR41-

http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/briefly/floor_display.php?filename_typ...

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." -- C.P. Scott, editor Manchester Guardian, 1921

Let’s start backwards: historically and factually, our Republican Governor and GOP dominated legislature had already delivered deep cuts to schools and roads, without DFL support.

This is how MPR reported the increase in Legislator pay:

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/projects/
ongoing/votetracker/issue_view.php?id=76

”Minnesota senators voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to stick with a $30-per-day increase in their daily expense checks. The Senate voted 59-to-7 to continue a $96-a-day expense rate that most members began collecting more than six weeks ago. The seven Republican senators who voted against the increase (which included Hann) will have to ask for their expense checks in writing, and one called the requirement a stunt designed to punish them." However, Rep Ron Erhardt, R, Edina said “We're all entitled to a little cost of living allowance now and again.”

"John Marty of Roseville, ****** Cohen of St. Paul, both Democrats - had previously informed Senate budget officers that they would take less than the maximum in per diem. Sen. Don Betzold, DFL-Fridley, refuses per diem for weekends and holidays."

This hardly sounds like blackmail. One would assume Hann could have opted out of the increase. Because in “the House, about three dozen members took less than the maximum during the 2006 session, said Paul Schweizer, the House controller.”

So, why did Hann spend the more than EP's two other legislators? Housing checks go to members whose regular homes are at least 50 miles from the Capitol for rent and to receive reimbursements for their actual costs. Why Hann out-spent other local legislators is a question we should ask him, especially since he voted against the bill. Certainly we are not 50 miles from the capital and certainly calling it blackmail is an over exaggeration.

When it comes down to it, this is a discussion about ideological differences. Part of the DFL rational was that legislator pay should be able to support and attract people to public service. With this in mind, the DFL legislature also proposed a worker wage increase in spring 2007.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/
web/2007/04/18/minwage/

Twenty-five other states had a higher minimum wage than Minnesota. But, Republicans “labeled the bill a "job killer" because a higher wage requirement would increase costs for employers who would then be forced to cut jobs.”

But SF875, which raised the minimum wage, PASSED on a 40-to-23 roll call vote anyway. Hann did not vote. Interesting for a legislator who was supposedly blackmailed for accepting an increase in per diem to show up to work, didn’t show up for a very important vote to increase workers’ pay. The irony is stunning.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/projects
/ongoing/votetracker/issue_view.php?id=86

Tommy, you are starting to sound like Howard Dean.

VAMMA, you can't have an honest debate with Peter, because Peter simply isn't capable of doing so.

The whole point of this Per Diem discussion is that the local republicons - AGAIN - are distoring an issue on their website.

And since this discussion of per diem and the GOP website started, they've updated their website.

"To add clarity?" a reasonable person might ask.

Let's take a look, at that update!

***
DFL LEGISLATURE SETS PER DIEM SPENDING RECORD -- Minnesota lawmakers have set a record in 2007 and the proof was in their paychecks. 5 Eyewitness News has learned that last year, State Representatives and Senators took home more than $2 million above their annual salaries. Click here to find out how your legislator voted on increasing their pay.
***

Imagine that! The GOP, providing a link to where Paulsen and Hann voted against pigging out at the trough, but NOT providing a link to where Paulsen and Hann ARE porking out at the trough!

This, VAMMA, is distortion, pure and simple.

We also have Paulsen and Hann clearly demonstrating why GOP now stands for GreedOverPrinciples - they were against it, before they profited from it.

And everyone reading this needs to understand that Peter, who is doing his "best" to cover for Hann, Paulsen, Ypung, Duckstand and Aho, is the official webmaster for the official GOP SD42 website.

Which, of course, is another reason why GOP now stands for GreedOverPrinciples.

You miss the point again, Tommy. If you hate per diems, then ANY amount is an abuse. If you hate per diems then you ought to be livid about these eight votes in the Minnesota House and these two votes in the Minnesota Senate.

Again, to borrow your filthy language -– was the per diem increase a Republicon or a Democrap initiative? Which party supported and insisted on the increase and which party tried to stop the increase?

But the abuse doesn’t just stop at per diems. Your legislature voted in 2007 to give themselves a $1,200 housing allowance (or $14,400 per year) even though they meet for less than three months this year. Can you tell me why your legislator needs a year-round housing allowance?

Who voted for this increase? Republicons or Democraps?

In addition, the DFL leadership increased the number of government committees by a third. The nine new committees include Minnesota Heritage, Mental Health, Fish and Game, fourth and fifth education committees, Housing Finance, Energy Finance, Labor, and an extra Finance Committee to serve the Ways and Means Committee.

Every one of these new committees needs staff and extra budgets. Every one of these committees comes with budget mandates (you need to spend money to justify your existence). Almost every DFL legislator now can boast that he or she is a chair or vice chair of some House Committee or Panel.

Who put these extra committees in place? Who increased the size of government by one third? Republicons or Democraps?

Furthermore, if the per diems were soooooo important to the DFL, why did they not campaign on this? All I saw were slick ads about schools and health care. I didn’t see one ad about per diems. Why?

Why didn’t they say – right in their campaign literature – if you vote for me, my first act as a legislator will be to spend the budget surplus to increase my own pay? Don’t you think that would have been more honest?

They could have even put together an emotional ad campaign. I see something along the lines of a Sally Struthers – aid for African children ad:

ADOPT A LEGISLATOR
Won’t you please help this legislator?
(insert photo of desperate looking legislator here)

Like most Minnesotans, you probably lay awake wondering how Minnesota's DFL legislators can afford to feed themselves without increasing their expense allowance from $66 per day to $96 per day. But now we have started an “Adopt a Legislator” campaign.

That’s right -- for a contribution of just $30 per day (or about $4,200 per legislative session) you can make sure that your local DFL legislator can afford to eat at the finest restaurants in the Twin Cities. Yes, for the mere cost of a 50-inch high-definition flat panel plasma television, you can rest easy knowing that Maria Ruud and Larry Pogemiller and Phyllis Kahn never again have to make the difficult choice between tap water and Evian.

Vamma says: "We want that amount to be high enough so citizens of ordinary means can afford to come and serve in the Legislature"

******

I can't sympathise. They knew how much the job paid when they ran for the office.

But you pose an interesting point.

If a legislator opposes a pay increase -- and votes against it -- but it passes anyway -- is it your position that they should voluntarily forfeit that increase? An interesting point of view.

So, under your scenario, we would have two pay scales in the Minnesota legislature: Those who want the increase will get paid more for the same work as those who advocated government living within its means.

So does this translate to other areas as well?

If I am for limited government, am I a hyprocrite to go to a Twins game in the new stadium that I think shouldn't have been built with taxpayer money?

Am I a hypocrite for collecting unemployment insurance that is higher in Minnesota than any other state?

Am I a hypocrite if I advocate a simpler fairer tax system but take the tax deductions that I wish didn't exist?

Am I a hypocrite for riding a light rail line whose funds I believe would have been better spent on roads and bridges?

How far does this go?

If you oppose the military, are you a hypocrite for enjoying the freedoms that our military has secured?

If you oppose animal research, are you a hypocrite for taking drugs that were developed from testing on animals?

If you support the environment, are you a hypocrite for driving a car or utilizing indoor plumbing?

An interesting view. I'll have to ponder that one.

What is untrue, Tommy? Can you elaborate, pretty please? What specific lie have I told?

You need to try to make your arguments in civilized manner. Instead of slandering your opponent and calling them ugly names, try to beat them with facts and rational argument.

You have proposed that if someone votes against a legislative pay increase, they are hypocritical if they then claim what is legally theirs to claim. I just want to clarify if you apply the same logic to other things as well.

I’m not saying that your opinion is wrong. I just find it a little . . . curious. Why would you oppose one politician taking the per diem, but you are not opposed to another politician voting to increase it by 50 percent? It’s an amazing thought process -– and one that I will have to . . . ponder.

Peter said:
If a legislator opposes a pay increase -- and votes against it -- but it passes anyway -- is it your position that they should voluntarily forfeit that increase? An interesting point of view.

Legislators can, not must, not should, opt out if they want to; they don’t have to take the per diem increase or they can take it. IT IS NOT MY POSITION; it’s how the bill was written.

HANN TOOK the per diem, didn’t vote for it. But, one assumes the legislature allows him to do that. So, many of us view this as hypocritical.

The premise upon which you base your list is faulty because it’s not about things we do, that we don’t have control over.

This is about someone who had the control to vote or not vote a bill down with a result which might take the per diem allowance away from others who needed it and wanted it.

He made the choice to possibly deprive others of the per diem and then he ultimately took it himself.

Maybe it wasn’t even the per diem he objected to, maybe it was some other aspect of the bill, because he unsuccessfully tried to amend it.

Your logic is faulty. This is not about unintended consequences; it’s about the direct result of an action someone takes directly that will affect them and other people.

Try sticking to the bare facts..

Fact Checker: Truth in Politics

How often have you heard the press admit they got it wrong?

Washington Post’s Fact-Checker and ABC admitted, they and the rest of the press, really got it wrong in New Hampshire.

Their tea leaves were measured by lines of voters. Tabulating crowds as votes, whoever would have thought? We could go out and do it ourselves if it was that easy: count the crowd, and construe that each person in line definitely it equals a vote.

If you’re not already fractured by the ineptness, Fact-Checker says, “If the media tells voters they are going to vote for a certain candidate, they are quite capable of turning around and clipping that candidate’s wings.”

Ah, then they admit to manipulation of voters.
Okay, a smidgeon of truth. While media was telling voters to vote for Obama, those contrarian voters in New Hampshire just turned a cheek and put Hillary at the top of the heap.

If this was truly a fair miscalculation, why didn’t it happen in the Republican race? Fact checker gives us less than flimsy reasons for why they and the rest of the press got it wrong.

Were they so carried away by poetry they couldn’t count? According to ABC news it’s unprecedented for so many polls to be wrong about the same race??

ABC agrees this was isolated to the Democratic race and they’re looking for a smoking gun. They say it could just be a superior get- out- the- vote effort, a change of mind at the last minute, a failure in voter sampling or modeling, but that’s hard to buy.

Or maybe it’s just a simple case of prejudging, getting caught up in the perfect storm, without having your feet firmly planted on the ground? Because it just wasn’t New Hampshire and ABC that got it wrong, they all got it wrong.

It’s a Cry Wolf thing.

"Even when liars tell the truth, they are never believed.” The liar will lie once, twice, and then be unbelievable when he finally tells the truth." There are a few politicians who hang their hats on this Aesop line.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/01/poetry_vs_prose_part...
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/2008/01/new-hampshires.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf

Peter, you're talking in circles.....

So, you can avoid talking about your mistakes in logic.

The facts are that he voted against it and then took the per diem.

On a very basic human level, this is a contradiction in action. It is a contradiction within himself and certainly it had the potential of affecting others.

You’ve jumped all over the place to try to shake the facts unsuccessfully.

You aren’t listening and you aren’t reading the bill and the comments made by legislators because this was not a party vote, it was a unanimous vote.

You keep bringing up hypotheticals and even those are illogically stated to muddy up the facts, because it’s the only way you can make the discussion go away.

Legislators chose to do this because they had not received an increase since 1991. It’s hard for a family of four to live on $31,000.00 today. That’s about starting pay for one person in today’s job market.

I believe in both parties working together for solutions, which is what they did on this bill. What you embrace, putting one party in charge, has been the problem for the last 8 years.

Vamma says: "This is a contradiction in action"

As long as what they are doing violates no laws, I don’t think anyone has a legitimate gripe.

The question then becomes: Is it a good law? If so, then we’re all happy, right?

If it isn't good law, then we need to examine:

(1) Who put the law in place? and

(2) How do we undo the damage?

That takes us down a very different path than the one you have outlined here.

Vamma says: "It’s hard for a family of four to live on $31,000.00 today"

Yep - I guess I have to agree with this red herring. And at least you are honest and admit that the per diem increase was meant as nothing more than income enhancement.

The law outlines proper procedure for raising the pay of legislators.

You propose a pay increase in the form of a bill. The bill has go through committees, gets a public hearing, undergoes public scrutiny, has to get passed by both houses, and, finally, has to get the governor’s signature. Once it is established, the members have to pay taxes on the money just the same as you and me.

None of that happens with per diems. In fact, the only reason we have any recorded votes on this at all is because a few lawmakers (who all happen to be Republican) decided to raise a stink about it.

Per diems can be passed in secret, require no public scrutiny, do not require the governor’s signature, require no proof in the form of receipts, and are not subject to taxation.

It's a sneaky way to get around the law. It's a sneaky way to get a pay raise. It's a sneaky way to avoid paying taxes on your income. It's a sneaky way to enrich yourself from the hard working taxpayers.

Secondly, they will be working less than three months this year. I would say that $31,000.00 is a very generous amount to be earning for three months of work, wouldn’t you? In fact, it is not uncommon for many lawmakers to maintain second jobs outside of their work in Saint Paul.

Third, they knew how much job paid when they ran for the office. That is kind of like someone moving next to an airport and then complaining about the noise.

Fourth, it goes against the notion of a citizen legislature. This isn’t supposed to be a career. In fact, many would argue that entrenched career politicians (of both parties) are exactly what is wrong with both Washington and Saint Paul.

In New Hampshire, just to give you some perspective, lawmakers are paid $100 per year. I’m not sure how much our city council members in Eden Prairie get, but I’m sure it well under $31,000.00 per year.

Tommy, once again, you need to learn to keep your posts respectful and on topic.

The topic is per diems. Can you tell me specifically what is on the SD42 website about per diems that is a lie?

And, once again, the namecalling! Pigs? Republicons? Go clean the spittle off your keyboard!

Vamma, this is your blog. What do want to talk about now? Minimum wage? Sounds like Tommy wants to talk about vote fraud. Are we done with per diems?

Tommy, again, you need to be specific.

Where on this website do I call anyone a name?

Where on this website do you find anyone calling anyone else a pig? Or a Republicon? Or Boy Blunder? Or anything close?

Again, if you want to be more effective, if you want to actually persuade people instead of simply subjecting others to your venom, you can make the same points, the same arguments without the ugly names and without calling people liars and cheats.

The only instance of name-calling you have cited so far is that you once said that I described someone's political philosophy as socialist.

OK -- So I ask you again: What do you understand the word socialist to mean? How do you define the term? How does your personal philosophy differ from socialism?

Titles of letters are usually not the creation of the letter writer. The editor of the paper usually composes a letter title as short description of what is to follow. You will often see the same exact letter in two different newspapers with two totally different titles.

Nevertheless, no one has the right to change the title of a letter. Not me, not you, not anyone. The letter, including the title, is the property of the newspaper and, if reprinted, should not be changed in any way. If commentary is added, it should be clear that it is separate from the letter.

So, if such a thing occurs on a website, the proper procedure is to send an email to the website and a have the error corrected. It sounds like that indeed happened in this case.

I disagree, however, that the alternate title was a distortion. Most people are very surprised when they learn they can go to a polling place and all they have to do is say "Hi – I’m Tommy Johnson" and they are allowed to vote. No ID required.

You need ID to board an airplane, rent a video, apply for social security, purchase beer, and cash a check. But not for voting. Why?

It seems like a very low cost method to prevent voter fraud. In fact half the states currently require some sort of ID for voting. But not Minnesota. Why?

A 2005 commission led by Republican James Baker and Democrat Jimmy Carter took on the task of finding ways to stop vote fraud. One of their top recommendations: Require ID for voting. In other words, according to that bipartisan commission, a vote against showing ID is indeed a vote FOR vote fraud.

So – like per diems – we need to look at the vote. Who in the Minnesota legislature voted for showing ID and who opposed it. Who is in favor of vote fraud and who is trying to stop it? You can see the vote by clicking here.

This issue is especially timely now. The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments this week on whether Indiana's voter ID law is constitutional. The battle pits Republican (and former Minnesota Secretary of State) Mary Kiffmeyer on the side of showing ID and liberal DFLer Keith Ellison on the side that says it's unconstitutional to have such a requirement. The early betting is that Kiffmeyer will be the winner.

Finally -- and I add this just as aside because opinion polls don't necessarily make me right and you wrong -- a majority of rank-and-file Democrats agree with ME. Among all Americans, the margin is 77 percent for to 18 percent against.

Americans -- again to use your ugly language -- Republicons, Democraps, everyone -- want ID to be shown for voting.

So, again, if I say that someone who opposed showing ID is, in fact, on the side of vote fraud, I am reflecting not only my opinion, but the opinion of a majority of Americans.

OK, Tommy, now I've answered your question. Now you need to answer mine. What is the definition of a socialist and how does your personal political philosophy differ from socialism?

Good comments, WMD! Once again, you are thoughtful, respectful, and cogent. What a contrast!

All of the things you recommend can and should be addressed. Any unreasonable hardship that comes between a citizen and the ballot box should be removed.

The cost of ID’s? Make them free. In fact that is exactly what the Indiana law (currently before the Supreme court) does.

Non-citizens getting ID? Ineligible felons getting ID? Require voting status on the ID.

Long lines? I can’t help you with that one. Get to the polls at 6:30 AM maybe? I don’t know. I’ve been an election judge in the past and all I can say is: We do our best to keep things moving.

The Carter-Baker Commission actually proposed 87 recommendations. Showing ID was one. They also recommended that all voting machines leave a paper trail that would allow people to check their votes.

Let me say this as a Republican: on this issue, Jimmy Carter is Right.

Without showing ID, in-person fraud is nearly impossible to detect. And you mention the word "disenfranchisement". Every vote that is cast by someone ineligible to vote in fact disenfranchises your vote and my vote and everyone else’s.

So we can add disenfranchisement as yet another reason to vote FOR showing ID.

In Washington State’s disputed governor’s race in 2004, for example, there was a razor thin 129 vote margin. It was later determined that ineligible felons and votes had been cast in the name of the dead. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported that there were 737 confirmed cases of dead people voting.

How do you think 737 dead people voting affects our democracy?

In Florida, where the 2000 election is still in dispute (according to some people), there are 65,000 dead people still on the voter rolls. That's an open invitation to fraud.

In California, my hero, B-1 Bob Dornan lost a close race to Maria Sanchez. An INS investigation later showed that 4,023 people voted illegally in that election.

A New York Daily News investigation found that in 2006 some 400-1,000 voters actually registered and voted twice.

In Milwaukee, a state that narrowly went to Kerry in 2004, investigators found that 200 felons voted and 100 people voted twice.

Vote fraud undermines democracy. Our democracy only works if people trust that the results they see on Wednesday morning are the truth. Every time a vote is cast fraudulently, it hurts democracy; it hurts our confidence that our collective voice is being accurately represented.

