The British Description of Sexism in America

This is an older article. I thought it worthy of posting now as a view sexism in America from the British Perspective.

Hating Hillary
from the Newstatesman
By Andrew Stephen
Published 22 May 2008

Gloating, unshackled sexism of the ugliest kind has been shamelessly peddled by the US media, which - sooner rather than later, I fear - will have to account for their sins.
More...

History, I suspect, will look back on the past six months as an example of America going through one of its collectively deranged episodes - rather like Prohibition from 1920-33, or McCarthyism some 30 years later. This time it is gloating, unshackled sexism of the ugliest kind. It has been shamelessly peddled by the US media, which - sooner rather than later, I fear - will have to account for their sins. The chief victim has been Senator Hillary Clinton, but the ramifications could be hugely harmful for America and the world.

I am no particular fan of Clinton. Nor, I think, would friends and colleagues accuse me of being racist. But it is quite inconceivable that any leading male presidential candidate would be treated with such hatred and scorn as Clinton has been. What other senator and serious White House contender would be likened by National Public Radio's political editor, Ken Rudin, to the demoniac, knife-wielding stalker played by Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction? Or described as "a fucking whore" by Randi Rhodes, one of the foremost personalities of the supposedly liberal Air America? Could anybody have envisaged that a website set up specifically to oppose any other candidate would be called Citizens United Not Timid? (We do not need an acronym for that.)

I will come to the reasons why I fear such unabashed misogyny in the US media could lead, ironically, to dreadful racial unrest. "All men are created equal," Thomas Jefferson famously proclaimed in 1776. That equality, though, was not extended to women, who did not even get the vote until 1920, two years after (some) British women. The US still has less gender equality in politics than Britain, too. Just 16 of America's 100 US senators are women and the ratio in the House (71 out of 435) is much the same. It is nonetheless pointless to argue whether sexism or racism is the greater evil: America has a peculiarly wicked record of racist subjugation, which has resulted in its racism being driven deep underground. It festers there, ready to explode again in some unpredictable way.

To compensate meantime, I suspect, sexism has been allowed to take its place as a form of discrimination that is now openly acceptable. "How do we beat the bitch?" a woman asked Senator John McCain, this year's Republican presidential nominee, at a Republican rally last November. To his shame, McCain did not rebuke the questioner but joined in the laughter. Had his supporter asked "How do we beat the nigger?" and McCain reacted in the same way, however, his presidential hopes would deservedly have gone up in smoke. "Iron my shirt," is considered amusing heckling of Clinton. "Shine my shoes," rightly, would be hideously unacceptable if yelled at Obama.

Evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, American men like to delude themselves that they are the most macho in the world. It is simply unthinkable, therefore, for most of them to face the prospect of having a woman as their leader. The massed ranks of male pundits gleefully pronounced that Clinton had lost the battle with Obama immediately after the North Carolina and Indiana primaries, despite past precedents that strong second-place candidates (like Ronald Reagan in his first, ultimately unsuccessful campaign in 1976; like Ted Kennedy, Gary Hart, Jesse Jackson and Jerry Brown) continue their campaigns until the end of the primary season and, in most cases, all the way to the party convention.

None of these male candidates had a premature political obituary written in the way that Hillary Clinton's has been, or was subjected to such righteous outrage over refusing to quiesce and withdraw obediently from what, in this case, has always been a knife-edge race. Nor was any of them anything like as close to his rivals as Clinton now is to Obama.

The media, of course, are just reflecting America's would-be macho culture. I cannot think of any television network or major newspaper that is not guilty of blatant sexism - the British media, naturally, reflexively follow their American counterparts - but probably the worst offender is the NBC/MSNBC network, which has what one prominent Clinton activist describes as "its nightly horror shows". Tim Russert, the network's chief political sage, was dancing on Clinton's political grave before the votes in North Carolina and Indiana had even been fully counted - let alone those of the six contests to come, the undeclared super-delegates, or the disputed states of Florida and Michigan.

The unashamed sexism of this giant network alone is stupendous. Its superstar commentator Chris Matthews referred to Clinton as a "she-devil". His colleague Tucker Carlson casually observed that Clinton "feels castrating, overbearing and scary . . . When she comes on television, I involuntarily cross my legs." This and similar abuse, I need hardly point out, says far more about the men involved than their target.

Knives out

But never before have the US media taken it upon themselves to proclaim the victor before the primary contests are over or the choice of all the super-delegates is known, and the result was that the media's tidal wave of sexism became self-fulfilling: Americans like to back winners, and polls immediately showed dramatic surges of support for Obama. A few brave souls had foreseen the merciless media campaign: "The press will savage her no matter what," predicted the Washington Post's national political correspondent, Dana Milbank, last December. "They really have their knives out for her, there's no question about it."

Polling organisations such as Gallup told us months ago that Americans will more readily accept a black male president than a female one, and a more recent CNN/Essence magazine/ Opinion Research poll found last month that 76 per cent think America is ready for a black man as president, but only 63 per cent believe the same of a woman.

"The image of charismatic leadership at the top has been and continues to be a man," says Ruth Mandel of Rutgers University. "We don't have an image, we don't have a historical memory of a woman who has achieved that feat."

Studies here have repeatedly shown that women are seen as ambitious and capable, or likeable - but rarely both. "Gender stereotypes trump race stereotypes in every social science test," says Alice Eagley, a psychology professor at Northwestern University. A distinguished academic undertaking a major study of coverage of the 2008 election, Professor Marion Just of Wellesley College - one of the "seven sisters" colleges founded because women were barred from the Ivy Leagues and which, coincidentally, Hillary Clinton herself attended - tells me that what is most striking to her is that the most repeated description of Senator Clinton is "cool and calculating".

This, she says, would never be said of a male candidate - because any politician making a serious bid for the White House has, by definition, to be cool and calculating. Hillary Clinton, a successful senator for New York who was re-elected for a second term by a wide margin in 2006 - and who has been a political activist since she campaigned against the Vietnam War and served as a lawyer on the congressional staff seeking to impeach President Nixon - has been treated throughout the 2008 campaign as a mere appendage of her husband, never as a heavyweight politician whose career trajectory (as an accomplished lawyer and professional advocate for equality among children, for example) is markedly more impressive than those of the typical middle-aged male senator.

Rarely is she depicted as an intellectually formidable politician in her own right (is that what terrifies oafs like Matthews and Carlson?). Rather, she is the junior member of "Billary", the derisive nickname coined by the media for herself and her husband. Obama's opponent is thus not one of the two US senators for New York, but some amorphous creature called "the Clintons", an aphorism that stands for amorality and sleaze. Open season has been declared on Bill Clinton, who is now reviled by the media every bit as much as Nixon ever was.

Here we come to the crunch. Hillary Clinton (along with her husband) is being universally depicted as a loathsome racist and negative campaigner, not so much because of anything she has said or done, but because the overwhelmingly pro-Obama media - consciously or unconsciously - are following the agenda of Senator Barack Obama and his chief strategist, David Axelrod, to tear to pieces the first serious female US presidential candidate in history.

"What's particularly saddening," says Paul Krugman, professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton and a rare dissenting voice from the left as a columnist in the New York Times, "is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the . . . way pundits and some news organisations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent." Despite widespread reporting to the contrary, Krugman believes that most of the "venom" in the campaign "is coming from supporters of Obama".

But Obama himself prepared the ground by making the first gratuitous personal attack of the campaign during the televised Congressional Black Caucus Institute debate in South Carolina on 21 January, although virtually every follower of the media coverage now assumes that it was Clinton who started the negative attacks. Following routine political sniping from her about supposedly admiring comments Obama had made about Ronald Reagan, Obama suddenly turned on Clinton and stared intimidatingly at her. "While I was working in the streets," he scolded her, ". . . you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board of Wal-Mart." Then, cleverly linking her inextricably in the public consciousness with her husband, he added: "I can't tell who I'm running against sometimes."

One of his female staff then distributed a confidential memo to carefully selected journalists which alleged that a vaguely clumsy comment Hillary Clinton had made about Martin Luther King ("Dr King's dream began to be realised when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964") and a reference her husband had made in passing to Nelson Mandela ("I've been blessed in my life to know some of the greatest figures of the last hundred years . . . but if I had to pick one person whom I know would never blink, who would never turn back, who would make great decisions . . . I would pick Hillary") were deliberate racial taunts.

Another female staffer, Candice Tolliver - whose job it is to promote Obama to African Americans - then weighed in publicly, claiming that "a cross-section of voters are alarmed at the tenor of some of these statements" and saying: "Folks are beginning to wonder: Is this an isolated situation, or is there something bigger behind all of this?" That was game, set and match: the Clintons were racists, an impression sealed when Bill Clinton later compared Obama's victory in South Carolina to those of Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988 (even though Jackson himself, an Obama supporter, subsequently declared Clinton's remarks to be entirely inoffensive).

The pincer movement, in fact, could have come straight from a textbook on how to wreck a woman's presi dential election campaign: smear her whole persona first, and then link her with her angry, red-faced husband. The public Obama, characteristically, pronounced himself "unhappy" with the vilification carried out so methodically by his staff, but it worked like magic: Hillary Clinton's approval ratings among African Americans plummeted from above 80 per cent to barely 7 per cent in a matter of days, and have hovered there since.

I suspect that, as a result, she will never be able entirely to shake off the "racist" tag. "African-American super-delegates [who are supporting Clinton] are being targeted, harassed and threatened," says one of them, Representative Emanuel Cleaver. "This is the politics of the 1950s." Obama and Axelrod have achieved their objectives: to belittle Hillary Clinton and to manoeuvre the ever-pliant media into depicting every political criticism she makes against Obama as racist in intent.

