Suspension

Well, Folks, I have decided to suspend this blog until at least after the Democratic Primary. My mental health needs it. I am sorry for those who appreciate it. Two blogs were too much while also trying to write my second book and raise a family.

I will be resuming blogging at my other blog, Levellers, this weekend, but will try to keep that to once a week. I was just too much in danger of becoming another angry white man--this time on the Left. I have not dropped out of political participation (will be phone banking for Obama on Sunday p.m.), but I found myself too stressed to keep doing what I was doing.

Good bye for now, gentle folk.

Mental Health Break

I am taking a blogging holiday in order to regain my lost mental equilibrium. I am currently too close to things emotionally.

Alert to the Right: Michelle Obama Has Always Loved This Country

The Right has tried to take Michelle Obama's remark the other day that "for the first time in [her] adult life" she was "really proud of [her] country" and make it a charge that she is not patriotic. (John McCain had Cindy declare repeatedly her pride in this nation.) The context showed that Michelle Obama was speaking of the engagement of long apathetic voters, the desire for change, the work to make a better nation and world. And, although the off the cuff wording was an unfortunate gaffe in an election, God knows I've been deeply embarrassed by my country these last years (invading Iraq, killing civilians, Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, waterboarding, Plamegate, etc., etc.).

But here's Michelle Obama in Rhode Island, today, explaining the remark. Take that, Bill O'Reilly.

Anti-Hillary Sentiment Rising Among Leading Feminists

Feminists for Peace created a petition one week before Super-Tuesday to counter the NY chapter of NOW's claim that support for Obama was a betrayal of feminism and women. It had a 100 signers originally. It now has over 1,000. See the update here.

Obama's Accomplishments: Partial List

Last night, Chris Matthews completely humiliated a Texas State Senator who backs Obama because the poor sap couldn't name even one legislative accomplishment by Obama. The Clinton campaign is already running with this in Ohio (Does she now forgive Matthews for his sexist remarks?). The Texas pol's idiocy will be used to help reinforce the stupid line that says that Obama is all talk and no substance. So, here's a partial list of his accomplishments to counter that--use it widely with any folks you know--especially in Texas and Ohio and Pennsylvania.

First, let's remember that the U.S. seldom elects Senators to become president (although with only McCain, Clinton, and Obama left as viable candidates, we will this time). The last time was with JFK who also had not been in the U.S. Senate long. LBJ doesn't count because he was VP first--as was Gore who was robbed of his presidency. The kind of personality who does well as President, an executive personality, is not the same kind who does well as a longtime legislator. Clinton and McCain are both legislators. McCain's problems with the Rightwing of the GOP stem from his working with Dems to get legislation accomplished. Clinton is also an accomplished legislator who likes the give and take tradeoffs of the Senate--but which make you look like a flip-flopper as a presidential candidate. Obama's brevity in the Senate (and John Edwards' if he had become the nominee) actually makes him a better presidential candidate.

But here's the partial accomplishment list:

• Graduated the first black president of the Harvard Law Review.
• Passed over 600 high money law firm offers to return to work as a community organizer in Chicago and to become a civil rights attorney at a fraction of the pay the big money law firms offered.
• In Illinois State Senate, added health insurance for 20, 000 children, got welfare reforms that reversed some of the damage of the Clinton-Gingrich era, increased earned income tax credits for low income families, and increased the minimum wage.
• Reformed the broken Illinois death penalty system. Required that all interrogations be video recorded so that coerced confessions would be thrown out. Passed Illinois Senate 58-0. Signed by GOP Gov. who rejected first version of the bill. Obama won by building public support (bottom up change) and consensus with conservative opponents.
• Opposed invasion of Iraq nearly a year before invasion--taking a risky position as a candidate for U.S. Senate. Correctly predicted that the reasons for the invasion (WMDs, links to 9/11, etc.) would be revealed as bogus. Also predicted that the invasion would be of undetermined length (5 years and counting), undetermined cost (billions already), undetermined/shifting objectives (mission creep), with likelihood of civil war. All this was accurate, but against the common talking points of the day.
• Along with GOP Sen. Richard Lugar, Obama expanded the program to locate and dismantle stray nukes and other WMD from old Soviet Union--making it much less likely that terrorists could obtain them.
• Along with Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), worked to pass the toughest ethics reform in Congressional history, insisting on tougher restrictions around gifts and meals. Extended the interval between time when exiting members of Congress can turn around and become lobbyists.
• Toured Kuwait, Jordan, Israel and Palestinian territories on fact-finding mission. Met with Hamas leaders and told them that U.S. would never recognize them until they renounced their mission to attack Israel.
• Co-sponsored comprehensive immigration reform bill with Sen. McCain and Sen. Kennedy--the bill that the far Right has forced McCain to abandon. Passed Senate 62-36 but died in the House.
• Unveiled anti-global warming plan before Detroit automakers: told auto executives that they would need, at minimum, to increase fuel efficiency 3% across the board per year while also producing affordable flex-fuel, hybrid, and electric vehicles quickly.
• Many aisle-crossing bi-partisan solutions in 8 years of Illinois Senate and 2 years in U.S. Senate.
• 100% approval rating from League of Conservation Voters, Planned Parenthood, NARAL. National Education Association gives him an "A" on most recent report card.
• Sponsored 780 bills in Illinois Senate--280 became law during time of GOP dominated Illinois House and GOP Governor.
• In 1st year as U.S. Senator, held 39 town hall meetings across Illinois, sponsored 152 bills and resolutions, co-sponsored 427 more.
• Voted against Kyle-Lieberman bill that seemed to give Bush permission to attack Iran--Clinton voted for it.
• Voted for the new bill outlawing waterboarding as torture. McCain, reversing himself, voted against it and has now urged Bush to veto it. Clinton skipped the vote.
• Stopped campaigning to help Sen. Dodd in first filibuster against the illegal wiretapping bill that would have given immunity to telecoms.
• Designated U.S. Senate point person on ethics reform by Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid.

McCain Says, "No, You Can't!'

McCain: Like Hope, But Different

Texas Papers Endorse Obama

Sen. Hillary Clinton is hoping that victories in the delegate rich states of Ohio and Texas on March 4th (when Vermont and Rhode Island also have primaries) will stop Obama's momentum and return her to frontrunner status. She is ahead in polls in both states, though Obama is gaining (and may gain more after tomorrow's races in Hawai'i, Washington State (50% of Washington's delegates were decided in a caucus, the other half will be decided in this primary), and Wisconsin--when Obama can actually campaign in Ohio and Texas).

Now, Obama has won the endorsement of the 7 largest newspapers in Texas: The Fort Worth Star-Telegram says that "Obama is smart and experienced in working directly with low- and middle-class Americans to better their lives, and he brings a message of hope that the country needs in this moment. " The Houston Chronicle says, "Obama vows to reach out to independents and Republicans with a message of inclusion and cooperation. He offers a historic opportunity to elevate national political dialogue to a higher ground." The Dallas Morning-News explains, "Mr. Obama is our choice because of his consistently solid judgment, poise under pressure and ability to campaign effectively without resorting to the divisive politics of the past."

He also won the endorsement of the Corpus Christi Caller-Times, the San Antonio Express-News, the Austin American-Statesman, the El Paso Times, and the influential Texas progressive blog, The Burnt Orange Report.

Tomorrow, as Hawai'i and Washington and Wisconsin vote, Obama will hold rallies in San Antonio and Houston.

Yesterday, Obama campaigned in Youngstown, OH. Ohio's largest paper has endorsed Obama and yesterday he picked up the endorsement of the Ohio State Treasurer. He has more ground to make up in Ohio than Texas, but labor is beginning to go his way and that could spell big trouble for Sen. Clinton (especially if John Edwards endorses him and campaigns in Ohio).

Updates

I've again been offline while ill. Meanwhile many things have happened--some good, some bad. Good things include Obama's win of Maine, the Senate's anti-torture bill, and the House Dems refusing to cave on telecom immunity for illegal spying. Bad things include Andrew Horne's exit from the Democratic primary--our best chance to Ditch Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Senate Dems caving on telecom immunity, and open defense of torture by a sitting Supreme Court Justice (Scalia--surely an impeachable offense?).

I'll try to catch up and keep up, now that I am well.

Obama Sweeps 3 States & a Territory

This week Obama picked up endorsements from Iowa Gov. Culver (D-IA) (He tried to stay neutral while Iowa was front and center, but had some family members involved in the Clinton campaign and others in the John Edwards campaign. Hey, it's another superdelegate for Obama, anyway.), Washington State's Gov., Chris Gregoire (D-WA) and Rep. John Yarmuth (D-3rd-KY). He also picked up the endorsement of Ohio's largest newspaper, The Cleveland Plain Dealer--which is also the hometown newspaper of Cleveland, the most heavily Democratic city in the swing state of Ohio. 141 delegates are at stake in Ohio on March 4th.

Today, he won the Louisiana Primary (57% to Clinton's 36%), and Nebraska (68% to Clinton's 32%) and Washington State Caucuses (68% to Clinton's 31%). He also won the primary in the U.S. Virgin Islands so strongly that he will pick up all 3 of its delegates (whereas on Tues. Clinton won American Samoa, the only other non-state territory to have yet voted, in a way that split their delegates--2 for Clinton and 1 for Obama).

