Obama Stood UP!

Yesterday morning dawned gray and cold. Weather far too raw for what should ostensibly be spring. Hunkered down in my office in layers of clothes, door mostly shut to let the space heater do its optimal job, blinds closed to avoid the wind-whipped trees. Precision point concentration on Power Points.

I had a 2:30 conference call, and about 10 minutes before that, I decided to take a break and check the news for the first time since about 6 in the morning. Drudge had it, and then MSNBC, the text being blogged out live as it happened. I looked to the blinds to my left and realized that the sun was somehow magically shining bright. Like it should. Obama was divorcing Wright at that very minute.
I read the words, and later watched the speech. Often with Obama, the words themselves carry power. Perfect articulations of nuanced thought. This was not that, not at all. He was so very angry that he spoke quietly, haltingly, the specific words in this case secondary to the emotion.
While some will doubtless contend that this was political posturing, and too little, too late, I think not.

We all know people who have divorced after 20 years -- after having built together a life of children, property, shared decisions and memories. They say “I don’t know what happened to that person I married.” The pain is palpable.

Divorced or not, each of us knows what it is to be terribly, irrevocably angered, hurt, disappointed and sometimes even blindsided, by someone we love. If you don’t know this feeling, just wait, it will happen. Often it is actually revocable, but not always. The pain is unbearable.
Obama stood up and said enough is enough.

And in other news:

• 
  Governor Easley of North Carolina, in endorsing Hillary Clinton, said she was so tough she “made Rocky Balboa look like a pansy.” Both gay organizations (who called and complained) and flowers, take offense. But the fun part here is if you can find the video somewhere, check out Hillary’s face as he says it. Priceless…..
• Albert Hofmann died yesterday at the age of 102. You may not know the name, but if you lived through the 60’s, you know his product line.
• From the Correspondent’s Dinner last Saturday night: Dick Cheyney is starting to pack up the Vice Presidents’ residence. “You have no idea,” he said, “how long it takes to dismantle a dungeon.”
• John and Hillary want a summer cut of the gas tax. This is an idiot idea. First, the gas tax is a USE tax. Use taxes are good. In this case, the tax pays for rebuilding roads, and construction workers lose work and jobs with no gas taxes, roads degenerate further, it’s another hit to a struggling economy. Further, it doesn’t make an appreciable difference. Assume you have a 20 gallon tank, and gas is $4.00/gallon. Therefore, a fill-up costs you $80. And yes, that sucks. Cutting the gas tax to zero saves you $3.64 off the $80. P-A-N-D-E-R, P-A-N-D-E-R, P-A-N-D-E-R. And on top of everything else, we need to use less oil, not find encouragement to use more. But to continue the math -- if you REALLY want to save money, do this instead. Car 1 -- 20 mpg, $4/gallon, and you’ll need to spend $80 to go 400 miles. Trade that car in for one that gets 35 mpg, and it will cost you $45.71 to go the same 400 miles. THAT is a significant difference.
  
• McCain is out with a “new” health care plan. He’s talking about putting power “back in the hands of family”. This is as good as his gas tax deal. Under the plan, insurance companies make money, pharmaceutical companies make money, employers no longer need to offer health insurance, and you are screwed. http://mccainsource.com/mccain_fact_check?id=0006
  
• Hillary challenged Obama to a “Lincoln-Douglas-style” debate. On Olbermann last night, they had the photo Fox News used: if any of you have an in over there at Fox, please tell them NOT Frederick Douglas, STEPHEN Douglas. And personally, I think Obama should agree to two REAL Lincoln-Douglas debates. So each could go first. The actual format was that the first person spoke for an hour, the second person spoke for an hour and a half, and the first person had a half hour at the end to follow up. And oh, NO interruptions while the other was speaking. Real different from the Hillary idea of getting up on flat-bed trucks and yelling at one another.
  West Virginia is using the California plan to disenfranchise Independent voters. I don’t know anyone in West Virginia, but if you do, please let them know there’s a problem with the ballots. If you need more specific information, please let me know.

Final note: I inadvertently got something wrong yesterday when I wrote that no one on this list knew what it was to be hungry, unless they were in Europe during WW2. One of the list readers is Bulgarian, and lived there under Communist rule. He has lived through coupons and rationing, and will hopefully be sending me something to post so we can all understand what it’s like. He gently chided me under the “you Americans” catch-all, and he was right. He knows what it is to be a hungry child. Apologies, you DO know.

Pick One

Today's topic is honour. Or lack thereof.

But before we get there -- thanks to all of you who called and wrote with your blood types....

And -- tomorrow is the next stage of the Iowa caucuses -- DCW says that John Edwards may do better than expected.

So now, on to honour, and our first contestant is John McCain.

McCain released his tax returns last week, but I didn't have time to read them. Well, now I've found the time. First, as everyone probably knows, John and Cindy file separately. Therefore, we don't know anything about the $100 MILLION Cindy is sitting on. I can let that pass. No, I can't: she claimed she kept her numbers quiet "to protect her children's privacy." And then it turns out that the largest part of their joint charitable contributions went to the private schools the McCain children attend.

We're going to skip the stolen recipes Cindy McCain posted as her own on the McCain campaign website (actually courtesy of the Food Network) and move on to John McCain's Disability Pension. I did not make this up.

John received $58,358 from the Navy as a disability pension for injuries sustained in the Vietnam War. This money is 100% tax free because of the 'severity' of the injuries. Data from the McCain Senate staff, reported here.

Now, if he is truly disabled, he deserves the pension. But if he is truly disabled, how does he claim to be in excellent health? In general, one gets a disability pension NOT as an honorarium, but because one is unfit to undertake their job. GOVERNMENT pensions are for people who cannot do ANY job. At least, that's how it works for the SSA pensions. I recently read the rules, and you lose the pension if you can go back to work. There might be something different about military pensions -- but I guess my follow-up question would be: How come John McCain gets one which is triple what SSA pays, and while 25% of the Iraq War vets are homeless? 60 grand is a lot of money when you remember that median income in America is in the 40's depending on whose count you believe -- although they are all in the $40's.

Does anyone else think McCain should pick one? Either -- "My wife is worth $100 million dollars, and I make decent money as a Senator, and therefore I'll return my Social Security pension, and my Navy disability pay, since I don't need it." (You know, like dollar-a-year men, such as Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jon Corzine). Or perhaps: "I'm qualified to be Commander in Chief because I'm in great shape, and therefore, I don't need a disability pension."

