Speaking for me only

Since I rail against Obama's unity schtick all the time and find he and Hillary pretty much the same on the issues, it is fair to ask why I tepidly support him. Why not Hillary, who clearly has experience fighting the GOP.

Here's why. Obama has more political talent than Hillary. The upside for Obama is clearly higher. If he can learn to fight partisan battles, he can be the best politician we have ever seen. Hillary is a better politician than I expected and her strong support among women is not to be discounted. In some ways, Clinton has turned out to be better than I expected and Obama worse than I expected. But that is relative because I consider and considered Obama much the superior political talent.

More . . .

President Bush cares more about the Telecoms than protecting the country from terrorists. Glenn Greenwald explains:

As a result of these GOP-caused delays, Congressional Democrats are seeking a 30-day extension of the PAA to give them time to pass a new law in a calm and deliberate manner. But after claiming that the PAA is oh-so-vital to our ability to remain alive, the President this weekend threatened that he would veto any such extension, thus allowing this Extremely Critical Law to expire, as reported by The Politico's Mike Allen:

The White House told Democratic congressional leaders Saturday that President Bush opposes a 30-day extension of an expiring eavesdropping law and instead wants an expanded version to be passed by Friday. "The president would veto a 30-day extension," a senior administration official said.

Here is a chance for the Democratic Presidential candidates to show their mettle. Not just by showing up to vote against cloture today on the FISA bill. But by calling President Bush OUT and stating what is obviously true - President Bush will put the security of the Nation at risk (according to his own construct) rather than work with the Congress to fashion an acceptable FISA bill. Immunity for the telecoms matters more to Bush and the Republicans than protecting the Nation. Will our candidates say this? Not holding my breath.

This is interesting:

ABC News' Rick Klein Reports: Nobel Prize winner Toni Morrison -- who famously declared Bill Clinton to be the nation's "first black president" -- is endorsing Barack Obama for president today, an Obama campaign source tells ABC News.

In an October 1998 essay in The New Yorker, Morrison wrote: "Years ago, in the middle of the Whitewater investigation, one heard the first murmurs: white skin notwithstanding, this is our first black president. Blacker than any actual person who could ever be elected in our children's lifetime."

This is a double edged sword for Obama imo. The Media will love it as they will see it as a rebuke to the Clintons. It will get a lot of play.

The downside is EVERY story will focus on Morrison's "first Black President" remark. NOT exactly the focus Obama would want it seems to me. If I was on Obama's team, I wonder if they might have wanted to not have this one AT THIS TIME. But what do I know?

It is sad that it is even necessary. But Krugman provides it:

Whatever hopes people might have had that Mr. Clinton would usher in a new era of national unity were quickly dashed. Within just a few months the country was wracked by the bitter partisanship Mr. Obama has decried. This bitter partisanship wasn’t the result of anything the Clintons did. Instead, from Day 1 they faced an all-out assault from conservatives determined to use any means at hand to discredit a Democratic president. For those who are reaching for their smelling salts because Democratic candidates are saying slightly critical things about each other, it’s worth revisiting those years, simply to get a sense of what dirty politics really looks like.

Ezra Klein yesterday wrote:

Via Christy at Firedoglake:

Hillary Clinton will be in the Senate tomorrow to vote "no" on cloture on the Intel version of the FISA bill. The vote is scheduled to take place at 4:30 pm tomorrow.

Will Obama show? Christy is waiting to hear from his campaign -- He has a 4:00 pm fundraiser scheduled in D.C.

Update from Jane at FDL: The Obama campaign confirms that Senator Obama will also be in the Senate tomorrow to vote "no" on cloture. I've added his name to the title of this post.

Remember when the Media and Dem Party leaders were wringing their hands over how the Democratic primary battles were creating unbridgeable divides in the Party? Either the GOP is made a sterner stuff (a very distinct possibility) or the Media is demonstrating yet another double standard as they seem unconcerned about this, via HuffPo:

Romney was asked about the criticism, launched by McCain, that he has a timeline for withdrawing troops from Iraq.