The danger is that, in their headlong rush to stop the first major female candidate (aka "Hildebeast" and "Hitlery") from becoming president, the punditocracy may have landed the Democrats with perhaps the least qualified presidential nominee ever. But that creeping realisation has probably come too late, and many of the Democratic super-delegates now fear there would be widespread outrage and increased racial tension if they thwart the first biracial presidential hopeful in US history.

But will Obama live up to the hype? That, I fear, may not happen: he is a deeply flawed candidate. Rampant sexism may have triumphed only to make way for racism to rear its gruesome head in America yet again. By election day on 4 November, I suspect, the US media and their would-be-macho commentators may have a lot of soul-searching to do.

In this comment piece on sexist language in the US media in relation to Hillary Clinton Andrew Stephen suggested that Carl Bernstein had publicly declared his disgust for Hillary Clinton's thick ankles. We are informed that Carl Bernstein intended, in his biography of Hillary Clinton, to refer to comments made by others about her when she was at high school. We are happy to accept that Carl Bernstein was not motivated by sexism, and we are sorry for any embarrassment caused.

Obama receives illegal funds from 'terrorist hotbed'

According to Federal Election Commission filings, Barack Obama has received illegal donations from Palestinians living in Gaza, a hotbed of Hamas terrorists.

Obama received more than $24,000 in campaign contributions over a period of two months last fall from three Palestinian brothers from the "Edwan" family in Rafah, Gaza, which is a Hamas stronghold along the border with Egypt. The story was uncovered by Pamela Geller of the Atlas Shrugs blog. (see Federal Election Commission report) More...

Attorney and conservative commentator Debbie Schlussel notes foreign nationals are barred from making contributions in connection with any election -- federal, state, or local -- and an individual is allowed to give only $2,300 per election to a federal candidate or the candidate's campaign committee.

"The donations are basically through and through illegal -- that's number one. And number two is how the Obama campaign tried to conceal it," Schlussel Terrorist with hostagechides. "They listed the campaign contributions as coming from Rafah, Georgia. They used the 'GA' from Gaza so it makes it look like it's legal; and then for the zip code it says '972,' which is actually the area code to dial over to Gaza," she contends.

The attorney comments that if the Obama campaign is willing to "accept thousands of dollars beyond the legal limit and they're also going to flout [Federal Election Commission] restrictions...that's very indicative of what kind of president [Obama] is going to be."

"They're not going to be worried about the details and they won't mind if they break the law to get to the final result that they want," adds Schlussel. She believes it is a "major news story when a presidential candidate receives money from 'a bastion of Islamic terrorism.' And Schlussel argues that the media is "bending over backwards to help Barack Obama and cover up any negative news about him."

Schlussel says Pamela Geller will likely file a Federal Election Commission complaint against the Obama campaign for violating restrictions and limits on campaign contributions.

You may view Matt Friedeman's video commentary on this story by clicking here.

Clinton supporters at Democratic meeting fail in bid to end caucus system

So much for the candidate that wants to "hear from the people" and "represent the voters". The party's platform committee, now controlled by Obama and his supporters, set aside the caucus amendment, saying the rules committee will deal with it. The new draft party platform is a mixed bag.

By Peter Nicholas, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
August 10, 2008
PITTSBURGH -- Hillary Rodham Clinton loyalists tried Saturday to kill off the caucus system that proved so damaging to her presidential bid, but were beaten back by a Democratic Party leadership firmly under the command of her former rival, Barack Obama. More...



Democrats who supported the New York senator's candidacy pushed to amend the new party platform so that caucuses would be banned in future presidential contests.

But the party's platform committee refused to allow a vote on the amendment or even a discussion. Co-chair Patricia Madrid, a former New Mexico attorney general, said the matter would instead be taken up at a later date by the party's rules committee.

That left Clinton supporters disappointed. They say that if the party were serious about enfranchising more voters, it would take a clear position against a system that makes participation difficult for shift workers, the disabled and overseas members of the military. In traditional primaries, people have all day to vote. But a caucus may last just a few hours.

During the Democratic race, Obama outmaneuvered Clinton in Iowa and many other states that held caucuses, turning out far more supporters and racking up enough delegates to give him an insurmountable lead.

"My feeling is the issue should have been aired and people should have had the opportunity to speak and vote it up or down," Bob Remer, a delegate for Clinton from Chicago, said in an interview Saturday. Remer, who is a member of the platform committee, had put forward the amendment that was shelved. "The caucus system is the exact opposite of everything I've been fighting for in terms of maximizing democratic input."

The 186-member committee voted to recommend adoption of a new Democratic platform, the party's formal statement of policies and principles. Final approval will come at the party's national convention Aug. 25-28 in Denver.

Clinton supporters were hoping to influence the draft in ways that reflect her interests. For its own sake, the Obama campaign would like to accommodate Clinton forces where it can; with Republican John McCain keeping the general election contest close, according to recent polls, Obama needs to unify voters behind him.

So the platform is a mixed bag. In a section devoted to expanding opportunities for women, the document says that Democrats are proud "that we have put 18 million cracks in the highest glass ceiling," a respectful reference to Clinton's vote total in the primary and a phrase she used in her concession speech.

But Obama, now in control of the Democratic Party machinery, clearly enjoys the greatest influence over the document. The platform reflects many of his policy goals and borrows language from his stump speech. "Our planet is in peril," reads the preamble.

One of the defining policy differences the Illinois senator had with Clinton involved healthcare. She wanted a requirement that people carry health insurance; he did not.

The platform has no mention of a health insurance mandate. But it does include language that acknowledges "there are different approaches within the Democratic Party about how best to achieve the commitment of universal coverage."

Platform committee leaders insisted that Clinton was given a role in shaping the document. At some point, party officials said, the future of the caucus system will be decided, but inserting a paragraph in the platform is not the best way to settle the matter.

Madrid, the committee co-chair who set aside the caucus amendment, said the platform "wasn't effectively controlled by Obama, although his people certainly had a hand in it. He's the candidate and he will have to run on this platform. That's not unreasonable. The issue of the caucuses won't be resolved here at the platform. It will be resolved on the DNC level, and they will have their full day in court, I guarantee you."

Tensions between Obama and Clinton forces were evident at the Convention Center here, where the meeting took place. Clinton's supporters sat together in the audience, wearing campaign buttons and T-shirts bearing her name. One person hissed when Obama's name was mentioned.

Among the activists serving on the committee, there were also signs of a split.

Lynn Forester de Rothschild, the head of a private holding company and a member of the committee, took the microphone after the caucus amendment was defeated to register a protest.

After the meeting, she said she still hadn't made up her mind about whether to vote for Obama because she didn't "understand how a person comes to the U.S. Senate and -- before they've done one thing there -- decides they can be president."

"I have serious questions about Barack Obama and what the Democratic Party is doing," she said. "I have serious issues with Barack Obama."

peter.nicholas@latimes.com

Another chance - filmmaker still in town!

I know it's a busy day of activities - but I just wanted everyone to know about this one, too! Yesterday, Rishad sent out a notice about the documentary America the Beautiful (about America's obsession with beauty) and the chance to meet the director. I went to the film last night and it was great ... and had a wonderful talk with the director, too. He has decided to stay in town one more day to make himself available for to talk with folks who go to the 4:45 or 7:30 show this evening, 8/9/08 (Uptown Cinema, lower Queen Anne). Please spread the word and catch this great new film (which hasn't even opened in LA yet)!!!

Have a great day, everyone ... Cathy

P.S. Anyone who is an organizer/assistant for any other group that might be interested in this, please pass it along! THANKS!

Obama vs. McCain: The Real Polling Data

Posted by Eli Fennell from PUMA Facebook

Because most of the major polls seem to be showing a lead for Obama,
many people are failing to dig beneath the surface and see what
factors contribute to this perception, and where the race really lies
at the moment. More...

Most of the polls that we see on a daily basis are, for one thing,
based on surveys of registered voters. This is simply not a good
standard to judge by, as the Gallup Organization reported themselves after there was confusion over the difference between a Gallup Daily Tracking Poll
showing Obama ahead at the same time that a USA Today Gallup Poll
showed McCain ahead. the USA Today Poll was based on likely voters,
rather than registered voters, and Gallup has conceded that likely
voters are the more accurate of the two criteria. I can personally
attest to having met far more people who say they support Obama but
are unlikely to vote anyways than I have met who say they support
McCain but are unlikely to vote. People who are unlikely to vote may
nonetheless have an opinion of the race and respond to the random
polling of organizations like Gallup and Rasmussen.

There is also the issue of so called "leaners", and these have tended
to show higher support for McCain than for Obama, as they did for
Hillary when she was running against Obama. It seems that if a person
is not sold on Obama's messianic image, their tendency is to lean
towards the more experienced candidate, and this is apparently
especially true of those who remain undecided until the moment they go
into the polling booth and have to make a choice. Change voters seem
to have their minds largely made up before they get there, regardless
of who they think is the better to bring that change.

Beyond this, there is at least one critical factor in the polling data
that is not reported in any tracking poll: The military. Polling
organizations are not allowed to poll on military bases, and are quite
incapable of polling in Iraq and Afghanistan even if they were allowed
to. But there have been informal surveys, and these suggest that in
the war zones support for McCain may be around 90%, whereas
domestically it may be around 75%. The United States military has
approximately 300,000 individuals, including active and reserve duty,
the second largest military in the world behind China. And these tend
to be more concentrated in the blue collar swing states, where as a
voting bloc they have the power to make the difference between victory
and defeat for either candidate.