This brings Obama ahead in the delegate count:

Prior to tonight (pledged delegates only): Obama: 910 : Clinton: 882 (2, 025 needed to win)

The math for tonight suggests the following new totals:

Louisiana delegate projection: Obama: 32; Clinton: 24

Nebraska delegate projection: Obama: 16; Clinton: 8

Washington (State) delegate projection: Obama: 52; Clinton: 26

U.S. Virgin Islands delegate projection: Obama: 3; Clinton: 0

If these projections hold up, this gives us a new total of Obama: 1,013; Clinton: 940.

When one counts the superdelegates, Clinton regains the lead, though not by terribly much. And superdelegates can change their minds--the majority of them haven't decided for anyone and DNC Chair Howard Dean will put pressure on the superdelegates not to override the choice of the voters. However, it remains unclear whether either candidate can win the 2, 025 necessary for nomination if they keep dividing fairly evenly in the big states.

A movement has arisen to count the delegates from Michigan and Florida (stripped of their delegates by the DNC for moving up their primaries too early), not by simply seating them as Clinton wants (hers was the only name on Michigan's ballot and since candidates pledged not to campaign in these states, her greater name recognition led her to win both MI and FL--which is why she wants them to count), but by having them hold caucuses, instead, in early April--prior to Pennsylvania's 22 April primary. I think that makes sense. I never agreed with stripping these crucial states of their delegates, but would like fair contests for them. I think Obama has a better shot at winning a caucus in MI, but FL Dems tend to be more conservative, so he would have to work hard to keep her from winning by more than 55%. It does help that he does better with caucuses, because of the better ground game--an area where Clinton was expected to excel.

Tomorrow: Maine, which I hope will be another Obama victory.

Yes, we can!

Frank Schaeffer on Being a Pro-Life Obama Supporter

First, let me say that I am a strong defender of the legality of Roe v. Wade. I think decisions about abortions should be made by a woman, her doctor, with family and spiritual input. But I used to be on the other side of the issue, so I understand, as many liberals do not, how those who are against abortion rights think. Most of them are NOT trying to oppress women, but trying to defend those they see as the most defenseless of all--unborn children (and they don't see fetuses as simply potential children).

I also want to reinforce Sen. Obama's pro-choice credentials. He got perfect ratings from the National Abortion Rights Action League and from the National Organization for Women on this issue in both the Illinois State Senate and the U.S. Senate. But I think we should show the following article, reprinted from The Huffington Post, to our conservative friends who are against abortion. I think it is very compelling. It is written by one of the founders of the conservative pro-life movement, Frank Schaeffer.
____


Why I'm Pro-life and Pro-Obama

I am an Obama supporter. I am also pro-life. In fact, without my family's involvement in the pro-life movement it would not exist as we know it. Evangelicals weren't politicized until after my late father and evangelical leader Francis Schaeffer, Dr. Koop (Reagan's soon-to-be Surgeon General) and I stirred them up over the issue of abortion in the mid-1970s. Our Whatever Happened to the Human Race? book, movie series and seminars brought the evangelicals into the pro-life movement.

(Dad's political influence persists. Last week one of my father's followers -- Mike Huckabee -- was interviewed by Katie Couric, along with all the other presidential candidates. Couric asked the candidates if they were to be sent to a desert island and could only take one book besides the Bible, what would that that book be? Huckabee answered that he'd take my father's book Whatever Happened To The Human Race?)

Fast forward...
In 2000, we elected a president who claimed he believed God created the earth and who, as president, put car manufacturers and oil company's interests ahead of caring for that creation. We elected a pro-life Republican Congress that did nothing to actually care for pregnant women and babies. And they took their sincere evangelical followers for granted, and played them for suckers.

The so-called evangelical leadership -- Dobson, Robertson et al. also played the pro-life community for suckers. While thousands of men and women in the crisis pregnancy movement gave of themselves to help women and babies, their evangelical "leaders" did little more than cash in on fundraising opportunities and represent themselves as power-brokers to the craven politicians willing to kowtow to them.

Fast forward...
Today when I listen to Obama speak (and to his remarkable wife, Michelle) what I hear is a world view that actually nurtures life. Obama is trying to lead this country to a place where the intrinsic worth of each individual is celebrated. A leader who believes in hope, the future, trying to save our planet and providing a just and good life for everyone is someone who is actually pro-life.

Conversely the "pro-life" ethic of George W. Bush manifested itself in a series of squandered opportunities to call us to our better natures. After 9/11, Bush told most Americans to go shopping while saddling the few who volunteered for military service with endless tours of duty (something I know a little about since my son was a Marine and deployed several times). The Bush doctrine of life was expressed by starting an unnecessary war in Iraq that has killed thousands of Americans and wounded tens of thousands more.

The society that Obama is calling us to sacrifice for is a place wherein life would be valued not just talked about. As he said in his speech delivered on February 6 in New Orleans, "Too often, we lose our sense of common destiny; that understanding that we are all tied together; that when a woman has less than nothing in this country, that makes us all poorer." Obama was talking about the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, but his words also apply to our overall view of ourselves.

Regardless of the official position of the Supreme Court on abortion, a country in which all Americans are offered some sort of dignity and hopeful future would be a place conducive to the kind of optimism each of us must hold in our hearts if we are to welcome children into this world. But if our highest aspiration is to be a consumer with no thought or care for our neighbor, we will remain a culture in which abortion is not only inevitable but logical.What we need in America is a spiritual rebirth, a turning away from the false value of consumerism and utilitarianism that have trumped every aspect of human life. To implement this vision we need leaders that inspire but to do so they have to be what they say they are. It's not about policy it's about character.
Obama's rivals for the nomination -- the Clintons -- do not inspire. When the Clintons were in the White House they talked about humane values while Bill Clinton betrayed every single person who voted for him by carrying on an unseemly sexual dalliance in the Oval Office with a young woman barely out of her teens. Since that time the Clintons have enriched themselves through their connections to a point where they're able to make a $5 million personal loan to their campaign. For someone who says she has spent "the last 35 years of my life as an advocate for children" and/or "fighting for healthcare" that's a lot of money to have collected through doing good works. Presidential Mother Teresa wannabes shouldn't be doing deals with uranium mining outfits in Kazakhstan while schmoozing with the likes of President Nursultan Nazarbayev and wealthy mining magnates -- not if they want the moral authority to lead.

Similarly the Republicans have also been hypocrites while talking big, for instance about their pro-life ethic. But what have they achieved? First, through their puritanical war on sex education they've hindered our country from actually preventing unwanted pregnancy. Second, through the Republican Party's marriage to the greediest and most polluting earth-destroying corporations they've created a climate (both moral and physical) that has scorched the earth for-profit, with no regard to future generations whatsoever. The Republicans are to the pro-life movement what the Clintons are to selfless public service.

The real solution to abortion is to change the heart of America, not the law. We need to stop seeing ourselves as consumers. We need to stop seeing ourselves as me and begin to think of we. Our country needs someone to show us a better way, a president who is what he seems, someone with actual moral authority that our diverse population can believe in who has the qualities that make us want to follow him. Obama is that person.

Frank Schaeffer is a writer and author of CRAZY FOR GOD -- How I Grew Up As One Of The Elect, Helped Found The Religious Right, And Lived To Take All (Or Almost All) Of It Back

McCain: Less Jobs, More Wars

5 Reasons Hillary Should Be Worried

From The Politico comes this excellent article by Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen.

Highlights on the 5 reasons:

1. She lost the delegate derby. Pure and simple, this is a war to win delegates, one that might not be decided until this summer’s Democratic convention. And when the smoke cleared this morning, it appeared that Barack Obama had ended up with slightly more delegates in the 22 states. Obama’s campaign says the senator finished ahead by 14 delegates. With results still coming in, Clinton’s campaign says the candidates finished within five or six delegates of each other. Either way, Super Tuesday was essentially a draw. Clinton may still hold the edge overall, but Obama is closing in rapidly.
2. She essentially tied Obama in the popular vote. (My note: At last count, Clinton appeared to have a VERY slight lead, here.) Each won just over 7.3 million votes, a level of parity that was unthinkable as recently as a few weeks ago. At the time, national polls showed Clinton with a commanding lead — in some cases, by 10 points or more. That dominance is now gone. One reason is that polls and primary results reveal that the more voters get to know Obama, the more they seem to like him. This is especially troubling for Clinton since the schedule slows dramatically now and a full month will pass before the next big-state showdown. All of this allows candidates ample time to introduce themselves to voters in each state — which plays to Obama’s core strengths.
3. She lost more states. Obama carried 14 states, six more than Clinton, and showed appeal in every geographical region. His win in bellwether Missouri was impressive by nearly every measure, marked by victories among men and women, secular and churchgoing voters, and urban and suburban voters. (My note: If Obama squeaks out a win today in NM--we may not know until tonight sometime--it will show he can win in a heavily Latino state--even more than CO--where the popular Latino Gov. "all but" endorsed Clinton.
4. She lost the January cash war. Money chases momentum, so Obama crushing’s 2-to-1 fundraising victory last month is revealing. He raised more than $31 million; Clinton raised less than $14 million. The implication is hard to ignore: Democratic activists and donors are flocking to Obama at a pace that could have a profound effect on the race going forward.
5. The calendar is her enemy. Now that more than half the states have weighed in, there is a fairly predictable formula for determining who is most likely to win the upcoming contests. In caucus states, Obama’s organizational strength shines: He has won seven of eight. Up next are three more caucus states, Washington, Nebraska and Maine. Obama also runs tremendously well in states with large African-American populations, another promising sign since next Tuesday’s three primaries are in the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia — all of which have significant percentages of black voters. Then comes another caucus state, Hawaii, where Obama is viewed as a native son. The bottom line is that it figures to be another month before Clinton hits a stretch of states — places like Ohio and Pennsylvania — where she will be strongly favored to win. So it couldn’t be any clearer as to why the supposedly inevitable candidacy is anything but — even when she’s supposedly winning.

