In Britain, Rape Cases Seldom Result in a Conviction By Mary Jordan Washington Post Foreign Service Thursday, May 29, 2008; Page A01 LONDON -- After Linda Davies reported to police that her 15-year-old daughter had been raped, it took three months -- plus two dozen phone calls and a threat of legal action -- before police questioned the suspect, a 28-year-old neighbor. "I gave police his name, address, mobile phone number, car registration -- everything but his passport," said Davies, 44, a strong-minded mother of two daughters. "I was basically begging them. He lived five minutes away from us." The suspect was finally arrested but acquitted at a trial in which the judge told the jury that he was "in a way a man of good character" because his previous criminal convictions, for possession of stolen goods and marijuana, did not involve violence. Davies was furious at the judge, who also instructed the jurors to ignore the victim's young age, and at police, who lost cellphone records that contradicted the defendant's account. "This has shattered us," Davies said. "We felt like the whole system was against us." Davies said she was stunned to learn that her daughter's case was the rule, not the exception. According to government statistics, only 5.7 percent of rapes officially recorded by police in England and Wales end in a conviction. "What are they saying?" Davies asked. "That 95 percent of women that come forward are telling lies?" In Britain, a nation whose justice system has been used as a model around the globe, government officials and women's rights activists agree that rape goes largely unpunished. Solicitor General Vera Baird, who oversees criminal prosecutions in England, estimated that 10 to 20 percent of rapes are brought to authorities' attention. According to government figures, 14,000 cases a year are reported and 19 out of 20 defendants walk free. "There will never be proper female equality and appropriate dignity afforded to one-half of the population if it's possible to rape somebody and get away with it," said Baird, one of the highest-ranking women in the British government. Thousands of victims each year once chose not to go to police because of shame, women's advocates say. Now, the advocates say, the bigger reason is that rape victims feel the system is stacked against them. A 2005 report commissioned by the police found a "culture of skepticism" in the justice system when it came to rape cases, and recommended shifting the focus from seeking reasons not to believe the accuser to gathering evidence to support the charge. Lisa Longstaff, spokeswoman for the London-based group Women Against Rape, said rape cases are "not a priority" for busy police and prosecutors and, as a result, "so few rapists get locked up that those who do feel unlucky rather than guilty." This Story In Britain, Rape Cases Seldom Result in a Conviction Women Criticize Britain's Low Rape Conviction Rate Even some cases that do end in a guilty verdict stir outrage. Last year, a judge sentenced a 24-year-old man to two years in prison for having sex with a 10-year-old after concluding that the girl had "dressed provocatively." Patricia Scotland, England's first female attorney general since the job was created in the 15th century, appealed that sentence. It was increased to four years. Longstaff and others said that despite advances toward equality, sex crimes run up against a persistent societal bias -- pronounced in the male-dominated police and judicial system -- that women have only themselves to blame. Julie Bindel, a feminist activist and writer, said there has been a huge cultural shift since the 1950s and 1960s toward acceptance that unmarried women can have casual sex. But, she said, "women are allowed that bit more freedom as long as men behave. When men choose not to, it comes right back at women: 'What did you do to stop him? What was it about you that he chose you to rape?' " A Claim of Mixed Signals In a TV ad paid for by the police of Manchester, England, that began airing this month, a young man and woman are enjoying a pleasant evening, at first. But after they drink alcohol, dance and kiss, the man leads the woman out of the nightclub, yanks her pants down and forces her to have sex against a wall as she cries, "No. No. . . . Get off of me." In the ad, the man is locked up. In real life, according to dozens of interviews with victims and experts, this is exactly the kind of case that ends in an acquittal, if it goes to court at all. Acquittals are often won on the "mucky sex" defense -- that the man got mixed signals from the woman and what resulted really wasn't rape. Danielle West, 30, who reported to police that she was raped after a boozy office Christmas party in December 2006, said police seemed uninterested in her case once she said she had been drinking heavily. West, an American who manages a team of Web analysts in London, turned visibly upset as she recounted her story in a quiet corner of a coffee shop. She said police, rather than giving her the benefit of the doubt, seemed "hostile" and intent on trying to "trip me up." "I was constantly fighting to get someone to believe me," said West, who has a young daughter. She said a female officer flatly told her that she believed no crime had been committed and that West had simply gotten "drunk and had a shag," a British term for sex. This Story In Britain, Rape Cases Seldom Result in a Conviction Women Criticize Britain's Low Rape Conviction Rate "I couldn't believe it," West said. "If you had told me this was modern-day Kabul, okay. But London?" She has since hired a lawyer to file a formal complaint against the police. A police spokesman said it was "inappropriate" to comment on West's case because an investigation into her complaint was ongoing. Debaleena Dasgupta, a lawyer who represents West, said another client filed a complaint against an officer who allowed a man accused of rape to go on vacation before police took his statement. In yet another case, a 38-year-old woman from Cornwall said police interviewed, weeks apart, two men whom she accused of raping her one night, giving them time to coordinate their stories. Improving Investigations "We have got to do better," said John Yates, assistant commissioner of the London Metropolitan Police. He described the rape conviction rate as "appalling" and said police had "to build better cases." Rape cases are particularly challenging, he said, because women often delay reporting, there are no eyewitnesses and alcohol blurs the victim's recollection of details. "Every crime requires good first steps," he said, such as interviewing witnesses immediately and grabbing footage off the millions of closed-circuit security cameras in Britain. "If you get the first steps wrong, it's hard to re-create it." About 25 percent of reports of assault and 75 percent of homicides lead to someone being found guilty. In the 1970s, the rape conviction rate ran at more than 30 percent. The difference now is that there are far more "date rape" cases -- like the one depicted in the Manchester police ad. Kerim Fuad, a barrister who has defended more than 100 men accused of rape, including the defendant in the Davies case, said most of the time the defendant and the accuser know each other and the jury must decide whom to believe. A woman always has a right to say no, he said, but when she goes into a man's bedroom late at night after they have both been drinking, juries may have a hard time voting to send a man to prison. Fuad declined to speak about specific cases, but he said he has been surprised by some "not guilty" verdicts. He said jurors have been shown compelling evidence -- such as blood at the scene or internal injury to the woman -- and still not returned a guilty verdict. It is illegal in Britain to interview jurors -- even after a verdict. But public opinion polls show that a sizable proportion -- a quarter to a third -- of Britons say a rape victim is responsible for the attack if she is drunk or wearing "sexy" clothes. "As many as one in two young men believe there are some circumstances when it's okay to force a woman to have sex," said Conservative Party leader David Cameron, citing studies. This Story In Britain, Rape Cases Seldom Result in a Conviction Women Criticize Britain's Low Rape Conviction Rate "In my mind," he said, "this is an example of moral collapse." 'Let Down by the System' Around the world, rapists are rarely punished. In the United States, 13 percent of rape reports end in a conviction. In many developing and Muslim countries, women's activists say many victims don't even report gang or stranger rapes because it is so difficult to win convictions. Reporting has even led to victims being charged with adultery or sentenced to public lashings for "mingling" with men. In wealthier Western countries, women are told that this crime shouldn't be hidden and are counseled to take a stand against men who force them into unwanted sex. "But what is the point," asked Davies, when in the end the prosecutor often has a poorly put-together case, the defense contends that the sex was consensual -- at least mostly -- and the jury is told to be sure beyond a reasonable doubt? "When we do report it, we are completely let down by the system," she said. Governments collect crime statistics differently and international comparisons are difficult, but England's conviction rate stands out as particularly low. That has led to calls to reform a tradition-bound judicial system where judges and attorneys in criminal courtrooms still wear white wigs. Police, prosecutors and judges are increasingly being trained specifically to deal with sex crimes. Judges are being urged to allow wider use of expert testimony so that, for example, a rape trauma expert could explain why a victim might delay reporting. Now, the defense often uses that delay to attack a victim's credibility. Until a few months ago, prosecutors were barred from interviewing victims and met them only on the day of the trial. Ken McDonald, the head of the Crown Prosecution Service, called this restriction "mad." He said it dated back centuries to the days when witnesses stuck straw in their shoes outside courtrooms to indicate their testimony could be bought. 'I Was Happy Before' Linda Davies's daughter, who asked that her first name not be used, said her courtroom experience two years ago still keeps her awake at night, crying. The 5-foot-2, brown-haired student met the prosecutor minutes before the trial. She had no warning that the defense would insinuate that she had a tarnished reputation and agreed to the sex for pocket cash -- and that the prosecutor wouldn't object. She was floored when Judge Jonathan Van Der Werff, as recorded in a transcript, told the jury that the defendant was "in a way a man of good character" and that it should disregard her age, "in case it's worrying you." Now retired, Van Der Werff declined an interview request. The defendant, who is unemployed, never took the stand. The teenager said he had told her he was 19; police later told her he was 28. This Story In Britain, Rape Cases Seldom Result in a Conviction Women Criticize Britain's Low Rape Conviction Rate The girl said in an interview that the man invited her to his apartment. "He told me he wanted to get his dog to take on a walk," she said, covering her face. She had initially thought he was nice and kissed him. But then, she said, "he told me he would do something really bad to me" if she refused sex. "I couldn't push him off and I was trying really hard," said the girl, who weighs 90 pounds. She said she wished police had interviewed someone at the local supermarket where she stood sobbing after the attack, or had asked to see the store's video surveillance tapes. "This has made me a different person," she said, her voice fading and her brown eyes looking into the distance. "I was happy before. Now I am angry. "I feel I didn't get justice. If I ever have kids and this happened to them, I wouldn't tell them to report it."

This is just about a perfect editorial. And it ends by saying: The race is a long shot but it is not over! May 30, 2008 http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080530/VOICES01/805300306/1161/CUSTOMER06 Editorial: Clinton is top candidate for Dems Editorial Board Argus Leader For the first time in memory, every state will play a role in choosing a nominee for the nation's highest office. Some of those parts are small, but not ours: as one of the last two primary elections, South Dakota Democrats suddenly and improbably find themselves in a starring role. That's an unlikely turn of events, as our state has improbably become a battleground in the long, hard race between two Senators seeking a spot at the top of the Democratic ticket: Barack Obama of Illinois and Hillary Clinton of New York. The process feels similar at times, but the goal of a primary election is different from the race voters will decide in November. Our endorsement also is different. We will judge the candidates in this fall's general election when that time comes. Obama could certainly become one of those candidates in the days ahead - at the time of this writing, his mathematical advantage is considerable. His appeal also is clear, and his campaign has been strong. But Clinton is the strongest Democratic candidate for South Dakota. Her mastery of complex policy detail is broad and deep, and her experience as a senator and former first lady matches that. Measured against her opponent, Clinton is philosophically more moderate. That is likely a good thing for South Dakota. Clinton's energy policy is forward thinking and wise. She advocates a broad federal research initiative to help solve our looming oil crisis. It's a plan that would join university researchers, private industry and individual inventors behind a common goal. Is ethanol part of the answer? Clinton believes it is but not necessarily corn ethanol. That is not precisely the answer South Dakota wants to hear. Corn-based ethanol has been a boon for farmers here. But the simple fact is that she probably is correct. Advances in cellulosic ethanol technologies could render corn ethanol obsolete and wasteful. Happily, South Dakota is poised to be a major player in the push to experiment with other kinds of ethanol. Clinton has demonstrated a real commitment to Native American issues and will have visited several South Dakota reservations before the race is over. Clinton is precisely correct when she says that people outside the region have a poor understanding of the troubling trends on our reservations. Federal attention could help. That includes but is not limited to higher-ranking posts in the federal bureaucracy. Her truly universal health care plan would be welcomed by thousands of South Dakotans. Even on reservations, where health care is nominally universal already, such a plan would be welcome. The federal government would never be allowed to subject everyday Americans to the kind of care Native Americans living on reservations routinely receive. Obama is justifiably credited as a powerful speaker, but Clinton holds her own easily. As those who have attended her South Dakota rallies can attest, she is quick on her feet and energetic. She frames her ideas clearly in speeches and answers questions with genuine directness. Her resilience and determination never should be questioned. She has met or overcome every challenge or roadblock in her way, and there have been many. Her determination to carry the nomination process through to its real conclusion has perhaps earned her a grudging respect from those who would never support her. Clinton might not win this race. In fact, it's a long shot. But whatever some might say, the race is not over, and her name is on the ballot. Win or lose, she's also the best Democratic candidate for South Dakota.

