I’ve got to check brotha Darian Dauchan out in NYC sometime. hat tip to ThatPoshGirl on Daily Kos for finding this. Artists see and say things much more clearly than a lot of us.

I proudly present, “Damn You Barack Obama, You Pretty Motha Fu**er”

Hat tip: HuffingtonPost.com

Supplier Under Scrutiny on Arms for Afghans
Published: March 27, 2008
This article was reported by C. J. Chivers, Eric Schmitt and Nicholas Wood and written by Mr. Chivers.

Since 2006, when the insurgency in Afghanistan sharply intensified, the Afghan government has been dependent on American logistics and military support in the war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

But to arm the Afghan forces that it hopes will lead this fight, the American military has relied since early last year on a fledgling company led by a 22-year-old man whose vice president was a licensed masseur.

With the award last January of a federal contract worth as much as nearly $300 million, the company, AEY Inc., which operates out of an unmarked office in Miami Beach, became the main supplier of munitions to Afghanistan’s army and police forces.

Since then, the company has provided ammunition that is more than 40 years old and in decomposing packaging, according to an examination of the munitions by The New York Times and interviews with American and Afghan officials. Much of the ammunition comes from the aging stockpiles of the old Communist bloc, including stockpiles that the State Department and NATO have determined to be unreliable and obsolete, and have spent millions of dollars to have destroyed.

In purchasing munitions, the contractor has also worked with middlemen and a shell company on a federal list of entities suspected of illegal arms trafficking.

Moreover, tens of millions of the rifle and machine-gun cartridges were manufactured in China, making their procurement a possible violation of American law. The company’s president, Efraim E. Diveroli, was also secretly recorded in a conversation that suggested corruption in his company’s purchase of more than 100 million aging rounds in Albania, according to audio files of the conversation.

This week, after repeated inquiries about AEY’s performance by The Times, the Army suspended the company from any future federal contracting, citing shipments of Chinese ammunition and claiming that Mr. Diveroli misled the Army by saying the munitions were Hungarian.

Mr. Diveroli, reached by telephone, said he was unaware of the action. The Army planned to notify his company by certified mail on Thursday, according to internal correspondence provided by a military official.

But problems with the ammunition were evident last fall in places like Nawa, Afghanistan, an outpost near the Pakistani border, where an Afghan lieutenant colonel surveyed the rifle cartridges on his police station’s dirty floor. Soon after arriving there, the cardboard boxes had split open and their contents spilled out, revealing ammunition manufactured in China in 1966.

“This is what they give us for the fighting,” said the colonel, Amanuddin, who like many Afghans has only one name. “It makes us worried, because too much of it is junk.” Ammunition as it ages over decades often becomes less powerful, reliable and accurate.

AEY is one of many previously unknown defense companies to have thrived since 2003, when the Pentagon began dispensing billions of dollars to train and equip indigenous forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. Its rise from obscurity once seemed to make it a successful example of the Bush administration’s promotion of private contractors as integral elements of war-fighting strategy.

But an examination of AEY’s background, through interviews in several countries, reviews of confidential government documents and the examination of some of the ammunition, suggests that Army contracting officials, under pressure to arm Afghan troops, allowed an immature company to enter the murky world of international arms dealing on the Pentagon’s behalf — and did so with minimal vetting and through a vaguely written contract with few restrictions.

In addition to this week’s suspension, AEY is under investigation by the Department of Defense’s inspector general and by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, prompted by complaints about the quality and origins of ammunition it provided, and allegations of corruption.

Rest of article is HERE.

As we move past 4,000 soldiers dead……………..
Tens of thousands permanently maimed…………………
A TRILLION DOLLARS in costs…………….

ALL based on LIES…..

Reading stories about war profiteers like this just makes the blood boil.

Crooks all.

Hillary ” Tonya Harding” Clinton’s claim that she’s the most ‘transparent’ candidate is about as accurate as her Bosnia LIE.

She says that she’s been vetted.

The truth is, she hasn’t been vetted AT ALL.

I’ve said, for some time, one of my main reasons for supporting Barack Obama is his plans for transparency in government…something that Hillary ” Tonya Harding” Clinton does NOT share.

