Evidently, we're in for a ticket with a VP who has one or more problems:

1. No national security, foreign policy, or military experience

OR

2. Voted "yes" on the IWR, taking away the rationale for Obama's campaign on "judgment."

AND/OR

3. In addition, it may be someone who doesn't help in the south, and/or someone who pisses off the Clinton supporters, and/or someone who's a long-term "Washington Insider."...

(Disclaimer: Yes, I'm voting for the ticket. I would prefer a ticket with the best possible chance of winning.)

How dare Republicans run year after year on "You don't support the troops!"

How many of those troops would be home with their families instead of in hospitals or graves, if it weren't for this catastrophic fiasco that's STILL being promoted and cheered by John McCain?!? And they continue to exploit those troops, in their hospital beds, as political fodder, pretending THEY "support the troops."

Slap on a bumpersticker, accuse somebody else of "not supporting the troops," and vote Republican. Easy, instant "Patriotism."

Shame on them all. I hope the Obama campaign, and all his career-military supporters, come out STRONG against this tactic. We've seen enough of it.

Previous versions:

We're so much safer now! That's why we need to re-elect Bush/Cheney!
We're in so much danger now! That's why we need to re-elect Bush/Cheney!

We got surpluses -- that's why we need more tax cuts for the rich!
We got deficits -- that's why we need more tax cuts for the rich!

And now:

We must achieve victory! That's why we gotta stay in Iraq!
Hurray!! The surge worked!! That's why we gotta stay in Iraq!

Thank you, General Clark, for telling the truth and not backing down!

I salute you for making the point that McCain's military service, although honorable, does not automatically qualify him to make sound decisions on foreign policy and military strategy.

I appreciate your taking the GOP's phony machismo off the table, relentlessly, and bringing it back to the word "Judgment" over and over again on Obama's behalf.

You've taken on one mission after another for Democrats, and you are invaluable to the party. (Smartest guy in the room, too, as far as I'm concerned.) I'm always in the fight right with you, General!

The RNC isn't fit to shine your shoes.

So I was just looking at the list of channels on Sirius, when I saw channel 144: "Sirius Partiot: Conservative Talk."

That's right, "PARTIOT."

It's quite perfect, actually -- both because it fits nicely with the classic Freeper misspellings we've come to know and love, and because it seems like such a nice combination of Party + Idiot. (As in, "Partiot - Noun. Member of the GOP Party of Idiots.")

http://www.siriusspecials.com/prog_news.ht...

Last November 2nd, I wrote about "How the Game is Played" in the primaries.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/...

I guess I'm just old enough and cynical enough to see a lot of this as a cycle that gets repeated every time -- and yet, optimistic enough to hope we can help each other recognize the game and not get sucked into being "played" ourselves!

The next level of "the game" is about the General Election (pre-convention). Here's how I think this one goes (and some of this will continue post-convention, of course):

1. "The Rift!" The media insists the Democratic party has no unity, is in disarray, is suffering from a great "rift." The reality is that it's the Republican party polling against itself in all sorts of ways, conflicted and confused, but the story must always be: The Democrats Are in Trouble!!

2. Stupid Sharings (asinine emails, conversations at work, remarks heard while shopping, etc.) from people who assume you, too, are an idiot. Some people can be set straight; some people refuse to be. Figure out which applies to your annoyers, and if they're in the latter category, don't waste your energy. It's needed elsewhere.

3. "Running to the Center!" The Democratic nominee "runs to the center" (never walks, never flies, always "runs"). That's because the Democratic nominee is all about getting ELECTED.

4. The Great "WTF?" response to "running to the center." Some fellow sincere and well-meaning Lefties freak OUT as if it's unheard of, a big surprise, an outrage, a compromise that is completely unacceptable. How DARE a politician act like a politician, as if campaigns were all about getting elected?!?

5. The Third Party or Stay Home Threat. Lesser of two evils; no difference between parties; run two Republicans and the Republican wins every time, blah blah blah... THIS time, I don't think that'll play out as it has in the past, because the "change" about Obama is undeniable -- and yes, I mean his race -- it IS a positive, to embrace! (5a. Ralph Nader crawls out from under his rock, as he does every time there's an important election. Fortunately, he matters less and less each time.)

