"They said he was too nice. They inferred he was a lightweight. They said he was wounded by the loss of Teddy's seat.

"But today, he cleanly rebounded from the Republicans' remarks implying he was about to take a dive by leaping squarely into the center of the ring and landing a flurry of rapid fire punches, leaving his political opponents bleeding and staggering, apparently in a stupor.

"Obama is nobody's door mat, nobody's fool, and obviously nobody's punching bag."

In other words, chieftain, he roped a few dopes in a manner reminiscent of a true Champ.

Sam

Recently a group of doctors in the north announced they had rented a bus to start a tour to several states. They desperately want health care reform because they are sick and tired of being under-compensated by the insurance providers. The tour will end up in Washington, D.C. at which time they have appealed to supporters of health care reform to come out in support of their rebellion. Concurrently, the MSM constantly featured comments that Medicare will continue to deteriorate because of the low fees it pays to physicians, which apparently is resulting in more and more doctors refusing to accept it.

Simultaneously, Dick Armey materialized on Meet the Press to further scare the seniors about the proposed health care reform. He stated unequivocally that Medicare is in danger of being eliminated if some liberal national health care reformers have their way. What he conveniently forgot to mention was that it is Medicare Part D which will be reformed. That is the legislation passed during the Bush* administration which shored up so-called pharmaceutical assistance. You might recognize the term "doughnut hole" which is exactly what many seniors are railing about today, another reason Armey failed to mention the "D" part.

The Devil in Armey’s argument was in fact in the details -- as is often the case with Republicans seeking to kill health care reform.

The additional reform to Medicare itself revolves around saving money through eliminating duplicate lab tests, promoting electronic health records of patients, and cracking down on the abuse of the system by those seeking to defraud. But Armey, simply interested in the scare-the-sh*t-out-of-seniors-who love-their-Medicare part, apparently forgot to mention this as well. Armey is a promoter of the organization FreedomWorks which dispatches the professional angry protesters to town hall meetings. DLA Piper, where Armey has been working the last six years, promptly reached agreement with Armey to sever its relationship with him, which apparently puts Armey in the great ranks of the unemployed during this recession. Hope he can afford his COBRA payments.

Then there's Chuck Grassley, one of the few prominent Republicans signaling he will support President Obama's health care reform efforts stepping out last week in Iowa to a gathering of concerned citizens saying he cannot support any plan that condones throwing Grandma off the train. Speaking out of both sides of his mouth, a common Washington political phenomenon, is a maneuver Grassley exhibits with unabashed aplomb.

Elsewhere, Kathleen Sebelius stepped out to float an Obama trial balloon. The President is not opposed to co-ops she said, in lieu of a Private Plan. Most people following this debate know instantly many on the left will be outraged, and this represents a Democratic cave-in (all in the name of bipartisanship) both to the health insurers feeling threatened by competition and to the politicians who take hefty campaign contributions from those same insurers. Think Mitch McConnell, Chuck Grassley and Max Baucus. The liberals responded by saying co-ops are to the Private Plan what the Boy Scouts are to the Marine Corps. The Obama Administration immediately issued a statement saying Sebelius misspoke.

The Economic Hit Men are among us.

We have read the plays in the book of the same name by John Perkins. These Economic Hit Men are silently crunching numbers (distorting and exaggerating same numbers -- read making them up as they go along) any way they can, the bottom line of which is suppose to convince the American citizen we must continue to support health care providers and the status quo or we will surely perish before the death panels. Hanging on to the perimeters are the jackals poised to step in should the economic hit men fail in their pitch to sway public opinion. So vital is winning the public relations war to the wealthiest of people in this Country -- read stockholders in the health insurance and pharmaceutical companies -- the jackals will assassinate any legitimate reform left standing at the so-called bipartisanship culmination of the reform effort, framing the White House for its failure. You will recall the failure to enact health care reform will be Obama's Waterloo (so the Republicans boast).