In his book, "Turning Point," Jimmy Carter wrote of his race for Georgia State Senate in 1962, which involved a corrupt local sheriff who had cast votes for the dead. It took a recount and court intervention before Mr. Carter was declared the winner.

Could we please muzzle Tommy? He is irrational and quite frankly, a bit scary.

Gino-

You've been officially muzzled. If you don't have anything constructive to add to the conversation, please don't post anymore.

Vamma, perhaps you could post a fact checker from some other publication besides the Washington Post? The Post is famous for it's ultra liberal editorial board. Are you posting under more than one screen name?

edenpprairiefactchecker

The following facts in the next post come from the source below:

www.fact.check.org

About FactCheck.org
We are a nonpartisan, nonprofit, "consumer advocate" for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics. We monitor the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews, and news releases. Our goal is to apply the best practices of both journalism and scholarship, and to increase public knowledge and understanding.
The Annenberg Political Fact Check is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. The APPC was established by publisher and philanthropist Walter Annenberg in 1994 to create a community of scholars within the University of Pennsylvania that would address public policy issues at the local, state, and federal levels.
The APPC accepts NO funding from business corporations, labor unions, political parties, lobbying organizations or individuals. It is funded primarily by the Annenberg Foundation.

edenpprairiefactchecker

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nh_debate_the_dems_turn.html

N.H. Debate: The Dems' Turn
January 6, 2008
When the going gets tough, the tough get misleading.

Summary
During the Democratic portion of the Jan. 5 New Hampshire debate:

"Obama claimed we are "back where we started two years ago" in Iraq. Actually, all indicators of violence show dramatic improvement compared with two years ago.

Clinton repeated a misleading claim that the 2005 energy bill was "larded with all kinds of special interest breaks" for the oil industry. Actually, the bill resulted in a net increase in taxes on the oil industry, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

Obama stated that U.S. medical care costs "twice as much per capita as any other advanced nation," which is incorrect. U.S. spending is double the average, but not double that of all others.

Clinton said there is no reason that U.S. troops should be in Iraq "beyond today," but she has also conceded that she might keep combat troops fighting there for years."

Tell us who you think will win the Democratic Nomination?

Eden Prairie Fact Checker picks Clinton

The Eden Prairie Fact Checker: Truth in Politics

How green is your candidate:

www.grist.org
A non-profit environmental group

http://www.lcv.org/
League of Conservation Voters

www.nrdc.org
Natural Resources Defense Council

http://www.nrdc.org/reference/environGroups.asp
Large list of environmental groups posted at the NRDC

Pawlenty, an opportunist or a real environmentalist?

The word is going around. Pawlenty may be a possible contender for the Republican VP spot and it looks like he’s been raising his profile for the last several years.

A February 2005 ABC News feature about presidential buzz surrounding the governor noted that "two people familiar with his political planning, said that Pawlenty wants to expand his political profile with the hopes of landing on a short list for president--or potentially for vice president or Senate candidate."

The problem? No national profile. So, what did Pawlenty do? Create one, by attaching himself to national issues, like the environment.

Pawlenty’s ploy explains his recent transformation to environmental consciousness. Pawlenty just announced that during the Republican National Convention in Minneapolis this year, all the attendees would be driving around in American made hybrid cars.

An example of the contradiction within Pawlenty's environmental policies is his own administration's lack of support for environmental resources, particularly from 2002 to 2005.

Back in 2003, City Pages called Minnesota “The Land of the Turd Brown Waters.” Pawlenty promised rectification of environmental programs in his inauguration speech. But, his budget proposals cut 20% funding for the MPCA, and eliminated a local water management and planning program and other environmental funding. Intense opposition in the Minnesota House got Pawlenty to restore two-thirds of the program funding.

http://citypages.com/databank/24/1178/article11355.asp

According to MEP, the Minnesota Environmental Partnership, Pawlenty “has allowed an erosion of environmental-protection policy that actually started before he took office.”

The Minn Post reported that “Minnesota's natural resources budgets have slipped to a dismal one percent of the state budget, despite widespread public support for natural resources protection. “

http://www.minnpost.com/ronway/2008/01/07/506/some_new_--_and_old_--_ide...

In the past environmentalists have criticized him for not following through on his promises, but now that’s he’s in the national spotlight they are waiting to see how he’s going to handle the "current $316 million bonding request for a variety of environmental projects that will come up in 2008. There’s also going to be a "push for a state wide ballot on a constitutional amendment to expand the sales tax to increase natural resources and arts funding by $300M annually."

Minn Post reports that “The Governor wants to spend upwards of $70 million for Vermilion State Park at a time when there's a $100 million spending backlog to maintain what's already in the parks system. Park spending is down 38 percent and spending on trails has spiraled to all-time lows during Pawlenty's administration.”

Judy Erickson, a lobbyist for the Minnesota Parks and Trails Council said it was “the first time in years that parks or trails achieved any attention.”

http://www.minnpost.com/ronway/2008/01/10/540/pawlentys_plan_for_new_sta...

The Star Tribune reported in October 2007 that for Pawlenty, "the oft-mentioned vice presidential candidate, a trip with environmentalist Wil Steger to the North Pole could further boost his national standing." In January of 2006 Steger addressed the House and Senate on climate change and began private conversations with the governor's office. Steger’s trip is scheduled for March-June 2008, but no mention of Pawlenty joining.

http://www.startribune.com/politics/11761251.html

Environmentalism has never been on the top of the Republican’s priority list and Pawlenty’s interest in global warming is new to most of us. In 2005 he cut $20 million or 9% from conservation and the environment.

http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/projects/2005/03/budget/view_gover...

In a recent appearance on Lou Dobbs, Pawlenty addressed the possible Independent candidate for President this way, “Good to hang with you sweet Lou.” The Strib would have referred to this as the Governor’s penchant for the grand gesture.

Some in his own party have referred to his recent environmental proposals as "feel-good politics" that "did nothing for the environment."

According to Steven Schier, a political science professor at Carlton College, "like a lot of crafty politicians who lack money and votes and face a hostile Legislature, he goes to the symbolically popular." But, because he seems to be thinking about the "national stage, he is making himself visible in a positive way that will get good press attention."

http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/12379461.html

Considering the political environment in 2008, an even year bonding session, a dismal state of the revenue forecast, the high profile results needed to gain enough recognition for some national political standing and a DFL controlled Legislature, Minnesota’s “Turd Brown Waters” could become the land of sky blue waters, again.

Per Diems come without political-partisanship, strings or policy mandates. Do we like them or not?

Would we rather have Big Oil and the Tobacco Industry buying our Representatives dinners, gas and living expenses or do we want to compensate elected officials with a cost of living stipend ourselves, knowing that those tax dollars can’t affect policy and can’t be partisan?

According to the NTU, NTUF the National Taxpayers Union, per diems are just another way government picks taxpayers’ pockets.

The NTU says, “But the real slap in the face to taxpayers is the fact that the U.S. Congress does not even have to cast a recorded vote to receive their $165 per diem. All that is necessary is for the House Administration Committee – which happens to be made up of Members of Congress – to declare that they and their colleagues are eligible to receive it.”

http://www.ntu.org/main/press_release.php?PressID=187&org_name=NTU

Associated Content, “The People’s Media site, which is a join and publish your own content media center where the people create content for other not-so-happy with the mainstream media types, published this piece about Congressional remuneration:

“Let's find out who really wants to be a 'public servant' at their own expense! No more fat expense accounts, free health insurance, or pensions. A living wage, yes, but the other perks should be done away with, permanently.

Without lifetime pensions and healthcare, how many of our leaders would aspire to a career in politics? When our Constitution was drafted by the Founding Fathers, they never anticipated professional politicians, only public servants who would volunteer time to their country because that was the honorable and right thing to do...”

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/81167/rescind_health_insurance_...

Well, things can drastically change every couple of hundred years. The framers of the Constitution received their health care very differently, inexpensively, informally and crudely. If we had lived all these years by the medical where-with-all the framers lived by, many of us would not be around today… But, she’s really answered her own question. How many of our elected officials, from either party, want to be like the public servants of old, who served because it was the right thing to do? It’s safe to say, none of them would.

According to a Findlaw article on Regulating Congressional Pay, it took 200 years to finally rediscover and ratify the congressional pay amendment: the 27th Amendment to the Constitution that originated back when the States ratified the Constitution. This amendment lay dormant until the 1980s. But, the “provision is now part of the constitution and it allows for an almost automatic cost-of-living increase in pay to Members of Congress.”

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment27/

The MN Senate amendment authored by Republicans back in 2005 to prohibit Per Diems failed. But, in 2007, when it came up again there was an entirely different out-come, which cleared the Senate Rules Committee by a unanimous bipartisan vote, which easily passed the Senate.

http://minnesota.akamai.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/02/21/perdiem/

Well, at least in Minnesota it didn’t take 200 years to give representatives the right to a cost of living increase. So, what changed? In 2005 Republicans voted against a Per Diem; in 2007 they voted for it. Here’s an explanation of compensation from the MN House:

“The Minnesota Constitution provides that legislators’ compensation is set by law. The annual salary for representatives and senators is $31,140. The House and the Senate each can designate three leadership positions to receive up to 140 percent of the compensation of other members of the legislature (this is an additional $12,456 per year).

The most recent salary increase for legislators was 5 percent in January 1999. The constitution also says that “no increase of compensation shall take effect during the period for which the members of the existing House of Representatives may have been elected.” Because the constitution says that legislators’ salaries are set “by law,” the governor can veto legislation setting legislators’ compensation.

In addition to salary, legislators are eligible to receive a per diem payment when engaged in official business. The House rate is $77 per day and the Senate rate $96 per day. “

http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/issinfo/sseloffcomp.htm#Q3

So what did change Republicans minds in 2007?

So now there are actually three questions:

1. What made local Republicans in the legislature change their minds about the per diem from 2005 to 2007?

2. Why are local Republicans using it as a wedge issue?

3. Why did the local Republican webmaster disavow the facts?

The Fact Checker: Truth in Politics
On to Campaign 2008....

Huckabee’s Record....sinful?

The Washington Post Fact-Checker gave Huckabee two Pinochios for exaggeration and selective use of statistics, for incorrectly espousing a record of taxes cuts, and for supporting a proposal that let illegal aliens benefit from in-state tuition rates.

If that wasn’t enough, a post responding to the information on Huckabee from the “Voiceof Reason” revealed that the conservative watchdog organization Judicial Watch put Huckabee on their Top Ten list of the most corrupt politicians in 2007. The Associated Press didn’t have many good things to say about him either. Read below:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/01/record_job_growth_un...

Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog organization who keeps track of political corruption, placed Mike Huckabee #6 on its list of the Top 10 most corrupt politicians in 2007.

According to The Associated Press: "[Huckabee's] career has also been colored by 14 ethics complaints and a volley of questions about his integrity, ranging from his management of campaign cash to his use of a nonprofit organization to subsidize his income to his destruction of state computer files on his way out of the governor's office."

http://www.judicialwatch.org/judicial-watch-announces-list-washington-s-...
The above was posted by: VoiceOfReason | January 17, 2008 09:19 AM
************

Obama and Clinton– surviving the media and Robert Novak?

The Democratic campaign is heating up with two top contenders trying to survive the zealousness of their staffs, media distortions and the likes of conservative Op-ed writer and political pundit, Robert Novak, who first reported the identity of Valerie Plame and soon disappeared from his regular anchor spot on CNN. Recently, he’s up to his old tricks defaming or should we say deplaming liberals, particularly if they’re Clintons, with a recognizable dirty-wash style of writing.

Fact-Checker gave each, Clinton and Obama a Pinocchio on Iraq: Clinton for taking information and quoting it out-of-context and Obama for overstating differences.

**************

Mitt Romney- Lapses of Memory?

Romney got two Pinocchios for what Fact-checker termed forgetting. While campaigning in Michigan Romney conveniently forgot what he told Massachusetts voters in 2002. Fact-Checker says it’s a big stretch for the Romney campaign to deny that he ever made such a proposal "to revamp vehicles excise taxes for more fuel efficient cars at the expense of guzzlers."

***************

Here’s how Fact- Checker rates two Pinocchios-

Significant omissions and/or exaggerations. Some factual error may be involved but not necessarily. A politician can create a false, misleading impression by playing with words and using legalistic language that means little to ordinary people.

The “R” Word…..

In the Nevada and South Carolina exit polls, the economy ranked the most important issue.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/category/states/south-carolina/

With the economy the most important factor in the 2008 Election, with interest rates dropping three-fourths of a percentage point, with world markets plunging globally in reaction to the U. S. home loan financial crisis, a looming threat of a U.S. recession, the Treasury Secretary announced there must be immediate action.

Are we in a recession?

Evidently, nobody really knows. The responsibility for defining whether we are or not is something the National Bureau of Economic Research, the NBER, is responsible for.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/18/AR200801...

But, guess what? They don’t do this in real time, because they can’t. They can only make a determination on our economic health, many, many months after the fact. Let’s not forget, studying the economy is a science. And, we should know how scientific evaluation works? Right? Slowly.

It can literally take years before any quantification can be identified and understood in terms of cumulative effects. Mortgages, stock indicators, personal income, unemployment are measured just like carbon emissions are from natural occurring elements and human activity: driving, heating and cooling, industrial processes, electricity generation... they all determine our environmental health.

Today the markets are as inexorably connected to a global economy as much as human habits are to greenhouse emissions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/21/AR200801...

The current trade imbalance and the effects of the human contribution of carbon emissions are two historical unknowns. We agonize over our dependence on foreign oil, but what about foreign cash?

Where do the candidates stand on these two important issues: the economy and the environment?

Find out in the next installment of The Eden Prairie Fact Checker: Truth in Politics

Let them eat fast food…..

Though it’s historically unfounded, the infamous “Let them eat cake” comment attributed to Marie Antoinette served the purpose of expressing an economic divide in a period of French history.

According to data from www.Inequality.org an economic divide exists today.

The richest one percent of U.S. households now owns 34.3 percent of the nation's private wealth, more than the combined wealth of the bottom 90 percent. The top one percent also owns 36.9 percent of all corporate stock. (EPI, State of Working America 2006-07, Table 5.1 and Figure 5F).

http://www.demos.org/inequality/numbers.cfm

What are of the reasons for the inequity? The Economic Policy Institute says “Profits are up, but the wages and incomes of average Americans are down. “

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/pm110

A recent report to Congress by the Economic Policy Institute outlined several core problems in the economy:

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/pm110

•More and more people are deeper and deeper in debt.
•Job creation has not kept up with population growth, and the employment rate has fallen sharply.
•Poverty is on the rise.
•Rising health care costs are eroding families' already declining incomes.

Are employers part of the problem? A federal law, passed almost 20 years ago, to protect workers jobs from the “thousands of businesses that shut down suddenly every year, taking employees by surprise, is not working."

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that "less than one-third of mass layoffs are even covered by the WARN Act because of its many loopholes. And most employers who are covered fail to comply with the law, either out of ignorance or because the penalties and enforcement are so weak that they can be ignored.”

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm?id=2787

In 2007, Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama and another Democrat in the Senate introduced legislation that would require businesses to warn employees. The reasons why should be obvious. But, “twenty years ago, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business lobbyists told Congress no law was needed because businesses would do the right thing. The passage of time leaves no doubt that the lobbyists were wrong. Businesses look out for their bottom line. Government still has to look out for the employees, their families and their communities.”

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm?id=2787

In recent testimony to Congress the Economic Policy Institute made three key points in their presentation: This did not include advocating an increase in corporate profits to solve our economic problems.

•Because the economy, and especially the labor market, is in serious trouble, immediate intervention of sufficient size is needed to prevent a vicious cycle of job loss and reduced consumer demand and spending.” They listed the following things that should be done immediately:

•The right stimulus will have the biggest bang for the buck, which comes from increasing unemployment compensation, providing state fiscal relief, issuing targeted tax rebates, and direct federal spending on low-income families through such means as increases in food stamps.

•Infrastructure spending, especially school repair and maintenance, can be done quickly and can efficiently put a million people to work. But even if it takes a year or more to employ large numbers of workers on infrastructure projects, the impact will be timely and important in counteracting rising unemployment and the kind of glacially slow job creation we saw following the 2001 recession.

http://www.epi.org/webfeatures/viewpoints/testimony-mishel-20080116.pdf

In a recent op-ed, even Forbes, the corporate business mag, whose main interest is corporate profits, admitted that the “personal economy of most Americans is going south.”

http://www.forbes.com/2007/12/12/unsolicited-advice-campaign-oped_meb_12...

In the next installment find out how the fast-food industry enters into a discussion of the economy.

Rebates: should Americans who don’t pay income taxes receive them?

The Star Tribune says rebate checks could be going out in May under the proposed economic stimulus package. Who will get them?

http://www.startribune.com/business/14452321.html

Rich Lowry’s take, an editor of the National Review, a right-leaning publication, is as close as you can get to the thinking of local Republican no-tax legislators and council members. Lowry says there are more than 40 million income-tax filers who have no income-tax liability. Lowry isn’t very happy about it.

He says since “Democrats insist on spreading around rebates to people who don’t pay their federal income taxes that it just goes to prove the LIE about the federal tax code, as a rancorous scheme by “Republicans economic elites” that “the rich live at the expense of the poor.”

Lowry says “Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards can barely say the word “taxes” without retailing some version of this tale, which is detached from reality and has been getting steadily more so.”

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjlhYjgxZmY4ZWQyM2EwYzgzODE0YjdkMTg...

Lowry’s the one detached from reality.

Here’s what he should have said: there are more wealthy people paying more taxes and a disproportionately increasing number of people at or below mid-income, not paying taxes. And here’s why they’re not.

According to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), the inequality or disparity between those who have and those who have not is increasing and is the highest on record.

The EPI says data from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reveals “a historically sharp increase in household income inequality over the past few years. The increase in income concentration among the rich in the 2003-05 period has been the largest on record, and has resulted in a transfer of $400 billion dollars from households in the bottom 95% of the income scale to those in the top 5%. In other words, had income shares not shifted as they did, the income of each of the 109 million households in the bottom 95% would have been $3,660 higher in 2005.”

“According to the CBO data, by 2005, the top fifth held a larger share of both pre- tax and post-tax income than everyone else in the bottom 80%. On a pre-tax basis in 2005, the top 1%, with 18.1% of total income, held a much larger share of income than the bottom 40% of households, which only received 12.5%.”

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/ib239

As for the debate over the rebate,” Lowry thinks it’s a questionable “premise to kick-start the economy by scattering money around,” so his attitude is “lower-income people paying no income taxes might as well be included.” Lowry says he doesn’t want the moment to pass without repeating once more that “the tax system that Democrats say is being skewed in favor of the rich, is not, except in the sense that it exacts more taxes from them.”

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjlhYjgxZmY4ZWQyM2EwYzgzODE0YjdkMTg...

