Chuck for ...

Gov. Christie is running for re-election to be Governor of New Jersey - that would be Republican Governor of that Blue State of New Jersey.  That would mean that he will have to run for that re-election as a Republican governor of a blue state with policies designed to win in a blue state, a northeastern blue state.  There has been talk about Gov. Christie running in 2016 for the GOP Presidential election.

Uh...

The GOP Primary voters really didn't like Mitt Romney, you know - the Blue State Republican Governor - but he did manage to money bomb and campaign competence bomb his rivals into extinction after his 180 on being a Republican Blue State Governor - barely (see Santorum).  Consider that damn near anybody breathing polled higher than Mittens for awhile.  The GOP ran a fairly democratic Primary this last time and the results were... disappointing for the GOP.

I'm sure the GOP can manage to jury rig the Primary process to get something closer to their desires but I'm not sure they can tilt the field enough to get the Confederate Party of Republicanism to swallow Christie, even as abrasive as he can be.  Tough talk isn't going to cover the realities of being a blue state governor - especially not in The Old Confederacy (and The New Confederacy).  Well, the Media needs something to talk about...

there's always Jeb BUSH

ahahahahaha, please do that.

Once again a state, Florida in this case, has shown that a majority of GOPers, 54% this time, don't want MultipleMitt. You could go ahead and make the case that a four way race means lower vote totals and be accurate in a lot of cases. You do have a vote split but it is on the ABM side - not including Ron Paul. To be clear, Ron Paul's voters are not Mitt Romney's except in opposition to President Obama. Some of them won't go there because their pet issues are less represented by Mitt than the President, some of them are the Last Confederates Standing and will do damn near any sort of gymnastics to oppose that... darker guy in the White House. I am not making the case that race plays no role with the other GOP candidates or that they don't play at dog whistling, but...

Florida is a closed winner take all GOP Primary, you have to be a registered GOP to play. There are states where that would help Newt but Florida is a peculiar GOP demographic. Parts of the state are typical, but real big chunks of voters are from somewhere else with ties and traditions from elsewhere. Americans are mobile, but Florida is a special case, some of it is virtually a suburb of of the North East and North Central US. Fleeing the snow is not the same thing as fleeing the public policies of those areas.

As far as these candidates in regard to the "ideology" of the GOP this bunch are as fake as I can ever remember seeing - and I've paid attention for quite awhile. None of them has a record that matches what they're playing to the voters. If you're trying to give Rick Santorum credit for such a thing, you'd be well served to take a look back at Jack Abromoff and the Mariannes Islands amongst other issues. These characters are the most abject frauds that have run in any major party for a hell of a long time. And what matters is that all Mitt's money can't buy him love.

Ron Paul has love, to the cult degree, from a big part of his supporters and he has wishful thinking to the point of delusion from the rest. Rick Santorum gets himself some love from those ignorant of his past, and Newt gets some from the any bombast will do crowd. Mitt gets almost tolerated and it ain't his money.

There is no doubt that Mitt gets a lot of money from some real rich people but money works for a different type of loving than character. I've left a rather large sized blank in that statement for you to fill in. I don't know anybody who knows what Mitt stands for other than that he deserves to be President. As a candidate President Obama was somewhat of a blank slate that people filled in with their own chalk but there was a record that didn't stand in stark contrast to what he had to say. With Mitt you're left with what he has to say today and even that is pretty much empty word salad when it comes to Mitt.

I am really glad that I have almost nothing in common with the GOP beyond being a bipedal humanoid. I do think one Party having a slate of candidates like this is bad for a country with, essentially, a two Party system. Well, I have hopes for a long contested mess over there on that side, maybe the so-called non-affiliated voters will get some kind of an idea. Don't hold your breath on that score.

(editt) Santorum, Marianas Is, etc

Steady readers may know that I have a fondness for Xbox360 Role Playing Games. I prefer first person (screen is view from eyes) and I insist that the game give me enough story that I feel like I have a reason to spend the kind of time it takes - and the aggravation that comes with playing at high difficulty levels. Good RPGs let the player build a character from a lot of different attributes and allow forks in the story depending on the choices the character makes and those base attributes.

The latest polling from Florida points to Newt having forgotten what is going on in the GOP RPG. Now I may be a compassionate man who tries to treat other people well, but I have taken roles in RPGs where I've been female or particularly amoral to down right nasty just to see where the story would go. A good Xbox game may let you go, in virtually the same breath, from cold blooded ruthless to kind without exploding the story. The GOP RPG is a bit different.

Newt may, despite a lot of evidence, see himself as a big idea guy - some sort of intellectual heavy weight in the GOP ring, laughably as a historian. He might think that, but the story line he's laid out for the GOP voters is something else entirely - he's the hard ass, they guy who'll stomp a mud hole in the back of the President, unlike that weaselly Mitt guy. To go out on the space coast and talk about putting a permanent colony on the moon in eight years is pretty damn big, but sure invites even a Mitt to talk about firing somebody in private industry who thought it was a profit maker. Florida GOPers didn't want a moon colony - they wanted to hear about the "food stamp President" and weasel Mitt's Obamneycare and maybe something about rapist economics (GOPers??).

I get to set up attributes like weaponry and clothing which may range from magic users wearing robes to warriors wearing heavy armor and excelling at close up hack and slash with big swords. I can tell you that when one of my warriors gets up and close to a mage - it is all over; and by the same token, if that warrior doesn't close the the mage will blow him away from safety. Newt won South Carolina as a heavy hitting warrior, even thoroughly beating Mitt on the electability question. He got up close and whaled away at the President and threw some sharp edged whacks at Mitt who was busy playing the mage - no fancy fooling about, just plain old hack and slash. Mitt is stuck playing the mage, a nasty natured one, but staying away from the brawling that requires heavy armor, the armor provided by resentment, ignorance, and even hate; and Mitt stood off and lobbed fireballs at Newt who obliged by waving his sword around from a distance.

RPGs are just exactly that, playing a role and you ignore your role at the almost sure risk of failure because that is the design of the game. GOPers have designed their game over the course of decades and the roles are pretty clear and players don't get to suddenly switch up mid-stream. I might not like any of these characters but it sure is a lot more fun to watch when it's competitive...

On the basis of exit polling the media started calling the South Carolina Primary for Newt a couple minutes after the polls closed. With a third of the vote in it looks like 41 Newt, 26 Mitt, 18 Rick, 13 Ron. (50% in 40,27)

So, in ascending order the GOP has:
The Last Confederate Standing
Frothy Blah People (Google is your friend, with a strong stomach)
MultipleMitt
The Slimy Amphibian

And from this stellar field they propose to beat President Obama like a cheap drum with whoever is erect (sort of) after this Primary. Honestly, I was kinda hoping the GOP would give America a pretty clear choice between the fakery of a Plutocrat versus the Middle Black Guy (sure I'd like left versus their crazed right but you've got the President).