Based on these factors I submit an ambitious claim: McCain is, in
fact, beating Obama nationally, despite appearances to the contrary,
and whereas McCain is staying level or increasing his support, Obama's
has been in a months-long decline disrupted only by brief periods
where overwhelming media attention has given him a very temporary
bump. So when the media tells that this or that poll says that Obama
is winning, just keep in mind the things they are not telling you, and
the people who are not getting factored into those polls.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mccaindemocrats/
http://readerarticles.realclearpolitics.com/

Internal Clinton Emails

Reposted here from the ClintonDems to share:

Pray for our nation, and for Hillary, that Barack Obama and his cronies fail at their subverted attempts to destroy them both–us all. No wonder he voted for FISA. He absolutely believes the ends justify the means! More...

(by Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic)
The Atlantic’s Josh Green has about 200 of them from the height of the Clinton campaign. Atlantic subscribers should be getting the story in their mailboxes later next week, and we hope to post the story online early next week.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/08/internal_clinton_emails.php

Ambinder infers in his short pronouncement that there is material of interest contained in these emails that he has somehow gotten his hands on from the Clinton campaign. (Patti Solis Doyle comes to mind.) But, it turns out that Rush Limbaugh has them, too, and he read some of them on the air yesterday (8/8/08). From the sounds of it, it’s actually fairly benigned conversation. It includes stuff like she doesn’t think BHO is electable. No news there. Whew!

With BHO’s track record of eliminating the competition, he should know that if he hurts Hillary any more, he’s only closing the final door of his failed attempt to capture the White House in NOvember! He should beware.

PUMAs are prowling, and we are not afraid to ROAR!

Hillary & only HIllary (NO MATTER WHAT) in ‘08!

What Is Obama Talking About?

See related article "Obama Embarrassed by America".

By Betsy Newmark
High School History and Government Teacher/Blogger

Occasionally, Obama has indicated that he has a weak sense of American history. He didn’t seem to know that the Cold War was not a time when the world was standing as one. He didn’t know the history of presidential summits and seems to think that FDR and Truman met with our nation’s enemies. He didn’t know how the Nuremberg Trials worked. And I’m not even talking about his mistake that Americans liberated Auschwitz. More...

But I think his remark when the little girl asked him why he decided to run for president and he gave this response.

“America is …, uh, is no longer, uh … what it could be, what it once was. And I say to myself, I don’t want that future for my children.”

As you watch the video, it’s clear that he formed his words carefully and was thinking about how to answer the little girl.

I’m wondering when is the time that Obama thinks that we were what we could be. It couldn’t have been when we had slavery. So that takes us to 1865. It couldn’t be when we had states divided by terrible Jim Crow laws that segregated society and disenfranchised an entire race. So that takes us to the mid-1960s. It probably wasn’t when we were divided and torn apart by the Vietnam War and racial violence. So that takes us to the 1970s. I doubt that it was when we were suffering devastating stagflation and seeing our hostages being paraded in front of the cameras. So that takes us to 1980. We’re left with the Reagan-Bush years. Is Obama yearning for Morning in America? Many conservatives remember that period with nostalgia; does Obama share that feeling? No, certainly not the 1980s, that decade of greed.

Or is he talking about the Clinton years? Was that the time when we were what we could be? Why then run against Hillary Clinton? And that was a time when we were supposedly being divided by bitter partisanship. Is he yearning for the time when the Republicans controlled Congress? The days of impeachment? Or is he thinking about when we had our heads in the sand regarding the growing development of Al Qaeda terrorism? If that was the one period in our time when we were what we could be, then wouldn’t he have wanted to put that team back in the White House? And we know that he isn’t talking about the Bush years. So what was he talking about?

This matches up with some of the things his wife has said. His wife thinks that we are a “downright mean” country.

Obama begins with a broad assessment of life in America in 2008, and life is not good: we’re a divided country, we’re a country that is “just downright mean,” we are “guided by fear,” we’re a nation of cynics, sloths, and complacents. “We have become a nation of struggling folks who are barely making it every day,” she said, as heads bobbed in the pews. “Folks are just jammed up, and it’s gotten worse over my lifetime. And, doggone it, I’m young. Forty-four!”

We can narrow down when that better time was as far as his wife is concerned. She says it’s gotten worse over her lifetime and she’s 44. I’m still trying to figure out when in the past 44 years she thinks that it was better. Ed Morrissey reminds us of some other remarks that Michelle Obama has said that indicated her dislike of this country. It now seems that her husband shares some of that disdain. Or does he? She’s also said that this is the first time in her adult life that she is proud of America because America had the good sense to vote for her husband. So does she think that we’re now being what we could be? Or was her childhood during the 1960s and 70s that time when America was so good. It’s all very confusing.

As Jennifer Rubin says, this remark wasn’t a gaffe, but a theme.

But really, it is not just a matter of an off-the-cuff remark. (By the way can you imagine that if Joe Biden is selected as VP he might actually be the less gaffe-prone of the two?) That gloomy assessment and glum world outlook is essential to his message. Remember: if the country is not in dire straits then no ordinary, experienced politician will do. We have to throw away the playbook, take a leap of faith and elect the One Who Is Like No Other. So of course everything must be worse than before — why else would we need Him?

You know, this wasn’t a tough question. She was asking him why he wanted to be president. Ever since Roger Mudd flummoxed Teddy Kennedy, candidates have known how to answer that question. He could have talked about the challenges that our country faces and how he wanted to lead us to a better tomorrow. He was given an opening to talk about how much he loves this country and wants to serve it. If he had to return to his usual solipsism, he could have talked about how proud he is to be the first candidate of a mixed racial heritage to be nominated by a major political party and how far we have come from our grim racial history and how he is looking forward to leading the country as we continued our progress.

Many liberals supporting Obama’s campaign probably don’t see anything wrong with Obama’s reply. But those aren’t the people he needs to convince. If he’s worry about those bitter, clinging voters who voted for Hillary in the primaries, this sort of talk isn’t going to win them over.

And I hope that one day, some reporter, or maybe just another seven-year old child, will ask him. When exactly were those golden, halcyon days? What are all those qualities that he believes represent what we can be and what we once were? And when exactly was that period in American history when we satisfied all those criteria? I hope that those journalists or townhall participants at Obama events who will be trying to think of what questions to ask Obama if they get the opportunity will consider asking him when we were what we could be and if we were waiting for the change that we would be today back then? It all is very confusing, but I’m sure that he can deconstruct it for us.

Rasmussen Daily Presidential Poll

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows that the race for the White House is tied—Barack Obama and John McCain each attract 44% of the vote. When "leaners" are included, it’s McCain 47% and Obama 46%. With leaners, the candidates have been within one point of each other for nine straight days (see recent daily results). Tracking Polls are released at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time each day. More...

McCain leads by nineteen points among White Men and by eight points among White Women. Obama leads 94% to 5% among African-American voters and by twenty-one points among Hispanic voters. We invite you to review other recent demographic highlights from the tracking polls. Premium Members can review additional information and get an advance look at new data on the influence of money in politics by visiting the Daily Snapshot.

McCain is currently viewed favorably by 54% of the nation’s voters, Obama by 53%. Other key stats of Election 2008 are updated daily at Obama-McCain: By the Numbers. Sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free) and we will keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.

Voters see stark differences between Obama and McCain on two key issues of Election 2008—Iraq and Energy. On Iraq, voters believe Obama’s top priority is getting the troops home rather than winning the War. Forty-nine percent (49%) of voters say that is their top priority as well. On energy, voters believe McCain is more focused on finding new sources of energy rather than reducing the amount of energy we consume. That’s also the view held by 65% of voters.

Each Saturday morning, we review the week’s key polls to see What They Told Us. This week’s review includes new state polling data from Missouri, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Washington.

The Rasmussen Reports Balance of Power Calculator currently shows now Obama leading in states with 210 Electoral College votes while McCain leads in states with 165 votes. When leaners are included, it’s Obama 273, McCain 227. Rasmussen Markets data gives Obama a 60.5 % chance of winning the White House.

Daily tracking results are collected via telephone surveys of 1,000 likely voters per night and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. The margin of sampling error—for the full sample of 3,000 Likely Voters--is +/- 2 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Results are also compiled on a full-week basis and crosstabs for the full-week results are available for Premium Members.

Like all polling firms, Rasmussen Reports weights its data to reflect the population at large. Among other targets, Rasmussen Reports weights data by political party affiliation using a dynamic weighting process. Our baseline targets are established based upon survey interviews with a sample of adults nationwide completed during the preceding three months (a total of 45,000 interviews). For the month of August, the targets are 40.6% Democrat, 31.6% Republican, and 27.8% unaffiliated. For July, the targets were 41.4% Democrat, 31.5% Republican, and 27.1% unaffiliated (see party trends and analysis).

A review of last week’s key polls is posted each Saturday morning.

LaRouche PAC's Open Letter to Democrats

August 8, 2008 (LPAC)—The following letter is addressed to all democrats, and especially to those who may be attending the convention. It was written by LPAC's official spokeswoman, Debra Hanania-Freeman.


August 7, 2008

Dear Fellow Democrat,

Soon, Democrats will gather in Denver to select the Democratic nominee for President of the United States. And, contrary to the declarations of everyone ranging from media pundits to Chairman Dean to Barack Obama himself, we Democrats have not yet selected our nominee. That, my friends, is what the Convention is all about! More...

In 1932, New York Gov. Franklin Delano Roosevelt won the Democratic Party Presidential nomination by a landslide vote of 945-190, over his nearest rival and avowed political enemy, the former New York governor and J.P. Morgan tool, Alfred E. Smith. On Nov. 8, 1932, Roosevelt won a second landslide victory, this time, over incumbent Republican President Herbert Hoover. Roosevelt won 57% of the popular vote, and swept the Electoral College by 472-59. It was the greatest mandate for change in memory, and FDR immediately set out to return the U.S.A. to the tradition of the American System of political-economy, and, in so doing, brought the country out of the depths of the Great Depression, and prepared the nation for the great battles to come--against Nazism and Fascism--and an expected post-war battle to end the scourge of Anglo-Dutch colonialism.

