Do you guys remember the day that Harry Reid pulled that brilliant maneuver that took the Senate into a closed session? Ahh, how the Kossacks cheered Harry on. They *loved* it. Those were the days. Well it turns out that Hillary might have had a hand in shaping that little morale booster. The Hill tells the tale in Clinton was brain behind the War Room.

She was one of the proponents of the Democratic Senate War Room, a rapid response operation that was created in order to counteract the effect of losing several crucial seats in 2004. Of course, the Republicans claim that it just fueled partisanship but damn, what if there hadn’t been one at all? I shudder to think about it. We were getting creamed.

The piece also suggests that Reid isn’t necessarily a Obamaphile.

Stupid Kossacks.

Obama is making a good faith effort to win Kentucky, pun intended. He’s sending out this flyer to appeal to evangelicals.

Now, there are a couple things to note about this ad and since my family is heavily evangelical, I feel somewhat qualified to comment on it.

First, it looks like Obama is in a bit of a sticky wicket in KY. After all, it was only a month ago that small town folks were called bitter and clung to their religion, xenophobia and guns when they didn’t understand what was going on in the world. I gotta tell you, that didn’t go over too well in PA and I suspect WV wasn’t too amused either. And Obama suffered humiliating defeats in both states. I’ll betcha Bittergate is still turning up in their internal polls. That coupled with Wright makes it necessary for him to roll out this flyer. In other words, it’s pandering out of panic. Do you think Kentuckians will be assuaged? Ahem, moving on.

In this flyer, Obama says:

“my faith teaches me that I can sit in church and pray all I want, but I won’t be fulfilling God’s will unless I go out and do the Lord’s work.”

Very interesting. Now most of you will say this makes perfect sense if you are a Christian. Ahhh, but *evangelical* Christians believe that we are saved by grace alone. It isn’t necessary to do any more than accept Jesus. It’s the bare minimum requirement but an important one. It’s where the protestant church divides from the Catholic church. Your good deeds do not get you into heaven; grace does. No need for good works, pennance or any of that. But here, Obama is putting his work first as fulfilment of God’s will. Is it a minor point? I dunno. I’ve only lived with evangelicals, I can’t get inside their heads. But it may suggest that he doesn’t know his audience very well.

Finally, there is a rumor floating around in the escatological side of evangelicalism that Barack Obama is the anti-Christ. Hey, if you feed people enough Left Behind books, they start to forget they’re fiction. And here he is, sending out a flyer looking to all the evangelical world like a false prophet (point 1), unbeliever (point 2) standing in front of a cross.

It’s delicious.

[UPDATE] — katiebird’s take (amazingly I had this scheduled to go later this morning):

Is Religion a Winning Issue for Obama? Should Religion even BE an Issue?

I think Obama is in a pretty tight place on the religion issue. I’m not a part of the weird-Internet-rumor world so I don’t know first hand but, I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s still battling that whole “secretly Muslim” thing. And I’m sorry about that. This election is too serious for the distraction of lies and misdirection.

Also, it seems to me that the blizzard of lies obscured some serious questions. In South Carolina, Obama successfully used his relationship with the Trinity Church to counter those “he’s a secret Muslim” rumor — and to build a bond with voters. Will this pitch be equally successful in Kentucky?

His campaign thinks so. As lambert at Corrente and Jeralyn at TalkLeft report, Obama’s campaign in Kentucky is reaching out the religious community with this flier:

My question is: Do people really want to see pictures of Obama in church? Well, I don’t want to see pictures of ANY politician in church, so I’m not a good one to ask. But that reservation aside, I don’t think this is a winning issue for Obama.

What do you think?

Yes, I expect those words to get a lot of negative attention but hear me out. Feminists have used that term for years when it applies to men. Society is set up to reward men simply for having a Y chromosome. They don’t have to do anything special. They just take it for granted that they will rise to the top, paths will be cleared, obstacles removed. Isn’t that what the whole Angry White Male, Rush Limbaugh phenomenon is all about? Men resenting the fact that now they have to compete with women and “feminazis”? Their slice of the pie just got smaller. Suddenly, their future prospects are not so rosy. But let’s not fool ourselves. There is still a huge affirmative action program out there for men and far fewer breaks for women in the workplace and society at large. He can get profit from and get away with far more things than she can.