The best response to give Lowry is stop the spin and try doing a little better research. Here’s some readily available information from a Congressional Budget Office study done in 2004. “President Bush's tax cuts since 2001 have shifted more of the tax burden from the nation's rich to middle-class families, according to a study released by the Congressional Budget Office.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/16/politics/main636398.shtml

Moody’s tells us why rebates for those who may only contribute to payroll taxes, gas taxes and other user taxes, is critical to the economy:
According to the chief economist of Moody's Economy.com, who points to a study published in 2001, “when households received rebates between $300 and $600, consumers spent two-thirds of those rebates within six months of receiving them. The study estimates the rebates gave a healthy boost to consumer spending at the time. “

The economists said that "The effectiveness of a tax rebate on consumer spending would be enhanced if targeted to lower and middle income households that are more financially constrained and thus more likely to quickly spend the rebate check."

A study of various stimulus options by the Congressional Budget Office found that a one-time rebate could be highly cost-effective in terms of boosting demand if it's focused on people most likely to spend it.”

http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/18/news/economy/rebate_how_it_works/index.h...

Senator Chuck Schumer, D, N.Y. chairman of the congressional Joint Economic Committee says, “People making $35,000 to $50,000 pay a lot of federal taxes, but much of that is not income tax, but directed to programs like Social Security.

Schumer said "If we did the rebate based on the payroll tax, it would hit a lot more people at a lower end of the spectrum. And so to just say income taxes are the only taxes we're considering that people pay is unfair."

Schumer estimated that about 22 million households file income tax returns but do not pay that tax because their earnings are so low. An additional 22 million households do not file a return, he said. This group includes many older people on fixed incomes.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/20/news/economy/bc.apfn.economy.stimulus.ap...

What has completely escaped Lowry, who represents the Republican viewpoint, is that it’s not the top 1% or the top fifth who are going to put money right back into the economy in BIG numbers. Lowry did concede that the millions who don’t pay taxes, who would qualify for the rebate, out number the wealthiest Americans. That’s millions of millions of Americans.

http://www.urban.org/publications/410404.html

According to CNN, today, Jan 28, 2008, Sources on Capitol Hill and at the Treasury Department, "said the plan would send checks of $600 to individuals and $1,200 to couples who paid income tax and who filed jointly.

People who did not pay federal income taxes but who had earned income of more than $3,000 would get checks of $300 per individual or $600 per couple.

A Democratic aide and Republican aide said there will be an additional amount per child, which could be in the neighborhood of $300.

Those who earn up to $75,000 individually or up to $150,000 as a couple will be eligible for the payments, said Republican and Democratic sources familiar with the tentative deal.

Pelosi said as many as 116 million American families will get a rebate check.

To get to the agreement, Democrats dropped calls for increases in food stamps and an extension of unemployment compensation. Republicans agreed to allow people who pay Social Security taxes but not income taxes to get the checks, sources said. "

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/24/economic.stimulus/index.html

That means the lowest in the ecnomic rung and those who might be looking, but don't have jobs, won't be compensated. The Urban Institute says the "non-working poor estimate is 5% of the total population."

McCain's 100 Year War

What wasn’t discussed at the Republican debate and is directly related to the war in Iraq are pocket book issues at home and Department of Defense pork. The two are seldom mentioned as intrinsically tied.

McCain “blames his own party for some of the economic woes. "Stop the out of control
spending," McCain has said.

http://wcbstv.com/campaign08/john.mccain.economy.2.633533.html

The Cato Institute, a conservative think-tank, says that pork for the Department of Defense increased under the Republican-controlled 104th Congress. According to Cato, pork can include: “unnecessary weapons programs and military bases that are not needed for national security but remain open to provide economic benefits to the surrounding communities and corporate welfare, in the form of subsidies to defense contractors. In addition, the defense budget includes programs that are not even marginally related to national security, which should either be eliminated or moved to the relevant budget classification.”

Cato termed Republican Defense
Spending, “beyond the call of the Pentagon,” saying “the 104th Congress added $6.9 billion in additional appropriations to the Pentagon's fiscal year 1996 budget and $11 billion more than the $254 billion the Clinton administration requested to the FY97 military budget.”

http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb105-8.html

According to a 2005 USA Today article billions of dollars are spent on classified Pentagon projects with scant public oversight. The Defense budget has been referred to as a “depository for spending” that members of Congress shield from public view. Often the strings attached to a company and their political contributions to the Pentagon are thread bare. Classified Pentagon spending increased nearly 48% to about $27 billion since Sept 11th. An expert who specializes in congressional intelligence issues was quoted as saying “there’s a lot of room for wrongdoing that can be hidden from the public.”

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-11-08-pentagon-spending_x.h...

At the 2008 New Hampshire primary McCain is said to have “wooed military tech company BAE systems” whose CEO divulged he had already voted for McCain absentee-style.
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9840628-7.html

BAE’s political contributions to Republicans during the 2006 elections far exceeded those to Democrats. According to Source Watch BAE Systems is the largest arms manufacturer in Europe and the fourth biggest in the world.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=BAE_Systems

According to a New York Times op-ed in 2007, “apart from war costs and personnel increases, the defense budget slips in more than $40 billion in other spending increases, compared with last year. Since Mr. Bush took office, the Pentagon budget has more than doubled. It is now higher, in real terms, than it has been in the past half-century. “

That includes “roughly $140 billion in weapons procurement, research and development costs that are not part of the Iraq and Afghanistan section of the budget.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/06/opinion/06tue1.html

McCain has said the U.S. presence in Iraq may be a "hundred years, a thousand years or "a million years," and that it’s not all about an “American presence” in Iraq; it's about “American casualties."

McCain references the presence of “U.S. troops stationed in South Korea, Japan, Europe, Bosnia, and elsewhere as part of a "generally accepted policy of America's multilateralism. There's nothing wrong with Iraq being part of that policy, providing the government in Baghdad does not object,” he has said.

Certainly our weapons use would decrease, the loss of life would decrease...

According to Mother Jones “McCain does not equate victory in Iraq--which he passionately urges at campaign events--with the removal of U.S. troops from that nation.”

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/01/6735_mccain_in_nh_w...

In “What ‘progress’ in Iraq Really Means,” an article posted by Tom Englehardt at The Nation, Englehardt says the “percentage of Americans in the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll who had served in Iraq or "had a close friend or relative who served in Iraq," who approve of the President's handling of the Iraq conflict is 38%. In a May New York Times/CBS News poll, fewer than half of military families and military members agreed that "the United States did the right thing in invading Iraq."

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070827/engelhardt

McCain said that if the Bush administration’s plan had not produced visible signs of progress by the time a McCain presidency began, he might be forced — if only by the will of public opinion — to end American involvement in Iraq.

More on how Hillary is being courted by the industry that supported (past tense) McCain. WHY do you think?

Kodak Moments: one day before Super Tuesday

In perusing the punditry before Tuesday, you can’t help notice the candid, rock bottom assessments. Pundits are now talking about the leap we have to arrive at when we vote on Tuesday, Will they, or won’t they do what they say? What are they really up against in order to achieve their campaign promises?

When it’s all said and done and they’re out of the test tube, in the real world of politics trying to do what they said they were going to do, it’s quite a different dynamic.

According to Op-ed columnist Paul Krugman, if Hillary wins there’s a chance we’ll get Universal Health Care Coverage, if Obama wins there’s no chance.

Krugman says that “Obama has demonized the idea of mandates — most recently in a scare-tactics mailer sent to voters that bears a striking resemblance to the “Harry and Louise” ads run by the insurance lobby in 1993, ads that helped undermine our last chance at getting universal health care.

If Mr. Obama gets to the White House and tries to achieve universal coverage, he’ll find that it can’t be done without mandates — but if he tries to institute mandates, the enemies of reform will use his own words against him.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html?em&ex=120227400...

Stanley Fish, in the New York Times, “Think Again” blog, “All you Need Is Hate” says that however the campaign turns out Hillary hating is here to stay. When trying to understand the furor of hatred, Fish says “the search for a unifying theory of what drives Hillary’s most fanatical opponents is a futile one.” The reason is that nothing drives it; it is that most sought-after thing, a self-replenishing, perpetual-energy machine.” From obsessive hatred of her hairstyle to the crazy insinuations she’s Osama Bin Laden’s candidate, the hatred recalls the onslaught against the Clintons when they were in the White House. The problem with Fish’s ideas is that he makes no distinction as to where the hostility is coming from? Well, one can only assume he knows that everyone already knows.

http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/all-you-need-is-hate/?em&ex=120...

Then there’s Mike Huckabee, who thinks he can capture the Evangelical vote that carried GWB to two stints in the White House. But, it would seem the fervency that propelled Bush has given way to practicality. Evangelicals don’t think Huckabee can win. Despite the populist message and unwavering faith, the thinking is that the choice is the “lesser of two evils.” Can Huckabee win and is McCain committed to banning abortion.” This time around the choice for Evangelicals is not so clear cut.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/03/AR200802...

Columnists are calling Romney “deeply bendable.” In an Op Ed by columnist William Kristol, New York Times, “Dyspepsia on the Right” he says “This is an important moment for the conservative movement. Not because conservatives have some sort of obligation to fall in behind John McCain. They don’t. Those conservatives who can’t abide McCain are free to rally around Mitt Romney. And if McCain does prevail for the nomination, conservatives are free to sit out the election.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04kristol.html?scp=3&sq=Romney...

Across the pond even Europeans think that John McCain has punctured the conservative mold. “Even Sen. John McCain is being lauded for having, in the words of a Times of London columnist, "overthrown the old order of the Republican Party."

What does Europe really think? It doesn’t bode well for Republicans if American voters heed Europe’s sentiments. Evidently what’s discussed over there are “the relative strengths of Clinton vis a vis Obama, which are analyzed endlessly in newspapers. Few Europeans could pick former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney out of a lineup. In Britain, even some Conservatives, the historical allies of the Republican Party, have been lured over to the Democratic camp. Simon Burns, a Tory member of Parliament, blames the GOP for waging a war in Iraq whose unpopularity in Europe knows no bounds.”

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-global-europefeb04,1...

Wednesday-

After the fact: are more voters basing their vote on a wider array of information, available through sources that both support or oppose candidates? And maybe if that's true it's because we are becoming sophisticated enough to realize truth comes in many sizes and shapes, color and gender, like the candidates; we all have to arrive at our own truth…..

Splitsville and a Frontrunner?

The outcome of Super Tuesday in Minnesota couldn’t be more ideologically split.

What became true of Minnesota, a “live” voting state, was both the Republican and Democratic race to the White House resulted in an overwhelmingly polar outcome: ultra liberal and ultra conservative victories.

Minnesota Republicans voted for a candidate who didn't win nationally, who was marginalized in most big contests, except for historically ultra conservative states and his homestate.

According to CBS News, it's party activists who attend caucuses, resulting in an outcome that tends to swing super liberal and super conservative. The "live" voting format also pulls in young voters, but because of the venue and time commitment, the “live” vote dissuades older voters.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/05/opinion/main3791239.shtml

What’s strikingly similar about the national result for McCain and Clinton, despite the fact that neither of them won Minnesota, is that they both won the big prizes, despite some adverse conditions: McCain because the conservative hierarchy doesn’t want to endorse him and Clinton for rising above endorsements intended to sway the vote in Obama’s direction.

Both did more than survive, despite their adversity.

Keeping Control of Ramstad’s swing seat….

Paulsen Bipartisan?

Emily’s list calls Republican Erik Paulsen a right-wing ideologue.

This is what Emily’s list has to say about Erik Paulsen: "He is a state representative with a staunchly anti-choice voting record. During 13 years in the legislature, Paulsen has repeatedly voted against the interests of ordinary Minnesotans. He voted to cut 24,000 Minnesotans off of the state’s health care program, going beyond Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s proposal. Paulsen also voted against raising Minnesota’s minimum wage, calling the bill “a job killer.”

"Paulsen had been majority leader but lost the post when Democrats took back the House in 2006. Republicans are rallying around him as the de facto nominee, and he can count on the support of right-wing special interests and national Republicans who will stop at nothing to keep control of this swing House seat."

http://www.emilyslist.org/candidates/terri_bonoff/

In a Star Tribune story, Paulsen declaring himself “an heir to the common-sense political tradition of Jim Ramstad. “ Only Paulsen’s record can belie his own statements/voting record. And here it is:

1." In 2003, while House Majority Leader (so this would be before he lost to Marty Siefert), Paulsen led the effort to make what the Pioneer Press called the “Deepest cuts in state history”. These cuts eliminated health coverage for 68,000 Minnesotans and cut child care assistance by $87 million.

2.In 2005, Paulsen continued in his dastardly ways and voted to eliminate coverage for 24,000 Minnesotans.

3.In the words of one state legislator I spoke to, Paulsen “led the charge” in favor of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

4.During this last session (so after he lost to Seifert and was no longer Republican Leader) he was one of only 43 members (out of 134) to oppose the bipartisan transportation plan when it was initially passed by the House. "

http://mnpublius.com/2008/01/i-know-jim-ramstad-jim-ramstad-is-a-friend-...

And Paulsen now says he is going to be bipartisan? He’s going to represent all of us, not just the right-wing extremes of his own party? That just doesn’t compute.

According "Politics In Minnesota," in a 2007 weekly report, Rep. Erik Paulsen (R-Eden Prairie). “appears to have taken more extreme stances on issues under former Speaker Sviggum's tutelage, as compared to Bonoff's more moderate, open-door approach. “ Bonoff is a DFLer running against Paulsen in the third.

http://www.politicsinminnesota.com/the-weekly-report/politics-minnesota:...

In 2007 Paulsen voted against a gas tax and the bill( HF946) was vetoed by Pawlenty. The bill passed the House. According to a story on KARE11.com, “Bob Vanasek, head of the MN Inter-County Government Association, told reporters funding for new highway projects and maintenance dropped significantly since 2006, and that lawmakers and the Governor should not be allowed to leave without a major investment in transportation and transit."

"Don’t go home without one," he said should be the theme of the 2007 session. Vanasek said the Department of Transportation is constantly forced to choose between basic maintenance and new construction.”

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/projects/ongoing/votetracker/legislator...

http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=252328

Only a handful of Republicans voted for this bill. Paulsen wasn’t one of them.

EP fact checker, your colors are starting to show. You no longer are reporting facts, but rather, you are reporting your obvious dislike towards Obama and of course, the Republican party.
You said "Obama's bluster and brass or Hillary's substance", this tells us everything about you Vamma, or whatever your name is. The above article is seething with your dislike for Obama, and your extreme glorification of Hillary. Do you ever wonder why few of us even respond to your blog? Because it is all one sided. Whats the point. Please post under a different name other than "EPfactchecker", because honestly, it really shows how shallow your articles are.

BTW, we really don't need another 8 years of Clintongate, all the lies, deceit, impeachments, Travelgate, Whitewater, Monica, blah, blah blah. Give us the fresh senator from Illinois or a seasoned politician like JM.

Gender, Race, Ideological Divide in 2008 Election
Obama Sweeps…..
Huckabee Embarrasses

Washington State- Seattle Times

The two candidates in the Democratic race attract diverse groups: Hillary attracted women, who represented 57% of the turn out on Super Tuesday and Barack Obama matched her among blacks, men and younger voters.
With both Clinton and Obama campaigning in Washington State, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer ran a page-one story headlined: "Among women, contest is one for the ages.” The article, “described many Seattle-area Democratic women splitting largely along generational lines, with older women backing Clinton, 60, and many younger ones opting for Obama, 46.”
According to the Seattle Times article, “Obama, Clinton Woo Women Voters,” Feb 9, 2008, the burden of choice is not an easy one.

Obama looking strong at 4PM. Obama wins Washington.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004173596_apdemocratswom...

Kansas- the Kansas City Star-

The Kansas City Star reported Huckabee’s overwhelmingly victory there today, winning all of the state’s delegates. The Republican turn out was considerably less than the Democratic turn out on Super Tuesday. The other interesting factor is that some Republicans said because voters expected him to win anyway, the total vote for McCain may have been suppressed. It’s definitely just one of the problem areas in the way the country votes.

“Republican officials expected about 15,000 voters Saturday, but wound up with 20,009 statewide. While that total beat expectations, it fell short of the 37,000 Democrats who showed up Tuesday to decide between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Some Republicans said McCain’s totals may have been suppressed by the notion that many voters expect him to become the GOP nominee and that their votes mattered little.”
http://www.kansascity.com/

Nebraska- The Journal Star

The results are coming in at 5:00PM CST time in Butler County and Clinton edged Obama. The final tally in Saline County is nearly even between the two candidates.

The results will be announced at 7:15 PM. There was concern about timing of the results announcement which was discussed at a Dec. 8 state central committee meeting, and “it was the decision of a majority attending not to restrict the timing and means of the release of each county’s caucus results.’’

http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2008/02/09/news/local/doc47ae38b18f9...

The Times Picayune-

In Louisiana, it was reported that Romney's backers might go to the polls and vote for their candidate as a protest against McCain and to possibly deny delegates to McCain.

http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-2/1202538215...

Louisiana vote largely split on racial lines. 5% of the African American population in New Orleans are gone after Katrina according to CNN.

WA: Obama 67%, Clinton 31%
NE: Obama 68%, Clinton 32%
LA: Obama 53%, Clinton 38%

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/politics/?hpid=topnews

UPDATE SUNDAY-

Huckabee sweeps, further embarrasses McCain....

Reading Red: Truth About Media

You’ve heard this a zillion times before, and right here on this Forum, “the media is too liberal.” It’s the complaint of almost every Republican/conservative I know.

Well, let’s finally correct this fallacy, most likely perpetuated by conservatives themselves, which is totally unfounded.

According to a Media Matters article from 2007, Media Matters "contacted each paper individually and asked which syndicated columnists are published on their op-ed pages.” That means every newspaper in the entire country.

What they found is that “in paper after paper, state after state, and region after region, conservative syndicated columnists get more space than their progressive counterparts. As Editor & Publisher paraphrased one syndicate executive noting, "U.S. dailies run more conservative than liberal columns, but some are willing to consider liberal voices."

“Though papers may be "willing to consider" progressive syndicated columnists, this unprecedented study reveals the true extent of the dominance of conservatives”

http://mediamatters.org/reports/oped/

One would think that the larger and more heavily concentrated blue states, with larger diverse population centers, and more access to different media, would not be outweighed by conservative dominance, but, that’s only the case in the Northeast, by a small percentage point.

