Barack Obama would not be where he is today without Howard Dean. The former Vermont Governor and DNC Chairman created the blueprints that David Axelrod would expand upon to garner the 2008 Democratic Party presidential nomination for the junior Senator from Illinois. In 2004 Dean built a presidential nomination campaign based on grassroots support and small internet donations. He energized the net roots and helped the far left blogosphere find a voice and influence.

Dean did not succeed, but Obama’s team had four years to study what he did right and where he went wrong. They found ways to exploit regulations involving internet donations, control the flow of information on blogs and add some old fashioned Chicago wrangling to the caucus game.

After losing out in 2004, Dean’s consolation prize was to chair the DNC. He took a party stung by the loss of John Kerry and the despair that followed and helped energize it. His 50 state strategy helped pave the way for Obama’s red state organizing and was key to providing President Obama with the congressional majorities he now enjoys. Dean also helped stack the deck in Obama’s favor. The Florida and Michigan mess played out Obama’s way thanks to a heavy DNC hand, the DNC stayed remarkably silent over documented instances of caucus fraud and even this most progressive party chair had nothing to say over the mistreatment of Senator Hillary Clinton and the outright misogyny displayed throughout the campaign.

This of course makes Dean the perfect passenger for a ride under the Obama bus.

Howard Dean probably never expected to stay on as DNC Chairman following the Obama victory. Tradition has the President selecting his “own man” to head the party. Even so, it would be hard for Governor Tim Kaine to deliver for Obama the way Dean did. Dean was apparently not even welcome to the press conference where Obama tapped Kaine to be the next chair. I am sure they made sure the door didn’t hit Howie in the ass on the way out. One could imagine Obama saying “thanks for the help there Ho (an endearing term used by the rappers the President enjoys), but we won’t be needing you around here anymore.”

Today, there just happens to be a help wanted sign on the office of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. There is probably no Democrat as qualified for this position as Howard Dean. He is a doctor and former governor with a record of expanding health care opportunities for the residents of Vermont, particularly children. He is a favorite with the progressive base that will called upon to generate support for some form of nationalized health care and has proven he can organize and win political battles.

He also has no shot of landing the job (although his odds are slightly better than Tom Daschle’s.) White House insiders say there are worried that Dean is too divisive and partisan to bring Republicans into the fold. Some GOP support will be needed to get any kind of meaningful health care reform through the Senate. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is also no fan of Dr. Dean. The two apparently had some real knock down, drag out battles over how DNC funds would be used in congressional races back when Emanuel was the head of the Congressional Campaign Committee.

Dean no longer has any real value to the Obama administration, he has given them all he can. If they really wanted him at HHS, they could have him. They could leave the GOP wooing to someone else and let him just work on the policy. However, Dean is used up as far as the Obama team is concerned and just not worth any potential headaches.

The net roots are trying help Dean’s case with petitions and postings and old liners like Tom Harkin are pushing his candidacy, but it is all for naught. The word on the street is that Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius will be the pick (once her tax returns have been vetted by a team of 50 different accountants.) She is a one time state insurance commissioner and has spent the last eight years as a Governor overseeing a state medicaid program. Coming from red state Kansas, she is skilled at working across party lines. It will be a surprise if she is not the pick.

As for Howard Dean, well hopefully Sebelius will craft a plan that covers injuries sustained while being run over by the Obama bus.

I published this satire script about a month ago here at No Quarter.  It hit the front page the same day as Governor-Gate hit and right after Cardboard-Cutout-Gate was all over the place.

You remember back in mid-December, right after the infamous picture of Obama’s speech writer copping a faux feel-up of a cardboard-cutout full-size replica of Secretary of State (to be) Hillary Clinton.  And immediately after that outrageous fiasco, the news hit about Governor Blagojevich trying to sell Obama’s Senate seat to the highest bidder.

Right between those two major events, that’s when this little skit got published.  It may as well not have been published at all, for all the attention it got.  (pout)

And, taking some of the blame on myself (mark your calendars), I didn’t really set it up properly.  I just published it as a script, with no intro, except to belabor the obvious point that it was satire and not an actual transcript of a real recording.

So let me do a little set-up now:

All through 2008, we’d been wondering how in the hell it came to pass that the Democratic National Committee decided to throw its weight behind Obama, and to deliberately sabotage Hillary’s campaign for the nomination.

It had to be a conspiracy of some kind!  You know it’s true!  People were talking about Hillary being the next president even before 2004!  So what happened?

Well, believe what you want, but this is how it might have happened, IMHO.  I was thinking, “Oh, to be a fly on the wall in that conversation!”  And this script was the result of my daydreaming about what that fly might have heard.

———————————————————————————————-

“Fly on the Wall (do-over)”

In an office meeting room are The Fetid Four: Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Donna Brazile. They are stewing over the Democratic loss in the election of 2004, and starting to think ahead to 2008.

HOWARD: (both hands pressed to his temples in anguish) I can’t believe Kerry lost!  Bush is so awful!

NANCY:  He’s a war criminal.  He should be impeached!

DONNA:  Yes!  And Cheney, too!  And you know what that means… (nudges Nancy) …Madam President!

(room erupts in nervous laughter)

HARRY:  Even if you had the votes to impeach in the House, you know that in the Senate we only have a one-vote majority…

NANCY: (cutting him off) That is so not gonna happen, so let’s just play the cards we’re dealt.

(general murmur of agreement)

HOWARD: (peering over his glasses) Well, one thing is for certain, we’ll win the next one, no matter who we run!

NANCY:  Absolutely!

DONNA:  Hell, even I could win it!

HARRY: (shaking head) Let’s not get carried away.

DONNA: (indignantly) Oh, thanks!

NANCY:  But I get your point.  Doesn’t matter anyway, because Her Nibs, Queen Hillary, is the heiress-apparent.

HARRY:  It’s an abomination!  What has she got, like two years in Congress?

DONNA:  Hillary… (makes gagging noises)

HOWARD: (laughing cautiously as he loosens his tie) I don’t think we can stop her… unless…

NANCY:  Unless what, Doc?  You planning on running again?

HOWARD: (wistfully) No, no, no… unless you think I should…

HARRY:  Oh, for the love of…

DONNA:  I don’t think so!

HARRY:  OK, so who can beat her?  She’s got all the momentum right now.  And the money.  She’s a walking ATM!

NANCY:  Let’s worry about the money later.  Even assuming she has the most cash, money’s not everything.

DONNA:  True.  If it was,  Soros would be running!

(Big laughter all around)

HOWARD:  Problem is, he’s not Natural Born.

HARRY:  You mean… he was born Caesarian?

HOWARD: (laughing) Good one!

HARRY:  Huh?

NANCY:  Natural born citizen!  Have you ever actually read the Constitution?  Article II?

HARRY: (blushing and flustered) Yes, I’ve read it!  Twice!  What do you think I am, an idiot?

(uncomfortable silence for several seconds)

HARRY: (struggling to recompose and assume an air of authority) Look, you know what I meant!  It was a joke!

NANCY:  Of course.

DONNA:  Sure it was.

HOWARD:  Well, I thought it was funny!

DONNA:  You would!

NANCY:  Medical humor, doc?

HOWARD:  Sure!  I mean, from an obstetrician’s point of view.

HARRY: (snorts and snickers)

DONNA:  Let’s not go there!

NANCY:  Come on, children! Let’s focus!

DONNA:  Well, anyway, like I was TRYING to say before… I think anyone we nominate is a shoo-in!

HARRY:  I thought it was “shoe-in.”

NANCY:  What?

HOWARD:  That makes no sense at all!  You mean like a boot?

NANCY:  No, it’s “shoo!” Like in “shoo fly!”  Or you “shoo” the horse into the barn.

DONNA:  What are you talking about?

HOWARD:  Horse shoes?