6. "The Wife is a Nightmare!" (Anyone else remember that?) Attacks against our candidate's wife -- she just NEVER knows her place, does she?!!

7. The VP Pick Hysteria -- I think this varies, but the MSM always tries to make a Beauty Contest out of it, focusing on what they deem obvious names, dropping the most absurd names in an effort to appear insightful, and leaving out (what I consider) the really interesting ones. And I always hope they're wrong, but they're usually right.

8. Modern American fiction returns with new covers. There are several tomes to this collection. National Security is the Republicans' Strength! The GOP just OWNS The Military, Strength with that big macho Capital "S," and All Sorts of Other Nebulous Hyper-Masculine Mystique Imagery and Bullshit. Small Government and Fiscal Conservation are Republican -- it's all about Tax Cuts! And surely you've heard the famous tale, "Tax cuts always increase revenues?!" (Pay no attention to that 1% at the top selling the country out -- look at that lazy 1% of poor people at the bottom cheating you! Hey! Some of us WORK for a living!) Nevermind that Republicans have shown themselves over and over again to be anything BUT smart managers of national security, the economy, or anything else. They've established this fiction over three decades, and it's become the given assumption. Modern American fiction.

9. The Great Equalization. The GOP starts trying to knock out the Democratic candidate's strengths, and inoculate their candidate against his own weaknesses, by creating a ruckus or controversy that will lead to a draw. Thus, for example, they create this big brouhaha with Dan Rather about documentation of the Chimp's lack of military service, so that in the end everybody's dizzy and sick of it and the broad conclusion becomes, "Okay fine, both Chimpy and Kerry served admirably, let it drop" -- as IF they were equal! Get ready for, "They both have outrageous surrogates," "They both flip-flop," "They're both Whatever McCain Is."...

10. As in the primaries version of this game: People of all stripes act like none of this has ever happened before!!

1. He isn't a lawmaker. I don't think a Senator should run with another Congressman or Congresswoman. The voting records are too easy to make hay with. Someone with a lot of experience would have a long voting record; someone with a short voting record would be dubbed inexperienced. Neither makes a good comparison or complement for Obama. In addition, there's the issue of the IWR vote in some cases.

2. He's got major national security/military creds. A four-star general, Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, a lifetime of service -- the man knows his stuff, and that would strengthen the ticket enormously. McCain's military experience would pale in comparison. In addition, Clark is no "ordinary four-star general" (said tongue-in-cheek as if there were such a thing)-- he is a brilliant intellectual, first in his class at West Point, Rhodes Scholar, etc.

3. He's a southern white man. I know, I know, I know I know I know -- it shouldn't matter, but in political reality, it does. I know there are other southern white male Democrats, notably the ones in Virginia everybody's talking about. But as I've long said about them, they are needed right where they are, and they aren't necessarily the stuff of national politics. They are conservative for one thing, and we might well lose their seats for another, and we need them! (I'm talking about Jim Webb and Mark Warner, who should become Senator.)

4. He's liberal. And, he appeals to moderates because of his biography. He can quote Bible verses, speak of his profound patriotism, connect with the rural south, explain military strategy; and in the next breath, defend civil liberties, attack Republicans, and promote progressive ideals in ways that reach beyond the stereotypes the GOP has spent three decades and billions of dollars to plant. He will talk tough when it's called for, but he knows when it's called for and when it isn't -- he doesn't need to talk tough as a posture for himself.

5. He's from Clinton's camp. His association with the Clintons used to be an albatross -- now, whatever one thinks of those characterizations, they can be a plus. I have nothing against Hillary Clinton, and think she'd have been great at the top of a ticket, but I don't think she's the best pick as a balance and complement for Obama. Bringing General Clark aboard could help unify the party, while still strengthening the ticket.

I hope Obama and his team give him full consideration. I can't think of ANYBODY better for VP!!

(Sorry to link to Politico, but I clicked through to this while wondering why the HELL Politico is now featured on Yahoo News next to AP, Reuters and AFP...)



I'm just sayin'... I'm afraid THIS is what they'll use to explain away inexplicable conflicts between polls -- including exit polls -- and the counted "results" in this general election.

