June 7, 2008

From The New York Times: The Long Goodbye: Clinton Suspends Her Campaign and Endorses Obama

“The way to continue our fight now, to accomplish the goals for which we stand, is to take our energy, our passion and our strength and do all we can to help elect Barack Obama the next president of the United States.

“I endorse him and throw my full support behind him.”

She asks her supporters to work as hard for him as they did for her. She vouches for him, saying she had a front-row seat to his candidacy for the last 16 months and saw his strength, determination, grace and grit. “He has lived the American dream,” she says. And now, “our paths have merged.”

“I am standing with Senator Obama to say, ‘Yes we can,’” she says, adopting his slogan, which some of her supporters on the campaign trail had converted into a chant for her, “Yes she will!”

FINALLY ... MAYBE ... TODAY


June 5, 2008

Barack in Bristol, VA: "They do not fund my campaign. They will not fund our party."

40 Years Later, We Remember, and Listen Once Again

Ted Kennedy's Eulogy of RFK

Obama Pound

By God, For All Our Sakes, I Hope So!


Hillary Gets It Done

by Lisa Van Dusen


Hillary Clinton's decision late yesterday to suspend her campaign as of tomorrow and endorse Barack Obama did wonders to improve the prospects of the Democratic party in November.

For a moment after he proclaimed himself the presumptive Democratic nominee for president Tuesday night on a stage in St. Paul, Obama looked like he was either genuinely overcome by the moment or really, really pissed off.

Given the kind of night he was having, it could have been either one or a little of both.

Could be he was feeling a little conflicted because the opponent he had finally, indisputably defeated after a gruelingly long battle had just injected the proceedings with a definite sense of surreal, Lewis Carroll cognitive dissonance by delivering an un-concession speech so she could have more cake.

It was a great disappointment to many Democrats, including many in her own campaign, who thought that Clinton would, despite everything her behaviour had predicted up to that point, rise to the occasion.

That, in the end -- which is what it was by any sane measure -- she would say something that would remind us of a more innocent time, a time before she raised a certain kind of politics to heights previously unseen in most constitutional democracies.

But what Clinton delivered Tuesday night in New York was more of a call to arms, with a deluge of cold water thrown in for good measure.

Faced with the final, irrefutable fact of her defeat, Senator Clinton went out on that stage and delivered her stump speech, as though it was just another night on the campaign trail, only with a tribute to herself thrown in, and topped off by an appeal to the supporters she desperately wants to characterize as a critical mass-fuelled movement, to e-mail in their suggestions as to what she should do next.

There was a fleeting mention of Obama off the top, with no mention of the words won or nominee, and then onto her own plans, which in the real world would consist of a couple of weeks of dogs-up in Chappaqua followed by some targeted surrogate work for her party's historic, unexpectedly weary nominee.

But in a moment that was essentially a refutation of both the occasion and reality, both electoral and historic, Senator Clinton tastelessly raised the question of What Hillary Wants on a night when the only answer should have been "to unite the Democratic Party" and followed it by its own answer: Leverage.

Rather than displaying any of the class or generosity of spirit that the Obama campaign was squinting away at their monitors straining to hear, she commanded that leverage from the masses. Hillary Clinton put in motion an option of presenting the public and Obama with the post-Internet version of the Miracle on 34th Street courtroom mailbag scene: A claim of millions of e-mails representing an "uncontrollable" grassroots movement to either put her on the ticket or push on to a bloodbath in Denver.

She can overtake the impression she left for history and redeem Tuesday night by delivering a vastly different message tomorrow. This time, they say, she will.

28 Superdelegates Endorse Obama on Wednesday

From HQ Blog: In the wake of yesterday's historic results, a new wave of superdelegates has come forth and endorsed Barack Obama over the course of the day. Many of them took the opportunity to praise the efforts of both candidates, while expressing their support for Barack and desire for unity within the party.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (CA), Sen. Tom Harkin (IA), Sen. Ken Salazar (CO), Sen. Ron Wyden (OR), Sen. Tom Carper (DE), Sen. Frank Lautenburg (NJ), Sen. Mary Landrieu (LA) and Sen. Ben Cardin (MD) all endorsed this afternoon, issuing a joint statement that congradulated both candidates and pledged their support to Senator Obama.