DONNA: (shaking her head in bewilderment, pronounces words studiously) Shoo.  Shoe.  Sorry, I don’t hear any difference!

NANCY:  Well, it’s “shoo.”

HARRY:  Are you sure?  Because I always thought it was like “shoe in,” like … (pushes with foot)

NANCY:  What, you’re going to kick the candidate into office against his will?

HOWARD:  I agree.  It’s “shoo.”  Like you’re just shooing them through without effort, because there’s no resistance.

HARRY:  I still think it’s “shoe.”

DONNA: (getting visibly agitated) Look! It doesn’t matter!  Our guy is going to win, that’s my point!

NANCY:  Or girl… woman I mean.

(all eyes turn to Nancy warily)

NANCY:  Well, not me, obviously…

HARRY:  Obviously…

DONNA:  Although it would be great to have a woman president… I just don’t want it to be Hillary!

NANCY:  No shit!

HOWARD:  Well, I agree to an extent.  I mean, as liberals, and as leaders of the Democratic Party, I do think it’s our duty to use this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make some history.  “The first female president!”

NANCY:  Yes! But not that female!

DONNA:  We agree on that, sis! (high-fives Nancy)

HARRY:  Then who?  Kathy Sebelius?

(general mumbling of discontent)

HOWARD:  Claire McCaskill?

NANCY:  Oh, please!  She’s… (shakes her head) No. Not her!

DONNA:  What if it’s not a woman?

HARRY:  Claire McCaskill’s not a woman?

(others ignore him)

HOWARD:  What do you have in mind, Donna?

DONNA:  What if…?  What if it’s a man, but a man of color?

HARRY: (does double take) You mean Bill Richardson?

HOWARD:  Oh, good lord…

DONNA:  No, I was just thinking about our keynote speaker at the convention.

NANCY: (smirks, knowingly) You still carrying a torch for him?

DONNA: (elbows Nancy sharply, glaring) No!

HOWARD:  Something I should know about?

HARRY:  I think she’s talking about Senator Obama, but we can’t run him.  He’s totally green behind the ears!

HOWARD:  Green behind the ears?  What the hell does that mean?

NANCY:  Well, Donna thinks he’s hot!

DONNA: (pouts and kicks Nancy under the table) Shut up!

HOWARD:  OK, so we know he’s hot and green behind the ears.  What else do we know about him?

HARRY:  Well, I hear he’s pretty much broke.  Had to do some financial flim-flam just to buy a house.

HOWARD:  Anything illegal?

HARRY: (clears throat) I don’t know all the details, but I heard some rules were bent at the bank.  Some third party, a shyster lawyer or mob guy or something…

HOWARD:  O-keeeeeeeeeeeeeee!  “Next!” Who else we got?

DONNA:  Now wait a minute!  Let’s not rule him out yet.  Look, you know a lot of women are still mad at Hillary for staying with Bill after he had sex, or whatever he had, with Miss Fatty Blue Dress.

NANCY:  True.  She should have at least done a Bobbitt on him. (makes scissors gesture)

HOWARD:  Ouch! For a BJ?

HARRY:  Don’t forget the cigar.

NANCY:  Oh gaaaaaaaawd… I’ve been trying to forget it!

DONNA:  My point is that just because she’s a female, doesn’t mean most women will vote for her.  She’s not a shoo… I mean it’s not written in stone.

HARRY:  “Etched in stone.”

HOWARD:   I agree. It’s “etched.”

DONNA: (slams both palms on the table) Whatever!  I’m just saying “forget Hillary!” The next election is ours!  We can’t lose!  Let’s make some real history!  Now, while we can!  It’s a chance of a lifetime!  Let’s elect a black man!

NANCY:  Agreed.  We can do the woman later.

HOWARD:  Woohoo!  Sounds like a party!

HARRY:  Are you sure he’s black?  I heard he was Indonesian or something?

HOWARD: (enunciates the name slowly) O-bah-ma… I don’t know, that sounds pretty African to me!

DONNA: (frowning) He’s half white, half African.  In fact, you can’t get much more African than him.  He says in his book that his daddy was from Kenya.

HARRY:  He’s written a book?

NANCY:  An autobiography.

HOWARD:  How many pages?  Three? (laughs loudly)

DONNA:  Look, he’s an excellent speaker!  He’s handsome, he’s got charisma, he’s a cool guy, and he’s… good-looking.

NANCY:  I think you’ve established that you think he’s attractive.

DONNA:  Well?  Isn’t he?

NANCY:  Not to me.

DONNA:  Why?

NANCY:  Oh, I don’t know, he’s just not my type, I guess.

DONNA:  You mean black?

HOWARD: (gasps) Uh-oh!

HARRY:  You’re a racist?

NANCY:  No!  That’s not what I meant!

DONNA:  Uh-huh.  Then what do you find not attractive about him?

NANCY:  He’s just, I don’t know, too skinny, for one thing.  And those ears!

DONNA:  That sounds pretty racist to me!

NANCY:  What?  Are you kidding me?

HOWARD:  Wait a minute, I think we’re onto something here!

HARRY:  America isn’t ready for a black president.  Let’s face it.

DONNA:  You too?

NANCY:  See?  I’m not the racist, he’s the racist!

HARRY:  I am not a racist!

NANCY:  Well, neither am I!  I’d vote for him!

HARRY:  Well, so would I!  But will the teamsters?

HOWARD: (cynically) The teamsters will do whatever we tell them to, as usual.

NANCY:  OK, so let’s be serious a minute…

DONNA:  I am serious!  Think about it.  If the four of us get behind one candidate, we can stop Hillary.  I know we can!  We just need to get my friends at Acorn to get the vote out in the first couple of primaries and take the momentum away from her!

HOWARD:  Acorn?  In Iowa?  Have you ever been to Iowa?  I have!

NANCY:  Yeah, so we’ve heard.

HARRY:  How could we not hear?  As loud as you yelled… Yahoooooo!

NANCY:  No, it was more like Yeehaaaaaaaaaaaaw!

DONNA:  If we can try to stay on topic… I really think we can pull this off!  Seriously!  Just let me spell it out for you.  First, it’s our turn, the Democrats I mean, and after Bush and Cheney, it doesn’t really matter who we nominate.  We will win!  That’s why everyone thinks Hillary has it made.  But it doesn’t have to be her.  We can take her down if we play it right.  We’ve got Acorn on our side!

HOWARD:  Not in Iowa, we don’t!  In Iowa, it’s about corn, not Acorn.  Hell, it’s more white-bread than New Hampshire.  And do you think Acorn can even find enough voters in Iowa to win?  You’ve got the Clinton Machine, you’ve got pretty-boy Edwards…

DONNA: (quickly draws a crude map) Lookie here.  You’ve got Iowa here, and right next door, Illinois.  That’s Barack’s state.

NANCY:  Oh, I see!  Illinois is close enough to Iowa, you think voters will identify with the guy from the next-door state!  That might help.

DONNA:  Well, that’s part of it, but think about this.  These are caucuses, not elections.  And we can run a shitload of buses from Chicago, Detroit, Minneapolis, St. Louis, Kansas City… all full of brand new Iowa voters.  They swamp the caucuses, because even in Iowa hardly anyone goes to those things.  It would only take about one or two busloads per precinct.  Our guys swarm in, make a lot of noise, a little intimidation, and before the Clintons know what hit them, Hillary’s toast!

NANCY:  I think you’ve got something here!  But are you sure we can sell America on voting for an African-American man with a name that rhymes with Osama?

HARRY:  There you go being racist again!

NANCY:  I am not a racist!

DONNA:  I can’t believe you’re so racist!  Stop the hate!

HOWARD: (slaps table hard) That’s it! That’s how we sell it!  If anyone questions his name, his character, his background, anything… we play the race card!  And good old white liberal guilt will shame them into voting for him!