Morning in America is back from the days of Ronald Reagan -- the same Ronald Reagan who made the concept of greed is good simply swell to openly embrace. But the perceived sunshine actually radiating on Americans who obviously have the best health insurance in the world apparently is resulting in a scorched earth health care reform.

The Ugly American has indeed grown uglier over the past few decades since that book was published, but in Washington, D.C. that man more often than not is simply the man in the political mirror.

And tomorrow it is expected the fight really starts to get ugly ....

and it is not a side issue. It is a very important historical fact which your absolute statement above distorts.

Clinton was given a definition of sex as defined by the prosecutor in the case. He was told to answer questions based on the definition of sex as written on the 3 x 5 cards presented to him prior to his testimony. On the 3 x 5 cards were listed various female body parts as well as various male body parts. The questions to Clinton were phrased to inquire about female parts touching male parts and vice versa. Egregiously missing from the 3 x 5 cards were "lips."

As the prosecutors asked the questions, Clinton, himself a lawyer, referred to the cards he had been instructed to utilize, and answered each question literally. The prosecutor hung himself out to dry in the questioning by ridiculously allowing for the possibility that oral sex might have been experienced.

I taped this deposition and watched many Republican lawyers comment on Clinton's testimony. They themselves said he walked a thin legal line, but did not lie.

The public outrage over the misleading answers Clinton gave were misplaced and distorted. He told the literal legal truth as defined by the prosecutors themselves.

It was one thing to be outraged by Clinton's misleading statements in public relations setting, but it is quite another to distort the legal truth about his testimony.

Defining it as a mere side issue to distort your casual accusation against the former President of the United States in a historical impeachment proceeding only diminishes the credibility of your posts here.

And furthermore, "I did not have sex with that woman" was literally true when applying those standards the prosecution itself had defined as sex, limiting it purely to orthodox intercourse, and excluding oral activity.

Sam

Seems kind of obvious to me.... While commentators are discussing how provocative his secessionist rhetoric is, why do they overlook what seems to be his obvious personal political aspirations?

Governor Good Hair has looked around and seen a Republican field devoid of real 2012 potential candidates for POTUS. He has the looks to compete with Mitt; all he needs is a message to make Sarah's rhetoric and political shenanigans fade into the political background. Secessionist talk and bashing Washington for all its excesses could possibly rivet those cable news cameras from her to him.

Oh but wait ... they already have! Mirror, mirror on the Republican political wall, the Texas Governor has the best hair of all (except for Blago, of course, but he probably is going to sit 2012 out).

Perhaps the Good Governor confused "secession" with "succession," the latter of which is literally defined as: "the act of following in order; lineage; act or right of coming in the place of another." Translation: former right-wing nut case Texas Governor George W. Bush rotates out of Oval Office; time for current right-wing nut case Texas Governor Good Hair to prepare to rotate in.

Has Turd Blossom Karl Rove been expelling his political gas bag into Governor Good Hair's oxygen supply? If so, has the Good Governor been inhaling too deeply?

Remembering the adage, don't mess with Texas, here's a preemptive shot: Governor Good Hair, if you think you will need new employment in the near future, there are four current openings for pirates in Mogadishu. Also a few government jobs there are open. Just saying ....

So the question hangs here, begging an answer: Is Governor Good Hair sticking his toe into the 2012 political waters? If so, what is the temperature that toe is reading? Come on in -- the political water is fine?

Memo to the late, great Molly: Send me a sign, Molly, say it ain't so.

Comments?

Try to look at the recent series of events logically and ask yourself one question.

The series of events peaked when McCain deliberately stood-up Letterman last week. Even if you extremely dislike the man now, you know his history. This was not him -- it was an act of extreme desperation. Yes, we heard the explanation, but do we truly buy it that he had to rush to CBS because of the reports of the debacle of the Palin interview. Yes, it was a debacle but it did not have to be corrected that moment. McCain is not dumb. He knows Letterman and Couric both broadcast from CBS and his lie would be detected. Remember the Letterman outrage and think this through. Were John McCain in his right mind, would he have ever stood up Letterman?