As Senators who remained neutral in this contest, we are proud of Senators Obama and Clinton for breaking down barriers that some believed were unbreakable and for inspiring millions in our country to participate in our political process, many for the first time.

...Our focus now is on victory in November and on giving Barack Obama every ounce of our support, every bit of our energy, and our total commitment to do everything in our power to win the Presidency.

"Now is the time for all of us to come together. I enthusiastically support Senator Obama. He will be our nominee, and now it's very important that we all unite behind his candidacy. He has energized millions of new voters, and if we can sustain that momentum by coming together, he will be the next president of the United States."

"I've spoken with Senator Obama and made it clear that he could count me as an endorsing supporter of his at the Democratic Convention this August. Senator Obama is an effective leader, capable of leading our country into a new era, and I look forward to doing everything I can to ensure his success this November."

Other Superdelegates who endorsed Barack Obama today:

June 4, 2008

Remembering the Hope of Bobby - 40 Years Ago Today

US elections: Jimmy Carter tells Barack Obama not to pick Hillary Clinton as running mate


Jonathan Freedland | Wednesday June 4 2008

Barack Obama should not pick Hillary Clinton as his vice-presidential nominee, former president Jimmy Carter has told the Guardian.

"I think it would be the worst mistake that could be made," said Carter. "That would just accumulate the negative aspects of both candidates."

Carter, who formally endorsed the Illinois senator last night, cited opinion polls showing 50% of US voters with a negative view of Clinton.

In terms that might discomfort the Obama camp, he said: "If you take that 50% who just don't want to vote for Clinton and add it to whatever element there might be who don't think Obama is white enough or old enough or experienced enough or because he's got a middle name that sounds Arab, you could have the worst of both worlds."

Presumptive Nominee Barack Obama

Even Bush Has a Better Grasp of Reality and Civility than the Queen of Narcissism, Hillary Rodham Clinton

This morning, President Bush, appropriately, congratulated Obama through his White House spokeswoman Dana Perino:

"President Bush congratulates Sen. Obama for clinching the Democratic party's 2008 nomination for president," Perino told reporters. "He knows from personal experience that the presidential nominating process is a grueling one and Sen. Obama came a long way in becoming his party's nominee."

Even Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice got in on the act, stating that Obama's nomination is an 'extraordinary' development for the United States.

Hillary's refusal to acknowledge Barack Obama' s historic victory in the race for the Democratic Nomination is boorish at best; her refusal to congratulate him, and deal with reality, the latest evidence of her pathological narcissism (after all, it did keep her on the front pages today) and her ultimate disregard for the Democratic Party and the people of the United States.

Hil' is nothing short of a very bad joke that refuses to go away.

Worse yet, the leadership of the Democratic Party continues to salute her!

Despicable.

Please visit Obama's website and send a note of encouragement to resist the growing suicidal pressure to put HRC on the ticket.

Time to move on; time for change that does not include any of the Clintons.

zjm

June 3, 2008

From the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863 to June 3, 2008: Barack Obama, Nominee of the Democratic Party

Americans Favor President Meeting With U.S. Enemies: John McCain is Out of Touch With the American People

by Lydia Saad

PRINCETON, NJ -- Large majorities of Democrats and independents, and even about half of Republicans, believe the president of the United States should meet with the leaders of countries that are considered enemies of the United States. Overall, 67% of Americans say this kind of diplomacy is a good idea.

This is according to a Gallup Panel survey of a representative national sample of 1,013 Americans, conducted May 19-21.

Although separate Gallup polling shows that few Americans view Iran favorably, and that Iran leads Americans' list of top U.S. enemies in the world, the new Gallup survey also finds high public support for presidential-level meetings between the United States and Iran, specifically.