•According to Media Matters, “In eight of the nine divisions into which the U.S. Census Bureau divides the country, conservative syndicated columnists reach more readers than progressive syndicated columnists in any given week.”
•In three out of the four broad regions of the country -- the West, the South, and the Midwest -- conservative syndicated columnists reach more readers than progressive syndicated columnists. Only in the Northeast do progressives reach more readers, and only by a margin of 2 percent. "

http://mediamatters.org/reports/oped/

The breakdown of regular columnist within each paper is alarming: 60% conservative, 20% balanced and 20% more progressive.

Media Matters reports, “Obviously, larger newspapers tend to serve larger cities, which are not only more likely to have a progressive populace than smaller communities but also tend to be more demographically diverse in many ways. A small paper, on the other hand, may serve a local area that is relatively homogeneous. But without speculating too much about the ideological leanings of individual newspaper owners and the communities those papers serve, it can be said that smaller papers, at least on this measure, are more likely to lean right.”

http://mediamatters.org/reports/oped/

The Media Matters article is filled with graphs and valuable information. There’s an appendix with columnists profiles so you can find which columnists are progressive or conservative. Columnists are ranked by total reach and average circulation.

"The conclusion of all the data shows, “Conservatives are often heard to complain about the "liberal media," a nefarious cabal of journalists and media owners supposedly endeavoring to twist the news to serve their ideological agenda. Media Matters for America has shown in a variety of ways that the "liberal media" is a myth. Our two reports on the Sunday talk shows showed how those programs are dominated by conservative guests. "

"Our analysis of the coverage of religion showed how that coverage favors conservatives. Analyses performed by other organizations have shown how conservatives dominate talk radio. And this study demonstrates that in yet another key portion of the news media, conservatives enjoy a structural advantage that gives them a leg up in influencing public opinion.”

“In short, while the right wing spends a great deal of time complaining about alleged bias in the media, when it comes to the nation's op-ed pages, it is the progressives who are getting the short end of the stick.”

http://mediamatters.org/reports/oped/

Frame-up: 2008 Election

According to Wikipedia, “the term framing refers to an inevitable process of selective influence over the individual's perception of the meanings attributed to words or phrases. Framing defines the packaging of an element of rhetoric in such a way as to encourage certain interpretations and to discourage others. The mass-media or specific political or social movements or organizations may establish media frames.”

"Framing is the process by which a communication source, such as a news organization, defines and constructs a political issue or public controversy".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(social_sciences)

Here’s a Washington Post article, “Campaign Story Lines, All Knotted Up” (2/11/08) by Howard Kurtz talking about framing. This was republished at www.fair.org:

“Identifying "the key to the way news organizations have framed this campaign": "Whether it's cleavage, cackling or crying, as in Clinton's case, the personal trumps the political. Tackling what is actually happening... is insufficiently exciting."

"Even as McCain was winning nine states on Super Tuesday, much of the television chatter was about whether he could persuade Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and other conservative radio talkers to stop beating up on him. Although that is a significant story, it's not quite in the same league as the Arizona senator amassing nearly two-thirds of the delegates needed for nomination. But it's more fun to kick around.... In the wake of Obama's four-state weekend sweep, the Democratic race may drag on for weeks or months and ultimately be resolved by superdelegates. “

Fair.org says this is “Not a bad story from the Post's frequently toothless media critic, though it's odd he includes a complaint about the press "trying to winnow the field" of candidates, since he's on record doing just that himself.”

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=22&media_view_id=9823

How are the candidates framed and by whom: each other, pundits, media? Are these portrayals accurate and how can we determine accuracy? Watch for a series on the remaining candidates…

Murdoch Deciding Election?

Framing #4

The Century Foundation, a “nonprofit public policy research institution founded on the belief that the prosperity and security of the United States depends on a mix of effective government, open democracy, and free markets says Murdoch media contains “small pockets of class in oceans of crass.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_Foundation#Trustees
http://www.centuryinstitute.org/list.asp?type=NC&pubid=1573

Outfoxed looks at Rupert Murdoch's Fox News and how its “been running a "race to the bottom" in television news. This film provides an in-depth look at Fox News and the dangers of ever-enlarging corporations taking control of the public's right to know."

http://www.outfoxed.org/

Reason Magazine, a publication of the Reason Foundation, says the idea that Rupert Murdoch is controlling the media is nothing more than a “domination fantasy.”

http://www.reason.com/news/show/29001.html

"Reason Foundation is a nonprofit think tank founded in 1986 that also publishes Reason magazine. Based in Los Angeles, Reason is self-described as nonpartisan and publishes a statement of values that can best be described as libertarian. Like most think tanks, they are a tax exempt organization that provides papers and studies to support a particular set of values. According to Reason's web site, these are "the values of individual freedom and choice, limited government, and market-friendly policies." Many of the foundation's studies focus on California issues and issues involving local governments. Affiliated projects include Privatization.org, UrbanFutures, NewEnvironmentalism.org. Charity Navigator, an independent rating group, rated the foundation with two out of four stars. Reason is funded by such organizations as the American Petroleum Institute, Chevron, ExxonMobil, DaimlerChrysler, Ford Motors, General Motors and Shell."

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

The Huffington Post reported on Feb 4, 2008, that the Murdoch, Hillary honeymoon was over. Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post endorsed Barack Obama.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/04/honeymoon-over-for-rupert_n_847...

This was carried by the New York Times Blog in January of 2008 and bloggers responded to it: “The New York Post has endorsed Barack Obama for president, saying his rival for the Democratic nomination, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, represented the old politics of the past. “Obama represents a fresh start,” The Post stated in an editorial on its Web site. “His opponent, and her husband, stand for déjà vu all over again - a return to the opportunistic, scandal-scarred, morally muddled years of the almost infinitely self-indulgent Clinton co-presidency.”

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/30/new-york-post-endorses-oba...

Many bloggers asked why aren't they just endorsing Obama? Why the vituperative slant on Hillary? Why not just endorse the positives of Obama? In other words, as a blogger wrote, “Is this a pro-Obama endorsement or an anti-Hillary endorsement.”

A June 2007 article in the New York Times, “Murdoch, Ruler of a Vast Empire, Reaches Out for More," reported that Congress was on the verge of l"imiting any company from owning local television stations that reached more than 35 percent of American homes. Mr. Murdoch’s Fox stations reached nearly 39 percent, meaning he would have to sell some. "

"A strike force of Mr. Murdoch’s lobbyists joined other media companies in working on the issue. The White House backed the industry, and in a late-night meeting just before Thanksgiving, Congressional leaders agreed to raise the limit — to 39 percent."

"One leader of the Congressional movement to limit ownership was Senator Trent Lott, Republican of Mississippi. But in the end, he, too, agreed to the compromise. It turns out he had a business connection to Mr. Murdoch. Months before, HarperCollins, Mr. Murdoch’s publishing house, had signed a $250,000 book deal to publish Mr. Lott’s memoir, “Herding Cats,” records and interviews show.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/25/business/media/25murdoch.html

In an article, “The Most Biased Name in News, Fox News Channel's Extraordinary Right-wing tilt,” on Fair.org there’s a Rupert Murdoch quote:

"I challenge anybody to show me an example of bias in Fox News Channel."--Rupert Murdoch (Salon, 3/1/01)

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067

Murdoch's media reach is huge. An example of some of the issues he takes on is the environment.

According to a Grist.org interview with Rupert Murdoch about News Corp.'s new climate strategy, May 2007, "Amanda Little writes, "When Rupert Murdoch, the cantankerous and conservative owner of Fox News, enthusiastically joins the fight against climate change, you know we're past the tipping point on the issue. Think landslide."

Little asked Murdoch, "You're known for making business-savvy decisions. What's your bottom-line argument for your climate program?"

Murdoch said, "Whatever it costs will be minimal compared to our overall revenues, and we'll get that back many times over, by running a more efficient company and by growing morale among our employees. This program is a huge morale builder."

Little says Murdoch's environmental advocacy is so big it will even overshadow Gore's "An Inconvienent Truth."

Another thing to note is that the author of the article , Little, has a book deal with HarperCollins, a News Corp. company, A Murdoch Company.)

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2007/05/16/murdoch/

Words: if they’re so important, where are they?

It’s peculiar, maybe that’s too tame a word, how media controls the conversation; words that were on ever major news web site yesterday are mysteriously missing today.

If you try to google Michelle Obama’s name today in relation to her controversial remark(s), you won’t find them easily. If you add the word remark after her name, they pop up on blogs, the Huffington Press, Fox News, the LA times and a conservative site called Newsbusters, which “exposes and combats Liberal Media.”

Newsbusters accuses what they term a “liberal news media” for the deletion. Newsbusters says, “First she said that only Obama can "fix America's broken soul," and now this. If anything can stop Obama from getting the nomination or eventual Presidency, his wife running her mouth could be it. “

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/john-stephenson/2008/02/18/will-media-ignor...

When Bill or Hillary Clinton make a verbal misstep it’s on every media site on the Internet, “Liberal” or “Conservative.” All Hillary has to do is “belly laugh” and she’s sized up like a meal to be devoured by an insatiable audience.

Well, conservative outlets like Fox “aren’t so ready to let her [Michelle Obama] off the hook either, “as we should expect.

http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/category/top-story/

Newsbusters says, “The question is, will the media pay attention to this gaffe? Probably not much, and that is why the bloggers have to.”

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/john-stephenson/2008/02/18/will-media-ignor...

When John McCain made his “100 Year War” comment it was all over the Internet, but you won’t find it until you get to page 3 of Google; Real Clear Politics and Fox News is defending the comment.

Interestingly, when Hillary made her supposed racial comment about King’s dream being fully realized by Lyndon Johnson, she was attacked by members of her own party. Ed Koch, the former Democratic Mayor of New York, who writes for Realclearpolitics, which is not considered “Liberal” media, came to her defense.

In an article written by the former Mayor, who BTW voted for George Bush, Koch said, “Most shocking for me was that The Times contributed to the misconception of Hillary's statement. In its editorial on the matter, it stated, "Why Mrs. Clinton would compare herself to Mr. Johnson, who escalated the war in Vietnam into a generational disaster, was baffling enough. It was hard to escape the distasteful implication that a black man needed the help of a white man to effect change. The Times charge against Senator Clinton that she implied "a black man needed the help of a white man to effect change" is truly a stretch and an outrage. Does The Times believe that Dr. Martin Luther King's extraordinary ability to inspire would alone have been able to get a white Southern-dominated Congress to pass a host of several important civil rights bills? Without the leadership.”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/the_times_attack_on_hi...

Obama says “words” are important. So, here are some “words” for thought.

I've been reading the book "A Woman In Charge" by Carl Bernstein, about Hillary Clinton. I'm only about a third of the way through, but one thing in particular strikes my attention so far:

Hillary had accomplished a great deal before she even met Bill, and was a rising star. Several of her close feminist friends from the 60's tried to convince her not to marry Bill, as she would become a secondary figure, supporting him in his run for the presidency, instead of having a career of her own. Hillary actually turned down Bill's proposal for marriage several times, and, after a long time of difficult consideration, she finally consented to marry him. (Two of the main factors to consider were Bills' womanizing, and that she was reluctant to move to Arkansas because she preferred to stay in the big cities where the exciting political action was going on which would boost here career.)

After marrying Bill, Hillary insisted on keeping her name: Hillary Rodham. She also spent much time focusing on her law career during Bill's first term as governor of Arkansas. Many Arkansans did not like the fact that she was not a traditional governor's wife, and it was brought up against Bill during his next campaign for governor, which he lost. So much for feminism. Eventually, Hillary decided that Bill's winning was more important than her keeping her name, so she changed it to Hillary Clinton and devoted more of her energies towards his next campaign, which they won.

The partnership between Bill and Hillary was crucial to his political career. They had personality characteristics which complemented each other: Bill had vision and inspiration; Hillary the organizatonal skills and drive to get things done. Bill listened to Hillary's advice.

Some people may suggest that Hillary Clinton is riding on the Bill Clinton connection to help her presidential race. The question remains, however: Would Hillary have run for president even sooner had she never met Bill?

SpongeBob Square Pants, Mickey Mouse and Free Trade

Regardless of whether you have kids at home or if you’ve never had to call the Consumer Products Safety Commission checking up on products you bought made in China, you still might want to know that the Chinese government has banned all American made cartoons in their country to protect their own fledgling cartoon industry, according to Comcast News.

http://www6.comcast.net/tv/articles/2008/02/20/China.Cartoon.Ban/

Well, if you aren’t already steaming mad, read on; cause you will be. The United States has a Memorandum of Understanding with China to ensure product safety. Well, that hasn’t stopped a steady stream of unsafe products made and sold by American toy companies like Mattel.

http://www.cpsc.gov/BUSINFO/intl/mouchina.pdf

While families in the U.S. are returning toys made in China decorated with lead paint, the Toy Industry Association is attempting to support legislation requiring national mandatory safety testing of all toys sold in the United States. But you guessed it, predictably, a “call for more regulation was received coolly by some in the industry, who say government isn’t the answer. " They are essentially saying tht product safety should be handled inside the industry. That means no neutral oversight.

http://www.inc.com/inc5000/articles/20071001/killer-toys-for-christmas.h...

Way back in 2002, a Business Week article, “China’s Fading Free Trade Fervor, ”reported that “U.S. exports to China peaked at a record $19.2 billion in [2001], but imports from China, by Washington's calculations, also hit a high: $102.3 billion. At $83 billion for two years in a row, this is the biggest trade deficit the U.S. runs. “

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jun2002/nf2002065_4830.htm

According to a 2007 article on Federal News Radio online, which covers both the Federal Government and those who do business with the government concentrating on "management, procurement, technology, security, policy and pay & benefits," in 2007, “the U.S. trade imbalance with China ran at an annual rate of $256 billion, on track to surpass the [2006] record high for any country of $233 billion.”

“The rise reflected record imports from China on the back of increased shipments of toys and games and televisions for Christmas. The demand is still strong despite a string of high-profile recalls of Chinese products from toys with lead paint to defective tires and tainted toothpaste.”

“The deficits have triggered a backlash in the U.S. Congress, with dozens of bills introduced seeking to penalize China for what critics see as unfair trade practices contributing to the loss of 3 million U.S. manufacturing jobs since 2000.”

“But Paulson [U.S. Treasury Secretary] did push China to open its markets more to U.S. goods and services, while Wu [China's top negotiator, Vice Premier Wu Yi] said Beijing can't be blamed for enthusiastic U.S. consumer demand for inexpensive Chinese products and urged Washington to lift restrictions on high-tech exports.Wu also bristled at any protectionist moves, warning they could be a double-edged sword.”

http://www.federalnewsradio.com/?nid=185&sid=1296572

In 2006, the Chinese government urged the U.S. to ease or even abolish controls over exports of high-technology goods to China, following indications Washington proposed to tighten such restrictions.”

http://www.gzboftec.gov.cn/articles/2006-6/18716.htm

Toys are one thing, but high technology exports are another. In a 2005 Business Week article, Jeffrey Garten, Dean of the Yale School of Management said, “I fear that the U.S. hasn't come to grips with the implications of corporations doing so much R&D in China. U.S. companies are understandably seeking the best talent and lowest cost of operations anywhere. But in the process they are sharing America's intellectual treasures with a foreign rival in unprecedented ways. They are training foreign scientists and engineers and giving them and the omnipresent Chinese government access to their proprietary research programs.”

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_05/b3918057_mz007.htm

What are the candidates’ positions on Free Trade? Find out at this URL:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Free_Trade.htm#Headlines

Election-nomics-

Does the sports analogy “cheating is part of the appeal of the game,” that fans are compelled to it regardless of how the rules are broken, fit politics too? Are we interested, “not in spite of the scandals, but because of them?”

Stephen Dubner co-author of Freakonomics in his New York Times Op Ed, “Is Cheating Good for Sports,” says, “Maybe, however, this is just how we like it. As much as we profess to like the games for the games’ sake, perhaps cheating is part of the appeal, a natural extension of sport that people condemn on moral grounds, but secretly embrace as what makes sports most compelling. For all the talk of how cheating “destroys the integrity of the game,” maybe that’s not true at all? Perhaps cheating actually adds a layer of interest — a cat-and-mouse element, a detective-story element — that complements the game?”

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/

Dubner says that in sports we “love to applaud cheaters who have confessed their ways.” For example, “Pettitte, who got a hero’s welcome for talking about his HGH mistakes, while Clemens has soaked up ill will with every further denial.”

Maybe that’s how we like our politics— we go on about how we want “change,”— politicians promise “change,” despite the usual Beltway lack of ethics in its overwhelming moral proportions, but real change is as unlikely as a home-run shut-out. Nevertheless the image remains and is rarely fulfilled. Any discernable movement by our elected officials to get things done, more often than not, results in a strike out.

How does it all work in political terms? Bush’s denial that his administration misled Americans about hidden weapons of mass destruction and the cat-in-mouse delivery of Valerie Plame’s covert identity to the world, we could go on…but, do we really enjoy the intrigue or the resulting harm?

Dubner “wonders if our interest in sports springs eternal, not in spite of the cheating scandals, but because of them?”

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/

Do we all spring eternal, in spite of the cheating? Are we already trained to expect it? Most of us are repelled by it, e.g. redistricting to impact elections, disenfranchising voters, losing all touch with the public, rewriting science, Medicare reform fraud, Enron, the Bogus Iraq/Niger yellow cake uranium claims …… but we keep trying to find a way to make amends for political stars who will eventually fade into the backdrop of their Presidential Libraries.

Politics is the game of life, and there are many who say they hate the game, and surely at least half of us are already handicapped once the game begins, our candidate decidedly absent at the first State of the Union Message.

Ralph 74 yrs old

Wikipedia already has it up on their site:

Nader has run for President four times (in 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2004), and is running again in 2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader

He says Americans disenchanted with both parties.
http://www6.comcast.net/news/articles/general/2008/02/24/AP.Nader/

Fertile ground for the "spolier?" Maybe if our primary process had been set for one day nationally, we' have less damaged candidates, and stronger contenders who would be fresher, less labeled by the media and more ready for a national race.

One can't help but ask if this is just another media dream? So, the big question is does the media help plan the entire election process?

His Veep?

Must Read: Black Agenda Report
2007- Year of Black Media Leaders, especially Obama

Here's one quote from the article:

"Barack Obama's corporate-made and -financed presidential campaign is the product of three distinct factors, all mitigating against Black self-determination and political cohesion: 1) corporate decisions, made a decade ago, to provide media and financial support to pliant Black Democrats that can be trusted to carry Wall Street's water; 2) a widespread desire among whites to prove through the safe and simple act of voting that they are not personally racist, and/or to dismiss Black claims of pervasive racism in society, once and for all; 3) a huge reservoir of Jim Crow era, atavistic Black thinking that refuses to evaluate Black candidates' actual political stances, but instead revels in the prospect of Black faces in high places. A President Obama would, of course, be the zenith of such narrow, non-substantive, objectively self-defeating visions."

http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&...