I THINK McCAIN TRULY IS ILL AND KNOWS HE WILL NEVER BE PRESIDENT.

He privately asked himself this question, "If I can't have it, who should?" The answer to that question he arrived at privately could not ever be publicly admitted.

BUT HERE IS THE IMPORTANT QUESTION.

If you are a political junkie reading this thread, you know Washington runs on hubris and the obsession to power. McCain is no exception. He knows he can determine the fallout from his illness. Would he want Mitt Romney to jump in and fill his shoes? No way, he despises the man. And that is who the Republicans would choose. He would prefer Obama take it.

Remember Letterman said McCain was AWOL 22 hours following the Couric taping. It only takes one hour to fly from New York to DC. Where was he the rest of the time? We also know he never truly suspended his campaign.

McCain obviously knows Palin cannot sit in the White House. What to do? What to do?

Get up and make a political statement that is the political equivalent of cutting one's political throat. And that is exactly what I thought he did this morning when I heard his campaign announce he would cut Medicare and Medicaid by 1.3 trillion dollars. "Is he crazy?" I immediately thought. Obviously, a public statement of this nature would sabotage his already failing odds in Florida. It was the equivalent of political suicide. And John McCain has to know that. So, why, why?

He wanted to determine the outcome of this election, and he privately decided that he would do an end run against the Republicans determining that by sinking the Republican ship. And sink it he did, singlehandedly.

If he truly is ill, he could have understandably bowed out, and let the chips fall. But being a powerful Senator from Washington, D.C., and a disgruntled Republican at that, if he could control the outcome, why not do that?

The pieces seem to fit into a convincing picture of the puzzle. Am I just another tired citizen hallucinating out of election fatigue, or do you think there is anything to this theory? If you think it is a political figment of my tired imagination, can you explain why McCain would make a politically devastating statement to the effect he would cut Medicare and Medicaid in light of his sinking numbers in Florida?


Sam

John McCain betrayed this Country. He cashed in his loyalty to this Country to pay for a political ploy that might propel him into the Oval Office. Gambling with our future to acquire a personal political advantage, he nominated as his second a person whose credentials do not elevate her to the status of political neophyte. If elected she could conceivably succeed to the Office of the President of the United States with literally zero tools in her political tool bag to fight the staggering problems we face today.

As you know, colloquialisms often pepper the vocabularies of our many diverse cultures found within the United States. My father, a very intelligent man who relocated to the political capital of the world from Knoxville, Tennessee, carried within his language vault a few Southern colloquialisms that left me chagrined whenever he uttered them. One in particular, “dumb cluck” I found particularly offensive.

This man who worked in a very responsible job at the Justice Department would pull that phrase out of his language storage vault and deploy it whenever he encountered someone so beyond dumb, a more precise label to define the depth of his or her “dumbness” was unquestionably needed. And those encounters with such people resulted in his privately referring to that person as simply a “dumb cluck.” How silly that phrase is, how offensive, I used to think in my younger days.

How ironic I find it today, decades after first hearing this phrase and recoiling from it, that I find it is exactly the precise phrase one should apply when attempting to describe the depths of stupidly enveloping a few of our high-profile political players and elected (sic) officials. Beyond ironic is the obvious fact that these same personalities think exactly that of us, the American voting public. We are merely the dumb clucks to whom they can say and do anything because we simply will never catch on.

And that was exactly my reaction when I heard McCain introduce Palin as his Vice Presidential selection. It was simply an obvious political ploy to attempt to split the Democratic base and thus propel McCain into the oval office. It’s a classic Republican trick used in every presidential election season to divide Democrats and give Republicans a leg up in their quest to win the Oval Office.