LOL!! Mari, did you see this in your Philly paper? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080606/ap_on_hi_te/philadelphia_newspapers_fake_ads;_ylt=AhobvdJ7UqQpkRLWhkwyv.lk24cA

I attended Hillary's event yesterday in DC, it was great to see Bill and Chelsea too. Needless to say she suspended her campaign, she did NOT concede. Karen, there is a huge investigation going on in Chicago on BO. Keep the faith ladies, this ain't over, till Denver. Right now, she's doing what she needs to do. In the words of the honorable Ms. Maya Angelou: "This is not the first time you have seen Hillary Clinton seemingly at her wits' end, but she has always risen, always risen, don't forget she has always risen, much to the dismay of her adversaries and the delight of her friends........ .....Don't give up on Hillary. In fact, if you help her to rise, you will rise with her and help her make this country the wonderful, wonderful place where every man and every woman can live freely without sanctimonious piety and without crippling fear. Rise, Hillary, Rise. Clinton's lead is from 34.5 million voters (97%) in Primaries. Obama's lead is from 1.1 million voters (3%) in caucuses. This is pretty alarming: http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/6/2/12307/61275

A Letter from Rosa Park's Granddaughter, Carole A. Parks, Chicago IL. My main regret is that Hillary probably felt compelled to congratulate Barack on the victory he has won, as opposed to the honor he was granted. Other than that, despite the circumstances, I felt buoyed by the speech. I was glad she reminded people of the number and wide diversity of her supporters, the issues she'll continue fighting for, the precedents to these historical campaigns, the bias she ran into, and that of the last 10 presidential elections Bill won two of the three Democratic victories. Most of all, I was glad she left the door open. We made tremendous progress during the under a Democratic president, with a flourishing economy and our leadership for peace and security respected around the world. Just think how much more progress we could have made over the past 40 years if we'd had a Democratic president. Think about the lost opportunities of these past seven years on the environment and the economy, on health care and civil rights, on education, foreign policy and the Supreme Court. Hillary compared the party to a family unified around shared ideals, values and destination which would mean I must identify with a leadership who facilitate favoritism, foul play and public savaging of its own members. Who reward Republicanesque chicanery and marketing over democratic principles and substance. Who would rather protect their own territory than elect a president who could help us all. Hillary also urged us not to dwell on what might have been which is exactly what we must do in the person of Howard Dean. The man is incompetent, a saboteur or both. Retaining him spits in the face of over half those who voted in the primaries. It erodes confidence the DNC will reflect our standards. It conveys contempt for us on the part of the candidate we are called upon to support. It suggests winning the White House is not a DNC priority. Unity is a two-way street. So far, I have seen nothing to indicate the Hillary camp counts any more than it has all along. Replacing Dean with someone amenable to Hillary would be a start. Perhaps I'll see other evidence at the convention. Until then I cannot in good conscience get in the spirit Hillary urged. Others have made it too hollow. She will be blamed for that anyway, no matter what she does, so I might as well remain faithful to the vision that has sustained me so far: Hillary Clinton in the White House.

For all the info you may need: http://www.justsaynodeal.com/

BTW, the letter is from Rosa Parks God daughter, my typo.

LOL, too many rumors: http://news.aol.com/elections/story/_a/obama-launches-site-to-debunk-rumors/20080612154409990001?icid=100214839x1203913544x1200156562 Read the comments to this article: http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/06/12/camille-paglia-s-dirty-talk-about-clinton/

Good God, it's like the witch hunts of the Clinton's all over again.

I know, Dorine. I did not know so many people hated them. :-( How about O moving the DNC offices to Chicago? And how unbiased is a website you start and control to debunk rumors that might hurt you? LOL! He really wants to take over the world. Judicial Watch Announces List of Washington's "Ten Most Wanted" Corrupt Politicians for 2007: 8. Senator BARACK OBAMA (D-IL): A Dishonorable Mention last year, Senator Obama moves onto the "ten most wanted" list in 2007. In 2006, it was discovered that Obama was involved in a suspicious real estate deal with an indicted political fundraiser, Antoin Rezko. In 2007, more reports surfaced of deeper and suspicious business and political connections. It was reported that just two months after he joined the Senate, Obama purchased $50,000 worth of stock in speculative companies whose major investors were his biggest campaign contributors. One of the companies was a biotech concern that benefited from legislation Obama pushed just two weeks after the senator purchased $5,000 of the company's shares. Obama was also nabbed conducting campaign business in his Senate office, a VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW. http://www.judicialwatch.org/judicial-watch-announces-list-washington-s-ten-most-wanted-corrup

I don't blame him for the de-bunking website. John Kerry was waaaaaay too slow to fight back against the smears leveled at him, and they dogged his campaign. Just heard that Tim Russert died. He was a terrific jouralist and a good guy. Only 58.

indicted political fundraiser, Antoin Rezko He was just convicted. Rezko bought the lot next door to Obama's mansion at a highly inflated price compared to what Obama paid. It is widely known here that Rezko's purchase included most of the FMV of Obama's. BTW, I just saw that R Kelly was acquited. WTF!!

(Moon) I did not know so many people hated them. :-( Not sure if that was clear....the witch hunt is onto Barack and Michelle as it was with the Clinton's when they were in office. I thought it was pretty smart to have that website actually. Judicial Watch took their 10 Most Wanted down. Was curious who else they put on it and why. I'd assume Abramoff might've been in one of the top 2 or 3 spots.

OH! I missed that R. Kelly verdict. Just wow. That's F'd.

No kidding! You have someone testify that she was in a threesome with him and the minor girl and that doesn't seem to be enough? Will have to see what the local news has to say.

I'm beginning to think the jury system might need some tweaking, but then again, I wasn't too impressed by the judge-only proceedings with our Sean Bell/cops shooting unarmed men case either. Ok, well not just beginning. Those thoughts really started with O.J.

(me) the witch hunt is onto Barack and Michelle And John McCain is his own worst enemy.

Surprised at R Kelly? It's good to be black.

This is a very long article, so I just posted the first few paragraphs... Media Charged With Sexism in Clinton Coverage By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE and JULIE BOSMAN Published: June 13, 2008 Angered by what they consider sexist news coverage of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton�s bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, many women and erstwhile Clinton supporters are proposing boycotts of the cable networks, putting up videos on a �Media Hall of Shame,� starting a national conversation about sexism and pushing Mrs. Clinton�s rival, Senator Barack Obama, to address the matter. But many in the news media � with a few exceptions, including Katie Couric, the anchor of the �CBS Evening News� � see little need for reconsidering their coverage or changing their approach going forward. Rather, they say, as the Clinton campaign fell behind, it exploited a few glaring examples of sexist coverage to whip up a backlash and to try to create momentum for Mrs. Clinton. Phil Griffin, senior vice president of NBC News and the executive in charge of MSNBC, a particular target of criticism, said that although a few mistakes had been made, that they had been corrected quickly and that the network�s overall coverage was fair. �I get it, that in this 24-hour media world, you�ve got to be on your game and there�s very little room for mistakes,� Mr. Griffin said. �But the Clinton campaign saw an opportunity to use it for their advantage. They were trying to rally a certain demographic, and women were behind it.� His views were echoed by other news media figures. �She got some tough coverage at times, but she brought that on herself, whether it was the Bosnian snipers or not conceding on the night of the final primaries,� said Rem Rieder, editor of American Journalism Review. �She had a long track record in public life as a serious person and a tough politician, and she was covered that way.� Nicholas Lemann, dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia University, said: �I have not had a lot of regretful conversations with high-ranking media types and political reporters about how unfair their coverage of the Hillary Clinton campaign was.� Among journalists, he added, the coverage �does not register as a mistake that must not be allowed to happen again.� [....] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/us/politics/13women.html?em&ex=1213588800&en=9908612b6e0dd0b2&ei=5087%0A

Well, who'd a thunk this would happen? ;-) Am biting my virtual tongue. FRIDAY, June 13, 2008, 3:08 p.m. By Craig Gilbert Clinton delegate to vote for McCain As an avid supporter of Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Democratic primaries, Debra Bartoshevich is not alone in her frustration over Clinton's defeat. She's not alone in refusing to support Barack Obama. And she's not entirely alone in saying she'll vote this fall for Republican John McCain instead. But what makes her unusual is that she holds these views as an elected delegate to the Democratic National Convention in Denver this summer. "I'm sure people are going to be upset with me. I don't want to lose my national delegate status," says Bartoshevich, a 41-year-old emergency room nurse who is a convention delegate, pledged to Clinton, from Waterford in Racine County. Joe Wineke, the chairman of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, reacted with disbelief when first told Friday afternoon that one of his state party delegates is now a McCain supporter. "Not a delegate? To the national convention?" asked Wineke, who was getting ready for the start of the state party convention Friday in Stevens Point. "We have a Clinton national (convention) delegate who says she's voting for John McCain?" Wineke repeated, for clarification. "I've never heard of such a thing." Wineke said "almost everybody I know who was for Hillary" is solidly behind Obama now. As for Bartoshevich, he said, "my suspicion is she doesn't know what she's getting into" because "the delegates to this convention will be very upset." Asked if publicly supporting the other party's presidential nominee could affect a delegate's convention status, Wineke said, "I never thought I'd ever get a question like this." After some preliminary checking, the state party chair said he assumed she would remain a delegate. The McCain campaign said that, nationally, it was not aware at this point of any other delegates to the Democratic convention (it may know of an alternate, it said) who have come out for the Republican candidate. In an interview, Bartoshevich expressed lingering unhappiness over the Democratic nominating process, said Clinton was treated unfairly by the party, and said she has deep reservations about Obama's lack of experience and his judgment. "I'm kind of disenfranchised," she said. She said she planned to vote for Clinton at the convention, but in an Obama-McCain match-up in November, "I will not be voting for Obama. I will cast my vote for John McCain. Said Bartoshevich: "I just feel you need to have somebody who has experience with foreign matters." She said a series of controversial Obama "associations," including but not limited to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Chicago developer Tony Rezko, reflected poorly on his judgment. And she echoed the complaints of many of Clinton's most ardent supporters that Clinton was treated unfairly in the nominating process and by the party. "No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her - that's by Susan B. Anthony," said Bartoshevich, referring to the famous suffragist. Bartoshevich called herself a "devoted Democrat" who, she said, had never voted for a Republican for president. "I'm on a lot of the (pro-Clinton) blogs, and so many people, male and female, feel the same way as I do," said Bartoshevich, who was listed as a Racine County co-chair for the Clinton campaign and who traveled outside Wisconsin to volunteer for Clinton. "The Democrats jumped on this wagon of Barack Obama and nobody really knows him." Hoping to tap into discontent among Clinton supporters, the McCain campaign is reaching out to them in a variety of ways, including a telephone "town hall" meeting Saturday targeted to non-Republican voters. Encouraged by her sister, who has served in Iraq, Bartoshevich signed up as a supporter with "Citizens for McCain," an arm of the campaign targeting Democrats and independents. She said she then got a call from the McCain campaign, which in turn provided her name to a reporter. Polls suggest that Democrats are largely rallying around Obama after a divisive nominating fight, a phenomenon that has occurred in past intra-party fights, say scholars. But it remains to be seen whether Obama is hurt in the fall by any softness among from Clinton's core constituencies, especially white women, and older and lower-income whites. Clinton has not formally "released" her pledged delegates, and it would not be unusual, given recent history, for most of them to cast their votes for Clinton at the convention. But she has urged her delegates to help Obama defeat McCain. Professor Byron Shafer, a University of Wisconsin-Madison scholar who is an expert on conventions, said it's the fact that Bartoshevich is a convention delegate, subject to the partisan tendencies and pressures common to party activists, that makes her public support for McCain so unusual. "The competitive partisan dynamic is usually strong enough that even the people not willing to line up at the convention on record for the nominee, are still unlikely to be willing to line up publicly for the other party's nominee," said Shafer. "It's a pretty far-out move." Asked what kind of reception he would expect Bartoshevich to get from her fellow delegates, he said: "I would guess a lot of people will be very rude and very unpleasant." http://www.jsonline.com/watch/?watch=1&date=6/13/2008&id=41516

His views were echoed by other news media figures. �She got some tough coverage at times, but she brought that on herself, whether it was the Bosnian snipers or not conceding on the night of the final primaries,� said Rem Rieder, editor of American Journalism Review. Am horrified! Is that not the "she asked for" line used in rape allegations?