How could she?

When she won’t come clean about
1. Taxes
2. Earmarks

Hat tip: Daily Dish

What Hillary Is Hiding
Her tax records, pork…
By Amanda Kathryn Hydro

“I think I’m probably the most transparent person in public life,” Sen. Hillary Clinton recently declared.

Much like her husband’s infamous Monica Lewinsky testimony, in which then-President Bill Clinton haggled, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is,” Hillary’s claim depends on what her definition of “transparent” is.

If Sen. Clinton thinks she’s transparent now that thousands of pages of scheduling records from her days as first lady have been released — because the group Judicial Watch and others sued to have them made public — sure, she’s transparent.

And if not disclosing her sources of income and sharing her tax returns since leaving the White House equals transparency, then yes, those Clintons are one transparent couple. On government disclosure forms, Sen. Clinton reports they have assets worth somewhere between $10 million and $50 million. That’s a lot of paid speeches and book sales. For a point of contrast, Sen. Barack Obama’s reported belongings, on the same disclosure forms, are worth between $456,000 and $1.1 million.

How have the Clintons amassed most of their wealth since leaving the White House? Where did that $5 million that Sen. Clinton pumped into her own campaign earlier this year come from? Who has donated to the presidential library’s coffers?

If Sen. Clinton really were the “most transparent” public official in the country, we’d know the answers to these questions. Instead her campaign hems and haws and says they’ll try to release some tax returns on or around April 15.

And then there’s the transparency that every taxpayer is interested in: How is Sen. Clinton spending our tax dollars?

The Los Angeles Times reports “Clinton has earmarked more than $2.3 billion in federal appropriations for projects” since joining the Senate. The Times also points out that it’s lucrative to be a Clinton contributor, reporting, “Since taking office in 2001, Clinton has delivered $500 million worth of earmarks that have specifically benefited 59 corporations. About 64 percent of those corporations provided funds to her campaigns through donations made by employees, executives, board members or lobbyists.”

Rest of article is HERE.

Who says John McCain doesn’t inspire creativity? The money shot is two minutes in. Thank you YouTube

Hat tip- a reader.

Clinton campaign looks to locals to challenge Obama delegates
By KELLEY SHANNON / Associated Press

Spurned by the Texas Democratic Party in its effort to stall this weekend’s county conventions, Hillary Clinton’s campaign said Wednesday it is mobilizing caucus supporters and helping those who want to challenge the legitimacy of some Barack Obama delegates.

The Clinton campaign itself won’t challenge Obama’s delegates at the approximately 280 county and state Senate district conventions Saturday, said Clinton state chairman Garry Mauro.

“I have always known the grass roots to generate credentials questions,” he said. “There’s no systematic approach that we’re taking to challenge anybody at any level.”

But the campaign is using a behind-the-scenes strategy. It is giving legal advice to some voters who are mounting challenges and is having volunteer lawyers closely watch the proceedings, Mauro said.

“Are there going to be corrections in mathematical errors? Yes,” he said, describing hypothetical examples of how a local delegate count might be changed.

Obama’s campaign also has people looking closely at delegate counts and individual counties, said spokesman Josh Earnest.

“Our people are there to ensure that the process goes well and not to try to obstruct the process, and hopefully that’s what their people will be doing as well,” Earnest said.

Both campaigns have staffers in Texas to round up supporters and hold training sessions before Saturday’s convention caucuses.

Hundreds of thousands of people attended Texas Democratic precinct caucuses after the party’s primary concluded March 4. Those caucuses began the selection of 67 pledged delegates to the Democratic National Convention. The next step is the county conventions this weekend, which will pick delegates to the state convention in June.

The candidate with the most supporters signing in at each convention level will benefit in the awarding of caucus delegates.

Last week, the state Democratic Party refused a request from Clinton’s campaign to postpone county conventions and take extra steps to verify the signatures of election night caucus-goers.

Rest of Article is HERE.

From the beginning, she has attempted to de-legitimize the Caucus part of the Texas voting process.

Just keeping you up-to-date on her chicanery.

Thank God for Democracy Now.