But if the result of such tactics propel a literal puppet in or next door to the Oval Office, as we saw happen in Election 2000, perhaps we should take another look at the consequences of that tactic. Many said George W. Bush* was not qualified to be President. “But he has been the governor of a major state for two terms, which gives him Executive experience” was the classic Republican response. The fact that the State of Texas was not literally run on a daily basis by the Governor of the State but rather by the Lieutenant Governor was egregiously missing in these debates. The position of Governor of the State of Texas is merely a public relations position, with the hands-on administration been performed by the Lieutenant Governor. It was that unique approach that convinced a man named Karl Rove that this would be the perfect state for an otherwise unqualified candidate to launch his political quest for the Presidency of the United States. And it worked. Nearly half of the voting American people, together with an assist from the Supreme Court, put a man in the Oval Office who was simply unfit to protect the best interests of this Country. His political quackery has brought this Country to near devastation.

Eight years later, the question must be asked: how do you like the results of his work?

Will the American voting public allow this pattern to continue in 2008? Will it “fall in love” with a vice presidential candidate standing but a heart beat away from the Presidency and vote her, along with McCain, into the Oval Office?

If love of candidate, as opposed to love of Country, motivates a party or a voter to promote an unqualified person into the White Office, is not that very act the equivalent of a Benedict Arnold maneuver?

And most importantly, is a person’s love of a moose burger so charming it obfuscates the fact the tools in that candidate’s political tool bag hold a bottle of Worcestershire Sauce and a spatula where his or her national security credentials should rest?

Who will emerge as the true dumb cluck of Election 2008 -- the presidential candidate who selected a number two without a resume to do the job, the voting public who falls in love with the fact she is a historic choice but not a credible selection to possibly succeed to the highest office in this land, or the political adviser Karl Rove, an identified political adviser to the McCain known for sleazy, if not illegal maneuvers, who propelled our current not-fit-to-serve President (sic) into the chair in the Oval Office.

Will 2008 be a repeat of 2000, with the end result be a Bush-wanna-bee waiting behind the curtain to grasp the power of the office when circumstances permit?

Comments?

As thousands reach out to simply touch a man named Barack Obama, they satisfy a need to feel confirmation the physical epitome of a dream come true stands before them. The literal touch on the physical man confirms to them what they dared only to dream has become a reality. They will not wake up tomorrow morning only to find they imagined the rise of a man named Barack Obama. It is truly real, something many people did not expect to see happen in their lifetimes.

One can only wonder what Martin Luther King would be saying and feeling at this time if he were here to see this. He too had a dream, and in his own words:

"And when this happens, when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual: Free at last! Free at last!" (emphasis added to the words of Martin Luther King delivered August 28, 1963 at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. in his famous speech commonly referenced as the "I Have A Dream" speech.)

Barack Obama often references the fierce urgency of now, also a term used by Dr. King in that speech. One must assume Martin Luther King would be smiling down on this African-American man who has heard his words and today advances them.

And on this day, the day of the 40-year anniversary of the shooting of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., we remember he too had dreams for this Country. I wonder what would he and his brother Jack, along with Martin, would think of this magnificent manifestation of the tearing down of another wall, that wall that has for centuries divided people of this Country by race, by origin, by partisan politics and by class. It is their blood which was spilled on this land in sacrifice for that principle that we are all equally citizens of this Country. On that very principle, we were warned by our forefathers we must zealously protect the nature of structure of the government they had created. They left these words as a warning, "It's a Republic, if you can hold on to it" (emphasis added.) If we are truly to hold on to this Republic which we have dangerously seen nearly slip away over the past eight years, we must unite with Barack Obama as he fights to restore and protect the concept of we are all one people.

If you believe in the trite truism, as I do, that united we stand, divided we fall, the events of recent days must be observed on this very day as the culmination of sacrifices rendered by many who have gone before to pave the road down which Barack Obama marches today -- that infamous Road to The White House.