I agree, Karen! I am a Clinton Delegate from VA and will not be voting for O. I attended our Natrional Democratic Convention in VA and was disgusted by all the O love. I have not sen any reaching to Hillary voters. At the Convention I met a Nat'l Delegate who has received multiple death threats. She's a Univ. prof. at GW in DC. This is going to Denver. Lots is supposed to come out on O soon. He's horrid. Here's another one: http://www.politickermd.com/kevinagnese/2566/boergers-won-t-commit-voting-obama-november-says-clinton-s-name-must-be-put-nominat

Let's start getting the truth out: June 13, 2008 Surrogates of Senator Hillary Clinton suggested last month that her Democratic rival faced a possible doomsday scenario before the general election, calling it an "October Surprise". Naturally, everyone assumed she herself would be instigating Armageddon, and not in October but May. That assumption, however, turned out to be off base. Paula Revere (as Clinton sometimes refers to herself) was more likely dropping a hint, praying there was someone left in the national press corps who could recognize an undressed emperor when he saw one. After all, there was that fraud trial going on in Chicago. Is the U.S. Attorney's office now sitting on a felony indictment against Obama, just waiting for him to lock up the nomination? And what about the two Iraqi agents associated with Tony Rezko? How did those reconstruction funds wind up in the presidential candidate's campaign coffers? And does he really prefer to bank with pimps, as the Chicago Tribune suggested in an article, one that for some inexplicable reason was not picked up by NBC News? While the answers to these intriguing questions may be getting short shrift from the media, you can bet Republican opposition researchers are already versed in the particulars. Moreover, if the G.O.P. is setting a trap, then maybe elected Democratic officials (a.k.a. superdelegates) should be boning up on the Chicago underworld, not lining up at the Bank of Obama ATM machine. For one thing, it's not necessarily written in stone that the presumptive G.O.P. nominee will get voted in at the convention next September. Anyone who assumes McCain is the guy to beat really doesn't appreciate Karl Rove's ability to turn a presidential election on its head. Remember, America's favorite dirty trickster is still out on the lam, probably whistling the old Grateful Dead tune Friend of the Devil as he forages around the Fox News Channel studios each weekday afternoon. In short, there are plenty of good reasons to fret about the future. Surprises, then and now... The term October Surprise dates back to 1980, the year President Jimmy Carter ran for re-election against Ronald Reagan and the first George Bush. By most accounts, he lost as a result of the Iranian Hostage Crisis, and many suspected the Reagan campaign intervened in international affairs to set that ordeal into motion. In fact, many of the names, events and places from yesteryear seem to be popping up again today. Carter, Bush, the spike in oil prices, transitioning Middle East government, a U.S. presidential election... And just like 1980, this year's election cycle began with the assassination of a Bhutto. The daughter of Pakistan's first prime minister was gunned down on December 27, 2007. In 1979, Benazir's father was hanged after a military coup. At the time of the first execution, the CIA was busy in Pakistan outfitting Osama bin Laden and his Islamic jihad to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. However, most Americans were focussed on Iran in those days. The U.S. backed Shah Reza Pahlavi was overthrown in 1979 after a popular uprising, and in the aftermath, an ayatollah named Khomeini flew in from Paris and tried to take advantage of the situation. Shortly after that, President Carter got a call from Henry Kissinger, asking him to let the deposed shah into the United States for cancer treatment. The embassy staff in Tehran warned Carter that it was no time to play Make a Wish, but Carter did let him in anyway. The Iranians reacted with angry demonstrations (believing the U.S. intended to reinstall Pahlavi) and a group of students stormed the embassy, taking 52 Americans hostage. Although the Pentagon disputes it, two former embassy captives insist that the country's current civilian president, Ahmadinejad, was in charge of that operation. Like a perfectly synchronized Swiss clock, 444 days later and about 20 minutes after Reagan delivered his inaugural speech, the hostages were released. By then, Khomeini and his "supreme council" of fellow mullahs had rammed through an Islamic constitution and began purging the country of all those moderate, secular folks responsible for overthrowing the shah in the first place. (Remnants of that group, known as the MEK-NCRI, are holed up in Europe and even maintain a base in Iraq, although the United States and the U.K. bombed them in 2003.) At any rate, Reagan's campaign manager William Casey started selling missiles to the Islamic dictatorship as soon as he was appointed CIA director. In Washington, people wondered. Did the Reagan campaign cut a deal with Khomeini to make sure he wouldn't free the hostages before the November election - hence Carter's October Surprise? Congress held hearings on the subject. Chaired by Indiana Democrat Lee Hamilton, the House committee eventually ruled there was no conspiracy. (Twenty years later, this same congressman would be tapped by President Bush to co-chair the bipartisan 9/11 Commission.) Now fast forward to this election cycle. The G.O.P. knew four years ago that winning the White House after George W. Bush's reign of error would be an uphill climb. Especially with another Clinton coming down the pike. They needed to get creative. And in a little known state senator from the midwest they found reason to hope. As luck would have it, Barack Obama had compiled a lot of dirt under his finger nails from 17 years of Chicago machine politics. His principle benefactor, Tony Rezko, was a Syrian slumlord under investigation by the federal government for fraud and influence peddling. Now this seemed promising. By using Obama as their trojan horse to get inside and sieze the apparatus of the Democratic Party, Republicans saw their odds for November improving dramatically. It didn't matter that the Illinois legislator was little more than a smug, petulant, unaccomplished hack from Chicago. He was African American, which meant that his Democratic opponents couldn't criticize him without alienating a key party demographic. And once Obama was nominated, the G.O.P. could make its case to the electorate along these lines: "Jeez, would you look at this guy's proximity group. He's got convicts, foreign agents and tainted campaign contributions coming out of the woodwork. And if he can't even obtain an F.B.I. clearance as a border patrol agent, do you really think we should be handing him the nuclear launch codes?" Here are a few other Republican tactics that might come to fruition next fall: An indictment from the U.S. Attorney: It turns out the federal prosecutor in the trial of Chicago political fixer Tony Rezko was Patrick Fitzgerald, the special counsel who handled the Valerie Plame C.I.A. leak case. No one knows for sure, but the Justice Department could conceivably indict Obama on corruption charges in the wake of the recent Rezko verdict. To date, the senator has been identified as a participant in crafting legislation to reduce the number of members on the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board from 15 to 9, according to the Chicago Sun-Times. The prosecution alleges that as a result, in 2003, the board was stacked by Rezko in order to steer big government contracts his way. Obama had previously helped Rezko and his partner Allison Davis acquire at least 11 housing redevelopment projects in his senate district, in addition to representing the landlord (as his attorney) when the City of Chicago sued over slumlike conditions and unheated apartments. The government's principle witness, tuart Levine, has acknowledged in sworn testimony that Davis (Obama's former boss at a law firm) acted as go-between in the shakedown scheme of a Hollywood financier. Whether there is a crime here involving the candidate remains to be seen. On another front, the New York Times has reported that Rezko's role in the purchase of Obama's South Chicago estate in 2005 may have been an attempt to shield assets from creditors in several lawsuits pending at the time. How much Obama himself knew about Rezko's finances is unknown. We do know that Rezko did a walk-through of the home prior to the sale, even though his wife would be listed as the new owner of the empty lot next door. Links to Iraqi money men exposed: Shortly before the Obama property deal, Rezko received a $3.5 million loan from an Iraqi exile, Nadhmi Auchi. The Pentagon has identified Auchi as a former bagman for Saddam Hussein. This London-based financier is one of the world's richest men, convicted of fraud in 2003 over the notorious European Elf affair, the largest scandal in post-war Europe. Needless to say, the suggestion that it was Saddam's banker who made Obama's dream home possible will probably not play well among Independents and Reagan Democrats in November. Another longtime Rezko chum, Aiham Alsammarae, was appointed Iraq's former Minister of Electricity in 2003. (Rezko, Alsammarae and Auchi all went to college in Illinois.) In 2005, Alsammarae was charged with stealing $650 million in Iraqi reconstruction funds. Wanted by Interpol, Alsammarae posted more than $2.7 million in property as collateral last April to help spring Rezko from jail. While Bush Administration officials won't tell anyone what the warrant is for, his arrest is not imminent. The minister fled Iraq in 2006. Newsweek has reported that Alsammarae'a son sent several faxes to Obama's office in Washington prior while he was incarcerated in a Baghdad jail in December. Obama said this was a routine constituent request that was forwarded to a U.S. consulate. Thereafter, with the aid of Blackwater security guards, Alsammarae escaped. The fugitive now resides comfortably in his private compound outside of Chicago, where he donated online to the candidate in January, February and March. A presidential campaign that banks with crime figures: According to an article in the Chicago Tribune, in 2006 Obama endorsed and appeared in campaign commercials for Alex Giannoulias, a banker who ran for Illinois state treasurer. Obama backed Giannoulias despite reports that his family-owned Broadway Bank made loans to bookmakers, prostitution rings and other criminal operations. "Records show Giannoulias and his family had given more than $10,000 to Obama's campaign, which banked at Broadway," the story read. Martial Law declaration: Were the majority of Americans to become disenchanted with or remain uninspired by either candidates McCain or Obama, President Bush could potentially pull off a coup de tat without a lot of grumbling from voters. After all, the Democratic Party has already managed to do pretty much exactly that with their Barack is the Nominee declaration in June. Perhaps savoring the prospect of a third term, President Bush signed National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51, an executive order that allows him to suspend the constitution without prior congressional approval. In other words, he declares a state of emergency in the event of a major terrorist attack or other �decapitating� incident against the United States, then cancels the election. According to the directive, the attack need not even take place inside the country. Well, isn't that convenient... For source links on the information reported above, plus an analysis of how Karl Rove and the neocons have manipulated the Democratic nominating process for fun and profit, see Bamboozling the American electorate again. For more on the CIA in Pakistan and Iran, see our foreign affairs section. - Rosemary Regello editor@thecityedition.com Copyright 2008 TheCityEdition.com

While personally, I'm more concerned about his current spiritual leaders, the reality is that this will be yet another thing about Obama that freaks people out. Republicans are sure to focus on this and again, it's not all the things individually, it's the big picture that includes all these things. Yet another indicator of why we need Senator Clinton as our nominee as Obama will have a very hard time winning this election. Subject: Malik Obama confirms his half-brother Barack grew up a Muslim http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12918.htm

I received this email, which might be of interest to many: Million Woman March CALL TO ACTION! We are organizing a Million Women March in Denver to support Senator Clinton and Women's Rights worldwide, with concurrent actions in every state at the same time as the Denver action, and we need everyone's help to make this a reality! Right now, we are in the process of getting Denver permits, and putting State Organizers on the ground in EVERY state. Please visit our webpage for information http://www.millionwomenmarch.blogspot.com or email us directly and get into the movement at risehillaryrise@gmail.com. Please join us in making this a HUGE success... the only thing that can stop us now is ourselves-- if people don't step up and take action to make this a reality!!