Amy Goodman had on Greg Mitchell, editor of Editor & Publisher. His has a new book out called, So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits—and the President—Failed on Iraq. In all the retrospective coverage going on covering the five years of this unnecessary war, few in the media have bothered to look in the mirror and take the due blame for driving this country to war.

We had the largest demonstrations in the history of the planet trying to stop this madness, yet few listened. The newspapers and broadcast and cable news outlets almost universally banned any voice that challenged the idea that Iraq was something we needed to do. Media outlets and personalities that fancy themselves critical of the war or the administration now, were the worst kind of journalists when we really needed them.

It’s easy to criticize Bush now. It’s the hackiest thing you can do. It’s easy to criticize the war, but when it really counted — before we sent people in — most of these idiots had nothing to say. They created a very hostile environment for our politicians to do the right thing, and for this complicity in war propaganda, they need to be held forever accountable.

We should remember that these same media outlets are the ones driving the coverage and narrative of our current election. In general, they cannot be trusted. Their agenda is not our agenda. If they could help pull off the overthrow of a government, leading to the collapse of a society, the death of hundreds of thousands and the draining of the treasuries of two nations, what interest do you think they have in a substantive mediation of this presidential election? That’s right. None.

I’m as guilty as anyone of continuing to prop up these grossly negligent entities, but they’ve not learned their lesson, and I will try as much as possible to avoid validating them. This means more linking to alternative and perhaps local media, for example.

Charlie Rangle made news years ago for proposing a military draft, as a way to spread the burden of this war more widely across society and, in so doing, end the war. I offer a more modest proposal: a military draft for elected officials and the media. If it were their kids and family members going off to commit crimes against another people, going off to get disfigured by an unjust and wasteful effort, you can bet we would not be where we are today.

Check out Goodman’s interview with Mitchell below. Tell us what you think.

Super duper big up to Booman Tribune

Also check this Atlantic piece on Hillary’s religion.

Clipped from Booman:

But Barack Obama has not made Clinton’s kooky right-wing church into an issue on the campaign trail because he understands that a person’s faith is an intensely personal and (hopefully) non-political affair.

Clinton’s decision to question Obama’s choice of church is a bigger problem than her personal tastelessness. Her decision is an arrow aimed directly at the heart of the black community. It is one of the worst acts of public betrayal I have ever seen committed by a Democratic politician in my lifetime, and the most shortsighted and toxic decision I can recall.

White Americans may be surprised by their introduction to the style of black sermonizing in the figure of Rev. Wright, but the black community sees nothing particularly out of place in his rhetoric. This may or may not be a political vulnerability in the general election, but a far greater vulnerability is opened up by telling the black church-going community that Rev. Wright is the equivalent of Don Imus and his ‘nappy-headed hos’. The suggestion that Rev. Wright was engaged in ‘hate speech’ of a kind so loathsome as to require leaving his church is deeply offensive. The black community is feeling besieged by the national spotlight on Rev. Wright and the ensuing white backlash. They are looking around for allies, and find Hillary Clinton piling on and throwing them under the bus.

Clinton is not only presumptuous, she is vicious and divisive and hurtful. She should be defending Barack Obama against unfair attacks, and defending and contextualizing the tradition of black sermonizing. In his speech, Barack Obama sought to educate and bring reconciliation. Clinton’s response is to throw it all back in his face and suggest that there is something wrong with him for attending his church.

If Clinton succeeds in pushing this racial polarization to the point that white people will not vote for Obama, the black community will never, ever, forgive her. This is especially true because she can only win on the backs of the superdelegates.

At this point it is absolutely imperative that the party leaders step in and stop the Clinton campaign from inflicting lasting damage to the relationship between the party and the African-American community. She cannot be allowed to even try to win the nomination this way, let alone actually win it.

This is poison of the worst possible kind. It will destroy the party’s electoral viability more swiftly and more surely than anything I can think of.

I call on Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid, Chairman Dean, and the other leaders of the party top step in right now and call this contest.

The Clintons absolutely must not be permitted to do this. It must be stopped.

It’s great to see this story finally spreading beyond the afrosphere.

Ok, next steps…

Speaker Pelosi’s contact information.