HARRY:  Brilliant!

NANCY:  I love it!  It gives me hope! Maybe we canchange candidates!

DONNA: Yes, we can!

HOWARD: (scribbling notes furiously) This is the best idea we’ve had in a loooooooooong time!

DONNA:  Too long!

NANCY:  Much too long!

HARRY:  That’s what she said!

Then I have been mislabeling myself for the past 36 years. See, I thought a feminist was someone who believed in women’s equality, who believed that women’s rights were human rights, who believed that women had the right to make decisions about our own bodies, that women had the right to equal pay, and that women had the right to self-determination, not being ruled by a man, to name a few. See, that’s what I thought it meant. What a surprise to discover at this late date that, at least according to Ms. Magazine, I have been WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

Evidently, in their opinion, a feminist is someone who plays songs like, “99 Problems But a Bitch Ain’t One” when he enters a hall (and I intentionally picked the link to go to Huffington Post since so many of those people claim there is no way this happened. Hell to the yes, it DID.). A feminist is someone who flips off – in public – in a speech that is televised – a female US Senator who is also a Former First Lady of the US and a Former First Lady of Arkansas who, coincidentally, believes women’s rights are human rights. She even gave a little speech about it. But I digress…

Apparently, a feminist is someone who chooses for the chair of the Democratic National Committee a man who is anti-choice (oh, and as a bonus, anti-gay). A feminist picks a pastor, Rick Warren, to give a major prayer who equates abortion to Nazism. Once again, as a bonus, is tremendously anti-gay, comparing homosexuality to incest and pedophilia. So much so that he will not ALLOW gay people into his church.

A feminist, as it turns out, believes that women who are “feeling blue” should not be able to have an abortion. And a feminist believes any real discussion of abortion is above his pay grade.

A feminist, at least the one Ms. Magazine is revering, is free to make sexist comments about his competitor, allow vulgar, degrading sexual statements to be made and WORN on t-shirts (forget it – I’m not linking to those despicable shirts) without uttering ONE WORD against it, and pays the women on his staff less than the men.

And, lastly(but by no means the end), a feminist is someone who not only has retained on his staff, but ELEVATED to the top speech-writing post in the White House, this young man, Jon Favreau, who demonstrates his “affection” (read: sexist pig incredibly inappropriate actions) for Senator-Soon-To-Be-Secretary-Of-State, Hillary Clinton in the photo below:

Yep – no doubt about it – all my adult life, I have been completely and utterly wrong about what it means to be a feminist. Turns out, it is the exact opposite of what I always believed it to be.

I thought, I hoped, I prayed that after Bush was out of office, our country, our media, our leaders, our organizations, would return to the reality based community. Sadly, it seems that too many are continuing to perpetrate the charade of who Obama is. I guess it would just be too embarrassing to admit they, like so many others, had been completely duped by him (hey, if you want to know what it is like for all of those people who gave everything for Obama only to be dissed by him, just ask that sexist pig Jesse Jackson, Jr., Obama’s campaign manager who threw not just Hillary but his own FATHER under the bus for Obama; or Jay Rockefeller; or John Kerry who shilled for Obama, hoping for that Secretary of State position; or HOWARD DEAN, who wasn’t even invited to the introduction of the new DNC chair, what it is like to realize they’ve been had. Frankly, it couldn’t have happened to more deserving people, especially Howard Dean, who allowed the Rules Committee to proceed in a completely unethical, immoral way all the while making it very clear who the DNC wanted for its nominee. So, Howie – what are you doing with your time under the bus?? Just wondering…). But to promote Obama, the most sexist, MISOGYNISTIC candidate I have ever seen as a FEMINIST is grotesque. Ms. Magazine has lost all credibility. Its editors have lost their minds. And they have sure lost me.

If this is what it means to be a feminist, freakin’ count me out. I don’t want to be lumped in the same group with a misogynistic (homophobic) pig like Obama. Clearly, we need another name for those of us who DO care, and work for, rights for women because as of this date, “feminist” has become a disparaging word, at least for me.

This vid was passed on to me. I enjoyed it and thought that some NQ readers might enjoy it too.

BTW Have you ever seen Sean Penn in an interview? If so, have you ever come across anyone who gives a more boring, humorless interview? i find it hard to think of anyone even coming close.

That said, I hear his portrayal of Harvey Milk in the movie “Milk” is terrific, so I guess he can’t be all bad. But I get so tired of these Hollywood pseudo-liberals and their political associates pontificating and running down America.

Now he chooses to lambaste sexism in the media? How convenient. When there’s not a damned thing we can do about it in this election. As if this kind of disgusting behavior wasn’t evident back in January? Watch the video at the 3:45 mark and listen to how effectively he speaks out about the sexism that Hillary Clinton endured, and later, Sarah Palin as well.

The hypocrisy is staggering. Where was his outrage when it counted? And as Dean himself correctly points out here, we are talking about electing a woman president and the panel leading the discussion is made up of five men. Diversity, anyone?

On a personal note, as a campaigner for Hillary, aside from making hundreds of get out the vote phone calls, I, like many others, were lobbying super delegates, canvassing, protesting media, calling my Senators and Congressman and, among other things, calling the DNC. I phoned, sent hard copy letters, emailed the DNC website and Howard Dean personally. In other words, I got in touch with that man every way I could think of about 30 times since March when I saw the writing on the wall.

I spoke with his rather snooty young assistant on a number of occasions. I begged her – you guys are supposed to be neutral. At least give both sides a fair chance. Dean came out on TV to complain about race baiting (when the only race baiting was coming from the Obama camp, frankly) but never said a word about sexism. This young woman had the nerve to deny Dean’s TV appearance to me. She basically said, Daddy likes them both the same, we are neutral, like Sweden.

Yeah.

Another young man at the DNC, with whom I spoke several times, was so obviously biased, I was tempted to tell him that he ought to remove his Obama button while he’s at work.

At the mugging that took place on May 31st in the RBC meeting in Florida, the bullet-sweating Dean, upon seeing what a mess he had created and how furious Hillary’s supporters were, made some cursory comment about the fact that there may have been some sexism in the campaign.

On another date, after the primary had been forcibly ended in June, he said he really never knew there was any sexism because “he didn’t watch cable television.”

Shame on him.

He didn’t need to restrict himself to cable, believe me – there was plenty happening on ABC, CBS, and NBC daily. The snickering and derisive coverage was endless. Never mind how many media types were screaming for Hillary to get out since the end of January when the race was basically a tie. Has any male candidate ever been treated so disrespectfully?

Howard Dean saying something now is the equivalent of complaining we shouldn’t falsely accuse women of being witches and burn them at the stake, after they have already died.

Wow, that Howard Dean surely is a progressive guy.

If he had stood on a soapbox about it and called the media out on the carpet, the public might have actually taken a second look. We wouldn’t want that, now would we?

No, there isn’t anything we can do about it now, except keep the issue front and center and keep making noise, although I am sure there are many who would rather we didn’t.

Both parties are guilty of this surely – they pick the candidate they want and do everything to tip the scales in that guy’s favor – look at the Bush/McCain situation in 2000. All our voting and campaigning and money raising must be just a technicality.

If so, I wish Howard would have sent all of us the memo.

Might have saved a lot of time and grief.

Whoopsie—The Democratic National Committee’s hood ornament got ..er..unscrewed and bounced into the street. Of course, it was loosened up a long while back when the DNC moved itself mostly to Chicago two months before the Democratic Convention. That right there tells you a lot about the DNC. (I think the “D” should be removed—it doesn’t belong there any more.)

Kirsten Powers concludes that DNC Chair, Howard Dean, was helpful to Obama for one reason—staying out of the way.