Most Americans, with even a slight degree of historical literacy, know these basic facts about the election of 1932. Few, however, know how close the nation came to a disaster at the Democratic nominating convention in Chicago; how close FDR came to being deprived of the Presidential nomination, despite a groundswell of popular support; and how ruthlessly his Wall Street and City of London enemies sought to overturn the outcome of the 1932 election.

The 1932 Convention fight was a fierce one. Fortunately, Franklin Roosevelt knew that the fight for the United States Presidency was not simply a game of political machines and punditry, but that the coming fight demanded a leader who understood the historic enemy of the United States, and the founding principles of the nation. In those months leading up to the National Convention, FDR said "...while a nation goes speculation crazy the people neglect to think of fundamental principles."

It is that story, rarely told, which offers a vital lesson today to the Democratic Party, and to the American people, as the nation faces what may very well be our nation's most monumental Presidential election--an election, like 1932, that once again may determine whether the United States survives for another generation, as the sovereign republic established by the Founding Fathers.

And so, LaRouche PAC has put the story together in what is probably the most dramatic history lesson ever made available. It is presented, with its full implications for today's situation, in the enclosed DVD "1932: 'We must speak not of parties, but of universal principles.'" I urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to view it before you head to Denver. When you've viewed it, I'm sure that I won't have to urge you to share it with others, because I'm confident you won't need any urging to do that.

There is much more that I can say; about the current crises our nation and the world face, as well as about Mr. LaRouche's proposed solutions. But I am enclosing the best presentation possible of that strategic overview, in two of LPAC's recent pamphlets: "Your Enemy, George Soros," and "One Year Later." The latter is the transcript of Mr. LaRouche's July 22 webcast, and is even more timely today than the day it was uttered.

See you in Denver,

Regards,

Debra Hanania-Freeman

“Painful”

Reposted here from Larry Johnson's NOQUARTER

This ad is very effective. I worry that not every American has realized yet that, in 2005, Barack Obama chose to side with his lobbyist benefactors over the American people, and that he voted FOR the Bush-Cheney Energy bill. Hillary Clinton or John McCain voted against the bill.

Imho, that alone is reason enough to not nominate Barack Obama. “Words? Just words?” Well, sadly, that is all they are, Mr. Obama. When push comes to shove, you ALWAYS side with your money men. You didn’t give a single thought to the AMERICAN PEOPLE.
More...

I just had to get that off my chest. If every American voter KNEW that Barack Obama voted WITH Dick Cheney and George Bush on energy and profiteering for big energy companies, there’d be no doubt who should be nominated.

This ad is about the average American family. It's from the McCain campaign — which this blog does not endorse, but recognizes for its ability to point out the stark differences not only between John McCain and Barack Obama but also between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. click HERE to watch.

ARLINGTON, VA — U.S. Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign today released its latest television ad, entitled “Painful.” The ad highlights Barack Obama’s record of voting to raise taxes on middle class families and his proposals for painful tax increases that will only further hurt those already struggling with higher gas prices, higher food prices and the threat of home foreclosure. The last thing we need to do is raise taxes that force families to make even tougher choices with less money in their pockets. The ad will air in key states.

VIEW THE AD HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWXqpHEsrxc

Script For “Painful” (TV :30)

ANNCR: Life in the spotlight must be grand, but for the rest of us times are tough.

Obama voted to raise taxes on people making just $42,000.

He promises more taxes on small business, seniors, your life savings, your family.

Painful taxes, hard choices for your budget. Not ready to lead. That’s the real Obama.

JOHN MCCAIN: I’m John McCain and I approved this message.

AD FACTS: Script For “Painful” (TV :30)

ANNCR: Life in the spotlight must be grand, but for the rest of us times are tough. Obama voted to raise taxes on people making just $42,000.

· Barack Obama Voted Twice In Favor Of The Democrats’ FY 2009 Budget Resolution. (S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #85: Adopted 51-44: R 2-43; D 47-1; I 2-0, 3/14/08, Obama Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #142: Adopted 48- 45: R 2- 44; D 44- 1; I 2-0, 6/4/08, Obama Voted Yea)

· FactCheck.org: The Budget Resolution Would Have Allowed Most Of The Provisions Of The 2001 And 2003 Tax Cuts To Expire, Effectively Raising Taxes On Those Making $41,500 In Total Income. “What Obama voted for was a budget resolution that would have allowed most of the provisions of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to expire. In particular, the resolution would allow the 25 percent tax bracket to return to its pre-2001 level of 28 percent. That bracket kicks in at $32,550 for an individual or $65,100 for a married couple. But as those of you who have filled out a 1040 know, that’s not actually how income taxes work. We don’t pay taxes on our total earnings; we pay them based on our ‘taxable income.’ The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center’s Eric Toder told FactCheck.org that ‘people with taxable income of $32,000 would have a total income greater than that.’ In 2008, anyone filing taxes with single status would be entitled to a standard deduction of $5,450, as well as a personal exemption of $3,500. So to have a taxable income high enough to reach the 25 percent bracket, an individual would need to earn at least $41,500 in total income, while a married couple would need a combined income of at least $83,000.” (”The $32,000 Question,” FactCheck.org, http://www.factcheck.org, 7/8/08)

· FactCheck.org: “Obama’s Votes Indicate A Willingness To Raise Taxes.” “Certainly Obama’s votes indicate a willingness to raise taxes, and Obama has not been shy about saying explicitly that he will raise some taxes.” (”The $32,000 Question,” FactCheck.org, http://www.factcheck.org, 7/8/08)

· Obama Campaign: Barack Obama Voted For A Budget Resolution That Wouldn’t Have Increased Taxes For Any Taxpayers Making Less Than $41,500. ROSEN: “Campaign aides to Senator Obama today, called the charge that he voted for tax hikes on people making only $32,000 a year, quote, ‘bogus.’ They circulated an analysis stating that the resolution that Obama had voted for would not have increase taxes on single taxpayer making less than $41,500 a year in total income.” (Fox News’ “America’s Election Headquarters,” 7/30/08)

· The New York Times: Barack Obama’s “Vote Was On A Budget Resolution To Raise Taxes On People Making $41,500 A Year.” “FactCheck.org, a nonpartisan Web site, said the vote was on a budget resolution to raise taxes on people making $41,500 a year; the $32,000 figure, it said, was the amount of taxable income those people had.” (Michael Cooper, “McCain Goes Negative, Worrying Some In GOP,” The New York Times, 7/30/08)

· The Associated Press: Budget Resolution “Would Have Allowed Tax Rates To Return To Pre-2001 Levels, Meaning That An Individual With Taxable Income Of About $32,000 Would Have Faced A Tax Increase.” “At issue is Obama’s vote on a non-binding budget resolution in March that called for President Bush’s tax cuts to expire. Such a step would have allowed tax rates to return to pre-2001 levels, meaning that an individual with taxable income of about $32,000 would have faced a tax increase. Taxable income is what’s left after taxpayers account for deductions.” (Liz Sidoti, “Obama Dismisses Conservative Criticism,” The Associated Press, 7/12/08)

· In June 2008, Obama Said “The Senate Voted To Stand Up For Working Families In Illinois And Throughout The Nation” By Passing The Democrats’ Final Budget Resolution. Obama: “Today the Senate voted to stand up for working families in Illinois and throughout the nation by rejecting the failed policies of the Bush Administration and moving our country back on track to fiscal discipline. … Our country needs change, and this budget is an important step in the right direction. I commend House and Senate leaders for working together to move this legislation through Congress.” (Sen. Barack Obama, “Statement Of Senator Barack Obama On The Senate ’s Passage Of The FY 2009 Budget Resolution,” Press Release, obama.senate.gov, 6/4/08)

· In March 2008, Obama Hailed His Vote For The Budget As Making “Significant Progress In Getting Our Nation’s Priorities Back On Track.” Obama: “The budget passed by the Senate tonight makes significant progress in getting our nation’s priorities back on track. … We need change in this country, and this budget is an important step in helping bring it about.” (Sen. Barack Obama, “Obama Statement On The Senate’s Passage Of The FY 2009 Budget,” Press Release, obama.senate.gov, 3/14/08)

ANNCR: He promises more taxes on small business, seniors, your life savings, your family. Painful taxes, hard choices for your budget. Not ready to lead. That’s the real Obama. JOHN MCCAIN: I’m John McCain and I approved this message.