About 6 in 10 Americans (59%) think it would be a good idea for the president of the United States to meet with the president of Iran. This includes about half of Republicans, a majority of independents, and most Democrats.

Both positions enjoy broad popular appeal, with majorities of men, women, younger and older Americans, and those from different regions of the country all saying direct presidential-level talks with Iran and other enemies are a good idea.

The issue of using presidential diplomacy with U.S. enemies distinguishes Barack Obama from the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, John McCain, and even from his opponent for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton.

Obama is the only one of the three who has said he would personally meet with the leaders of countries like Iran, Syria, Cuba, and Venezuela as president, and he recently defended his position by saying "strong countries and strong presidents talk to their adversaries." Clinton has criticized Obama's approach as "naïve," and McCain has been unrelenting in his attacks on the issue, accusing Obama of being dangerously inexperienced and having "reckless judgment."

Bottom Line

McCain may eventually persuade more Americans that there is nothing for the president of the United States to discuss with hostile foreign leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and that to do so only undermines U.S. efforts to destabilize such regimes.

However, for now, whether it's the leader of an "enemy" country, generally, or the president of Iran, specifically, Americans think it's a good idea for the president of the United States to meet directly with the nation's adversaries.

President Obama

In August, Barack Obama will give his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention on the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King's 'I have a Dream' speech in Washington. In February, President Obama will lay a wreath at the Lincoln memorial on the 200th anniversary of Lincoln's birth.

This is HISTORY folks.

Time has come for the Clinton supporters to stop whining. You lost. Time to support the next President of the United States.

Time to get in step with History.

zjm

May 30, 2008

"Haven't we had enough of Mrs. Clinton's mad antics?"

Hillary's Popular Vote Notion only 'Popular' with the Punditocracy.

by Donald Sutherland | Huffington Post

It is incomprehensible to me that Mrs. Clinton can seriously be touting the notion, with the support of the punditocracy of CNN and Fox, that she is leading in the popular vote and should therefore be seriously considered as the most electable candidate in the November election. She's including those who voted for her in Florida and Michigan's name recognition ballot saying that to exclude them would be to disenfranchise them. What about the Democrats in Alaska, American Samoa, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nebraska, Washington, Hawaii and Wyoming who did not cast ballots because they were playing by the pledged delegates playbook and voted by caucus. What about them? Certainly if the rules are going to be changed and judgment is based on the 'popular' vote those voters in the eleven caucus states and Samoa will be disenfranchised. What about them?

And what about us? What about the American people? Haven't we had enough of Mrs. Clinton's mad antics in her pursuit of the realization of venal personal ambition; her 'say anything, do anything, no matter what' effort to manipulate our all too willing media to gull this country's populace into believing that her wretched illegitimacy is indeed legitimate. How much mendacity do we have to suffer, how much brazenness do we have to swallow before someone, anyone, has the decency, the common sense, to relieve us of this terrible trifle, this pathetic madness?

Vote Obama

The Great Barack Obama Insurrection

Hillary was ready. Hillary was unstoppable. Hillary was, by all accounts, a lock. What the hell happened?

By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist Friday, May 30, 2008

Are you paying any sort of attention to this moment in time? Are you reading bits and hints about the transformation, the shift, the unusual and slightly surreal energy coursing through the nation? Are you tattooing this seminal period on the sacrum of your sociopolitical consciousness? Are you under 50? Then there's been nothing else like this in your lifetime. And there probably never will be again.

You gotta take it all in, you know? Because it was no time at all ago, less than a year, and Hillary Clinton's presidential nomination was pretty much a given, and even I was relatively thrilled and gung-ho for her candidacy, especially given how she was so ahead in the polls and so ahead in fund raising and so ahead in public opinion her imminent nomination felt much like a slam dunk, a forgone conclusion, a sure thing.

And therefore it was all something rather otherworldly for progressives, a bit unprecedented, a Democratic race to watch only for the sheer historic value and for the surprising quality of the other candidates involved, and not because there was any doubt as to the eventual outcome.