Dean had high level detractors. Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s new Chief of Staff, publicly feuded with Dean over how to spend funds for House races, asserting that Dean was wasting money by spreading it around to all 50 states.

James Carville described Dean’s leadership as “almost Rumsfeldian in its incompetence.”

Paul Begala charged that Dean was “apparently . . . just hiring a bunch of staff people to wander around Utah and Mississippi and pick their noses.” (More here.)

Then there was Dean’s decision to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates for holding their primaries early, only to give both states a reprieve after it was too late for Hillary Clinton to have an honest shot at the nomination.

And Dean gets an “F” for remaining silent while sexism and misogyny ran rampant within the Democratic Party. (Sorry, Howie, the weak admission after it was all over didn’t cut it for anyone.).

But Obama and company should be very grateful to Howard Dean for pushing that 50 state strategy, one that probably helped account for Obama’s win in some previously red states. Whether Dean gets rewarded or stays flopping about in the street as the DNC limo speeds off remains yet to be seen.

Senator Clinton Calls for New Stimulus to Boost Economy and Help Those Hardest Hit by Recession, Calls for Investments in Infrastructure, Green Jobs, Mortgage Relief, Aid to Cities and States, and Extending Unemployment Insurance

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton today called for a comprehensive new stimulus package to jump start the ailing economy. In a letter to President Bush and Senate leaders, Senator Clinton outlined a series of measures that would protect those Americans hit hardest by the recession and put the nation on the road to recovery.

The text of her letter to the President follows:

November 11, 2008

The Honorable George W. Bush
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

Our economy has lost more than one million jobs this year alone. The scope and scale of the economic challenges facing the American people are vast. Businesses, large and small, are struggling to secure financing to survive. Families cannot find affordable mortgages and consumer loans. The housing crisis, which has already wiped out hundreds of billions of dollars in home equity and even more in investment losses, grows deeper every day, with another wave of foreclosures looming.

The State of New York is the epicenter of this crisis. New York projects that more than 160,000 New Yorkers will lose their jobs as a result of the economic downturn. A recent analysis estimates that New York City will lose almost 30,000 construction jobs by 2010, in addition to the tens of thousands of jobs already lost to turmoil on Wall Street.

We are in a recession which demands decisive action. I believe that in order to stimulate this economy, we need to get people working, earning, and building – not just spending. We have borrowed hundreds of billions that have gone to banks and financial institutions and borrowed tens of billions more to energize the economy, yet the economic downturn has continued and the financial turmoil has worsened. What is clear is that any action we take – especially as we borrow more money to do so – must pay off in the near and long term. That is what America does best: we can address this crisis while preparing for our future.

However, we do have immediate needs that cannot wait between now and when the next Congress and the next President takes office. And although your Administration has voiced skepticism about the need for a stimulus bill, I believe that the current conditions call for a coordinated response now.

The most recent jobs report, indicating another 240,000 jobs lost last month and the worst unemployment rate in 14 years, shows that steps need to be taken to shore up the safety net as millions of Americans continue the search for work. Expanding Unemployment Insurance and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) would not only provide relief to those hit hardest by our economic downturn, it would also spur economic activity as this money is immediately spent. New York alone has hundreds of thousands of people who will face the unemployment line and the loss of their food assistance during this economic downturn.

In the midst of one of the greatest fiscal crises to hit our states, an increase in the Medicaid FMAP rate would help prevent further and deeper cuts to health care and other essential services like education, child care and public safety. Rising demand for health insurance coverage through Medicaid due to increasing job loss is straining state budgets, and the federal government should act to help ease this growing burden on our states.

It is also increasingly clear that we need to take steps now that not only mitigate the fallout, but also begin putting the nation on the path towards recovery. That is why I believe the stimulus we pursue should focus on rebuilding our infrastructure and building a new, clean energy economy. Stimulus should focus on putting people back to work by investing in infrastructure and green jobs. That is how we can restore our prosperity today and ensure it in the future.

So I am proposing, among other steps, that we speed investments in infrastructure, including $410 million in New York roads, bridges, and transit systems, as well as training for new jobs in the clean energy economy, or “green collar jobs.” A federal investment in our infrastructure serves the dual purpose of modernizing our country’s deteriorating roads, bridges, and transit systems while stimulating the economy. Investing in these projects will create tens of thousands of good paying jobs. More than 40 highway, transit and rail projects are “shovel-ready” in New York alone.

I am also proposing an investment in training programs to prepare a new green workforce for the clean energy jobs of the future. I believe we can create at least five million green collar jobs – and we can speed the creation of those jobs while also training displaced workers to fill them in the very short term.

The next wave of foreclosures looms, and we should address it immediately. It is critical that we modify unworkable mortgages into clear and stable terms if we are to prevent the bottom of the housing market from falling even further. I have proposed HOME, the Home Owners Mortgage Enterprise, based on the successful program enacted during the New Deal which not only saved one million homes but also turned a profit for the Treasury. We should continue focusing on initiatives large and bold enough to meet the scale of the challenges presented by the faltering housing market.

The road to recovery will be difficult. But it is imperative that we take these urgent and important steps to kick-start the economy and hasten a return to prosperity that is shared and strengthens the middle class. I ask that you work with congressional leaders in developing a comprehensive stimulus package that the Congress can pass next week to reach your desk immediately thereafter.

Sincerely,

Hillary Rodham Clinton

cc: Majority Leader Harry Reid
Senator Robert C. Byrd
Senator Daniel Inouye

Take a good look. That’s leadership: the difference between a work horse and a show horse. Not for glory. No headlines. For the American people. It is still heartbreaking that we are being deprived of someone so caring and capable at the helm.

I know some are angry that Senator Clinton went out and campaigned for Barack Obama. But before anyone starts any Hillary bashing, this woman has been fighting on behalf of the Democratic Party for over 35 years. Severely outspent, in debt, with the press lynching her daily and her own party actively pushing and rigging it for the other guy, she did what she had to do to live to fight another day. Furthermore, she kept her word to the American people to fight for the Democratic nominee and a Democratic agenda.

I know that President-elect Obama has reversed himself on his policies and associations at lightning fast speed, so giving his word may not mean anything. But I do know to her, it means everything. It may seem an irritating quality at times. If I give my word, I don’t break it. Ever. My word is my bond.

Furthermore, had Hillary behaved any differently and shunned the Party, rest assured her crucifixion would have followed. Just witness the disgraceful treatment Governor Palin is receiving as we speak if you doubt this.

I will not second guess her. I just observe that Hillary is still out there “putting her shoes on” and doing her job. And while I may wish she had acted differently these last couple of months, I am certainly glad to have her earnest and dedicated voice in the Senate, still working on our behalf.

Notice, too, Senator Clinton is asking for action to be taken immediately, unlike Obama who is basically saying ‘it’s Bush’s mess ’til I get here in a couple of months.’ Where are his immediate solutions? Suggestions? He is not even planning on attending the emergency economic summit later in the week, but sending surrogates in his stead. If I were set to take over in a couple of months — I’d want to show up and keep my ears open and learn something.

People are hurting right now. It doesn’t matter which administration gets the credit. Help is required for the American people. Scorekeeping is not the issue. Hillary gets that.

Thank you so much Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Dean, Senator Reid, Senators Byrd, Kerry, Kennedy, McCaskill, Rockefeller and the rest of the backstabbers for throwing this good lady under the bus and instead, leaving us with Mr. Hopey Changey who seems to think it’s more important he choose a puppy for his daughters right now.

How’s that working out for ya’?

The image above was posted on Post Secret on November 8, 2008. I have no doubt that the dominate narrative of this campaign — the forceful suppression of women — is responsible for the author’s “secret.” In the Obama-realm, feminism isn’t just bad, it’ll ruin your life. One only need to look to Hillary and Sarah Palin as examples.