"I don't have one, never had," Romney said.

"[McCain] says you do," chimed a reporter.

"Well, he's lying," replied the former governor. . .

How can the GOP survive this vicious fighting? Will the Media take notice and wonder when the Party Elders are going to step in? Do not hold your breath.

Publius of ObiWi seems to think it is possible:

Here’s the point (and I'd welcome conservatives' thoughts on this) – Obama seems to be steadily gaining likeability points on the other side just because he happens to be fighting the Clintons. Any enemy of the Clintons can’t be that bad, the argument seems to go. . . . All that said, whatever likeability points he’s gaining now may not matter as people fall back into party lines for the election. But then again, it doesn’t take all that much peeling off of modern coalitions to create a landslide win.

Actually, it will take a significant amout of peeling off, say 5-10% at least. More than that there are two problems with Publius' argument. More . . .

Via Open Left:

[T]hree Florida polls released today all show Romney gaining. Zogby now shows a 30%-30% tie, while yesterday McCain lead 31%-28%. Insider Advantage shows Romney ahead 26%-24%, whereas yesterday it was a 23% to 23% tie. Rasmussen shows Romney extending his lead to 33%--27%, whereas three days earlier Romney only led 27%-23%. In fact, the last four polls conducting Florida tracking show the state moving from McCain 25.5%--23.5% Romney, to Romney 29.3%--27.8% McCain.

Let's go Mitt!

Proving yet again that the Right continues to not fire on all cylinders, Right bloggers Protein Wisdom's Dan Collins and Darleen's Place seem to miss the tongue in cheek nature of my "rules" and the actual point of my post "The Media and The 2008 Election: The Perfect Storm of Clinton Hate.

Darleen accuses me of:

jaw-dropping self-parody (really too giggle inducing to be labeled nascent fascism as it would otherwise be deserved)

Earth to Darleen, my "rules" are not serious. No fascism being advocated here. They are intended to sarcastically parody the rules applied in the Dem contest BECAUSE of the Media's hatred of the Clintons. But of course I forget that she believes that the Clintons are Media Darlings against all the evidence and indeed, admissions of the Media.

No need to worry though Right bloggers, the Media does not hate the GOP, especially not St. John McCain. I am sure the Media will be quite ok with the smear campaigns that would be launched by the GOP and the Right against Obama should he be the Dem nominee. I am confident you will NEVER have to write a post like the one I wrote.

The Gators are about to tip off so I leave this open thread so you folks can report the Al Gore endorsement . . .

Or any other news or issue you folks deem worthy of discussion.

Go Gators!

Wolf Blitzer and the AP are reporting that Senator Ted Kennedy, a giant to many of us, will endorse Barack Obama.

Obviously, this is a huge endorsement, as far as endorsements go, for Barack Obama. And good for him. But endorsements simply are not that important.

As an aside, while Ted Kennedy has every right to endorse whomever he chooses, given the tenor of the campaign at this time, I would have preferred he remain ostensibly neutral in this campaign. It would have been better for Party unity. But what I want does not matter.

Big good news for Barack Obama.

The New York Times has an article today on communities that feed off the prisons within them. When America, prison nation, closes one of them, it can threaten the very existence of such towns.

As rural economies across the country crumbled in the 1980s and the population of prison inmates swelled, largely because of tougher drug laws, states pushed prison construction as an economic escape route of sorts. Throughout the 1960s and ’70s, an average of four prisons were built each year in rural America; the rate quadrupled in the 1980s and reached 24 a year in the 1990s, according to the federal Agriculture Department’s economic research service. The boom, experts say, provided employment, but it also fostered a cycle of dependency.

Count me among those with no sympathy. America's over-incarceration policies mean corporations make billions and the federal government throws millions to these communities in subsidies.

Take the town in the article, Gabriels, New York, which has a prison recently ordered closed by Gov. Spitzer. [More...]