I would add that Obama has time to eat away at her Ohio and PA leads and to win big in TX in March. Also, even if the media keep spinning last night in Clinton's favor, it will count in the popular mind as one win. Obama has many chances to win during the rest of the month. The Clinton spin that they "stopped the Obama momentum" ain't true. They just slowed it down. Her desire for a series of new debates with him shows how desperate she is for free air time.

Obama's Super Tuesday: Jack & Jill's View

Here is an excellent analysis of the results from Jack and Jill Politics.

Obama's Super Tuesday - The Morning After

Less than one year ago, when he announced, Barack Obama was a sitting United States Senator of about 2 years.

Hillary Clinton was INEVITABLE.

And February 5th was to be her coronation.

Skeptical Brotha would say, with reference to the Clinton candidacy, that ' Resistance Is Futile'. I told him, way back then, it might be futile, but some fights, you just gotta take.

On February 5, 2008, Barack Obama took on the most formidable political machine in Democratic Party Politics, and beat it in 13 out of the 22 contests.(Might be 14, but the vote isn't totally in from New Mexico)

He began with absolutely NOTHING in February 2007, and was able, in about a year, to put together a grassroots campaign nationally that not only is self-financing, but also gets out the vote.

A Black man won Alabama and Georgia.

A Black man won states like Utah, Idaho, North Dakota, that only see Black folk on tv and in the movies.

Look at the list of his victories:
Obama has won the following states:
Alaska
Utah
Colorado
Idaho
Minnesota
Connecticut
Kansas
North Dakota
Alabama
Delaware
Missouri
Illinois
Georgia

As for those states he lost:
Two weeks ago, Hillary was leading in MA by 37 points, Obama lost to her by 15 points. He erased a 22% deficit in less than two weeks. In NY, she was ahead by 28% on January 26th, but she ended up beating him by 14%, cutting her lead in half. Same thing in New Jersey - he lost, but not by what he was down two weeks.
He is a strong national candidate, as of this morning.

I agree with Angry Independent that we, will have to make the case for Obama, for those that support him, so I will bring up points that out alert readers have made:
Coming out of South Carolina, Obama was close to being branded the ' Black Candidate', due to the Dogwhistle Race Baiting of the Clintons. And, while the Kennedy Endorsement didn't 'deliver' Massachusetts, Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Journal Constitution made a brilliant observation:
The Kennedy Endorsement stopped, dead in its tracks, the 'Ghettoization' of Obama. And, indeed, it did.Super Tuesday helped put the nail in the coffin about Obama being ' The Black Candidate'. It was very convenient for the MSM, as they went along with The Clintons to try and press the narrative, even after Obama won in 90%+ White Iowa, and came within 2 points in 90%+ New Hampshire, and won Rural Nevada.But, winning in Alaska, Utah, Idaho and North Dakota, will put that ' Black Candidate' mess to bed.

The ' Hispanics won't vote for a Black Candidate' Memo. It's a blanket statement, and it's not true universally. It depends upon THE STATE, and that is encouraging too.

Would WHITE MEN who chose John Edwards, give Obama a shake? The answer, seems to be a YES, even in the Deep South.

Could Obama win in the 'Heartland', and the victories in Kansas and Missouri say YES.

Obama won more states and more delegates (excluding super delegates). Senator Clinton only exceeded 60% in one state, TN,while Senator Obama exceeded 60% in at least six states. Senator Obama did NOT lose any state that he was expected to win, but he did pick up states, namely CT. In fact, he was still polling behind her in AL up until yesterday.Clinton didn't crack 60% in her own state.I don't think it's insignificant that Senator Obama made history yesterday by becoming the first African American to win state-wide in several states, including MO.Obama made considerable gains among White men and women, solidified his base, made slight in roads with Latinos, but Clinton only held her base.

On the delegate front, here's the news this morning:
The Obama camp projects topping Clinton by nine delegates, 845 to 836.NBC News, which is projecting delegates based on the Democratic Party's complex formula, figures Obama will wind up with 840 to 849 delegates, versus 829 to 838 for Clinton.

IT IS A RACE NOW, folks.Super Tuesday was supposed to break Barack Obama, and it didn't.

Super Tuesday was supposed to show that he wasn't ready for the big stage, and it didn't.

Super Tuesday was supposed to send Obama packing back to Illinois, and it didn't.

He won more states.
He won more diversity of states.
He won more delegates.

YES.WE.CAN.

Clinton Wins "Big" States; Obama Wins More States; Delegate Count Close

Well, while last night was not as good as I hoped it would be for Barack Obama, it was about as good as could reasonably be expected given that a week ago Clinton still had a 20 point lead nationally and commanding leads in most of the primary and caucus states up for grabs, yesterday. Given the short time frame since his SC win, Obama did very, very well. I would like to have seen him pick up MA and AZ (never really believing he had a chance for a complete win in CA), but am otherwise very content. Had there been 2 weeks between SC and "Super Tuesday," instead of one week, I am convinced that last night would have been very bad for Sen. Clinton, instead of this near-draw. Remember, this crazy schedule was partly influenced by the Clintons who had planned to end the primary season early. Until Obama's surprise win in Iowa last month, Clinton believed she would have sewn up the nomination on 05 February. She hasn't and Obama is in great shape to win the races that follow (except, possibly, PA, where she has a tremendous following).

• Obama won all 7 of the caucus states.
• Obama won most of the "red" states which usually vote Republican, but could possibly flip Democratic in the Fall if he is the nominee.
• Obama made gains among Latinos, though Clinton still has an advantage among them. (At least this should end the stupid media claim that "Latinos won't vote for a black man!")
• Obama made large gains among Clinton's key strength--women, especially white women.
• Obama won more white males, especially in the South, so some real racial progress has been made.
• The Obama campaign claims it won more delegates, but I think the final results are not yet in for delegate count. It seems fairly close. (Obama claims it is 847 to 834, not counting unpledged superdelegates.) ABC News' delegate counter claims Clinton now leads with 872 to Obama's 793. Even if ABC is right, that's only a 79 delegate lead for Clinton which can erased later this month.

State by State results:

AL: Obama ; Huckabee wins for GOP

AK: Obama; Romney for GOP

AR: Clinton; Huckabee for GOP. Note: Clinton was 1st Lady of Arkansas before she was U.S. First Lady and Huckabee followed Bill Clinton as Arkansas governor. So, this was locked up for both.

AZ: Clinton; McCain for GOP. This was a slight disappointment since it looked like Obama had a real chance here (and it was close). Gov. Janet Napolitano (D), who is very popular, endorsed Obama and is on his shortlist for VP. This is McCain's home state, of course. Notice that Clinton and Obama split the Latino vote here fairly evenly.

CA: Clinton; McCain for GOP. The final delegate split in CA will be interesting.

CO: Obama; Romney for GOP. Obama won the Latino vote here. Denver, CO will host the '08 Democratic Convention.

CT: Obama; McCain for GOP. This was a big win for Obama since CT is New York's "backyard," and since Clinton is a favorite daughter from her years in Yale Law School.

DE: Obama; McCain for GOP.

GA: Obama; Huckabee for GOP.

ID: Obama; No GOP race. Another red state victory for Obama, but it is doubtful that ANY Democratic candidate can carry Idaho in the general election.

IL: Obama; McCain for GOP. This was Obama's home turf, but Clinton grew up here and hoped to make inroads (and failed). 153 delegates were at stake.

KS: Obama; No GOP race yesterday. Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D), an Obama supporter, will probably be on his shortlist for running mates.

MA: Clinton; Romney for GOP. This was my big disappointment. I knew Clinton had enjoyed a huge lead, but I thought with Gov. Deval Patrick (D), and both of MA's senators (Kennedy and Kerry) backing Obama, he might pull off a win. Hard to beat the clock. Clinton, naturally, is crowing over this one, saying that she "beat the Kennedys" in there own backyard.

MN: Obama; Romney for GOP. Recent polls had shown a 6% lead for Clinton, so this was a good win. MN is a strong peace state and I think the MoveOn.org endorsement may have helped Obama put this one over the top.

MO: Obama; McCain for GOP. This was a squeaker and the AP wire service and some TV networks originally called this for Clinton! This will be a key battleground in the gen. election: Missouri has voted with the presidential winner every time since Harry Truman in '48! It is a "middle" middle America. I think Obama can take McCain here, but can Clinton?

MT: No Dem. race, yesterday; Romney for GOP.

ND: Obama; Romney for GOP.

NJ: Clinton; McCain for GOP. Too many people were surprised at this result. Yes, recent polls had shown it to be competitive, but when Obama flew in for a last minute campaign stop this weekend, he received a far smaller crowd than everywhere else, which I thought was a telling sign. NJ seldom votes for a different candidate than NY and is in the same TV broadcast areas.

NM: Still too close to call! This would be a significant victory for Obama: Heavy Latino population and Gov. Richardson (D) (himself a former presidential candidate) seemed to "all but" endorse Clinton by watching the Superbowl Sunday with fmr. Pres. Bill Clinton. No GOP race yesterday.