Exit polls showed Mr Multiple losing the electability issue, geewhiz - that's been almost his entire play, "at least I can run with Obama."

Now I'd like to point out to the Ron Paul cultists, you might be impressed with your 13% in a GOP Primary, but here's the reality - that is your possible vote, not one of the other GOPer's supporters would go your way and any other Party voters already did. Generously speaking, in a two Party system that means you all are at best 6% in South Carolina where your flag is still flown on the State House grounds. Contrast that with the rate of serious insanity in the US...6%.

Rick Santorum... who the hell knows what that is about or would go. Maybe he wants to be a VP or maybe God told him to save the cretins in this country from themselves. If it was God, not many other than Rick were listening.

I think the biggest question is what Mitt Romney does about the results from South Carolina. Both he and Newt Gingrich are fakes of improbably degree, but Newt is a hell of a lot better actor. Without saying much of anything of consequence Newt has scorched Mitt, taking him from over a ten point lead to maybe a seventeen point deficit and that would be a twenty seven point drop against Newt. Mitt is going to have to do something about that and what Newt has is tough to top by a Romney. Mitt is going to out dog whistle and out mean Newt? Mitt cannot "fire" Newt and his smug dismissal isn't going to work with that dog. Added to that Mitt has some idea that he can appeal to the not crazy part of the General Election and he cannot get there by trying to out-Newt Newt. Maybe Mitt's best course is to wait for Newt to pull the pin on a grenade and then drop it.

That gets to the point of people looking for Newt to implode in the Primary. If Newt doesn't say something "socialistic" it is hard for me to see where Newt loses votes from the ABMs. The GOP establishment can't stand Newt and will do what it can and their problem is that the ABMs do not give a damn or they'd not be ABMs. The South Carolina voters think Newt is more electable than Mitt and that is a pipe dream worthy of Ron Paul sponsorship. Newt's negatives nation wide are horrific and short of an economic implosion or other national catastrophe he'd be smashed.

This GOP Primary may be way more fun than the Lord of the Rings movie trilogy. (well, there is the part where they're competing to be Sauron) Buy lots of popcorn, this show may be pretty long.

I wish I could have written this, but Charlie Pierce did it:

The lies are also bone-deep in Romney's campaign. His wife, of all people, told a complete fairy tale here on Friday night about how, "a year ago," she and Willard "were talking and had the same conversation so many of you have had out there, and we said we thought the country was going in the wrong direction, and I turned to Mitt and asked, 'Can you save the country?'"

Okay, now Ann Romney is a very nice lady, and a very brave one, but, honest to god, is there anyone not playing with their toes who believes that Willard Romney stepped into the fray a year ago out of patriotic altruism? Is there anyone not playing with their toes who believes that he he ever stopped running for president after 2008? Hell, the hardcover edition of his campaign book, No Apologies — the book he barbered to make its contents more palatable to a Republican primary audience as a paperback — is almost two years old. The truth simply has ceased to matter in this campaign.

Does the truth come out of Willard's mouth other than when he says, "Hi, I'm Mitt Romney and I want to be President?" Except of course that his name isn't Mitt...

This morning I watched a TV clip from a Romney rally, and considering the time difference it must have been mid-morning or so in South Carolina. The crowd started chanting, "We need Mitt," and MultipleMitt responded, "You're going to get me." OK, so far pretty standard election morning stirp the team stuff, right? Wellllll...

I didn't listen to the volume because I don't trust audio levels or mic placement. What I did listen to and for was the mix of voices, the varying tones and sexes and differences in volume. What my ear told me was that this chant involved very few people, I don't mean around a hundred - I'd say not much more than twenty. There's a point to this...

What is there about Mitt Romney beyond Mormon and wealthy that would inspire you to jump up and chant? Well, that or even jump up and smack you hands together and holler, "Yahoo," or whatever? Maybe repeating applause lines like, "apologize for America," or some such... well... other actual lie. I'm not even sure, "let GM die," would work in a Mitsubishi assembly plant.

It is to be sure, true that I don't like MultipleMitt, that I think, by evidence, that he is a two faced lying sack of ... poo; who will say anything to anyone in order to further his own ends and that there isn't anyone outside his immediate family and immediate friends he wouldn't throw in front of a train for extreme profit or his political desires. You have to look at the Bain profits to understand exactly how disconnected this guy is from anything other than himself. Bain wrecked companies to make 200-300% profits, keeping a company alive and people working might have meant returns like ordinary investors salivate for... 15%. Bain was not in the business of creating or salvaging businesses - it was in the business of making great whacking piles of money for a couple people, anything else that happened was entirely secondary. In that world humans are no more than an integer on a spreadsheet and long term considerations are entirely trumped by short term profit taking. If you think you count to that guy, just watch him around "regular" people. What? You thought that picture was just some prank sort of thing, a damned joke?

Oh hell, in a General Election straight up tribalism and hate will get him that good old 27% plus another nearly 15% of who'd hold their noses just for the (R).

To listen to the media of late, you'd have to be really impressed by Mitt's strangle-hold on the GOP Primary. He's racking up the victories and that's really something. So, how's this impressive machine functioning today?

Mitt Romney got about three quarters of Iowan primary caucusers to vote for somebody else. That's right, he tied or lost or something real close with Rick Santorum. He got to New Hampshire and managed to get three fifths of their electorate to support someone else. Looking at the polling in South Carolina he's got over two thirds of that electorate looking elsewhere. Yep, and Newt is moving up.

This is the GOP version of the annointed, presumptive nominee. Wow, that's one hell of a machine.

I have made the point on some other forums that I don't know if Rand Paul is an overt racist or not; since I have no mind reading abilities. I will also state quite simply that it really doesn't make spit's difference in regard to him or Libertarianism or its stepchild Teabaggery. The bottom line of that idiotology is that it is a fig leaf for greed, selfishness, and classism all of which quite nicely include in nasty old racism. Let's be real clear, no matter how delusional, mistaken, simple minded the Randroid view is; it is also the enabler of all those things.

Let's actually take seriously the Randroid Paul idea that private business should be outside the Federal mandates about, oh say - serving blacks at a lunch counter. How exactly is the counter owner's refusal to serve or allow entrance to be enforced in the face of an intransigent black person? Somewhere in that transaction the law will wind up being involved so how does it stay neutral? How many establishments in a town have to engage in such behavior before it rises to legal notice, one, some, all? At what point does it become so institutionalized as to deny citizens the ability to participate at all? What possible magical free market hand is going to rectify that? Don't bother going to a bank for a loan to open a black only spot, they also don't need to loan money to either that "type" or such a "risky proposition." Is it Jim Crow minus the legal sanctions? Hardly, not if my "black" self is hungry and doesn't have a place to eat and insists on being fed - that particular situation is not going to end well and the law will be involved.