Skip to the beat/blog?

No, run, because the beat goes on and on and on…right?

No, it’s the end of the Beat, Reporter that is.

Who are they or who were they? Is there such a thing anymore?

Wikipedia says Beat Reporting is the craft of reporting on an issue or particular sector, organization or institution over time. Beat reporters build up a base of knowledge on and gain familiarity with the sector, allowing them to provide insight and commentary in addition to reporting straight facts. This distinguishes them from other journalists who might cover similar stories from time to time.

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

Business Week magazine says the end of the beat reporters has come..

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/blogspotting/archives/2005/05/end...

In their Blogspotting section, the word out is that with the end of the Beat Reporter, comes the end of news as we know it, meaning some important news will not be covered. Well, we know that already.

The Blog also states that the new reporting will be branded versions of a new entrepreneurial kind of journalism that will employ citizen reporters as well as experts.

Have we already experienced this trending away from what was: the traditional reporter and traditional factual news coverage, to a highly personalized point-of-view kind of coverage? Well, yes...

The so-called newspapers have become the copy-cats of the worst rag publications. Is that how we want our politics? Evidently some do and some don’t.

One of the posters on the Blog said something we’ve heard before, "people seek out news they want to believe, not news that’s true. "

Well, getting to the REAL point: the beat reporter just might be replaced by blogs!

Here’s what News.com says; read the whole article at the URL below:

“ [Recently] Blogs have been credited with everything from CBS News anchorman Dan Rather's departure, to unauthorized previews of the latest Apple Computer products, to new transparency in presidential campaigns. The big question is whether blogs, short for Web logs, have the staying power to become more than just online diaries. [?]"

"Will bloggers upend the mainstream media? What legal protections should bloggers have? Is there a blogger business model? While no definitive answers exist just yet, experts at Wharton advise questioners to be patient. Blogging, they note, will be around for a long time. "

"Wharton legal studies professor Dan Hunter puts blogging right up there with the printing press when it comes to sharing ideas and disseminating information. "This is not a fad," Hunter says. "It's the rise of amateur content, which is replacing the centralized, controlled content done by professionals."

"The growth rate of blogs is impressive. Technorati, a search engine that monitors blogs, tracked more than 8 million online diaries as of March 21, up from 100,000 just two years ago. A new blog is created every 7.4 seconds. That adds up to 12,000 new blogs a day, 275,000 posts a day and 10,800 updates an hour. "

http://www.news.com/The-future-of-blogging/2030-1069_3-5654288.html

Maybe truth still has a chance?

Press Bias

Star Tribune prints AP article:

DALLAS - March 1, 2008- The founder of a prestigious institute on media and politics added his voice Saturday to the chorus of complaint over perceived press bias in favor of Democrat Barack Obama.

http://www.startribune.com/nation/16147342.html

Comedy Central, SNL

Giving more positive media coverage to Hillary than major network news...an irony?

"Clinton is scheduled to appear on Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” on Monday. "

http://www.foxnews.com/index.html

Utimate Irony

"Why are you afraid of her?"

For Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove and Ann Coulter, the elite of the Republican politicalspeak to support Hillary, finally tells what we all were thinking to ourselves, they didn't want to run against Hillary. But, now that they see how difficult it's been running against Obama, they want to make sure that Hillary beats him, not beats him up. Do you believe it? It's a total irony.

Souvenirs Anyone?

Among today's top-sellers, Florida Recount Buttons; Hillary Clinton Nutcracker with stainless thighs...

Ironic souvenirs!

http://www.politicalgifts.com/flormesbuton.html

Hillary Nutcracker Doll

Bomb Squad Removes Doll

Pretty Ironic. This was the same Hillary Nutcracker Doll you mentioned in a previous post, that's possibly sold by the same company. I guess we have to really look at where the negativism and hate is coming from...Since Hillary's wins this week, one of Obama's staff was fired for calling Hillary a "monster" and now this incident which had not been linked to Obama or his campaign at this point. This brings up a new discussion. You can't not link her wins with this public display of hatred.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/ireports/2008/03/07/irpt.meola.clinton....

Dudes and Avalanches

In Wyoming, home to dudes and this breaking news, "the East Entrance of Yellowstone (Sylvan Pass) has accessibility and will be open for over snow travel throughout the winter season with closures expected periodically due to avalanche danger."

And in Laramie Wyoming, their newspaper, called the Boomerang, says Barack Obama is a superstar there.

“We’ll invest in you”
“With music echoing, Pistol Pete waving the giant flag, cameras flashing and 8,500 people on their feet, presidential candidate Barack Obama made a rock star entrance last night in Laramie. In fact, even the rock stars in the audience were cheering for him.”

“Clinton’s visit to Cheyenne, which began 45 minutes later than scheduled, occurred just before Wyoming’s 2008 Democratic Party Convention. Today, Wyoming’s 12 delegates will be awarded to Clinton or her opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. “

"A line snaked its way around the Laramie County Community College gymnasium hours before Clinton was scheduled to speak, not unlike a crowd that waited hours to see her husband and former president Bill Clinton in Laramie Thursday."

http://www.laramieboomerang.com/

That’s it. That’s their home page and their news….

In the Planet Jackson Hole online, there’s an article on Wyoming Democrats going to caucus, with a reader comment entry from a Massachusetts resident who is a Clinton supporter.

“In the spirit of full disclosure, I am a Massachusetts resident and I am a Clinton supporter. Having said that, in my state I supported Gov. Patrick, whose ability to inspire prompted me to give inspiration over substance a chance. So far, one year later, inspiration is not translating into legislation. Nonetheless, at the level of state politics, the risk factor in making that choice was low. I do not believe that to be true at the level of national politics. As Wyoming considers the two candidates for the Democrat Nomination, it is my hope that you will support my candidate and support substance over inspiration. “
Northshorewoman

http://www.planetjh.com/politics/A_103122.aspx

The Wyoming Eagle out of Cheyenne reports their Governor has not endorsed either candidate. Bill, Hillary and Chelsea were all in Wyoming this week aand two Blog samples, the second one in response to the first:

"NOWAY HILLARY wrote on Mar 7, 2008 7:46 AM:
" I am a registered Republican and I will be voting Obama. I had enough of the Clintons in the 90's we DO NOT need round three with those two. Get realy Wyoming.....Hillary is a liar and a fake and people who support her have to be missing alot of brain cells. "

Born in Cheyenne wrote on Mar 7, 2008 7:40 AM:
" Home on the range. Where never is heard a discouraging word, and the skies are not cloudy all day. "

http://www.wyomingnews.com/articles/2008/03/06/local_news_updates/19loca...

The Casper Journal features a homeless cat on the front page with a link to a very short snippet on the candidates. A comment from Cheryl in Michigan:

Cheryl Amaniera wrote on Mar 7, 2008 7:29 PM:
" Please run in letter to editor of comments page. ...

“When you go to vote tomorrow take one minute to appreciate what you are doing. I am from Michigan and this year my vote will not count. But why should that concern you in Wyoming? Because the next time it could be you. “

“ALthough the voters had no choice in the election date the democratic National Committee (DNC)has decided that they must be punished because their dates were moved. Although there is no DNC bylaw that supports ever taking away votes or delegates in punishment for violating a DNC rule - they have done it.” (see bylaws of DNC at democrats.org)

http://www.casperjournal.com/articles/2008/03/08/news/news030508a.txt

Again, we have another election that underscores how important our ability to vote and voice our opinion is and how voters across the country are using the Internet to whistle stop on behalf of their candidate.

Rolling Stones Gather No Hate?

And we thought Rolling Stone was just selling music. The March 20th issue of Rolling Stone has an article about Hillary Clinton, and you won’t find the article online. For the price of almost five bucks, you can read a rather scathing political obit on Hillary Clinton. Perhaps timed for Easter, because it shows her suspended on a cross nailed to wooden stacks with blood dripping down her feet and hands.

So this is where people under 30 form their opinions about political candidates.

The lead in starts out: “Feb 25th -T minus eight days till it’s the end of Hillary Rodham Clinton.” They must have been talking about March 4th. Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island which went for Hillary, so not the end.

Then a giant caption in the middle of the second page: Clinton became everything she professed to hate, attacking “Obama as not American enough for the job.”

It’s a given that Rolling Stone didn’t use a Fact-Checker when they wrote this article, because it’s not about facts, it’s about a pure unadulterated hate on that builds with such a high pitched vibrato, the pages pulsate when you read them.

“Put delicately,” the writer says, “Hillary Clinton poses certain linguistic problems for journalists.” This must be a counterpoint to Obama’s euphonizing rhetoric.

No, apparently it’s about having to sidestep any critique of Hillary’s choice of attire, such as not being able to refer to a particular jacket (Edwards comment); the writer said they could make any verbalization about any of the male candidates, as being bald, prune faced, you get the idea. No words here about how to verbalize Barack’s appearance.

From here it’s downhill all the way, the writer suggests that female supporters of Hillary are so used to being on the other side of a heavy hand, a male one, that Hillary’s derailment to a man, made her a martyr to all women. That’s where the cross comes in.

Then the writer says, “everyone who was ever denied a promotion for spending too much time with her children or who had to deal with the whispers of being called a unkind word, or an “ice queen,” when in fact, she was just being a boss, could see themselves in Hillary’s shoes, dying on the cross of likability.” Four letter words have been removed.

The writer says that Hillary’s “arms were wrapped around hundreds of millions of dollars in corporate donations, wearing a chastened conservativism and a reflexive, accusatory patriotism on what she thought was the road to the Presidency.” Ah, “accusatory patriotism,” this newly coined bit of jingoism is a play on the media questioning Michelle and Barack Obama’s patriotism.

If being scourged on the cross, as metaphor, for the death of her candidacy wasn’t bad enough the writer states, “To indulge in a sixties metaphor, she (Hillary) kept on (Four letter word here) Mrs. Robinson and chose the career in plastics.”

This is to suggest, that she is an old corporate lady of the evening (four letter word removed) and that people want something new, like Barack Obama.

The writer says there will be an ugly end to all of this; but in the beginning of the article they had already stated the end was eight days after Feb 25th. Which was not the end.

And finally the piece de resistance, the writer states, “And in such a charged atmosphere, what is one to do with observation that there seems to be a certain class of Hillary supporters—women, particularly professional women, who are somewhat older— who will be quick to blame Hillary’s run of electoral misfortune against Obama on the sexist attitude that a woman is not quite ready to be President.”

More phrasing turned on its factual face to mock Clinton’s assertion that Barack is not ready to be President.

At each major point of contention with Hillary, Hillary the woman, Hillary the Presidential contender, the bias is against Hillary’s gender. And though it’s clearly Hillary on the cross, Bill is not far behind.

The article was not written by a woman.

Demographics

If when you vote for a candidates you're also voting for their stated position on core issues, it might uncomplicate the process. Caucuses are a terrible indication of who is voting for who or what.
Take for instance the demographic problem Obama has. Who will the working class, Aisian community and Latinos vote for if he runs in November? The article talks about him fighting for these groups more, but it would seem they are loyal to Clinton, so the article says.

There's going to be a lot of people who will be disenfranchised.

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=obamas_demographic_problem

Philly, not steak

Phill.com has a very comprehensive and fair selection of options for voters to gain information and voice their opinions. Much more than we had here in MN with the Star Trib. MN coverage was very tilted according to what presence the candidates had in the state.

Take a look at Philly.com's quiz and see which candidate you really support, see how much you know about their positions.
I can just imagine how many people take the quiz and wind up pretty shocked, that in fact, they're supporting the wrong candidate!

That did not happen to me!!

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/multimedia/16474886.html

Was the race that wasn’t about race always about race?

Obama’s support is overwhelmingly Black, and in the same vein white voters are supporting Hillary according to the latest Quinnipiac poll released March 18th: “the results also show a growing racial split among voters as Hillary Clinton's support among white voters grew, while Barak Obama's support among black voters grew.
White voters support Hillary Clinton 61 percent to 33 percent compared to 56 percent to 37 percent in the Feb. 27 poll.” That was before the speech, but it’s likely the disparity will only grow. Clinton has widened her lead among women likely Democratic primary voters and narrowed Obama's lead among men.”

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2008/03/poll_clinton_lead_in_...

Wasn’t Obama's speech an attempt to uphold his black support, while assuaging voters that this kind of hate speech is nothing more than the result of years of racism against Blacks?

Exactly what is “the change we can believe in?” Is it creating a coalition of voters based on understanding and accepting a hatred of whites? Does accepting hate speech represent “change.” Some say it’s an” honest and brutal speech”, a first.

But, one has to ask if the promise of a “new coalition,” based on unity is negated by Obama’s acceptance of hate speech? It’s hard to disavow a 20 year association, Michelle Obama’s comments, none of which indicate that race is not an issue. What Obama says he brought to caucuses, repair of the country's "divided and broken politics,” is a fallacy. Using the “sudden emergence of the African-American call-and response tradition in an overwhelmingly white state, where crowds tend to show approval with nods and applause, may be only the first of many disruptions Obama brings to the caucuses.”

Has this new coalition united us? Evidently not.

“Obama's sales pitch …..has been a tightly argued case that the main problem with politics is that it has become too politicized. The solution, he suggests, is "a new majority of not just Democrats, but independents and Republicans who've lost faith in their Washington leaders but want to believe again - who desperately want something new."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/03/obama_promises_to_...

It would appear the pretense of “unity” is cracking. What happened to the widespread acceptability that was the theme of the campaign?

One Associate Press writer suggested today that there is an arrogance equation to the speech and Obama.
“The freshman senator told reporters in July that he would overcome Hillary Rodham Clinton's lead in the polls because "to know me is to love me."
A few months later, he said, "Every place is Barack Obama country once Barack Obama's been there."
True, there's a certain amount of tongue-in-cheekiness to such remarks — almost as if Obama doesn't want to take his adoring crowds and political ascent too seriously. He was surely kidding when he told supporters in January that by the time he was done speaking "a light will shine down from somewhere."
"It will light upon you," he continued. "You will experience an epiphany. And you will say to yourself, I have to vote for Barack. I have to do it."
But both Obama and his wife, Michelle, ooze a sense of entitlement.”
“But voters expect arrogance from Clinton and her husband, Bill. It's part of the package. It's a 90s-thing. The Clintons' utter self-absorption comes with a record of achievement and brass-knuckle passion that Obama cannot match — and that Democratic voters know could come in handy against GOP nominee-in-waiting John McCain.
Voters won't cut Obama as much slack on the humility test because he's sold himself as something different. While rejecting the "me"-centric status quo and promising a new era of post-partisan reform, Obama has said the movement he has created is not about him; it's about what Americans can do together if their faith in government is restored. "
The power of his message lies in its humility. As he told 7,000 supporters at a rally last month, "I am an imperfect vessel for your hopes and dreams."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_campaignplus/20080317/ap_ca/on_deadline_arrog...

"Not everyone casting ballots for Clinton did so primarily to sink her; there were Republicans who wanted to keep Clinton in the race to expose more about Obama, whom he sees as more “fluff than substance.”

"Of the nine remaining major contests, four - Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Oregon, and South Dakota - have “closed” primaries, which means only Democrats can participate.”

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/17/7729/

Does this make his caucus wins irrelevant, because cross-over voting is not indicative of how the National vote would go?
The campaign of unity which dismisses politics as usual, created a new coalition which now demands an understanding and acceptance of hate speech as the result of how Blacks have been treated. Obama has said he wants to bridge divides based on differences. Has he succeeded?

Slate.com asks, “Can Obama's speech of so many words blot out the YouTube videos of his former pastor Jeremiah Wright saying "God ****** America"? It probably can't as a blunt political matter. Obama didn't answer Wright's rebuke with an equally hot riposte. The speech failed to address head-on Wright's damning of America or any of his other remarks about 9/11 or AIDS. Obama asked for points for political courage for not abandoning Wright, and he should get them. Abandonment would have been more expedient. White blue-collar men in Pennsylvania would have applauded shoving Wright over, and his rock-solid black supporters probably would have understood. But Obama's courage didn't extend to directly taking on the words that have caused such controversy. “

http://www.slate.com/id/2186849/

Obama's speech was intended to keep his black base and try to mollify the concerns of white voters, a next to impossible task.

Dems, Pubs Cooperate?

Back in 2005, Dems and Pubs joined forces to defend party rights and the two party system in opposition to the Top Two. Now that the Supreme Court ruled in favor, there will certainly be more legal action. Amazing this started back in 1934.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002281911_primary20m.ht...

From Hollywood
Campaign or Marketing Blitz?

"Some pundits are calling Obama's race relations oration the most defining speech of his campaign. However, it's the Obama media blitz that has followed that is most reminiscent of Tom Cruise's
or Denzel Washington's pre-movie release talk show rounds. Take a look at some of the parallels between presidential campaigning and movie marketing:"

See Slide Show at:
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/photos/la-et-obamamovie21mar21...

Latino Infusion

The Latino infusion by Bill Richardson is a nod that feels like another Oprah endorsement , in her case, directed at white women, “its okay you can vote for him,” I’m, a woman and I support him. Richardson same, See, I’m Latino, and I support him.

What’s okay? Why do we need to be told its okay to vote for someone? Throughout this campaign Obama has had more notoriety from endorsements at crucial junctures of the campaign than any other candidate: well known politicians and media powered notables like Oprah have backed him where he had no constituency.

Add in Axelrod's astroturfing, and it's the only reason he has had major caucus wins, not primary wins. What we have is a candidate with one true constituency and the rest similar to a Disney set; when the show is over, the actors go home.

More Perfect Union

The split between Abolitionist Frederick Douglass and Abolitionist and Feminist Susan B. Anthony occurred because Anthony believed the 15th amendment should not exclude women from the right to vote.

Douglass believed it was more important to secure the rights of black men than it was to secure the voting rights of women, black or white. The Constitution signified blacks as “three fifth’s (3/5) of a person and women were considered property in 1791.”

This was written on the “Your Black Scholar” blog, “It is amazing that the Obama v. Clinton campaign of 2008 is taking on the same shape as Douglass v. Anthony from 1865 to 1870. I know the Nineteenth Amendment, passed in 1920, gave women the right to vote under law. But, wouldn’t it be something if Douglass and Anthony realized that if they were able to include women in the Fifteenth Amendment for the right to vote in 1870, that they would have a powerful coalition to trump the real culprit to their power: white men who want to continue to treat them as three fifth’s (3/5) of a person or property.

http://scholar.yourblackworld.com/2008_01_20_archive.html

Unfortunately history can not be rewritten, nor can white men rewrite it. They once stood in the way of personal freedoms and today pollsters and prognosticators say they are the voting block that could decide the election.

Much has been said about the white male vote and its importance in the fall. There have been scores of articles placing a significant burden on white men, putting them all into one large group as if they all did every daily task at the same time, thought the same things and never took a step sideways without their alter-selves taking a step too, a swing step?