In your messages to her and her staff, be sure to thank her for standing strong during this campaign. It can’t be fun getting threats from Clinton supporters. And recall a few weeks ago when Pelosi dismissed the so-called “dream ticket” by saying Clinton nixed that possibility by promoting McCain.

Harry Reid’s contact information.
Howard Dean’s contact information.

Courtesy of MoveOn. Donna Edwards is one of the judges. Entries due April 1.

Paul Krugman, February 11, 2008:

I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. >I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We’ve already had that from the Bush administration — remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don’t want to go there again.

Gallup Poll, March 26, 2008:

PRINCETON, NJ — A sizable proportion of Democrats would vote for John McCain next November if he is matched against the candidate they do not support for the Democratic nomination. This is particularly true for Hillary Clinton supporters, more than a quarter of whom currently say they would vote for McCain if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee.

That is all.

From DailyKos:

Clinton big dollar donors threaten Pelosi and the DCCC
by kos
Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:52:01 PM PDT

Certain people still think they can bully politicians by waving their checkbooks in their faces.

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the US House of Representatives

Office of the Speaker
H-232, US Capitol
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Madame Speaker,

As Democrats, we have been heartened by the overwhelming response that our fellow Democrats have shown for our party’s candidates during this primary season. Each caucus and each primary has seen a record turnout of voters. But this dynamic primary season is not at an end. Several states and millions of Democratic voters have not yet had a chance to cast their votes.

We respect those voters and believe that they, like the voters in the states that have already participated, have a right to be heard. None of us should make declarative statements that diminish the importance of their voices and their votes. We are writing to say we believe your remarks on ABC News This Week on March 16th did just that.

During your appearance, you suggested super-delegates have an obligation to support the candidate who leads in the pledged delegate count as of June 3rd , whether that lead be by 500 delegates or 2. This is an untenable position that runs counter to the party’s intent in establishing super-delegates in 1984 as well as your own comments recorded in The Hill ten days earlier:

“I believe super-delegates have to use their own judgment and there will be many equities that they have to weigh when they make the decision. Their own belief and who they think will be the best president, who they think can win, how their own region voted, and their own responsibility.’”

Super-delegates, like all delegates, have an obligation to make an informed, individual decision about whom to support and who would be the party’s strongest nominee. Both campaigns agree that at the end of the primary contests neither will have enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination. In that situation, super-delegates must look to not one criterion but to the full panoply of factors that will help them assess who will be the party’s strongest nominee in the general election.

We have been strong supporters of the DCCC. We therefore urge you to clarify your position on super-delegates and reflect in your comments a more open view to the optional independent actions of each of the delegates at the National Convention in August. We appreciate your activities in support of the Democratic Party and your leadership role in the Party and hope you will be responsive to some of your major enthusiastic supporters.


Marc Aronchick
Clarence Avant
Susie Tompkins Buell
Sim Farar
Robert L. Johnson
Chris Korge
Marc and Cathy Lasry
Hassan Nemazee
Alan and Susan Patricof
JB Pritzker
Amy Rao
Lynn de Rothschild
Haim Saban
Bernard Schwartz
Stanley S. Shuman
Jay Snyder
Maureen White and Steven Rattner

The Obama campaign responds:

“This letter is inappropriate and we hope the Clinton campaign will reject the insinuation contained in it. Regardless of the outcome of the nomination fight, Senator Obama will continue to urge his supporters to assist Speaker Pelosi in her efforts to maintain and build a working majority in the House of Representatives,” said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.

One side is looking to build a consensus and win on the strength of voters, the other side is looking to divide and harm the party. It’s easy to see which is which.

When people say that Dems can kiss and make up, I don’t know about that.

Because, at the heart of this battle is what you want the Democratic Party to look like.

What you believe it should be.

I believe Hillary ” Tonya Harding” Clinton, her donors, and the DLC are parasites that have been sucking the life of what Democrats should stand for. They are TOP DOWN.

Barack Obama is of the vision of BOTTOM-UP. Barack Obama is the one who believes in the 50 State Strategy. That all Democrats are worth fighting for, even in the red states. That you plant seeds in order for them to grow in subsequent elections.

What do you believe in?