NY: Clinton; McCain for GOP. Since Clinton is Sen. from NY, there was little doubt she would win. I will be interested to see if Obama managed to win NYC (as seemed possible) and poach a number of delegates from her.

OK: Clinton; McCain for GOP. Clinton had a big lead here and Obama didn't have time to campaign here.

TN: Clinton; Huckabee for GOP.

UT: Obama; Romney for GOP.

WV: No Dem. race yesterday; Huckabee for GOP.

American Samoa: Clinton; No GOP race here yesterday.

No results found, yet for Democrats Abroad.

Next up:

Saturday 09 Feb. : Louisiana (primary; 56 delegates at stake; Obama favored to win); Nebraska (caucus, 24 del.; Obama favored to win); Washington state (caucus; 78 dels; Clinton favored since Gov. Christine Gregoire, and Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell have all backed her. But Washington is a fairly liberal state with a strong peace contingency, so Obama may be able to pull this one out with a good ground game.); U.S. Virgin Islands (primary; 3 del.; I don't know who to favor here: Clinton has an advantage in U.S. territories because of name recognition--they are mostly too far away for the candidates to campaign in person. But the Virgin Islands have a large black population, so we'll see.)

Sunday 10 Feb.: Maine (caucus, 24 del.; Is Maine like New Hampshire?)

Tuesday 12 Feb.: District of Columbia (primary, 15 del.; Obama favored to win); Maryland (primary, 70 del.; Obama favored to win); Virginia (primary, 83 del.; Obama favored to win).

Tuesday 19 Feb.: Hawaii (caucus, 20 del.; I have no idea who is favored); Wisconsin (primary, 74 del., Obama favored to win)

Clinton is counting on the large states of Ohio and Texas in March and Pennsylvania in April, but Obama now has more money and may be able to roll into March better equipped. The longer the race goes on, the better his chances.

Jack and Jill Politics

Since I am trying to avoid watching anything about Tsunami Tuesday until tomorrow (less stress, longer life), this is a good time for me to profile the blog Jack and Jill Politics, run by Jack Turner and Jill Tubman. This is a major U.S. political blog from an African-American middle class viewpoint.

The "blogosphere" is dominated by the voices of white men, but that is changing. Jack and Jill Politics is an excellent way for progressive whites to keep in touch with the views of African-Americans. Yes, having "real black friends" would also be good, but, let's face it, there's a certain amount of self-censorship that happens in mixed-race social situations. In many cases, there is still much at stake in workplace relations, etc. that would be risked if "full disclosure" came in every conversation. Sad, but true.

Also, while there are exceptions (such as the church I attend), whites and blacks mostly still worship in different settings, live in different neighborhoods (mine is one of the few partial exceptions in Louisville), go to different places for entertainment, etc. And the dominant group usually knows less about the "minority" groups than they (originally for survival reasons) know about the majority. (Surveys have shown that African-Americans are much better at predicting white answers than vice versa.)

So, fellow white progressives, I urge you to decrease your ignorance. One way is to read regularly on black political blogs. There are many of them, but I am pushing Jack and Jill Politics first because it was one of the earliest this progressive cracker found. Which is more helpful during an election year that may result in the first black president? Watching a bunch of white men on TV talk about "the black vote" or read the thoughts of active, politically-informed African-Americans? Hmm.

Bluegrass Roots Endorses Obama

The owners/editors of Bluegrass Roots, one of the best progressive, Democratic political blogs in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, have endorsed Barack Obama for President. This is all the more significant since they were both previously Edwards supporters, as I was. You can read their endorsement here. It explains why they endorsed Edwards and why, once Edwards dropped out, they switched to Obama. I hope this is a trend among the netroots in KY.

Yes We Can

The following video was created by Obama supporters. It sets his NH primary speech to music. I only wish I had not been sick so that I could have sent this to people throughout Super Tuesday states this weekend.

Obama/Clinton in Statistical Dead Heat on Eve of Super Tuesday

I have been ill for a few days--too ill to come down to a cold basement and blog or even check email. I will not watch the Super Tuesday returns tomorrow because my nerves would give out and I might have a relapse.

Because this is all about delegates, Obama doesn't have to win tomorrow--just keep from losing. If he keeps the delegate count close, plus wins enough states outright for some psychological victories, then the momentum should continue to be on his side in the races that follow tomorrow. If, however, Clinton wins big early, she won't likely win enough delegates tomorrow to win the nomination outright (as she once dreamed--this schedule was originally--back when she was considered the "inevitable" nominee--urged on party leaders by her campaign so that she could wrap up the nomination early and spend most of the Spring preparing for the GOP in the Fall). But she might stop Obama's momentum tomorrow as she did in NH.

5 key variables:

1. Early voting. Many primaries allowed for early voting (which may have been 40% of the total in California!) when Clinton still had double-digit leads over Obama and 85% of the institutional Democratic Party support. It could be her firewall against the Obama momentum.
2. Latinos: I do not buy into the media hype about Latinos refusing to vote for African-Americans. But the Clintons (and they come as a package) had a long and good history with Latinos and so, early on, you saw more support for Hillary Clinton by Latinos--just as you early on saw more Clinton support among African-Americans than Obama. That gap is narrowing (or appears to be) and more Latino leaders are endorsing Obama, but we won't know how many until tomorrow night.
3. Women: 51% of the nation, nearly 60% of the Democratic Party, especially in CA. Can Obama get enough of the women's vote? He did not in NH, but he did in Iowa and S. Carolina and it split fairly evenly in NV. Older white women have been Hillary's base, but is Obama cutting into it--and, if so, has he done so well enough by tomorrow.
4. Edwards' voters: Where will they go? And, will the Edwards' voters who voted early claim some delegates in several of these primaries and caucuses? (The Edwards' delegates will go to the national convention uncommitted, as will his superdelegates.)
5. Young voters. This has been Obama's strength, although Clinton has attracted some, too. Their turnout could be the key. And weather could be a key factor in turnout. We've had some of the worst weather this winter this past week.

I'll see everyone on Wednesday. My nerves simply cannot take watching this tomorrow.

Hillary Clinton was on Anti-Union Wal-Mart Board!

The story is here. Let's see now: Hillary Clinton has taken more money from big Pharma and HMOs than any other candidate; more money from war-profiteering defense companies than any other candidate, including any Republican candidate; she stood silent and raked in cash while Wal-Mart suppressed unions. Convicted donor Hsu was a major contributor. Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox News, has held fundraisers for her.

So, tell me, just how is Hillary Clinton going to standup to Right and bring us progressive change? There's an old saying, "You gotta dance with those who brought you."

Call all your friends in Super Tuesday states and urge them to vote for Barack Obama. Then send him some cash.

Edwards is Out

Fmr. Sen. John Edwards (D-NC), the most improved candidate for president in 4 years, as Normon Solomon rightly called him, has left the race. He announced this decision, as he announced his decision to run and put the poor first, in the 9th Ward of New Orleans, still devastated from Hurrican Katrina--over 2 years ago. I thought Edwards should drop out after Nevada because he could no longer win and because I was afraid he would siphon off progressive votes from Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL). Edwards clearly drove the progressive agenda in many ways (especially since the media silenced Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), who is now struggling to retain his seat in the House). Obama's platform and rhetoric have taken on many of Edwards' themes--and I think it has made Obama a stronger candidate against Clinton and a candidate more worthy of the office of the presidency. Obama clearly has both progressive and cautious tendencies (as do most of us) and a mix of advisors. I think Edwards gave him the courage to keep pushing in the progressive direction--and I hope he continues to do so now that Edwards has dropped out.

There are rumors of a movement in the Obama campaign to select Edwards for Atty Gen. should Obama win the presidency. I hope they are true. Edwards would be a great Atty Gen. and would bring his record as a trial lawyer and his strong pro-labor and pro-civil rights agenda to that office. You can bet your bottom dollar that he would not hesitate to call waterboarding torture and to prosecute anyone who tries it!

Whatever happens, I wish the best for John and for Elizabeth who is still struggling with breast cancer. Keep fighting for the poor, John--in whatever you do.

Kentucky Political Filings

Yesterday was the KY deadline for candidates for political office to file to run for an office this year. The surprise news was the unexpected decision of U.S. Rep. Ron Lewis (R-KY) of the 2nd District to not seek reelection. Democrats came close to unseating him in '06 and, now that this is an open seat, may claim it this year--especially if the presidential campaign is going in the Democrats' favor (the "coattail effect"). The juicy details of all the races are found at the Louisville Courier-Journal. Here are the races with a few comments:

U.S. House of Representatives by District (Kentucky has 6 U.S. Congressional Districts--currently 4 are held by Republicans and 2 by Democrats).