In an article on RealClearPolitics, “White Men Seen all Wrong,” Feb, 2008, author David Paul Kuhn says, “History matters because it shapes our conception of the present. Democrats have not competed for white men since Watergate and the Ford-Carter race.

But in a year where the Republican Party and its standard bearer remain remarkably unpopular, as a war led by Republicans is out of favor with the public, during a struggling economy stateside, and at the 40-year mark of the Republican majority (no presidential coalition has lasted more than four decades), Democrats have their best opportunity since Carter to regain a majority. Yet that grand Democratic ambition will only be realized by winning more white men.”

Kuhn writes, “Before any relationship can be mended the breakup must be properly understood. The bulk of the white men voting in Democratic primaries are not the same white men who migrated from the Democratic Party in the last half century. Those men left Democrats and took a presidential majority with them.”

Kuhn writes, “The 1960 race is a far more accurate starting point. It was a narrow contest and prior to the modern paradigm shift -- between 1964 and 1972 -- that defines presidential politics to this day. Between 1960 and 2004, Democrats lost 12 percent of the non-Southern white men and 17 percent of white men in the South. For once and for all: the Democratic decline was not merely due to the "Southern Flip."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/white_men_seen_all_wro...

Kuhn refers to an Op-Ed written by Paul Krugman, Feb, 2007, "Republicans and Race,” which describes the exodus of white men from the Democratic Party,

“The centrality of race — and, in particular, of the switch of Southern whites from overwhelming support of Democrats to overwhelming support of Republicans — is obvious from voting data.
For example, everyone knows that white men have turned away from the Democrats over God, guns, national security and so on. But what everyone knows isn’t true once you exclude the South from the picture. As the political scientist Larry Bartels points out, in the 1952 presidential election 40 percent of non-Southern white men voted Democratic; in 2004, that figure was virtually unchanged, at 39 percent."

"More than 40 years have passed since the Voting Rights Act, which Reagan described in 1980 as “humiliating to the South.” Yet Southern white voting behavior remains distinctive. Democrats decisively won the popular vote in last year’s House elections, but Southern whites voted Republican by almost two to one. “

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/19/opinion/19krugman.html?_r=1&n=Top/Opin...

THOMAS SCHALLER, Dept. of Political Science, University of Maryland, a contributor to an article on the Huffington Post in, “Should the Dems Love White Guys or Dump Them, Nov, 2007, wrote,
“In the past half-century white men fell from about half of all voters to a third, and while that is still a significant chunk of the electorate, in business terms that's called a declining market share. Neither party, at this point, would be wise to invest too much attention or effort cultivating their votes, especially since large swaths of white males are not swing voters anyway.”

MICHAEL LUX, CEO of Progressive Strategies, Co-founder of Openleft.com wrote, "It is true that when you slice the electorate into four broad categories -- male and female people of color, white women, and white men -- that white men are easily the most Republican of those four groups. After all, men are more Republican than women, and whites are more Republican than any other racial group. But the category is so broad that it is not an especially useful construct."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/12/huffpost-forum-should-th_n_7654...

There are other opinions which are not represented here, but certainly worth reading. The Obama camp strategy is about creating a new political ideal which would include the Democratic demographic and white male voters, Republicans and Independents aligning together. But past history and current polling do not support this kind of monumental “change” in the span of an election cycle.

Demographic Problem

Politico 3-18-08:

"Barack Obama’s plunge into the race issue in Philadelphia on Tuesday at times sounded more like a sermon than a speech.

But beneath the personal anecdotes and historical allusions, it was a delicately crafted political statement — one that makes clear that Obama understands exactly how much peril he is facing.

Even before the Jeremiah Wright controversy erupted in recent days, voting patterns in several states made clear — for all the glow of Obama’s reputation as a bridge-builder — how uneven his record really is when it comes to transcending deep racial divides.

The Philadelphia speech offered lines calculated to reassure all the groups with which he is most vulnerable.

For working-class whites — whose coolness toward Obama helped tilt Ohio to Hillary Rodham Clinton — Obama spoke with understanding about why they dislike busing and affirmative action. “Like the anger in the black community, these resentments aren’t always shared in polite company,” he said."

For Hispanics, who have sided with Clinton in the vast majority of states this election, he lashed pundits scouring polls for signs of tension between “black and brown” and said the two communities face a common heritage of discrimination and inadequate public services.

Finally, Obama sought to connect with white Jewish voters — potentially one of the rawest nerves of all amid the Wright controversy — denouncing those blacks who see “the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.”

It will take weeks, at least until the April 22 Pennsylvania primary, to know whether all of Obama’s political and cultural base-touching succeeded. "

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9111.html

Pottsville PA: Local News

From the Republican Herald

"More Democrats on rolls
There are more Schuylkill County Democrats this year, but it is still a GOP county.

"Monday was the deadline to register to vote or change your party for Pennsylvania’s April 22 primary, and more than 1,000 Schuylkill County Republicans changed their political party, local officials said."

"Since last fall’s election, statewide Democratic enrollment has swelled by more than 111,000 — an increase of about 3 percent in less than six months."

http://www.republicanherald.com/site/news.cfm?brd=2626&nr=1&nostat=1

Voter Limbo

Reid wrapped up the delegate issue in Las Vegas this week.

He says the Florida and Michigan delegates will be seated, but they can’t vote. He wants to make sure they take part in the convention, because after all, they represent millions of people, but they can’t vote. Why would any delegate of a state whose constituents’ votes were not allowed to count even want to attend? It certainly was not the fault of voters; it was the local parties who broke the rules.

Reid says, "They're the ones causing all the problems. No one else did. And so they will be seated. They're big states. They represent 29 million people. We want to make sure their delegates are part of the convention that takes place in Denver."

Okay, they’re going to be seated, but they won’t have a vote? They won’t be able to represent their constituents. This is an aberration, a lapse of sound mental judgment, a distorted peace offering? Which? Which ever, it does not address the fact that the voters, who had nothing to do with the party’s mistakes, have been disenfranchised.

But, the Senate Majority Leader glosses over any mention of votes not counting or counting. The emphasis is on seating delegates, only.

The punishment that was intended to be symbolic, on the assumption that a nominee would be decided early and delegate counts wouldn't matter, has become the cross of the Democratic race. Ironically, the bearer of the cross is the candidate who would have won most of the votes.
Obviously that was a costly assumption, sounding ironically similar to Clinton’s own campaign strategy that didn’t plan for this long of a race or this kind of end game.

March 24, 2008
http://www.lvrj.com/news/16948521.html

The Wall Street Journal, March 13th reported that 3.7 million voters were disenfranchised in Florida and Michigan. That number does not count those voters who may have decided not to vote, even though there was an important Constitutional amendment on the ballot. So, if they don’t count the votes, the race ends up in the hands of superdelegates.

“If the race is undecided by the convention, pressure likely will build on superdelegates to align their votes with their states, which may increase the winner-take-all effect on these 795 delegates.” That would mean Kerry, Kennedy, Richardson and others who have endorsed Obama would align their states with Clinton because she won there. The consensus is that's not what they’re going to do, despite the fact that Obama says the will of the people must be considered first.

http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/the-tricky-math-of-a-florida-and-michiga...

http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/how-many-florida-and-michigan-voters-wer...

Superdelegate Gray Sasser told Obama to hold on because, he'll , Sasser will determine the "will of the people" - not Obama or hi campaign, in an article in the New York Daily News.

The will of the people is a very transitory term," said Sasser, an undecided superdelegate and head of the Tennessee state party. "The deciding factor for most superdelegates is, 'Who is going to be the best candidate to carry the Democratic banner?'"

"For more than a month now, Obama and his campaign have argued that the candidate with the most pledged delegates - won in primaries and caucuses - should be the nominee. Obama leads rival Hillary Clinton by more than 100 pledged delegates."

"Obama's team has warned the 800 or so superdelegates - party honchos and elected officials who, with the contest so close, will ultimately pick the nominee - that going for Clinton would "overturn the will of the people."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/03/16/2008-03-16_obama_sup...

Counting Michigan and Florida has never been part of the program though the Obama camp gave their best impression that it was.

According to an overview of a Wolf Blitzer interview, "Obama to Stiff Arm Michigan and Florida:"

"Okay, so we know Obama doesn't care about Florida, because he knows he'll lose that state to McCain, and if there's a re-vote he'll also lose it to Clinton. That would mean yet another huge swing state in her corner, which Obama can't afford because it further makes the case that Clinton's path to the White House is much better than the crap shoot Obama offers. As for Michigan, there was a "firehouse primary" floated, but the Obama campaign has evidently nixed it. To make matters worse, Zogby was on CNN recently doubting that either Michigan or Florida should count. Are these guys nuts? The fact is that Obama seems to want to deny both Michigan and Florida voters, which became apparent when James Carville tangled with David Wilhelm on CNN. Jerome agrees, BTD weighs in as well."

"The Ragin' Cagin completely unmasked the Obama campaign's actual plan to disenfranchise Floridians, which for some of us who remember 2000 all too well, sounds positively un-Democratic, capital "d." Carville puts Obama's man David Wilhelm back on his heels in this interview with Wolf Blitzer. Shorter review: don't send a boy to do a man's job. Wilhelm is totally outmatched in this one, with Carville creaming him on every angle. Carville offers solutions, Wilhelm offers pontificating and obfuscation. Sound familiar?"
"The problem with this exchange is that Carville honestly tries to off a way through the DNC's mess, but Wilhelm won't accept it, preferring the limbo and disenfranchisement Michigan and Florida voters currently are experiencing."

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27185

Avert a Disater?

I think the disaster has been ongoing for awhile. Where's Howard Dean, it's as if he has been on a long vacation...and may never come back?

Notice nothing said here about FL/MI votes.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9217_Page2.html

Fox isn't playing

The media has it's own agenda to elect Barack Obama, CNN, Chris Cizillia's Fix on the Wash Post have posts on the NBC-WSJ poll without including the caveat which shows that the poll dissproportionately polled Black Americans.

Fox News has taken the high road. In its March 27th article, Fox says, Poll: Voters Divided Over Obama’s Race Speech, by Associated Press
Thursday, March 27, 2008. Though Fox does not provide the caveat, and the result is still disproportionately skewed, nevertheless, Fox is saying that the speech did not change the racial division for both white Democrats or Republicans.

"Barack Obama ’s speech on race has left the public divided on whether he has sufficiently put the issue behind him, a poll shows.

Even so, The Wall Street Journal-NBC News survey released Wednesday showed that Obama’s remarks and the attention paid to comments by his longtime pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, so far have had little effect on his race with Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Videos of Wright sermons include one in which he shouts “God ****** America” for its treatment of minorities. He also has said the U.S. government invented AIDS to destroy “people of color” and has suggested U.S. policies were to blame for the 9/11 attacks.

In a speech last week, Obama rejected Wright’s divisive comments but stood by him otherwise and said it is time for the country to address its racial schism.

By 55 percent to 32 percent, more who had seen or heard about Obama’s speech said they were satisfied with his explanation of his association with Wright than said they were dissatisfied.

Yet people familiar with Obama’s remarks were about evenly split between those who said they felt reassured about his feelings on race, and those who said they still had doubts. Slightly more said Obama has said enough about race than said he needs to address it further.

In all instances, whites were more dubious than blacks about whether Obama had handled the issue successfully. Democrats were far more supportive than Republicans, while independents were likelier to be divided."

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/27/poll-voters-divided-over-obamas-...

Just in on CNN, 5:30PM

Clinton tells DEMS, don't vote for McCain

Obama says he will rethink not allowing the revote.

NOTE: MOVEON who endorsed and supports Obama wrote Nancy Pelosi a letter saying it was ludicrous for top Clinton supporters to withdraw their financial support of the party unless there is a revote.

MOVEON does not want a revote.

Can you imagine, the champion of the 2000 revote, the champion of getting the votes counted, says let the people select the candidate, but don't let there be a revote.

MOVEON also disputes the Superdelegate role in the process.

Superdelegates are there not to mirror delegates, but to elect who they think is best suited for the job; though this is how the DNC set it up, it's not how they are describing their function today.

In the meantime Congressmen on behalf of Obama keep crawling out of the woodwork to stop the election now.

Why doesn't Moveon just quit beating around the bush!!

Hart/McInturff Response

What 'oversample' means
Posted: Thursday, March 27, 2008 12:56 PM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: 2008, Polls
From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
Hart/McInturff, the group that conducts the NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll, explains what "oversample" means.
TO: NBC News And The Wall Street Journal
FROM: Hart/McInturff
DATE: March 27, 2008
RE: Sample For March 24-25 Survey

As you know, the sample for the March 24-25 poll on race included an “oversample” of 100 African American voters. There has been some confusion as to exactly how these extra interviews were integrated into the survey; we hope this memorandum will clear up any misconceptions.
The main sample for the survey was a cross section of 700 registered voters nationally. As is the case with all of our usual polls, this sample is statistically representative of voters across the country, accurately reflecting the gender, age, educational, geographical, and racial makeup of the electorate. The column in the topline document labeled “All Voters”, as well as nearly all of the subgroups listed in the survey crosstabs, are among these cross section of 700. Eleven percent (11%) of these interviews -- or 77 interviews -- were with African Americans, which accurately reflects African Americans’ proportion of the electorate. Thus, African Americans are NOT over-represented in our national sample.
In addition to this national cross section, we interviewed an extra 100 African Americans to analyze the opinions of this group with a greater degree of statistical reliability. We combined these 100 only with the 77 African Americans that naturally fell into our national sample, for a total of 177 interviews with African Americans; these extra interviews were not combined with the full national sample of 700. The column in the topline document labeled “African Americans” shows the responses of these 177 respondents, as do the subgroups in the crosstabs for African Americans, African-American men, and African-American women.
The table below shows the margins of error for the three groups whose responses are shown in the topline document:
National cross section of voters: 700 interviews, +/- 3.7%
White voters: 520 interviews, +/- 4.3%
African-American voters: 177 interviews, +/- 7.4%
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/27/827746.aspx

Inscrutable

Elephants caucused in Washington D.C. for their favorite presidential candidates this week, no dragged out ordeal. Although there was a surprise ending, it was inconsequential because, of course, elephants don’t vote-- how luck they are.

Democrats do and they have a lot of rules to do it. some of which change half way through a process, and that's alright, others which supposedly can't be changed and that's not alright?

And the changes are interchangeable, because ones that used to apply, no longer do, and ones that didn’t used to apply, now do.

No wonder Elephant caucuses are so successful.

According to Whizbangblue, " for instance the rule about "superdelegate" rules [that] have been in place for 25 years now, and to hear superdelegates saying they intend to rubber stamp the decisions of others is downright scary - but not surprising. "

"This IS the Democratic party, after all - and this year it's our election to lose. To hear Obama advocating that we ignore the nominating rules is not surprising in the least.”

"Back in February, 2008 when Clinton was leading in Superdelegates, Obama wanted to change the rules. Reflecting the will of voters by rubber stamping the most popular candidate isn't the intent of the rules establishing superdelegates either, or why would you need the "superdelegate" category anyway? "

"The purpose of a superdelegate is to have them exercise their own judgment above and beyond and irrespective of the popular vote. "

"Meanwhile Obama is being quite the hypocrite, but then talking out of the side of his mouth is rapidly becoming one of his specialties..."

"On the one hand Obama is saying that voters should decide and the superdelegates should follow that lead, while at the same time he's aggressively trying to woo superdelegates to choose him, irregardless of the popular vote."

"Not surprisingly, Obama is missing the entire point of the superdelegates as well - which is no surprise and quite convenient since he hopes to end up with the most votes, but it certainly shows a gross disregard for the democratic process set forth in the nominating process rules."

"The superdelegates aren't there to rubber stamp the popular decision - they are they to override the popular decision if needed. "

"So it is imperative that the superdelegates do more than just rubber stamp the popular decision. The end result may match the popular vote, but that's not why they are there."

http://wizbangblue.com/2008/02/11/clinton-still-leads-in-delegates-obama...

in a CNN Blog today, "In March, 20 Clinton backers strongly criticized Pelosi for saying the Democratic superdelegates would harm the party if they overturned the pledged-delegate results. That stance benefits Barack Obama, whose current pledged delegate lead of 171 is virtually insurmountable given the Democratic Party's proportional delegation allocations, even if Clinton were to win each of the remaining 10 primary contests."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

We already know that Senators Kerry, Kennedy and Richardson’s states went for Clinton, but now they are saying they aren’t going to support her, even though their representative delegates from their states do.

In an article in the Balitmore Sun in March, “Barack Obama blew Hillary Clinton away in last month's Mid-Atlantic primary. Nearly half of Obama's delegate lead over Clinton can be traced to his landslide victories in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia."

"But the region's superdelegates are in a different camp. Those who have made endorsements favor Clinton over Obama in each of the jurisdictions that held primaries that day."

"In Maryland, a state she lost by 23 percentage points, Clinton has twice as many superdelegate backers, 10 to Obama's five."

"Chalk that up to one of Clinton's biggest - and most overlooked - advantages in the nomination fight: the Democratic National Committee."

"Anyone with passing interest in the '08 campaign knows that superdelegates include Democratic governors and members of Congress. In part because their own necks are at risk on Election Day, they've been given the power to pick any candidate they want and, if necessary, help steer the party away from a disaster in November. These superdelegates are getting intense media scrutiny, along with relentless lobbying by the candidates and their supporters."

"There's another category of superdelegates, more numerous than the governors and members of Congress combined but almost totally out of the public eye: the roughly 400 activists who make up the party's national committee."

"At the moment, they are Clinton's secret weapon in the race for superdelegates, accounting for nearly her entire advantage in that category."

"Clinton has 255 superdelegate supporters to Obama's 207, according to a New York Times count, a difference of 48 superdelegates. According to information supplied by the campaigns and other sources, Clinton has 151 DNC superdelegates to Obama's 110, a lead of 41."

"Unlike members of Congress and governors, most of the largely anonymous DNC members lack significant experience in national campaigns. They haven't had to worry about whether an unpopular presidential nominee could sink their own careers because not many hold elective office."

According to one Superdelegate its a "philosophical question" as to whether other factors might also influence his vote, such as the interests of his trade association. This Superdelegate runs a lobbying arm of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, and "if your employer came to you" and expressed an opinion for one Democrat over another, he acknowledged, "you might take that into account."

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/politics/bal-id.infocus16mar16,0...

So, it would appear that not only are the Superdelegate rules being intentionally mangled to fit one political agenda, the rules are as inscrutable as they are intractable. Leave it to the Democrats to create rules that no one can possibly follow, certainly not an Elephant....

Fox Bellwether?