I could overlook it all if McCain was not opposed to increasing the GI Bill for current vets, and in favour of waterboarding. (Yes, I have the source: look at his vote list from the current Congress).

Our second contestant is Hillary Clinton.

Today, in North Carolina, the State GOP is going to start running Jesse Helms-style TV ads. (If you don't know who Jesse Helms was, look at the pictures in the dictionary next to the word "racist"). Source: North Carolina state GOP http://www.ncgop.org/home/index.asp (It's the story called "Extreme").

They are running the ad for downticket pull -- and they have a long history of ugliness like this. Here is the 1990 Jesse Helms ad: http://www.pbs.org/30secondcandidate/timeline/years/1990.html

And I understand this -- fear sells, and this is hardball politics.

BUT -- people of conscience need to condemn things like this. Which John McCain did. The Clinton camp was asked to do so also, and they have remained uncharacteristically silent. The Big Tent -- the Democratic Party -- we do NOT condone this sort of ugliness. Wait, I’m sorry, I forgot, the Clinton camp has demoted Mark Penn and is now using the Karl Rove playbook.....sorry, really, I forgot.

And our final contestant today is sort of amorphous. Back in 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed. (For details, Google “1993 WTC bombing" and then skip Wikipedia because it is NOT a real source). Back in 1993, I spent a fair amount of time listening to people say that if the Clinton administration did nothing, this would happen again. They said that this was just the start, that the Arab extremists were coming for America and we needed to prepare. NO ONE listened.

We'll come back to this, but first, a little semantic sideline: when I was in practice, I had a patient who had high blood pressure, high cholesterol, BAD cardiac arteries, and a few other things. I told him that he needed to cut back on the 2 packs a day he was smoking, cut out the after-dinner stogie, quit drinking, and modify the diet he was on, which consisted of meat, pasta, wine, coffee, and not much else. He refused things like fruit and veggies, with the exception of tomato gravy. He told me that life wouldn't be worth living without all that stuff. I sat by his hospital bed the night he died. My semantic question: is it his fault that he died of a heart attack? Should he be blamed? I don't have an answer although I believe we make the choices we make, and we pay the consequences. But there are some who would say it was his fault.

Back to the WTC. The alarmists were right. Arab extremists (the same Kuwaitis and Saudis and NOT the Iraqis) came back in 2001 and killed 3,000 Americans. Is this the fault of the American government? Should they be blamed? If you think the government is culpable, then PLEASE quit blaming Jeremiah Wright for saying that 9/11 was the fault of the government, that they brought this upon us. You can keep at him for the "G-ddamn America" comment, but let this one go.

And before we leave the religious zealots: Hagee, Hagee, Hagee. He has called Catholicism "the great whore", he has said Katrina was because of a gay pride parade, has choice comments on women (sample, "What's the difference between a snarling Doberman and a woman with PMS? Lipstick")

and is an all-around bigot. I don't blame McCain for soliciting Hagee's endorsement, but why does anyone put up with thinking what Hagee says is okay? Gotta ask -- is it because John Hagee is white, and white racism is okay, while anything from a black is anti-American? Does the MSM ignore him because it is not divisive ENOUGH?

Metrics, Numbers, Lies --oops-- I mean SPIN

You might have heard yesterday, as everyone was spinning the PA primary, that Hillary Clinton has won more popular votes than any other candidate.
This amuses me in too many ways to list.

If you want to see the report -- it's here http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=7265

Now, and I speak as the daughter of a mathematician who taught me all sorts of things you can do with math, let's look at what you have to assume to believe that Hillary Clinton won more popular votes than Barack Obama. It is the ultimate lesson in spin.

First, in reality, Obama is up by about 500,000 votes. That's actual truth. BUT you can play with the numbers to make them come out differently (the master of counts is General Westmoreland with the Vietnam death counts, followed by most governments in how they explain spending.)

To get things to look like Hillary won the popular vote, you first count Florida, which is somewhat legitimate, except for the people who did NOT vote since it was billed as a beauty contest, so the results are suspect. Still, they ARE results, and this would cut Obama's lead by about 200,000. Then, you need to count Michigan and make the assumption that NOT ONE HUMAN BEING in the state of Michigan voted for Barack Obama. That way, you can include all the votes Hillary won under her name (left on the ballot after signing a pledge that the primary wouldn't count, and saying she WOULD pull her name). You must assume that NOT ONE person voting "uncommitted" was in favour of Barack.

Then, you pull all the caucus votes. A little civics here --> most caucus results do not include the actual popular vote. So, when 150 people, or 1,000 people, vote in a precinct, the vote is "ONE" for the precinct. It's not that hard to make a range guess at the attendance, since there are sign-in sheets, but that data doesn't get released. Still, for the Clinton count to work, you need to discount the "ONE" counts.

Therefore, if you cut out a bunch of states, Hillary does win the popular vote.

In the light of day, though, it's no more than spin.

Next -- prior to the PA primary, the line was that Hillary needed a double digit win in PA to stay in the race. She didn't get that because 9.38% does NOT round to 10. If you think it does, you failed math in grade school. The pundits did not fail math in grade school, Chuck Todd certainly didn't fail math in grade school -- but it is to the benefit of the news media that the internecine fight marches forward.

I'm going to skip the description of how Hillary won PA, unless people ask me to explain it. It primarily comes down to demographics (mostly age). What I want you to know is that despite the poll numbers which say that Hillary supporters will stay home in November if Obama gets the nomination -- it just isn't true. I myself have days when I say to myself that I will stay home in November if Hillary steals the nomination (which is all that is left since the process depends on DELEGATE counts, and she cannot win that) -- but I **AM** a structural Democrat. Hillary's base is comprised of structural Democrats -- old people voting Democratic their WHOLE lives, party regulars who work the polls and the elections, people who vote Democratic out of muscle memory. We're not staying home. None of us.

But you know who WILL stay home? The people for whom this is their first election. VASTLY underrepresented in polls since they have cell phones and no land lines, and because the call lists for pollsters and the Parties are a year behind, they won't vote in November if they feel that the nomination was stolen from their candidate.

Who says your vote doesn't matter?

From Wednesday Morning ->

Well, it's now 4:30 and I've had that all important 6 hour nap.

