F___ Experience!

There were times when Huckabee was batshit crazy; however, there are other times like this when he actually has a conscience. I suggest that there is an important dynamic here -- churchgoers might vote for Obama this year, as opposed to Bush last election. There are many who will vote solely on right-wing social issues -- we never had their votes in the first place. But there are many others who will vote based on the candidate who is most open and vocal about their faith.

These voters did not vote for Kerry because he was very reluctant to open up and discuss his faith. But Obama, who has no such qualms, has a strong appeal to such people.

Obama in Charleston, West Virginia:

Jeff Lynch, 48, a Michigander passing through, asked him when he'd have a chance to vote for him, and Obama did not mince words. As far as he was concerned, the hopes of a revote in Michigan are over.

"Probably the general election. A re-do vote is very complicated," he shrugged.
Obama's basketball picks were admittedly impolitic, at least locally. He gave the West Virginia Mountaineers no chance to beat the University of Arizona tonight.

Obama took some ribbing for his choice of Pitt to go to the Final Four, just ahead of the Pennsylvania primary, but he insisted he had no ulterior motives. "They're peaking at the right time."

How does he know so much?

"When you get back to the hotel, I don't watch the games. I watch Sports Center," he said, "because you definitely don't watch a bunch of news," he added, gesturing to the crush of cameras around him. "I don't want to watch myself."

Bill Richardson endorses Obama:

Mr. Obama’s address on race in Philadelphia on Tuesday appeared to sway Mr. Richardson, who sent word to the senator that he was inspired and impressed by the speech, in which Mr. Obama called for an end to the "racial stalemate" that has divided Americans for decades. Aides said the endorsement was locked down over the following two days.

In a statement, Mr. Richardson hailed Mr. Obama’s judgment and ability to be commander-in-chief — qualities that Mrs. Clinton has called into question in recent weeks on the campaign trail.

"I believe he is the kind of once-in-a-lifetime leader that can bring our nation together and restore America’s moral leadership in the world," Mr. Richardson said in the statement, provided by the Obama campaign early Friday morning.

"As a presidential candidate, I know full well Senator Obama’s unique moral ability to inspire the American people to confront our urgent challenges at home and abroad in a spirit of bipartisanship and reconciliation."

And Richardson's endorsement also undermines the claim of Hillary Clinton to be the most qualified on foreign policy. Richardson blew both Obama and Clinton away when it came to foreign policy abilities, and for him to endorse Obama over his former bosses shows that he buys into Obama's ideas on foreign policy.

Obama's speech on race hits 2.7 million views:

The JedReport points out something interesting:

Obama's speech has now been viewed more times than every clip on John McCain's YouTube channel -- since the start of the campaign.

YouTube only counts a view if the video is played from beginning to end, which Obama's 37-minute address on race has been... 2.7 million times.  This is more than all of the views of all 172 videos McCain's campaign has released combined.

Both Obama's campaign, as well as MoveOn.org and ColorOfChange, emailed the video link to their listhosts --- demonstrating the growing power of these progressive organizations to get a video out to their members quickly.  The number of views even far exceeds, as JedReport points out, the number of views that the original Fox compilation of Wright statements received.

What's even more remarkable is that this was a lengthy, sober, subdued speech, asking America to engage in an honest conversation about race.

Congresswoman Barbara Lee introduces resolution calling for troop redeployments:

"Five years ago the Bush administration mislead the American people into believing there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; mislead many to believe Iraq posed an imminent threat, and; mislead the nation about a false connection between the tragic events of 9/11 and Saddam Hussein ," said Congresswoman Lee. "As we enter the sixth year of the U.S. occupation in Iraq, the most important thing Congress can do is to end this disastrous occupation and finally bring our troops and contractors home."

The following is an overview of the bills:

H.R.5507 - Fully-Funded U.S. Military Redeployment and Sovereignty of Iraq Restoration Act

The Fully-Funded U.S. Military Redeployment and Sovereignty of Iraq Restoration Act, introduced by Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey (CA-6), seeks to change the course of U.S. policy in Iraq and requires the redeployment of all U.S. troops and military contractors within one year. (February 2008)

This is similar to the Obama plan, which would also set a date certain to end our involvement in Iraq. We have done all we can in Iraq. We deposed Saddam, killed Zarqawi, and set up a process by which Iraq can turn into a democracy if they so choose. The rest should now be left up to the Iraqi people. John McCain, on the other hand, supports the Bush plan of perpetual warfare, wanting to keep our troops in Iraq for another 100 years.