50% +1


50 State

That’s what this battle has become, and I’m glad that they’re being obvious about it. THE EXTORTION of it all.

If you’d like to drop a line to Nancy Pelosi:

Office of the Speaker
H-232, US Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-0100

About Jeremiah Wright, Hillary ” Tonya Harding” Clinton had this to say:

“He would not have been my pastor,” Clinton said. “You don’t choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend.”



This is what our fellow blogger, Field Negro had to say:

Today again the “Ice Queen” took a shot at the “O” man and suggested that he should have left his church. “We don’t have a choice when it comes to our relatives, we have a choice when it comes to our Pastor.” Maybe you can “Ice Queen”, but black folks just don’t go switching their church. Maybe that’s how you white folks do shit, but religion is personal to black people. As a black man I take that shit personally when you attack the black church to make a political point. And when you do it for political expediency to deflect the news from your own little problems. “Oh stop it field, you don’t even go to church”. Yes but I understand that importance of the church in our community, and, unlike moi, most black folks do go to church and believe in the institution it represents. So the longer this shit goes on with the “O” man’s pastor, the more upset I get. If Hillary had a clue she would have left that shit alone. Her husband is supposed to be the “first black president”, they should know that there are certain things that we hold sacred and just should not be fucked with.


And here is my reply. A reply that goes to heart of why the attacks on Jeremiah Wright are offensive and personal to Black people.

Thank you, FN.

I have been making the rounds of ‘ MSM’ Blogs to make this point.

There was a Rasmussen Poll done on Wright.

Poll on Wright

Here’s the money section for me:

Overall, voters are evenly divided as to whether Obama should resign his membership in the Church—42% say that he should while 40% disagree. White voters, by a 46% to 33% margin, say that Obama should leave the Church. African-American voters, by a 68% to 16% margin, say he should not. Wright retired last month as Pastor of the Church.

While there was a 13 point difference FOR among Whites, look at the gap among Blacks – 52%.



Church isn’t some simple place where you go on Sunday to listen to the pastor for 30 minutes.

Church, in the Black Community, is all about COMMUNITY.

It’s why, it’s literally an all-day affair.

Black people do not change churches like they do purses. I am in my 30′s, and outside of school, I’ve had exactly 2 church homes in my life. It took nearly 2 years to find the second one, but I found it. Commitment to a church isn’t something that’s done fly-by-night. It’s not some fleeting commitment. It is a given that you will find something that you don’t like about any church you attend; which is why it is the general COMMUNITY that will ultimately make that decision.

The Black Church is the ONLY institution, in the history of The United States of America, which, from its conception,

Validated, Supported, Incubated, and Treasured.



Don’t think I’m correct, then name me another institution which has done so.

The attack on Trinity is seen as an attack on the Black Church, and thus, by extension, an attack on the Black Community as a whole.

During times of slavery and Jim Crow, the Black Church was what reinforced Community.

Post Civil Rights and Integration, the Black Church is now what brings Community together, considering that the Black Community, like the rest of America, is becoming more stratified along the lines of class. The Black Church is really the only place in Black America where you will consistently find the doctor and welfare mother in the same building, with the same purpose. It’s the place to break down those walls of class that are building up.

To disown Wright and Trinity would be to disown the Black Community itself, which is why Obama said in his speech he couldn’t. He understood that fundamentally about the Black Community, and he understood that political expediency would mean the doubting of the existence of his soul by the Black community. Obama would never be trusted again by Black folk if he had disowned Wright & Trinity. Even Black folk that don’t go to church understand that you don’t mess with the Black Church – it’s just not done.

And the Handkerchief Head Mammy that Clinton has running her campaign KNOWS THIS.

hat tip daily kos which linked to this Time piece.

from DHinMI on kos:

This could be a really devastating line of attack against Clinton. First, it undermines her claims of experience, which is supposed to be why she’s “ready to lead on day one.” If you can wipe out the main argument for her candidacy, she’s destroyed.