The collision between reality and the magic of Libertarianism is continual and accounts for its inability to deal with something like abortion. It makes statements that cannot be made to work, it is as though these people are cloistered on some Edenic planet where all problems simply do not exist and we're supposed to take a politician seriously who espouses such thinking?

The outcomes of their idiotology are a stratification of society to the point where the recourse of those on the out is force. That is the final free market solution - I can kill you. It is the ultimate in exchange, whether you are allowed to continue breathing or not.

It matters not in the least that Rand Paul has real affection for ... (whatever group) ... his policy ideas are de facto racist, classist, and ultimate greedhood. Attacking him as a racist in a political campaign is probably not a very good idea but pointing out that his ideas taken seriously lead to those outcomes probably is not only a fine idea but has the additional virtue of being true. I'm also pretty sure a coal state like KY has miners who might not care for the idea of the end of those nasty Federal regulations regarding safety and wage...

Hanging an "all" on the on the mess that was Ayn doesn't remove that stain. Trying to back pedal from statements to avoid the tag "racist" doesn't remove the outcomes inherent in that woman's pathetic attempts to create a philosophy out of complete disregard for your fellows in society. It requires no moral treatise on Christian values or any other such exercise to recognize the harm to society that is done when such nonsense is taken seriously. Oh for sure, "Watch out DC the Teaparty is on its way."

Rand Paul and his ilk can spend a whole bunch of time denying racism or other labels that fit the outcomes of their ideas. The racists and greed heads know better, they know who will benefit them and you can bet Paul For Senate will do well in that nasty corner. The question is whether Kentucky can live up to some other reputation than a hell hole of inbred racist hillbilly pricks deserving the appellation Confederate Party of Republicanism.

There seems to be developing an idea that Sestak beating Specter means a lot about the White House and voter attitude. I'd like to see that train backed up a bit. I see this Primary result being about asking Democrats to vote for the guy they've been asked to defeat for decades. A guy who recently changed Parties and has Bush/Cheney problems amongst others. Sure, he's an incumbent, but calling him a Democratic incumbent is taking the definition a bit too literally. Also calling Sestak a Progressive might be a bit strong and wrong.

The same kind of theme is being sounded about Kentucky and the Rand Paul election by the Teabaggers. Funny, there's about 3:2 D:R vote ratio in Primary though making too much of that could be wrong since it seems to be an ordinary Primary ratio that results in GOP General wins, anyhow. Teabaggers turned out against McConnell's pick, that isn't too odd an outcome in low turnout mid-term Primary, what that means to GOP in Nov is an open question. What the Teabaggers are is just about as much an open question and particularly what they are to the voters in a General Election.

It appears that Lincoln in AR will have to go through a run off. She is the incumbent but she has also been an odd sort of Democrat for the last year and a half. I'm not an adherent of the idea that all politics is local but I am also not bound to the idea that elections are all about some generalized national sentiment. This could be a big "so what" anyhow, since AR will be tough against the GOP whoever wins - finally. Voters have their own reasons in statewide elections and district elections for what they do. There can easily be an attitude of, "they're dirty rotten SOBs but he's our SOB," that will carry an incumbent and at the same time they might not like how that local SOB has acted lately. I don't know about local, but individual would be my description.

The special election for Murtha's seat might have a lesson, but that lesson would seem to be to run on PA and not on Nancy Pelosi or Pres. Obama. Mark Critz (PA12-D) now, was Murtha's aide and ran on District issues while the GOP tried to make it about DC. That CD went for McCain in '08 so there is something to be said about this result.

I'll say this, Democrats will make up their own minds despite what powers that be might have to say about it. It seems some people would be well advised to pay attention to what Will Rogers had to say about being a Democrat. So far I'm not seeing anything disastrous for Democrats this fall.

There have been those who have scoffed at my analysis of Hillary Clinton's next moves. It now appears that Charlie Rangel put together a conference call that was supposed to have involved the NY delegation and blew up into a bunch of Congressmen. This was followed by a Senate conference call with 8 of them brought in by her supporters. The NYT reports on this.

The speech Tue night was a mistake, it was graceless. Hillary has harmed herself with Party leaders by dragging her heels to the point of them having to push at her. The best result was if this had looked like her own idea, that is gone now. There will be payment made for this with voters and she bears that responsibility

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was 44 years ago; a few years later cities were burning and the Democratic Party Convention of 1968 very publicly exploded. Today a black man named Barak Hussein Obama takes the delegates needed for the Democratic nomination as Presidential candidate. June 3, 2008.

Hillary R Clinton has made history, she just very nearly became the first female Presidential candidate for a major Party. Just very nearly, for those who haven't paid close attention to the real numbers that separate the two, the difference is tiny. Very small differences could have made the Clinton campaign the winners today. They aren't.

Tonight and tomorrow Barak can celebrate, he has earned it. He has waged a come from behind campaign that was calculated on a 50 state strategy with small beginning resources. He has kept his head in the face of some real severe problems and finally come out onto the top. Perhaps it seems odd to say, but he has now finished the easy part. Whatever difficulties Hillary has made for Obama this was a Democratic Primary, certain restraints obtained. Opinions of how far Hillary went to that edge are varied and what restraints Obama observed then versus McCain are considerably different.

Obama certainly needs most of the voters who chose Clinton in the Primaries. Most of this should be fairly easy. I know about all the heat surrounding Clinton or McCain and it is primarily based on a very small very vocal number. Some of these are quite simply lost to Obama and not worth any of the effort that might be expended on them. The expense that is worth time, effort, and expense is the defusing of the nonsensical issue that Obama is sexist or misogynistic. Along with this effort is the issue of showing voters at large that he identifies with them, that his background is not one of privilege and elitism, it is in fact one of struggle. I could suggest to the Senator the apostasy of supporting the 2nd Amendment, but that is a fairy tale.

There seems to be an idea floating around that blue collar white voters are racist in orientation, I don't buy it. I would put them more in the category of dubious about Obama. These voters see sudden serious change as untrustworthy. The sudden changes of the past 20 years have been almost universally to their detriment. Change has not been kind to them and Obama needs to show them why it is in their interest.

This piece of work by the Democratic Party is something that shows this nation in the very best possible light. You will search the world and history with little luck trying to find such an event involving a person of such a minority race and from as challenged a background to have ever been in the position of Barak Obama today in this nation. I do not pretend to predict the outcome of the General Election, that piece of history will wait awhile, yet.

Congratulations Senator Obama and congratulations Democrats.