Neale Donald Walsch on Obama's speech in Philly:

I know that you are all aware of Sen. Obama’s speech Tuesday in Philadelphia in which he once again condemned the more incendiary remarks of his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. I am proud of the Senator for his ability to put Rev. Wright’s comments into a context within which we can all understand them, as well as Mr. Obama’s own reaction to Rev. Wright at the time.

Said Barack Obama: "For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely — just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed."

That put it all into context for me. You don’t get up and walk out of your house of worship because the person in the pulpit says something with which you disagree. The whole point of sermons is to get people to think. Not necessarily to agree, but to begin to think...Do I agree? Do I disagree? Why?

If we run for elective office, are we to be branded with the words and thoughts of the person who took the pulpit in the house of worship we attended? Yet, the public has a right to know where we stand on the thoughts expressed there. In the present instance, Barack Obama has made it clear that he repudiates and rejects in whole the radical statements made by Rev. Wright.

John McCain's conspiracy theories on Iran called "a big stretch:"

There is no reason to doubt the statements by U.S. generals that some of the weapons and munitions used by Sunni extremists in Iraq can be traced back to Iran. Odierno's statement about movements of "a small number" of al Qaeda personnel through Iran to Iraq also seems quite credible. But it is a big stretch to conclude from these statements that Iran is providing organized support for al Qaeda in Iraq.

The charge that McCain mixed up Sunnis and Shiites is probably unfair. After numerous trips to Iraq, the senator surely understands the difference between the two ethnic groups. Nevertheless, the evidence that the McCain camp has produced to back up the senator's claims for Iranian support for al Qaeda in Iraq is ambiguous and inconclusive. At the very least, McCain is guilty of gross over-simplification on an extremely sensitive national security matter.

Brian McLaren on Obama's speech:

We have many places for people to react and practice opinion-giving and other forms of punditry, but what we seem to lack is space for people to have a more generous and generative kind of intelligent shared reflection and consideration. So I decided it might be worthwhile to offer some commentary on the content of the speech along with questions for conversation so that people could download the text, make copies of it, and read it through together - stimulating potentially constructive dialogue about a truly important subject.

The best case scenario would be for mixed groups to read and discuss the speech together – gathering a group of friends from work or a sports team or a neighborhood or church. Three questions would guide this kind of dialogue:
What can we learn about America?
What can we learn about people of other races?
What can we learn about ourselves?

NBC's and MSNBC's obsessions with Lewinsky:

On Today, Tim Russert discussed the schedules from Sen. Hillary Clinton's time as first lady and asserted: "Senator Clinton has made her experience such a part of this campaign, particularly her eight years as first lady. So this may be very rich in terms of exactly how did she spend her time, who did she meet with?" Russert added that "this, I think, today will be analyzed very closely by all of us at NBC News and media organizations across the country." Indeed, while NBC and MSNBC journalists discussed more substantive issues related to her schedules, they also repeatedly discussed what the schedules say, or do not say, about where Hillary Clinton was during Monica Lewinsky's encounters with President Clinton, in many cases teasing segments or leading them with that information.

This sort of thing is not news. The problem with this reporting is that it does not help anyone decide who to vote for in the upcoming primaries. The real focus should be on the real issues, like Hillary's role in crafting NAFTA, whether or not she was instrumental in her husband's foreign policy, and things of that nature. These are the sorts of things that we need to have a debate about in this country, not the kind of tabloid journalism that led to the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Bill Richardson has written a letter to his supporters:

Dear Friend,

During the last year, I have shared with you my vision and hopes for this nation as we look to repair the damage of the last seven years. And you have shared your support, your ideas and your encouragement to my campaign. We have been through a lot together and that is why I wanted to tell you that, after careful and thoughtful deliberation, I have made a decision to endorse Barack Obama for President.

We are blessed to have two great American leaders and great Democrats running for President. My affection and admiration for Hillary Clinton and President Bill Clinton will never waver. It is time, however, for Democrats to stop fighting amongst ourselves and to prepare for the tough fight we will face against John McCain in the fall. The 1990's were a decade of peace and prosperity because of the competent and enlightened leadership of the Clinton administration, but it is now time for a new generation of leadership to lead America forward. Barack Obama will be a historic and a great President, who can bring us the change we so desperately need by bringing us together as a nation here at home and with our allies abroad.

Earlier this week, Senator Barack Obama gave an historic speech. that addressed the issue of race with the eloquence, sincerity, and optimism we have come to expect of him. He inspired us by reminding us of the awesome potential residing in our own responsibility. He asked us to rise above our racially divided past, and to seize the opportunity to carry forward the work of many patriots of all races, who struggled and died to bring us together.