Furthermore, these criticisms raise serious questions about her electability. This is the question she’s trying to raise about Obama, but for anyone who was sentient in 2000, these exaggerations and fabrications should evoke memories of Al Gore fending off the “flip flop” charges and looking silly as he was accused of plenty of silly comments he never made, like claiming to have discovered Love Canal or having invented the internet. Of course, the press exaggerated Gore’s supposed exaggerations. Also, there was no YouTube in 2000 to demonstrate and disseminate an accurate depiction of what Gore said in these instances.

Unlike Gore, who in a few individual instances made ill-advised comments that then got blown out of proportion, Clinton has made the questionable claims numerous times, and has even put some of them on her website, like saying she was involved in the creation or passage of key domestic accomplishments such as SCHIP and the Family and Medical Leave Act.

Nice to see O on offense. Many of us have been calling b.s. on her “35 years” of experience for months. It’s time to bring her down for good. She’s full of it, and she started this crapfest. Time to reap what you’ve sown, Hillary.

From The HuffingtonPost.com

Pastor Of Clinton’s Former Church: Don’t Use Wright To Polarize


The Reverend Jeremiah Wright is an outstanding church leader
whom I have heard speak a number of times. He has served for
decades as a profound voice for justice and inclusion in our society.
He has been a vocal critic of the racism, sexism and homophobia
which still tarnish the American dream. To evaluate his dynamic
ministry on the basis of two or three sound bites does a grave
injustice to Dr. Wright, the members of his congregation, and the
African-American church which has been the spiritual refuge of a
people that has suffered from discrimination, disadvantage, and
violence. Dr. Wright, a member of an integrated denomination, has
been an agent of racial reconciliation while proclaiming perceptions
and truths uncomfortable for some white people to hear. Those of us
who are white Americans would do well to listen carefully to Dr.
Wright rather than to use a few of his quotes to polarize. This is a
critical time in America’s history as we seek to repent of our racism.
No matter which candidates prevail, let us use this time to listen again
to one another and not to distort one another’s truth.

Dean J. Snyder, Senior Minister
Foundry United Methodist Church
March 19, 2008

Well, at least he has principle.

The Tonya Harding Reference is to this ABCNEWS.com report from a Democratic Superdelegate:

The question is — what will Clinton have to do in order to achieve it?

What will she have to do to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, in order to eke out her improbable victory?

She will have to “break his back,” the official said. She will have to destroy Obama, make Obama completely unacceptable.

“Her securing the nomination is certainly possible – but it will require exercising the ‘Tonya Harding option.’” the official said. “Is that really what we Democrats want?”

I owe Hillary Clinton an apology. We all do. Thank God for the Internet and bloggers like tbone, without which stories like these would never be told. Hillary is truly an American hero.

An excerpt from The War Journals Of Hillary Clinton:

As bullets clawed the air around us and screams echoed down the rubble-strewn tarmac, I felt almost peaceful.

It was a simple mission, they had told me – get in, shake a few hands and mouth a few platitudes, get out. Simple. Yeah.

Things had started going wrong while we were still in the air and only gotten worse from there. So here we were, pinned down, choking on the acrid tang of cordite and the heady scent of human blood. The mission was even simpler now: survive. Whatever the cost, survive.

There was a grunt and a clatter of equipment as Sinbad threw himself down at my side. Sweat glistened on his bare arms, and I could see tendons contracting and relaxing as he squeezed off bursts from his M14. The motion was hypnotic, like a snake about to strike. Perhaps, when all this was over-

No. Concentrate. Focus on the mission. Survive.

A shout from my left drew my head around. Sheryl Crow, guitar still strapped to her back, had taken cover behind a haphazard pile of decaying corpses. Her hair, once lustrous, now lank and greasy, was held back from her eyes by a dirty red headband. Her slim nostrils flared in the dirt-smeared oval of her face, seeking air free of the funeral taint shrouding the airfield. Still, I saw a fierce exultation in her expression that I knew mirrored my own.

Her lithe, nimble fingers stroked the top of an M67 frag grenade, strumming a chord of impending doom. With one quick, economical movement, she plucked the pin free and sent the deadly payload sailing toward the ridge concealing our enemies. My eyes traced the arc, willing it to fly true, to rain death on-

“There!” Sinbad shouted. “The convoy!”