· Barack Obama Has Called For Higher Income Taxes, Social Security Taxes, Capital Gains And Dividend Taxes, And Corporate Taxes, As Well As “Massive New Domestic Spending.” “Obama’s transformation, if you go by his campaign so far, would mean higher income taxes, higher Social Security taxes, higher investment taxes, higher corporate taxes, massive new domestic spending, and a healthcare plan that perhaps could be the next step to a full-scale, single-payer system. Is that what most Americans want, someone who will fulfill a Democratic policy wish list?” (James Pethokoukis, “Barack Hussein Reagan? Ronald Wilson Obama?” U.S. News & World Report’s “Capital Commerce” Blog, www.usnews.com, 2/12/08)

· Barack Obama Would Raise Social Security (Payroll) Taxes On Families. “Obama’s proposal … would impose social security taxes on income above $250,000 per year. He would continue to exempt income between $102,000 and $250,000 from social security taxes.” (Teddy Davis, Sunlen Miller, and Gregory Wallace, “Obama Kisses Billions Goodbye,” ABC News’ “Political Radar” Blog, blogs.abcnews.com, 6/18/08)

· Barack Obama Would Raise Income Taxes. Obama: “[I] would roll back the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000.” (Sen. Barack Obama, CNN Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Manchester, NH, 6/3/07)

· U.S. Department Of Treasury: Small Business Owners “Are Frequently Subject To The Highest Individual Income Tax Rates.” “Changes in the individual income tax affect most businesses in the United States. That is because taxes on business earnings are often paid through the individual income tax when ‘passed-through’ to business owners. The business income from sole proprietorships, farm proprietorships, partnerships, S corporations, etc., is all taxed at the owners’ individual income tax rates. This year 34 million business owners are expected to receive this type of income and pay tax on this income through the individual income tax. These businesses are typically small and often entrepreneurial in nature, and a source of innovation and risk-taking in the economy. Moreover, these business owners are frequently subject to the highest individual income tax rates.” (”Topics Related To The President’s Tax Relief,” U.S. Departm ent Of Treasury, http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/reports/president_taxrelief_topics_0508.pdf, May 2008)

· Barack Obama Would Raise Capital Gains And Dividend Taxes. “Sen. Obama wants to raise the long-term capital-gains rate for families making more than $250,000 to around 20 percent or somewhat higher but not above the 28 percent level it reached during the Reagan presidency, an Obama economic adviser says. The same rate would apply to most dividend income for these investors.” (Tom Herman, “Tax Report Your Tax Bill: How McCain, Obama Differ,” The Associated Press, 6/18/08)

· In 2006, Over 26.7 Million U.S. Taxpayers Reported Capital Gains Income. (Internal Revenue Service Website, “Individual Income And Tax Data, By State And Size Of Adjusted Gross Income, Tax Year 2006,” www.irs.gov, Accessed 7/30/08)

· In 2006, Over 31.5 Million U.S. Taxpayers Reported Dividend Income. (Internal Revenue Service Website, “Individual Income And Tax Data, By State And Size Of Adjusted Gross Income, Tax Year 2006,” www.irs.gov, Accessed 7/30/08)

· Barack Obama Called For Tax Hikes On “Dirty Energy” Such As Coal And Natural Gas. Obama: “What we ought to tax is dirty energy, like coal and, to a lesser extent, natural gas.” (”Q&A With Sen. Barack Obama,” San Antonio Express-News, 2/19/08)

· Even Barack Obama Admits That His Tax Increases May Harm The Economy. CNBC’S JOHN HARWOOD: “And I found this fascinating, Maria, that on the issue of taxes, he looked to insulate himself by saying that if, in fact, economic conditions justify the fact that it might harm the economy, he might be willing to hold off some of his tax increases when he takes office in January. Let’s take a listen to Barack Obama.” BARACK OBAMA: “Some of those, you could possibly defer. But I think the basic principle of restoring fairness to our economy and encouraging bottom-up economic growth is important. So here’s what we know: We know that over the last decade or so, that more than half of the economic growth has been captured by the top one percent of U.S. citizens. That means the other 99 percent have seen their effective incomes go down. That is not a recipe for long- term economic growth.” (CNBC, 6/9/08)

· Tax Policy Center: Barack Obama Would Raise Taxes On One Out Of Every Three Senior Households. “Even though Senator Obama’s plan eliminates individual income taxes for seniors with incomes less than $50,000, his plan would raise taxes for almost 10 million senior households, over a third of the total (not shown in table). On average, seniors would face a tax increase of about 2 percent of income.” (Burman et al., “A Preliminary Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates’ Tax Plans,” The Tax Policy Center, 6/11/08)

· Tax Foundation: Seniors “Rely Most On The Stable Flow Of Income That Dividends Provide.” “Most debate over whether to extend the reduced rates on dividends and capital gains has focused on the tax benefits of these cuts to high-income taxpayers. What has been largely ignored is the impact these tax policies have on corporations’ decisions on how best to distribute their income to shareholders–including senior citizens, who rely most on the stable flow of income that dividends provide. A recent Tax Foundation analysis illustrated that a large number of those benefiting from dividends are seniors and those on the verge of retirement (See www.taxfoundation.org). A further analysis of these seniors earning dividends reveals that lower-income seniors who file tax returns depend more heavily on dividend income than high-income seniors.” (Gerald Prante, “The Importance Of Dividend Income For Low-Income Seniors,” Tax Foundation, http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1354.html, 2/8/06)

Will Obama’s Secret Deal with Edwards Be Revealed?

Larry Johnson of NOQUARTER asks whether or not the Obama Campaign may have used information about Edwards affair to secure his endorsement. The following is reposted from his website: More...

On a personal level I have the greatest empathy for Elizabeth Edwards. John? Well, the revelation of the affair has not exactly boosted his political prospects. The real salience of this matter is whether or not the Obama campaign knew about it or used the information to secure Edward’s endorsement.

Let’s look back to the day after the West Virginia primary. Hillary had drubbed Obama, garnering 67 percent of the vote. So what did Obama promise John Edward to get his endorsement on that day? Attorney General? You can bet the house that Obama promised Edwards a cabinet post for his well timed endorsement. Whatever promises were made, Edwards is toast.

I don’t care whether John Edwards is the father of an illegitimate child. That’s a private matter and something he must sort out with his wife and his paramour. But as far as dealing with Obama, that’s something we have a right to know. Will Edwards now come clean and tell us what Obama promised him. That’s dirtier than a sordid little affair in my book.

*ACTION* Act Now - Send Letter to Hawaii Attorney General

Article from No Quarter

SAMPLE LETTER

Mark Bennett, Attorney General
425 Queen Street
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

Telephone: 808-586-1500
Fax: 808-586-1239

E-Mail: hawaiiag@hawaii.gov

Attorney General Bennett,

This letter requests the attention of your office in the investigation of Barack Obama’s birth certificate. More...

In June, Sen. Obama published an image of a Hawaii Certification of Live Birth (COLB) on his campaign website next to the words “the truth about Barack’s birth certificate.” It is still there (see http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/birthcert).

Since that time, at least two forensics and documents experts have concluded that this image of a COLB, proffered by Sen. Obama as his true birth certificate, is a forgery (references below). Because these experts are working with an Internet image rather than an actual paper document — their work has been highly technical and difficult to document.

As you well know, the falsification of COLB-style forms is relatively simple because of technological advancements in digital and computer applications. The very existence of the computer-generated black block where the Certification Number should be is suspect and, in accordance with the document’s own language about alterations, would invalidate the certificate. For this reason alone, investigation is warranted.

While the two experts (combined 50+ years of relevant experience) differ somewhat on the means involved in performing the forgery, they are both unwavering in their conclusion that the COLB on Obama’s website is fake. Because of the intimidation and threats that Obama’s critics face, these experts have thus far remained anonymous. However, your office should have other means of verifying the authenticity of their reports, and possibly you could consult with them upon request under appropriate conditions.

Researchers believe that Sen. Obama’s birth records in Hawaii may reveal a different legal name, perhaps as a result of an adoption and subsequent Indonesian citizenship, and that Sen. Obama may be intentionally concealing these facts from the electorate.

As Attorney General of the State of Hawaii, please investigate the possible forgery of a Hawaii Certification of Live Birth, and report your findings to the public immediately. In a few weeks, the Democratic National Convention will decide whether Sen. Obama will be that Party’s official nominee for U.S. President.

If there is information about Sen. Obama’s truthfulness related to his birth and citizenship, it is in the public’s interest that such information be fully disclosed without delay.

I look forward to your response to this request for investigation.

Sincerely,

XXXX
The work of expert “Ron Polarik” (computer and documents specialist: 20+ years experience): http://polarik.blogtownhall.comhttp://noquarterusa.net/blog/?s=Techdude

The work of expert “Techdude” (forensics examiner 25+ years experience): http://noquarterusa.net/blog/?s=Techdude

Watch the Ego, O

By Rich Lowry

It's almost as if they take pride in being ignorant," Barack Obama mused the other day, blasting Republicans for ridiculing his exhortation to the nation to make sure its tires are properly inflated.

Ah, behold the open-mindedness and cross-partisan understanding. Remember two years ago, when Obama was only a media darling and not yet The Anointed One? More...

Back then, his appeal was the extraordinary sensitivity he had for the views of others. His best-selling campaign book, "The Audacity of Hope," was carefully unaudacious in its on-the-one-hand, on-the-other-hand weighing of the issues of the day, giving the impression that nothing pained him so much as not being able to agree with the other side, though he thoroughly understood and respected its arguments.

That iteration of Obama was tossed under the bus long ago (no word on whether the tires were adequately inflated). It's been replaced by an Obama who - between pauses gazing regally into the middle-distance during his orations - betrays a dismissive contempt for all differences of opinion.

"Nobody really thinks that Bush or McCain have a real answer for the challenges we face," he said, responding to a John McCain attack ad.

Nobody does? Are all those people who vote Republican simply delusional? Or are they pretending to believe things that they really don't to conceal unseemly motivations - power-hunger, bitterness, racism?

The most elemental act of political civility is to concede the good motives of your opposition. Obama lately can't even muster that.

Of course, sharp elbows will inevitably be thrown in a hotly contested election, but it's no accident that Obama's comments reading his opposition out of polite company (or almost entirely out of existence) came in response to mockery.

Obama is now such a puffed-up figure that he's vulnerable to the pinprick of ridicule.

The most devastating hits against him in the Democratic primaries were made by "Saturday Night Live," which made fun of him as an earnest empty suit propped up by a fawning media. Having failed to get much traction against Obama heretofore, the McCain campaign scored recently with a pointed but lighthearted ad comparing him to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton and the distribution of tire gauges to mock his tire-pressure comments.

"They're making fun of a step that every expert says would absolutely reduce our oil consumption by 3 to 4 percent," Obama said of the tire gauges, suggesting that the making-fun particularly bothered him. Of the Spears/Hilton ad, Obama complained: "They got me in an ad with Paris Hilton. You know, [I] never met the woman."

