I just listened to Sheila Jackson-Lee on the Race for the White House show (I know, I know). She was on with Republican Congressman John Culberson (R-Texas). Culberson didn't really articulate why he voted against the bill other than the fact that he is a fiscal conservative and balked at the price tag. (I wonder if he felt that way about all of Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy or the cost of the Iraq occupation.)

However, Jackson-Lee articulated several reasons why she did not vote in favor of the bailout bill. I can't remember everything she said, but she did mention the lack of judicial oversight, the lack of assistance to "Mr. and Mrs. Main Street" in terms of the restructuring of mortgage debt (it would be very hard to get multiple entities to sign off on a restructuring package), lack of taxpayer protection, and unprecedented powers bestowed upon the treasury secretary. I did not hear her say that she was not in favor of passing a bill to save our economy. I heard her say she was not in favor of THIS bill as presented. She praised Speaker Pelosi and defended her leadership admirably. She also pointed out the fact that at the end of the day, Speaker Pelosi delivered 140 votes in favor of the plan. The Republicans only mustered up 65, much lower than what their leadership had promised.

I think Jackson-Lee and other Democrats who voted against the bill did so from a principled standpoint and I actually sort of respect that. The Republicans are playing politics. They are up for re-election and feel like their constituency views this as a bailout of the wealthy paid for by the lower and working class citizens. However, I think the Dems who voted against this bill are holding out for a BETTER bill and are playing hardball because they know the economy needs a rescue package and given the failure of this vote, they are in a stronger position to negotiate better terms (bankruptcy protections, restructuring measures) for the AVERAGE citizens who are victims of this credit crisis. Jackson-Lee said she thought they could have a better bill worked out by the end of this week. If a "better" bill is negotiated, Bush will have no choice but to sign it. Folks in the banking industry are saying we have anywhere from a few days to a couple of weeks to pass a bill before we really go under.

This is taking it down to the wire, but I don't think we should get on the case of the Dems who voted against this bill. They are advocating on behalf of the people so that they don't just get kicked out into the street and so the government and Congress has oversight regarding how the $700 billion (or however much it ends up being) is spent.

I also see the fact that a significant number of representatives in both parties voted against this bill as a good thing. Maybe the Republicans' intentions weren't that good. But this is a welcome change from the IWR or Patriot Act, when everyone marched lock-step with whatever Bush's White House told them to do. Finally, Congress found its spine, stood up to the bully, and said "we don't care what you think. We're not afraid of you."

I think we'll get a bailout plan passed. We just have to weather the storm until then.

Holding politicians accountable, even ones I like, admire, and respect does not make me a concern troll.

I never thought I'd see the day when Arlen Specter makes a reasoned and rational argument:



Please explain to me why we are giving the White House a victory when we didn't have to:



Let's look at Sen. Feingold's statement one more time:



So to be clear:

-Neither the House nor the Senate HAD to take up this bill. Democratic leadership CHOSE to take up this bill.

-The President still determines whether spying is legal instead of having a meaningful judicial determination.

-All necessary requirements for wiretapping/spying are contained in the 1978 Act. This bill is not necessary, unless we are trying to let Bush and the telecoms off the hook.

Let's take a look at the actual Fourth Amendment:



The Fourth Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. The Fourth Amendment was written, in large part, as a response to the open-ended "writs of assistance" (general search warrants) the British used to search any person or place an officer deemed suspicious in the American colonies. In the Townsend Act of 1767, the British Parliament legalized (or affirmed the legality of) these writs. These open-ended, invasive, destructive searches were part of the reason America fought for its independence in the Revolutionary War.

So, again, I would like to reiterate that pissing on the Fourth Amendment is a BIG DEAL and I am NOT a "concern troll" for expressing my disdain for those who support, condone, allow, or don't put up a fight against that evisceration.

So what does this have to do with President Obama? I firmly believe, as one who actually LISTENS to his constituency, Sen. Obama needs to hear our views on this latest resurrection of a FISA bill that threatens the Fourth Amendment.

Obama has been clearly, CONSISTENTLY AGAINST telecom retroactive immunity and warrantless wiretapping. If the right-wing wanted to attack him on this issue from a national security standpoint, they already have PLENTY of material to work with.