I wrenched my gaze in the direction he was pointing. The boom of the grenade registered only faintly, suddenly unimportant. Thirty yards dead ahead was the real target: the armored convoy, offering safety, shelter, survival. If we could reach it.

“Follow me!” Sinbad roared, levering himself to his feet. As I prepared to follow, a high-pitched whine arrowed across my eardrums and warm, sticky rain splashed my face.

I forced myself to look, already knowing what I would see. The big man lay there, crumpled, the left side of his head a nightmare maze of blood, brains and tight curls of yellowish-orange hair.

Time to mourn later. Survive.

Continue reading the rest of this harrowing tale of Hillary, war hero, ready to lead on Day One.

Just saw this from the Gallup poll people.

Warning: pollsters are notorious peddlers of drama and have probably done as much to distort the election as the media. I urge you to react with that in mind, and let’s have a calm interpretation of this data.

From Gallup

Clinton supporters appear to be somewhat more reactive than Obama supporters. Twenty-eight percent of the former indicate that if Clinton is not the nominee — and Obama is — they would support McCain. That compares to 19% of Obama supporters who would support McCain if Obama is not the nominee — and Clinton is.

It is unknown how many Democrats would actually carry through and vote for a Republican next fall if their preferred candidate does not become the Democratic nominee. The Democratic campaign is in the heat of battle at the moment, but by November, there will have been several months of attempts to build party unity around the eventual nominee — and a focus on reasons why the Republican nominee needs to be defeated.

Additionally, some threat of deserting the party always takes place as party nomination battles are waged, and this threat can dissipate. For example, in answer to a recent Gallup question, 11% of Republicans said they would vote for the Democratic candidate or a third-party candidate next fall if McCain does not choose a vice president who is considerably more conservative than he is. (And another 9% said they just wouldn’t vote.) These results suggest that it may be normal for some voters to claim early on in the process — perhaps out of frustration — that they will desert their party if certain things do not happen to their liking. And it may be equally likely that they fall back into line by the time of the general election. It is worth noting that in Gallup’s historical final pre-election polls from 1992 to 2004, 10% or less of Republicans and Democrats typically vote for the other party’s presidential candidate.

Still, when almost 3 out of 10 Clinton supporters say they would vote for McCain over Obama, it suggests that divisions are running deep within the Democratic Party. If the fight for the party’s nomination were to continue until the Denver convention in late August, the Democratic Party could suffer some damage as it tries to regroup for the November general election.

I purposefully quoted from the tail end of the Gallup article where they try to reasonably interpret the results. You’re going to see the headlines. I want to dive into the substance.

First, this shocked me. I’ve been overly exposed to black people (and all people of conscience who are disgusted with the campaign tactics of the Clinton campaign). Based on this exposure, I am well aware of folks who won’t support Hillary if she is the nominee. As I mentioned yesterday, that position is understandable and even sound and it’s one I share. The logic:

  • The Clinton campaign has consistently chosen to divide the Democratic coalition (with race-baiting and appeals to women’s fears) in order to get ahead
  • The Clinton campaign has sought to severely undermine Obama’s qualifications to be president by challenging his patriotism and fitness to be commander in chief
  • The Clinton campaign has seriously insulted every Democratic voter in states she hasn’t carried by essentially saying they don’t matter
  • The Clinton campaign has performed the most flagrant about-face on Michigan and Florida in attempting to claim those delegates from illegitimate votes
  • Hillary’s only chance of winning the nomination is to heavily manipulate the process via superdelegates (or even switching pledged delegates) despite Obama’s lead in almost any mathematical arrangement

The vast majority of Obama supporters would support Clinton in the general (6 weeks ago), but are increasingly uncomfortable with what she’s doing to grab the nomination.

I started to get a whiff of Clinton supporters against Obama by reading some comments on Daily Kos and Talk Left (i think). Their case consisted of:

  • Obama is a con artist and cult figure with no experience
  • Obama played the race card
  • Obama hates white people, including his own grandmother and hates America because he wouldn’t leave his church
  • Obama is a foreign Muslim who will give all America’s money to black people and Africa

I’m leaving out the policy differences (some HRC folks are really big on her health care over him, but I’ve seen no evidence that the holdouts on either side are basing that on policies).