As if the McCain campaign were literally suggesting that he and Paris coordinate on their Sidekicks about what clubs they're going to frequent after a long day of campaigning. (Hilton, in contrast, got the joke and went up with a Web ad lampooning McCain that was defter and more effective than Obama's earnest plaint.)

It has to be hard for Obama to maintain a sense of proportion. First, it's become Democratic dogma that, in reply to any Republican attack, a Democratic candidate has to hit back twice as hard. This makes it impossible to calibrate a response - the only option becomes the nuclear option. Second, given the idolatry of the press and his most fervent supporters, Obama would need prodigious reserves of humility to keep from taking himself too seriously.

On the question of tire pressure, he was wrong when he said that properly inflating tires would save enough gas to make up for whatever oil we might get from more offshore drilling. Only an estimated 27 percent of cars have underinflated tires, and having properly inflated tires saves at most only 3 percent on gas consumption, so the number gets quite small.

Obama's estimate of an overall savings of 3 percent to 4 percent on gas consumption is wildly optimistic. But it's his critics who are ignorant (and proud of it!).

The new Obama is displaying the audacity of haughty.

"The Story of O"

Reposted here form the LondonAmerican

Just when you thought Obots and their cult couldn't possibly get any creepier, they up the ante and prove us all wrong. The latest unsavoury symbol of the Oborg's embrace of the Leaderprizip has just been unveiled: the special "Obama movement salute."

Essentially a new-age remix of the old school Roman Salute, the Oborg version replaces the austerity of its 1930's German predecessor with a more "inclusive" feeling. Instead of a Nazi fanatic holding a single arm straight out and ahead, the Oborg salute is formed by an enthusiastic Obot holding both its arms up and joining its cupped hands to form an "O" (for - what else? - O-ba-ma!). More...

In further dreary confirmation that there really isn't anything new anymore, and that we're all just living out endless re-runs of previous generations' fantasies, the Oborg salute wasn't actually invented by the Obama campaign. It was lifted from old Star Trek re-reruns, albeit ones from the 1960s - before the Borg made their appearance in the later series and inspired a whole generation of Democratic political marketeers.

It's really too bad this latest public display of Oborg submission to the Dear Leader wasn't crowd-tested in Berlin when He spoke to His adoring fans. 200,000 German Obots standing with arms raised, glazed eyes focused on the blip on the stage, and chanting "O-ba-ma! O-ba-ma!" is a mob scene with visuals that Leni Riefenstahl would have killed for. Especially if the rally organisers could have also got the Obots to do a bit of energetic marching around the square, which just happens to be packed with 100 year old Prussian war monuments.

And some people wonder why elderly Jews -- and others who lived through the horrors of inter-war fascism -- might have some reservations about supporting this man and his "movement"?

The Obama "movement" and the pretensions of its Lider Maximo really is just getting creepier with every passing day. First, we had people weeping at His rallies and Him exhorting His fans to assimilate their acquaintances. A "light will shine down on you, and you will know you must go to the polls and vote for Obama." The Oborg is now angrily claiming that McCain is trying to paint the Selected One as an anti-Christ, but all the McCain campaign did was show actual video footage of Him saying a number of rather unhinged things. If anyone has been playing with crypto-religious language and imagery it's been the Oborg and its assimilated publicists.

Then, we had Obama proudly standing behind His cartoonish make-believe "presidential seal," complete with faux-Latin "Vero Possumus" slogan. (My Aussie friends asked is this was because Obama wanted to prove how much smarter he is than Dame Edna by showing he can write "Hello Possums!" in Latin; you can imagine how disappointed they were to find out that he wasn't quite that camp. )

That was quickly followed by news His seat on the Obama campaign jet has a label on it saying "President." Who needs elections when you're already the "acting president"?

Now, this Star Trek/Nuremberg mashup.

What next? Actually, I really don't want to know.

Can we please have Hillary back?

Clinton backers want vote

Rules of the convention require a roll-call vote and stipulate that "delegates may vote for the candidate of their choice whether or not the name of such candidate was placed in nomination." The national committee can decide how to handle those votes.

By Allison Sherry and Anne C. Mulkern
The Denver Post

Brenda Krause is tired of fearmongering among the Democrats.

The 55-year-old delegate to the Democratic National Convention doesn't think the party — or its unity — is in any way compromised by her voting for Hillary Rodham Clinton at the roll call.

When Clinton dropped out of the running, Krause mourned that her generation probably isn't going to see a woman claim the Oval Office.

That day, she vowed to stick with the New York senator. More...

I'm not going to be coerced into something I don't believe in," said Krause, who lives in Colorado Springs and owns a real estate office. "That makes me less unified. If they let me have my voice, I'll feel more unified."

So go the voices of dozens of national delegates across the country, pledged to Clinton, who say they are flummoxed about what to do when they are asked to cast a vote in a few weeks.

Though the majority of the Democratic Party backs Sen. Barack Obama, an undercurrent of staunch and loyal Clinton supporters say they'll fight all the way to the national convention, which begins Aug. 25 in Denver, to put her name on the ballot.

Jenny Backus, a senior Obama adviser and convention liaison in Denver, said that across the country, Obama and Clinton delegates have forged ties.

"Sen. Clinton will obviously play a critical role during this convention," Backus said. "Already, we've seen a tremendous reaching out. I've heard of Obama delegates going to Clinton debt-reduction parties. We're one party."

But for many Clinton delegates, it is about principle.

Because they were chosen by her supporters in districts across the country, many say they won't feel that they have fulfilled their duty until they cast a vote for her — however futile that might be.

"I will come on board the unity train with a first-class ticket if, before doing so, I get the opportunity to vote for my candidate," said Daniel Kagan, a property developer and lawyer from Arapahoe County. "On Aug. 28, when Obama accepts the nomination, I will be there cheering along with the rest of them, but only if I have had the chance to vote first."

Kagan is among a small group of people working to garner 300 signatures from national delegates to complete DNC rule requirements to put Clinton's name back on the ballot. Even if they get enough signatures, Clinton must agree to have her name placed on the ballot.

Dean: Choice up to Clinton

Rules of the convention require a roll-call vote and stipulate that "delegates may vote for the candidate of their choice whether or not the name of such candidate was placed in nomination." The national committee can decide how to handle those votes.

Asked whether Clinton's name would be on the ballot, Democratic National Convention Committee spokeswoman Natalie Wyeth said that DNC chairman Howard Dean "has said that's up to her, whether she will put her name in nomination."

Clinton has said in YouTube postings and in a Web chat Thursday that she is working with the Democratic National Committee and the Obama campaign to find a solution.

Texas delegate Linda Figueroa, a 53-year-old paralegal from Corpus Christi, said the pledged Clinton supporters were told in a delegate conference call this week that they would not get to vote for her. Figueroa said the senator's scheduled speech on the floor of the Pepsi Center on Tuesday evening, Aug. 26, was "not enough."

"We (the Clinton delegates) are really having our ups and downs," Figueroa said. "She deserves more than what she's going to get."

Other Clinton delegates said privately that they were afraid to speak out against the Democratic National Committee or Obama, for fear of getting their credentials yanked at the convention.

Debra Bartoshevich, a Wisconsin delegate who, after Clinton dropped out, said she planned to support Republican John McCain, already has been kicked off the national delegation.

Yet, the Obama campaign says it is working hard to solidify the party.

"I think the Obama campaign has tremendous respect for Sen. Clinton and the millions of Americans who supported and worked for her candidacy," said Obama spokeswoman Shannon Gilson. "We've been reaching out to her supporters to join this campaign for change and are struck by how unified Dems are."

One of the olive-branch Clinton delegates is Hector Balderas, the 34-year-old state auditor of New Mexico. He supported Clinton because he liked her policies surrounding high school dropouts. Now he's traversing the state pushing the message for Obama.

"I wouldn't see it as a coronation if we were unified with a particular candidate," Balderas said, adding that putting the party together "would be preparation to do battle" against McCain.

The grassroots group of Clinton supporters says it has nearly 200 signatures notarized to put her name on the convention ballot, with commitments from at least 100 more.

In an attempt to inspire the masses, Kagan, a delegate from Colorado's 1st Congressional District, borrowed from French philosopher Voltaire.

"I don't agree with the way you intend to vote, but I'll fight to the death for your right to vote," he said.

Others, like Will Bower, a founder of Project Unity My A--, or PUMA, are not ready to support Obama.

"Most of us are still working toward getting Hillary the nomination," he said. "We still see a path for victory in Denver."

Anti-"coronation"

At the convention, vociferous Clinton supporters will protest and hold signs that will read "Denounce Nobama's Coronation."

"My group and I are not looking to be arrested," said Simone DuBois, who lives in northern California and filmed the YouTube video from a Clinton fundraiser last week that is madly circulating the country.

DuBois plans to protest in Denver and said she'll probably vote for McCain. "I always thought the Democratic Party had my values until this."

A political action committee called The Denver Group is raising money to pay for newspaper advertisements calling on the Democratic National Committee to allow a vote on both primary candidates and "not a coronation."

Another group plans to air a documentary called "The Audacity of Democracy," which highlights voter confusion during the 2008 Democratic primaries.

Allowing delegates to vote for their chosen candidate gives them an opportunity to celebrate that candidate and their work on the campaign, said former Colorado Sen. Gary Hart, who ran for president in 1984 and 1988.

At the convention in 1984, Hart said, each of his 1,200 delegates voted for him "with no defections."

"My people put on a massive demonstration. It went on for 10 or 15 minutes," Hart said. "They felt very good about it afterward."

Hart thinks Clinton, a longtime party loyalist, will want to prevent protests and help Obama get elected.