The only thing that makes sense, if Obama is considering voting for the compromise bill (and that is a BIG "IF") is that this is an organized strategy.

Two points:

1) The Republicans forgot to add immunity against criminal lawsuits. If John Edwards is AG, I can totally see him pursuing action against the corporations that did not obtain the proper certification. This could be a reason for supporting the measure if the plan is to have the DOJ go after the telecoms.

2) This looks like a done deal. If Obama and the other Senators who are clearly against the telecom immunity manage to get the bill killed in the Senate, Obama will become a hero to the progressive base, he will earn a great deal of political capital/power, AND he will earn the respect of many independents/libertarians for defending the Fourth Amendment in the wake of enormous opposition and odds.

This is strategy; I'm just not sure what the exact plan is. I will still support Obama no matter the outcome, but it would be nice to see our Presidential nominee continue to highlight the differences between himself and McCain, while reaffirming his record of taking the tough, but correct stand on important issues (the gas tax suspension and dialoguing with our "enemies" come to mind).

I believe Americans respect a leader who makes the case for being on a different, but right side of an issue.

I respect Hillary Clinton's candidacy.

I respect what her husband did for our party.

Their time is over. They can be graceful about stepping down or they can be nudged forcefully. But the Clintonian, DLC-type, corporate-controlled leadership of the Democratic party is becoming a thing of the past.

Thank God.

I watched that shameful spectacle of Hillary supporters disturb the proceedings numerous times, even when asked not to BY MEMBERS OF THEIR OWN SIDE. These people wanted to should "Denver!" and "McCain!" Leave then. Seriously. Take your fucking marbles and GO.

I'm starting to believe these people aren't true Democrats at all. They are Dixiecrats in the kindest, most favorable light. I have worked my ass off registering voters in three states. I have donated to both Sen. Obama's Presidential campaign as well as the DNC and two Democratic candidates for Senate. This is what most Obama supporters are doing. They are putting the party first. They are replenishing our national voter database with updated information. They are pounding the pavement, trying to get out the vote and registering a record number of voters across this country.

Oh yeah. And those hippie, commmie, latte sipping limousine liberals? Well they have been doing the heavy lifting. Confronting evil administration officials like Condoleeza Rice. Protesting this Iraq war. It was at an anti-war rally, as a matter of fact, that I first heard Sen. Obama give a speech.

Cause see, that's the sort of thing I protest. I protest immoral and illegal WARS. I protest WARRANTLESS WIRETAPPING. I protest Bush coming to my damn city and having the nerve to walk in our St. Patrick's Day parade. I protest CRIMINAL pRESIDENTS.

That's where my heart lies. With the downtrodden and the poor and the unprivileged and helping out my fellow neighbors. That's what I care about. But it's clear that a certain segment that has set up camp in this party doesn't care too much about those things. So, we have a dilemma. Are we going to call ourselves the party of Roosevelt and Kennedy... are we going to continue to embrace the intent and ideals behind initiatives like the New Deal? Or are we going to put the same people back in power that paved the way for the bullshit we're in now?

That's the choice. To those who want the latter, all I have to say is I'll see you in Denver and if you choose to vote for McCain or join the Republican party... so be it. Good riddance. Because you never gave a shit about your fellow man or your fellow neighbor anyway.

So to recap:

May 31st: RBC will vote on a solution for seating Michigan and Florida delegations.

Late June: Hillary disagrees with the RBC's decision and goes to the Credentials committee (which is stacked with Obama supporters). The Credentials committee will not overturn what the RBC voted on.

Democrats, please don't fall for the threats and innuendo. This race is over, the remaining states and commonwealth will vote, and the FL and MI delegations will be seated. The Michigan state Democratic Party is NOT going to allow her to use Michigan as an issue. They've already proposed a solution. Hillary vetoed it, but the RBC can still vote on it and approve it. As far as Florida is concerned, you could seat them as is and Hillary will still not have enough delegates to win the nomination.

Don't be fooled and don't give the Clinton campaign the power to think that they can actually steal this thing.

I was very excited about a month ago to actually get a chance to be on the ground contributing in the great Hoosier state of Indiana. However, in the wake of the media's Pastorbation, the closer the end of April/beginning of May loomed, the more anxious I felt.