I've lived in my house for more than 20 years. When I moved in, Republican registration was overwhelming, and the Democrats were not only few and far between, but they hid. The County was so Republican that it had NEVER elected a Democrat to a state office that anyone could remember. Last year, we elected a Democratic State Senator for the very first time.

The official totals out of my precinct are: 1067 registered Democrats, 754 voted (76.32%) 374 Obama, 378 Clinton, 1 write-in, and on one ballot -- no choice for President. For Chester County (part of CD 6) the official county tallies are 113,278 Democrats, 73,572 votes (66.26%) Obama 40,411 (55.06%), Clinton 32,814 (44.71%). For me, in my little area -- not bad, not bad at all.

Over in Montco, which is where I always told you the worm would turn -- Of the 247,387 voters, 150,055 (60.66%) cast ballots: 75,682 (49.28%) voted for Obama, and 77,886 (50.72%) voted for Clinton. (As an aside, all numbers are from the official county sites).

The pundits will spin today, the money will pour in, and we will march on to Guam et. al.

But as Tip O'Neill said "All politics is local" and I don't feel so bad today. I'm hoarse, exhausted, disappointed in those 3 local voters who could have made a difference (and in all honestly -- I KNOW WHO YOU ARE ) -- but actually PROUD of the work we did here.

In turnout alone, we won a county the Republicans thought they could never lose.

In terms of the delegate count -- we should have something later today -- remember that our votes go in by precinct, are counted by County, but the Congressional Districts (from which the delegates are accorded) span multiple counties in the southeast, east, and southwest, but span multiple counties in the center. To get the delegate counts, the precincts will need to be combined and the delegates accorded. The actual delegate count will not, mathematically, make a difference.

And so -- on to build the party, on to Guam, et. al., two weeks to North Carolina and Indiana.

Happiness

A few days ago, I went to the hairdresser, as I have every 6 weeks for the decades. It is always fun -- he's a great guy, our conversation is lively, and it is the only time that my hair is "big" for about an hour. Also, he runs perpetually late, so I have the opportunity to read his incredible magazine collection. The first mag I picked up had an article titled "Let the Joy Shine Through" -- based on the book Happy for No Reason by Marci Shimoff and Carol Kline.

I could dissect the whole article, but the bottom line, shown anecdotally and via neuroscience research, is that people can choose to be happy, or they can choose to be unhappy. In the exact same way that you can choose coffee or tea, exercise or television, every single simple choice we each make daily -- each and every one of us can choose to be happy.

There are certainly ways to learn to be happy -- some attitudinal, some action-oriented, and some both. The last "tip" they give in the article is to find things with passion and purpose. That is, of course, both attitudinal AND action-oriented. That doesn't mean you have to dedicate your life to things which intrinsically have purpose, it means putting passion and purpose into everything you do. Like most everybody else, I work for a living, and have had a bunch of jobs and careers over my working life. I can choose (as can you all) to go through the motions, doing task "A" followed by task "B", -OR- I can choose to endeavor to be the very best I can be at whatever I do, putting as much energy into it as possible, and using my work to help affect positive change by what I undertake. And it doesn't matter whether you are a short-order cook committed to the best tasting pancakes possible, a doctor choosing to treat a whole patient instead of the symptom set with which the patient presents, a seamstress sewing pockets on jeans (do it with passion and whoever wears them feels wonderful all day), or a politician committed to message over "regular" politics.

Some of you reading this have known me all my life. Some of you are friends of friends, and we have never met. For those that don't "know" me -- I have lived a life that "works" and at times, one that does not. I choose the former because it's just better. It's better to live a life of purpose, and gratitude, and commitment, one dedicated to healing the world, and making it better, even if some days that only means making someone smile who would not have otherwise. That is your choice, too, every day. (If you want to be happy and don't know how, buy the book -- it functions as an owner's manual...)

After I started working on this piece, knowing it would be saved for the day before the PA primary, "bittergate" erupted. Olivia and I did the park at sunrise the day after the tape was released - watching the sun go from pink to orange over the pond. Watching a pair of geese interact on the shoreline. Smelling the coming of spring, feeling the air in our faces as one of us ran the path, and the other chased deer. And while I’m sure Olivia's prime thought was "DEER!!!!" mine thoughts ran to how many people in our country really ARE bitter. How they chose to blame whoever they can for their misfortunes, how they grab onto what "was" but will never be again.

The PA primary contest tomorrow is actually a pitched battle between happiness and bitterness.

"Happiness" does not mean that everything works perfectly for someone on every day of his/her life. It means that whatever happens, good or bad, your ATTITUDE makes you appreciate the good, revel in joy, and work to overcome sadness and defeat when they occur. It means, in a political context, that you fix problems instead of complaining about them. You find solutions to difficult issues by working together in lieu of inciting further divisions. It means you HONESTLY address what is wrong with domestic and foreign situations and forge solutions based on the best possible outcome.

If instead you choose bitterness, you cling tenaciously to non-workable policies, gutter politics, "solutions" which have failed in the past (remembering that the definition of "stupidity" is "doing the same thing the same way and expecting a different outcome") AND ABOVE ALL ELSE you attack the person instead of staying on the issues. Bitter politics are the politics of desperation.

Today, as you go about your day, choose to be happy. Choose to put energy in all you do, take pride in your undertakings. Life can be a tapestry, it need not be a flat print.

And tomorrow, if you live in Pennsylvania, choose to vote for hope, and change, and happiness. Choose to vote for the promise of a better world, one based on smart responses, innovative solutions, and thinking outside the known box. When you go to mark that ballot -- remember Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky, Vince Foster, NAFTA, China, ignoring the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, the closed discussions and then choose to remember that "winning" need not be a zero sum game. Choose Obama, because it matters, and because one vote really can change world for the better.

I was wrong...

...And I'll get to that.

In fact, two flats of flowers will potentially die since I'm writing and losing the time I need to get them in the ground -- but I think admitting one is wrong is actually far more important than being wrong -- so I needed to get this out --- but first ...

If you have an opportunity to pick up a copy of the Philadelphia City Paper (I get my copy at Whole Foods, I don't know who else has them outside the city) -- you'll see two side-by-side articles by embeds in the Clinton and Obama campaigns in Philadelphia. People who went in undercover with fake names (the philosophy is discussed in their Editor's Column) and spent a month with each campaign. If you want to see the difference between the Obama campaign and every other campaign in history -- this would be a great read.