"She has a future in the party," Hart said. "She has very little interest, nor does her husband, in wrecking Obama's chances because it will be held against them very, very strongly. She has a lot of reasons to pull an oar, and I think she will."

Since July, Obama staffers say they've reached out to Clinton delegates by phone and e-mail and have invited them to community events and local platform meetings.

Yet some delegates say the process has left them bruised.

Awilda Marquez, a Colorado delegate, said she feels like his campaign has been dismissive of Clinton supporters.

"They say they don't need us. . . . I don't spend 30 seconds a day thinking about that," Marquez said. "When I see a top woman being called a whore and a she-goat, . . . I can't forget that."

Obama disinvited 'lobbyist' Cleland

July 18, 2008By Ben Smith

Former Georgia Sen. Max Cleland was an icon of Sen. John Kerry’s 2004 campaign, a badly wounded war hero who lost his seat, Kerry deplored, after a television advertising campaign questioned his commitment to national security.

But to the Obama campaign, Cleland has another qualification: Registered lobbyist.

So Cleland — despite his iconic status — was abruptly disinvited from appearing with Obama in Atlanta July 8, three sources familiar with the incident said. More...

"This was a hard decision regarding Senator Cleland," said Obama's deputy campaign manager, Steve Hildebrand, in an email. He cited Obama's policy of banning lobbyists from participating in fundraising or giving money.

"If we make exceptions, we will open ourselves to criticism," he said.

Cleland has told associates he was asked to appear at an Obama fundraising event in Atlanta on July 8, only to be told at the last minute that he wouldn’t be welcome.

The policy has been a key symbol of Obama’s outsider status, but many Democrats have also quietly questioned whether it goes too far when prominent party figures like Cleland, who an associate said has never actually lobbied in Washington, are left out in the cold on a technicality.

Cleland is registered to lobby for a company whose products are aimed at helping soldiers recover more quickly from battlefield injuries, Tissue Regeneration Technologies.

“Sen. Cleland is definitely not doing lobbying work. He gives speeches and campaigns for a few friends, but mostly he’s spending his time taking care of his father," said Cleland advisor John Marshall, who said that Tissue Regeneration Technologies was the only company on whose behalf he lobbies.

He declined to comment on the incident in Atlanta.

In a brief telephone interview, Cleland also declined to comment on his treatment by the campaign.

"I’m pretty much retired from politics," he said. "I don’t really want to get into that at all."

But Cleland told others he was unpleasantly surprised when, after an invitation to the event for Obama — whom he supports — he was told at the last minute by an Obama aide that he wouldn't be welcome.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton also declined to comment on Cleland's exclusion from the Atlanta fundraiser.

"Sen. Obama has nothing but respect for Sen. Cleland's service to our country and appreciates his support," he said.

UPDATE: A Cleland spokeswoman says he was invited by a friend, not the campaign itself, and has no hard feelings.. The Times has more.

It's Over when We Say It's Over

Posted on August 5, 2008 by riverdaughter and reposted here to share:

Mega Kudos to Katiebird for catching this on FOX this morning. Diane Mantouvalos sent this clip through the JSND network this afternoon of Gary Mauro, former head of Hillary’s campaign in Texas. He’s saying it’s not over until he gets a chance to vote for Hillary for nomination. This just proves how viral the movement is. We had no idea this was coming. As far as I know, Mauro did this without any prompting from us. Click here to watch the video.

Retire This! Will Bower on Hillary's Debt & PUMA's Payback

Click here to watch Will Bower's report on retiring Hillary's debt.

Bill Clinton to Speak at Denver Convention

By Jeff Zeleny

CHICAGO — Yes, Bill Clinton will have a role at the Democratic convention.

After a curious week of back-and-forth between the Obama and Clinton worlds, the former president was offered an invitation to speak on the second-to-last night of the party’s convention in Denver. He will take the stage on Aug. 27, three Democratic senior
officials said, before the address by the party’s vice-presidential nominee.More...

The offer was extended by the Obama campaign on Thursday to Mr. Clinton, who accepted it.

So with Mrs. Clinton speaking on Aug. 26, followed by her husband, the Obama campaign is giving two nights of prime time coverage to the Clinton family. While the invitation was only extended on Thursday, officials said a speaking role for Mr. Clinton had long been in the works.

The matter was so sensitive that no one was willing to speak about it on the record. Democrats on all sides, though, said it’s a do

WASHINGTON, DC NEWS CONFERENCE: Barack Obama: The "Communist connection?"

ANDY MARTIN DEMANDS THAT OBAMA MAKE FULL DISCLOSURE OF CONNECTION TO ALLEGED COMMUNIST

ANDY MARTIN
Executive Editor
ContrarianCommentary.com

'Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct'

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

ATTENTION DAYBOOK/ASSIGNMENT EDITORS

ANNOUNCEMENT OF WASHINGTON, DC CONFERENCE August 8th

OBAMA AUTHOR ANDY MARTIN HOLDS A WASHINGTON, DC NEWS CONFERENCE
TO DEMAND THAT OBAMA MAKE "FULL DISCLOSURE" OF HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH PUTATIVE CHICAGO/HAWAII COMMUNIST FRANK MARSHALL DAVIS More...

MARTIN EXPRESSES CONCERN THAT
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS WAS USED TO "LAUNDER" THE OBAMA/DAVIS CONNECTION

(WASHINGTON, DC)(August 8, 2008) Legendary Chicago corruption fighter, columnist, media critic and Obama adversary Andy Martin will hold a 2:00 P.M. Washington, DC news conference Friday, August 8th to demand that Senator Barack Obama make a full disclosure of his relationship with leftist and putative Communist Frank Marshall Davis. Martin is concerned that Obama has used the Associated Press to "launder" the Davis/Obama relationship. Martin is the author of the controversial bestseller Obama: The Man Behind The Mask.

"Frank Marshall Davis was acknowledged by Obama as perhaps the most significant mentor in Obama's adolescent years," Martin says. "The Obama/Davis connection is a ticking time bomb for the Democratic Party. The matter has not received the attention it deserves. A recent story by the Associated Press seems to be an effort by the Obama campaign to launder Davis' alleged Communist Party connections. Once again, Senator Obama appears to be trying to deflect attention from the peculiar influences which shaped his childhood.

"My column, which will be released at the news conference, calls on Senator Obama to make a full disclosure of his relationship with Davis," Martin states.

FULL DISCLOSURE FROM ANDY MARTIN: I am opposing Senator Obama's election and have become Executive Director of The Stop Obama Coalition, StopObamaCoalition.com. By default, I have become the national leader of the independent anti-Obama movement. I am not acting as either a Democrat or Republican. I have had no contact whatsoever with the McCain Campaign. I am acting as an independent American citizen who sincerely believes Obama is not the man we need in the Oval Office. We are going to run a very dynamic and aggressive campaign against Obama. I will continue to write my columns for ContrarianCommentary.com.

Book orders: www.OrangeStatePress.com. Immediate shipment from the publisher now available.

NEWS CONFERENCE DETAILS:

WHO: Chicago Internet Columnist-muckraker-Obama opponent
Andy Martin

WHERE: Public sidewalk
1225 19th St., NW
(sidewalk in front of The Palm)
Washington, DC

WHEN: Friday, August 8, 2008 2:00 P. M.

MEDIA
CONTACT: Andy Martin cell (917) 664-9329
Hotel phone (703) 435-2700 (ask for Martin's room)

General media contact: (866) 706-2639

WEBSITE: ContrarianCommentary.com

E-MAIL: AndyMart20@aol.com

-
Andy Martin is a legendary Chicago muckraker, author, Internet columnist, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of www.ContrarianCommentary.com. © Copyright by Andy Martin 2008. Martin comments on regional, national and world events with over forty years of experience. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law. His columns are also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com; contrariancommentary.wordpress.com. Andy is the author of Obama: The Man Behind The Mask, published in July 2008, see www.OrangeStatePress.com. MEDIA CONTACTS: (cell) 917-664-9329; (866) 706-2639 E-MAIL: AndyMart20@aol.com [NOTE: We frequently correct typographical errors and additions/subtractions on our blogs, where you can find the latest edition of this release.]

Author:
Andy Martin
e-mail
Web: ContrarianCommentary.com
Phone: (866) 706-2639

Democrats Release Draft Platform - rewritten by the Obama controlled DNC

In yet another slap to Hillary and her supporters, the new platform does not appear to address eliminating the unfair caucuses and many of the other issues Hillary supporters have wanted...

By Jonathan Weisman

Barack Obama's takeover of the Democratic Party is nearly complete.

A draft of the Democratic National Committee's 2008 platform was sent this morning to platform committee members, and aside from some nods to the losers, Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards, the 54-page document reads like a compilation of Sen. Obama's stump speeches. There is a section on fatherhood, a definition of patriotism (not only to declare our love of this nation, but to show it), a section detailing Obama's newly rejiggered economic stimulus plan, a call for more service, through an expanded AmeriCorps and Peace Corps, and a whole lot of hope. More...

"It is time for a change," declares the draft's preamble.

The Democrats commit themselves to a comprehensive overhaul of the nation's immigration laws, including a commitment to bring illegal immigrants "out of the shadows" and to allow them to "get right with the law." A party at times riven over the issue of abortion will state it "strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of the ability to pay." That piece of the platform appears to favor doing away with restrictions on the use of taxpayer funds to help finance abortions.

And the party promises to turn away from the intrusive police apparatus of the post-9/11 world of President Bush's War on Terror.The platform pledges to "reject illegal wire-tapping of American citizens," so-called national security letters issued by the FBI that leave citizens little legal recourse, and "torture."

"We will restore our constitutional traditions, and recover our nation's founding commitment to liberty under the law," the draft platform states.