I’m definitely biased, and I’m sure this presentation is a bit biased, but I’m trying to explain what I’ve seen. The Obama supporters who refuse to support Clinton have stated so based on principles of Democratic unity and political integrity. The strongest, most impassioned cases have been made by folks like our own rikyrah who point out that supporting Clinton in light of her race-laiden tactics provides an ugly playbook to be used against any other black politician in the future.

Even if you disagree with this, it seems clear to me that there are actual arguments based on fact at play. Clinton will have to essentially steal the nomination from him given the math.

From the Clinton supporters, it’s a lot of conspiracy theory and mythology and refusal to want to understand Obama. Many of their points are easily dismissed with information. The experience argument is bogus and can be countered by educating them on his experience, shedding light on hers (ahem, Bosnia etc) and pointing out that experience as they define it is never all it’s cracked up to be. It’s a red herring.

The stuff about him being a muslim and terrorist and bankrupting America. Well, that’s urban legend stuff. It’s hard to fight that. People cling to their ignorance like a comfortable blanket. I doubt folks actually believe it. If they did, they would be susceptible to contrary evidence. No, they use it as an excuse to explain their foregone conclusions that he would be a bad president. Their real reasoning could be racist or simply dislike for the man or extreme loyalty to Hillary.

They’ve settled in their minds that he’s a bad man. I understand this perspective because I share it about President Bush. He can do no good in my mind. I recognize the folly of oversimplifying even him, whom I so dislike, but I recognized it in myself and am willing to discuss it. I doubt the subset of Clinton supporters who see Obama as a cult figure unworthy to even run for president would ever be so honest with themselves.

The one about Obama playing the race card really gets to me, because I was there from the start, watching and documenting the ugliness emanating from the Clinton campaign along with the rest of the Afrosphere (before South Carolina). There are times when Obama’s campaign has responded to the dirt coming out of the Clinton camp, but by and large, he and his campaign have not responded in kind. You don’t hear him talking about how her New Hampshire victory was understandable because of the female vote. You don’t hear him or his people explaining Ohio and Texas don’t count. There are no references to how she’s like Geraldine Ferraro.

The big point of stubbornness among Clinton people who I’ve heard say they won’t vote for Obama is based on her womanhood. A friend of mine called them “Vagina Voters” and they see nothing else. They don’t even understand what policy differences exist. For them it doesn’t matter that Hillary refused to ban landmines or won’t release her earmarks or has engaged in such divisive politicking. It’s a woman’s turn. Period. And if she can’t have it, no one can.

I just don’t see that on the Obama side, and among the black voters who believe this, well, there’s only so many black people in America, but there are plenty more women.

Finally, to come back to the actual poll, I think a lot of those people are full of bullshit. Remember in 2004, when all those people said, “if Bush wins, I’m moving to Cananda?” And guess how many did it. None.

People like to think they’re tougher than they are, but mostly we suck it up and follow. Of the people on both sides who say they will vote for McCain, a significant number are just sounding tough.

I am certain, however, that the longer this campaign goes, the more real those numbers become. It’s another reason to end this thing and soon.

Who We Are

Cheryl Contee aka "Jill Tubman", Baratunde Thurston aka "Jack Turner", rikyrah, Leutisha Stills aka "The Christian Progressive Liberal", B-Serious, Casey Gane-McCalla, Jonathan Pitts-Wiley aka "Marcus Toussaint," Fredric Mitchell

Special Contributors: James Rucker, Rinku Sen, Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins, Adam Luna, Kamala Harris

Technical Contributor: Brandon Sheats


Advertise here!

Obamacare – Get Some


Peep ‘Em

I Am A Community Organizer (300x243)

Community Activity

Black Behind Coverage/Disclaimer

This is a personal weblog which does not represent the views of the authors' employers, clients nor vendors.

Ain’t Like All The Rest

Jack and Jill Politics is not affiliated with Jack and Jill of America, Jack and Jill Magazine, "Jack and Jill Went Up the Hill to Fetch a Pail of Water" nor any of the other Jack and Jills out there on the Google. Just so's you know.