Last night two polls came out -- Gallup says Obama has lost his 11 point national lead to Clinton -- down to a 3 point lead. Newsweek has his lead at 18. If you read the Pennsylvania polls, even after you throw out ARG (which for some reason I can't find specifics on, everyone seems to do) you're looking at polls that put Hillary's lead to between plus 19 and negative one. HHHMMM....(as an aside, the best place to see poll data is http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html and then look for the analysis at www.pollster.com)

So the question is "Huh?"

The official pollsters (including Mark Blumenthal over at Pollster for whom I have a lot of respect) say that the difference has to do with how much a poll pushes "leaners", whether they allow for answers like "other", the choice of "registered voters" "likely voters" "registered Democrats" "registered Democrats and Independents" etc.

I have a slightly different take (as usual) -- First, I think it's the lists they use to determine "registered voters" and the rest of the list choices. I've worked off those lists -- they come from the states, and voter services. Lists are culled infrequently. People move. People change positions. In a household with two voters, one Democrat, one Republican -- you don't know who is going to answer the phone. Second, there is an issue of IF people answer the phone. Do YOU answer calls from 800 numbers? I don't. Then, remember that cell phones aren't called -- therefore people who have no land line (who are overwhelmingly young) are never called. Neither are people living "somewhere else" -- college students, people who are living in someone else's house, people constantly on the road effectually living in hotels, etc.

Therefore, while the pollsters may actually be going after a certain demographic set, "WHO" they talk to may be vastly different.

Six Blind Men and the Elephant. (A great story, if you've never read it -- it explains a lot).

And finally, there is the "people are stupid" argument. I caught a televised clip of a reporter (I don't know where the clip was from, but I saw it on MSNBC, and I know it's from somewhere else). During the debate, they had UNDECIDED voters watching to debate so they could gauge reaction. The question was "If your candidate doesn't win the primary, raise your hand if you'll vote for John McCain in November". About half the audience raised their hands. Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but if you are undecided, you don't HAVE a candidate.

Next topic -- tomorrow George Stephanopoulos will interview John McCain on "This Week". So -- will he ask the same kind of questions he asked on Wednesday night, or, as suspected, will he play softball or actually ask issue questions? The answer actually will define how ABC/Disney will report the election season, and will show the world how biased they are or are not. Cliff Schecter wrote the marvelous book The Real McCain (which I have read and highly recommend) and he has some questions he thinks George should ask. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cliff-schecter/important-questions-for-g_b_97421.html Read it, you won't be sorry.

That link is from the Huffington Post, and there is something else there, too. Hillary Clinton bashing MoveOn. I'm sure you've heard of MoveOn, but you might have forgotten that they were formed to DEFEND Bill Clinton during the impeachment hearings. If you cringed at "bittergate" you'll love this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/celeste-fremon/clinton-slams-democratic_b_97484.html

And now -- about being wrong. I thought I might have had Likud wrong, and as many of you told me -- Likud is more Republican than Democratic. Sorry, I was wrong. There are some things I have a high probability of being wrong about -- and the top one on the list is the time change --- I run about 99% wrong on knowing what time it is in another time zone. It's like a mental block.

But what I really want to respond to is the email from a college student who asked why it mattered. Israel is not the United States, she wrote, why do people make such a big deal about it? And why, she continued, does it matter that Bibi said 9/11 was good for Israel?

When I was a kid, I knew adults who had numbers. For those of you too young to remember, that means they had numbers on their forearms put there by the Nazis when they were taken to the concentration camps. Like branded cows -- identified as Jews, as numbers not names. Horror unthinkable. But there, 20 years later, was the scar. The youngest were taken as children. Carted off on trains, separated from families -- and many more than wore those with numbers were killed in gas chambers, were operated on in obscene medical experiments, horrors on horrors.

And some of them would say, with eyes permanently saddened by that which they had survived, that while the Holocaust was unimaginably bad, the ONLY good thing that came out of it was that world shame led to the founding of Israel, the Promised Land. I was too young then to understand what they meant, but I know now that living through extreme horror and tragedy gives one a perspective the rest of us cannot have, and living through something as bad as the Holocaust gives one the right to seek some good coming out of it. Bibi Netanyahu spent most of his childhood in Cheltenham (about 20 miles from where I sit) -- he has no right to seek "something good" in tragedy.

Tonight (or earlier in other parts of the world -- that time change thing) Jews around the world will gather to mark Passover -- to say "Next Year in Jerusalem" and remember centuries Jews were kept by the Egyptians as slaves, building the tombs called pyramids. Walking 40 years in the dessert looking for the Promised Land. Eating ritualistic foods to remind us of bitterness, of the mortar used in the pyramids, of the wholeness of the world, and unleavened bread to remind us of having to leave NOW, with no time for the bread to rise.

This time of year I am always reminded of something my mother told me back in the '80's. Back then 14,000 Ethiopian Jews were airlifted out, first to Rome, and then on to Israel. They were fundamentalist Jews who still observed as people had 5000 years earlier. While they knew about Egyptian slavery, they didn't know about the Spanish Inquisition, the Holocaust, the Crusades -- none of it. My mother tells the story of being in Rome when they arrived (she worked then for one of the organizations involved in the resettlement).

These people had never seen electric lights, nor indoor bathrooms, even the silverware was new to them. They sat at tables and were offered soup. I have the sense that no matter what had been said to them, nor what they said back, even knowing that they had been taken (IN A CAN IN THE SKY!!!) from a desolate land of famine, from a war zone, they were still terribly frightened to the depths of their souls. My mother said they would look around, reach into their robes, and pull out bites of matzoh (unleavened bread).

And it is crystallized in the story of the Ethiopian airlift why Israel matters. While I don't even pretend to be a religious Jew, I cling tenaciously to the fundamentals of charity, education, leaving the world a better place when I die than how it was when I was born, to the teachings of Moses Cordovero of Safed. Still, to me, Israel is not "the issue" as it is for many Jews.