At about 3:00PM on June 3rd, 2008 AP reported that Sen Barak H Obama will obtain the delegates needed to take the Democratic Party nomination with the MT & SD votes. The result tonight would be historic whichever candidate won, the first woman or the first black. If you were to time travel less than 40 years back you would find a fight going on in this nation to end segregation. Does the mind boggle?

Evidently not if you are the Clinton campaign - as AP reported regarding a Clinton conference call with NY supporters.

Clinton's remarks came in response to a question from Democratic Rep. Nydia Velazquez, who said she believed the best way for Obama to win key voting blocs, including Hispanics, would be for him to choose Clinton as his running mate.

"I am open to it," Clinton replied, if it would help the party's prospects in November.

You can make of this announcement what you will. I can definitely make something of the timing. The Clinton camp knew this evening was coming days ago or longer and while the voting she's claimed to be protecting was still going on she made this statement. She has managed to interject herself into the Obama headlines. That's something in itself.

The strategic part of this should be clear. Clinton has now publicly made a form of claim to the VP position and done so with timing that could not be of more impact on her supporters. Obama is quite publicly put in the position of either caving to her or seeming to dismiss her. This is an example of political hardball, and while it can be played this way it certainly is not exactly the way to create amity. I have no window into the Obama campaign, but I would expect that the reaction has not had anything to do with happiness.

If Obama supporters have had some problems with a Clinton Vice-presidency this will blow them up. This will go from opposition to explosion. This is another example of Clintonian short term thinking for short term gain. There is no other moment for her to make a more powerful pitch for VP than now, any point from here on out places her in a lesser position of force. The operative word is force. The opposing approaches are force and persuasion. Persuasion can have public elements, but is not based on threat while force rests exclusively on threat. The very simplest measure of outcome is to look at two adults in a disagreement and see which approach has what outcomes.

Whether this had occured or not there was never a chance that I would advocate for a Clinton VP slot. What this has accomplished is to prove my point once again about Clinton's short-comings. It is also quite true that I have exactly no say in the matter.

Making a prediction about any candidate's switch in direction is pretty risky; I submit that with Hillary Clinton it is particularly risky. Since a dropped ball on that score is unlikely to harm my national prominence (how many Iraq war boosters lost their jobs?) I think I'll risk it.

I believe that Hillary will follow up the Tue Primaries with applause for her campaign and warm words for her supporters. She will note that she believes she's the one to get the best results and that Obama can win if we all pull together now that she has suspended her campaign. I believe the concession will be that Obama seems to have the delegates and she will begin to work to ensure a Democratic victory in November.

Suspension will be a matter of practicality, campaign debts that need to be retired. She will be able to piggy back appearances for November with appeals to help retire her historic campaign's debts. There is nothing contradictory in this nor is there something distasteful in it. Whatever you think of Hillary and her campaign, it has been a very close election and this is the first time any woman has had a credible shot at being a Presidential nominee. The campaign deserves to be able to retire as much of its debt as it can.

People have predicted or advocated Hillary taking the race to the Convention. Hillary may well believe that the Democratic Party's chances are reduced by Obama; but that does not mean that she is not surrounded by political professionals. The pros look at the Democratic Party and know the costs of a split Party going forward. The pros look at that and know who will get the blame for even the appearance of a Party split and do not want that for Clinton.

The political reality of these two candidates is that there is not enough difference in their policy ideas for either to find the other insupportable. The over riding need of the Party for a strong candidacy will drive how things play from MT/SD to November. I am not stating nor could I what Hillary Clinton feels about the whole thing, I am trying to lay out the hard reasons for doing what I'm predicting.

This Saturday the Rules and Bylaws Committee of the DNC met and sorted out the Florida and Michigan appeals. A lot of people were displeased, some were very displeased. There is an incredible amount of ignorance floating about that certainly enhanced that displeasure.

State Legislatures can offer to finance Primary elections for Parties and many do. These offers of financing often carry conditions such as open or closed Primaries or the date or... These election financing offers are just that, the State government does not control Party Primaries. The State Parties control their elections with in National Party rules. In this case we are interested in the FL & MI Primaries and the DNC. The FL & MI Legislators passed bills containing primary dates outside the DNC rules, the DNC had warned the States previous to their votes and after their votes that there would be serious consequences, the State Parties of both States told DNC to shove their consequences and went ahead. There were remedies available to both State Parties, the most affordable and legal was to refuse the Legislatures' funding and self-finance caucuses. This is the most basic reason caucuses exist, they are affordable.

The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee sanctioned both states with both the automatic 50% penalty and for, essentially, egregious behavior took the other 50% for a 100% penalty. The DNC further asked all the candidates to pledge not to campaign in those States. The candidates agreed. In the voting for sanctions the Clinton contingent voted 100% for 100% sanctions.

The States held their illegitimate votes on their proposed dates, in FL all candidates names were on the ballot because FL law did not allow them to withdraw them. In MI several candidates did withdraw their names before the deadline. This effectively separated the States into two different categories. Despite clear evidence of vote suppression in both states, the case could be made in FL that all suffered equally, in MI this was not the case.

The RBC held that FL would be subject to the automatic 50% penalty, this was in the face of no actual good faith attempt to remedy the situation. The question in FL was how the penalty would be applied, whether it would halve the delegation or their votes, the vote penalty favored the Clinton count. In MI with no valid vote measurement the choice came to either the DNC disallowing entirely the MI delegation or allowing the State Party to assign delegates on some relatively reasonable measurement of voter intentions. The State Party made a good faith effort and came up with a number to which a 50% vote penalty was applied.

Both States were ill served by their Legislatures, their Governors, and especially their State Parties. Regardless of the intentions of the other parties involved the State Parties are elected to serve the interest of the Democratic voters and candidates. Their loyalty is not to their legislatures or governors, their loyalty is to the interests of the Democratic Party. In particular, their loyalty is not to a candidate or even to all candidates, it is to the Party the candidates purport to represent by putting a (D) after their name. The DNC is by Charter neutral in a contested Primary and most if not all State Parties are, also. Whether a candidate expects to do well in one sort of vote or another is not within the scope of the Parties' interest.

To place this in context, the votes in FL & MI might as well never have happened for all the validity or concern of the State Parties. The Parties had remedies available to them. This blog pointed this out very early in the process and you can be assured that both Parties knew this. Both Parties knew that caucuses were their realistic solution. Both Parties ignored this. One candidate, Sen. Hillary R Clinton interfered in this process. The Clinton campaign had demonstrated poor performance in caucuses. If you wish, you can infer a motive for her interference, the fact is that she did so. Neither State was going to finance a general re-vote and FL claimed a physical inability to do so and MI law prohibited private financing in such an endeavor. It has been claimed that the Obama campaign interfered, factually they did not and could not.