Dr. Violet Socks writes:

A few days ago I was asking you all to think about why there is still so much deeply-felt resistance to women’s equality. This is the lesson of radical feminism: that the gender revolution requires just that — a revolution.

Why does there need to be a revolution for equality? Because this year misogyny was used a political tool. As many of us witnessed, this election was so poisoned with hate speech against women that it’s not an exaggeration to say that the FBI would have been investigating the perpetrators if it had been against any other oppressed group.

Let’s be clear: Hillary Clinton was the choice of most Democrats this year. The Democratic establishment, consisting of Donna Brazile, Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and many others, worked furiously to keep Hillary Clinton from receiving the Democratic nomination. Their left-wing allies and the media worked to sabotage her campaign at every turn.

It’s not entirely clear why there was such intense animous towards Hillary by such a large and diverse group. We do know, however, that the most vile tactics were used to suppress Hillary’s campaign; caucus fraud, race-baiting, and outright misogyny comes to mind. As examples, the Obama campaign initiated a not-so-secret whisper campaign that President Clinton was a racist when Clinton called Obama’s Iraq War position a “fairy tale,” Hillary was accused of waiting for the unthinkable to happen to Obama when she mentioned the length of the 1968 campaign and Bobby Kennedy and, from January on, there was a constant drumbeat that she must leave the race.

Running below the murky currents of this campaign, however, was a sexism so deep and so pervasive that it can be said that sexism defined this campaign. Indeed, I believe the subtext and central narrative of Obama’s campaign was sexism. Because two women were the biggest political threat to his campaign, Obama needed to unleash sexism.

Dr. Socks continues:

Narratives: think about narratives. Anthropologists of gender, like Peggy Reeves Sandy, talk about “scripts”: the stories that a society tells itself to explain the world. How men are. How women are. How they should be.

The Obama campaign, with the help of the media and “progressives” blogs, pushed a narrative against Hillary and later Sarah Palin, that invalidated them as public servants because on their gender. Misogyny, wrapped in the protective shell of race-baiting, was the central narrative of the Obama campaign.

I subscribe to the bumper sticker view that “feminism is the radical notion that women are people.” My wife and I are expecting a girl in January. I want this girl to live the full and free life our son enjoys, without gender being an obstacle in her path. I don’t want my daughter to be called a “bitch,” or for someone to wear a t-shirt calling her a “cunt.” Put in those terms, the Obama movement unleashed something very ugly into the culture. The Obama campaign, in its subterranean narrative, encouraged the hatred of women. It is little wonder then that the author of the Post Secret card blames feminism for her unhappiness; she’s witnessed that women who expect equal treatment will be beat down.

First of all, once again, Happy Veterans Day. We should remember to honor our veterans far more often than one day a year. Thank you all for your service to this country.

As seems to be the norm these days, the bailout talk continues. Now, Obama wants to bailout Detroit. What he wants to bailout, though, is the Union. Specifically, he wants to help bailout their pension funds. Now, why should Ford and GM get THEIR pension plans bailed out? At what point are companies held accountable for their own fiscal malfeasance? I mean, really. Other car manufacturers in this country are doing well – and especially Japanese car makers. So, if people don’t want to buy their cars, maybe that is a bit of a clue that they need to reconsider their product. I don’t know why, though, that means we have to foot the bill for it. Again, when are executives held accountable for their own decisions?

Now, I am not anti-union, by any means. But, really – when does the responsibility for fulfilling union contracts stop belonging to the INDUSTRY that made the contract, and gets foisted on taxpayers?? Not that I am at all surprised that Obama would want to help out Detroit in particular – you know with his BFF Kwame Kilpatrick and all. Good grief. And this is just the beginning with Obama. He isn’t even in the White House yet. Wow.

And on the “Mixed Blessing” front, Howard Dean is not going to seek another terms as the DNC, or should I say, “ONC,” chairman. Well, YAY, but way too little too late. I mean, I am GLAD he will not be the Chiarman anymore after his deafening silence toward the massive misogyny we have witnessed this year against first Hillary Clinton, and then against Sarah Palin. And he oversaw the destruction of the Democratic Party as we know it, ignoring the will of the people with callous disregard. I do not recognize the party as it stands now, for all of the reaons a whole bunch of us have noted over the past year.

But here’s the thing that scares me: who will replace him? Will it be someone even more in the tank for Obama than Dean was (if that is even possible)? Will that chairman (oh, face it – it will not be a woman, not with this misogynistic crowd) attend to the numerous issues regarding the caucus system? Hahahaha. “In other words,” as Bush would say, I don’t hold out a whole lot of hope that whoever replaces Dean with Obama in the White House is going to do much to change what the ONC has become. And women will still be treated like shit.

Blech. All of this just makes me ill. Obama is already kowtowing to his special interest groups in Detroit, Dean destroyed the Party to select a candidate, and people really do seem to think Obama is the Messiah, judging from the crowd that already wants to make a HOLIDAY to him…What the hell is the matter with people???

Sorry – I’m tired and just don’t feel like mincing words. These people are freakin’ nuts. What else is there to say?

I know what else I want to say – even though I had a tribute yesterday to our Veterans, frankly, they do not get honored enough for all they do. Below is a video that honors our veterans, in particular, our wounded veterans, and their families. So, I leave you with this, and again, my deepest appreciation for the sacrifices made by our men and women in uniform:

At the end of the Democratic Primary season, this was the situation:

Popular Vote
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton: 17,857,446, (48.04%)
Senator Barack Obama: 17,584,649 (47.31%)

Pledged delegates

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton: 1,730.5 (39.17%)
Senator Barack Obama: 1,747.5 (39.55%)

(source)

Then, for no apparent good reason, in June Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosis decided THEY, not the delegates chosen by the electorate and not the superdelegates appointed via proper party procedure, were going to decide who would represent the top of the ticket for the general election. Now that same leadership wants YOU to legitimize their undemocratic and unprincipled methods by putting their selected candidate into the White House on November 4.

But WE can say no to the subversion of democratic principles within the Democratic Party. We can say no with our votes and by urging our fellow Democrats to pay attention to the particulars of the candidate Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi selected to represent the Democratic Party.

Put this ad on the air and let America know that our voices count.

Over the next 24 hours and across the internet, we as a community will urgently be raising money to run edgy and persuasive ads made by Democrats in key battleground states. Generous contributors have pledged $500 in matching funds. Your voice counts. Please contribute now

CLICK ON ROSIE TO DONATE:

Or go to Democrats For Principle Before Party – The Denver Group’s general election website, where you can view other ads the group is running:

In the October 17 edition of the Wall Street Journal, Lanny Davis writes that Democrats should be glad Senator Clinton stayed in the race because she made Senator Obama a better general election candidate. THIS is why Clinton supporters – most of whom were presumably Democrats – should be glad she stayed in the race?

Mr. Davis, we were glad Senator Clinton stayed in the race because we watched her win the popular vote. Many of us believe that if the Democratic Party had followed its own rules and the superdelegates and regular delegates had not been coerced by Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi and Senator Obama’s campaign (who Chairman Dean turned over the DNC to in June when no candidate had actually won the party’s nomination), Senator Clinton might very well have been the party’s nominee.

We were glad Senator Clinton stayed in the race because we thought she would make a superior President to either Senator Obama or any Republican, including Senator McCain. I still believe that.

If the best you can say about Senator Clinton’s campaign is that it helped Senator Obama then you really are not saying much about the millions of voters who cast their ballots for Senator Clinton, the thousands of us who donated money, time, and energy to Senator Clinton’s campaign. I assure you we did not do it so that her run for the nomination would help Senator Obama. We did it because wanted Senator Clinton to represent our party this November.