1. Rep. Ed Whitefield (R) of Hopkinsville is the incumbent. He is being challenged by Heather A. Ryan of Paducah (D). As reported by Bluegrass Roots, Ryan and her daughter, Heaven, were targets of Sen. Mitch McConnell's wrath when she dared to ask McConnell about the war in Iraq on camera. Well, some folk don't just curl up and go away. Ryan is now challenging hard right McConnell/Bush stooge, Whitefield. It will be a tough campaign: The first district is conservative and Whitefield is well-heeled and connected. But Ryan's challenge could become a cause celebre' for KY progressives. Go get him, woman! We got your back!
2. As mentioned, Rep. Ron Lewis (R) is not seeking reelection. Kentucky Republicans are furious, because Lewis tried to let only one person, his handpicked successor, Daniel London (R) of Shepherdsville know. But one other Republican, Brett Guthrie of Bowling Green, found out and got his papers filed in time. So, there will be a GOP primary on 20 May for the open Lewis seat. Whoever wins will face David E. Boswell (D) of Owensboro in November. The open seat and the GOP primary mean that this is an excellent chance for a pickup for Democrats.
3. John Yarmuth (D) is the incumbent--having done incredible things in his frosh term in Congress and winning awards and notice nationally. The 3rd District is the most liberal district in the Commonwealth and it was an aberration that rightwing nut-job Anne Northup (R) won and kept that seat for a decade. As I reported yesterday, she wants her old job back. But, before Queen Anne can challenge Yarmuth in November, she will have to face stiff competition from 3 other Republicans who don't think that seat is her birthright: Chris "I Killed the Library Tax" Thieneman, a Lousville developer and GOP activist against all things reasonable (like good libraries!), UPS pilot Bob Devore of Louisville and someone named Corley Everett of Louisville. The contest between Thieneman and Northup has already included smears and charges of threats by Northup and McConnell--so it looks nasty. That should make it easier for Yarmuth to keep his job. His race against Northup was hard and close, but Louisville has loved the job he has done.
4. Incumbent Geoff Davis (R) of Fort Mitchell is facing 2 primary challengers, G. E. Puckett (R) of Flemingsburg and Warren O. Stone (R) of Independence. I expect Davis to survive these challenges, but they could weaken him for his contest against Michael Kelly (D) of LaGrange.
5. Alas! Incumbent nut job Hal Rogers (R) of Somerset is running unopposed! Way to drop the ball, here, Kentucky Democratic Party! In a year in which Republicans are dropping like flies, we waste an opportunity to challenge one of the most fanatical Bushies?? Arggh!
6. Ben Chandler (D) of Versailles is a conservative "Blue Dog" Democrat. He's not the most progressive Dem we have, but, he is more progressive than either of the 2 GOP challengers he'll face: Jon Larson (R) of Lexington and TonyMcCurdy of Frankfort.

U.S. Senate:

Obstructionist-in-Chief/Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R), the shame of the Commonwealth, is up for reelection. He has a huge campaign fund and has buried many a good opponent over the years. But, this year he's vulnerable: His approval rating is below 50% despite running ads that try to tout his record--and much of that disapproval has come from his role in blocking the Senate from ending Bush's war in Iraq. He also has repeatedly prevented the Senate from getting enough votes to override Bush's veto of the State Children's Health Insurance Program expansion (great family values, Mitch!), blocked measures that would improve veterans' healthcare and would force Bush to keep soldiers home for longer periods between deployments to Iraq. Unfortunately, our best chance to Ditch Mitch was if very popular State Auditor Crit Luallen (D) had challenged him without a primary. She declined. Our next best opportunity remains the challenge by Louisville attorney and Iraq war vet (and opponent), Lt. Col. Andrew Horne (R), who may still pull this off. Unfortunately, the KDP, Gov. Beshear, and DNC have not gotten behind Horne. They've recruited Louisville businessman Greg Fischer (D) (who has previously contributed money to Anne Northup!!), and millionaire Bruce Lunsford (D), who has twice run for governor and been defeated--and who is a DINO who isn't that much more progressive than McConnell. Then there are the lesser candidates: Michael Cassaro (D), an M.D. from Prospect; James Rice of Campbellsville; David Wylie of Harrodsburg; Kenneth Stepp of Manchester; and perpetual candidate David L. Williams of Glasgow. So, Horne has to face a crowded field (none of whom would step up until he filed to challenge McConnell!) in the Democratic primary just to get to challenge McConnell--who MUST be laughing himself to death at the way this greatly reduces his risk of being Ditched! Fortunately, his approval is so low in Kentucky, now, that he faces a GOP challenger: Daniel Esseck of Whitely County. I don't know much about Esseck--but I hope he keeps McConnell on his toes until Horne can go after him for November. Make no mistake: Ditching Mitch is so important that I will support whomever the Democratic nominee is. But I remain convinced that Horne is our best shot at Ditching Mitch McConnell.

There are a number of races for the state legislature, but as Bluegrass Report notes, far too many Republican incumbents are running unopposed.

13 Louisville Metro Council seats are up for grabs.

So, the good news is that KY is nowhere near as "red" or Republican dominated as in '00 or '04. However, our struggle to turn "blue"--Democratic and progressive--is still uphill. We are deep purple. Hopefully, after November, we'll be a lighter purple--because we have serious problems to address. We have to rebuild the KDP--and the only way to do that is through grassroots campaigns.

Governor's Budget: Deep Cuts, Shared Pain

Well, our previous governor, Ernie Fletcher (R-KY) royally screwed the commonwealth with his budget-busting corruption. New Gov. Steve Beshear has tried to spread out the pain of an "austere budget" throughout the Commonwealth of KY, but there is no doubt this is going to hurt.

The full coverage in the Louisville Courier-Journal is here. The highlights (or lowlights):

• Kentucky public universities will have funding cut by 12% this year to $1.19 billion. Next year there will be a nearly 1% increase to $1.2 billion. This will deeply hurt the advances in public higher education that were made by Gov. Paul Patton (D-KY) before the Fletcher admin. and it is sure to mean more tuition increases--putting higher education further out of reach for many.
• Public schools (primary and secondary) will have a 0.8 % cut this year to $3.79 billion with 0.6% of that increased next year to $3.82 billion.
• Social services (food stamps, homeless shelters, assisted living, mental health, etc., etc.) will be cut by a whopping 8% this year to $652 million with only a 1% increase in the second year to $659 million--and KY already falls way behind in our assistance to the most vulnerable among us.
• Medicaid will, fortunately, see a 3% INCREASE this year to $1.23 billion (much less than expected, but at least no cuts) and a 7.7% increase the following year to $1.32 billion.
• State employees, whose salaries have been frozen for years, will get 2% raises in each year of the administration. (Now if only Metro Louisville will do the same and renew the city employees' contract. My wife hasn't seen a pay increase in 3 years, despite rising costs. Our wonderful mayor has had city employees working without contract for nearly 2 years.)
• Infrastructure projects apparently will be funded through bonds.

The cuts in the budget wouldn't have to be so deep if Gov. Beshear would simply rethink his "no new taxes" view (what is he, a Republican?) and increase taxes on tobacco (3rd lowest in the nation) and alcohol in order to raise needed revenue for essential services. He is literally gambling everything on his plan to push through an amendment to the state constitution to allow casino gambling throughout the Commonwealth. I doubt that will pass and, even if it does, our experiences with the state lottery show that the promise of using gambling to fund education is illusory. Besides such promotion of addictive behavior amounts to a regressive tax on those who can least afford it (the poor who buy lottery tickets weekly from money that should go to groceries, rent, etc. in desperate attempts to escape to wealth) and the resulting social problems associated with pushing gambling addictions are well known.

I know that Beshear campaigned on casinos, but, like many others, I voted for him in spite of this, not because of it. I voted for him because he was not the corrupt Ernie Fletcher. We need a grassroots campaign to push Beshear to raise tobacco and alcohol taxes for a less "austere" budget--especially for education and social services. Balancing budgets on the backs of the poor and our children is immoral and will further undue the progress made by the Patton admin. Gov. Beshear needs to be reminded that he was elected to undue the harm of the Fletcher admin.--not increase it. True, Fletcher, not Beshear, caused this mess. But this is not the right response.

DINO Lunsford Joins KY Dem Senate Primary

The incompetence of the Kentucky Democratic Party never ceases to amaze me. And the DSCC and Chuck Schumer (D-KY) are just as bad. They've decided to back millionaire Bruce Lunsford (D-KY), a real DINO (Democrat in Name Only) instead of Andrew Horne in the battle to Ditch Mitch McConnell! Idiots! This is the strategy that kept us with DINO Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) who is campaigning for John "I Love War" McCain in Florida, when we could have had progressive Ned Lamont in the Senate for us right now! The DSCC also, as Bluegrass Roots notes, backed established DINOs in place of Jon Tester and Jim Webb. The GOP would have retained Montana and Virginia in '06 (and, thus, control of the Senate) had not Montana and Virginia grassroots Dems worked overboard to give us Tester and Webb as frosh Senators.

Now, it's KY's turn. Ignore the KDP and DSCC folks. Even if Lunsford could beat McConnell, he wouldn't be much better. Let's work our collective butts off for Andrew Horne and both Ditch Mitch and get a real, progressive populist Democrat in the Senate for KY! Show Horne some monetary love, today! (As soon as we win the White House and a 60 vote majority in the Senate this November, there's some housecleaning to do. We need to replace Chuck Schumer (D-NY) with a DSCC head who doesn't fear grassroots campaigns and replace Reid (D-NV) with Chris Dodd (D-NY) as Majority Leader so we get someone with backbone as Leader.)

We need progressive populists, not party machine hacks. We need Andrew Horne for U.S. Senate!

More California Latino Leaders for Obama

California for Obama: Latino Leaders Endorse Obama
Uploaded by ObamaCA

There is no question that H.R. Clinton has a leg up on the Latino vote in CA--and the endorsement of the United Farmworkers, the union of migrant workers led by the great Cesar Chavez and Delores Huerta sure doesn't hurt her. But this video and other factors lead me to think that Obama could win a significant portion of the Latino vote in CA. Enough to win the state outright? Maybe, maybe not--but I think he will get a significant number of the CA delegates. Thank God we Dems don't use "winner take all" primaries like the GOP, or non-establishment candidates would never have a chance.