I believe these three men who openly and actively campaigned for advancement of civil rights for African-Americas when it was so unpopular to do those in the face of that element of our society still tightly clutching their prejudices, who sacrificed their lives for this Country, would say these words: The sacrifices we made, as well as the sacrifices of others who joined in our fight, were well worth it. We hand the gauntlet to this man, this man named Barack Obama, to finish this fight. And on another day sometime in the future, we all will perceive people of color with our color-blind eyes looking simply beneath the skin to perceive the character and cut of conscience to evaluate the worth of the man.

And so, on this day when we remember Robert F. Kennedy, which inevitably leads to memories of Jack and Martin, as well, we watch Barack Obama march down the road to open the doors of the Office Oval. We have to acknowledge the milestone we today pass, as well as those who began paving that road when it was perceived a passage was needed. We know that when those doors to Oval Office are finally opened, the dreams of Robert F. Kennedy, Jack Kennedy, Martin Luther King, as well as many other Americans, will be realized.

In January 2009, may we all climb to the mountain top, and in recognition of those who have gone before us as well as the one who led us there that day, I dare to dream we will all "be free at last" ....

Sam

Obama is the only Presidential candidate campaigning on having spoken out against the illegal, immoral war on Iraq from the beginning. From that perspective, only HE can benefit from the revelations in this McClellan book, What Happened, and the subsequent public relations promotions now ongoing.

So kudos to Scott McClellan for keeping his powder dry until the best political time to fire. In that process he wounded the Democrats' General Election opponent, John McCain, in a manner that will continue to bleed until the last vote is cast.

Some like Karl Rove have their methods of winning; others like Scott McClellan have much more legitimate, refined methods to influence the outcome of an election. He knew exactly what he was doing, and when to do it.

I cannot begin to count the number of times I have heard spokespeople from the Right say today, "This does not sound like the Scott McClellan I know." (Nuanced inference: Scott McClellan has lost it - disregard his words). Karl Rove went so far as to say the words sound as if they came from a liberal blogger ... My FIRST THOUGHT upon hearing these words ... no, they don't sound like the Scott McClellan we thought we knew. But perhaps his father, somewhat acquainted with the subject of the quest for power corrupting and political revelations thereon, advised with the process. You have only to read the first line in the following thread to understand:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...

Scott McClellan too is from Texas and must also be cut from the Win-At-All-Costs cloth. He just wears the cowboy hat cocked a little differently....

Sometimes political redemption is slow in coming, but with continued effort, eventually it starts to wash in.

Both Ann Richards and Molly Ivins are smiling down on Scott McClellan tonight.... He's done the State of Texas proud.

Sam

He danced across the Olympic boxing stage more quickly than a tae kwon do tornado, whipping down to earth as if a killer whirlpool. So graceful was his footwork across the ring, Michael Jackson must have gazed at the sight of him in open awe. His punches were lightning-bolt swift and just as electrifying. He fought the bruising battle like a giant smashing a bug with a swat too quickly to be observed with the naked human eye. His float like a butterfly, sting like a bee motto could not have been more fitting. He was mesmerizing – this man to be known as Muhammad Ali.

And so I watched from across the room with unabashed thrill at the sight of a man participating in a sport I had vigorously avoided all my young life. It was simply too barbaric a thing - that sport called boxing -- for me to observe. Yet here I stood in my Republican father's living room, saying "look at him, look at him!" The man from Tennessee watched momentarily and then responded, "He's no Joe Lewis." "But that's why I like him," I excitedly yelled.

I followed the career of Muhammad Ali the rest of his professional life. As a young female who migrated from Knoxville to Washington, my ears were roundly boxed at times by all my Southern family members. "What do you possibly see in him - this guy who's going to ruin boxing?" was their constant admonishment.

As his career started to take off, I found myself some years later just a few short miles from where he set up his training camp to prepare to fight Jimmy Young. By then, I was married to an artist, who himself practiced tae kwon do by night, and indulged in photography with a gifted eye. This man I married had zero interest in the boxing world. But knowing of my fascination with Muhammad Ali, he came home to tell me one night of the training camp just down the road from where we lived.

