LINK

Does anyone know if these two unions were Obama backers before, or if they were for Clinton?  It's hard to keep unions straight these days.

Here's a link to the diary.

His campaign gave out the usual response that he'd have to "evaluate" the groups before he made a decision.

I'm having a tough time keeping any interest in this primary, it's both discouraging and upsetting to watch this disconnect between the internet space I've worked on for four years and reality itself get worse.  When I offer obvious points, for instance, that Obama may not be progressive, since he has in fact spoken repeatedly of his lack of ideology, I get ridiculous pushback from his supporters denying what he himself has said.

There's no discussion of Iraq, just conversations about irrelevant ads that talk about 3am phone calls between fear-mongering politicians who agree with each other.  It's so unbelievably dumb it's hard to deal with.

Specifically that, after all the work we did, the activists following Obama will start to justify things like centrism, bi-partisanship, and putting conservatives in positions of great power as somehow actually progressive. It would be like a reversion to the early 1990's, when progressive internalize the belief that progressive positions are unwinnable, and conservative legislation and administration under an Obama presidency are given a free pass. I don't want to return to the 1990's. While Obama is a less obvious return to that era than Hillary Clinton, much of what he says and does indicates otherwise.

Stunning comment.  A clear example of what Bowers is talking about is the issue of mandates in health care.  The policy arguments are fair game, but an alarming number of Obama supporters take the position that "forcing" people to purchase health insurance is a surefire political loser.  This is the "we can change the world, but we can't convince people to have premiums deducted from their paycheck" position that I love to ridicule.

Obama: A Thin Record For a Bridge Builder

By David Ignatius
Sunday, March 2, 2008; Page B07

Hillary Clinton has been trying to make a point about Barack Obama that deserves one last careful look before Tuesday's probably decisive Democratic primaries: If Obama truly intends to unite America across party lines and break the Washington logjam, then why has he shown so little interest or aptitude for the hard work of bipartisan government?

This is the real "Where's the beef?" about Obama, and it still doesn't have a good answer. He gives a great speech, and he promises that he can heal the terrible partisan divisions that have enfeebled American politics over the past decade. This is a message of hope that the country clearly wants to hear.

But can he do it? The record is mixed, but it's fair to say that Obama has not shown much willingness to take risks or make enemies to try to restore a working center in Washington. Clinton, for all her reputation as a divisive figure, has a much stronger record of bipartisan achievement. And the likely Republican nominee, John McCain, has a better record still.

Obama has been running for president almost since he arrived in the U.S. Senate in 2005, so his Senate colleagues say it's hard to evaluate his record. But what stands out in his brief Senate career is his liberal voting record, not a history of fighting across party lines to get legislation passed. He wasn't part of the 2005 Gang of 14 bipartisan coalition that sought to break the logjam on judicial nominations, but neither were Clinton or other prominent Democrats. He did support the bipartisan effort to get an immigration bill last year, winning a plaudit from McCain. But he didn't work closely with the White House, as did Sen. Edward Kennedy.

He thinks Clinton is better at his kind of "bipartisanship":

But can he do it? The record is mixed, but it's fair to say that Obama has not shown much willingness to take risks or make enemies to try to restore a working center in Washington. Clinton, for all her reputation as a divisive figure, has a much stronger record of bipartisan achievement. And the likely Republican nominee, John McCain, has a better record still.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080302/ap_on_el_pr/obama_34

Obama is described as saying that Jay Rockefeller, who endorsed him, voted against the war resolution, unlike Hillary.  

Is it completely open? Or is there usually a list of words to choose among?

The reason I'm asking is that Timmeh gave poll results for "Which word best describes" and Hillary's list had "b**ch" at the 4th or 5th word. Timmeh used the "rhymes with witch" euphemism.

I was really wondering if these descriptive words are bubbling up from the poll responsdents--or is there a hint planted in the form of a list of words.

I had a poll about electric companies recently, and they had "which word" questions which had a list of five words.

How do the political pollsters do this one?

Anyone know polling techniques? Or been polled this way? T/U much. Trying to figure out how well this descriptor of Hillary has been planted out there.

It's often said that the amount of money being spent by political campaigns is "outrageous" or "obscene".  Chances are the 2008 presidential/congressional races will break all records - I'm guessing around $5 billion total.  The race for the presidency (including primary season) will likely be over $2 billion alone (although I'm basing that on just what I've seen thus far - I don't really know).  