I’ve said before and I’ll say it again: if it weren’t for the fact that Barack Obama is the token male in this primary race, it is hard to see how he and Hillary Clinton would be sharing the same stage. Her CV is much thicker than his and her command of the qualifications for what it takes to be president far exceeds his. Their debate performances highlight how unevenly they are matched. Her presentation is detailed and fluid; his is sketchy, long winded and unfocussed. At the end of this long campaign season, she has seemingly boundless energy and is all but unflappable; he is showing fatigue and calls professional women “sweetie”. Yet, here they are, together. She is forced to share a stage with a male who is competing for the same position and it is a wonder to the rest of us how he ever got this far.

And this is where the Affirmative Action part comes in. Because the bar has been lowered for Obama. As a consequence (or perhaps by intent) of the Rules and Bylaws Committee of the DNC Barack Obama only has to reach 2025 delegates to snag the nomination. But Hillary Clinton has to reach 2209. Yep, let that sink in for a second. Despite all of the big and swing states she has earned, despite the fact that she’s still winning strong, the path to *her* nomination depends on Michigan and Florida while these two requirements have been conveniently waived for Barack Obama. With the “all or nothing” narrative of the “pledged delegate count trumps all”, none of her delegates count without all 50 states; all of his count with 48.

Now, the Obama supporters and Donna Brazile can scream about RULZ until the cows come home but this is the naked truth that the whole country can see- he is being given a 2.3 million voter break. It’s like a test score that we have lowered just for him. Not only does he not have to win any crucial states but he can get away with fewer of them and it has been this way the entire primary season where his campaign has been able to use this inequity to its advantage, conditioning the public to believe that she is behind him.

Enough is enough. Let’s call it what it is and let the DNC know that you will be watching on May 31 when the Rules and Bylaws Committee meets. Are they going to set the Obama Affirmative Action Program in stone and carry out one of the most flagrant abuses in power since the US Supreme Court ruled on Bush v. Gore? Or are they going to honor the wishes of 2.3 million voters and make the nomination a merit based system? One decision gives the better candidate a fighting chance, the other signals to society at large that this kind of behavior is ok and women are acceptable targets. What’s it going to be?

The whole world is watching.

One more thing: I served 3 years on my local school board before I resigned (too many committments). One thing I learned about politicians is that no matter how dug in their heels are, they are vulnerable to public pressure. The more noise you make, the more likely they are to yield. The problem is that this hs to be done face to face where they can see the anger and frustration. If they are out of earshot, it doesn’t work. You have to patiently and persistently get in their faces and make them listen and there is power in numbers. I can’t tell you hpw many times I saw the board start the evening with a perfectly good plan, like charging $18/month for courtesy bussing and after a couple hundred very vocal spoiled yuppie parrents have spoken, see them cave completely so that bussing is free for everyone with no distance standards. We just have to figure out a way of doing it. Email might work, phone calls might be better, in-person argumentation is best.
‘
One more thing thing: So last night Dukakis endorsed Obama, eh? That makes Kennedy, Kerry, Edwards, Dukakis, Carter. See a pattern here? It starts with an “L”.

This song goes out to all of the tough women who aren’t backing down:

Received within the hour, a “Very Important Message from Karen Cooper ” (Exec. Dir., NARAL Pro-Choice Washington) re this morning’s NARAL endorsement of Barack Obama:

… None of us here, myself included, knew about it until a phone call this morning from D.C., and at that point it was a done deal. To be clear, we at NARAL Pro-Choice Washington remain neutral in the race … We strongly disagree with NARAL Pro-Choice America’s decision to endorse at this time.

… To endorse Obama at this point in the race is an unconscionable slap in the face to Senator Hillary Clinton.

Furthermore, I want to make sure you know there is no transfer of funds between our affiliate and NARAL Pro-Choice America. We are separate entities.

… our Board of Directors is planning a meeting to discuss our affiliate’s next steps.