Let me say from the get-go that I support Barack Obama for President and have never wavered in that support since switching from Edwards after Super Tuesday.

Let me also say that while I agree with some of the things Jeremiah Wright has said, this recent focus on him by the media, along with his own comments, have done both Obama and all the people of different faiths who defended him a bit of a disservice.

That said, I put on my walking shoes last week and this past weekend to talk to the neighboring folk in Indiana about their awesome position in this Democratic Presidential primary. Since we're really not supposed to talk to the media or blog about our experiences, I'll keep this general.

All together, I've spoken to over 300 people in Gary and Fort Wayne, IN. The first door I knocked on in Fort Wayne was answered by a very nice mid-50's couple. They were independents (as were most of the people I spoke with in Fort Wayne). They didn't like any of the candidates and were strongly considering sitting out the election. The wife did say if she decided to vote, she'd probably vote for Hillary because she was a woman and the country could benefit from having a female in the White House. The husband reminded her that the female would also be bringing her husband, Bill Clinton, and said he would never vote for a Clinton for President.

Then a curious thing happened. I hit a slew of households that were leaning Obama. I was waiting for the Wright issue to pop up and it did. A guy was out mowing his lawn and actually waved us over. He was an independent and stated he was a "recovering Republican." His youngest son and daughter-in-law have moved in with him because they can't afford to live on their own. They were actually evicted from their apartment after the son lost his programming job with a company that hired him right out of college. They have a young son. Everyone in the household is registered to vote. The man said he listened to Obama's speech in Muncie and that Obama "makes a lot of sense." He also said the gas tax holiday was "stupid" and it didn't take anyone with a college degree to figure that out. He told me I should know (as I had indicated I was from Illinois and we have done a gas tax break before). I agreed with him and we talked a bit about Obama's plan to break this country's dependence on foreign oil. The guy said it was a shame that Reverend Wright was taking the focus from the important issues in this election and that Obama probably did not know Wright was "like that." I was shocked.

I had gone into this canvassing thing with the idea that I would have to remind voters of the issues before them and that the whole Wright situation was just media distractions from the real problems facing the average Americans. But person after person, door after door, what I heard from Hoosiers in both Fort Wayne and especially in Gary was that they DIDN'T CARE. One lady in Gary told me that she went to church to worship the Lord, not a pastor or his particular opinions. "The media is full of $hit and they love drama. They want to turn this election into a soap opera for ratings."

What I ended up learning is that Americans really are smart. They see through the media hype and they see past the distractions. Gary, in particular, is going through a really rough spot where their once vital manufacturing sector has been exchanged for a service-based economy. The older voters are sick and tired of seeing their children who are ready to get married and start families leave the area (or even the state) due to the lack of good jobs in the state.

I spoke to one young man in Gary who graduated in 2006 from IU (Bloomington) with a degree in computer engineering. He was currently working retail at a clothing store in a mall. He's staying through the primary election this Tuesday and will be voting, but then he's moving to Dallas for a better future at the end of this month. We talked a bit about his upcoming move and he started to tear up. I'm actually tearing up myself, writing this. He doesn't want to leave. His mom is a widower (his dad passed a way his freshman year at college). She is a cancer survivor currently in remission. He's talked to her about moving to Texas with him, but she says Gary is her home. He broke up with his girlfriend due to an inability to maintain a long-distance relationship. She had moved to New York and was struggling to make ends meet as a paralegal. He said he felt like he had failed her because a man is supposed to be the provider and he couldn't find work. Finances were a big strain on their relationship.

I'm a woman of color (both latina and African-American). I was very cognizant of the fact that Indiana, like many of the other states, has its share of racists. In fact, I was aware that the neighborhoods I was canvassing were not likely to have many residents of color. (I ended up visiting two households with residents of color.) I have to say I have never felt so connected, so bonded through shared experiences as I have these past couple of weeks. People want to be able to send their children to college. And they want to know that after college, there will be work available to them. People want to be able to watch their parents grow old and be there for them. People want to able to provide for their spouses, partners, and significant others.