"Would you like to go -- I could take some pictures for you," he asked.

Later that evening, there my artist mate was at ringside, snapping away with the press photographers. Roll after roll of film he took. It was simply one of the best nights of my life. When the film was developed, he asked me to pick two that he would enlarge. Today, these two are among my most valued treasures. One of them is a close up of a young Muhammad Ali. Every muscle from the waist up is captured in one of the photographs, showing beads of perspiration dripping from the ripples of those incredible muscles after his dazzling workout in the ring. The other is a full body shot which showcases the perfect position of the man in action, pulverizing the leather of a full body bag, with the bag in full swing into the air, and the body of the boxer throwing a perfectly-executed punch. Both are simply beautiful.

Later in Washington, D.C., it was my pleasure during a small moment in time almost to have been accidentally knocked down by Muhammad Ali. To my enduring regret it almost happened - but not quite - and thus I was deprived of the sheer joy of being able to brag the rest of my life "I was knocked down by Muhammad Ali." But that's another thread for another day....

So why is a thread about Muhammad Ali floating like a butterfly in the DemocraticUnderground - General Discussion: Primaries forum, one wonders.

Barack Obama is to the political world what Muhammad Ali was and is to the boxing world.

Both ones-of-a-kind destined to change the fields in which they played, these two men I believe are incredibly unique participants in brutal sports - that of boxing and that of politics - it has been my thrill to observe. Both are giants who came out of nowhere and knocked the socks off those who challenged them. With incredible speed, dexterity, intelligence and originality embedded in a charismatic frame, they came, they played, and they delivered with astounding punches.

Their lives will be chronicled in very different historic frames, but one common thread exists between the two of them as a result of their fighting debuts: they landed in the public eye with a jarring descent and they persevered against incredible challenges with an ease of natural talent on abundant display. Both gave joy to those who observed their respective ascents into history.

Perhaps it was observing Muhammad Ali boxing his way into sporting history that prepared me to dive into the political arena as a sporting enthusiast enamored of the Inside-the-Beltway Number One past-time. Seldom in any one lifetime does one have the privilege of witnessing up close the debut of an original master in his or her field. The sighting of two such masters in their fields -- Muhammad Ali and Barack Obama -- is purely a gift too much to hope for by any one person.

I look forward to your comments on my late-night ruminations, my DU friends, in particular Old Crusoe, as to my political sporting comments from Inside the Beltway …

Now, back to watching Barack Obama floating like a butterfly and stinging like a bee against our Republican opponents ....

Sam

"selected" him to sit in the Oval Office during the Election 2000 controversy. In that process, it stopped a full recount of the votes in Florida, which had it been concluded, would have put Gore in the lead in that state and thus in the Oval Office.

The two salient legal bases for the Supreme Court's decision were: the Safe Harbor provision, a provision enacted during the days where the Slate of Electors' votes were carried to Washington by Pony Express; and the premise that should the recount be allowed to continue to completion, a disproportionate amount of weight would be given to those Floridans' votes counted the second time over those whose votes had been counted the first time. In order to halt that latter disproportionate weight of the recounted votes, the Supreme Court halted the recount. In that process, IT NEGATED THE VOTES OF 51 MILLION AMERICANS WHO HAD VOTED FOR GORE ACROSS THE COUNTRY. READ THOSE WORDS AGAIN: THE SUPREME COURT NEGATED THE VOTES OF 51 MILLION AMERICANS IN ORDER TO AVOID GIVING A DISPROPORTIONATE WEIGHT TO THE VOTERS OF FLORIDA WHOSE VOTES HAD NOT BEEN COUNTED IN THE ORIGINAL ELECTION BUT WERE COUNTED DURING THE RECOUNT. How totally mind-boggling is that?