More mobster mentality... http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_politics/2008/06/obama-wont-like.html This is very sweet: http://clintondems.com/2008/06/enough/

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/771896/princess-obama-derangement-syndrome.thtml For what it's worth, I'm not a conspiracy buff in general, but even I am disturbed about Obama's many ties to criminals, former terrorists and groups like NOI. I can't imagine either Hillary or John McCain getting away with any of it for even a second.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmikfM4TqAM It's all explained, what a betrayal by the DNC.

Not sure if anyone watched the Al Gore endorsement the other night. I couldn't bring myself to it. Lou Dobbs was talking about the fact that Obama's supporters booed when Jennifer Granholm mentioned Hillary's name. Dobbs was talking about how unbelievable it was that people booed and that unity seems so far away at this point. He was talking about the divisive nature of Obama picking Solis-Doyle to be the VP candidate's chief of staff...thus effectively taking any control away from the new VP and putting it into the hands of Solis-Doyle. Lou Dobbs felt that this was a clear cut at HRC and that it was BHO's way of letting HRC know where she stood. Dobbs was really appalled at the lack of concern BHO has for HRC's supporters. I was thinking, "Amen". New video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9vHcZLVLSU

Interesting analysis. Obama could win vote, lose election Harry Siegel Wed Jun 18, 9:35 PM ET Until 2000, it hadn�t happened in more than 100 years, but plugged-in observers from both parties see a distinct possibility of Barack Obama winning the popular vote but losing the Electoral College � and with it the presidency � to John McCain. ADVERTISEMENT Here�s the scenario: Obama racks up huge margins among the increasingly affluent, highly educated and liberal coastal states, while a significant increase in turnout among black voters allows him to compete � but not to win � in the South. Meanwhile, McCain wins solidly Republican states such as Texas and Georgia by significantly smaller margins than Bush�s in 2004 and ekes out narrow victories in places such as North Carolina, which Bush won by 12 points but Rasmussen presently shows as a tossup, and Indiana, which Bush won by 21 points but McCain presently leads by just 11. One possible result: Even as the national mood moves left, the 2004 map largely holds. Obama�s 32 new electoral votes from Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado and Virginia are offset by 21 new electoral votes for McCain in Michigan and New Hampshire � and despite a 2- or 3-point popular vote victory for Obama, America wakes up on Jan. 20 to a President McCain. According to Tad Devine, who served as the chief political consultant for Al Gore in 2000 and as a senior adviser to John F. Kerry in 2004, �it certainly is a possibility. Not a likelihood, but it is a real possibility.� Some observers, such as Joseph Mercurio, a political consultant and pollster who worked on Sen. Joe Biden�s Democratic primary bid, see this as unlikely given the dramatic increase in Democratic Party enrollment and President Bush�s near record-low approval rating. Also skeptical is Nate Silver, a political cult-favorite blogger whose statistical model � which factors in population change since electoral votes were last allocated in the 2000 census � shows McCain as more likely than Obama to lose the Electoral College while winning the popular vote. But others, pointing to the competitiveness of the past two elections, predict that this will be another such tight race. If they�re proven correct, this would be the fourth in the past five elections, making for the most closely contested run of presidential contests since those spanning the popular vote-Electoral College splits of 1876 and 1888. Hank Sheinkopf, president of Sheinkopf Communications and an adviser to Bill Clinton in 1996, warns that such a split �is anything but impossible.� While he gives Obama a slight edge in the general election �because he doesn�t have George Bush riding with him,� he predicts that �Obama�s going to get big votes for a Democrat in the Southern states but not enough to win any new electoral votes. So it�s a distinct possibility that he could lose the entire South, split the Midwest� and end up not as president but rather as the second coming of Al Gore. When asked the odds of this playing out, he offers �50-50.� Devine points out that Bush�s strategy in 2004 �was predicated on massive base turnout� that pushed up margins in safe states. He doesn�t �expect the McCain campaign to be directed the same way � using issues like gay marriage on the ballot to get the base to the polls � so McCain won�t have the same forces at play to drive out the popular vote.� Recalling the impact of Ralph Nader�s third-party run in 2000, Devine also wonders if Bob Barr�s Libertarian run might play out differently, costing McCain popular � but not electoral � votes, while producing another popular-electoral split. Lloyd M. Green, who served as research counsel to George Bush in 1988, also rates Obama a slight favorite and predicts that, if the Democrat does win, he�ll do so with �even larger margins in New York and California than in the last several elections [in 2004, Kerry won the two states by a combined margin of a little more than 2.5 million votes], and yet with all that margin run-up in safe states, this will end up a tight general election.� In a sentiment also expressed by Sheinkopf and Green, Devine sees little chance of this happening if Obama wins the popular vote by more than 4 points. �But if he gets it by 2 or 3 points, it is plausible," he said. "Absolutely.� Green, who sees �about a 20 percent chance� of Obama winning the popular vote while losing the Electoral College, doesn�t expect anything resembling a blowout: �Given that the only clear and clean majorities [since 1992] were in 1996 and 2004, ... this election will have the ferocity of all recent elections.� It�s a tough trend to buck, he argued, noting that �Americans traditionally change their religious affiliations more often than their party affiliations.� www.politico.com http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080619/pl_politico/11182;_ylt=AkYgTRf924H6IV97LDcHViWs0NUE

NY Times Op-Ed Columnist The Two Obamas By DAVID BROOKS Published: June 20, 2008 God, Republicans are saps. They think that they�re running against some academic liberal who wouldn�t wear flag pins on his lapel, whose wife isn�t proud of America and who went to some liberationist church where the pastor damned his own country. They think they�re running against some na�ve university-town dreamer, the second coming of Adlai Stevenson. But as recent weeks have made clear, Barack Obama is the most split-personality politician in the country today. On the one hand, there is Dr. Barack, the high-minded, Niebuhr-quoting speechifier who spent this past winter thrilling the Scarlett Johansson set and feeling the fierce urgency of now. But then on the other side, there�s Fast Eddie Obama, the promise-breaking, tough-minded Chicago pol who�d throw you under the truck for votes. This guy is the whole Chicago package: an idealistic, lakefront liberal fronting a sharp-elbowed machine operator. He�s the only politician of our lifetime who is underestimated because he�s too intelligent. He speaks so calmly and polysyllabically that people fail to appreciate the Machiavellian ambition inside. But he�s been giving us an education, for anybody who cares to pay attention. Just try to imagine Mister Rogers playing the agent Ari in �Entourage� and it all falls into place. Back when he was in the Illinois State Senate, Dr. Barack could have taken positions on politically uncomfortable issues. But Fast Eddie Obama voted �present� nearly 130 times. From time to time, he threw his voting power under the truck. Dr. Barack said he could no more disown the Rev. Jeremiah Wright than disown his own grandmother. Then the political costs of Rev. Wright escalated and Fast Eddie Obama threw Wright under the truck. Dr. Barack could have been a workhorse senator. But primary candidates don�t do tough votes, so Fast Eddie Obama threw the workhorse duties under the truck. Dr. Barack could have changed the way presidential campaigning works. John McCain offered to have a series of extended town-hall meetings around the country. But favored candidates don�t go in for unscripted free-range conversations. Fast Eddie Obama threw the new-politics mantra under the truck. And then on Thursday, Fast Eddie Obama had his finest hour. Barack Obama has worked on political reform more than any other issue. He aspires to be to political reform what Bono is to fighting disease in Africa. He�s spent much of his career talking about how much he believes in public financing. In January 2007, he told Larry King that the public-financing system works. In February 2007, he challenged Republicans to limit their spending and vowed to do so along with them if he were the nominee. In February 2008, he said he would aggressively pursue spending limits. He answered a Midwest Democracy Network questionnaire by reminding everyone that he has been a longtime advocate of the public-financing system. But Thursday, at the first breath of political inconvenience, Fast Eddie Obama threw public financing under the truck. In so doing, he probably dealt a death-blow to the cause of campaign-finance reform. And the only thing that changed between Thursday and when he lauded the system is that Obama�s got more money now. And Fast Eddie Obama didn�t just sell out the primary cause of his life. He did it with style. He did it with a video so risibly insincere that somewhere down in the shadow world, Lee Atwater is gaping and applauding. Obama blamed the (so far marginal) Republican 527s. He claimed that private donations are really public financing. He made a cut-throat political calculation seem like Mother Teresa�s final steps to sainthood. The media and the activists won�t care (they were only interested in campaign-finance reform only when the Republicans had more money). Meanwhile, Obama�s money is forever. He�s got an army of small donors and a phalanx of big money bundlers, including, according to The Washington Post, Kenneth Griffin of the Citadel Investment Group; Kirk Wager, a Florida trial lawyer; James Crown, a director of General Dynamics; and Neil Bluhm, a hotel, office and casino developer. I have to admit, I�m ambivalent watching all this. On the one hand, Obama did sell out the primary cause of his professional life, all for a tiny political advantage. If he�ll sell that out, what won�t he sell out? On the other hand, global affairs ain�t beanbag. If we�re going to have a president who is going to go toe to toe with the likes of Vladimir Putin, maybe it is better that he should have a ruthlessly opportunist Fast Eddie Obama lurking inside. All I know for sure is that this guy is no liberal goo-goo. Republicans keep calling him na�ve. But na�ve is the last word I�d use to describe Barack Obama. He�s the most effectively political creature we�ve seen in decades. Even Bill Clinton wasn�t smart enough to succeed in politics by pretending to renounce politics.

Fine, but all of this makes McCain a better choice....how?

I cringe of the thought of McCain as the better choice, but he is, IMO. It's the devil you know. I don't trust Obama. He's a crook from Chicago who has caught a free ride from the media. Looking back at this primary and seeing the treatment women have received from the DNC and Obama because they chose to ignore the media outrage at Hillary Clinton and her female supporters, has been an eye opener, and I will not forget in Nov. Obama was selected not elected. McCain is a moderate Republican, he reaches out to Democrats and they know it. He has helped pass more Democratic resolutions in Congress than any other Republican. He is also reaching out to Hillary voters, something Obama has taken for granted, he expects Hillary to deliver them on a silver platter, won't he be surprised when we don't fall in line. Please take a look at this and tell me how you feel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-IrhRSwF9U&feature=related

I'll check out the YouTube later. (Moon) McCain is a moderate Republican, he reaches out to Democrats and they know it. He has helped pass more Democratic resolutions in Congress than any other Republican. He is also reaching out to Hillary voters So he's reaching out and expecting support from the people he seems not to support when it come the issues I'd presume is in their self-interest? And frankly, with the Democrats apparently a bunch of spineless do-almost-nothings, I'd thank McCain very much not to help them out. While I really know little of Obama's position on some issues, I do know that in some things he and Hillary were ideologically joined at the hip for the most part. I'll assume that one of the reasons people supported Hillary was because she is a woman and it's assumed she would've watched our backs on issues important and pertaining specifically to us (women as a whole, not here per se). I've read much recently of McCain having an abominable voting record on women's issues. I've excerpted from just one place I've run across items about it. I'd check out the actual article at the link to get access to links to original articles/posts about some of the issues the writer brings up (including the NARAL website page about McCain and an item about Lily Ledbetter. If you don't know who she is or what her case was, I'd click on her name in blue to find out. I was appalled when the ruling came out). Of course if one is pro-life and pro-abstinence education, etc., I guess McCain's for you. Also, Karen, check out the last line before the comments. ;-) http://firedoglake.com/2008/06/09/mccain-is-wooing-the-wimmins/ John McCain has received a ZERO rating on women's issues every single year from NARAL from 2001 to 2007. A zero. He's against emergency contraception and funding for teen pregnancy prevention programs. He thinks Roe should be overturned. He voted against having health insurers cover birth control. And, as Joe Conason points out, he's not exactly Mr. Candor, including about sex education and contraception use to prevent the spread of AIDS. A reporter followed up by inquiring whether McCain supports sex education that candidly discusses contraception and preventing the spread of AIDS and other disease, or whether he backs President Bush's abstinence-only education program. After a long pause, he said, "I think I support the president's policy." Does he believe that contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV? After another long pause, he replied, "You've stumped me." The words blithering, pandering moh-ron leap to mind here. Equal pay? McCain opposed it, saying Congress shouldn't pass any laws that hold corporations accountable for screwing their female employees. Hell, he didn't even bother to show up for the last vote on this issue. I guess Lily Ledbetter had it coming, eh, Maverick? I've got news for you, pal: it's going to take a helluva lot more than "education and training" to make it okay to keep paying women less than men for doing the same damn job. And I'll make my own decisions about what's best for my body with my own doctor, thank you. But if McCain gets elected? Kiss your independent choices goodbye, ladies: He has repeatedly voted to deny low-income women access to abortion care except in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother's life (although McCain is now wavering on trying to put these exceptions into the party platform).... What's more, McCain has made it very clear that if he becomes president he will appoint judges in the Scalia, Roberts, Alito mold. His big make it clear that, if given the chance, he'd replace 88-year-old Justice John Paul Stevens with an anti-choice Justice who would tip the scales against Roe v Wade. Throw in an additional anti-choice replacement for the 75-year-old Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and you can kiss the right to choose good-bye for a long, long time.