As a Hispanic, I was particularly touched by his words. I have been troubled by the demonization of immigrants--specifically Hispanics-- by too many in this country. Hate crimes against Hispanics are rising as a direct result and now, in tough economic times, people look for scapegoats and I fear that people will continue to exploit our racial differences--and place blame on others not like them . We all know the real culprit -- the disastrous economic policies of the Bush Administration!

Senator Obama has started a discussion in this country long overdue and rejects the politics of pitting race against race. He understands clearly that only by bringing people together, only by bridging our differences can we all succeed together as Americans.

His words are those of a courageous, thoughtful and inspiring leader, who understands that a house divided against itself cannot stand. And, after nearly eight years of George W. Bush, we desperately need such a leader.

To reverse the disastrous policies of the last seven years, rebuild our economy, address the housing and mortgage crisis, bring our troops home from Iraq and restore America's international standing, we need a President who can bring us together as a nation so we can confront our urgent challenges at home and abroad.

During the past year, I got to know Senator Obama as we campaigned against each other for the Presidency, and I felt a kinship with him because we both grew up between words, in a sense, living both abroad and here in America. In part because of these experiences, Barack and I share a deep sense of our nation's special responsibilities in the world.

So, once again, thank you for all you have done for me and my campaign. I wanted to make sure you understood my reasons for my endorsement of Senator Obama. I know that you, no matter what your choice, will do so with the best interests of this nation, in your heart.

Sincerely,

Bill Richardson

We couldn't have put it any better ourselves. The shoe is dropping -- what we will see in the future is more and more well-respected Democrats follow the lead of Richardson and decide that this thing is over.

In the words of the immortal Maryscott O'Connor, FUCK Experience!

Listening to NPR a while back, I heard a 26 year old woman (the sole female helicopter pilot -- Medivac -- in a group of 91 active pilots in Iraq) speak of her conflicted feelings about having left her fragile, elderly mother behind, and how she hopes she will be remembered by her mother should she die in Iraq; she read a letter she wrote to her mother that sharply reminded me of another set of letters.

My father was 26 when he died in combat during the Tet Offensive in Vietnam. He died 3 months before my birth thousands of miles away, in a Detroit hospital to a woman almost catatonic with grief, who weighed less at the end of her pregnancy than she did at my conception, having, basically, forgotten to eat in the third trimester that served as a mourning period instead of a period of enthusiastic anticipation. Much later in my life, she was mercifully distanced enough from her traumatic experience to allow me to look at everything in a wooden trunk in which she had stored his memory  --  all the physical aspects that remained of my father's existence in her life -- among them his medals (the Purple Heart and Bronze Star and a few others I can't recognise), the flag from his coffin, the newspaper announcements of his accomplishments in the Marines and Vietnam --and the devastating eulogies announcing his death -- and, most important to me: the voluminous pile of letters he wrote to her in the few months he was in Vietnam before his death.

I mention this because when the helicopter pilot stated her age, my mind immediately went to my father's pointless death at the same age, in ANOTHER war based on lies, imperialistic American hubris and greed -- and the bullshit propaganda of a Republican-fueled military industrial complex. I imagined that woman dying in her incredibly dangerous position, leaving yet another parent without a child (and in her case, an elderly woman without her primary caretaker) -- killed for NO GOOD FUCKING REASON.

Yes, I am really goddamned torn up about Iraq, and livid with rage and grief over the lunacy, the mendacity, the unmitigated greed of the men who brought America into yet ANOTHER goddamned quagmire of imperialistic, immoral WAR they had NO GOOD REASON TO MAKE. Oh, there were reasons, to be sure - but they were not GOOD reasons. In point of fact, their reasons were the worst sort: profit and self-aggrandisement, the acquisition of still more of their already obscene grip on power over the world's resources.

You could love her or you could hate her, but you could not ignore her. She would always give her opinions, and she spared nobody -- Democrat, Republican, Markos, whoever. I bring her up for a reason -- she, like Jeremiah Wright, and Rachael Corrie, are vital to a movement like ours. People who pigeonhole people like her or Wright are operating under a faulty premise -- people like them do not want or expect you to march with them in lockstep. In this respect, they are totally different than the right-wing fundies, who expect you to believe in their doctrines or go to hell. Instead, they want you to think -- do you believe this or not? If not, why not?

People like O'Connor and Wright say the sorts of things that they do to shock the hell out of you because in many cases, people don't think for themselves unless they are taken out of their comfort zones. And in Barack Obama's case, he did exactly what Wright wanted -- he worked out why he was so adamantly opposed to what Wright was saying. It was not that Wright should be a pariah or that he did not have valid hurts and feelings. The challenge is to figure out why you would reject "God Damn America" while still affirming Wright's humanity.