The final responsibility lays at the feet of the Michigan and Florida State Democratic Parties. It is not the fault of DNC, which could not interfere. No matter what the stand of any candidate, the elections were in the control of those State Parties. The responsible people were elected by the State Parties and if they apportion blame correctly those people will no longer hold any positions of authority where they can once again so poorly serve their Party. The news media was complicit in this mess, they made little to no effort to make the actual story of authority and responsibility clear to the voters in those states or to the public at large.

Those choosing to criticize the RBC for its ruling are playing at partisan politics to the detriment of the Democratic Party and further the members so engaging are being liars by omission or actual commission. Harold Ickes is a flagrant offender, he voted for 100% penalty, once his candidate had a use for or necessity for those votes became an advocate of counting all votes - as long as they were his candidate's votes. At the meeting he used offensive, divisive, and inaccurate language to describe the motion in regard to Michigan. I do not advocate a blanket loyalty to Democratic candidates, I do state bluntly that an official of the Democratic Party owes it his allegiance and its best interests his full attention - or resign. I do advocate that supporters of candidates with equally good Democratic politics deserve the loyalty of Democrats. There is nothing in Democratic politics that justifies a vote for McCain over either Democratic candidate. John McCain is a straight line Republican and if those are the policies you prefer, then you are not a Democrat and should not claim to be now or to ever have been. If you make any sort of claim to racial or gender justice John McCain cannot possibly be seen as a reasonable alternative. In point of absolute fact as proven by votes, John McCain is George W Bush with a lot more years on him.

It is apparent that the mantle of Democratic Party leadership has been passed to a new group. I have heard and read pundits state that the party is now Obama's. I do not believe that is quite accurate, it has become the Party that Howard Dean fore saw and built for. Barak Obama has used the Dean 50 State model to great advantage and through force of charisma and organization has expanded on Deans's start.

In this article I predicted this collision, though I missed slightly on the timing:

...it is absolutely required by the state of the Democratic Party. We are going to have this out. We are going to use the process for what it was intended, to determine who and what the Democratic Party is. The process of proportional delegate apportionment is going to finally come into its own. The smaller pieces of State Parties are going have a say, the ability of underdog campaigns to flourish in that environment is going to come to pass, we are going to find some things out. We are going to find out where the Party officials and the elected Democrats want to go. We are going to find out what works and does not work in Democratic Party politics. The Howard Dean and the Terry McAuliff visions of the DNC are going to collide. This is going to be a brawl and it will go to the final round and end in a knock out. Sending the doctor into the ring will be pointless, because one is not going to get back up, ever.

I figured at that date, slightly after Ohio, that this had to go to the Convention to be sorted out. This meeting of the RBC accomplished it without the bloodbath at the Convention. I do not take seriously the Ickes reservation of right to take the delegate fight to the Credentials Committee, it would be political suicide for Clinton to do so. She is now in the remarkable position of being a Junior Senator with more Democratic Party exposure than the most senior members. She can wield tremendous influence in the Senate if she chooses to keep her political gains. Keeping those gains will require soothing the injuries to the Party and being a real part of a November victory for her rival. Her political base in the DNC is mortally wounded already, the lead up to the RBC meeting delivered that blow. Her alliance with Terry McAuliff guaranteed it.

Hillary Clinton stands at a cross roads, she can be a true power in the Senate and a guardian of the values she claims or she can lose it all on the altar of ego. She has a week or so to make up her mind, if she waits long enough to force the Party to slap her down - she is done. Despite her short comings, once the lure of the Presidency is out of the way Hillary Clinton could become standard bearer for progressive Democratic politics. She'll always bear watching, though.

This election has been hard fought. Well, in certain respects it has been hard fought. One need only to look at the official statements of the campaigns and candidates to see the differences in strategy. Hillary has played the old style politics and Barack's campaign has hewed to something different, a less evident style of opposition. Politics is a messy business, close attention shows that neither candidate's hands are completely clean and that is exactly what will happen. Has either campaign appealed to race or gender? Please...is one a white female and one a black male? They need not even open their mouths and an appeal occurs. Both communities have eyes and what they do with that information is a foregone conclusion with certain members of those groups. Geraldine Ferraro's Op-Ed expresses something a bit different.

Perhaps it's because neither the Barack Obama campaign nor the media seem to understand what is at the heart of the anger on the part of women who feel that Hillary Clinton was treated unfairly because she is a woman or what is fueling the concern of Reagan Democrats for whom sexism isn't an issue, but reverse racism is.

This argument seems odd to make, are any of Hillary's supporters a part of reverse sexism? Geraldine knows perfectly well they exist and not in small numbers, they are in fact clear about it - including Geraldine.

We feel that if society can allow sexism to impact a woman's candidacy to deny her the presidency, it sends a direct signal that sexism is OK in all of society.

That sexism impacted Clinton's campaign, I have no doubt. Did she lose a close election because of sexism? I don't know. But I do know that it will never happen again as long as women are willing to stand up and make sure that it is just a one-time bad experience.

I am quite sure that sexism has been evidenced in this campaign and it needs to not happen, and Ferraro seems to agree.

If you're white you can't open your mouth without being accused of being racist. They see Obama's playing the race card throughout the campaign and no one calling him for it as frightening. They're not upset with Obama because he's black; they're upset because they don't expect to be treated fairly because they're white.

Is there a pattern emerging here?

They don't identify with someone who has gone to Columbia and Harvard Law School and is married to a Princeton-Harvard Law graduate.

Where was it Hillary went to school and what was her parent's economic background? Where did her husband go to school? What was his last job again?

They may lack a formal higher education, but they're not stupid. What they're waiting for is assurance that an Obama administration won't leave them behind.

And Geraldine's contribution to this is what? This Op-Ed?

So Ferraro's argument is that Hillary has been screwed by sexism and reverse racism? So she hasn't benefited from racism and reverse sexism? (really that is just plain sexism) There is an agenda going on here and it is not to analyze this election and it is not to straighten out the malfunctions - it is to create a victim status for Hillary.

I don't fault anyone for supporting a candidate. I think there are basis of support or opposition that are ludicrous and race and gender happen to be two of them. To the limited extent that Ferarro addressed this I agree, the plain fact is that she addressed this in not only a stupid manner, but a divisive manner. She makes it very easy to dismiss her as a spoiled brat stamping her feet. Maybe someone should ask Hillary is she agress with this tripe.

Yes I was offended by Hillary Clinton's comment to the Argus Herald. I was; her conflating herself with RFK pissed me off. A completely gratuitous usage of the assassination of Bobby Kennedy made me feel like my head had fallen off. Mrs Clinton, you have nothing in common with Robert F Kennedy except the sometimes questionable (D) after your name. You have nothing in demonstrated character, speaking ability, political tactics, political strategy, or political experience in common and you certainly are victim of no one other than yourself. Imaginary bullets in Bosnia don't compare with real ones in June 1968. Your supporter Bobby Jr may want your seat and he may honestly like you, I don't give a damn. I care that you use RFK to boost your candidacy of victim hood, that in your desperation to WIN you propose to compare yourself to RFK, MI/FL to the greatest struggles for civil rights, your gender based campaign failures to sexism, your inability to construct a consistent campaign image to media bias, attribute a stupid and shortsighted campaign strategy to an unfair delegate system, and quite frankly every failing you've demonstrated to someone else. I care that you're NEVER WRONG.