Closed with a link to NARAL Pro-Choice Washington’s press release on the subject.

Kudos, Karen! Any other blindsided affiliate sightings out there?

[UPDATES] Likewise New York … Missouri … Pennsylvania … others unofficially sound insulted-not-consulted, like Texas … while Oregon issues a firm statement of neutrality.

I guess I left NPR on the radio this morning when I got to work. And when I got back, it came right on, “I guess this just slams the door shut on a campaign where the door was already pretty much closed,” some guy said while thinking, WWTSBQ, I’m sure.

Yep, Obama getting beat by a record number of primary voters in a blowout-landslide was successfully overshadowed by the endorsement of a has-been Presidential candidate who didn’t have the nerve to make an endorsement until he was all but certain to be on the winning side (Fred Barnes just called it a Meaningless Profile in Caution). John Edwards endorsed Barack Obama today.

So what? Yesterday, Hillary blew Obama out of the water by the only measure that really counts: Votes. As ronkseattle said, it was, 3-1. Three to One. THREE to ONE. — don’t let THAT door hit you, Barack!

It’s pretty obvious that this endorsement was planned for the day after Obama’s Humiliating Defeat in West Virginia. And (Just like the New Hampshire Debate) the boyz are ganging up on Hillary in a way meant to show just how much more powerful they are than her. I don’t know how successful all this who-ha is. When I got home, they’d just finished showing The Sweetie Clip, it looks like Obama really can’t stop himself.

When will that stupid bitch quit? Well, you fucking, fuckers — Hillary’s NOT going to quit.

[UPDATE] I don’t know how I left this out but, it’s particularly disgusting that they did this in Michigan where both Obama and Edwards totally screwed us all by removing their names from the ballot.

And Edwards?  He’s not worth my spit.

I was getting worried there for a moment. He/She has a great post today titled, “It Ain’t Over Yet” that summarizes the state of the campaign. I especially liked this bit:

[Big bonus for Democrats if Sen. Clinton becomes the nominee: She is building a massive base of Democratic voters who don't trust the media to tell the truth about Democrats (like her) and who have deep contempt for the gasbags in the media. This is a dream come true for me because building voter skepticism about the media has been one of the principal failings of the Democratic party for a long time and she's almost single-handedly accomplishing what to me should be one of the holy grails of Democratic and progressive politics, i.e., making voters realize that the media is elitist and often dishonest in how it transmits false, often Republican (and increasingly fake "progressive") talking points about Democrats. Another holy grail that she's on the right side of - she has been long been firmly in support of funding alternative progressive institutions and groups outside the Democratic party apparatus that are critical to ensuring the long term success of the progressive movement; contrast that with Sen. Obama's inclinations.]

Yep, she could be a winner for us in so many ways one of the biggest being making the media narrative completely useless. Therefore, Donna Brazile will have her crushed.

I confess that I don’t visit Firedoglake like I used to so I have no idea how much in the tank they are for Obama. Probably quite a bit, right?

The NARAL endorsement of Obama made me think of Firedoglake but I’ll get to that in a second. Here’s the endorsement money quote from Nancy Keenan:

Sen. Obama has said, “A woman’s ability to decide how many children to have and when, without interference from the government, is one of the most fundamental rights we possess. It is not just an issue of choice, but equality and opportunity for all women.”

Further, I believe Sen. Obama is going to be the Democratic nominee. He leads in pledged delegates, superdelegates, the popular vote, and cash-on-hand. As a former elected official, I know that having the three “m’s” of a campaign - money, message and manpower (or womanpower!) - are how we win elections. Sen. Obama will be our next president.

And this part is laughable:

Sen. Obama is the leader who can unify Americans on both sides of our issue. He has reached new generations and energized young voters, independent voters, and Republican voters. He’s the candidate of the future, and today we are proud to put the power of NARAL Pro-Choice America’s one million strong members, activists and supporters behind Sen. Barack Obama.