Another on McCain on women's issues I just ran across reading something else. Be sure to read the rest. Feminists for McCain? Not So Much By Katha Pollitt June 19, 2008 This article appeared in the July 7, 2008 edition of The Nation Are there feminist Hillary supporters who hate Obama so much they'll vote for McCain just to show the Democratic Party how ticked off they are? Yes, and I get e-mails from all five of them. Seriously, I'm sure there are female Hillary Clinton voters who will go for John McCain in the general election, but I don't think too many of them will be feminists. Because to vote for McCain, a feminist would have to be insane. Let me rephrase that: she would have to believe that the chief--indeed the only--goal of the women's movement is to elect Clinton, not to promote women's rights. A vote for McCain would be the ultimate face-spiting nose-cutoff. Take that, women's equality! [.....cont'd] http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080707/pollitt

NARAL no longer means anything to me since they endorced O early. Another slap in the face to women, IMO. The men who have ruled in the Congress and the Senate have not passed the "Equal Rights Amendment" to me that comes before Roe vs Wade. Also, if McCain wins he will only be in office for 4 years, he will have a hard time passing anything with the Democrats in the majority. Hillary 2012! And, at least McCain has some voting record instead of Mr.Obama "present" voting record even Edwards brought that up in a debate. Also, McCain's family is directly affected by his decisions about the war in Iraq, considering that he's the only person in the Senate with a child serving in Iraq, I'd be inclined to say that he has an even greater vested interest in bringing the troops home safely. From Politico: The board viewed Obama�s backtrack on public financing �as an important issue and also as a test of whether he would put principles he said were important to him above political calculation. And he didn�t. That tells us something. It doesn�t tell us everything.� The Washington Post opined that Obama�s �effort to cloak his broken promise in the smug mantle of selfless dedication to the public good is a little hard to take.� The New York Times� editorial board, which endorsed Clinton after allegedly leaning toward Obama, wrote that �Obama has come up short� of �his evocative vows to depart from self-interested politics.� And USA Today, which also did not endorse any candidates, said Obama put �expediency over principle,� was �disingenuous about his reasons for opting out of public financing� and proved he�s not a �real reformer.� http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080621/pl_politico/11242;_ylt=AmV0dacU62VuXcs0b5ZPzeXCw5R4 The pompous ass has even created his own seal, LOL! Have you heard of PUMA: Party Unity My Ass

Also, if McCain wins he will only be in office for 4 years, , he will have a hard time passing anything with the Democrats in the majority. Pfft!!! LOL!!! Like Bush has had a hard time getting anything passed the past 2 years with a Democratic majority led by our good Democratic friends Pelosi and Reid? Ha!! Tell me another one! And that's what I thought about Bush. I mean really, who thought this guy would get another 4 years (to our detriment)? Who thought he'd get there in the first place?! Having a Democratic Congress now isn't doing us any favors at the moment. They might as well be R's for as effective they've been for what a majority was elected for. Also, McCain's family is directly affected by his decisions about the war in Iraq, considering that he's the only person in the Senate with a child serving in Iraq, I'd be inclined to say that he has an even greater vested interest in bringing the troops home safely. Moon, where have you been?! McCain said he could see keeping troops in for 100 years! Those people will likely never stop fighting us. As well they shouldn't as we shouldn't be there in the first place, though of course, I want no more of either side to be killed. http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/04/mccain-100-years/ http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/14/mccain.king/ http://www.google.com/search?q=mccain+100+years+iraq&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a And your own Sen. Webb's son was a Marine in Iraq. Remember the dinner where he was snarky to Bush when asked about his son? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Webb Terse exchange with President Bush On November 28, 2006, at a White House reception for those newly elected to Congress, Webb declined to stand in the line to have his picture taken with the president, whom Webb often criticized during the campaign. The president approached Webb later and asked him, "How's your boy?", referring to Webb's son, a Marine serving in Iraq. According to Congressman Jim Moran of Virginia, aides warned the President to be "extra sensitive about talking to Webb about his son, since Webb's son had had a recent brush with death in Iraq."[28] Webb replied "I'd like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President." Bush responded, "That's not what I asked you. How's your boy?" Webb responded, "That's between me and my boy, Mr. President."

And, at least McCain has some voting record instead of Mr.Obama "present" voting record A crappy one for women's issues, but yes, some voting record. I'm not fond of Obama's lack of experience either to some degree. But longer serving doesn't always mean better. Yes, I read similar pieces to that Yahoo article you posted. And BTW, not only did Hillary vote for the (war) resolution, as opposed to Obama, and not apologize for it as Edwards did (I'll give her credit for sticking to her principles I suppose) , she hasn't been in a rush to get out troops and the problem is we're stuck there now in a quandry of our own making and no one can get them out without dire consequences IMO.

I'd like to see what our wonderful Democratic Congressional majority is going to do about issues such as this: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/41753.html

And one more thing, I am *not at all happy* at Obama regarding his statement of support a couple of days ago on the FISA compromise. Not sure where Clinton stands on this. Those f'ng cowardly Dems. Those people need to grow some...

And the campaign (against Obama) begins in earnest. First Obama attack book in the works By JONATHAN MARTIN | 6/23/08 12:25 AM EST The same publisher that distributed the 2004 best-seller that took aim at John Kerry�s Vietnam service is planning a summer release of what�s scheduled to be the first critical book on Barack Obama. [...con'td] http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11263.html

You know, Obama has had a free ride from criticism from the press. He will finally have a chance to put his "squash rumors" website to work. (Dorine), Like Bush has had a hard time getting anything passed the past 2 years with a Democratic majority led by our good Democratic friends Pelosi and Reid? Maybe we should work to make sure Pelosi is no longer the house majority leader? ;-) Hillary vote for the (war) resolution, Her husband had been President, and she knew that if Bill had presented something to the Congress like Bush did then, that there was a good reason for the belief of the existence of WoMD in Iraq. Hindsight is golden. Don't get me wrong, I think Bush was the worst thing that could have happened in this country. I worked hard in FL for Kerry/Edwards in the last election. But Obama is someone I don't trust.

Her husband had been President, and she knew that if Bill had presented something to the Congress like Bush did then, that there was a good reason for the belief of the existence of WoMD in Iraq. That's not a good enough answer. Plenty of people voted no. And with less information than she was probably privvy to. Wasn't she on the Senate Intelligence Committee? You can't tell me those people didn't know the truth behind the scenes. That's a gossipy town/culture. Some Dems didn't want to be perceived as soft on terror. It's been a fabulous boogeyman the R's have used to make the D's vote against their (and our) interests time and again. I don't know that I consider McCain the lesser of 2 evils. I guess I don't care what drugs O took or his sexual proclivities at this point in time, though severe character flaws could be an issue. Not sure what my breaking point would be.

LOL, Dorine, I have till Nov. to break you. ;-)

LOL, Moon. Maybe we should work to make sure Pelosi is no longer the house majority leader? ;-) That may not be a bad option.

http://www.18millionvoices.blogspot.com/ The Purpose of this site is to organize actions in Denver and Nationwide during the Democratic National Convention to support Senator Clinton, celebrate her historic achievement, and advocate for Women's Rights worldwide. Senator Clinton's historic achievement--being the first viable Woman Presidential Candidate--is a milestone for Women's Rights that will be an enduring part of the legacy of Women's Rights forever. As Women's Rights are Human Rights, Senator Clinton's legacy moves us all forward in a path toward human equality. We are 18 million voices dedicated to seeing Senator Clinton reach the next milestone: The White House. We are 18 million distinct and unique voices, coming together in one unified harmony, shouting "Rise Hillary Rise!!"

An excellent site from Dr. Lynette Long Why the DNC supported OBAMA: HTTP://WWW.LYNETTELONG.COM

I like the Lynnette Long website and her rationale. She really pointed out the hypocrisy. I mean, by what logic do you award Obama any Michigan delegats when he wasn't on the ballot? How do you give him the "undecided"? Then are you speaking out of both sides of your mouth and when you say the superdelegates should vote along the lines of the popular vote in their states (even though they were not created for that purpose), and then you have Kerry and Kennedy stating their support of Obama, while Mass went for Hillary? I particular like this part; I stand here to say, I am a token in the greatest country the world has even seen. I hereby declare, I WILL BE A TOKEN NO MORE. I am given one token seat on the nine member United States Supreme Court. I want to see five women on the court, my fair share. Not one less. I have sixteen seats in the one hundred seat United States Senate. I want fifty-two women in the Senate. Not one less. I have seventy-two seats in the four-hundred thirty-five seat House of Representatives. I want two-hundred twenty seats in the House. Not one less. I want my fair share. I do not want what is yours. I want what is mine. This is my pledge to you. I WILL BE A TOKEN NO MORE.

Glad you liked it, Karen. How about West VA going 60/40 for Hillary and Sen. Bird coming out for Obama? Ugh! In her site you can also see part of the Sinclair interview. Lynette was at the press conference in DC. How I wish the mainstream media investigated it as they should.

I didn't agree with that Michigan delegate bit either. A definite WTF? moment. And I did find that a bit suspicious. The half delegate stuff was rather ridiculous also. Honestly, I don't understand the concept of punishing states who want to move their primary date. I've not read a lot about that policy and most likely won't for quite a while.

But in Denver there will be a fight to seat every Delegate for FL and MI the way it should. Keeping fingers crossed that everything will turn out as it should. In typical Obama fashion, he bails on his new brilliant idea after one use because people respond negatively to it. The seal is arrogant. The fact that Obama is bailing on it only shows that he is the same old politics...says what people want to hear and that's it. Check out the comments after the article. Despite the fact that HRC isn't in this any more, the comments are still full of people trashing her. It's classic. Unity, hmm... They are making this easier and easier on us. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/23/obama%E2%80%99s-presidential-seal-gone-after-one-use/

This is pretty scary considering that the media is going out of their way to not just protect Obama, but correct him before others see what he's said: http://politicallydrunk.blogspot.com/2008/06/abc-news-washington-post-reports-alter.html Interesting: http://politicalcenter.newsvine.com/_news/2008/06/17/1519881-obamas-unprecedented-attack-on-free-speech-mechanisms-and-results-supplemented

Hey moon. Hilary and Obama have kissed and made up? Now, who will Obama pick for a running mate. Hillary almost seems inevitable in some ways as the running mate?