P.S. See this excellent article by progressive activist/scholar Paul Rogat Loeb on the way that the Clintons keep trying to change the rules to win this campaign. The article is aptly titled, "It's Her Party and She'll Do What She Wants." Funny-when the GOP did that to her, she rightly called "foul." Now, she's as corrupt as the "vast rightwing conspiracy" she once railed against.

It's Official: Northup Wants Her House Seat Back!

Anne Northup (R-KY), that Bush & McConnell rightwing HACK that we in the 3rd District spent 10 years getting OUT of office in '06 will try to take her job back from our wonderful Rep. John Yarmuth (D-KY), who has been one of the best frosh Reps. ever and has kept all of his campaign promises! This could be tough. Yarmuth beat Northup by less than 6,000 votes and a district that switches national parties is most vulnerable to switching back at the very next election.



Fortunately, before Queen Anne (who also lost a primary challenge to our unloved former Gov., Ernie Fletcher(R), last year--only a few months after losing her seat to Yarmuth!) can take on Yarmuth again, she will have what looks to be a bruising primary on May20. She will have to face Chris "I Am the Library Tax Killer" Thieneman and UPS pilot Bob Devore, Jr. As today's C-J article makes clear, Thieneman and Northup have no love for each other--so, Yarmuth can wait until they shred each other and pick off the winner. 20 May is also the KY primary in the U.S. presidential elections, so, if the Democratic nominee is still in doubt, this could be a huge motivator for 3rd District Dems to get out the vote for Yarmuth.

Jefferson County Tries New Plan to Keep Schools Desegregated

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, used the language of the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision which ended legal segregation in public schools to strike down affirmative action by busing and hasten the de facto resegregation of public schools that has been happening across the nation since the early 1980s. Jefferson County public schools were the test case. Since then, the school board has been trying to come up with a new plan that will keep racial/ethnic/ and income diversity in our schools and still pass constitutional muster with this rightwing Supreme Court. Today, they unveiled a new plan, based on geography and income that they hope will accomplish the same goals. It is not a simple plan because all simple plans, such as only using neighborhood assignments, simply hasten resegregation. Now comes the time for public hearings and then final approval on 12 May. I hope it works.

One can see the full plan, including, maps and Q & A in today's Louisville Courier-Journal. If this works and is as accepted by the community as our previous school assignment method, I hope it will be adopted across the nation. The resegregation of our public schools is part of the regression in this nation which keeps a large African-American and Latino underclass. It must end. I benefitted from going to integrated schools (some of them where I was the minority) and so have my children. We live in one of the few neighborhoods in Louisville where there is noticeable racial/ethnic diversity--but it is far from Sesame Street perfection. If the schools were to go to strict neighborhood assignment, my kids would have much more mono-cultural friendships and education experiences--and that would be tragic. We need to be helping our children live in an increasingly multi-cultural 21st C. world--not reverting to the 1950s! Let's all pray this works.

Is Obama Winning Endorsements from "Red State Democrats?"

The Carpetbagger Report (an excellent liberal political blog) thinks such a trend may be emerging. Sen. Clinton has the most endorsements by Dem. governors (10), but only 2 of them(Arkansas and Ohio) come from "red states," i.e. states that have been dominated by Republicans in the recent past and/or which G.W. Bush carried in '00 and/or '04. By contrast, Obama has only 5 gubanatorial endorsements (Mass., Ill., Virginia, Wisconsin, Arizona)--and, now, a 6th, Kansas (a story we'll return to below), but 3 of them: Virginia, Arizona, and, now, Kansas are red states. That's not much of a lead, but what about Senators: HR Clinton, the establishment candidate, has 11 Senate endorsements, but only 2 (Evan Bayh of Indiana and Bill Nelson from Florida) come from red states. Obama, by contrast, has 8 Senate endorsements with 4 from red states (North Dakota's Kent Conrad, South Dakota's Tim Johnson, Missouri's Claire McCaskill, and Nebraska's Ben Nelson).

If this is a trend, what does it mean? Well, it COULD mean that red state Democrats believe that Obama has a better chance than Clinton not just of winning the White House, but of expanding the Democratic Party--expanding the map, as his whole campaign has tried to do. That would be significant: Could it be that red state Dems are saying, especially in states that are or seem to be moving toward becoming, swing states, "If you want to have a chance to win this state in November, nominate Obama rather than Clinton?" Some, like Claire McCaskill (D-MO) have indicated as much in their endorsements.

The trend seems to be continuing: Kansas' Governor Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS) is a rising star. She is scheduled to give the Democratic response tonight to the Smirking Chimp, er, Bush's State of the Union address. Then, later this week, she is expected to endorse Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) for president. Except for superstar politicians like Ted Kennedy (and even then, his campaigning for Obama is more important than his endorsement alone), political endorsements in primaries don't mean all that much. But if there is a trend developing of red state Democratic pols endorsing Obama, it could be far more significant.

Sebelius, like Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano (D-AZ), is a rising star, too, and her endorsement signals to women that it is okay to vote for Obama--which could be very important in swing states.

Finally, coming this week, Sebelius' endorsement continues the "Big Momentum" for Obama coming out of SC.

The national polls still show Clinton with a 12 point lead over Obama--but that lead was over 20 points a week ago and nearly 30 points for most of a year. What do you think, Hill? Are objects in your rear view mirror closer than they appear??

Update: As expected, Gov. Sebelius, endorsed Obama, today. She won reelection with 58% of the vote in a state where only 27% are registered Democrats--a state which hasn't voted for a Democratic president since LBJ. (Sebelius thinks Obama could change that this year more than Clinton.) Sebelius just finished as head of the National Governor's Association--a post once held by Bill Clinton. Obama is holding a rally in KS, today.

Is There a "Historic Latino Reluctance" to Vote for Black Candidates?

Not according to Gregory Rodriquez of the L.A. Times. Is "the Nevada Phenomenon" a real worry for Obama or a Clintonian myth? We will see. Obama got quite a bit of Latino support in the Illinois State Senate and then in his race for the U.S. Senate. There may have been numerous reasons for his lack of said support in Nevada (e.g., the negative ad in Spanish put out by Unite Here which he did not rebuke and which seems to have backfired, or the voter intimidation that Bill Clinton did, etc.) that had little to do with "historic Black/Brown tensions" so pontificated endlessly by white talking heads. The number of Latino endorsements for Obama has been less than for Clinton, but growing--and Obama doesn't have to win them all or even a majority. He has to do better with Latinos than he did in Nevada--somewhere in the 35%-45% region--in order to remain competitive. I think he can do this.

I think the Clintons are trying to pit Southern whites and Latinos against African-Americans in order to defeat Obama--and then she magically expects the rainbow coalition to coalesce again for November. It's a dangerous strategy and so small minded.

Horne Calls for Filibuster on Warrantless Wiretapping and Telecom Immunity

In his announcement of his race for the U.S. Senate, Louisville attorney and Iraq war vet, Lt. Col. Andrew Horne (Ret.) gave the dramatic line, "While [Sen. Minority Leader/Obstructer-in-Chief]Mitch McConnell carred Bush's water on Iraq, I carried a rifle in Iraq." A powerful line, but I am glad to see that it is more than mere rhetoric. Today, Horne announced his support for Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT)'s efforts to filibuster Bushco's attempts to further trample on our Constitutional rights by giving permanent legitimacy to warrantless wiretapping and retroactive immunity to those telecom companies that cooperated with this un-Constitutional program while it was also still in violation of the FISA statute. (FISA= Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1974). FISA was enacted in the wake of Watergate's revelations about how abusive government surveillance had become--using fear of Communism and the Vietnam War to spy on civil rights organizations, peace groups, opposition newspapers, and all U.S. citizens who exercised rights of dissent. FISA made the govt. get warrants from the secret FISA court before spying on U.S. citizens.

Bushco, including McConnell, argue that new tech and the "war on terror" means this should no longer be necessary. Don't believe them. I am glad to know that presidential hopefuls Sens. Clinton and Obama will be here to support Dodd in this vote, as they were not previously. This is more important than campaigning. This is protecting our freedom.

Don't be misled by McConnell's fear tactics: FISA does NOT expire on 01 Feb.! All that expires is the stupid law passed in '06 that "expanded" FISA to permit warrantless wiretapping without any safeguards or conditions. McConnell and the GOP have blocked attempts to update the law for an age of terrorism in ways that still protect our liberties. So, we stop the Bushies NOW, here. If Feb. 1 expires without a new law, all that will happen is that the old FISA goes back into effect--you know, the law that Bush and the telecom companies broke with their warrantless wiretapping. And the lawsuits against these companies go forward--so that at least SOME accountability happens for trifling with the Constitution.

Three cheers for Sen. Dodd (whom I hope will replace the spineless Sen. Reid (D-NV) as Majority Leader) and 3 cheers for Andrew Horne. Show Horne some love by sending his campaign some cash, today.

Toni Morrison Endorses Obama

Toni Morrison, the only African-American woman to win the Nobel Prize for Literature, wrote an article in a 1998 issue of The New Yorker in which she (in)famously called Bill Clinton, "America's first black president" because of both the way he understood African-Americans and the similar way that the media treated him and black politicians. It was a comment that Bill Clinton (and some white media) took FAR too seriously--more than it was intended and more than African-Americans ever took it. Well, now, Toni Morrison has endorsed Barack Obama.