Israel stands as the ultimate testament to survival. Through 5000 years of burned temples, genocide, murder, torture, expulsion and everything else horrific that can happen to a people, Jews come together once a year to say "Next Year in Jerusalem". If you don't understand, take the number 6 bus line south from Jerusalem to the last stop, walk up the hill to Kiriyat Moriah, walk north to the end of the flat at dusk, and sit and watch. See darkness fall over the valley to the right, the lights come on in the new part of the city to the left, and a couple hours later, watch the tourist fireworks erupt over the Old City. Then you'll understand.

Even Baby Bush (for whom I have nary a decent word) understands that Israel stands, must stand. It's why in the ABC debate both Clinton and Obama swore its protection (as John McCain does, too). It is why I don't worry -- the greatest country in the world would never let Israel be pushed into the sea as many would like to see happen.

The ramifications of Israel falling break down the entire world. And that's not an exaggeration, although the explanation would take pages on pages. Israel matters, my little freshman friend, because as small as it is, it is in ways that matter, a giant lynchpin.

The Twilight Zone

One of the credos that I live by is "always beware of things out of character". As in --> "Jessica, do you trust so-and-so?" "Yes, I trust him to always do the wrong thing."

As a structural Democrat, I usually have good things to say about the blues and bad things to say about the reds (and red **IS** such an angry colour) but not today.....EEK!

It begins like any Twilight Zone episode, with a normal event. Olivia had to go to the vet, and since I correctly knew that his office would be decked out as the core Ron Paul supporter he is, I wore my cute little Obama hat. Luckily, although there for something else, it turned out that what I thought was a tick scar was actually a little cyst, now removed, and Olivia is back to fine. My vet is a brilliant holist, a great guy, and couldn't have more divergent political views than I on fundamental issues if we played the Dan Akroyd-Jane Curtain pair on the 1970's SNL. Still, in our political discussion yesterday, we have SOME common ground, which gives me some hope that America can, with the right leadership, get back to working together towards greatness.

Now -- enter the zone:

Wednesday night was the annual correspondents' dinner in DC. Dick Cheyney and Mitt Romney were FUNNY. Dick said that he asked Lynne if it bothered her that people called him Darth Vader. "No," she said, "It humanizes you." He also said that Hillary's comment on sniper fire wasn't really misspeaking -- she was just confusing it with when he took her hunting. (Come on, it's funny)

And on to Mitt. He gave his 'Top 10 Reasons for Dropping Out of the Race':

10. There weren't as many Osmonds as I thought.
9. I got tired of corkscrew landings under sniper fire.
8. As a lifelong hunter, I didn't want to miss the start of the varmint season.
7. There wasn't room for two Christian leaders.
6. I was upset that no one had bothered to search my passport files.
5. I needed an excuse to get fat, grow a beard and win the Nobel prize.
4. I took a bad fall at a campaign rally and broke my hair.
3. I wanted to finally take off that dark suit and tie, and kick back in a light-colored suit and tie.
2. Once my wife Ann realized I couldn't win, my fundraising dried up.
1. There was a miscalculation in our theory: 'As Utah goes, so goes the nation.'

Thus ends the good things I have to say about the Republicans.

And now on to the Democrats: our target today is Howard Dean. Last night, he came out and said that the SuperDelegates should endorse "starting now." I have a message for Howard Dean: LEAD BY EXAMPLE. Because my mother reads this list, I cannot spew forth the lead-up curses to the ad hominem attack I'd like to. But gently -- if you are IN CHARGE and you want your people to DO SOMETHING -- you should do it first. Howard could set the tone of either "we know where the math is going, and I endorse Barack" -OR- "I think we should overturn the will of the people and I endorse Hillary". This is worse than the scream. Bad, bad, bad.

And then we have Bibi Netanyahu. Not a Democrat, but I'm pretty sure that Likud is more Democratic than Republican in party-type affiliation. (And I'm sure someone will correct me if I got that wrong.) Bibi said that the 9/11 attacks were good for Israel. See the quote at:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/975574.html When Ahmadinejad comes out and says that the Holocaust didn't happen, 9/11 didn't happen, I can say -- this guy is a nut job and I can launch a cursing ad hominem attack my mother would conceivably approve of.

Over the years, I've heard non-Jews confuse "Judaism" as being a "race" (which it is not) with being a religion (which it is). I always correct that misconception when I hear it. Being Jewish is different, though, than most religions -- and while not a "race", we are a "people". And Bibi, it's bad enough that Americans were killed at the Twin Towers, and in the Pennsylvania field, and at the Pentagon -- but also Jews -- YOUR PEOPLE died that day. You shouldn't look for a benefit from that tragedy. Note to MIT -- rescind this guy's diploma. SHAME ON YOU BIBI.

I'm returning now from the Twilight Zone ------

On scouring the net for tidbits and goodies, I found the following:

John McCain, that economic genius, wants to lower the gas tax for the summer. Now, I'm opposed to that on the fundamental belief that conservation is GOOD and I'm actually a fan of raising the gas tax to encourage people to buy little, gas efficient cars. But that's a latte liberal left wing position. HOWEVER I'm joined in thinking that it's a bad idea by that bastion of Republicanism, the Wall Street Journal, which reports that John's little idea could cost a bunch of jobs, and let our highways fall into even greater disrepair. (Remember, the gas tax is a USE tax). http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/04/15/mccains-gas-tax-plan-may-be-a-clunker/?mod=WSJBlog

Yesterday, I wrote about my disgust with George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson in handling the Republican attack they called a debate. From what I saw yesterday, mine was not an isolated response. It used to be that you watched Walter or Chet and David, and you thought you could trust the news. (For you youngsters -- look up Cronkite, Huntley and Brinkley). I'm proud that, thanks to the internet, the MSM cannot get away with nonsense anymore. Note to Disney (owner of ABC) -- did you REALLY THINK that no one would notice?

Final logistic note -- tomorrow night is Passover, and I'll be tied up all weekend. So, for those of you that worry I've left the planet when I don't publish for a few days -- don't worry -- Monday's piece is called "Happiness" -- it's in the bag, and good to go. If you live in Pennsylvania, Barack will be at the Paoli train station tomorrow -- be there by noon for a good spot. In just 92.5 hours, the polls open in Pennsylvania.

1. The Debate

I know you want to hear about the debate. My ONLY direct comment on the debate is that ABC should be ASHAMED at asking "tabloid" type questions. Flag pins? Turns out that question came from SEAN HANNITY. Great job George. This is why ABC didn't get any of the REAL debates.