Bush economics have really taken a toll on this nation and its citizens. Families are hurting, children are going hungry, our elders are unable to retire with dignity. At the last house I visited, before I headed back to HQ, I met a retired veteran in his 60's. He stepped out onto his porch in a Harley-Davidson T-shirt and bermuda shorts. He told me that he didn't give "two $hits" about the Rev. Wright mess. He said he didn't blame Obama for what Wright had said or done. "Hell, I voted for Bush twice. People make mistakes," he said.

During some point in our conversation, I remember him telling me was that "A change was coming."

I hesitated and decided not to point out that Rev. Wright had actually said something similar in a recent speech of his. However, this guy looked at me and smiled in a way that warmed my heart. He said he heard Rev. Wright say that on TV, so he must not be all that bad as they were making him out to be anyway.

Take heart, DU. I'm starting to truly believe, this time, America is going vote for change.

Edited to change title and add the following... It seems to me that there is a lack of focus on what the Democratic Party agenda is and how the proposed policies of two remaining candidates compare. So I am going to go through the six major points of the Democratic Party agenda (Honest Leadership & Open Government, Real Security, Energy Independence, Economic Prosperity & Educational Excellence, A Healthcare System that Works for Everyone, and Retirement Security) and ask DUers to look at how their preferred candidate lines up with what our national party seeks.

The Democratic Party Agenda: Honest Government & Open Government



Hillary Clinton's plan:



Barack Obama's plan:



Which candidate has the best position on ethics reform? Which candidate has a plan most in line with the Democratic National Party?

I say this as a former supporter who donated money to both of her Senate campaigns.

She is capable. She is intelligent. She is strong. But I want more in a President. Perhaps that may have been enough in 2004, after the incompetence and lack of intelligence demonstrated by Bush. But 2008 is a whole different ballgame. That stakes and standards have risen.

I want someone who will be honest with me, as a citizen and tell me the truth even when it hurts. I do not think Hillary will do that.

I want someone who can look at themselves and acknowledge their own failings. I do not think Hillary can do that. She has exhibited traits similar to Dubya: never admitting failure (IWR vote), believing she knows what is best despite contrary feedback (derision towards progressive groups like MoveOn, pushing "out of touch" comments to a union in spite of being chastised for pursuing that argument, mandates for PRIVATE insurance).

In short, I think her point of view is that the ends justify the means. Sometimes they do, but in this case, they don't. Hillary enjoyed double digit leads nationwide early on in the race because she was campaigning on her platform--what she would do as President. She sold herself. That is why people responded to her and why her negatives were pretty low at that point. I was proud of that candidate and that campaign, even though I loathed Mark Penn. It seemed like Hillary was in charge of her own destiny and was making wise decisions.

Then enter her strategists Penn and Husband-Clinton. "Change you can xerox" came straight from Penn. Bill Clinton's divisive comments in SC originated from a Penn email. At some point, the very smart, very capable Hillary Clinton should have said, "Hey, we're not going to go there. We're going to run a tough, but aboveboard campaign and let the people decide." That's what got her those leads. Edwards, by far the most progressive, still could not pull ahead of Clinton for that reason. Hillary sold herself and her future Presidency better than he sold his own.

Just the fact that Hillary tried to boost her resume by claiming credit for things she did not do (S-CHIP, peace in Ireland, and dodging sniper fire) illustrates that she didn't really think her own Senate record was enough to persuade voters that she should be the Democratic nominee. She started claiming credit for her husband's accomplishments, instead of distinguishing the times when she disagreed with his policy (NAFTA, DADT). Hillary is to the LEFT of Bill Clinton. I know that. But somehow, she began to try to convince me that she would be more of the Clinton era we had in the '90s. I don't want that, and I think in her heart, if Hillary was President back then, she would have done MANY things differently. Do you remember the debate where one of the moderators tried to catch her up on a policy difference between herself and Bill Clinton? Hillary said something to the effect of "Well, he's not running for President; I am." The crowd burst into thunderous applause. THAT is the Hillary I wanted and that's not at all what I'm looking at today.

At some point in this race, Hillary stopped selling herself. It's not about how good she is, it's about how bad her opponent is. That's no way to win, especially when the opponent is a fellow Democrat. Most of all, Hillary has destroyed all chances of a unity ticket. Her opponent would never put her on the presidential ticket after the way she has conducted her campaign. Nor would her opponent over want to be on a ticket with her at the top. That is so sad. Because even Hillary has admitted she would like a unity ticket on the stump. They could have made a FORMIDABLE and UNSTOPPABLE team. Now, that is no longer a possibility.