In giving her reasons, she writes that she admires Hillary Clinton but that gender has little to do with her reasons for that admiration. And she says the same about Obama's race--that she would not endorse him just because he's black or "makes me proud." What are her reasons:

"In thinking carefully about the strengths of the candidates, I stunned myself when I came to the following conclusion: that in addition to keen intelligence, integrity and a rare authenticity, you exhibit something that has nothing to do with age, experience, race or gender and something I don't see in other candidates. That something is a creative imagination which coupled with brilliance equals wisdom.

"Our future is ripe, outrageously rich in its possibilities. Yet unleashing the glory of that future will require a difficult labor, and some may be so frightened of its birth they will refuse to abandon their nostalgia for the womb.

"There have been a few prescient leaders in our past, but you are the man for this time."

Tsunami Tuesday--05 February '08

Here are the Democratic races on "Tsunami Tuesday," along with the type of race and pledged delegates. (I am not counting the number of "super delegates" since it is still unclear how they will be awarded, not to mention how they will vote. I sincerely hope that they are abolished after this election cycle.) Some of these races are "closed" meaning that only registered Democrats (not Republicans or Independents) can vote. But, unlike with the Republicans, all Democratic primaries and caucuses are awarded delegates based on proportion of the vote won. None of these races are "winner take all." So, for instance, Hillary Clinton could win some delegates from Obama's home state of Illinois and Obama could win delegates from Clinton's home state of New York--even though the hometown favorites will probably come in first in their respective home states. Also, conceivably, John Edwards, though he has yet to win a primary or caucus, could still keep winning delegates up to the Democratic National Convention and be in a position to play King or Queen maker or influence platform positions. (There are rumors that the Obama campaign is considering Edwards for the role of Atty. General if Obama should win the White House. Edwards, by all accounts a brilliant trial lawyer, could use that office to defend Labor, enforce civil rights and voting rights, prosecute polluters and safety violators, etc. If offered, I think he would take that job, especially if some of his positions on healthcare, etc. were quietly adopted by Obama.)

Alabama: Primary 52

Alaska: Caucuses 13

American Samoa: Primary 3 (A territory rather than a state, it has no representation in Congress, but American Samoans are citizens who vote in presidential elections.0

Arizona: Primary 56 (Gov. Janet Napolitano (D-AZ) has endorsed Sen. Barack Obama, but the state is heavily Republican and, in the general election, is likely to vote Republican, especially if the GOP nominee is favorite son Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)).

Arkansas : Primary 35

California: Primary 370 (This is the big prize and has often been decisive in both the primaries and the general election because it is the most populous state in the union. Latinos are 35% of the population and Asians are 12.5%, while only 6% are African-American. Another wild card is that absentee balloting accounts for about 40% of California's voting--and those primary votes are already cast.)

Colorado: Caucus 55 (The Democratic National Convention will be held in Denver. This is one of those Western states that has been mostly Republican in the past, but is trending Democratic.)

Connecticut: Primary 48 (Now that favorite son, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) dropped out following the Iowa caucuses, how will CT vote? I would think that to win a Dodd endorsement, either Obama or Clinton would have to return to the Senate briefly to help him defeat the GOP attempts at permanent warrantless wiretapping with immunity for telecom companies.)

Delaware: Primary 15 (Ditto above, now that Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) has dropped out? Biden is a DLC Democrat and I would think he helps Hillary Clinton campaign here.)

Democrats Abroad: Primary 7

Georgia: Primary 87

Idaho: Caucus 18

Illinois: Primary 153 (Obama has homecourt advantage, but the breaking news of the arrest of Tony Rezko, even though Obama has returned campaign contributions and has not been linked at all with Rezko's corruption charges, could hurt. The Chicago Tribune is writing editorials critical of Obama's ties, even though they are nowhere as close as many other Illinois politicians--and even Hillary Clinton had Rezko raise money for her.)

Kansas: Caucus 32

Massachussetts: Primary 93 (Gov. Deval Patrick (D-MA) and both of Mass.' senators, Kerry (D-MA), and Kennedy (D-MA), are endorsing Obama.)

Minnesota: Caucus: 72

Missouri: Primary 72 (Obama has been endorsed by Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) and fmr. Sen. Carnahan (D-MO)

New Jersey: Primary 107

New Mexico: Caucuses 26 (Heavily Latino. I'd love to see Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM) endorse Obama, but he has so far stayed neutral.)

New York: Primary 232 (Hillary Clinton's home turf. She has the endorsement of Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee and of the New York Times, and many influential politicians and Afrian-American ministers here. But, Obama also has supporters, including fundraisers, here and has won the endorsement of the liberal New York Daily News. Still, I'd be very surprised if Clinton doesn't win NY.)

North Dakota: Caucuses 13

Oklahoma: Primary 38

Tennessee: Primary 68

Utah: Primary 23

If this round of voting (amounting to a national primary) does not end in a clear nominee, which seems increasingly likely, the next round of voting comes on 09 February and then throughout the month. Another wave comes in March and then leftovers. Kentucky's primary is not until 20 May '08. That would ordinarily mean that our 47 delegates are irrelevant to the selection of the nominee--but that may not be the case this year. We'll see.

Democrats Abroad

Are you a U.S. citizen living overseas? Do you want to vote in the 2008 elections, but have difficulty affording or getting the absentee ballots? Or, worse yet, does your state use a caucus rather than a primary to choose party nomination, thereby making it impossible for you to participate? Well, help is at hand. You can register to vote online at VoteFromAbroad.org

Further, if you are a registered Democrat (there is also a similar online group for Republicans, but I'll let GOP folks find it on their own--this is a progressive Democratic blog!), you should know about Democrats Abroad, the overseas branch of the Democratic Party. It will help you participate in more ways than just voting. But get to it quickly, because Democrats Abroad vote on 05 February '08, "Tsunami Tuesday," so your chance to register for that is probably gone. But you can vote if already registered. And, if you register quickly, even if you aren't yet registered, you can vote in the November general election. So, if this applies to you, get to it.

If it applies to loved ones--and I know many Kentuckians have relatives overseas in the military or serving as missionaries, or working for international corporations, serving in the Peace Corps or other peace-related national service, or are part of an embassy--or even pursuing advanced academic degrees abroad. Contact them and let them know how they can still exercise their franchise as U.S. citizens and help shape the future of this nation--and, because (for better and worse) we are so influential, the world.

Ted Kennedy to Endorse Obama!

Sen. Edward "Ted" Kennedy, will endorse Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination for U.S. president tomorrow. That is his biggest endorsement, yet, and comes on the heels of yesterday's huge SC blowout and this a.m.'s endorsement by Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg, daughter of the late Pres. John F. Kennedy, and Ted's niece. It also comes on top of huge online fundraising last night--the Obama campaign raised more than $500,000 (most of it in small contributions) in one hour after his victory speech. (Now if he can translate that into a ground game in the next 9 days!) Ms. Schlossberg's endorsement was amazing, calling Obama the first presidential candidate in her lifetime who had the opportunity to inspire her the way many say her father inspired them. (I was only 3 when JFK was murdered and only 5 when Bobby was killed. My greatest inspiration was Jimmy Carter--no great speaker--for his human rights foreign policy. But it wasn't the same. BTW, I don't think those who expect either Carter or Al Gore to endorse anyone are right. Carter needs the cooperation of the White House for some of the work of the Carter Center and Gore wants a major effort on climate change--so neither can afford to alienate a potential president by endorsing a losing candidate.)

But this is huge. With both Kennedy and Kerry endorsing Obama, he will probably win Mass. on 05 Feb. Further, I think he has a better shot at NJ than Hillary thinks. I also think he has a major shot at Georgia, Colorado, North Carolina and will take Illinois, of course. I do not know how to read the big prize of California--but Kennedy's endorsement may swing others. He is hugely popular among the liberal end of the Democratic Party. (I would love for California's Sen. Barbara Boxer to endorse Obama. She's been neutral, but with her cohort, Feinstein, endorsing Clinton, Boxer may way in--and she is more liberal than either Feinstein or Clinton. I would also love more Latino endorsements, of course!)

Obama's SC Victory Speech

TEXT:

Over two weeks ago, we saw the people of Iowa proclaim that our time for change has come. But there were those who doubted this country’s desire for something new – who said Iowa was a fluke not to be repeated again.

Well, tonight, the cynics who believed that what began in the snows of Iowa was just an illusion were told a different story by the good people of South Carolina.

After four great contests in every corner of this country, we have the most votes, the most delegates, and the most diverse coalition of Americans we’ve seen in a long, long time.

They are young and old; rich and poor. They are black and white; Latino and Asian. They are Democrats from Des Moines and Independents from Concord; Republicans from rural Nevada and young people across this country who’ve never had a reason to participate until now. And in nine days, nearly half the nation will have the chance to join us in saying that we are tired of business-as-usual in Washington, we are hungry for change, and we are ready to believe again.

But if there’s anything we’ve been reminded of since Iowa, it’s that the kind of change we seek will not come easy. Partly because we have fine candidates in the field – fierce competitors, worthy of respect and our admiration. And as contentious as this campaign may get, we have to remember that this is a contest for the Democratic nomination, and that all of us share an abiding desire to end the disastrous policies of the current administration.