Never mind the fact the Supreme Court had no legal justification to intercede in this matter to begin with (read Justice Stevens' dissent).

So your effort to convince many here Obama would be illegitimate in the manner Bush* is is laughable on its face.

Considering the state of disarray the State of Florida's conduct has been during this primary season, one must ask: exactly how many Presidential elections does this state feel it's entitled to decide, regardless of how the balance of the states vote ....

On CNN, he posed the question why was Spitzer targeted? That's exactly what I have been wondering the last two days. It's just too big of a coincidence that a scandal of this nature breaks during a critical election season. Is it possible the two are connected: the taking of the New York Governorship and the Democratic primary season -- or is that simply beyond the pale?

Keeping in mind the current controversy over the conviction and imprisonment of the Governor of Alabama, is anything today politically beyond the pale?

Granted, living inside the Beltway and observing politics for decades now has made me unquestionably suspicious of political coincidences. Granted, Elliot Spitzer has made many political enemies. Granted, Spitzer crusading on cleaning up corruption, first as Attorney General, and secondly, as Governor while patronizing prostitutes is clear hypocrisy, but he's not the first political hypocrite we have observed in office. Bill Clinton, for instance, experienced sexual scandal of an unprecedented Presidential nature but prevailed in retaining his office. Why is that beyond the reach of the Governor of New York?

Is the Governor of New York well positioned to manipulate the political machinery of the State during close political calls? Of course, but would Spitzer be so inclined? How can we know the answer to that question as we learn there are dimensions to the man that we would have never imagined in our wildest political dreams ....

And what about Bloomberg's recent reference to election irregularity in the recent New York primary? I was surprised Bloomberg would go so far as he did in his statement -- you might recall he used a different noun other than "irregularity" -- is that a random statement disconnected to current events?

I pose these questions because it seems just too coincidental, if Spitzer has been patronizing prostitutes for as long as possibly ten years, as reported earlier today by MSNBC, the FBI by mere happenstance aired his misconduct during this critical political moment. Possible, yes. Probable, I doubt it.

Further, Alan Derkowitz asked the question, who in violation of Federal law, leaked Grand Jury evidence to the press? That is a critical question -- who did it -- but just as importantly, why?

These are serious questions we must address, I believe, so I ask for your read on this. My best guess is that during the days to come, we will find there is a lot more to this story than currently appears on the surface. In that process, the timing of the taking of this Democratic Governorship at this critical juncture will, in that revelation, have an entirely different prism reflected.

Your response?

Tim Russert just brought out a nice statistic. He went back and reviewed the African-American vote from the 2004 race. That percentage of the vote was 21%. Russert commented the Texas vote might be a lot more fertile for Obama than originally anticipated.

Add that to the increased percentage of white male votes Obama is achieving, it going to be a very interesting race in Texas -- a real shoot-out.

A "cult" connotation stamped onto a political campaign is simply a slide into a political slur. In other words, it is just another political dirty trick, but a vile one at that.

It is not a coincidence the “cult” reference is starting to crawl out of a myriad of different corners. It is an orchestrated attempt to slime a political campaign, using a word with connotations reminding the listener or reader of creeps such as Charles Manson and David Koresh. Though slickly presented in various forms such as earnest political commentary, that very discussion does not negate the fact the word “cult” is political sludge with the potential to smear those upon whom it is heaped. What seemed at first a random observation on the earnestness of Obama and his supporters is rapidly morphing into a treacherous meme, the repetition of which appears to grow vociferously each day. Religious zeal inferences attach. Suggestions of a brainwashed multitude abound. Terminology that would make a snake charmer blush permeates our daily reads.

There are three preferred terms used by “Inside-the-Beltway” players to instantly Demonize a political target. He or she is a liar. He or she is a crook. He or she is insane. That "cult" connotation is simply a variation of the last one on the list. After all, what sane person participates in a cult phenomenon?