My indirect comment is --> I served on a charity board. (Unpaid, 1 year, my major contribution was filling out 503 paperwork to get them non-profit status, I was paid $1 for the year) YOU DO NOT CHOOSE WHO YOU SERVE ON A BOARD WITH -- and even if you dislike someone, you still work with them, attend a few "social" events (usually fundraisers), and act friendly for the good of the charity.

My real comment is -- DID YOU SEE THE CONSTITUTION CENTER????? (Which Chuck Gibson referred to as the "Constitutional Center", but I digress. Although in that same opening, he said that "46 states have voted" -- ABC obviously doesn't know the difference between a state, a protectorate and a district, since there are 8 states, Guam and Puerto Rico left.... and the total number of American states is 50, Chuck. Actually, maybe it's a math error - either way it shows the sloppiness employed in ABC's whole production).

The debate was held in the Kimmel Auditorium. Normally, that is where they give the twice-an-hour multi-media show on the history of the Constitution. (Open seating -- best seats are in the second row). As they would go to commercial break, the statues they were showing are (I believe) bronze. They are all life-size renditions of all the signers. (I like to hug John Madison, he's just my size in physical stature, although his true stature is that of a giant.) The Constitution Center deserved better questions.

So here's the deal, readers -- if any of you EVER want to go to the Constitution Center, just let me know, and I'll take you. Hillary was right last night when she said that neither she nor Obama was "covered" by the original constitution -- but this place shows how that most wonderful document has changed, how WE THE PEOPLE have changed it, and how it has shaped what we are today as a country.

At the bottom of this page are two pictures of the place..... they are used with permission from the US Constitution Center, and in the Hall of Signers, James Madison is to the left of the table with his hands behind his back.


2. "Screw You"

"In January 1995, as the Clintons were licking their wounds from the 1994 congressional elections, a debate emerged at a retreat at Camp David. Should the administration make overtures to working class white southerners who had all but forsaken the Democratic Party? The then-first lady took a less than inclusive approach.

"Screw 'em," she told her husband. "You don't owe them a thing, Bill.
They're doing nothing for you; you don't have to do anything for
them.""

That quote is from two books. The authors who wrote the books were there and heard the comment. It stand on its own. The books are: "For Love of Politics: Bill and Hillary Clinton: The White House Years" by Sally Bedell Smith, and "The Truth of Power: Intellectual Affairs in the Clinton White House" by Benjamin Barber.

For more context: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/clinton-on-work.html, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/16/hillary-clinton-on-workin_n_97017.html

3. New Hampshire

Yesterday, the NH House of Representatives tabled HR.24, which was based on Thomas Jefferson's "Manual of Parliamentary Practice for the Use of the Senate of the United States" -- Section 53. If you want to read the manual, look down this link. The link is from the GPO, and Jefferson's Manual (by section) is below the Constitution links http://www.gpoaccess.gov/hrm/browse_109.html
The vote was 227 - 95.

If you haven't guessed already (and yes, I'm betting that Jefferson's 1801 document is a little obscure to most people....)

The motion was to start impeachment hearings in the Congress against Bush and Cheyney. Here is the bill: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2008/hr0024.html

Read it, it will make you feel better.

...And it's tax day

Do you know who Geoff Davis is? No, not Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederacy, but Geoff Davis a Republican Congressman from Kentucky. Saturday night, he called Obama "boy". Saying "..that boy's finger shouldn't be on the button." So as not to take the quote out of context, here's the full sentence: "I'm going to tell you something: That boy's finger does not need to be on the button," Davis said. "He could not make a decision in that simulation that related to a nuclear threat to this country." He also called Obama a "snake oil salesman". Here's the full link (with some choice words from Mitch McConnell, including, amazingly, a reference to Hillary Clinton and Hooters in the same sentence, and a link to the audio.... http://polwatchers.typepad.com/pol_watchers/2008/04/republicans-tal.html ). TALK ABOUT DESPERATION....

I was happily surprised yesterday at the response I heard about the "bitterness" comment. NOT from the pundits, or the news media, but from regular people. I got gas at the WaWa (for those of you who don't live around here, "WaWa" is to "convenience store" what "Ruths Chris" is to "hamburger") and the woman at the counter (who actually uses me as her fact checker) said "Hell, we're ALL bitter and angry -- what sort of idiot would think we weren't?" And her sentiments were echoed by other people on line.

On line at the post office (where, for the first time in my life, I mailed my check to the IRS a full day before I had to) the people I was waiting with, looking at my Obama ball cap asked if I thought the bitterness comment would hurt Obama. My response was to ask what they thought. And people were saying "I hope not -- he told the truth".

And on to McCain. My McCain book stack is here, and I started looking through them. To say that this guy is NOT what he seems is to look at an optical illusion -- YES!!!! it's BOTH!!!! Thanks to the magic of post-it flags, I'm happily marking pages for the write-ups that will start after the primaries. But it was fun to be reading about McShame and his relationship to Keating JUST as Keith Olbermann was pointing out that the DNC is suing McCain for violations of the McCain-Feingold Act. The suit buys nothing, as the FEC lacks a quorum and the court will probably defer until the FEC can answer to previously filed complaints against McCain -- but this is going to be a big deal in the fall.

For those of you who don't follow this stuff with the love of detail I have...McCain-Feingold was envisioned as a way to make campaign money free of corporate/union/special interest funding. The legislation is imperfect, but it was bipartisan and a good start. You can take Federal funds which will match your contributions provided you observe the limits. If you take Federal funds, you can save money on certain things, like automatically getting on ballots without having to pay for the drive to get your name on the ballot. You CANNOT, however, use the funds as collateral to get a loan. You also can't jump in and out of the system. John opted in, got on the Ohio ballot with it, used the funds as collateral for a bank loan, then opted out, blew the max, and opted back in.

At this point, I'm thinking "animated Power Point Show" so we can all watch John morph on his abortion, gay rights, campaign financing, tax cut and torture positions. And on that last one -- remember that McCain WAS tortured and therefore SHOULD be against it. Turns out, based on his February vote, that he is only against torturing Americans, since he voted against a proposal which would have banned the CIA from using torture. Remember that the CIA, by law, cannot operate domestically. From the Senate records: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00022

So happy tax day folks -- remember to get those checks in!

Bitterness, Faith and Religion

If you haven’t heard yet, today you’ll be hearing about Barack Obama’s “bitterness” comment.