I am not sure, Mr. Davis, if you realize how insulting it is to those of us who are not “prominent” or “key” Democrats for you to define Senator Clinton’s campaign as some sort of testing ground for Senator Obama. Please give Senator Clinton some respect and some credit: presumably she stayed in the race because she wanted to win. She wanted to win. And it was perfectly ok for her to want to win, and to want to win because she thought she would make a better President than would Senator Obama.

I certainly agree with you, Mr. Davis, that “the cartoon caricature [of Senator Clinton] created over the years by extremists left and right has nothing to do with reality.” But although I have not known her personally over the years, as you make clear you have, I did not need to see Senator Clinton keep her word about campaigning for whoever became the Democratic nominee to recognize her as “principled and authentically committed to progressive issues”. I saw that when I first learned about Senator Clinton, which was before her husband ever ran for President, when I was studying the lawyers who worked to prosecute Richard Nixon’s participation in the Watergate break-in.

Finally, Mr. Davis, I must take issue with this particularly offensive passage in your commentary:

There always was a danger that certain working-class/rural voters who strongly supported Mrs. Clinton in such state primaries as Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia would not easily transfer their support to Mr. Obama. The same worry was often repeated about Democratic women who were angry or simply grieving about Mrs. Clinton not being picked as the nominee.

Mr. Davis, by definition, I do not qualify as one of the “certain working-class/rural voters” you disparage with the remark. But let me make it perfectly clear: I am not angry or “simply grieving” about “Mrs. Clinton not being picked as the nominee.” I am distressed that the Democratic Party rigged its own nomination process and PICKED a candidate rather than ELECTING one.

You began this election cycle supporting Senator Clinton, Mr. Davis. And as the tagline in the WSJ article states you are ending it as an Obama supporter. Given the patronizing and dismissive tone of the passage I quote above, I imagine you feel much more comfortable with the candidate you now back than the one you originally preferred.

Ok, yes, I do know there was a little thing going on with the economy. Hey, as long as ACORN, and the other two organizations Obama wanted to fund with your taxpaying dollars did NOT get listed as receiving 20% of the bailout repayment, I’m happy it happened. Uh, ACORN DIDN’T get it, right???

And then there was something else I think happened on Thursday night – hmm, what could that possibly have been? Oh, yes, I remember now – Sarah took on Joe in the debate. Now, I will tell you right upfront that I did NOT watch it all – I only caught a few snippets here and there (I was on vacation, after all – no need to have my blood boiling while I’m looking out at the Caribbean Sea!). But there was one part I DID see, and found interesting. Especially since I keep getting emails from my sister on how DANGEROUS McCain/Palin will be on gay rights. Yes, I just so happened to see the piece in which Palin was asked about gay rights and same sex marriage. Here’s the video:

While I obviously DO NOT agree with her, or Biden, in any way shape or form, she was MASTERFUL in framing her response the way she did. Why? Because it made Biden say CLEARLY that OBAMA AND BIDEN DO NOT SUPPORT SAME SEX MARRIAGE. Ahem. Sorry, but I am sick and tired of getting email after email from organizations (and forwards from “concerned” family members) about how HORRIBLE it will all be for the GLBT community should McCain/Palin get in the White House. Their positions are virtually IDENTICAL, with the exception of Obama’s numerous anti-gay activist associates. So, for these organizations to engage in this fear mongering/anger inciting tact is disingenuous at BEST. Frankly, it is dishonest, manipulative, and low, not what I expect from organizations like Think Progress, for instance (they are the latest to do this, but certainly not the only ones to do so).

I might also add that for someone who has not been in politics for 36 yrs, from what I did see, Sarah more than held her own. I guess maybe that’s the difference between having to actually make the hard decisions on a regular basis for an entire state, and just yak, as Obama said senators do.

And while I am on that, SusanUnPC from No Quarter alerted me to the orchestrated attacks on Sarah Palin by lesbians via Our Chart. If you are unfamiliar with Our Chart, it is an online community started by a concept of the same title on “The L Word.” Anyway, an alert reader sent Susan a link from Our Chart in which Palin is being targeted. Apparently, people are not paying attention to the facts about Obama and the GLBT community, or they don’t want to BELIEVE where he really stands (ah, denial, such a lovely place), but are all too ready to believe whatever rumor comes down the pike about Palin (and/or McCain). What the hey?? While I have always, always, always been incredibly liberal, I did not know that the ONLY women allowed to be self-actualized are LIBERAL women, not ALL women. Who the hell knew THAT?? Anywho, back to lesbians attacking Palin – the lack of critical thinking by this community (heck – anyone who is voting for him) is staggering. But for women-identified-women to attack another woman so ruthlessly is disturbing, to say the least. I reckon they don’t really care that they have more rights under Palin in Alaska than in many other states in the Union. Or maybe they don’t understand that when Obama says HE doesn’t support same-sex marriage, that is no different from when Palin says she doesn’t. See, even though Logic was required for me as a Philosophy major, I just don’t think that’s a big logical leap requiring additional coursework, but that’s just me. But people are clearly buying the lies being spread in this election. The lies are about who Obama is, and for what he stands, as well as who his opponents are. So much for truth, justice, and the American way. I guess that’s just passe for this generation of young people. And for too many others, as well. Win at all and any costs seems to be the NEW American slogan. I’d kinda like to get back to the old one, myself.

Ah, well, just another month of this foolishness. Until then, it is critical that we keep doing what we can to combat the lies spread by Obama and his surrogates. Let him win or lose fair and square – that would be new and different for him, wouldn’t it?? No time like the first time for that to happen, and I certainly hope this is the year he learns all about losing (do you think he will cry to Pelosi or Dean or Reid that they PROMISED him he would win like Dubya did to his brother about Florida??). It couldn’t happen to a more deserving guy, if you ask me.

Glad to be back – so tell me what else I missed!

The media’s pillow-fluffing rhapsodic musings about the Obama ‘movement’ made them abandon their objectivity faster than a child abandoning a broken toy. The DNC gambled on an unvetted, unqualified, well-sculpted concoction of New Age-y hyped up post-partisan platitudes that really don’t make much sense to Americans struggling to keep afloat. Their gamble has resulted in a split of the Democratic Party. No matter what Obama does, his numbers won’t go above 50%. No amount of money, media favoritism, or caucus fraud can change that fact.

What to do now? When in doubt, play: j’accuse!! The media and Dem party leadership have started pointing fingers. Racism!! They cry. Nonsense, I say.

The racism charges have been put out by Senator Obama personally and many in the DNC/Obama wing of the Party. This is a scenario that both they and the media can hide behind to avoid questions and blowback if Obama loses. It’s a way to be insulated from failure so they can still claim to be relevant if the election results in a loss for Obama in this “no lose year for Democrats.” How we got to this place of throwing the far more qualified candidate under the bus will be discussed for some time to come.

What we are seeing is a battle for the Democratic Party itself. Clearly the ‘Howards’, ‘Nancys’ and ‘Donnas’ in the DNC chose to kick the Clinton wing to the curb by forcing delegates to make a selection before it was time to vote and staging an end run around the legitimate nominating process. They did their best to pretend that Hillary’s 18,000,000 voters and her 1912 delegates did not exist.

To that end, Marc Rubin and Prof. Heidi Li Feldman, co-founders of The Denver Group, through the use of grass roots fundraising, both on and off the internet, did a tremendous job of creating and placing effective targeted advertising that added pressure to the decision to put Hillary’s name into nomination and get a roll call vote at the Democratic Convention.

Unfortunately, we all know what happened as a result of the thuggish tactics of the DNC leadership. The only good news is that the reputations and favorability ratings of Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, Donna Brazile, Harry Reid seem at an all time low. Apparently, someone out there is paying attention.

Marc Rubin shared his thoughts with me about the Convention, its aftermath and how The Denver Group is evolving in an effort to apply pressure for change in the fractured Democratic Party and hold the current party leadership’s feet to the fire.