There's no time to change the flawed voting processes by November. The only solution is to get behind Obama in numbers that the "Bradley effect" can't come close to explaining. If they go this route, the anomaly will have to be HUGE. We need numbers too big to ignore -- and yes, I think we can get them!

(Time will tell whether they'll do it this time -- I think Republicans run the country into the ground until it's so far gone only PAIN will bring it back; then they hand it over to Democrats to repair and to take the hits for raising taxes to pay off their messes, etc. And they've run it into the ground in a major way now. But time will tell.)

(Edit: All the more reason to take nothing for granted, including "safe states." But I don't think anybody wants to think of this right now, so I'll just stick it in my journal for future reference!)

Barack Hussein Obama is a black man. Is that scary to read?

Supposedly, the fear here is that it's scary to other people. Paradoxically, it seems the fear of their fear has a lot of Democrats nervous. But racists aren't a big constituency among Democratic voters; they likely wouldn't vote for ANY Democrat. We lost that vote a long time ago (and much as I believe in a big tent, that's a good riddance).

This primary season can create a lot of constructive thought and discussion on race and gender, and I think it'd be good to get clear on some of these issues.

1. The idea of "injecting race into the race" or "making him the black candidate." Race is in the race, and he is the black candidate. I think what's meant by this is "racISM," and marginalizing or dismissing Obama based on his being a black candidate. That's an important distinction. There shouldn't be any discomfort about the fact that race is in the race (as is gender) and that he is a black candidate -- one who's come further than any other in our history, who has minorities excited and voting for him in huge numbers, and who may be the next president. Not only should there be no discomfort, it should be celebrated, proudly.

2. The name "Hussein" as a smear. Saying the name is not a smear, it's a fact. I think what's feared here is the implication of something sinister from the name Hussein. Again, that's an important distinction. There shouldn't be any discomfort about the name Hussein itself. It's a fine name with positive meaning. There's no reason for Democrats to act like there's something to be ashamed of or hidden.

3. The color of his skin, and his facial features. The hysteria over "making him blacker," supposedly widening his nose into something that looks (gasp!) "more African American" and "messing with his lower lip" is absurd to me!! Who on earth, persuaded to vote for him, would change their mind after seeing something that made him look "blacker?" Is there a threshold for blackness, beyond which it's unacceptable? I understand there are racists -- they aren't voting for him anyway. I also understand that darkening photos is a technique for making an image seem sinister -- but that's not the claim here. I'm not hearing complaints about "sinister," I'm hearing complaints having to do with race. (Need I point out that "black" and "sinister" aren't the same thing?)

4. The photo of Obama in traditional Somali dress. It was treated as though somebody leaked a secret hidden photo or photoshopped it to create something damning. Again, let's be clear that it's not the attire or the photo that are the problem. If there was something false that was being said, with the photo as false evidence, then the problem is about whatever false was being said. Let's not act as though there's something shameful about the photo or the visit or the clothing. There isn't.

5. Finally, on being Muslim. The fact is he's NOT Muslim, so it's a lie that should be corrected. But it's only damning as an implication tied to smears that he could be a closet terrorist or something. That is the issue. So while the facts about his religion should be corrected, the notion that he's anti-American is what needs to be fought against. "Muslim" is not synonymous with "terrorist" and we shouldn't act as though it were.

So, I don't think we need to protect Obama from the facts of his identity and experience.

The uncomfortable question is: Who is really nervous and afraid of Obama being a black man? Because it seems, far too often, that it's people who are on his side.

(I know the very subject makes people nervous and defensive, so I'm going out on a limb here. Not the first time. Flame if you must!)

All MHO.

1. Neither candidate is as perfect nor as horrible as supporters/detractors have convinced themselves. What they are: Politicians! That means highlighting the absolute worst side of their opponent, and the idealized side of themselves.

2. When this is over, lots of Democrats may need to make a real effort to see the glass of our nominee as half full, if you will. It doesn't hurt to start now. Look on the positive side of him/her -- and yes, both really DO have positives. One way: Think of the Democrats you admire who've endorsed your candidate's opponent. None of them turned "shill" overnight.

3. About the fear of attacks in the primary season: the candidates are not fragile. BOTH campaigns have hurled insults, sometimes quite personal. There's nothing Democrats throw at Democrats that "gives" the GOP something they wouldn't already have -- and the GOP and its 527 PACs will do much worse. These are all love taps by their standards.