Gee, Nancy, I don’t know how he’s going to do that seeing as he’s the one who helped create the rift in the first place. Ok, this is part of the Roe haka that they are going to try to roll out to use against us. I’m not buying it for two reasons: a.) NARAL could have endorsed the woman in the race if they weren’t so venal about money. and b.) Nancy Keenan has a history of making reprehensible endorsements. In 2006, she backed “Rape Gurney” Joe Lieberman in CT even while the local NARAL group backed Lamont and despite the fact that Joe Lieberman didn’t think it was necessary for all hospitals in CT to carry emergency contraception for rape victims if they objected to it because it was only a short ride to another hospital.

Jane Hamsher was livid. It’s one of the reasons she tried so hard to take Lieberman out. Then there was Keenan’s passivity in the Alito nomination. Time after time, Keenan has let women down and backed conservative candidates with less than stellar records on choice. So, you’ll forgive me if the endorsement leaves me non-plussed.

To get a full flavor of what Nancy Keenan’s NARAL is all about (hint: it’s money), check out these fine posts from Jane in the past:

Nice Going, NARAL
NARAL Lying for Lieberman
Please Try to Pretend You Care
More NARAL
Don’t Reward Failure by Giving Money to NARAL
Donating to NARAL is not Going to Protect a Woman’s Right to Choice
Consequences
Third Way= Screw the Ladies
What’s Wrong With Nancy Keenan?
Can Someone Explain this to Me?

Now, the question is, will NARAL’s endorsement of Obama have Jane seeing red or has she now become one of those people who believe that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”? Strange year. Strange year, indeed.

I want to come back to Bob Casey’s comment last night about how he’s heard about defections before but everyone comes around in the end and unites behind one candidate. That may have been true in the past, but Barack Obama will not be a candidate who will benefit from such good will. Not this time.

In the past, I was willing to embrace the nominee, even if he, and it was *always* a he, wasn’t my first choice. I was a Clarkie in 2004 but I got behind John Kerry. Mondale and Dukakis didn’t inspire me like some of the other candidates like Paul Tsongas or Gary Hart but I cheerfully pulled the lever for them. But the difference is that back then, the races were not that close. Someone was always a clear frontrunner and locked it up decisively. And so the messiness of the Democratic party was hidden. Ted Kennedy’s outrageous behavior at the 1980 convention was the only time I can remember someone trying to highjack a result and even then it wasn’t really a contest except in Kennedy’s head.

This year, however, we are witnessing the prejudices and contempt in our own party structure. And it is all directed to the benefit of one candidate at the expense of the better candidate. That’s the thing that is so revolting about this year. Barack Obama is simply not a very good candidate. He is unseasoned and inexperienced. Next to Clinton, he looks and sounds like a child when it comes to policy. And while she keeps going and going, winning on a shoestring budget, he can’t even eek out 30 points in a state where he had twice the resources that she had.

He has benefitted from a sycophantic media that has applauded everything he does. And everyone knows why they are doing it. There is no mystery here. They want the weaker candidate against McCain this fall. But instead of fighting the media, the party leadership is aiding and abetting it. It has tolerated and sometimes even engaged in blatant sexism. The candidate himself has also done this, dogwhistling to men and never once rebuked his media fan club for piling on Clinton. To her credit, she doesn’t complain. But it’s not like we haven’t noticed that and the lopsided double standard. Then there is the charge of racism directed at us.

But the straw that is breaking the camel’s back is the way that Florida and Michigan is being treated. Donna Brazile and the Rules and Bylaws committee seem determined to give voters the finger and deliberately suppress Clinton delegates with the expectation that they can swing the nomination for Barry. They are telling us all who voted for Clinton so go to hell and then simultaneously telling us we have to vote for Obama or else. That plus the gaming of the caucus states and the media haka proclaiming the race over is revolting.

The point is, we can see it all now. Nothing is hidden. If there were levers pulled before for one of the other candidates that I voted for, I was unaware of it. I thought the Democrats actually sood for something, like Democracy. Like giving everyone a chance. Like treating people like equals. And here I see the exact opposite embodied in the person of Barack Obama, a man who is willing to get to the nomination by riding this wave of Clinton media hatred and his own party’s contempt for voters.