Marc, looking back, what is your feeling about how the Convention played out?

The convention was a total fraud. The roll call vote was rigged, and every Democratic rule and procedure was violated in order to do it and they did it in broad daylight right in front of the watchful eyes of the news media who have the powers of observation of a drunken sailor on a Saturday night. They just let the corruption happen without comment. Some of the more egregiously blind were Mike Barnicle, Chris Matthews and of course that Olbermann guy who still thinks this is sports.

What would you want to explain about the roll call vote or outcome for those not as intimately involved in the situation? There are still those who think Senator Obama won the nomination “fair and square.” What is your response to that?

Well there is no accounting for people’s ignorance and refusal to think for themselves, but according to Democratic Party rules it was totally rigged. Rule 6, I believe, states clearly that pledged delegates have an obligation to vote according to the voters who elected them based on the primaries.

Just as one example, Clinton ‘landslided’ Obama in the New Jersey primary winning many more elected pledged delegates than Obama. As you saw during the roll call vote all 130 pledged delegates “voted” for Obama. And no one blinked an eye. And as everyone knows super delegates were going to decide this because Obama didn’t have the 2/3 needed in pledged delegates. They never were given a chance to vote. The last unofficial count according to Politico.com prior to the roll call vote showed among super delegates, 271 for Obama, 268 for Clinton and 160 undecided. If the roll call vote was honest, Obama would have most likely lost.

Had you ever been so involved in a campaign? What motivated you to go the extra mile?

What motivated me was unfairness. The incredible deceit of Pelosi outright lying during the primary season, saying that super delegates had an obligation to vote according to the pledged delegate count, the slanted playing field, the deceit and dishonesty of the news media and people like Jonathan Alter, MSNBC and others calling for Clinton to get out, and of course the Florida and Michigan fiasco when Obama and the DNC and the media colluded to deny both states their rightful voices. The last straw was after the last primary when Pelosi forced super delegates to declare 6 weeks before their votes would count so they could short circuit the process and declare Obama the winner when he wasn’t.

As Governor Rendell of Pennsylvania pointed out, the DNC insisted on nominating the weaker candidate. Aside from the obvious consequence of making the election harder to win, what do you think are some of the short and long term consequences of such an action to the Democratic Party going forward?

Harder to win? Try impossible to win. One candidate ‘landslided’ the other in 13 of the biggest states in the country, not just won, but won by landslide margins and they sent out the loser. They deserve to lose and lose big. The short term consequences are short term pain for long term gain because a massive Obama defeat will get rid of Dean, Pelosi, Brazile and the Obama wing of the party and get it on the right track again.

The DNC is using various scare tactics to get everyone to fall in line. What is your response to their favorite ploys?

a) McCain as neocon?

As rated by conservative groups, McCain has the worst conservative voting record of any Republican member of Congress which is one reason Rush Limbaugh hates him. I’m going to write a post specifically addressing all of this because it’s so ludicrous.

b) Threats to reverse Roe v. Wade?

As for Roe v. Wade, it’s designed to scare people who are ignorant of the law, the limits on the power of the executive [branch] and how the legal system works. It’s virtually a done deal that Roe v. Wade will never get reversed in a McCain presidency and if you want proof, no Presidents were more opposed to Roe v. Wade than Bush and Reagan and nothing happened in 16 years of both administrations and for logical reasons. It won’t happen under a McCain administration either.

c) Conservative SCOTUS appointments?

Appointing judges is a crap shoot. Look at David Souter. Besides, even conservative judges respect court precedent and only in extreme and compelling circumstances are willing to overturn long-standing decisions and it hardly ever happens and it wouldn’t with Roe v. Wade. There is a big difference between conservatives WANTING it to be overturned and a court doing just that, assuming you could even find a case where someone with the standing to bring a law suit would do it.

d) What about the DNC and media pushing that if one does not vote for Senator Obama, one must be racist? How effective is this tactic?

Martin Luther King said he dreamed of a day when a person would be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. That day has obviously not arrived for Obama, his campaign and those in the DNC, who think making an issue of race and using it to try and intimidate weak minded people is the way to win the election.

Any objective person would come to the conclusion, based on everything known, that Obama doesn’t have the character, courage or the conviction even to be an effective Senator much less President. Using accusations of racism to try and intimidate people into voting for an unqualified candidate will backfire among everyone who sees through it and resents it.

That doesn’t include patronizing knee-jerk liberals such as Keith Olbermann and others like him; the kind of patronizing pseudo-liberals that Lenny Bruce made fun of in the early 60’s, who want to show how un-racist they are by drumming up support for someone with the ethics of a dishonest used car salesman.

But it’s a good reason the polls can’t be trusted. When Obama and his minions try and use the race card to intimidate people, those who do feel intimidated will say one thing but will do another. The more they do it, the more they alienate the people they are trying to win over, so the tactic of trying to get people to prove they are not racists by voting for him, like taking some kind of loyalty oath, smacks of racial McCarthyism, and while it might be successful with some, most people will reject it.

Aside from the obvious wish to scare up voters, why do you feel they are using such a risky tactic?

It is a sign of desperation and reinforces the truth that Senator Obama has nothing to say and nothing to offer.

We have many, many African Americans who have been elected to public office — mayors, governors, members of Congress, members of state legislatures, and none of them had to use race as a tactic to get elected. All were elected on their merits and won re-election or were defeated based on their performances. In the end the more Obama uses race the more he is telling people he has no game.

I understand The Denver Group has a new offshoot — Democrats for Principle Before Party — what are your new goals going forward?

A massive defeat for Obama and the resignations of everyone in the DNC who produced him and the elimination of the Obama wing of the party which is obviously corrupt and putting the DNC back into the hands of people who understand the word “democracy”.

It wasn’t Clinton’s supporters who stooped to the level of the Obama wing and corrupted and mishandled everything, so to start with, Clinton and her supporters would obviously do a better job getting a Democrat back in the White House and getting the entire party back on track after all the “I told you so’s” are over. This also means replacing Pelosi, Reid, Dean and everyone else. If the Democrats retain control of Congress, I can’t see any member of the House with 2 cents for a brain re-electing Pelosi Speaker of the House. Once this is over, we should see a big power shift back to sanity.

When you see how the DNC has so skewed the process this time, what can be done to effect change on a grass roots level? What would be your advice to those feeling completely disenfranchised by the primary season – how can they bring pressure to bear to make sure this sort of thing never happens again?

Vote for an Obama defeat, whether than means voting for another candidate or leaving the Presidential line blank. No money to the DNC, and donating money to The Denver Group to help finance Democrats For Principle Before Party.

Finally, what can you say to those who don’t understand why you are not just “lining up” the way most Dems usually do in support of any candidate? If you could correct any misconception about how they view your actions, what would you say to them?

I’d say they should look at themselves and whether they have decided to believe what Obama and the news media tells them or their own “lying eyes”. Understand that Democrats don’t “fall in line” like Republicans do, that Dean and Pelosi’s “fall in line” strategy has backfired and showed a distinct lack of understanding of who Democrats are, and the last thing I would tell people is do themselves a favor and try thinking for themselves and not believe something is true just because someone tells them so.

But if people can’t see the rank dishonesty and hypocrisy in everything Obama has said and done by now: his lying about [Rev.] Wright and the fact he was never offended enough by what Wright was saying to leave and never go back, his lying about FISA, NAFTA, his reneging on his promises and pledges, and if they don’t mind being led around by the nose I don’t know there is anything more anyone can say.

Thank you for taking the time to do this interview, Marc. I honestly feel watchdog organization like yours are critical, particularly now, when the media is working so diligently to manhandle the truth. As you and Heidi Li point out on your website, it is crucial to stop all the errant finger pointing and lay the blame squarely at the feet of those to whom it belongs.

