Note: I am an Obama supporter.

What the superdelegates are doing by holding off their decisions until most everyone has voted is not stupid. What Dean, Pelosi and Reid are doing by staying neutral in the nomination battle is not stupid. What IS stupid is what some Obama supporters are doing by urging the "party poobahs" to "finish it".

Here is the message you are sending to voters who have not yet voted (including myself) and people who support Clinton: "You are stupid for wanting your vote to count. Just roll over and shut up. We don't care about your opinion. We just want our guy to be declared the winner because EVERYONE (everyone who isn't stupid (like you) that is) knows that he is the winner."

It doesn't matter if you are intending to insult them. It doesn't matter if you think you are insulting them. You ARE insulting them.

Just a few years back, before the Boston Red Sox won the World Series, there was a strong possibility that both the Sox and Chicago Cubs would go to the World Series in the same year. This meant that one of them would finally break their bad streak and the other would be left fuming at yet another lost opportunity.

Fortunately, for the peace of the baseball world, this didn't happen. The Cubs didn't make it and the Sox, while they lost that year, did eventually go on to break the streak. The world-ending showdown to end all showdowns was avoided.

Would that the same thing had happened in the race for the presidency.

So, what now?

Clinton and Obama could both go negative on each other in an attempt to prove that one or the other simply doesn't have what it takes to be President. But, at this point, such a strategy will only increase both their negatives and make the job for the GOP that much easier in the Fall.

But neither Clinton or Obama can close the deal by arguing that they are the better Democrat. Many Dems like Clinton. Many Dems like Obama. If that dynamic hasn't broken by now then I don't think it will ever break. This thing is a true deadlock.

So what is left for the candidates to differentiate themselves on?

Answer: John McCain.

(Necessary unnecessary disclaimer: I'm voting for Obama)

I know I might not win many friends by stating this but I think its a good thing that Hillary Clinton is running the sleeping child ad that is being discussed in this diary. Please bear with me as I explain.

I've talked about this before, but I think it bears repeating (endlessly) until this label is absolutely shunned from any serious political discussion.

It's the optics stupid.

Labeling one group "creative" implies that other groups are not creative. You might as well say that those who are not part of the "creative class" are dumb.

Its an elitist term that should be taken out and shot, hung, drawn, quartered and then buried with salt (after being torched with a flamethrower). It is quite simply one of the most self-destructive identifications I have heard in the last 20 years. And the fact that so many members of the "creative class" have adopted this label just proves how DUMB they are.

There has been some significant teeth gnashing of late over the prospect that who will be the Dem nominee may come down to the super delegates. Since it is becoming increasingly difficult for either Obama or Clinton to win the necessary number of delegates simply through the Caucuses/Primaries (At this point one or the other would have to win something like 70-80% of the remaining un-pledged delegates. Given the fact that most of the contests up to now have been effectively draws, this seems highly unlikely.) The concern generally runs along the lines of the Dem nominee being apparently chosen not by the voters but by the party poobahs (governors, legislators and DNC party officials). In other words, it would look like the Democrats don't care about what the people want.

This doesn't make sense.

Think about it this way: the super delegates are professional politicians. They want the Dems to be united going into the Fall as much as anyone. They know that if, going into the convention, candidate A has 200 more pledged delegates than candidate B, they COULD change the difference by simply voting en masse for candidate B. But the resulting uproar would be huge.

(This diary started off as a comment on this diary about how Obama's campaign was unnecessarily pissing off Hillary supporters. Specifically in reference to his comment that Hillary supporters would easily switch to him but his supporters might not easily switch to her. It gelled in my mind some strong feelings I've been having about the Obama campaign in recent days.)

Dear Sen. Obama,

I really like what you have to say. I want to want to vote for you. I want others to want to vote for you. I want you to win. I want you to bring about the kind of change you are talking about.

But...

(cross-posted at Interesting Times)

The Clinton's have always benefited from their enemies. Why? Because being a Clinton, for some reason, always drives said enemies bat shit insane

Here's just an example from Andrew Sullivan:

My fear is that if you merely wound her candidacy, you are in danger. The Clinton machine is now poised to pull every partisan lever and deploy every cheap tactic: the gender card, the elderly card, the 527s, the teachers' unions, AFSCME, the Human Rights Campaign, the super-delegates, and the core Democratic base. This is always about the Clintons.

It looks like Harry Reid blinked. This is great news, if true. It also suggests something to progressive activists about how we should proceed in the future.

Sen. Reid has consistently demonstrated an unwillingness to go up against intransigence from either Bush or the Republicans. If it looks like either is going to make a big stink, Reid wilts and pretty much lets the opposition have what it wants. He doesn't want the legislative process to be derailed by messiness when there are important bills waiting for consideration.

Democrats have screamed about this for months, repeatedly urging Reid to develop the fortitude to stand up to the Republicans. No dice.

So what happens when it is a Democrat (Dodd) who draws the line in the sand and tells Reid that he will make his life difficult? Reid, once again, folds.