Trust me, I know how he feels.

Last weekend, in San Francisco, at a fundraiser that was supposedly closed to the press, Obama said

“But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can
make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go
into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in
the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced
them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush
administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these
communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then
they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who
aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to
explain their frustrations.”

For some reason, when the angry denunciations came from the Clinton and McCain campaigns, as well as the pundits, they only heard “guns and religion” and missed the rest of the thought.
Pretty standard for news bites.

In explaining his position, Obama said that he was sorry if he offended anyone, but he stood by the idea that people had become bitter. Here’s the actual link: http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gGBWx9

Obama has been accused of being an “elitist”. And the implication is that somehow “elitist” is in a class with every other pejorative. (And you know the ones I mean).

The whole imbroglio brought up the question of “faith”, and led last night to the “Compassion Bowl” on CNN. I did not watch it, but I did look at the mini-polls. At this moment on CNN.com the poll question (open to anyone, currently 11,487 responses) is: “Is faith or religion important in your choice of presidential candidates?” 67% voted no, 33% voted yes. Over on MSNBC.com, the question was:

Is it appropriate for presidential candidates to attend a
forum on faith? * 4296 responses
Yes, it's important for voters to know where candidates stand on issues of spirituality and morality.53%
No, politics has become too infused with religion; the two should be kept
separate.42%
I'm not sure.5%

Welcome to America.

I have two comments: First, I think Obama was right. NOT in the way he said it: that was a political fiasco. But there IS bitterness in people who feel that the rug has been pulled out from under them. (The best speech on this is Michael Douglas’ end speech in the movie The American President.) I know some of these bitter people. We ALL do. They want their world back, and who wouldn’t be bitter if one’s industry was gone and one had no hope of ever again being able to make the money one once did?

And if you were one of the bitter people -- who would you blame? What would you look to for solace?
Second: I know someone who is an avowed atheist. He always told me that atheists are hated more than any other religion. (I’ve seen stats and I believe him to be correct.) While the First Amendment allows Freedom of Religion, and that “freedom” includes the freedom to practice NO religion, for some reason, people indicate that not having a religion is somehow “bad”.

The CNN and MSNBC polls indicate that Americans do care that their candidates are religious, although they don’t care WHICH religion one practices.

In invading and occupying Iraq, we caused a religious civil war. If you look at the history of war, there’s a lot of “religion” involved. Think the Crusades, any ethnic cleansing, Northern Ireland, the Middle East, Africa. And yet, when look at the ending of the draft during Vietnam, it was the atheists who brought the Supreme Court case which ceased the draft. Just a thought……

I find this whole topic to be incredibly (personally) painful. Because at base it IS an argument about “elitism” -- but not in the pejorative way people talk about it. We live in a country where actors and athletes are revered: face it -- the only people who make more money are “captains of industry”. They provide ENTERTAINMENT, and the tops in those fields make millions of dollars a year. (And as my old boss used to say “Money is how we keep score.”) Meanwhile, tops in their fields for things that MATTER like police, fire, teaching, nursing, etc., won’t top $100k, EVER.

As a society, we seem to revere gadgets, and cars and McMansions, and fancy vacations -- EVERYTHING but intelligence and truth. Obama spoke truth: in a smart and nuanced fashion. And he could easily go down for it. Many Americans have a "gimme" entitlement mind-set. And when that doesn't happen, they look for someone to blame, and something to which to cling tenaciously.
I go back to The American President speech: if you haven't seen the movie, Bob Rumson was the opposition candidate to Michael Douglas' incumbent President. Michael Douglas' character, Andrew Shepard said: (full link: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechtheamericanpresident.html)

"We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people
to solve them. And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you Bob Rumson
is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things,
and two things only: making you afraid of it, and telling you who's to blame for
it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections. You gather a group of
middle age, middle class, middle income voters who remember with longing an
easier time, and you talk to them about family, and American values and
character, and you wave an old photo of the President's girlfriend and you
scream about patriotism. You tell them she's to blame for their lot in life. And
you go on television and you call her a whore."

You can exchange "Bob Rumson" for the candidate of your choice, and "the President's girlfriend" with "NAFTA" or "illegal immigrants" -- but the thought is the same --> take the truth, find a way to make people afraid of it, and find someone to blame for it.

The American economy is in shambles, the war is a disaster, and for the record, there are more private militias in Pennsylvania (both in raw number, and per capita) than any other state in the country. We can all scream "patriotism" and pander to divisiveness, or we can look for smart ways to solve the problems, expand the tent, and make this country work again.

For those of us in Pennsylvania, that choice is next Tuesday.

McShame Redux

I received a lot of comments on the John McCain link I posted the other day. First -- while the link WAS from a blogger, the quote is actually from a researched book. The most common response was that people did NOT want to believe it about McCain. One person accused me of “character assassination”. My response to him was that it would be character assassination if it were false. It is, however, unlikely that it IS false.

On the off chance that I am wrong, I have ordered the book (and several companion volumes) that I will read as soon as I can (although definitely not until after the PA primary.) If I’m wrong, I’ll gladly admit it, and take my lumps.

The reason I believe the quote is correct is because of other positions John holds, and other things that he has said and done. While blogging predominantly Democratic, I have been compiling a McShame file (it’s currently a little over half an inch thick) which I plan to start sharing as soon as the Democrats have a candidate. (Officially…..)

And my research indicates a man truly misogynistic. Men who love and respect women do not hold the following views: (in parentheses are the sources)

Roe v Wade should be overturned (his web site)

A Constitutional Amendment should be passed prohibiting abortion (NY Times)

Judges must pass a pro-life litmus test (The New Yorker)

And from his voting record: despite the fact that he missed 57.5% of the votes in the current Senate session, when one looks at his total record, he is anti-S-CHIP, anti sex-ed, anti-contraception, and the list goes on. He has even consistently voted against Title X which provides family planning services AND mammograms and Pap smears. (And NOT abortion, as the anti-choice people would have you believe).

Men who love and respect women believe that WOMEN and not men, should be allowed to make choices. Calling one’s wife a bad name is the least of it compared to what you want to do to millions of women. “Barefoot and pregnant” is not a position progressive men take.