For Edwards, who has bigger issues to deal with at the moment, the DNC makes good on Obama's pledge to him to elevate poverty eradication as a policy goal. "Working together," the platform states, "we can cut poverty in half within ten years."

And Clinton is the star of the platform's section on expanded opportunities for women.

""We have produced [the] first woman Secretary of State, the first woman Speaker of the House of Representatives, and, in 2008, [with] Hillary Rodham Clinton, the first woman in American history to win presidential primaries in out nation," the platform states.

More on Those Voting Machines in Ohio

Apparently Ohio is still using the Diebold (now "Premier Election Solutions") electronic voting machines ... More...

Mary Pat Flaherty

The voting machine wars in Ohio continue.

Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner is assuring voters in the battleground state that November's tally will be accurate even as she asserts -- in court filings Wednesday -- that there is a problem with the touch screen machines that will be used in half of the state's 88 counties.

Premier Election Solutions, formerly Diebold, said in May that its machines had some problems tabulating votes. But the company has contended in court filings that it had fulfilled its contract to deliver an electronic system.

During the May primary, Brunner said officials in Butler County, north of Cincinnati, realized that 150 votes were dropped when they were being transferred from memory cards. When Brunner looked into it, she found that the software problem had come up in 11 counties. No vote was lost, she said, because local officials had caught the discrepancies.

Voters "should not be alarmed," Brunner said in an interview today, because the state will develop and pass on to counties ways to detect and resolve the problem.

Premier investigated the Butler County incident and said in May that the problem could have been caused by the interaction between its software and an anti-virus software.

Calls to a Premier spokesman were not returned today.

Brunner, saying the machines were delivered with the antivirus software in place, is seeking punitive damages from the company. She has advocated converting Ohio to paper balloting, arguing that it is more reliable, but was rebuffed by the state legislature.

Exxon [Hearts] Obama

August 07, 2008 4:02 PM

As we close up a week wherein Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, on the stump and in a TV ad accused rival Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., of being "in the pocket of big oil," and doing the industry's bidding -- not to mention a week during which the Democratic National Committee launched an Exxon-McCain '08 website to drive home this Democratic talking point -- the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics points out that the issue is a bit more complicated than it first would appear. More...

McCain has received three times more money from the oil industry in general -- $1.3 million for McCain compared to approximately $394,000 for Obama. But that said, Obama has received more campaign cash than McCain has from the employees of some of the biggest oil companies -- Exxon, Chevron and BP.

This might seem to complicate Obama's continual use of Exxon-Mobil on the stump.

In Youngstown, Ohio, this week Obama said that McCain is "offering $4 billion more in tax breaks to the biggest oil companies in America -- including $1.2 billion to Exxon-Mobil...a company that, last quarter, made the same amount of money in 30 seconds that a typical Ohio worker makes in a year."

In Lansing, Michigan, Obama said Exxon-Mobil "is the company that, last quarter, made $1,500 every second. That’s more than $300,000 in the time it takes you to fill up a tank with gas that’s costing you more than $4-a-gallon. And Senator McCain not only wants them to keep every dime of that money, he wants to give them more. So make no mistake – the oil companies have placed their bet on Senator McCain."

But based on data downloaded electronically from the Federal Election Commission on July 29, 2008, reports CRP: "Through June, Exxon employees have given Obama $42,100 to McCain's $35,166. Chevron favors Obama $35,157 to $28,500, and Obama edges out McCain with BP $16,046 vs. $11,500."

McCain himself has tried to push back against the Obama charge, telling votes at a town hall in Lima, Ohio, today, that he "spoke up against the Administration and Congress and Senator Obama when they gave us an energy bill with more giveaways to Big Oil and really no solution to our energy problems," and Obama did not.

Discussing the 2005 energy bill, which passed the Senate overwhelmingly, McCain said "I think Senator Obama might be a little bit confused. Yesterday, he accused me of having President Bush's policies on energy. That's odd because he voted for the President's energy bill and I voted against it. I voted against it, had $2.8 billion in corporate welfare to Big Oil companies, and they're already making record profits, as you know. Senator Obama voted for that bill and its Big Oil giveaways. I know he hasn't been in the Senate that long, but even in the real world, voting for something means you support it and voting against something means you oppose it."

The Obama campaign disputes that the bill was "the president's" energy bill, and in Lansing told voters that McCain voted "against an energy bill that – while far from perfect – represented the largest investment in renewable sources of energy in the history of this country."
~ END ~
_______________

Is this the type of "compromise we can expect from Obama? - YIKES!

What Does Hillary Want?

(Photo: Tyler Hicks/The New York Times)

Regarding having her name put in for nomination at the convention “I’ve made it very clear that I’m supporting Senator Obama and we’re working cooperatively on a lot of different matters,” she says. “But delegates can decide to do this on their own, they don’t need permission.” More...

By Katharine Q. Seelye

Senator Hillary Clinton asked the question herself on the night of the last primaries in early June: “What does Hillary want?”

That’s still a bit of a mystery, particularly as she and Senator Barack Obama negotiate over her role, and possibly that of her husband, at the Democratic convention in Denver and beyond.Mr. Obama has given Mrs. Clinton a speaking role on the Tuesday night of the convention. But she made it clear in a recent chat with supporters — which is now on YouTube — that she is steeped in negotiations over how to salve the wounds of her disappointed supporters so that they don’t stray in November. She suggested she may allow her name to be placed in nomination, and also that her supporters don’t need her permission to do that on their own.

It is not clear whether Mrs. Clinton is also bargaining for her husband and what role he may play at the convention or in the fall campaign; Mr. Clinton has talked with Mr. Obama since the end of the primaries.

There is no new news so far today, as Mrs. Clinton wrote in a live Web chat on her personal blog.

“While no decisions have been made yet, I will make sure that we keep you up to date and involved with all of the Convention activity,” she wrote.

Mr. Obama also told reporters today that some matters were unresolved. “As is true in all conventions, we’re still working out the mechanics, the coordination,” he said while flying to his home in Chicago.

In the video, taken July 31 at a unity event in Palo Alto, Mrs. Clinton described her bargaining position at the table:

“We will come out stronger if people feel that their voices were heard and their views were respected,” she said. “I think that is a very big part of how we actually come out unified.”

Whatever she is asking for, she described the process aptly:

“It’s as old as Greek drama,” she said.

She was referring to the “catharsis” that her supporters are seeking after enduring her roller-coaster ride through the primaries.

But she could have been referring to the Clintons themselves, the leading lady and erstwhile leading man of Democratic politics, and their knack for remaining at the center of the drama even if they do not hold center stage. That is evident in the outpouring of comments on The Caucus and elsewhere in the blogosphere.

The Clintons are entering an extremely sensitive stage of the election cycle _ and of their ongoing process to shape their legacies. It is not just about their roles at the convention or the campaign but about how history will treat them both and will in turn influence her future.

While the video of Mrs. Clinton plays across cable TV and the Internet, a new video of her husband, in an interview with ABC News, is also playing in its own endless loop. He was not quite able to say that Senator Barack Obama, the party’s all-but-certain nominee, is qualified to be president.

Mr. Clinton appears and reappears, swatting at the same furies he has tried to bat back all year _ that he used race in subtle and not-so-subtle ways during the primaries. “I am not a racist,” he says. He makes clear that any friendship with Representative James Clyburn of South Carolina, a leading black politician who despaired of the Clintons during the primary, is over.

Mrs. Clinton came very close to winning the nomination, of course. She won eight of the last 13 primaries, back when she was warning in a full-throated voice that she would be a better general-election candidate than Mr. Obama.

Interestingly, as she surely knows, she remains just as popular among Democrats these days as Mr. Obama, despite his having been campaigning for two months as the party nominee. The most recent New York Times poll puts her favorability rating among Democrats at 70 percent and Mr. Obama’s at 66 percent.

Now Mr. Obama is struggling in the polls to maintain parity with Senator John McCain. In the video, she calls for the party to unify behind Mr. Obama, even as she nurses the disappointment of her supporters _ and carefully shields any feelings of vindication.

At one point, a woman asks Mrs. Clinton what happens if her name is placed in nomination at the convention and she actually wins.

“That’s not going to happen,” Mrs. Clinton replies. “What we want to have happen is for Senator Obama to be nominated by a unified convention of Democrats. And as I have said, the best way I think _ and I could be wrong, but the best way I think _ to do that is to have a strategy so that my delegates feel like they’ve had a role and that their legitimacy has been validated. It’s as old as Greek drama. There is a catharsis. I mean, everybody comes and they want to yell and scream and have their opportunity, and I think that’s all to the good. Because then, everybody can then go (whew), great, now, let’s go out and win. That’s what we want people to feel.”

Her goal, she says, is this: “We do not want any Democrat in the hall or in the stadium or at home walking away saying, ‘I’m just not satisfied, I’m not happy.’ That’s what I’m trying to avoid.”

Her supporters in the video seem a bit puzzled by this process. Is it normal, one asks, for all of this to be negotiated back and forth?

Mrs. Clinton responds:

“If you look at recent history, I have moved more quickly and done more on behalf of my opponent than comparable candidates have. Most of them didn’t endorse until the convention, Teddy Kennedy, or Gary Hart, Jerry Brown, just a lot of people held out until the convention, kept their delegates, often waged platform or rules or credentials fights.”

But then she seems to give a green light to her supporters to go ahead and make whatever mischief they might:

“I’ve made it very clear that I’m supporting Senator Obama and we’re working cooperatively on a lot of different matters,” she says. “But delegates can decide to do this on their own, they don’t need permission.”

Still, she concludes, “it would be better if we had a plan and we put it in place and executed it.”

For another article on the same subject, go to: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/07/clinton/index.html?eref=rss_politics&iref=polticker