This is supposed to make me want to unite behind him? By lowering the bar from 2209 delegates to 2025, the weaker candidate benefits from one of the biggest affirmative action programs there is at the expense of the better candidate. And I’m, supposed to approve of this when there is a very real possibility that repercussions will spread throughout society as a result of taking out the most powerful woman in America in such a brutal manner? That’s supposed to be Ok with me?

No, Senator Casey. I have to draw the line somewhere. You guys have gone too far.

74.3% to 25.7%. THREE to ONE. That’s how badly West Virginia rejected Barack Obama, when John Edwards 26,000 votes are included.

173,000 votes, and counting. That’s the raw margin by which West Virginia rejected Barack Obama.

Continuing with our Numbers Game commentary — sometimes a number just jumps out at you. Here’s another (from RedState via MyDD):

Do you notice one number that sticks out like a sore thumb? That +37, in among the +60’s, +70’s and +80’s. Obama’s margin among African-American voters in Massachusetts.

What’s special about Massachusetts? Deval Patrick is what’s special. His campaign, his candidacy was a clone, an off-Broadway opening run of the Obama candidacy. The same David Axelrod slogans, the same Change and Hope and Yes We Can on the same short resume, the same old school ties and then … dismal results in office. They’ve heard it before, they’ve seen it before, and a lot of them have seen through it a long way back.

Voters age 18-29 gave Obama a -1 margin in the MA primary. Voters with postgrad education gave him only a +4. Voters whose families were “Getting Ahead” financially gave him only +2. Voters with incomes on $100,000 or more gave Obama a -10 margin in Massachusetts.

Obama’s core support all comes from AA’s. African-Americans. Affluent-Americans. And Adolescent-Americans. And they’re all capable of buyer’s remorse.

I’m listening to WNYC for the past hour and not one word about West Virginia. It’s been pledge drive, earthquake, cyclone and Palestine. Nada about Obama’s humiliating defeat in West Virginia where he lost 67-25.7. Hmmm, let’s see, that’s a 41.3 point difference. Not pretty for our presumptive nominee.

I broke down and caught a bit of CNN last night when Bob Casey was cocky about how the party will be unified and, yeah, Hillary supporters *say* they won’t turn out in the fall for Obama but he’s heard this kind of thing before and they’ll fall in line by November, they always do.

Oh, Really?

I got a moment of deja vu for a second there. It seemed familiar. Sort of like, “I can’t understand why you’re so mad. You’ve got no reason to be. Get over it.” or “You’re nothing without me. Where else are you going to go?” Yeah, keep on like that, Bob. Every time one of you mouth off that we’ll come crawling back instead of apologizing to us for calling us racists and stupid old women, I get a little more determined to teach you a lesson you will *never* forget.

If we’ve learned one thing from West Virginia, it’s that voters do not like to be told that their vote is meaningless. They don’t want to hear it is over before they have a chance to vote. And they overwhelmingly like Hillary in states where they snobby DINKS and AA’s don’t have a critical mass for Obama. There are many more regular working people, even working creative class, who do not think Obama is ready to be president. There’s nothing racist about that. Last night, she won the majority of college educated in WV as well. So, apparently, not all of the “smart” people are part of Obama’s fan base.

Donna Brazile and her rules and bylaws committee seem determined to drag the Democratic party to the brink. Her insistence that the magic number if 2025 instead of 2209 is a clear signal that she has no intention of letting FL and MI delegates that Hillary won go into her column so that they have some kind of critical mass to the rest of the states that voted for her. And that’s the most evil part of her whole scheme. Without those delegates, the rest of us Hillary voters might as well have stayed home. It doesn’t matter that we live in the most crucial states for the party in the fall. They have decided for us.

I don’t know how that decision can stand before someone blows a carotid and pushes Donna off a cliff but the Rules and Bylaws committee shouldn’t get too comfortable with the idea that they can get away with it. And if I were Obama and had any hope of winning in November, I’d walk back that haka right now.

In other news:
Anglachel goes over the West Virginia results and marvels at the stupidity of the Democratic party in Presence and Absence and WV Exit Polls.
Taylor Marsh has Donna’s number in Michigan and Florida. I’m getting the feeling that Donna is getting to be really unpopular.