4. Neither candidate has experience in being president; thus neither has direct experience making emergency foreign policy decisions. But both can be competent presidents. I dare say: The job isn't THAAAT difficult. We've seen it royally screwed up as never before, for the past 7 years, and maybe that has us thinking it's fraught with danger to have someone who doesn't know what they're doing. It takes someone reasonably intelligent, ethical, and good-hearted, with good advisors. (Unfortunately that's what we haven't had with BushCo.) So either would be fine as presidents; it's the contest with McCain we need to focus on.

5. On policy proposals and positions, our two candidates are nearly identical.

6. Posting attacks on DU is probably not changing anybody's mind about anything, but might just harden feelings in both directions. Hopefully that's not the intention or purpose.

7. If you're finding supporters of a candidate are making you dislike the candidate him/herself, please -- take a break from DU!! (And focus, as I mentioned in #2 above, on the admirable supporters of that candidate.)

8. Barack Obama has brown skin, and Hillary Clinton has wrinkles. Voters are aware of these facts. If we're afraid of images changing voters' minds, we've got work to do.

9. Not voting Democratic in the general election is equivalent to enabling McCain's platform. Read it here so you'll know what you're doing: http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues

10. Just as our candidates aren't fragile, neither are we. The Democratic party will be fine; DU will be fine; the United States of America will be fine -- IF, that is, we don't relinquish the fight to the GOP.

From his website, johnmccain.com...

His "Economic Stimulus Plan" starts with a corporate tax cut.

His overall "Tax Cut Plan" includes "control medicare growth."

His "health care reform" plan reforms absolutely nothing.

His page devoted to "Strict Constructionist Philosophy" starts with a quote from an address he gave to the Federalist Society.

But all of that only hints at his positions on social issues.

His page devoted to "Human Dignity and the Sanctity of Life" begins: "John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench."

His section on "Protecting Marriage" begins, "As president, John McCain would nominate judges who understand that the role of the Court is not to subvert the rights of the people by legislating from the bench." That's right. Gay marriage subverts the rights of the people.

His section on "Moral Concerns of Advanced Technology" warns against "fetal farms" and cloning. "(T)he compassion to relieve suffering and to cure deadly disease cannot erode moral and ethical principles." Easing suffering isn't a basic moral and ethical tenet or principle?

And of course, Iraq...

His page on "Strategy for Victory in Iraq" begins, "A greater military commitment now is necessary if we are to achieve long-term success in Iraq. John McCain agrees with retired Army General Jack Keane that there are simply not enough American forces in Iraq."

His subsection, "Win the Homefront," speaks to the importance of propaganda: "If efforts in Iraq do not retain the support of the American people, the war will be lost as soundly as if our forces were defeated in battle." (Shades of Vietnam -- we were JUST about to achieve "victory," when those damn hippie protesters made it all fall apart!

Thus, "A renewed effort at home starts with explaining precisely what is at stake in this war to ensure that Americans fully understand the high cost of a military defeat." Yes, "explaining." That wouldn't have to do with fearmongering, would it? Terrorism, 9/11 perhaps?

Yup, the very next sentence: "The war in Iraq is at a crossroads and the future of the entire region is at stake - a region that produced the terrorists who attacked America on 9/11 and where much of the world's energy supplies are located." Oh yeah, "the world's energy supplies." In Straight Talk, it's called OIL.

That's as far as I could get, but there's much more.

The point for GD-Primaries is this: Neither of our candidates is perfect; both are flawed. Either will have real challenges in the general election and need all the support we can muster.

But neither one is John McCain. Not even John McCain-LITE. Not even John McCain-ISH. Very much opposite John McCain -- opposite the Republican positions, opposite where the Republicans have taken this country and where they want it to go.

Just some perspective, I hope, amidst the in-your-face over-celebrations and harsh excoriations, both of which, it seems to me, are based on very little.

One of them is going to be the alternative to John McCain -- the anointed Straight Talking Maverick. ( )

We gotta all end up on the same side of this.

I'm just sayin'.