Just a bit beyond incredible, then, what has happened since, in such a short time, in this, one of the more fascinating turning points in American history.

It almost cannot be understated: Barack Obama's steady, astounding, almost inexplicable rise to the top to not only become the presumptive Democratic nominee but also to overtake one of the strongest, smartest, most well-funded, tenacious rival candidates in American history — and also to out-poll his deeply connected Republican opponent — is both remarkable and historic on a number of fronts.

But the thing is, no matter how you crunch the data and try to logically analyze all the components that made Obamapalooza happen, there appears to be something just beyond the logic, just outside the normal machinery, that makes you shake your head in amazement, and perhaps remember this forever.

On one level, I suppose it's not all that unusual. There have been plenty of scrappy, outta-nowhere, come-from-behind victories in political races before. There are plenty of tales of one candidate holding an overwhelming lead early on, only to have his lunch eaten by some brilliant, whippersnapper upstart. JFK charmed the hell out of the planet and revealed the deep sourness of once-omnipotent Richard Nixon. Bill Clinton, the handsome, populist Arkansas governor with minimal big-stage experience but loads of effortless charisma, came from seemingly nowhere to build a phenomenal following and stomp all over the doddering, baffled, how-much-is-a-gallon-of-milk Bush 41.

But with Obama, as with just about everything about his campaign, something feels different, more historic, deeper and more profound and even a bit more, how do you say, intimate. It is not politics as usual. It is not just another smart, deeply intelligent upstart senator making a surprising play for The Show.

You have to take note. Because Obama has accomplished his astonishing rise without the normal weaponry of American politics. As of yet, there have been almost no dirty tricks. He has not really attacked Hillary, has not "gone negative" or run a nasty smear campaign or swiftboated her; he has not employed, in short, any of the disgusting tactics Karl Rove's Republican party notoriously used against Al Gore and John Kerry so as to lie themselves into a brutal and failed chokehold of power.

Verily, plethoric are the pundits who've been trying to parse just why, exactly, Obama has been so much more effective, so much more far-reaching and cross-cultural than the once-unstoppable Clinton, not to mention McCain or anyone else. What is it about him, exactly? What is it that draws such a broad circle of endorsements, from Ted Kennedy to Andrew Sullivan, John Edwards to former Labor Secretary Robert Reich?

It's the networking, they say. Obama is the first "Facebook candidate." He's the first to successfully leverage all the modern tech, the viral marketing, YouTube, Web 2.0, lovely videos by celebrity rappers who are nearly moved to tears by the man's speeches. Yes, that must be it.

Or maybe it's his remarkable, idealistic team of aides, his hotshot fresh-faced speechwriters, his wondrous oratory skill. Is it the cool campaign posters? Is it the game-altering speeches on race in America? Or is it what the terrified right-wing hatemongers are calling "liberal guilt," the feeling that we on the whiny tree-hugging ultra-PC left feel so gosh-darn guilty about how blacks, Hawaiians and Harvard-trained lawyers have been treated, lo, these many millennia — even more so than the oppressive treatment of women — that Obama gets our vote out of sheer nervous remorse?

Problem is, those explanations feel insufficient and inadequate and, in the case of that last one, exceedingly stupid. Is there not something else going on? Is there more to it than just a battle between old school/new school styles of campaigning?

Maybe the answer lies elsewhere. Maybe you need to look to the dark side for a hint, for a bit of proof that there's more to this moment in history than mere shifting times. It comes in the form of that very ugly and violent rumor that gets whispered among skeptics and conspiracy theorists and bantered about by cretins on Fox News, and even sighed by many otherwise happy, progressive idealists, those who've had their dreams shattered and hopes pummeled enough times that a form of sinister cynicism creeps in.

It is this: Some feel Obama will not survive. There are those who think something violent and lethal is bound to happen to him and not merely because he's black, but because he's too revolutionary, too much a force for harmony and peace, and the forces of darkness and oppression in America, be they troglodytic Southern racists or anarchist radicals or insular BushCo die-hards, simply cannot have that.

