Absolutely not. She wrote about it at least once, but I think it was more than that.

That's it, that was her entire response to me. So, I replied as follows:

"Absolutely not"? Is that your reaction to my email? And you are the editor, right? Flat denial because Ms. Pollitt wrote about it "once"? No comment on the sexist behavior of the Democrats or Sen. Obama? No comment on the vote stealing by the RBC? This should have been shouted from the roof tops by all progressives & all women for the last 7 months. To hide behind your statement that Ms. Pollitt wrote about it "once" ("maybe more") is laughable -- how many articles did you run about the racism in this primary or the brilliance of Sen. Obama or the terrible tactics of Sen. Clinton? Yeah, I thought so. Keep on creating your own version of the Ministry of Truth at "The Nation" and keep on telling yourself that you are a progressive if that helps you sleep at night. As for me, I'll believe my lying eyes.

I suppose there is just no room for my dissenting point of view in "The Nation," hmm? I didn't expect there to be, really.  Tres triste.

I wish all the SDs would read Neil Tyson (who is AA by the way) and switch their votes overnight.

We all expect this to happen but it seems that something is really wrong with all that. Where's their principles.   What I hate about politicians is they never stick to their guns in what they truly believe and they never can be themselves.  They want to be everything to everyone and if there is a group of votes out there that are  bigger than what your friends represent they go ahead it pick the bigger group and throw your friends or your true beliefs under the bus for a handful of votes.  

I would have had more respect for Obama if he would have stuck to his strong support for the Palestinians but he threw them under the bus to woo the Jewish vote.

I would have had more respect for Obama if he would have stuck to his first speech on race on Obama where he said he could not disavow himself from rev Wright.  Yet when he wanted not to loose votes he came back and dumped him.  Then again later he dumped the church.  

He had to change from what he really believed in order to win the votes.

It wasn't the satisfying catharsis of slamming the door on the way out, but just the faded emptiness of watching an old friend drift away.

Let me suggest that some group, named Remembering New Orleans or something similar, run an ad consisting of limited dialog and a few pictures:

1.)   While Katrina approached
2.)   President Bush and John McCain ate cake.
3.)   When New Orleans drowned
4.)   President Bush and John McCain were miles away.
5.)   While Americans died
6.)   silence  
It's time for a change.

Don't mention Obama, just run this in every market as many times as possible between now and November.
And start tomorrow.
Indelibly define McCain and Bush now for the whole campaign season.

Here are the details:

When: Saturday, June 7

Doors open at 10 a.m.
Event begins at 12 p.m.

Where: National Building Museum, 401 F St NW, Washington, D.C.

If you would like to attend the event, please click here to RSVP

However, I think comparisons to two earlier Democratic figures might shed some light on what Obama is up against.

First one, another politician from Illinois, another skinny guy with a funny name, gave a really good speech, though some thought at the time there was not much behind it, not a lot of electoral experience, a darling of his era's creative class, but did not have much of a touch with working people. This would be Adlai Stevenson, clocked twice by Eisenhower in the fifties when he ran for president.

Second one; another akinny intellectual, funny name modest electoral experience, well-liked by intellectuals, but no much of a common touch at all; elected president twice on progressive platforms, and the only Democrat elected in the twentieth century until FDR. This of course was Woodrow Wilson.

So which one will Obama be? Wilson benefitted from a thoroughtly split Republican party in 1912, and from a relaively successful incumbency in 1916. Of course the Republican weren't divided in the '50's.

Will the current wind at the Democrats' back, and the present small split in the Republican party caused by Bob Barr (a respectable home for Ron Paul voters, I should think) be sufficient to blow Obama across the finish line, or will all the "stuff," plus resentment by many over how he got himself nominated cause him to come up short?

• when is the speech starting - so I can try if I can get it on my GMT timeline -its 2am here
  
• seems that Clinton would like O. to help regarding her campaign debts.