People are now starting to talk about the necessity of being nice to you in the interests of Party unity. This is the largest crock of garbage I can think of, other than maybe your repeated efforts to freeze your supporters and blow up the DNC. You, Mrs Clinton are trying to play hardball with a Party that should be able to cruise to a General Election victory and carry along a large down ticket. If you hope to have anything left for you after this Primary you had better knock that shit off. You are not going to win this nomination, you can stop with the phony popular vote nonsense, even the media is starting to laugh at your manufactured numbers and the Hilloons are already frozen; your supporters that operate in the realm of reason won't buy them, anyhow. Finish the Primary votes with some class and maybe a whole bunch of us won't make your political destruction our project after the General Election.

Democratic Senators, I know it's not easy trying to manage with a bare majority and you're tired of being blamed for everything that hasn't happened; but damn it show some nerve and set this woman down and explain to her how easy it is to make a Senator disappear in the Senate. Explain to her that Committee seats can go away, that Bills can go without sponsorship, that sponsoring their Bills can be denied, that earmarks and allocations can just go away, and that in four years another candidate for Senator NY (D) can get all kinds of support. Explain to her that the game of political carnage can be played by more than her and by better and more powerful than her. This is exactly enough of kicking the Party apart for her ambition.

For the Senator from NY to make an incredibly stupid reference and turn around and blame the Obama campaign for calling it "unfortunate" in the face of her attacks on him is ludicrous. 'I've been stupid and it's your fault for noticing' is one of the classics of this campaign. "I made an unfortunate and stupid reference," would work and I'd even let "I was tired," slide. Other than the word 'June' there was NO historical comparison and Hillary Clinton knew it at the time and it has been sufficiently pointed out since and preceding her NY Daily News obfuscation. There's heat in that kitchen, Hillary, and if you can't take it, shut up. It is the fault of exactly no one else that Hillary R Clinton chose the words she did.

If by some piece of insanity the name Hillary is on the Presidential ballot I will mutter to myself, "John McCainJohnMcCainJohnMcCainJohnMcCain," as I hold my nose and throw-up and mark Hillary. And I will never forget having had to do it, never.

12:27AM 5/21/08



Hillary Clinton Barack Obama Write-in Votes Total
Baker 1,086 47.49% 1,117 48.84% 84 3.67% 2,287
Benton 5,496 30.32% 12,522 69.08% 109 0.60% 18,127
Clackamas 18,179 46.77% 20,419 52.54% 267 0.69% 38,865
Clatsop 2,801 46.01% 3,220 52.89% 67 1.10% 6,088
Columbia 380 10.52% 3,146 87.10% 86 2.38% 3,612
Coos 4,991 53.45% 4,130 44.23% 216 2.31% 9,337
Crook 1,368 51.88% 1,213 46.00% 56 2.12% 2,637
Curry 1,654 46.42% 1,821 51.11% 88 2.47% 3,563
Deschutes 7,046 39.21% 10,731 59.71% 194 1.08% 17,971
Douglas 7,078 50.15% 6,739 47.75% 297 2.10% 14,114
Gilliam 148 43.79% 184 54.44% 6 1.78% 338
Grant 300 38.86% 425 55.05% 47 6.09% 772
Harney 365 48.15% 351 46.31% 42 5.54% 758
Hood River 1,465 39.26% 2,236 59.91% 31 0.83% 3,732
Jackson 9,496 39.57% 14,262 59.42% 243 1.01% 24,001
Jefferson 1,075 47.59% 1,157 51.22% 27 1.20% 2,259
Josephine 5,971 48.84% 6,001 49.08% 254 2.08% 12,226
Klamath 3,267 52.14% 2,775 44.29% 224 3.57% 6,266
Lake 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0
Lane 22,342 38.08% 36,336 61.92% 0 0.00% 58,678
Lincoln 4,437 46.41% 5,123 53.59% 0 0.00% 9,560
Linn 6,738 50.66% 6,387 48.02% 175 1.32% 13,300
Malheur 965 52.59% 816 44.47% 54 2.94% 1,835
Marion 15,834 45.70% 18,472 53.31% 342 0.99% 34,648
Morrow 573 60.06% 353 37.00% 28 2.94% 954
Multnomah 47,094 35.04% 86,613 64.45% 688 0.51% 134,395
Polk 4,792 44.21% 5,946 54.86% 101 0.93% 10,839
Sherman 156 55.32% 115 40.78% 11 3.90% 282
Tillamook 2,495 50.31% 2,464 49.69% 0 0.00% 4,959
Umatilla 3,123 54.50% 2,470 43.11% 137 2.39% 5,730
Union 1,495 43.25% 1,879 54.35% 83 2.40% 3,457
Wallowa 454 39.62% 642 56.02% 50 4.36% 1,146
Wasco 1,915 48.49% 1,976 50.04% 58 1.47% 3,949
Washington 28,315 40.60% 41,032 58.84% 392 0.56% 69,739
Wheeler 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0
Yamhill 5,285 46.20% 6,018 52.61% 136 1.19% 11,439
Totals: 218,179 41.02% 309,091 58.11% 4,593 0.86% 531,863

Deep E OR counties are a surprise for the "hicks won't vote black" crowd
Baker, Union, Grant, Wallowa, Gilliam, Wasco all went Obama. Folks, this is out there country, this is as blue collar as it gets and wide open spaces. You might be able to argue Wallowa and Union, but it would be weak. I don't say these counties would go for Obama in a General Election, but this says something about the Democratic voters in these counties. Some people regard KY as rural, 4.1M pop 101 per sq mi versus OR 3.4M pop 35 per sq mi, and for contrast, Baker Co 16K pop 5.5 per sq mi so you'd like to talk rural? Median income : Baker Co $31.7K, OR $42.5, US $44.3K

****10:55AM 5/21/08****
Clinton 273,472 40.94% Obama 346,169 53.58% 69% Democratic Turnout 606,329

Senate
Merkley 45.07% Novick 41.79%
US House
1CD Wu 78%
2CD Lemas 98%
3CD Blumenauer 87%
4CD DeFazio 99.6%
5CD Schrader 53.8%

Secretary of State
Brown 51.54%

State Treasurer
Westlund 99%

Attorney General
Kroger 55.8% McPherson 44%

State Senate
30D 697 Write In

State House
58HD Talley 57%

Ballot 51, 52, 53 Passed

I know this question will enrage some Clinton supporters, but the problem for them is that she will not win the nomination minus an Obama implosion and that is highly unlikely. Give me a ration of crap about this if she gets the nomination. The question that exists is how does she exit? This actually matters.

