Ah, Jeez, they’re at it again (or who are the SDs more afraid of? Wyoming or NEW JERSEY?)

Both TalkingPointsMemo and The Politico are winding up the “there’s no possible way Hillary can win” crap. Esentially, these guys are trying to make the voters of PA, WV, KY, IN and NC feel that there is no possible way our votes can count so why bother? Before I go off on another post describing why this is just a haka, let me just express how incredibly disappointed I am with my own party.

We were supposed to be the good guys. We were the ones for counting every vote. We were disgusted with voter suppression in Ohio in 2004. We were the ones who hated Rovian tactics of smearing other people’s character. We were apalled when the Republicans tried to control their primaries in 2000 by essentially picking a candidate in advance and defaming John McCain in South Carolina with racist smears and innuendos.

And what do we have this year? We have the DNC disenfranchising what they must have known in advance was going to be a pro-Hillary state- Florida. They didn’t just apply the standard punishment, they completely wiped the voters off of the map. We have a candidate who is just fine with suppressing the voters of MI and FL by passively dragging his feet so their voices don’t get heard unless they don’t count. And by extension, he is robbing NJ, NY, CA, AZ, MA, OH and TX the critical mass it needs for Clinton while at the same time artificially inflating the delegate counts and popular vote of Obama. If it isn’t technically cheating, it is certainly immoral. We have one candidate, Senator Obama, accusing the Clintons, life long advocates of civil rights and healing the racial divide, of being racists. We’ve heard Senator Obama offer an olive branch to Clinton on the floor of the senate and then had his campaign turn around and accuse her of ruthlessness and unethical behavior. And we’ve had the mouthpiece for the DNC, Donna Brazile, go on Sunday morning talking heads programs and threaten to leave the Democratic party if she doesn’t get her way and Obama doesn’t get nominated.

But here’s the kicker. Jim VamderHei and Mike Allen, who are clearly fans of the Republican party, make no mistake about that, write this stupid paragraph in the above mentioned post:

Unless Clinton is able to at least win the primary popular vote — which also would take nothing less than an electoral miracle — and use that achievement to pressure superdelegates, she has only one scenario for victory. An African-American opponent and his backers would be told that, even though he won the contest with voters, the prize is going to someone else.

How about we do some truthful rearranging? Because here’s the REAL situation:

Unless Obama is able to win at least one large electoral college state or swing state outside of Illinios — which also would take nothing less than an electoral miracle — and use that achievement to pressure superdelegates, he has only one scenario for victory. A more qualified opponent and her backers in NJ, NY, CA, MA, OH, AZ, TX, (PA), MI and FL would be told that, even though she won the contest with voters, the prize is going to someone else.

And if you think you can haka your way to the nomination and sit on the millions and millions of us who voted for Clinton in the big electoral college states, YOU are the one out of your minds. We are going to swing a big stick. Count on it.

One more thing: I pinched this from Taylor Marsh’s page. She writes:

Don’t look now, but Democrats are in trouble, especially with Obama at the top, which is where we stand today. Superdelegates can sense the general election dangers of an Obama candidacy, but at the same time can also imagine the furor if they decide against him. News flash folks: What makes anyone think Clinton supporters will be any less outraged? Like I said, all signs point to trouble

.

First, we screened poll respondents to find those who were aware that Obama’s pastor was in the news. A startling 82% knew about Obama’s speech, and about the controversy surrounding the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Of those who knew about the controversy and the speech, we asked, “Taking all this into account, are you more or less likely to support Obama for president?”Less likely (52%) More likely (19%) About the same (27%) No opinion (2%)

Shorter Bill Richardson

I love change. We all are for change. But the question is, examine the record of those that in the past produced change. The 1990’s were a decade of peace and prosperity because of the competent and enlightened leadership of the Clinton administration, but experience IS a leper. Obama’s plan is inadequate and does not end the war, but he has the judgment and courage we need in a commander in chief. My affection and admiration for Hillary Clinton and President Bill Clinton will never waver, but the American people are not going to elect someone who isn’t seen as honest and trustworthy. We all know the real culprit — the disastrous economic policies of the Bush Administration, but will she finally admit to workers that she was one of the chief proponents of NAFTA? To rise above our racially divided past, I UNITE HERE with those who claim Hillary no respeta a nuestra gente.

Shattered

That’s what the kid up the street told my mother. “Your car window was shattered.”

I thought about the word. I was a little girl in the 60’s and it was new word with some interesting sounds. But what did it mean? I found out a few minutes later when the driver’s side window of my mother’s red Chevelle lay in tiny pieces on the ground, like little glass drops of rain, frozen in time the minute they hit the pavement.

Shattered.

We lived in San Pedro, CA, my dad’s home base while he was out cruising the Gulf of Tonkin and it was a turbulent year. There were riots and marches and speeches and even though our mixed and ethnically diverse neighborhood was for the most part quiet and safe, every once in awhile, windows would be broken as the anger and frustration spread.

Friday: Just the two of us

We can make it if we try…

Ok, who out there thinks that Richardson is doing this out of purely altruistic reasons and it has nothing at all to do with snagging that priceless VP slot he’s been looking for? Anyone? Don’t be shy, raise your hands.

Ok, here’s a little challenge. Katharine Hepburn once said of Ginger Rogers and Fred Astaire: “She gives him sex and he gives her class.” So, the challenge is, what does Richardson give Obama and vice versa, I mean, besides the hispanic vote in the fall and a VP slot? Actually, isn’t it too late to capture the hispanic vote for the primaries except in Puerto Rico? Is Obama worried about Puerto Rico and what does that say about The Math? *OR* is Obama saying, “My plan is to completely diss FL and by extension, CA, NJ, NY, MA, AZ, MI, OH and TX, but don’t worry, I’m going to give you a hispanic leader for VP and we’ll all be friends again. Isn’t that cool? Now, make me the nominee, damnit!” (Am I reading too much into this?)

In other news…

Paul Krugman channels Prince (the artist formerly known as a symbol) in Partying Like it’s 1929. Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! Er, Robert Rubin on NPR this morning said something along these same lines when he was talking about leverage and liquidity. I don’t know nuthin’ ’bout investment markets but I got the shivvers when he said something to the effect, “Nooo, we don’t need no stupid regulation on what they’re doooing. We need regulation on how much we’re able to lose without suffering tremendous loses.”, or something to that effect. In other words, playing the market and creating new “instruments” is all ticketyboo but that whole risk thing? Yeah, government has to be better about letting people get caught holding the bag. Hmmmm….