I've always wanted my vote to matter in a primary, and finally it will -- but I don't know who to vote for. My inner dialogue goes around and around, something like this:

Clinton – Has more experience and very slight edge on economic and healthcare proposals, but people love to hate her. With a Clinton bumpersticker, people would be mean in traffic and my neighbors and students would have fits.

Obama – More ability to excite voters and be acceptable to others, at least at the beginning. But could be swiftboated badly by the RNC, and who knows with what?

Clinton – Already attacked in national campaigns with all the dirt millions of dollars could buy. But there’s the “dynasty” element, and "Clinton fatigue."

Obama – No dynasty element or fatigue, but a level of experience that would involve too much reliance on cabinet members and advisors.

Clinton – Has grappled with all the issues for years -- I do give weight to daily discussions of issues with President Clinton -- but voted for IWR and K/L.

Obama – Didn’t support war or K/L, but as a result could be hit in GE for being “weak on security,” at the same time reckless for statements about Pakistan, meeting leaders w/o preparatory visits by others, etc.

Clinton – Strength on security in GE, which may be why she voted as she did. But old memes say she’s “anti-military,” and a woman can’t seem as macho, and many men just won’t vote for her.

Obama – Gets more votes of men, and brings in new voters – minorities and young people -- but in southern states, his campaign has had to lean heavily on religious and even conservative rhetoric.

Clinton – A more liberal record and stance, but perceived as too right on the left, too left on the right.

Obama – Perceived as more left on the left, which would certainly make it easier on DU! But moderation, ‘unity’ etc. isn’t what I want with Republicans – and they could walk all over him if he goes in with that stance.

Clinton – Knows how to fight the rightwing, knows it's necessary, and would do so, especially in the WH in my opinion. But with every move she made, I’d have to listen to neighbors berating the Clintons, DUers and other Dem blogs would be daily complain-fests, etc.

Obama – There’s at least a good chance people might be more positive about him, and are more sensitive about racist remarks/views than sexist ones. Maybe it’d be easier for the glass ceiling of race to be broken first.

Clinton – But the sexism I’ve seen makes me think a woman president is really needed to deal with it, raise consciousnesses, and finally start to get over it! But maybe she couldn’t beat McCain.

Obama – Maybe he couldn’t beat McCain.

Clinton – Maybe she shouldn’t beat McCain, unless she had General Clark as her running mate!

Obama – Not likely to have General Clark as his running mate since he endorsed Clinton.

Clinton – Might NOT pick General Clark as her running mate, but there’s always a chance….

But, even with a Clinton/Clark bumpersticker, people would be mean to me in traffic and my neighbors and students would have fits... (Repeat from beginning)

No, not Hillary Clinton -- Bill Clinton. In 1992, to be exact.

Remember slogans like "A place called Hope?" And "It's time for a change?"

But HRC really can't be, in NH, what her husband was back then. HE was the newcomer, the "change candidate," challenging the "status quo." In may ways, he was where Obama is now.

In fact, here's the text of Clinton's acceptance speech in 1992:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton...

Check it out -- lots of similarities. For example:

"I have news for the forces of greed and the defenders of the status quo: Your time has come and gone. Its time for a change in America."

"Tonight every one of you knows deep in your heart that we are too divided. It is time to heal America."

"I want every person in this hall and every person in this land to reach out and join us in a great new adventure, to chart a bold new future."

Even his life story is a bit reminiscent -- the absent father, being raised by grandparents, seeing his mother fight cancer, and how all of this shaped his worldview. He was young and new to many voters.

I like both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, in different ways for different reasons. (I still wish there were someone with the charisma and oratory skills of Obama or Dean, and the policies of Dennis Kucinich, and maybe the intellect and background of General Clark, all combined. Or I just wish Clark had won the nom last time.) But I think HRC is really in a difficult place, running against Obama right now, with so many decades of media attacks against her. People talk about "The Clintons" as though they were an institution; but if they are, it's an institution whose environment has changed over 15 years, putting it in a different place or perspective than it was.

I'm not sure how they'll go with is or how this will all play out.

Interesting times!

The media's sure at their worst.
For battles, not issues, they thirst.
These coiffed gents and ladies
Can all go to Hades
And Faux ones can surely go first.

Okay, who's got the pic of him hugging the Chimp?