General Westmorland

Yesterday, I received a comment about my death count in Iraq from someone who pointed out that the number of American serviceperson deaths were artificially low as they only count battlefield deaths. Therefore, once someone is airlifted to Germany who dies of his wounds days or weeks later, that is not counted as one of the dead. I stand corrected.

I was reminded of General Westmorland, who, back in the Vietnam era was the guy who cited the numbers there. According to him, we lost very few soldiers, and killed each and every North Vietnamese person 5 times over.

Lies.

And yesterday was an appropriate days for lies, since General Patraeus and Ambassador Crocker were on the Hill. Again. I didn't have the opportunity to watch the hearings, but they're still repeating on C-Span, and so I've caught some bits, plus listened to a bit of the wrap up on TV.

The more I hear the pundits, the less I trust them. Mostly they seemed concerned with two things: first, how the candidates "did" in asking their questions, and second, pointing out that McShame didn't grasp the difference between Sunnis and Shiites, AGAIN (or STILL).

I was more interested in some of the questions I heard from the Senators, and the non-answers which came from the testifiers. First was Ben Cardin's question about whether there was someone in Iraq who could act as a negotiator to bring people together. Crocker tried to frame an answer, and
Cardin interrupted with "Is there a person, can you give me a name?" -- Crocker hemmed and hawed until finally getting to the point that there was no such person. The politics of lies from the neocons, the commitment to shading reality, are SO VERY STRONG, that when asked "what did you have for breakfast this morning?" I'm sure the answer would be "You have to understand that there are many options, and the consideration into the decision......."

But, of course, I cannot let the McShame gaffe go. Certainly, this is the 5th time he got it wrong publicly in the last several months. Which indicates that he cannot grasp the difference between Sunni and Shiite, nor does he know that Al Quada in Iraq is a small group, not a large sect. But the larger question is WHY can't he grasp it? The easy answer is that he's old and doddering, but I don't think that's it. I think he is so committed to being occupying Iraq, fighting in Afghanistan, and finding an excuse to invade Iran, that, in his mind, there doesn't need to be a reason -- McShame thinks they're ALL bad, and we need to bomb them all into submission. He seems to have lost the ability to reason anything out -- he just wants to "win".

And on that point, Obama really got it right -- when he pointed out that the standard for "winning" as put forth by Baby Bush and the neocons is not something that can ever be attained. The Iraqis could be the kind of people, have the kind of government, and be the country the Bushies want them to be as easily as the precious priceless princess, Munchkin Olivia, the wonder dog could suddenly speak English and grow thumbs. Difference is, I'm pretty sure Olivia WOULD like to grow thumbs.....

But back to the "lies" theme. This had slipped by me, but someone else made a comment, so I repeat it here. What is with Hillary Clinton and her inability to tell the truth? The difference between telling a lie and being a pathological liar has to do with whether you're lying for a reason, or lying just to lie. IN the latter case, you normally get found out and there was no reason to lie.

EVERYBODY lies --> "You look great, have you lost weight?" "Honest, I don't know how the vase broke" "I promise I'll respect you in the morning" "Don't worry, I'll call" "Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."

BUT

Hillary Clinton was in college when Martin Luther King was assassinated, and I'm sure she IS telling the truth when she says his murder was upsetting to her. But she claims she got back to her dorm room and flung her bookbag against the wall. No one HAD a book bag in 1968. Minor? ABSOLUTELY. But the point is, the truth itself was powerful enough without needing to be embellished. It's the little, minor, creeping lies which lead to the big ones.

The Politics of Desparation

Last night, while making Obama calls, I spoke to a woman for TWENTY MINUTES. Trust me, I've made calls for a LONG time, and I've NEVER spend 20 minutes (and 43 seconds, as per my cell phone) with an unknown voter. And amazingly, this woman wasn't even on my list.

When you make GOTV calls, you have lists of Democrats. (At least, I do) -- sometimes "Super Democrats" who have voted in a lot of prior elections, or new Democrats, or Democrats that don't vote. Sometimes, as in this case, someone else in the household answers the phone. This woman just switched from Independent to Democrat recently, so she didn't make the list. She switched (to join her husband, an Obama supporter) because, like a lot of people, they no longer feel they "have to" register Republican BECAUSE they "live in Chester County."

She told me that she was leaning to Clinton because she remembered the 90's fondly. I asked if she wanted to know why I was supporting Obama. She said yes, and thus began a long conversation on manufacturing jobs, the tax system, and all sorts of other things you REALLY need your facts for, and luckily, we BOTH had them.

In the end, she took my email address, so we could talk again. She said she is going to watch the debate (as an aside -- April 16, from that hallowed ground, the National Constitution Center) but she believed that I said that Obama represented the best chance at changing America, not just because of what I said, but because everything she hears from and about the Clintons reeks of desperation. She said that she didn't remember them being so MEAN (her word) in the 90's.

I am listening to Morning Joe as I write this, and hearing Hillary Clinton point out that NO delegate is pledged, they can do whatever they want at the convention. And while that is technically true -- it stinks. These are not elected officials who run on a multi-faceted platform -- pledged delegates are people elected to do ONE thing -- vote for who they said they would. Sure, they legally can change their minds if there is a "moral" reason -- but that moral reason should NEVER be because they were bought off.

Yesterday, the Obama campaign noted that it raised about $40 million in March. Close to a quarter of a million people made contributions to the campaign for the first time. If you doubt HOW different this is -- it means that if Obama becomes president, it will be the FIRST TIME that someone enters that position unbeholden to ANYONE but "WE THE PEOPLE". Both McCain and Clinton are beholden -- him to all sorts of lobbyists, but especially Telecom (FISA, FISA, FISA), her to big pharma, which will make health care reform especially touchy.

Also yesterday Elizabeth Edwards pointed out (correctly) that neither she nor John McCain would be able to have ANY health insurance under McCain's health care plan. It's probably okay for the two of them, since Elizabeth's husband is worth about $25 million, and John's wife is a beer heiress, but I intend to hammer this home continually -- McCain's health care plan is worse than anything anyone could imagine. I guarantee that you, or someone you love, will be unable to get health insurance under John McCain. EVER. Even though you probably have it now.

And finally, the MSM is saying that Obama took "oil money" because he raised $218,000 from people who work for oil companies. AMAZING -- I would hate to think that just because someone worked for Mobil, or Exxon or Shell they, AS AN INDIVIDUAL, were unable to contribute to the candidate of his/her choice.