Is this an "obscene" amount of money?  I don't think so.   I don't see why spending $5 billion on a year-long (or, really, 18 months) campaign for the presidency and 35 Senate seats and 435 House seats is a lot of money.  It's about $15 per voter.  The fact is the USA is a huge country, geographically and in terms of its population.  It costs a lot to get your message out and rise above the din of popular culture. Spending $5 billion every four years on political campaigns for leaders who each fiscal year will be responsible for $3000 billion in spending and decisions on war and peace, the environment, and everything else seems a pretty small price to pay.  

And given that this money boom is being fueled by small donors, the increasingly large sums of money in political campaigns is a sign of a new participation from below. I, for one, feel empowered every time I send a small donation to a candidate.  I honestly do think that politicians are coming to realize that they need to pay attention to the legions of small donors, who may just yet overwhelm special interests, corporations, and others who have exercised so much influence over past campaigns.

Struck me as a variant on the CNN "Is Obama patriotic enough," except here it was "Are the Clintons Democratic enough?".

Every one of Matthews' guests made a point of dissing Bill and Hillary in the way they answered.

Katty Kay: Well, if the groundswell is strong enough for Obama, then, yes, the Clintons will get on the bandwagon to protect their reputations.

All were variants of that kind thing--not one word that for the good of the nation and the Democratic Party, they would support the Democratic nominee!!

But, of course, the MCM treats the Clintons fairly....

Jonathan Alter, the veteran Newsweek columnist who traveled with the Obama campaign to Dallas on Wednesday, said that the attempt by the Clinton camp to weigh various stories represented a kind of "silly, even-Steven-itis."

"People got it into their head that if you say something good about a candidate, you have to say something bad about him, and if you don't, that's not fair," Mr. Alter said. "What the Clinton partisans wanted was for us to create a phony balance that was at odds with what our eyes were telling us. That's not the job of a journalist."

That is good to know, because it immediately follows these three paragraphs:

Which is not to say that there is not much more scouring to be done.

"The number of questions that we don't know the answers to about the relationship between Mr. Rezko and Mr. Obama is staggering," Howard Wolfson, a top aide to Mrs. Clinton, said on a conference call with reporters on Friday.

Still, others have noted that with the exception of a mention by Mr. Russert in Tuesday's debate, Mrs. Clinton has largely escaped serious journalistic vetting over matters like when or whether her campaign will release her tax returns or her calendar from her years as first lady, or detail the origins of the $5 million she has contributed to her own campaign.

He believes that Sen Obama will compromise away on Dem issues.

He feels that Sen Obama WILL not fight for the issues Dem need. He says he will vote for McCain because he is stronger on the Economy.

Now because I posted this... I received the message that ....
he is leaning towards racism.

No.... my husband is a minority and really knows what prejudice can do.

By the way... I vote Dem ...no matter who get the nomination.

According to the latest Rasmussen NJ poll, HRC beats McCain handily, but McCain beat BO by a few. link

Interesting, no? I should add that these polls are totally irrelevant in my few--think how much has changed in just the last week.  

In 1955, 14-year-old Emmett Till was murdered by white men in Money, Mississippi.

In 1957, William Buckley, National Review:

"The central question that emerges is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes--the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race.

"The question, as far as the White community is concerned, is whether the claims of civilization supersede those of universal suffrage. The British believe they do, and acted accordingly, in Kenya, where the choice was dramatically one between civilization and barbarism, and elsewhere; the South, where the conflict is by no means dramatic, as in Kenya, nevertheless perceives important qualitative differences between its culture and the Negroes', and intends to assert its own.

"National Review believes that the South's premises are correct. The great majority of the Negroes of the South who do not vote do not care to vote, and would not know for what to vote if they could. Universal suffrage is not the beginning of wisdom or the beginning of reedom.  

As a consequence of Obama's dereliction of duty on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a feckless administration has had absolutely no oversight as it careens from disaster to disaster in Afghanistan, including the central governments loss of control over 70 percent of the country and yet another bumper crop of opium to fuel the efforts of the Taliban and their terrorist allies...Meanwhile, on the campaign trail, Obama holds forth on Afghanistan, chiding the administration and our allies as though he's a profile in courage and not someone who has abandoned his post in establishing accountability.