Here's a copy of the questionnaire that Keith Olbermann referenced tonight, for anyone that wants to read the whole thing:

http://www.midwestdemocracynetwork.org/tem...

Again, only Edwards and Obama responded (coincidentally, the two least corporate candidates running for President).

Obama on executive branch reforms and closing the “revolving door” for high-ranking and influential administration officials who leave their positions to become high paid registered lobbyists:





Obama on providing the public with information about the sponsors, purposes and beneficiaries of the special interest-supported appropriation “earmarks” approved by Congress:



Obama on publicly disclosing the content, participants and outcomes of closed-door policy-related discussions involving high administration officials and interest group representatives and lobbyists:



And now you see why the corporatists fought to get Edwards out of the race and why they are fighting with everything they have to defeat Senator Obama.

Is this something we can all agree upon? McCain is our enemy. Please consider adding your name.

In her speech yesterday on the housing crisis (which started off pretty decent), Hillary had the following to say:



If these mortage companies and lending institutions were following the law and other regulations, why would we need to protect them from lawsuits? This sounds just like the argument for retroactive immunity for the telecoms.

“The people of faith have moved from the hatred of armed enemies to the hatred of unarmed innocents. We want revenge, we want paybacks, and we don’t care who gets hurt in the process.” – Reverend Jeremiah Wright

************

It is time to correct the record regarding Reverend Jeremiah Wright and reverse the blatant “hit job” that various media outlets have either instigated or perpetuated against him. Much has been made of snippets of Rev. Wright’s sermons featuring impassioned, and to some, inflammatory remarks. But curiously, no one has aired or transcribed an extended portion of the sermons that have caused so much controversy. Nor have any of the media outlets I have read and viewed mentioned that Rev. Wright was referencing comments made by former Ambassador to Iraq, Edward Peck, ironically given on a Fox News program entitled “The War on Terror” in October 2001. On that program, Ambassador Peck presented facts that clearly agitated the program’s host; including pointing out that America previously viewed Saddam Hussein as an ally, eleven years of economic embargo killed countless children, the proceeds from the sale of “oil for food” all went to the United Nations not the Iraqi people, and two United Nations humanitarian directors resigned in protest over the suffering being forced on the Iraqi people.

Reverend Wright heard this discussion and it made him think in the context of the horrible event visited upon this nation September 11, 2001. So many of us asked the question, “Why?” Why would someone do this? Why would someone attack us in such a savage and cruel way? Reverend Wright knew his people and knew they were asking these questions. And in the sermon that he delivered, Rev. Wright was attempting to answer these questions that plagued us. Picking up where Ambassador Peck left off, Wright connects the dots and reminds us that in our quest to hunt down terrorists, there are those in other nations that would ask our country to take a look in the proverbial mirror. From this land’s native inhabitants to civilians in Grenada, Panama, Libya, Iraq, Sudan, and Japan (to name those referenced in Wright’s message), there are quite a few people who may not be thrilled with America’s conduct towards them.

And here’s the true crux of Rev. Wright’s message in his own words, taken from that sermon:

“Violence begets violence, hatred begets hatred, and terrorism begets terrorism. A white ambassador said that y’all, not a black militant. Not a reverend who preaches about racism. An ambassador whose eyes are wide open and who’s trying to get us to wake up and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised. The ambassador said the people that we are wounding don’t have the military capability we have but they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them and we need to come to grips with that.”

View the video of his sermon here:

Read the transcript of Ambassador Peck’s Fox News appearance here:

Now ask yourself as a news organization, as part of the fourth estate, whether you have presented an accurate portrayal of a man who is the recipient of three presidential commendations. Based upon my own research and my own attendance at Trinity as a visitor, I can say unequivocally that you have done both Reverend Wright and his family a grave disservice. Sadly, the presidential candidate who has taken so much blame for those out-of-context snippets apparently didn’t bother to check out the entire sermons from which the “controversial” statements were cherry-picked either. This actually lends credence to Senator Obama’s assertion that he was not in attendance on the days of the sermons in question. If he was in attendance, he would surely have known that Reverend Wright’s sermon on 9/11 was actually referencing commentary previously given by Ambassador Peck.