There is a hardness in Hillary voters that exists and some of it will not go away by November if things stand as they do. Hillary has a lot of options, but how they play out narrows them considerably. She could take the hard core course and take this to the Convention kicking and screaming all the way and attempt to deadlock the Convention. She could make a case about the nomination either being hers or it is stolen from her. This course would guarantee that a large number of her supporters would not support Obama in the General. Obama's vote plus some of Hillary's would not equal a win over McCain, anything that promotes that result has outcomes pretty negative to Democratic Party goals. There are a number of scenarios that have that outcome beyond a floor fight at the Convention.

The rhetoric of the Clinton campaign and its surrogates can have that result. While Ferarro is not an official of the campaign her rhetoric carried by that campaign would have the same effects of hardening Hillary supporters. Hinting or outright stating that sexism or Florida and Michigan resulted in the theft of the nomination will freeze those supporters against Obama. Continued insistence that only she is ready to lead the nation may well once again lead to the freezing of supporters by devaluing her competitor. Hillary stated the she is best positioned to win the General moments ago in her Kentucky victory speech as Obama sewed up the majority of pledged delegates in the official DNC count and used the fictional 2210 number which exists only within her campaign. As the official DNC rules as of this moment (the only rules that count) the number of delegates apportioned FL/MI is zero. The Rules and Bylaws Committee will find something to do with Florida and Michigan delegates but it will not be her numbers and Obama will still win the nomination so she is angling for something.

It has been supposed that Hillary is trying to position for 2012 after an Obama loss in 2008. While she might like that, the idea that she is attempting to sabotage Obama deliberately is a non-starter. If that became at all obvious the Democratic Party would turn on her like a pack of wolves and there is no way to conduct such an operation that would not be obvious rather quickly. Her strategy cannot be to actively undercut Obama in the General Election.

It has been proposed that she is angling for the Vice Presidency, the chances of it happening is small. Whether she might accept or not, the offer is unlikely and efforts to force it are less likely to succeed. The reasons for it not being offered are varied, and could start with personal antipathy after this Primary. The most compelling reason not to offer it, is the message of Obama regarding a new politics and a disconnect from the special interests being damaged by her presence.

In the end, Hillary is going to lose, she knows it, and she must have something left afterward. There is a large campaign debt, there is a debt owed her supporters and voters, and there is a matter of her power within the Democratic Party. People who have voted for or sent money to Senator Clinton deserve to have the contest played out, that is not really a question to me, the question is how it is played out.

Senator Clinton can scarcely finish the campaign by lauding Obama across the board, that is not a campaign, it is an independent advertising effort. She has to be a candidate, the method of being a candidate is the crux. It is possible that the resolution of Florida and Michigan hinges on how the Clinton campaign is waged and that may tell much. It would be bad for Hillary to put the super delegates in the position of smacking her after June 3. That would harden the anti-Obama piece of Hillary's support. While the average voter may not take that into account in the future, the political junkies will and the professional politicians will. If Obama's future in November does, Hillary's future depends on her conduct over the next couple weeks. I sincerely hope she lives up to the people who have supported her.

There seems to be a generational split amongst white women regarding Hillary Clinton, boomers seem more likely to be her staunch supporters and to be offended by Obama. Never having been female and working mostly very physical jobs I have little experience with their lot, despite a common age. I have never been denied promotion or consideration due to my gender, I have been dismissed by people not of my acquaintance as lacking in intellect based on my type of work. Not quite the same thing. I happen to not like Hillary R Clinton.

The things I dislike about Sen Clinton have not one thing to do with her gender. I would not like a man who had demonstrated the same character and judgement. Now I do not propose to you that men and women are the same, there are vanishingly few women who could manage the physical demands of my work, a simple matter of muscularity which is one thing, but it goes deeper. There are species specific evolutionary forces at work, a huge one being the neoteny of our offspring and the long and debilitating gestation period. Species survival demanded coping mechanisms for this and placed large demands on the female and to a great extent determined familial work divisions through much of our time. There are cultural imperatives and then there are genetic dispositions and confusing them creates confusion. Female submission is a cultural force but a different framing of world view is easily affected by genetic dispositions. Differences do not equate to inequality, they enrich us when they are not denied and expecting men and women to behave the same or to hold the same view point denies us access to wider understandings.

Many find the failures of the Clinton campaign to be the result of gender politics. I do not, and I do not wish to demean women by asserting that gender had one thing to do with it. Hillary's femaleness did not cause her to fail and by my best measures had virtually no net effect on her vote share. The failures lay with the person. There is exactly one boss in a campaign, the candidate, and whatever failures her managers and advisers may have had their boss, at least, let it happen if not willingly and actively participated. If any vote preference was determined by gender it appears on the balance to have fallen in Hillary's favor. If some in the media didn't like her dress, her voice, or her cleavage these were matters of taste, about as relevant as lapel flag pins and probably of less result in votes. The measure here is not perception of slights but voting results and no candidate gets away scott free with media in regard to stupid insights.

Few Primary candidates have started where Hillary started. Her advantages were huge in name recognition, media attention, and money at hand and fund raising organization. What she also had that was remarkable was large unfavorable perception numbers. Very seldom has a candidate so much as entered a race with such high negatives much less been competitive. Certainly a good sized portion of those negatives were created by the Republican smear machine of the 90s, but a goodly portion were also earned. Beneath the smear was reality and that reality wasn't pretty and the candidate reinforced those perceptions with her Senate career and then brought them into focus in the campaign itself. Vehement Hillary supporters don't like this kind of talk, but the candidate is responsible for it and has paid for it. There is undismissable reality underlying her increasing negatives over the campaign and these were not of someone else manufacture. They consisted of her own words and official statements of the campaign.

This is not the stuff of Ferraro statements or "iron my shirt," or any number of stupidities committed by others. Geraldine Ferraro is an idjit, of the sort who will call Obama incredibly sexist and doubt her ability to vote for him in the General Election. Obama and the Obama campaign have done nothing of the sort beyond beat her. In an election someone will not win, being beaten only means that. It does not signify more. Michigan and Florida are held up as some kind of example of unfair play where Hillary is concerned, the problem with that analysis is that the status of those states was known and acknowledged by all parties before campaigning actually started and agreed to by all parties. To treat those states differently because Hillary had one outcome or another in them due to her gender would be blatantly unfair to any candidate and true sexism in operation. Part of being treated equally is having to follow the same rules as everyone else.