Not that anyone will read this now especially with all the excitement going on, but we have surplus people. Should the government euthanize them too? It would help stabilize the price and supply of corn since demand would decrease. Government considering euthanizing wild horses By SANDRA CHEREB and SCOTT SONNER, Associated Press Writer 47 minutes ago RENO, Nev. - Federal officials are considering euthanizing wild horses to deal with the growing population on the range and in holding facilities, authorities said Monday. Wild horses have overpopulated public lands and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management can't afford to care for the number of mustangs that have been rounded up, said Henri Bisson, the agency's deputy director. Also, fewer people are adopting the horses, he said. Monday's announcement marks the first time the agency publicly has discussed the possibility of putting surplus animals to death. The agency is also considering whether to stop roundups of wild horses to save money, a move that would be criticized by and from sheep and cattle ranchers who see the mustangs as competition for feed on the open range. "Our goal is supposed to be about healthy horses on healthy ranges. But we are at the point we need to have a conversation with people about pragmatically what can we do given the financial constraints of our program to meet the goals we have," Bisson said. There are an estimated 33,000 wild horses on the range in 10 Western states, Bisson told the organization's National Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board. About half of those are in Nevada. The agency has set a target "appropriate management level" of horses at 27,000. About another 30,000 horses are in holding facilities, where most are made available for adoption. But those deemed too old or otherwise unadoptable are sent to long-term holding facilities to live out their lives � some for 15 to 20 years. The board will consider the alternatives at its next meeting in September. Last year about $22 million of the entire horse program's $39 million budget was spent on holding horses in agency pens. Next year the costs are projected to grow to $26 million with an overall budget that is being trimmed to $37 million, Bisson said. "We have a responsibility to balance the budget, so we are going to have to make some tough choices," Bisson said. Bonnie Matton, president of the Wild Horse Preservation League, said she wasn't surprised by the agency's predicament. "They really do have a can of worms," she said. ___ On the Net: U.S. Bureau of Land Management: http://www.blm.gov

This is a great site: http://contrariancommentary.blogspot.com/ It will all come to a head in Denver. HRC must be on the roll call not just on the ballot for it to count. Of course, O and Pellosi and Co. are trying for Hillary to be only on the ballot. They make me sick. Do they even know the meaning of the word: Democracy?

Senator Barack Obama is only the *presumptive* nominee due to the Super Delegates. He does not have enough pledged delegates to win the nomination. Super Delegates, while supposedly committed to Obama, can switch their support at anytime leading up to a roll call vote at the convention. So it is not locked-down for Obama, which is why he is fighting so hard to avoid a roll call vote at the convention. Here is an interesting website put up by former Obama supporters who are disturbed at how he's has changed his positions on several important issues. http://formerobamasupporters.com/ This is where I found this video on Obama: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hP-YoB5mnZs (very disturbing)

Charles Krauthammer nails it: The Audacity of Vanity: Americans are beginning to notice Obama�s elevated opinion of himself. There�s nothing new about narcissism in politics. Every senator looks in the mirror and sees a president. Nonetheless, has there ever been a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/17/AR2008071701839.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Sad, but truthful video...from his own mouth http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRXwPqaR4OM&eurl=http://formerobamasupporters.com/2008/07/18/why-we-launched-formerobamasupporterscom/

I figure this isn't Colin news, though related...re: Abu Jamal Mumia requesting a new trial. Jailed Black Panther demands retrial 2 hours, 48 minutes ago WASHINGTON (AFP) - Black Panther-turned human rights campaigner Mumia Abu-Jamal has requested a retrial on his conviction of murdering a police officer, after his death sentence was overturned in March, his lawyer said Sunday. ADVERTISEMENT A three-member Philadelphia appeals court on March 27 voted two-to-one to overturn the former radio journalist's death sentence, while upholding his conviction for the 1981 murder of Daniel Faulkner. The court said Abu-Jamal, 54, should face a new sentencing hearing or have his sentence commuted to life in jail. Abu-Jamal, 54, has always claimed his innocence while on death row for 25 years. While in jail, he became a leading campaigner against the death penalty. In his request for a retrial, Abu-Jamal's lawyer Robert Bryan asked for a decision by a full panel of 12 judges, not a three-member court like Philadelphia's. "Even though the federal court granted a new trial on the question of the death penalty, we want a complete reversal of the conviction," he said. "If unsuccessful, we will proceed to the United States Supreme Court," Bryan added. Abu-Jamal has argued that he was denied a fair trial in 1982 because the prosecution barred 10 qualified African-Americans from sitting on the jury, which in the end consisted of 10 whites and two blacks. The Philadelphia appeals court had rejected his arguments on lack of evidence of any racist intent on the part of the prosecution. Mumia Abu-Jamal's death sentence in March was automatically commuted to life in jail, which could be overturned if he is granted a new trial. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080721/pl_afp/usjusticerights;_ylt=Am3h_jFuVf_TJlSpcTmYu2is0NUE

In his request for a retrial, Abu-Jamal's lawyer Robert Bryan asked for a decision by a full panel of 12 judges, not a three-member court like Philadelphia's. So, the rest of the country's citizens go by the established legal procedures concerning a three-judge appeal, but that shouldn't apply to him? What gall. "If unsuccessful, we will proceed to the United States Supreme Court," Bryan added. Anyone can apply to the Supremes, but it doesn't mean they'll hear the case. And I doubt they will. You have to have grounds.

Abu-Jamal has argued that he was denied a fair trial in 1982 because the prosecution barred 10 qualified African-Americans from sitting on the jury, which in the end consisted of 10 whites and two blacks. The sitting jury was actually made up of 8 whites and 4 blacks, but one was later kicked off because he/she did something and the other had been threatened in court by MAJ and a prudent person wouldn't have wanted that person to remain during deliberations. Unfortunately, the two alternates were white. Isn't that right, my experts? ;-) "If unsuccessful, we will proceed to the United States Supreme Court," Bryan added. (Mari) Anyone can apply to the Supremes, but it doesn't mean they'll hear the case. Let 'em. Like this Supreme Court is going to lean his way. That'll end it fast enough. ;-)

I don't have any faith in the Supreme Court. They gave us Bush, they also recently overturned a child rape case in favor of the rapist. I think they will take on the Mumia decision.

That's why this election is so critical. One of many reasons.

This guy could very well be the next President of the United States, but can't get an op-ed published in the NYT because it's not pro-Obama? WTF? I think we're seeing how easily communist thinking can evolve-it doesn't have to be ill intended at first, it can just come about as the result of blind adoration. It's pretty scary-we should be very concerned (as if we didn't already know that...): http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/07/21/ny-times-refuses-to-print-mccains-op-ed-while-analysts-downgrade-them/

Moon, you keep saying or implying that Obama isn't trustworthy, so you'd rather have McCain of the 2. I'm not sure where you're thinking that McCain's got a leg up on that front, or has his act together at all. And remember, I was a McCain fan 8-10 yrs ago. http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/28/165138/698/993/558351 You can click on the orange links to see source material for each item.

I have never been a fan of McCain, but I know him. Obama is a pompous self-serving man with no track record, and I don't trust him. I'm still hanging in for Hillary at the Denver convention.

What is wrong with BO: http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/07/26/what-is-wrong-with-barack-obama/

And McCain has, by reports a nasty temper, poor command of the issues at hand and a questionable track record on many issues.

I don't actually disagree that he comes off as pompous at times and narcissistic. I think anyone who runs for president or the leader of any country has a narcissitic streak or even a disorder if you will. Frankly, Clinton had it in spades. The current Bush didn't though IMO. It's not about altruism for the most part. I read about this story in the Enquirer and that no one in the mainstream press was touching it several days ago. Just wow. Apparently these people don't realize condoms are made in the 21st century. :-((( I'd like to think it's not true, but ...... http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/07/29/john-edwards-and-the-scandal-nobody-wanted/

That article makes it even more clear to me that Hillary is the one to bet on. From today's Wash Post: President Obama Continues Hectic Victory Tour By Dana Milbank Wednesday, July 30, 2008 Barack Obama has long been his party's presumptive nominee. Now he's becoming its presumptuous nominee. Fresh from his presidential-style world tour, during which foreign leaders and American generals lined up to show him affection, Obama settled down to some presidential-style business in Washington yesterday. He ordered up a teleconference with the (current president's) Treasury secretary, granted an audience to the Pakistani prime minister and had his staff arrange for the chairman of the Federal Reserve to give him a briefing. Then, he went up to Capitol Hill to be adored by House Democrats in a presidential-style pep rally. Along the way, he traveled in a bubble more insulating than the actual president's. Traffic was shut down for him as he zoomed about town in a long, presidential-style motorcade, while the public and most of the press were kept in the dark about his activities, which included a fundraiser at the Mayflower where donors paid $10,000 or more to have photos taken with him. His schedule for the day, announced Monday night, would have made Dick Cheney envious: 11:00 a.m.: En route TBA. 12:05 p.m.: En route TBA. 1:45 p.m.: En route TBA. 2:55 p.m.: En route TBA. 5:20 p.m.: En route TBA The 5:20 TBA turned out to be his adoration session with lawmakers in the Cannon Caucus Room, where even committee chairmen arrived early, as if for the State of the Union. Capitol Police cleared the halls -- just as they do for the actual president. The Secret Service hustled him in through a side door -- just as they do for the actual president. Inside, according to a witness, he told the House members, "This is the moment . . . that the world is waiting for," adding: "I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions." As he marches toward Inauguration Day (Election Day is but a milestone on that path), Obama's biggest challenger may not be Republican John McCain but rather his own hubris. Some say the supremely confident Obama -- nearly 100 days from the election, he pronounces that "the odds of us winning are very good" -- has become a president-in-waiting. But in truth, he doesn't need to wait: He has already amassed the trappings of the office, without those pesky decisions. The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder reported last week that Obama has directed his staff to begin planning for his transition to the White House, causing Republicans to howl about premature drape measuring. Obama was even feeling confident enough to give British Prime Minister Gordon Brown some management advice over the weekend. "If what you're trying to do is micromanage and solve everything, then you end up being a dilettante," he advised the prime minister, portraying his relative inexperience much as President Bush did in 2000. On his presidential-style visit to the Western Wall in Jerusalem last week, Obama left a written prayer, intercepted by an Israeli newspaper, asking God to "help me guard against pride and despair." He seems to have the despair part under control, but the pride could be a problem. One source of the confidence is the polling, which shows him with a big lead over McCain. But polls are fickle allies: A USA Today-Gallup poll released Monday found McCain leading Obama by four percentage points among likely voters. Another reason for Obama's confidence -- the press -- is also an unfaithful partner. The Project for Excellence in Journalism reported yesterday that Obama dominated the news media's attention for a seventh straight week. But there are signs that the Obama campaign's arrogance has begun to anger reporters. In the latest issue of the New Republic, Gabriel Sherman found reporters complaining that Obama's campaign was "acting like the Prom Queen" and being more secretive than Bush. The magazine quoted the New York Times' Adam Nagourney's reaction to the Obama campaign's memo attacking one of his stories: "I've never had an experience like this, with this campaign or others." Then came Obama's overseas trip and the campaign's selection of which news organizations could come aboard. Among those excluded: the New Yorker magazine, which had just published a satirical cover about Obama that offended the campaign. Even Bush hasn't tried that. But then again, Obama has been outdoing the president in ruffles and flourishes lately. As Bush held quiet signing ceremonies in the White House yesterday morning, Obama was involved in a more visible display of executive authority a block away, when he met with Pakistani Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani at the Willard. A full block of F Street was shut down for the prime minister and the would-be president, and some 40 security and motorcade vehicles filled the street. Later, Obama's aides issued an official-sounding statement, borrowing the language of White House communiques: "I had a productive and wide-ranging discussion. . . . I look forward to working with the democratically elected government of Pakistan." It had been a long day of acting presidential, but Obama wasn't done. After a few hours huddling with advisers over his vice presidential choice, Obama made his way to the pep rally on the Hill. Moments after he entered the meeting with lawmakers, there was an extended cheer, followed by another, and another. "I think this can be an incredible election," Obama said later. "I look forward to collaborating with everybody here to win the election." Win the election? Didn't he do that already?