The political weathervane is up at FOX and it’s not all Republican slanted news. Did it take this election cycle and a moderate Republican candidate, a waning audience and a rousing Democratic contention for the single most contested hot seat in the country, for them to realize there’s more to news than rants from Rush and Ann?

Today, Obama laid one on us, a big one, saying Hillary should stay in the race. There must have been a massive onslaught of public opinion against him to come out and change the tune. His supporters are all but pushing her out of the bus. Could it be the public perception of this has worked against him?

You bet it has.

He can't ignore public opinion like this, because it will hurt him in the end, if he is the winner this summer. More than a move on her behalf, it's really an attempt to make her supporters more inclined not to hate him, to vote for him?

Unfortunately it doesn't go far enough. As long as he continues to block MI/FL votes he will never be perceived by Clinton supporters as a legit candidate. His win will be looked upon as illegitimate.

What’s intriguing is that you won’t find this very timely announcement on CNN today, though almost every news outlet has it: FOX, MSNBC, Washington Post, New York Times, and the Star Tribune.

“In a new fundraising letter, Bill Clinton tells supporters the race is “neck and neck” and complains about the recent calls to pull out.”

Funny Obama supporters haven't seen it that way, or maybe they do and know the longer she stays in this neck and neck race, the slimmer his chances are in the world of perception.

“Clinton, though, has shown a willingness to take the fight all the way to the August convention, especially to resolve the conflict over the Michigan and Florida delegations, which were stripped after those states held early primaries in violation of party rules."

"Clinton won those primaries in January, but neither candidate had campaigned there."

Clinton says, “I have this old fashioned idea that the more people get a chance to vote, the better it is for our democracy.”

“There are very important upcoming contests in Pennsylvania here in Indiana, and others, and we also are going to have to come to terms with how we’re going to count the votes of your neighbors in Michigan and the people in Florida who deserve to be heard as well.”

“Obama is leading Clinton by 157 pledged delegates, but it’s mathematically impossible for either candidate to gain enough pledged delegates to lock down the nomination."

"Adding to the unrest is the possibility that Obama and Clinton will split victories in the two largest remaining contests. Polls show Clinton ahead by double digits in Pennsylvania, which votes April 22 and offers 158 delegates. But polls show Obama ahead by double digits in North Carolina, which votes May 6 and offers 115 delegates.”

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/29/obama-says-clinton-can-run-as-lo...

So the strategy to push her out now was nothing more than an attempt to cheat her out of her remaining votes in order for him to WIN the race; but it didn’t work; in the realm of public opinion, it back-fired on them.

Now Obama and camp have to pick themselves up and fight it out till the end.

Stepping on Toes

What would Theodor Seuss Geisel say about how we humans step on each other’s toes, all the time, particularly in the political arena?

How would he Seussicate all these political maneuverings? Who would make the better “Horton” to the “Who?” Who’s listening to the “Who” and who isn’t?

It’s what we humans agonize over, moan expressibly about—because we never know who to believe, until it’s too late!

We’re after all the “speck” that often gets in the way of the political process and the “rules,” if only for the purpose of asking occasionally to be heard.

Since Geisel was an expert at inputting humanity into Seussian creatures, all kinds, what would he say about how we humans love to step on each other’s toes, but don’t care too much to be stepped upon ourselves?

Can you imagine the titles he’d come up with, the story lines: who stepped on whom and who didn’t? Occasionally, even new politicians one-up the other’s one- up-man-ship and say they don’t practice that old style Washington politics: as if we really believed they wouldn’t step on our toes, too, when they needed to!

No matter how high flown oratory can appeal: the politics of old or new, when broken down, both include upper handing, stepping on toes, these same sorts of things. In fact it’s a frequent occurrence in politics and right here at home, with or without the liturgical flare.

We can all posture grandiloquent, but we can’t get around what always gets in-the-way, sticks out, our toes. And if toes were unveiled as the true source of our indifference, as Geisel might portray them, how wrong can any one toe be?

It probably is ineloquent to have different looking toes, so it goes, but we have and are expected to have them. On that basis, stepping on toes is the game, however eloquent that fact waxes: no toe is likely to be united; toes don’t do that.

If Geisel were here he’d use trochaic tetrameter to portray the old bait and switch game, that surreptitious version of one-up-man-ship, as much a one-up political game as old Washington politics ever intended.

One-up, two-step, three up, four-step you can’t have toes and not step on someone else’s

THE BUMP?

On The New Republic’s, “The Stump,” self-admitted excessive coverage of the 2008 election, they report the Heilemann account of Edwards’s meetings with Hillary and Obama and their own version of why Edwards didn’t endorse.

Heilemann said that Obama did less than impress, and Hillary surprisingly did, but Heilemann doesn’t say anything about why Edwards didn’t endorse her.

The Stump goes further and postulates, (the Heilemann account was more third party information) that Edwards had nothing to gain from getting on Obama’s bandwagon.

The Stump surmises that Edwards might jump on Hillary’s bandwagon after what will probably be a loss in North Carolina. “Edwards is biding his time until there's a moment when his endorsement would matter--for example, when it could help bump Hillary from the race.

Evidently getting inside John Edwards’s head came from sources who know him, according to The Stump.

Here's the Stump’s take: "The atmospherics of a Hillary endorsement would look very, very bad for Edwards. You can't spend six months bashing someone as a symbol of everything that's wrong with Washington, then embrace that person and expect to come away smelling like roses. "

"Particularly not when there's another extremely viable candidate out there talking about 90 percent of what you campaigned for. If Edwards cares at all about his reputation, a Hillary endorsement is a terrible move for him. (For what it's worth, I'm not saying Hillary is a symbol of everything that's wrong with Washington--far from it, I think she'd make a good president--just that this was Edwards's argument for most of the campaign.) "

"Having said that, I'm not convinced a Hillary endorsement would be bad for Obama. Edwards's former supporters have already voted with their feet--the recent evidence suggests they've largely flocked to Obama. But an Edwards’s endorsement would help Hillary retain the aura of front-runner a little longer, something that hasn't been especially useful to her. And it would probably motivate a lot of Obama (and former Edwards) voters, who saw it as a betrayal by Edwards. I think they'd suspect some nefarious backroom deal here--exactly the kind of thing Edwards and Obama vowed to change about Washington."

"If, on the other hand, Edwards endorses Obama, the risk is that the race starts to look like Hillary against the world--and, in particular, two male politicians ganging up on her--which is a development that has served her well. Not least in New Hampshire."

"The counter-argument is that team Hillary needs something--anything--to stop the flow of bad news right now, and an Edwards’s endorsement would accomplish that. I can see the logic there, but I still think she's better off with Obama getting it. (Maybe I'd put it this way: Best case scenario for Hillary is Obama getting it, second best is her getting it, worst is Edwards doing nothing.)

*Obviously one could raise the same question about Edwards himself... "

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/03/30/did-obama-bl...

Tongue in cheek voting

Knowinlgy speaking a falsehood.....

Election 2008 has surely taught us that we can no longer just demonize Republicans for not wanting votes counted back in 2000. Now that Democrats have been thrust into a voting dilemma of their own, where in fact the DNC didn’t follow their own rules fairly, the resuling inequity on their part, is that half of their constituents will be disenfranchised.

Not just the voters whose votes didn’t count, but the voters whose votes were counted.

In comparison: all who voted for Gore in 2000 were disenfranchised, not just the voters whose votes weren’t counted, but all votes for Gore.

Using this logic for Election 2008, all the votes for Hillary will essentially be nullified because all the votes won’t be counted.

If at the end of the race, she is down 1%, those votes that didn’t get counted will determine a win for another candidate. A subsequent win for Obama would not be a judicious outcome if it was based on unequally disenfranchising part of the electorate. And that’s what has happened.

No rule by a political party should disenfranchise voters, under any circumstances. Right now the only camp that’s talking about this is the Clinton camp. That in itself is disturbing enough. Why didn’t the DNC remedy this along time ago? Why is the Obama camp silent?

Pelosi’s mind-gamish tongue twister, “Don’t overrule the voters.” Evidently she doesn’t think the voters in FL or MI matter. Pelosi has the CRUST to tell voters not to overrule those who did vote? That’s a serious gap in logic on the part of the Speaker of the House. If in fact rules were unfairly enacted than her words are biased predicators for an outcome, not a neutral reference to a fair process.

What we do know is the old diabolic blacklisting of votes by Republicans was not just a political persuasion problem— it was and is a human nature problem.

According to Democracy for New Hampshire, a group who wonders why the press hasn’t been into this long ago, says, “this whole mess surrounding the state delegations from Florida and Michigan is a result of the Rules & Bylaws Committee of the Democratic National Committee not strictly adhering to the 2008 Delegate Selection Rules for the Democratic National Convention by applying the rules equally and fairly to all states.”

"Florida and Michigan violated Rule 11.A. by moving their primaries to a date before the first Tuesday in February. There is no argument there, but what about Iowa, New Hampshire, and yes, South Carolina too?"

"Under Rule 20.C.1.a., Florida, Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, and South Carolina would have all lost their super delegates and had their pledged delegates reduced by half since they all violated Rule 11.A. "

"However, Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina weren't punished fairly. In fact, they weren't punished at all."

"Instead of strictly adhering to Rule 20.C.1.a. and reducing their pledged delegates by 50%, the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee decided to take it a step further. The DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee exercised the authority granted to them by Rules 20.C.5. and 20.C.6. which allowed them to "impose sanctions the Committee deems appropriate." And what were those sanctions the Committee deemed appropriate? Stripping two of the largest states in the union of all their votes at the 2008 Democratic National Convention."

"So, the rules were not applied equally and fairly. The resulting mess is due to the actions of the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee not applying the rules equally and fairly."

http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/node/view/5465

Here’s a confirmation of the above by the Big Tent Democrat.

The DNC, led by Howard Dean and Donna Brazile, changed the penalty rule for moving up a primary and ignored the violations of the rules by Iowa, NH and South Carolina.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/2/15/16429/5965

For the public this might just be the wake up call we need to say, party politics aside, let's vote on the basis of utilizing a more fair process, where your particular party can't disenfrancise its own voters. It's about the worst voter hoax YET, if it's true. Hopefully, the media will start doing what they're supposed to do: fact check...

Obama Creed, Rocky Clinton Knock-out Blows?

In non-boxing terms Obama is outspending Clinton five to one; hes’ got 30 offices to her 21; he’s registering lots of new voters, so PA could be the place to knock her off her balance for a decisive win, but…there are some obvious problems….

“Each of these two candidates has built a demographic coalition that, with the exception of Wisconsin, has stayed with them throughout. There’s just not a lot of movement,” said Mark Mellman, a Democratic strategist not affiliated with either campaign. "

"Thus, the large populations of Catholics, blue-collar workers, seniors and women who traditionally vote in the Keystone State’s Democratic primary tilt the scales toward Clinton, and there isn’t a whole lot Obama can do to change that. "

“You can’t just go into a state with those demographics and say, ‘We are going to try to destroy her,'” Mellman said. “What we are seeing in this race, in the Democratic primary, is that demography has become destiny.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9375.html

Rocky Balboa’s character reminds us what physical and mental preparation it takes to retain stamina, to continue to be strategic and most of all to fight on.

Both Obama and Hillary have definite styles that are becoming apparent, Interestingly they are both a reflection of their own supporters, which shouldn’t surprise us. Now, we are seeing Obama shed some of the early posturing and speeches to large crowds in order to reach voters in a more personal way. Body language is almost as important as message and maybe not that far of a stretch from comparing the politics of boxing to politics.

What do you think? Who’s using, figuratively speaking, the “Rope-a-dope,” who’s blocking; who’s upper-cutting and who’s just covering-up?

Is Obama the in-fighter, the out-fighter, the brawler or the swarmer? And which one or two, or three of these fighting styles fits Hillary.
Is it important for a candidate to be a fighter in the political world? Watch for the Our “Philly Shell” Commentary on the PA election.

Joe Frasier was an in fighter. In-fighters are often considered the most exciting boxers to watch. This style favours closing inside an opponent, overwhelming them with intensity and flurries of hooks and uppercuts. They tend to be agile on their feet which can make them difficult to evade for a slower fighter. They also tend to have a good "chin" because this usually involves being hit with many jabs before they can maneuver inside where they are more effective.

Mohammed Ali was an Out-fighter. Where the in-fighter tries to close the gap between himself and his opponent, the out-fighter seeks to maintain that gap and fight with faster, longer range punches. Since they rely on the weaker jabs and straights (as opposed to hooks and uppercuts), they tend to win by points decisions rather than by knockouts. They attempt to control the fight by using their jab to keep their opponent at range, and using their strong footwork to evade any opponent that closes in. In fact, outside fighters are known for being extremely quick on their feet, which often makes up for their relative lack of power. Out-fighters are often regarded as the best boxers on account of their desire to win a fight by wearing an opponent down and outclassing an opponent by strategy, rather than simply knocking him out.

Mike Tyson was the brawler (also known as the 'slugger', 'hard hitter' or 'one puncher') often stands for everything that's brutal and dirty in the sport. Sluggers tend to lack finesse in the ring, but make up for it in raw power, often able to knock almost any opponent out with a single punch. This ability makes them exciting to watch, and their fights unpredictable. Many brawlers tend to lack mobility in the ring and have difficulty pursuing fighters who are fast on their feet. They prefer the harder, slower punches (such as hooks and uppercuts) and tend to ignore combination punching. Their slowness and predictable punching patterns (single punches with obvious leads) often leaves them open for counterpunching.

Rocky Marciano was a swarmer, a boxer who attempts to overwhelm his/her opponent by applying constant pressure. Swarmers tend to have a very good bob and weave, good power, a good chin, and a tremendous punch output (resulting in a great need for stamina and conditioning). Boxers who use the Swarmer style tend to have shorter careers than practitioners of other styles. Sustaining the adequate amount of training required to execute this style is nearly impossible throughout an entire career, so most Swarmers can only maintain it for a relativity brief period of time. This inevitably leads to the gradual degradation of the sheer ability to perform the style, leaving him open to increasing amounts of punishment.

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

Wedge all for Naught

2008 is the year of the racial wedge –it’s being interjected by reason of racial differences, whether we are black, brown, yellow or white, and why we can’t seem to be able to talk about all of the above, without being identified as racists.

Is even bringing up and talking about issues of race or our ethnic and cultural differences necessarily discriminatory?

Talking Points Memo, a very left leaning political venue that is not media-centric, blames Hillary Clinton for making the issue of race central to Campaign 2008.

With that in mind, David Sirota’s “Obama & The Dynamic Whose Name Must Not Be Spoken” is an opinion piece written in defense of the existence of “black racism,” which Sirota says has been perpetuated by Obama’s opponent, who he says is using the race card to discredit Obama.

Sirota’s message is racially charged, accusing Clinton, first and foremost for what he terms the “Racial Chasm” in the 2008 Election. He’s pumping up the volume high in a twisted revelation which does more than imply that the cause of Clinton’s support is based on racial division; and that she is in fact enabling it.

Sirota says duplicity exists in the condemnation of blacks, because whites don’t hold their own to the same accountability. In his diatribe, he chastises whites for being white tolerant and black intolerant. But, really, what he is essentially saying, without even saying it, is that whites can't even talk about it without being held to a different standard.

Who’s partially responsible for the racial invectives infused into Campaign 2008? On the anniversary of Dr. King’s assassination CNN featured a special on King, including a clip of an interview with the Governor of PA, Ed Rendell, who was questioned about comments he made. He was then asked if they were racially motivated. Rendell said simply that if referring to someone’s ethnicity or race is considered racial, his intent was never to insinuate discrimination whatsoever. That clip was weeks old, why did CNN air it now on the anniversary of the King assassination. Why? Because, CNN is blatantly inserting race as a wedge between Liberal and Moderate Democrats, particularly in the upcoming contests.

CNN had an entire panel on to discusss Clinton’s attempts to smear Obama in a segment that included nothing more than hearsay, gossip and innuendo against Clinton.

So, how do we talk to one another about anything remotely resembling an honest discussion about race? Is racial division being accentuated to make one candidate look racially motivated? Is this what they call Liberal media bias at work in providing the public with biased news?

David Sirota’s tirade and finger pointing accomplishes nothing more than revealing a mere slice of a nation divided by economic, social, gender, ethnic, racial differences and on. But his intent wasn’t to be all encompassing; it was to be target specific. Sirota graphed the divide calling it a “racially motivated white vote,” for Clinton, against Obama.

Something Sirota failed to mention is that Obama might have an ethnicity problem, an Asian or Latino problem or even a Patriotism problem.

According to a poll that recently came out, rather than Obama’s connection to Wright, what voters really railed against wasn’t a Pastor problem, it wasn’t a racial problem, it was a Patrioism
problem. But the Liberal media marches on with their spin on black racism that can’t do anything but anger both whites and blacks.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/02/obama_the_dynamic_whose_...

Joe Klein said on Time.com that, “Patriotism is, sadly, a crucial challenge for Obama now. His aides believe that the Wright controversy was more about anti-Americanism than it was about race. Michelle Obama's unfortunate comment that the success of the campaign had made her proud of America "for the first time" in her adult life and the Senator's own decision to stow his American-flag lapel pin — plus his Islamic-sounding name — have fed a scurrilous undercurrent of doubt about whether he is "American" enough. “

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1727502,00.html

"So far in this campaign, the one ethnic group that has voted most consistently — and overwhelmingly — for his rival, Hillary Clinton, generating a debate that has raised a very sensitive, ugly question: could some Asian-Americans not be voting for Obama simply because he's black? In California, where Asian-Americans make up 8% of the electorate, a CNN exit poll found they voted three to one in her favor. "

"When CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 ran a piece by Gary Tuchman earlier this month implying that racism may play a role in Asians' voting choice, the outcry was instantaneous. The 80-20 Initiative, a political action committee seeking to solidify 80% of Asians in one voting bloc and backing Clinton, organized a petition demanding that CNN run a corrected segment. Asian bloggers, who skew disproportionately toward Obama, shot off paeans of support disputing CNN's theory. They pointed to prominent Asian-Americans like Norm Mineta — the former Commerce Secretary under Bill Clinton and Transportation Secretary for George W. Bush — who have recently pledged allegiance to the Obama camp. "

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1714292,00.html?iid=spher...

CNN, like David Sirota, is stirring up the pot!

"Columbia University curriculum director Roosevelt Montás explains why Latinos love Hillary (hint: it's not about race): “I suspect that two little-noted factors, both of them cultural rather than economic or ideological, account for the strength of Latino loyalty to Clinton: a residual comfort with political dynasties inherited from Latin American history, and the respect she commands for her family loyalty in the face of Bill Clinton's marital failings. Both factors reflect traditional family values, a cultural trait among Latinos that political strategists like Karl Rove have exploited in the past.”

http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2008/03/in-todays-pag-5.html

Taking these other factors into consideration, Sirota completely failed to portray the totality of nuanced differences that make up an electorate, which includes racial and gender bias, and other tendencies toward ethnic and even the social, societal preferences of one demographic in comparison to another.