Please do not abdicate your obligation to journalistic integrity. I look forward to your news organization correcting the record and presenting an accurate portrayal of the true character, intelligence, and integrity of Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Failing to do so will prove that you are no more than followers of Sean Hannity and similar propagandists.

Sincerely,

Tatiana Rodriguez
Chicago, IL

ABC:

General e-mail: netaudr@abc.com
Nightline: nightline@abcnews.com
20/20: 2020@abc.com

CBS:

CBS Evening News: evening@cbsnews.com
The Early Show: earlyshow@cbs.com
60 Minutes II: 60II@cbsnews.com
48 Hours: 48hours@cbsnews.com
Face The Nation: ftn@cbsnews.com

CNN Contact Page

Faux:

General: comments@foxnews.com
Special Report with Brit Hume: Special@foxnews.com
FOX Report with Shepard Smith: Foxreport@foxnews.com
The O'Reilly Factor: Oreilly@foxnews.com
Hannity & Colmes: Hannity@foxnews.com, Colmes@foxnews.com
On the Record with Greta: Ontherecord@foxnews.com

NBC:

NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams: nightly@nbc.com
NBC News Today: today@nbc.com
Dateline NBC: dateline@nbc.com
Meet the Press

MSNBC:

Hardball with Chris Matthews: hardball@msnbc.com
MSNBC Reports with Joe Scarborough: msnbcreports@msnbc.com

PBS:

newshour@pbs.org

NPR:

All Things Considered: atc@npr.org
Morning Edition: morning@npr.org
Talk Of The Nation: totn@npr.org

****WRITE LETTERS TO THE EDITOR****

The Los Angeles Times
Letters to the Editor: letters@latimes.com
Readers' Representative: readers.rep@latimes.com

The New York Times
Letters to the Editor (for publication): letters@nytimes.com
Write to the news editors: nytnews@nytimes.com

USA Today
Letters to the Editor: editor@usatoday.com

The Wall Street Journal
Letters to the Editor: wsj.ltrs@wsj.com
Comment on News Articles: wsjcontact@dowjones.com

The Washington Post
Letters to the Editor: letters@washpost.com
Ombudsman: ombudsman@washpost.com

Newsweek
Letters to the Editor: letters@newsweek.com

Time
Letters to the Editor: letters@time.com

U.S. News & World Report
Letters to the Editor: letters@usnews.com

AND DON'T FORGET TO SEND A COPY OF YOUR LETTER TO:
fair@fair.org

I have never seen us so vitriolic and hostile towards one another as I have during this primary process. EVERYONE has become polarized. It's not just Kos or MyDD or TPM or DU. It is the whole so-called f*cking progressive establishment.

I have NEVER seen the wholesale adoption of tactics that we had previously come to abhor, the quoting of right-wing lunacy like gospel to score a cheap political point. I believe in karma and it will catch up with the relevant people eventually. One thing I have to say is, at the very least, it has pointed out who really wants an open government that is representative of the people and who wants to win for the sake of winning; who wants to establish a true progressive majority and who puts their personal (or perhaps professional goals) first.

I never thought I'd see the day when both MoveOn and Howard Dean and Keith Olbermann and Randi Rhodes and Stephanie Miller and Rachel Maddow were all collectively thrown under the bus. Kos, who brought together a collection of disaffected progressives and organized the netroots into a powerful coalition that GOT MORE PROGRESSIVES ELECTED TO CONGRESS is now a hack. Howard Dean who also GOT MORE PROGRESSIVES ELECTED TO CONGRESS is now a hack. And Barack HUSSEIN Obama, who inspired those like myself who were not thrilled with a Kerry nomination at the convention, is now an arrogant aristocrat who had everything handed to him on a silver platter. Who knew Obama was born with a silver spoon in his mouth?