She may be the one to bet on, but what's the realistic chance that she will/could become "the one"? It would make for a much more interesting convention, that's for sure!

Moon. It's over.

LOL, Mari, thanks A LOT! ;-D Honestly, it ain't over till Denver. This is a great site to read the latest blogs...book mark it so you can check it out daily :) It updates every day. http://readerarticles.realclearpolitics.com/?period=main

Check out the Doonesbury cartoon strip today: It's a keeper.

ROTFL!!

Good one, Moon!

Excellent! Some people get it; some people obviously don't. Anyway, I got this in the mail today from a cousin: Dear Abby, I am a crack dealer in Beaumont, Texas, who has recently been diagnosed as a carrier of HIV virus. My parents live in Fort Worth. One of my sisters lives in Pflugerville and is married to a transvestite. My father and mother have recently been arrested for growing and selling marijuana. They are financially dependent on my other two sisters, who are prostitutes in Dallas. I have two brothers: one is currently serving a life sentence at Huntsville for the murder of a teenage boy in 1994. My other brother is currently in jail awaiting charges of sexual misconduct with his three children. I have recently become engaged to marry a former prostitute who lives in Longview. She is a part time 'working girl'. All things considered, my problem is this. I love my fianc� and look forward to bringing her into the family. I certainly want to be totally open and honest with her. Should I tell her about my cousin who supports Barack Obama for President?

LOL, Karen!! Well, Moon, it seems it really is over.... Hillary Clinton asks not to be nominated at Democratic National Convention By MICHAEL SAUL and THOMAS M. DeFRANK DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS Updated Friday, August 1st 2008, 9:59 AM Petitions abound, but Hillary Clinton won't put in for a nomination, insiders say. Sakuma/AP Petitions abound, but Hillary Clinton won't put in for a nomination, insiders say. Hillary Clinton has decided against being nominated for President at the Democrats' Denver convention, but many of her more die-hard partisans may vote for her anyway. A source close to the New York senator confirmed she won't file a formal request to the convention asking to be nominated along with Barack Obama, who eked out the victory in their fierce primary slugfest. "She is not going to submit the signed request," the insider told the Daily News. "People are still circulating petitions on her behalf, but this is a done deal." Party rules stipulate that Clinton must ask in writing to be nominated herself and also submit a petition signed by 300 to 600 delegates. Without her signed request, petitions of support are meaningless. Her nomination would be window dressing because Obama's nomination is assured. But many of Clinton's most ardent boosters believe it's symbolically important to certify her glass ceiling-shattering candidacy with a formal nomination. Nevertheless, delegates can vote for whomever they want during the roll call of the states. Personally and through surrogates, Clinton has counseled her 1,886 delegates to vote for Obama. A source familiar with discussions inside the Clinton camp told The News she may release those delegates when she speaks to the convention on Aug. 26. "Depending on the dynamics, hundreds of delegates might decide to demonstrate their support and affection," a Clinton source speculated. If so, that could be read as a dis to Obama from female Democrats still bruised by Clinton's defeat and resisting her pleas for party unity. Other Clinton backers, however, worry that she could be embarrassed by a roll call because many of her delegates already have switched to Obama. "Hillary Clinton is 100% committed to helping Barack Obama become the next President of the United States and realizes there are passionate feelings that remain among many of her supporters," said Clinton spokeswoman Kathleen Strand. "No decisions have been made at this time. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/07/31/2008-07-31_hillary_clinton_asks_not_to_be_nominated.html

Hillary Plots, Eyes 2012 Bid Friday, August 1, 2008 11:40 AM By: Rick Pedraza With hopes of being chosen as Barack Obama�s vice-presidential running mate dashed, Hillary Clinton has begun the process of carving out her political future. The New York Post reports Clinton met earlier this week at a secret ladies-only dinner in Washington to discuss where she can go from here. After learning she would address the Democratic National Convention on its second night � traditionally not the night the vice presidential nominee would speak � Clinton reportedly gathered her female posse together to discuss a possible White House run in 2012. The get-together included some of the top women in Democratic politics, like California Sen. Dianne Feinstein; founder of Emily's List Ellen Malcolm; California Rep. and chair of the New Democrat Coalition Ellen Tauscher; and former Recording Industry Association of America CEO Hilary Rosen, who's now political director of the Huffington Post. "You could say Hillary met with her homegirls,� one insider tells The Post. �They're all very powerful and important women. It's highly unlikely they were plotting anything around the VP spot because Hillary knows Barack Obama isn't going to pick her. They were probably planning her future." Jay Carson, a spokesman for Clinton, did no respond to calls or e-mails from the media, however a representative for Feinstein said, "It was a personal dinner. They had a couple of glasses of California wine, but the content of the meeting is going to remain between them." � 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

So she'll win against McCain in 2012.

I'm in the middle of reading a very interesting article/deconstruction of Hillary's campaign in the June or July Vanity Fair (sorry, it's not in front of me and I got them both and are reading both simultaneously). It's written by Gail Sheehy. Very interesting and she made some observations about issues in her campaign that I stated, if not here, to some people as some of the reasons I began to have doubts about her, one in particular. Check it out. Not sure if they put articles on their website.

I'm no fan of Maureen Dowd usually, but I was amused at the comparison and must've been written for you especially, Moon. Mr. Darcy Comes Courting By MAUREEN DOWD Published: August 3, 2008 It is a truth universally acknowledged that Barack Obama must continue to grovel to Hillary Clinton�s dead-enders, some of whom mutter darkly that they will not only not vote for him, they will never vote for a man again. Obama met for an hour Tuesday with three dozen top Hillaryites at a hotel here, seeking their endorsement and beguiling their begrudging. He opened the session by saying that he knew there had been frustration about what they saw as sexism during the primary. The Los Angeles Times reported that Hillary die-hards want to enshrine a whine in the Democratic platform about how the primaries �exposed pervasive gender bias in the media� and call on party leaders to take �immediate and public steps� to denounce any perceived bias in the future. That is one nutty idea. Perhaps it is because feminists are still so busy cataloging past slights to Hillary that they have failed to mount a vivid defense of Michelle Obama, who has taken over from Hillary as the one conservatives like to paint as a harridan. Before the Obama campaign even had a chance to denounce Ludacris, one of the rappers on the senator�s iPod, Hillary Inc. started to mobilize. Susie Tompkins Buell, a former Clinton bundler, told The New York Observer that Obama had to distance himself, given Ludacris�s new song rooting for Obama to �paint the White House black� and calling Hillary the b-word. Despite Obama�s wooing, some women aren�t warming. As Carol Marin wrote in The Chicago Sun-Times, The Lanky One is like an Alice Waters organic chicken � �sleek, elegant, beautifully prepared. Too cool� � when what many working-class women are craving is mac and cheese. In The Wall Street Journal, Amy Chozick wrote that Hillary supporters � who loved their heroine�s admission that she was on Weight Watchers � were put off by Obama�s svelte, zero-body-fat figure. �He needs to put some meat on his bones,� said Diana Koenig, a 42-year-old Texas housewife. Another Clinton voter sniffed on a Yahoo message board: �I won�t vote for any beanpole guy.� The odd thing is that Obama bears a distinct resemblance to the most cherished hero in chick-lit history. The senator is a modern incarnation of the clever, haughty, reserved and fastidious Mr. Darcy. Like the leading man of Jane Austen and Bridget Jones, Obama can, as Austen wrote, draw �the attention of the room by his fine, tall person, handsome features, noble mien. ...he was looked at with great admiration for about half the evening, till his manners gave a disgust which turned the tide of his popularity; for he was discovered to be proud, to be above his company, and above being pleased.� The master of Pemberley �had yet to learn to be laught at,� and this sometimes caused �a deeper shade of hauteur� to �overspread his features.� The New Hampshire debate incident in which Obama condescendingly said, �You�re likable enough, Hillary,� was reminiscent of that early scene in �Pride and Prejudice� when Darcy coldly refuses to dance with Elizabeth Bennet, noting, �She is tolerable; but not handsome enough to tempt me.� Indeed, when Obama left a prayer to the Lord at the Western Wall in Jerusalem, a note that was snatched out and published, part of his plea was to �help me guard against pride.� If Obama is Mr. Darcy, with �his pride, his abominable pride,� then America is Elizabeth Bennet, spirited, playful, democratic, financially strained, and caught up in certain prejudices. (McCain must be cast as Wickham, the rival for Elizabeth�s affections, the engaging military scamp who casts false aspersions on Darcy�s character.) In this political version of �Pride and Prejudice,� the prejudice is racial, with only 31 percent of white voters telling The New York Times in a survey that they had a favorable opinion of Obama, compared with 83 percent of blacks. And the prejudice is visceral: many Americans, especially blue collar, still feel uneasy about the Senate�s exotic shooting star, and he is surrounded by a miasma of ill-founded and mistaken premises. So the novelistic tension of the 2008 race is this: Can Obama overcome his pride and Hyde Park hauteur and win America over? Can America overcome its prejudice to elect the first black president? And can it move past its biases to figure out if Obama�s supposed conceit is really just the protective shield and defense mechanism of someone who grew up half white and half black, a perpetual outsider whose father deserted him and whose mother, while loving, sometimes did so as well? Can Miss Bennet teach Mr. Darcy to let down his guard, be more sportive, and laugh at himself? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/opinion/03dowd.html?em

ROTF, Dorine! How dare she cast Mr Darcy black? ;-) Have you seen Obama in a suit? He is so out of place. Any man who can't wear a suit well, can't aspire to the ultimate gentleman. Ms. Dowd got it wrong. Also, McCain is not casting false aspersions on Obama's character. This is a Presidential election. She should stop drinking the koolaid and stop giving Obama a free pass to the White House, if all he has to do is be more sportive and laugh at himself.

I forgot to post that I have spoken with people close to Hillary and they denied that Hillary will ask not to placed in nomination at Denver. That's what the Obama people want. In any case we are almost at the Denver Convention next month.

Hillary Plots, Eyes 2012 Bid Absolutely nothing in that article to support that article title. People make up the the most outrageous things. Here is the Vanity Fair article, which is v. good: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/clinton200808 Patti Solis Doyle told colleagues she believes firmly that Hillary�s showing her vulnerability in New Hampshire brought out the women who saved her there. But Penn insisted she button up. Any further exposure of her human feelings would cost them white male voters. A damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Lose lose. :-( (VF, page 6) But no matter how impressive her victories in swing states like West Virginia, the super-delegates were not breaking her way. The new Democratic establishment, led by D.N.C. chairman Howard Dean and the increasingly respected Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, just didn�t want the Clinton circus back in town. I think that pretty much sums up the whys and wherefores. Despite Obama�s wooing, some women aren�t warming. As Carol Marin wrote in The Chicago Sun-Times, The Lanky One is like an Alice Waters organic chicken � �sleek, elegant, beautifully prepared. Too cool� � when what many working-class women are craving is mac and cheese. I've always like Carol Marin, a woman with conviction. She resigned the local anchor slot on our NBC affiliate because of ethical reasons. Mgt wanted them to cover more fluff than real news. Interestingly, her co-anchor eventually got another job as an anchor on the ABC affiliate, but she has bounced around.

I can't understand why Dean and Pelosi wouldn't want the Clintons back in the White House, but they sure came out against them. A documentary is coming out which shows the blatant cheating that went on in Texas with their caucus. There are two documentaries being done. This is the second one being sponsored by a couple of the PUMA groups.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8t4PKGc2Fw Now they want a full vote in Michigan and Florida; where were they then?: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080803/ap_on_el_pr/obama_delegates Mame Reilly, a Clinton Super delegate said this to me at the RBC meeting in DC: that the full delegation would be seated at the convention...just not when it would help Hillary to have the majority of the primary delegates (which she would have had if they'd seated them in full). The RBC didn't want their decision to give Hillary the majority of the delegates. Sounds so much like the Supreme Court's decision to stop the recount.