But that was never Sirota’s intent; his was to stamp the Clintons as racists. Ironically Sirota is a white male, and that’s the one group who could decide the remaining contests in Election 2008.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/05/opinion/05collins.html?_r=1&hp&oref=sl...

Predictions, silly things…

You’ve noticed— they’re inexact, chancy? Depending on who’s giving them— because it’s the nature of opinion, it’s either one way or another, someone is bound not to like them. Still, we are fascinated by crystal balls, Ouija boards, fortune tellers and yes prognosticating and punditry, our human desire to know the future.

Of course, we want to know so we can prepare for the things we don’t like, stop what we fear the most, change the things we can’t control. It’s human.

When it comes to the 2008 Election, we are all on the precipice, dangling by an arm, at the tip of a political cliff— like no other election. It’s what they call a cliff hangar in mystery novels – never ending thrillers—endless, irresolvable— like those last pages in a book that sometimes, we’d just rather rip out than read.

Not that predictions themselves make us feel better, because invariably more than half of the electorate is going to be let down—in a new kind of let-down, one of monumental proportions. With ten races to go, the soothsayers have swooped down like ravenous black birds trying to catch a glimpse of their first real meal after a long winter.

Here’s some predictions to consider, at your own risk:

New York Times Blog: "Although Hillary will be out in May, she may determine the outcome in November. McCain’s secret weapon — among Clinton supporters — may be Hillary’s 3 a.m. national security ad.”
And an experienced Democratic operative e-mailed: “Finally, I think [McCain’s] going to win. Obama isn’t growing in stature. Once I thought he could be Jimmy Carter, but now he reminds me more of Michael Dukakis with the flag lapel thing and defending Wright. Plus he doesn’t have a clue how to talk to the middle class. He’s in the Stevenson reform mold out of Illinois, with a dash of Harvard disease thrown in.”
In a close race, that “dash of Harvard disease” could be the difference.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/07/opinion/07kristol.html?_r=1&hp&oref=sl...

Michael Barone, US News: "My projections on Jay Cost's spreadsheet put Clinton ahead in popular votes, however they're measured. But my projections on my legal pads leave her behind in delegates. Each of these contests allocates most of a state's delegates by congressional districts, except for South Dakota which has only one congressional district; Montana also has only one congressional district, but it allocates most of its delegates in the two congressional districts it had in 1980, before the apportionment following the 1980 Census reduced its number of House seats to one. I give Obama small delegate edges in North Carolina (5) and Oregon (6), and Clinton relatively small edges in Pennsylvania (22), Indiana (12), West Virginia (10), Kentucky (17), Montana (3) and South Dakota (3) and a relatively big edge in Puerto Rico (20). Even so, that reduces Obama's current lead among "pledged" delegates (those selected in primaries and caucuses) from 1,414-1,247 to 1,655-1,565.

These two projections, if they come to pass, seem likely to cause maximum pain among the superdelegates. Clinton will be able to claim a lead in popular vote. But only because of Puerto Rico—and because Puerto Rico this month replaced its caucus with a primary. Obama will be able to claim a lead in pledged delegates. But only because he gamed the caucuses better. His lead in caucus-selected delegates is currently 125, as best I can calculate it; that would mean Clinton would have a 35-delegate lead among delegates chosen in primaries. Both sides will be able to make plausible claims to be the people's choice.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/3/28/projection-clinton-wins-pop...

More Michael after he was called on his predictions: Some commenters have argued that I was too optimistic (again, from the Clinton point of view). I'm not convinced. Remember that I was projecting the percentage of the two-candidate vote for each candidate. I projected a 60 percent to 40 percent win for Clinton in Pennsylvania. Current RealClearPolitics.com average poll numbers show her leading the two-candidate vote 57 percent to 43 percent. I projected a 55 percent to 45 percent win for Obama in North Carolina. Current RealClearPolitics.com average poll numbers show him leading the two-candidate vote 57 percent to 43 percent. Current polls may be off, or those currently undecided could swing heavily to one candidate, or turnout may be heavier among Obama than among Clinton voters. But I think my estimates are defensible as outcomes that are possible.

Am I guaranteeing that Clinton will win the popular vote? Certainly not. I maintain that these projections are optimistic from Clinton's point of view but not wildly unrealistic. I agree with almost every analyst that Clinton can't win a plurality of delegates selected in primaries and caucuses. But I do think it's possible that she can win more popular votes than Obama.

Note Michael says he "left Guam, which elects four delegates, out of his calculations." He says, " Uh-oh."

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/4/1/defending-my-projection-clin...

Teflon Kid

Eight years of tarnish free, non-returnable Commander in Chief— even Brillo couldn’t erase the scratches—though hard we tried.

Now another Teflon kid could soon claim the name, and oil won’t even stick, an impossibility.

Thanks to the media there’s not a scratch...we’re even seeing our own reflections back; is anything inside?

Maybe just a dishwasher infomercial: a rattle of pots and pans in a spin cycle. We’ve had 8 years of surface that repelled truth; now we want to keep repackaging it; funny this tendency to get hooked– buy into- words. What ever happened to comparative shopping?

Who’s not doing things the old Washington political machine way? Maybe, just another repackaged “I’m so proud of me, my name is on it,” way.

I’m sorry to say, but surfaces matter; non-stick coatings don’t come with a warrantee from PTFE or other disclaimers. It’s still, just, Teflon under different guises.

Yes, the launch of the Next Obama-nation model made more money with its guarantee to sack the old by not grilling anew, that never comes cheaply.

But by this time maybe we realize, there’s never a money back guarantee...

From LA

And by any other media outlet, bet you thought Hillary was broke, out-of-the-race, right?

"Right now, we're being outspent 4-1 on Pennsylvania television. "

"Obama is outspending her campaign in Pennsylvania, on the strength of a record-breaking, more-than-$200 million fundraising haul that includes $40 million gathered in March. Clinton, on the other hand, has raised nearly $200 million herself this campaign."

"And although it appears she trails Obama in available cash, her campaign coffers are healthy enough that today her campaign let loose with FIVE new ads in Pennsylvania (which holds its closely watched primary in exactly two weeks)."

"The spots are tailored for different constituencies in the large state. As spelled out in a release from her campaign, they "highlight Hillary's ability to get the job done as president -- her commitment to jump-starting our economy, standing up for the middle class, and bringing quality, universal healthcare to all Americans. 'Nuestra Amiga,' a Spanish language ad, highlights Hillary's understanding of the Latino community and the problems it faces."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/04/hillary-clint-5.html

Obama Flip-flop Public Financing

The Wash Post's Fact Checker just gave Obama two Pinnochios for attempting to unclaim his pledge to enter into the public financing system.

"Obama's affirmative answer to the Midwest Democracy Network seems unequivocal," Dobbs writes. "Now that Obama is raising $1 million a day, his enthusiasm for public financing appears to have waned."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/obama-prepares.html

Tippy Canoe and Hillary too: tipping public perception

Following the leader, it was Nancy Pelosi who first (in March) called for Bush to boycott the Olympic opening ceremony.

It must have been important enough of a political move, not necessarily a prudent one considering our economic dependence on China, that after Clinton’s announcement, which came on April 4th urging President Bush to boycott the opening ceremony of the 2008 Olympics, she challenged her opponents to do the same. Obama did, but five days later on April 9th.

"LEVITTOWN, Pennsylvania (Reuters) - President George W. Bush should boycott the opening ceremony of the Olympics if China does not take steps to help stop genocide in Darfur and improve human rights in Tibet, U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama said on Wednesday."

Obama statement-
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0945363820080409
April 9, 2008

Obama qualified his comments, saying Bush should decide to boycott or not, at a later date.

On April 9th CNN aired a panel segment on the three candidates’ positions on a boycott without vetting them first; they dropped the ball and misspoke for Obama, saying he had not made a statement as to whether Bush should attend or not.

Will the millions who probably watched receive a retraction, an update, a rejoinder?

McCain’s response, which also came five days later, grabbed fewer media outlets with no more than a few sentences, while Hillary got the most coverage with Obama coming in second.

“Responding to British PM Gordon Brown announcement, Sen. John McCain told Sean Hannity today that President Bush should preserve the option of boycotting the opening ceremony at the Olympics.”

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/04/mccain_leaves_open_...
April 9, 2008

The candidate in the most precarious position, who’s down in the polls and hanging by a thread, is demanding and getting the media spotlight, and in this case not unintentionally. Yet, not one political prognosticator or pundit has pointed that out.

Backgrounder-

Wednesday night, April 9th, CNN had three panelists discuss the candidates' responses, as to whether Bush should attend the Olympic opening ceremony, or not. All said Hillary made an unwise decision except one, Gloria Borger, a contributing editor for US News & World Report, who said that Hillary came out strongly that he should boycott.

Borger stated Hillary’s bold move was more of a primary strategy than a Presidential strategy, but a good one on her part to come out strong against the frequent Chinese practice of human injustices and of course to be seen as a leader.

Joe Klein, one of two other panelist said Obama never committed a position and he was the smartest for not doing so.

Maybe they should have talked to his campaign before they spoke on Obama’s behalf because a Reuters article out that same night at 7:45PM had Obama saying essentially the same thing as Clinton’s response with the caveat that Bush should wait and make a decision closer to the opening ceremonies.

April 9th the Wall Street Journal carried Sen. Hillary Clinton's call for President Bush to boycott the opening ceremonies of the Olympics in Beijing with an Update on Obama.

"Today, Clinton challenged rival Sen. Barack Obama and likely Republican nominee John McCain to join her in that call after British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s office announced that.
Clinton is the first presidential candidate to call for a boycott. Obama told CBS recently he is “hesitant” on the boycott “because I think it’s partly about bringing the world together.”

Update: Obama said in a statement that Bush should boycott the Olympics opening ceremonies “if the Chinese do not take steps to help stop the genocide in Darfur and to respect the dignity, security and human rights of the Tibetan people.”

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/04/09/clinton-challenges-rivals-to-jo...
April 9, 2008

Here’s another sample of how the Huffington Post got it wrong:

"Barack Obama has only managed to skillfully avoid mentioning anything regarding the Chinese.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allison-kilkenny/why-america-wont-boycott_...
April 9, 2008

CNN Banned Clinton Regulars

Carville, Begala Temporarily Banned till Primaries over After Obama Complaints

In January, Huffington Post, said that "CNN has told top Dem strategists James Carville, Paul Begala, and Robert Zimmerman -- who are CNN mainstays but are all Hillary supporters -- that they will not be doing any more political analysis on the network until the Democratic primary has reached a conclusion."

I'm also told that this move came after the Obama campaign repeatedly complained to high level officials at CNN about the presence of Carville and Begala on the network. "

Sam Feist, CNN's political director, also confirmed the decision to me. "As we got closer to the voting, we made a decision to make sure that all the analysts that are on are non-aligned," Feist said, adding that the decision had been made around the start of December. "Carville and Begala are two of the best analysts around and we look forward to seeing them on CNN plenty of times in the future, once the nominating process has ended."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/24/carville-begala-temporar_n_8317...

The original article came from Talking Points Memo

Exclusive: After Obama Complaints, CNN Bans James Carville And Paul Begala From Appearing As Analysts Until Dem Primary Is Settled

"Interestingly, not everyone at CNN appears to agree with this decision. "People inside CNN are surprised," one person involved with CNN programming told me. "No other network buckled to this political pressure. CNN has removed from its lineup top analysts who know about the national political scene." Not an argument that will find much sympathy in the lib blogosphere, perhaps, but worth noting. "

January 24, 2008 -- 7:11 PM EST // //
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2008/01/cnn_says_no_mor.php

CNN in the tank for Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmmmaZkaAGk

NOTES: If you recall in the past, CNN usually had each candidate's surrogates on to speak on their behalf. Why wasn't that done this year? CNN has replaced some of their regulars with pro-Obama pundits who are not claiming support of any candidate. We're still hunting for more information.

"Living in the USA"

"Its my freedom
Ah, dont worry bout me, babe.."

Can’t forget the melody or the lyrics; they stick in our memory and years later the tune and the words remain distinct. Few things spoken have this kind of staying power, with the exception of a few eloquent, poignant words spoken by men and women at a particular times in our history – which remain as a continued tour de force, both inspiring and provoking. Few words have that kind of lasting power. But, there are utterances, distressing ones, that stick nevertheless. Howard Dean’s statement that “the Florida and Michigan delegations, disqualified in 2007 by Dean’s own Rules Committee, would be seated at the August convention — but, apparently, only after a nominee is chosen,” are words that resonate, because they’re absolutely nonsensical, counterintuitive.

Doot do do do do doot doot
Living in the u.s.a.

It’s as if two states and their 366 delegates and millions of votes had disappeared off the map. But Wyoming, unknown to most of us, became in one day, the state that gained a prominence which could determine the outcome of the election 2008; Obama had a 2,066-vote margin in Wyoming—big enough to nullify Hillary Clinton’s 329,000-vote margin in the five March races.

So, you could say Wyoming has determined the outcome of the 2008 Democratic primary race, since Florida and Michigan won’t count. It’s a fact I didn’t know.

"Living in the USA
Doot do do do do doot doot"

According to Wayne Barrett of the Huff Post, the Dean plan for the two swing states –who are big enough to decide the nomination or general election – would be to eventually seat them at the convention, but the votes that’s another issue that Dean said hasn’t been decided because the campaigns aren’t ready to do that.

But, that’s not true. “Hillary Clinton's campaign was amenable to redoes, even financing Michigan's, and the Barack Obama's campaign opposed every feasible proposition.”

"Ah, dont worry bout me, babe
Doot do do do do doot doot
Living in the USA..."

Barrett says, “In all the buzz about the media's pro-Obama tilt, its indifference to his resistance to including these states in the "actual" nominating process is its most disturbing favor, especially since this brand of "conventional politics," as Obama would put it, flies in the face of his contention that "the people" should pick the nominee. Obama's only proposal so far has been to split the delegates evenly…”

Of course, Barrett says that there have been only “column inches and moments of air time spent on how and why these two states and their 366 delegates have been banished.”

"Living in the USA
Doot do do do do doot doot..."

Barrett explains how the fiasco began in Michigan with the signature of Governor Granholme on a bill to move the primary up, which was passed by a Republican majority, receiving no from every DFL legislator. According to Barrett “Republican governor, Charlie Crist is seen as a prime player behind the state's acceleration of the primary calendar. But Crist isn't half the Florida story; Marco Rubio, a Jeb Bush protégé who runs the nearly 2-to-1 Republican Florida House, drove that bill through the legislature like it was a tax cut limited by law to top GOP donors.”

Indeed, Barrett says, “ the tracks under this train wreck trace back, in each case, to Republican maneuvers in state legislatures, political no- man's-lands for all who've blithely dismissed the disenfranchisement of the millions of registered Florida and Michigan Democrats.”

"Its my freedom
Ah, dont worry bout me, babe
I got to be free, babe
Hey"

Barrett says, “What a probe might have discovered was a rationale for doing, at worst, what the RNC did to its own overeager primary schedulers in the same two states -- cutting the delegations by half. That's precisely the penalty specified in DNC rules, but the committee, exercising powers it certainly had the legal discretion to exercise, upped the ante as far as it could. In a bizarre reversal of public policy, the RNC, surely aware that the principal miscreants in both states were Republicans, applied a sane yet severe sanction. The Democrats opted for decapitation.”

Barrett's article is long, but worth the read. It clearly lays the blame at the hands of Republicans and the Chair of the Democratic Party for the abrogation of voters’ rights and the loss of millions of votes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wayne-barrett/could-the-republicans-cou_b_...

Lookin for uncle sam
To give you a helpin hand
But everybodys kickin sand
Even politicians
Were living in a plastic land
Somebody give me a hand, yeah

"Living in the USA
Dont worry bout me, babe
Doot do do do do doot doot
Living in the u.s.a.
Living in the u.s.a.
Doot do do do do doot doot
Living in the u.s.a.
I got to be free
Doot do do do do doot doot
Living in the u.s.a.
Come on try it, you can buy it, you can leave it next week, yeah
Somebody give me a cheeseburger.."

Lyrics Steve Miller Band
"Living in the USA"

http://www.lyricsfreak.com/s/steve+miller/living+in+the+u+s+a_20131036.h...

"Bitter" Obama's Reference to Working Americans

There are three statements out of Obama's San Franciso speech that the press are NOT talking very much about. They're ONLY emphasizing the word "bitter" as describing his sentiments about white middle class working families. Here are three statements that have created an avalanche of blog posts, and fodder for the pundits:

1. "And when it's delivered by -- it's true that when it's delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama (laugher), then that adds another layer of skepticism (laughter)."

2. "Because everybody just ascribes it to 'white working-class don't wanna work -- don't wanna vote for the black guy.' That's...there were intimations of that in an article in the Sunday New York Times today - kind of implies that it's sort of a race thing. "

3. "So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them...."

The Text of what Obama said:

OBAMA: So, it depends on where you are, but I think it's fair to say that the places where we are going to have to do the most work are the places where people feel most cynical about government. The people are mis-appre...I think they're misunderstanding why the demographics in our, in this contest have broken out as they are. Because everybody just ascribes it to 'white working-class don't wanna work -- don't wanna vote for the black guy.' That's...there were intimations of that in an article in the Sunday New York Times today - kind of implies that it's sort of a race thing.

Here's how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn't buy it. And when it's delivered by -- it's true that when it's delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama (laugher), then that adds another layer of skepticism (laughter).
But -- so the questions you're most likely to get about me, 'Well, what is this guy going to do for me? What's the concrete thing?' What they wanna hear is -- so, we'll give you talking points about what we're proposing -- close tax loopholes, roll back, you know, the tax cuts for the top 1 percent. Obama's gonna give tax breaks to middle-class folks and we're gonna provide health care for every American. So we'll go down a series of talking points.
But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
Um, now these are in some communities, you know. I think what you'll find is, is that people of every background -- there are gonna be a mix of people, you can go in the toughest neighborhoods, you know working-class lunch-pail folks, you'll find Obama enthusiasts. And you can go into places where you think I'd be very strong and people will just be skeptical. The important thing is that you show up and you're doing what you're doing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/obama-no-surprise-that-ha_b...

Poll Jump

American Research Group jump verified at Pollster.com by ARG Poll...
Pennsylvania Dem Trend Sensitivity
Time for a look at the sensitivity of our trend estimators. ARG has a new Pennsylvania poll out showing a 20 point Clinton lead. (In PA)
Those are just two polls; but momentum from this could build
http://www.pollster.com/