Lesson for the future: Instead of asking Reid nicely, or even begging him, we should just tell him that if he won't do the right thing we will make his life a living hell.

If there are plans to make any changes to the way this site works there is one feature I would like. I would like to add a personalized filter to the "Recommended Diary" list that would allow me to say, "Don't included in the list any diary that matches these filter criteria (such as subject line, author, etc.)". I still want the traditional number of diaries in the list. I just want them to be recommended diaries on subjects that I might want to see.

I've adopted a "no candidate diaries" ban for the last couple of months. Unfortunately, these diaries make up about 80% of the recommended diary list. Just imagine all the other good non-candidate diaries that I am missing because of this clogging.

I think I just figured out the mistake the Dems have been making.

They think they were elected to pro-actively enact progressive legislation. But the American people didn't vote Democrat in 2006 to increase the minimum wage, expand S-CHIP and many other fine things (all of which the people approve of btw). The American people voted Democrat in 2006 for one reason: to stop Bush.

The Democratic leadership lost sight of that (if they ever appreciated it in the first place). They weren't elected to be pro-active. They were elected to obstruct.

So start obstructing already!

Think deeply on that question before answering. Don't presume you know the answer. It may just surprise you (unpleasantly).

I'm a huge fan of Gore. I'd support him in a second if he decided to get in. But don't expect that he would be any purer than any of the other candidates.

Gore is a pragmatist. He's an empiricist.

I've been seeing some people expressing frustration that any time at all is being devoted to the MoveOn issue. Their argument goes like this: This fight is a distraction. We should be working to end the war. A 'Sense of the Senate' measure is meaningless. Why are we wasting time on this?

Now that the GOP has their handy little "MoveOn, an organization condemned by the U.S. Senate" talking point they can use it at will to browbeat any Democrat into disavowing citizen activism. Don't think that this will end with today's vote. The next step will be to call on all Democrats, especially those who voted aye, to return any and all money contributed to them by MoveOn PAC and to disavow any involvement with the organization. That means rejecting any efforts by MoveOn to organize on their behalf. And if said Democrats don't go along? Out comes the "Why are you accepting support from an organization that was condemned by the U.S. Senate?"

(Cross-posted from Interesting Times)

Question: Will complaining that someone isn't doing what you want them to do make them any more likely to do what you want them to do?

Not likely. It may make them aware that you have a complaint. But does awareness lead to change? Or does it it just make them more likely to tune you out as just another complainer?

(Cross-posted from Interesting Times)

Having read some reports of Osama bin Laden's latest love letter to America I was struck by how much the guy sounds like the Unabomber. A whackjob who could literally fill hours of tape and hundreds of pages with rants about all the evil people in the world and how he was going to get them.

Which just brings up the question: why are we giving this nut a stage?

He killed people? He terrorized people? So did Kaczynski. But that didn't persuade us to open our airwaves to his rants, or even to discuss the content of those rants.

Isn't it about time we give this guy the respect he deserves? None!

(cross-posted from Interesting Times)

Ridenbaugh Press:

One man seemed to place his finger on the feeling here when he compared protests about Iraq and other Bush Administration policy to a 9-1-1 call: The people have been calling 9-1-1 to report an emergency, but no one ever responds, including Congress. They have felt ignored, and now they’re furious about it. Many, clearly, had hoped for more change when a new majority was seated in Congress in January, only to find much less than they’d hoped for.

We have been told, for years, by Bush and his supporters that things will get better in Iraq. We have been told to be patient. We have been told to "give it another six months" and then when those six months expired to "give it another six months" and when those expired ... and so on.

After all, if he thought Libby was innocent then why didn't he give him a full pardon?

In his letter accompanying the commutation, Bush praises the jury that convicted Libby of perjury, lying to the FBI and obstruction of justice. That means that Bush thinks Libby committed perjury, lied to the FBI and obstructed justice. He must, otherwise he wouldn't praise the work of the jury!

Bush let out of jail someone he believes is guilty.

It is time for Congress to ask why.

I've been thinking lately about the use of the term "off/on the table" when discussing the use of military force against Iran. There are those who argue that it is a position of weakness to take the military option "off the table" and that keeping it "on the table" just adds necessary pressure on the Iranian regime to make concessions on its nuclear development. On the other side there are those who argue that keeping the military option on the table, aside from being impractical (do we really have much in the way of viable military options in Iran?), it is also beligerant. It tells Iran that we aren't really serious about negotiations and are really more interested in just bullying others into doing what we want.

I've come to the conclusion that there is a fundamental miscommunication between the "leave our options open" side and the "don't act beligerant" side. The problem is in the very metaphor itself. When you say that something is "off the table", what do you really mean? Do you mean that the option will NEVER be exercised (or, as critics like to say, that you are going into negotiations with one arm tied behind your back)? Or does it mean that you don't want to put the option in play at this time because doing so would needlessly aggravate negotiations.