I’m not advocating anyone vote one way or the other, but John McCain said something apropos during his convention speech, in re vetoing ‘pork projects’ that come across his desk: “They will be famous. You will know their names.”

A good prescription for the current Democratic Party leadership. Don’t you think?

* * *
*Marc Rubin is an award winning art director and writer in the advertising business, was a contributing editor for National Lampoon in its heyday, the head writer on a number of prime time network TV series and is currently developing several movie and TV projects.

To learn more about: The Denver Group / Democrats For Principle Before Party.

When a fireman burst through our door, a six and a half foot tall mountain clad in yellow with a large axe in his hands, the first words out of my mouth were “we have cats!!” He calmly said “Get them and get out.” We grabbed the carriers, and got a cat, two kittens and ourselves down to the lobby in thirty seconds flat. The firefighters were heroes and saved the entire building, except for the reckless neighbor’s kitchen.

Five minutes later it would have been a flashover and the whole building would have been gone. Gone. Five minutes.

When we returned to our home, aside from the door, there was no damage. None.

My hubby and I are real good at following instructions – when we get them from someone who knows what they are doing. We didn’t ask questions or hesitate. We knew we were in good hands and never looked back. That sense of safety, that calm, that knowledge is just something we could feel.

And I could not tell whether the fireman in the yellow mask shouting instructions at us was black or white. And I certainly didn’t care. I did what he told me to do because I trusted that he knew what he was doing.

Trust is not something you can buy. You cannot earn trust with threats. You can’t earn votes that way either.

Senator Biden is campaigning down south telling us we should vote for Obama because he is black. John Kerry said the same thing. Every time anyone criticizes this newbie Senator from Illinois on his various lies or flip flops, the DNC, the press and Obama’s campaign tend to unite in a chorus of the race card. So we’d better not criticize Senator Obama due to the color of his skin, but we should vote for him for that reason. Have I got that right?

Enough. This is nonsense. I care much more that Senator Obama reneged on FISA, touts Bush’s faith based initiatives, that he won through caucus fraud and received more from Wall St. than any other candidate. The color of his skin has no bearing here.

Russ Smith, in his Splice piece, The Audacity of Defeat, wonders:

What if the impossible happens and Obama loses the election? Among Democrats, expect a rash of rage, depression, angst and finger-pointing at the media.

Not among all Democrats. There’s a new T-shirt for sale. Expect me to be wearing it: Don’t blame me, I voted for Hillary. When that fire was raging in our building, they didn’t send a ‘Probie’ to our door to handle it. They sent someone who’s been through a few before. These pundit boobs act as if all Democratic candidates are interchangeable.

And how can any of Obama’s supporters finger point at the media? It’s been a love-fest from day one. We’ll be doing the finger pointing: Why did you not vet this guy? Why did you run so much interference for him? Why didn’t you fess up and tell the truth? Why didn’t you hold him to the same standards of accountability as the other candidates?

Here’s some more of Russ Smith’s nonsense for you:

New York magazine columnist Kurt Andersen, one of the few Beltway-Boston pundits who bashed Hillary Clinton a year ago, when her nomination appeared inevitable, was unstinting in his speculation of the fallout should Obama lose. He emailed me: “Even without post-November 4th rumors of rigged voting machines and the like, an Obama loss will be a deeply, traumatically depressing event for Democrats and other Obama enthusiasts. (Whereas if McCain loses, who will be seriously bummed outside of the McCain household?) There will be so many facets of potential unhappiness. That an eloquent, inspiring, intelligent, subtle black candidate lost—and if it’s close, it’ll be true that racism beat him… That the rest of the world will be reaffirmed in their belief that America is the land of nincompoops (or worse).”

Tom Bevan, co-founder of Real Clear Politics, was succinct: “Two words: Hari Kari. The base of the [Democratic] party is so vested in its nominee…that to lose in November would be one of the most demoralizing in the modern era.”

I’ll tell you who will be demoralized – Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Donna Brazile, Harry Reid and company – all the Dem elite thugs who kicked the best candidate to the curb so they could put their ‘empty vessel’ in charge of the clown car.

If Senator Obama, this ‘eloquent, inspiring, intelligent, subtle black candidate’ cannot run on anything but the race card, then there really isn’t much hope for change, is there? Furthermore I am really not concerned with what the rest of the world thinks. Certain other world leaders just might have an agenda of their own in voicing their opinions.

Kevin Ferris, in his article Don’t Cry Racism If Obama Loses writes:

…[S]ome are already bemoaning the rampant racism that might keep a black man from ascending to the presidency.

Hey, Barack Obama could not have clinched the nomination without votes from white Americans. The other party isn’t supposed to just concede the election based on skin color. Voters shouldn’t have to choose based on race when they disagree on issues or believe a candidate isn’t up to the job.

But expect to see the bemoaners looking to the heavens and saying, “We’re not ready.”

Baloney. Maybe it’s Obama who’s not ready and the people who recognize that – men and women, whites and blacks, Hispanics and Asians – are just fine.

The Democrats, who are always trumpeting that they are the party that gave me the “Right to Choose” took away my only sensible choice: Hillary, who we knew would win and left me with Obama, who we knew would lose once he had to go up against a real Republican candidate.

This is the gentleman the DNC insists I vote for:

(CNN) — It appears Barack Obama’s teleprompter is hitting the campaign trail.

The Democratic presidential nominee has never tried to hide the fact he delivers speeches off the device, though normally he doesn’t use one at standard campaign rallies and town hall events.

But the Illinois senator used a teleprompter at both his Colorado events Monday — making for a particularly peculiar scene in Pueblo, where the prompter was set up in the middle of what is normally a rodeo ring.

Senator Obama goes to casual campaign rally stopovers and he needs a teleprompter to remember what the hell he is campaigning about? If, after twenty months of campaigning about the same issues, you don’t have enough authority over your own policies and heartfelt beliefs to stand up in a strong voice and share them with the American people; if you don’t trust yourself enough to deliver that information without a script – then why the hell should I trust you with my country, my military, my safety or my vote?

Senator Obama calls himself a uniter. Then why does he feel so divisive to me? The more I think about it the more he looks like someone designed to destroy the Democratic Party from within. And now it seems that Barack Obama, so arrogant about his money raising capabilities that he reneged on his pledge to use public financing, just informed Harry Reid that contrary to his earlier pledges, he will not be able to help Senators with their down ticket races.

And now, the pièce de resistance to close Russ Smith’s misguided article:

Finally, Tucker Carlson, the witty veteran of cable television shows, who’s been mercilessly and unfairly maligned by left-wingers, expressed an opinion that’s close to my own. “Even those who supported Hillary in the primaries will scold the rest of us for voting against a black man. They’ll be shrill and self-righteous, more even than usual, and they’ll never stop. It’s almost enough to make you want to vote for Obama, just so we won’t have to hear them.”

Tucker forgets that the majority of the Democratic base voted for Hillary. That’s the same Tucker who just a few months ago sat agape on MSNBC and said he was “in awe” of Hillary Clinton. He seems to forget that at least 30% of Hillary’s voters have already said they are voting for Senator McCain. That’s 5.4 million. I’m sure that number is growing by the day. And it will not be out of spite. It will be because we sincerely do not believe that Senator Obama is up to this task.

Kevin Ferris concludes:

Don’t assume racism because voters don’t think a junior senator with great potential but no major accomplishments is ready to be leader of the Free World and a wartime commander in chief.

He’s right. When I cry the morning after the election, my tears will not be for Obama. My tears will be for the Democratic Party, who unwisely pushed a self-described ‘blank slate’ forward in what should have been a no-lose year for the Democrats.

My tears will be for people who have so lost their way that they left someone with authority, knowledge, toughness, preparedness and compassion by the side of the road so they could hoist the emperor with no clothes on their shoulders.