There is no need to invite that repulsive idea in for long. It is too dark, disquieting, pointless, not to mention how it feels like it could create some sort of self-fulfilling prophecy by mentioning it too damn much in the media. But it is worth noting for one curious aspect: It is a fear borne of a truly rare historic circumstance, the amazing idea that someone like Obama is, to put it bluntly, too good for this particular role, a bit too conscious and enlightened for what is a brutal and soul-numbing and potentially deadly political machine.

Then again, maybe, in a morose way, this is how we know transformative change is arriving, perhaps quicker than expected, but arriving nonetheless. We're already deeply scared of losing it. Really, how long's it been since we've felt anything like that?

May 29, 2008

'Soy Barack Obama' The New Face of America to the World

A new Obama ad for Puerto Rican television:

Quote for the Day



"Do you recognize and accept your own responsibility for the current evils of your society and your world? Are you now prepared to do what your heart knows is required in order to begin putting an end to man's inhumanity to man?"


Leo Tolstoy

May 28, 2008

Hillary - No Lover of Democracy


Harold Meyerson: Clinton's rules fight isn't about democracy

The rights of voters in Florida and Michigan didn't matter until she needed them.

By Harold Meyerson May 28, 2008

On Saturday, when the Rules Committee of the Democratic National Committee meets to determine the fate of Florida and Michigan's delegations to this summer's convention, it will have some company. A group of Hillary Clinton supporters has announced it will demonstrate outside.

That Clinton has impassioned supporters, many of whom link her candidacy to the feminist cause, hardly qualifies as news. And it's certainly true that along the campaign trail Clinton has encountered some outrageously sexist treatment. But somehow, a number of Clinton supporters have come to identify the seating of Michigan and Florida with the causes of democracy and feminism -- an equation that makes a mockery of democracy and feminism.

Clinton herself is largely responsible for this absurdity. Over the past couple of weeks, she has equated the seating of the two delegations with African-Americans' struggle for suffrage in the Jim Crow South, and with the efforts of the democratic forces in Zimbabwe to get a fair count of the votes in their presidential election.

The Clintonistas who have called Saturday's demonstration make it sound as if they'll be marching in Selma in support of a universal right to vote. The DNC, says one of their websites, "must honor our core democratic principles and enfranchise the people of Michigan and Florida."

Had Florida and Michigan conducted their primaries the way other states did -- that is, in accord with the very clear calendar laid down by the DNC well before the primaries began -- then Clinton's marchers would be utterly justified in their claims. But when the two states flouted those rules by moving their primaries outside the prescribed time frame, the DNC decreed that their primaries would not count and enjoined all presidential candidates from campaigning in those states. Obama and John Edwards complied by removing their names from the Michigan ballot. Clinton did not.

Seating Michigan in full would validate the kind of one-candidate election (well, 1.03, to give Dennis Kucinich, Chris Dodd and Mike Gravel, who also remained on the ballot, their due) that is more common in autocracies than democracies. It would mean rewarding the one serious candidate who didn't remove her name from the ballot when all her rivals, in deference to the national party rules, did just that.

What's particularly outrageous is that the Clinton campaign supported the calendar -- and the sanctions against Michigan and Florida -- until Clinton won those states and needed to have their delegations seated.

Not a single Clinton campaign official or DNC Rules Committee member, much less the candidate herself, said at the time that the sanctions imposed on Florida or Michigan were in any way an affront to democratic values. The threat that these rules posed to our fundamental beliefs was discovered only ex post facto -- the facto in question being Clinton's current need to seat the delegations whose seatings she had opposed when she thought she'd cruise to the nomination.

Clinton's supporters have every right to demonstrate, but their larger cause is neither democracy nor feminism; it's situational ethics. To insist otherwise is to degrade democracy and turn feminism into the last refuge of scoundrels.

Harold Meyerson, editor-at-large of American Prospect and the L.A. Weekly, wrote this article for the Washington Post.