But there are real differences between the candidates. We are looking for more than just a change of party in the White House. We’re looking to fundamentally change the status quo in Washington – a status quo that extends beyond any particular party. And right now, that status quo is fighting back with everything it’s got; with the same old tactics that divide and distract us from solving the problems people face, whether those problems are health care they can’t afford or a mortgage they cannot pay.

So this will not be easy. Make no mistake about what we’re up against.

We are up against the belief that it’s ok for lobbyists to dominate our government – that they are just part of the system in Washington. But we know that the undue influence of lobbyists is part of the problem, and this election is our chance to say that we’re not going to let them stand in our way anymore.

We are up against the conventional thinking that says your ability to lead as President comes from longevity in Washington or proximity to the White House. But we know that real leadership is about candor, and judgment, and the ability to rally Americans from all walks of life around a common purpose – a higher purpose.

We are up against decades of bitter partisanship that cause politicians to demonize their opponents instead of coming together to make college affordable or energy cleaner; it’s the kind of partisanship where you’re not even allowed to say that a Republican had an idea – even if it’s one you never agreed with. That kind of politics is bad for our party, it’s bad for our country, and this is our chance to end it once and for all.

We are up against the idea that it’s acceptable to say anything and do anything to win an election. We know that this is exactly what’s wrong with our politics; this is why people don’t believe what their leaders say anymore; this is why they tune out. And this election is our chance to give the American people a reason to believe again.

And what we’ve seen in these last weeks is that we’re also up against forces that are not the fault of any one campaign, but feed the habits that prevent us from being who we want to be as a nation. It’s the politics that uses religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon. A politics that tells us that we have to think, act, and even vote within the confines of the categories that supposedly define us. The assumption that young people are apathetic. The assumption that Republicans won’t cross over. The assumption that the wealthy care nothing for the poor, and that the poor don’t vote. The assumption that African-Americans can’t support the white candidate; whites can’t support the African-American candidate; blacks and Latinos can’t come together.

But we are here tonight to say that this is not the America we believe in. I did not travel around this state over the last year and see a white South Carolina or a black South Carolina. I saw South Carolina. I saw crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children. I saw shuttered mills and homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from all walks of life, and men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. I saw what America is, and I believe in what this country can be.

That is the country I see. That is the country you see. But now it is up to us to help the entire nation embrace this vision. Because in the end, we are not just up against the ingrained and destructive habits of Washington, we are also struggling against our own doubts, our own fears, and our own cynicism. The change we seek has always required great struggle and sacrifice. And so this is a battle in our own hearts and minds about what kind of country we want and how hard we’re willing to work for it.

So let me remind you tonight that change will not be easy. That change will take time. There will be setbacks, and false starts, and sometimes we will make mistakes. But as hard as it may seem, we cannot lose hope. Because there are people all across this country who are counting us; who can’t afford another four years without health care or good schools or decent wages because our leaders couldn’t come together and get it done.

Theirs are the stories and voices we carry on from South Carolina.
The mother who can’t get Medicaid to cover all the needs of her sick child – she needs us to pass a health care plan that cuts costs and makes health care available and affordable for every single American.

The teacher who works another shift at Dunkin Donuts after school just to make ends meet – she needs us to reform our education system so that she gets better pay, and more support, and her students get the resources they need to achieve their dreams.

The Maytag worker who is now competing with his own teenager for a $7-an-hour job at Wal-Mart because the factory he gave his life to shut its doors – he needs us to stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship our jobs overseas and start putting them in the pockets of working Americans who deserve it. And struggling homeowners. And seniors who should retire with dignity and respect.

The woman who told me that she hasn’t been able to breathe since the day her nephew left for Iraq, or the soldier who doesn’t know his child because he’s on his third or fourth tour of duty – they need us to come together and put an end to a war that should’ve never been authorized and never been waged.

The choice in this election is not between regions or religions or genders. It’s not about rich versus poor; young versus old; and it is not about black versus white.
It’s about the past versus the future. [Personal note: Best line of the whole speech. MLW-W]

It’s about whether we settle for the same divisions and distractions and drama that passes for politics today, or whether we reach for a politics of common sense, and innovation – a shared sacrifice and shared prosperity.

There are those who will continue to tell us we cannot do this. That we cannot have what we long for. That we are peddling false hopes.

But here’s what I know. I know that when people say we can’t overcome all the big money and influence in Washington, I think of the elderly woman who sent me a contribution the other day – an envelope that had a money order for $3.01 along with a verse of scripture tucked inside. So don’t tell us change isn’t possible.

When I hear the cynical talk that blacks and whites and Latinos can’t join together and work together, I’m reminded of the Latino brothers and sisters I organized with, and stood with, and fought with side by side for jobs and justice on the streets of Chicago. So don’t tell us change can’t happen.

When I hear that we’ll never overcome the racial divide in our politics, I think about that Republican woman who used to work for Strom Thurmond, who’s now devoted to educating inner-city children and who went out onto the streets of South Carolina and knocked on doors for this campaign. Don’t tell me we can’t change.

Yes we can change.
Yes we can heal this nation.
Yes we can seize our future.

And as we leave this state with a new wind at our backs, and take this journey across the country we love with the message we’ve carried from the plains of Iowa to the hills of New Hampshire; from the Nevada desert to the South Carolina coast; the same message we had when we were up and when we were down – that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope; and where we are met with cynicism, and doubt, and those who tell us that we can’t, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people in three simple words:

Yes. We. Can.

Obama Wins BIG in South Carolina

Wow! What a win. As soon as video of the incredible victory speech is available, I will post it. It was as inspiring as the one after Iowa, but with more steel--so, maybe the media won't be annointing him already and setting up for failure as with the time between Iowa and New Hampshire.

I had been angry this week at the way that the Clintons and the media had made this almost a no win game for Obama. If he lost, they would celebrate, but if he won they would dismiss it as "just because of the black vote." 1. No one dismissed Clinton's NH victory as "just because of the white women" even though exit polls showed they were key to her NH victory. They said, rightly, that she was the "Comeback Chic," as the Kentucky Women blog put it. 2. Clinton was leading African Americans in SC for months. Obama EARNED their votes. African Americans don't automatically "vote black." There was no significant African American support in '04 for the candidacies of Ambassador Carol Mosely-Braun (D-IL) or Rev. Al Sharpton. 3. This lowballing of expectations and injection of race is typical of the Clintons. Bill Clinton today, when asked a question on a completely different subject replied, "you know, Jesse Jackson won in SC in '84 and '88." Hello! That was dismissing both as "just because they're black!" Sheesh.

But tonight will hopefully shut that up. Yes, Obama won big among African Americans--over 80%, but he also won 24% of whites in SC--who split almost in 3rds among the 3 candidates. He won significant numbers of white women, too. He beat Hillary Rodham Clinton by more than 2-1: 55% to 29% (at last count), which is a margin of victory of 29%!! That is "a thumpin" as the current White House Resident might put it.

Now, on to Tsunami Tuesday on Feb. 5th. And probably beyond that. My primary vote may actually count this year in May. It won't be easy, as Obama said. But notice that the Clintons keep trying to cheat. They agree to certain rules and then try to change them when they don't seem to work for them. We saw this in Nevada when the Culinary Workers endorsed Obama--the Clintons sued to stop caucuses in casinos--even though they agreed to that months earlier. NOW, the Clintons are trying to get the Democratic primaries in Florida and Michigan to count--even though the Party had stripped those states of their delegates because of moving up the primaries too early. I disagreed with that decision by the Democratic Party. I thought, like the GOP, that they should simply strip 50% of the delegates in punishment. But Clinton was the only one with her name still on the ballot because these races weren't supposed to count for delegates--and now she wants them too. I hope the DNC and Howard Dean stop her cold on this.
When the GOP does this, Dems rightly call it "dirty tricks" and should when the Clintons do so as well.

It's clear: Obama is giving us a message of hope and unity, and the Clintons are working at divide and conquer. I hope the states on 05 Feb (or many of them) give us the same answer as we saw tonight from the good voters of South Carolina.

There is good news for the Party and nation if we stay united: The turnout at each Democratic primary and caucus has been huge, whereas the GOP turnout has been smaller each time. Tonight, Obama won more votes on his own than John McCain and Mike Huckabee did together last week in South Carolina!

The country is hungry for change--big change, not just tiny adjustments--and it sure looks like Obama is the one to bring it to us.

A word about John Edwards. I think many of his ideas have been driving the campaign on the Democratic side. Obama's stump speeches have taken on some of Edwards' attention to issues of class and poverty and some of his fire and grit--but without his angry tone. Edwards has enough money and has won enough delegates to keep fighting and play king or queenmaker at the Convention. But he can't win the presidency: he hasn't won a single state--not even his home state of SC tonight. And I still worry that on Tsunami Tuesday he will divide the "more progressive than Clinton" vote with Obama and cause her to win the nomination. That didn't happen tonight in SC--and not in Nevada (although if all of Edwards' 4% went to Obama, it would have made Clinton's victory VERY narrow) nor Iowa. But it was a factor in New Hampshire where Obama lost by about 5%, but with Edwards 17% would have beaten Clinton in a huge way.

Please John Edwards: If you really think Sen. Clinton is part of the "status quo," as you have charged, then drop out and work for Obama. For the sake of all you believe in, sir.

Oh, and for WONDERFUL news, check out the Obama endorsement by JFK's daughter, Caroline Kennedy who says he will be a "president like my father" in the sense of inspiring that kind of hope and work for change that JFK inspired among a generation of people! Wow!