This primary process is a true test in more ways than one. We aren't just selecting a Democratic nominee. We are deciding the future direction of the party. Are we going to campaign in all 50-states or are we going to focus on the "significant" ones? Are we going to support and help elect progressive candidates down ticket for Congressional and local offices or are we going to hand a potential Democratic President another hamstrung House and Senate that lacks a mandate to implement a progressive agenda? Do we decide that given this extraordinary moment in American history where we are facing economic disaster, stuck waging an illegal occupation no one wants, to change our direction and look towards the future? Or do we look towards the past and try to make do with what worked a decade ago? Are we going to bring more citizens into the political process and ask them to participate in forming the type of government that is responsive to their needs? Or will we tell the hopeful masses that the answers reside with whoever our leader is, so just relax... the people's input is not requested nor required.

This is the moment we've been waiting for. The secrecy, the blatant violation of our Constitution, the stain of blood on the hands of those who have betrayed all the noble and good things this nation stood for... it's all coming to a head. Our nervous elected officials sense this. We can hold the party together and forge a new pathway or we can go back to the same-old and shatter the party into pieces.

As I have said many times before, it is my opinion Hillary Clinton will take this to the convention.

Let's take a look at the remaining contests:

Tuesday, March 11 (Mississippi - 40 delegates) Advantage Obama

Tuesday, April 22 (Pennsylvania - 188 delegates) Advantage Clinton

Saturday, May 3 (Guam - 3 delegates) Advantage Clinton

Tuesday, May 6 (Indiana - 84 delegates, North Carolina - 134 delegates) Advantage Obama

Tuesday, May 13 (West Virginia - 39 delegates) Tossup

Tuesday, May 20 (Kentucky - 60 delegates, Oregon - 65 delegates) Tie

Sunday, June 1 (Puerto Rico - 63 delegates) Tossup

Tuesday, June 3 (Montana - 24 delegates, South Dakota - 23 delegates) Tossup

Clinton is not going to get any net gain in pledged delegates. All Obama has to do is keep it close in Pennsylvania and win big in states like Mississippi and North Carolina and he'll likely come out gaining pledged delegates over Clinton from the remaining primaries.

So why is Hillary Clinton still in the race? Why is she still running when it's not mathematically possible to win the number of pledged delegates needed to secure the nomination? Well, that's not how she's planning to win. She is counting on superdelegates and siphoning off Obama's pledged delegates to win the nomination at the convention.

It is actually possible, though unlikely, for Hillary to win this way. However, there are several things we can do in the meantime:

#1) Stop pressuring Hillary to suspend her campaign. This is not going to happen and actually she is the type that thrives on "fighting" and these appeals for her to concede only cause her to become more entrenched and determined NOT to quit. Think about the upside of the long primary season (I know it is hard to do): the lack of a firm target for the low-on-$$$$ RNC to attack, the shortened amount of time the republicans will have to smear whoever the nominee is, the forced implementation of the 50-state strategy (energizing Democrats in places like Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Montana, South Dakota, and the commonwealth of Puerto Rico).

#2) Contact any undecided superdelegates in your state. Demconwatch provides a great list of who has endorsed a candidate and who has yet to endorse a candidate. Write to these individuals and politely explain why they should support Sen. Obama. Email is great, but a personal snail mail letter is even better.

#3) DONATE!!!!!

#4) Remember that the Democratic National Convention will take place August 25-28, 2008. Check your work schedule because you might need to make some travel arrangements.

#5) Send the campaign your thoughts and ideas.

These are only a few suggestions. Even with do-overs in Florida and Michigan, we'll still be left where we are today, in my opinion, with Obama leading in pledged delegates, but unable to amass the total needed to put secure the nomination before the convention. Let's also keep the focus on where it belongs: bringing in new participants to the political process, returning to Constitutional government, and changing the way we do business in Washington.

The Obama campaign has been one of the people, by the people, and for the people. This isn't a one-man show. Let's show our support in the best, most constructive way possible.

As this sampling indicates, polls constantly underestimate Obama's strength with the electorate. Younger voters (many without landlines) usually are not weighted accurately in these polls. Younger voters are Obama's strength. Additionally, polling data typically under-represents first-time voters, who are also one of Obama's key demographic groups.

Remember, the polls had Clinton winning Missouri by 5+ points and Alabama by 1 point. Things are not as bad as they seem, in spite of all the negativity perpetuated. Every time the opposing side has gone negative, it has backfired. There is no reason to believe it will not backfire this time, as well.