I can understand disappointment with the loss of a candidate one supported, I can even understand the frustration and anger of, "why can't they see?" but I cannot understand the revulsion for the winner that is evidenced by so many. In general terms the candidates' policies are very similar and certainly more closely allied than either with John McCain. The idea of punishing the Democratic Party and its voters by voting for McCain or staying home spites the very things either candidate stands for. Whatever kind of President either candidate would make, this nation cannot afford four more years of BushCo policies and politics and neither is that. There does exist within one campaign's supporter's forums Republican operatives sowing hate and discontent, their names are Villareal. However this Primary shakes out the most important aspect of it now is winning the General Election, neither candidate is poison to Democratic voters' interests. If you think they are, you have been played for a fool by those without your interests at heart.

If you're going to go see Barack I suppose you ought to show your colors, my wife's SSR.
Opening speaker Barbara, whose last name I missed.
From twelve feet away you can get a pretty good impression of body language and expression.
I have now spent better than an hour and a half with in speaking range of the man likely to be the next President of the US. That proximity of course does not count as acquaintance but there is a wealth of information available the is not from a television screen or across an auditorium. I was invited to sit in the VIP section, I gather, due to my Democratic Party of Oregon roles. As with Pres. Clinton I wore no campaign gear, only my Grassroots Democrat pin and my DPO Gun Owners Caucus hat. Oh hell, I clapped a lot and cheered and made no pretence he isn't my candidate. Senator Obama arrived on stage shortly after 6:30 PM Pacific in Pendleton, Oregon.



Pendleton is famous for a couple things, the Pendleton Roundup if you're a rodeo fan or Pendleton Wool. The town's population is right around 14K and it sits in the northeast corner of the state, slightly south of the Columbia River on the Umatilla River and somewhat west of the Idaho border at the foot of the Umatilla Mountains, a part of the Blue Mountain Range. Not far from town is the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Wildhorse Casino and a forward looking tribal council have brought a measure of success there. Pendleton's climate is fairly mild, more strongly influenced by the Columbia River Gorge than the mountains. Blue Mountain Community College has its home there but the town is more a blue collar town than a college town. The crowd, I estimate at over 2,000 (***per AP-over 3500***), was over 90% white with Native Americans the largest minority group, ages ran the gamut, but the majority over 30 years age. The crowd was enthusiastic, in the mood for lots of clapping and cheering and standing ovations.



The opening speaker pictured above is a local waitress, a minimum wage earner who did a nice job with something outside her ordinary experience. She emphasized the struggle working people face and her belief Obama is the person to deal with it. She recently lost a grown son to an aneurysm shortly after he'd finished a letter to Sen. Obama, a large reason giving the opening was so meaningful to her. As you can see in the picture the Senator gave Barb his sole attention.



The Senator spoke for less than an hour and then took questions from the audience. The speech was one he has given before, I had watched part of the Portland Waterfront speech on CNN and recognized lines, but it was tailored to the part of the country he was in. Any references to Senator Clinton and her campaign were moderate and for the most part conciliatory, though contrasts were drawn, particularly in regard to future foreign policy - though even there the emphasis was on John McCain.



This speech consisted of 3 pieces, who Barack is and why he is running, why John McCain must not be allowed to persist in George II's policies, and what Barack Obama intends to do. He entwined the three pieces in both his speech and his answers to questions. Much of the speech was his stump speech, he is running now rather than later because of what MLK called the 'urgency of now," the idea that the country is at a historical crossroad. The economic failures of BushCo cannot be perpetuated on the workers by John McCain and the war in Iraq must be ended and Afghanistan prosecuted in a manner leading to success.

I won't replay a speech that most have heard most elements of, the questions may have been more original so I'll try to address them in the abbreviated manner available to me. Sen. Obama took about six questions and used nearly 45 minutes answering that many and two were the complimentary gimme sorts of things, ie: are you going to do more to get the "Colbert/Stewart bump" and will you come back after you're President. (yes and I'd like to) Other questions received detailed answers, much too extensive for me to cover here, I was seriously impressed by both the quality of the questions and particularly the detail and extent of the answers. There may have been a sound bite available in the answers, but the detail and range of the answers defies a simple blog post much less the MSM approach.

A question of what will you do about Cuba? The transfer of power from Fidel to his brother may offer new openings, but the simple fact is that our policy of 45 years has not resulted in a freer or more prosperous citizenry and persisting in the same actions and expecting different results is the definition of madness. The US could make opening moves by easing the travel restrictions on families from the US and on remittances but from there it would depend on Castro. This answer also broadened into the concept of talking to our adversaries to find elements of common ground to ease tensions.

A question about the recent Farm Bill and subsidies creating an atmosphere of dependence from a beef rancher. You have to be ready for a ride with this one, Barack voted (***supported-I misunderstood the thrust of the words***) for the bill but doesn't like some aspects of it but regards it as an improvement over previous ones. He disapproves of the benefits accorded agribusinesses, subsidizing the Fortune 400. He would like to see the emphasis more on catastrophic protection, natural or the bottom falling out of a market and the encouragement of a more varied food production. He believes that the epidemic of childhood obesity is linked to the Farm Bill, through food offered in schools and the food stuffs subsidized which links into health care costs and educational success. Yes, the Farm Bill gets you to health care and education and you've got enough information to do the connection work without me spending six paragraphs on it. Like I said, these were not simple sound bite answers.

A question about what he would do about the Hanford cleanup. His answer, you won't hear this from a politician very often, but I don't know the issue; and I will by the time my plane lands in Montana tonight. My estimation is that he meant that and wasn't pleased he didn't know it.

Regarding your stance on alternative energy, what about nuclear? He said some answers don't please everybody and this one may please no one. He wants to invest money to study it, in particular the waste disposal, but "some times you have to pick your poison" because nuclear energy doesn't create carbon waste. You have to know what your options involve, realistically. The same regarding coal, "we are the Saudi Arabia of coal," but it is one of our dirtiest fuels. Research is needed on cleaning it up, a role for the federal government.

I have stated repeatedly that as a political junkie of many years standing I am not given to fandom regarding politicians. I recognize that these people have thrived in a flawed system, some have thrived sufficiently to be realistic candidates for President, but I came away impressed. I was not impressed by rhetorical flourishes, I was impressed by the depth of thought and the range of it. I was impressed by the ability to naturally interconnect seemingly disparate items into a coherent chain of thought. I am pleased by the impetus to change the way business is done in DC, to drag health care negotiations with Congress onto CSPAN where you can see what we're doing and who won't and why, but the hope of unity is trumped by how he thinks.

I am satisfied that my vote for Obama was well placed and tonight I am happier with it than previously. Thank you Senator for coming to Eastern Oregon, I hope our hospitality made the trip worthwhile. I'm tired, it has been a long day, 100 miles each way, home after midnight, and now this post - goodnight - or good morning...