Holy Moley! Next will come the whisperings into the ears of the Religious Right in Southern congregations. That word “cult” will play in the South as a ritualistic threat upon The Word itself and a direct assault upon the First Commandment. Email to follow.

Let’s define that “cult” stamp word for what it is – a potent word weapon. It has political campaign destruction tool written all over it. The stench from that word wafting through the air has the potential to mold a political campaign into a dark caricature of itself.

More importantly, Democrats deploying this weapon at the primary level run the risk of possibly seeing that same weapon picked up and redeployed by their true opponent against them in the General Election. It is potentially a self-defeating tactic to use this maneuver.

It is just another political dirty trick but a very ugly one at that. STOP THIS in its tracks before it escalates to the point it snakes back to bite us in our political posterior during the real race for the White House.

You can do with your vote exactly as you choose. Or you can choose not to vote. A deliberate choice not to vote is to abstain, often regarded as a protest vote, by those who actually took civics classes.

What is so irritating are those people who say if you do not vote you should leave this website. This website is for progressives, and there is no requirement to cast a vote to participate.

Also irritating is that meme about not voting is the equivalent of casting a vote for the Republican candidate. Many Republicans will not vote in 2008 because they object to the candidate their party has presented them with -- and so they protest it. It is only when the base of a party starts to object or protest against the slate their party is running does the Elite or Establishment begin to admit they cannot win without the base.

It is important to try to convince people to agree with your view, but if it's done in a way that is offensive, chances are they will not join your political circle.

So I think if you deliberate what you want to do with your vote and act accordingly, that preserves your ability to think independently and make the right choice.

I think I will be sitting out the debate tonight because I feel I know who is already the true loser in this campaign. It will not be Obama or Clinton but rather the 200 people who slept under that bridge in New Orleans last night that Edwards so poignantly spotlighted during his words of withdrawal. Perhaps the only relevant poll from this moment on would be one asking them, and those similarly situated, what is the most relevant issue in the 2008 Presidential debate. But their response to a poll question such as this will not be heard because the question will not be asked. Their standard bearer has withdrawn from the race.

Why is that? What could be more important than the issue of eliminating poverty to political progressives? Bookmarking this campaign in the pages of history books because a woman prevailed? Somehow weighing on one hand that latter quest does not rise to the weight of importance formerly held in the right hand of the Edwards’ campaign – addressing and eliminating the impoverished conditions in the lives of those disadvantaged Americans who look to each new day without enough food to eat, enough heat to warm them in the cold of the winter, and proper clothing with which to cloak themselves.

I walk not in the shoes of those people so I cannot presume to speak for them, but the spotlight on their quest to survive has been eclipsed in this political debate by the prominence of the promotion of the Estrogen Factor into our political discourse. And that’s almost too sad of a turn of political events to disappear before tonight’s Democratic debates begin.

But if the message carrier for the poor among us, a man who took pride in constantly reminding us he was the son of a mill worker, no longer has access to a microphone to broadcast their plight and enlist our help to assuage their impoverished plight, what can we do to help carry forth the message from this moment on?

The answer to this question will evoke different responses from those who ask it of themselves. If the burden is upon us to respond, here’s my answer, speaking only for myself: we must resolve to not allow those who continue in this race for the chair in the Oval Office to forget about them, for it is they, the impoverished among us, who are the true losers as the debates on both sides in this Presidential primary season continue.

And so when the words of those who prefer to discuss the question, is it time to put a woman in the White House, waft across the airwaves henceforth, or the alternate question, Is America Ready For A Black President, perhaps our true legitimate response to both of these questions should be to change the conversation: what will either of these two candidates do for the 200 people living under that New Orleans bridge should he or she prevail.

So, as a politically progressive woman who believes giving weight to either the Estrogen Factor or the Race Factor should not trump releasing the chains of poverty off the hands and feet of Black, White, Latino, and all other human beings living under bridges tonight, I ask you to consider what will you do in that quest.

What is your response?