Also of note, I received an email from Maggie Williams(HRC campaign manager) today, I won't post it all just a relevant part: And although the campaign for the White House is over, there is still work to be done. We need your help calling people across the country to redesignate their 2008 general election contribution to Hillary's 2012 re-election campaign. This effort is important because it will allow Hillary to focus on the issues that matter, electing Barack Obama president and putting her energy towards building stronger majorities in November.

Hillary was here yesterday to thank her supporters and urge them to open their hearts and pocketbooks to Obama. Rumor du jour: Obama will choose Evan Bayh as his running mate. A rumor, at this point.

She was a busy bee yesterday. Bloomberg threw her a party at Gracie Mansion last night, too (not a debt fundraiser they say!). I saw that about Bayh. I have no opinion of Bayh him as I know virtually nothing of him other than his name.

Evan Bayh? How would that balance the ticket geographically? He's from Indiana, next door.

I haven't read any of this yet, but is this some of the big explosive expose you were waiting for, Moon? http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27865&s=rcme I read a few comments at this place that linked from AOL.com that alerted me to the article, kinda *interesting* people and comments. http://www.propeller.com/story/2008/08/04/exclusive-the-case-against-barack-obama-interview/?icid=100214839x1207151029x1200352715

Thanks, Dorine! Slowly but surely more exposes will be coming out. And if the Democrats won't see the light by the time Denver comes around, the Republicans will use it to their advantage. Hillary is the electable one. As for O's VP, the better ones have declined. Even Pelosi is making suggestions, LOL!

Obama rejects talk of trouble from Clinton backers By TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writer 41 minutes ago CHICAGO - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Thursday dismissed suggestions that the nominating convention could be marred by tensions between his supporters and the die-hard backers of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Obama told reporters that their staffs were working out mutually agreeable convention logistics. At the same time, Clinton was assuring her supporters in an online chat that she and Obama were "working together to make sure it's a big success." Neither directly answered questions about whether Clinton's name should be placed in nomination so that her backers could record their votes. Obama clinched the nomination after a sometimes bitter primary contest with Clinton. Amid reports that some Clinton backers hope to raise her profile at the convention or even continue to push her candidacy, Clinton and Obama were publicly trying to ease the strained relations that exist between some of their supporters. Flying home to Chicago, Obama told reporters on his campaign plane that he talked separately this week to Clinton and her husband, the former president, and that they were enthusiastic about having a smooth convention at the end of the month in Denver. "As is true in all conventions, we're still working out the mechanics, the coordination," Obama said. One such issue is whether there will be a convention roll call on Clinton's nomination, he said. "I'm letting our respective teams work out details," he said. Asked if that meant he wouldn't object to her name being placed in nomination and a vote taken, Obama said: "I didn't say that. I said that they're working it out." Clinton has not said whether she will seek a formal vote on her bid for the nomination. For the online chat on her Web site, she wrote that she and Obama will ensure Democrats are "fully unified." Clinton was expected to deliver a prime-time address to delegates on Aug. 26, the second night of the convention. With the delegate roll call planned for the next evening, Obama was set to accept the nomination with a speech on its fourth and final night. "We will ensure that the voices of everyone who participated in this historic process are respected and our party is fully unified heading into the November election," Clinton wrote. "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." Obama was asked whether allowing Clinton's name to be placed in nomination might lead to a catharsis for the party, an emotional coming together that relieves pent-up stress. "I don't think we're looking for catharsis. I think what we're looking for is energy and excitement," he said. In the Web chat, one person asked Clinton directly: "Are you truly supporting Sen. Obama and encouraging your supporters to do the same or are you just saying what you have to?" Clinton insisted she was sincerely behind Obama. Another questioner wanted to know if there was "any possibility" her name would be placed in nomination, arguing that doing so "would at least give your supporters a voice in the choice for the party's nominee." She was noncommittal. As to those avid Clinton supporters who still haven't warmed up to him and may even resent him, Obama said, "We're not talking to those people, we're talking directly to the Clinton campaign people and staff." Another participant in the Clinton chat posted a note saying he hopes Clinton becomes Obama's running mate. In her response, Clinton repeated that she will do whatever Obama asks her to do but it is his decision "and I am going to respect the privacy of that process by not discussing it." The Clintons' stance toward Obama's candidacy is being closely scrutinized as the convention nears � particularly after remarks Bill Clinton made earlier this week during a trip to Africa. Asked whether Obama was prepared to become president, the former president replied, "You can argue that nobody is ready to be president," and said he himself learned a lot in his first year on the job. The remark was widely viewed as tepid and unenthusiastic, particularly in light of Republican candidate John McCain's frequent criticism that Obama is not ready to be president. ___ Associated Press writer Devlin Barrett in Washington contributed to this report. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080807/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_obama;_ylt=ArQZV4TF7G3bbzhLaWQbMQus0NUE

I'm letting our respective teams work out details," he said. Asked if that meant he wouldn't object to her name being placed in nomination and a vote taken, Obama said: "I didn't say that. I said that they're working it out." He knows what would happen and he's not going to let it happen. He will allow Hillary to be on the ballot, but not up for roll call. It takes the roll call to make the delegates' vote count. As to those avid Clinton supporters who still haven't warmed up to him and may even resent him, Obama said, "We're not talking to those people, No you ain't. The Obama/McCain polling is not going the way it should. The DNC should be taking HRC seriously.

I was hoping you weren't away yet to see your opinion of that. :-)

I just wanted to let you know what I found out today. I talked to a friend who is good friends with one of HRC's close friends. Apparently, the DNC (Dean, Brazile) have been putting an enormous amount of pressure on HRC to let go of the roll call situation. I guess that yesterday in particular, they met with her and basically told her that she needs to let go of having her name on the ballot or essentially, they will "make sure" her career in politics is over-they will "ruin" her. I guess various officials have been telling the media things to imply that the Clintons are demanding things when in fact, all HRC wanted was her name on the ballot. These officials have been spinning this to the media in an effort to make her look bad. Lastly, my friend said that HRC is really upset about the whole situation and if she was mad before, she's furious now. However, she is essentially being strong armed and that is rendering her powerless. We can say that she should just give the party the finger and walk, bu the reality is that this is politics and it doesn't work like that. If party officials want to destroy her, they will. They already managed to take the nomination from her despite the fact that she has the popular vote, so the idea that the will of the people would prevail if they attempted to ruin her is naive and idealistic. I want HRC to stay in politics and I want her to do whatever she has to do in order to do so. That does not, however, mean that I have to follow suit or frankly, that she even wants me to (that I can't confirm or deny). Regardless, I just wanted to you to know what I was told... Proof of how against the wall they have HRC-today on POTUS 08, they were talking about how "bad" the Clintons are and that they better start campaigning for Obama instead of whining and complaining and that in the end, if they didn't get on board, the people would punish them for it. "They just need to realize that this party isn't theirs anymore, it's Obama's." They guy went on for another minute about how rotten it was for the Clinton's to not be out helping Obama and that if they waited until the end to help and he lost, people would never forgive them for it and blah, blah, blah. I wanted to call the guy and ask him how he could say all that when at the very minute that he was making the comments, HRC was in Nevada campaigning for Obama. It's so frustrating--so very infuriating. Even though she's done everything she's "supposed to do", they still manage to fault her. See the big picture before you jump on the bandwagon that she on any level, wants to be in this situation. Imagine how much they wo ld be tearing her limb from limb if she were doing anything less than what she's done thus far. Be mad, but don't be upset with her.

See the big picture before you jump on the bandwagon that she on any level, wants to be in this situation. Imagine how much they would be tearing her limb from limb if she were doing anything less than what she's done thus far. Be mad, but don't be upset with her. I'm unclear who here expressed being upset with her over any such thing. Or was that a general plea to the Democratic universe not to be upset with her and not directed at anyone here? Proof of how against the wall they have HRC-today on POTUS 08, they were talking about how "bad" the Clintons are and that they better start campaigning for Obama instead of whining and complaining and that in the end, if they didn't get on board, the people would punish them for it I don't know what POTUS O8 is, though I do know what the acronym stands for. Was all this talk before or after the news today, or was it last night?, that Bill is speaking at the convention and Hillary is campaigning for Obama while he essentially takes a break? Seems the Dems finally learned something from the Republicans about dealings in their own party. And looks like that Edwards story I posted about a week and a half ago turned out to be true, with the part about the baby pending tests. Moon, you were a big supporter of Edwards last election as I recall. He was more or less my pick this time. I can't feel worse for Elizabeth.

This is for Moon when she's back. Click on the orange highlighted "said that" to read the whole piece about McCain's comments. Guess you can't fault him for being honest. He's only human. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/9/44713/79788/254/565216

Wasn't it GM who had an electric car before and then recalled and destroyed them? It was in the film, Who Killed the Electric Car, whatever brand it was. Good film. Over 33,000 buyers signed up for GM electric car By Kevin Krolicki Tue Aug 12, 6:03 PM ET DETROIT (Reuters) - In a bid to show the demand for the upcoming all-electric Chevrolet Volt, a proponent of the car has released details of an unofficial waiting list for the vehicle with over 33,000 prospective buyers. Lyle Dennis, a New York neurologist who has emerged as a prominent enthusiast for the battery-powered car from General Motors Corp (GM.N), has been assembling a list of prospective Volt buyers for over a year through his Web site GM-Volt.com. On Tuesday, Dennis released details gleaned from the list showing that 33,411 people had signed up to show their intent to buy a Volt when the rechargeable car is released in 2010. The list shows the highest number of potential Volt buyers in California, Texas, Florida and Michigan. It also includes potential buyers from 46 countries outside the United States. The average price buyers were willing to pay for the car was $31,261 -- substantially less than the $40,000 GM has said it will cost to build the first-generation of the car equipped with a massive lithium-ion battery pack. GM has been racing to finish development of the Volt in time for the planned launch as the centerpiece of its effort to break a costly association with gas-guzzling vehicles at a time when truck sales are tumbling and gas prices remain high. Like most automakers, GM typically keeps its vehicle development programs under tight wraps and shuns publicity. But with the Volt, GM has taken the opposite approach, actively consulting enthusiasts like Dennis and featuring the concept version of the Volt in high-profile advertising, including a television spot broadcast during the Olympics. Dennis, who organized a meeting between enthusiasts called the "Volt Nation" and GM executives at the New York Auto Show earlier this year, said he was motivated by a desire to show the Detroit-based automaker that the Volt would have a wide base of buyers from the start. "If everyone who wanted a Volt could get one, that would be the dream," said Dennis. GM, which does not expect to make money on the first-generation of the Volt, has said it will ramp up output slowly when production of the plug-in hybrid starts at a Hamtramck, Michigan plant. A GM spokesman said that the automaker expected an initial shortage for the Volt, similar to the shortages for other hot-selling recent models. "I don't know if there is any other vehicle or any other technology that has generated this kind of interest because of the state of the market and gas prices," said GM spokesman Dave Darovitz. "We know the demand is going to be there." Darovitz declined to discuss pricing for the Volt GM showed off a concept version of the Volt in January 2007 but has retooled the look of the vehicle significantly since then, in part in order to improve its aerodynamics, representatives of the automaker have said. GM is designing the Volt to run for 40 miles on a lithium-ion battery pack that can be recharged at a standard outlet. The Volt will also capture energy from braking, like a traditional hybrid, and feature an on-board engine that will be used to send power to the battery on longer trips. GM is racing Toyota Motor Corp (7203.T) to bring the first mass-market, plug-in car to the marketplace. (Editing by Phil Berlowitz) http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080812/tc_nm/volt_list_dc;_ylt=An2paGa7sH0TUbSJ37zh2M.s0NUE

Well, Moon, you got what you wanted at the convention....a roll call for Hillary. Now what?