Experts say George Bush wrong on Iran:

Experts on Iran and nuclear proliferation said the president's statement was wrong. "That's as uninformed as [Sen. John] McCain's statement that Iran is training al-Qaeda. Iran has never said it wanted a nuclear weapon for any reason. It's just not true. It's a little troubling that the president and the leading Republican candidate are both so wrong about Iran," said Joseph Cirincione, president of Ploughshares Fund, a global security foundation.

"The Iranian government is on the record across the board as saying it does not want a nuclear weapon. There's plenty of room for skepticism about these assertions. But it's troubling for the administration to indicate that Iran is explicitly embracing the program as a means of destroying another country," said Suzanne Maloney, an Iran specialist at the State Department until last year and now at the Brookings Institution's Saban Center.

But analysts warned that Bush's statement on Iran's nuclear intentions could escalate tensions when U.S. strategy for the first time in three decades is to persuade Iran to join international talks in exchange for suspending its uranium enrichment, a process used for peaceful nuclear energy that can be converted for use in a weapons program. "The bellicose rhetoric from one side only produces the same from the other," Maloney said.

So, the verdict is out -- Bush, McCain, and Clinton are all wrong about Iran. Obama is right.

Hillary Clinton is broke again.

TPM reports that Hillary Clinton has only $2 million on hand, while Obama has $30 million on hand. Even though she still has the lead in PA, she is going to have extreme difficulties sustaining that lead. Obama will have a lot of money to play with, while Hillary Clinton has nothing. And this undermines any electability arguments that Hillary's supporters may have -- Obama can raise more money and can spend it more effectively. Hillary Clinton cannot. She had a good month last month, but she spent all of it just trying to stay afloat.

At some point, someone is going to have to tell them that this race is over. Obama, thanks to his small-donor model, can raise money at will. Hillary, thanks to her max donor model, is all tapped out. And Obama will have that much more to use against John McCain.

Mason Profit -- Voice of Change

Appropriate title.

Blatant lie by Hillary Clinton over Bosnia:

As a reporter who visited Bosnia soon after the December 1995 Dayton Peace agreement, I can attest that the physical risks were minimal during this period, particularly at a heavily fortified U.S. Air Force base, such as Tuzla. Contrary to the claims of Hillary Clinton and former Army secretary Togo West, Bosnia was not "too dangerous" a place for President Clinton to visit in early 1996. In fact, the first Clinton to visit the Tuzla Air Force base was not Hillary, but Bill, on January 13, 1996.

Had Hillary Clinton's plane come "under sniper fire" in March 1996, we would certainly have heard about it long before now. Numerous reporters, including the Washington Post's John Pomfret, covered her trip. A review of nearly 100 news accounts of her visit shows that not a single newspaper or television station reported any security threat to the First Lady. "As a former AP wire service hack, I can safely say that it would have been in my lead had anything like that happened," said Pomfret.

According to Pomfret, the Tuzla airport was "one of the safest places in Bosnia" in March 1996, and "firmly under the control" of the 1st Armored Division.

Far from running to an airport building with their heads down, Clinton and her party were greeted on the tarmac by smiling U.S. and Bosnian officials. An eight-year-old Moslem girl, Emina Bicakcic, read a poem in English. An Associated Press photograph of the greeting ceremony, above, shows a smiling Clinton bending down to receive a kiss.

Is this the sort of "experience" that we want in our next commander in chief? Is this the sort of person that we want answering the phone at 3 a.m.? Let's face it -- if Hillary were to answer the phone at 3 a.m. and tell the President of Iran a blatant lie, and they were to find out about it, would our country be safer? No wonder Hillary voted to aid and abet George Bush's war crimes -- she has been in an environment where lying is an acceptable way of doing business. Thus, she saw nothing wrong with the AUMF vote.

Let's face it -- when that phone rings at 3 a.m., we want someone who will tell whoever it is the truth, no matter how much it hurts. I submit that Obama leaked the Wright tapes to FOX because he wanted this country to know the truth, not because he had anything to hide. I submit that he took an entire day off of campaigning and answered questions from news reporters about the Rezko affair because he wanted the American people to know the truth, not because he had something to hide. And a person who can tell the truth and who has nothing to hide is far better equipped to deal with foreign leaders because they know that when he tells them something, it will be the truth.

I furthermore submit that Bill Richardson endorsed Barack Obama because he understands this. Richardson has established himself as one of our most respected voices in foreign policy, and for him to endorse Obama over Clinton suggests that he understands this at some level.

Oh, and by the way -- the girl in the 3 a.m. ad rejects the politics of fear: