We noted in our initial Hall Of Fame post the importance of thanking pro-Hillary Heroes who regularly venture forth onto Big Blogs and elsewhere to defend Hillary and/or to explain why she is the best Democratic nominee for president.

In our initial Hall of Fame induction we saluted


With suggestions from DCDemocrat we have compiled a list for nominees to be added as inductees to the Hall of Fame. The list of nominees includes:

Norwegian Chef
al Fubar
Governor McCheese
and all who participate with comments on this site.

Please comment over the next few days on these nominees and why they should be considered for induction. Add to the list. Feel free to provide favorite posts by a particular nominee or cite a favorite comment posted by the nominee.

We will announce the next group of inductees to the Hall Of Fame on Tuesday, September 4, 2007.


Naderites and Nominees

UPDATE:  Don’t forget, Hillary on Letterman’s show tonight.  Lots of good news too pollwise and endorsements.


Big Blog owners are beginning to unmask themselves. They are Naderites.

These Naderites, like Lord Nader himself, want egotistical personal power and let the common good be damned. These Naderites want Democrats to follow their lead to ruin. These Naderites are a self-absorbed bunch of losers who want Democrats to obey them.

Many good Democrats listen to these Naderite Big Bloggers unaware of their true intent. These Naderites, embedding themselves in Democratic ranks are PINOs only interested in personal aggrandizement. They pose as Democrats. They pose a real danger to Democrats. They must be fought.

In the 2000 election race, Naderites called Al Gore “Al Bore”. These Naderites claimed Al Gore and Democrats were no better than Republicans. These Naderites claimed that there were no differences between Democrats and Republicans.

These Naderites, due to their self-interested desire to hurt Democrats, inflicted George Bush on the country. These Naderites are up to their old tricks.

Much like the Satan in John Milton’s epic poem Paradise Lost, these Naderite Big Bloggers would rather “rule in Hell than serve in Heaven.”

One particularly foolish Naderite who conjures up idiotic scenarios regarding polls and how they spell doom for Hillary is Chris Bowers. Bowers has been plying his dishonest theories and mad interpretations of reality for a long time. Yesterday he unmasked himself as a twisted Naderite. Here is some of what the destructive clown wrote:

Back in the spring, I engaged in a few email conversations with a number of prominent pollsters and election analysts asking them what they thought of my Inflated Clinton Poll Theory (see here and here for more on the theory). In virtually every conversation, whether or not someone agreed with the theory, there was nearly universal agreement that Hillary Clinton’s poll numbers would not rise during the course of the campaign. The consensus was that, after fifteen years in the national focus, the Democratic primary and caucus electorate had already made up their minds on Hillary Clinton and thus, not unlike an incumbent, her current poll numbers represented her ceiling. This was actually a line I was telling people since at least June of 2006, when the very first Iowa poll was released showing John Edwards in the lead.

As Hillary’s popularity increased and was reflected in the polls, Bowers and his foolish theories (“Inflated Clinton Poll Theory”), which were not really theories but mad delusions, were recognized to be totally wrong. Even Bowers was forced to concede the incorrectness of his “Theory”.

Bower’s quickly concocted more, disguised as scientific, lunacies to undermine the very notion of genuine Hillary support by the voters. He posited four reasons for the impressive Hillary bloom reflected in the polls: (1) Bowers first decried the end of the “incumbent rule” whereby incumbents (Hillary) were in fact able to increase their poll numbers; (2) Bowers’ second reason which should tell him something but he is too dense to recognize it, is that Edwards and Obama have dropped in their favorability with Americans. Duh; (3) the third Bowers reason is what he terms “the right-wing stereotype of Hillary Clinton” was shown to be false when the public actually saw and met the real Hillary in action. Bowers of course is so dishonest he does not mention the Naderite stereotype of Hillary created by people like him.

Bowers then aims, at for him, the reason above all other reasons for Hillary’s popularity – where Naderite and right-wing stereotypes and ugliness meet: Bill Clinton.

Bowers demonstrates how popular Bill Clinton is with Democrats and how strong that tie of affection is. Bill Clinton is seen by Bowers and other Naderites (and the right-wing) as the reason Hillary rose in the polls in Iowa after their joint tour of the state. Note to these dolts: in a campaign the candidate is responsible for what happens. Hillary could have decided, as many pundits had advised, not to campaign with Bill Clinton. Hillary wisely choose to listen to Bill Clinton’s wise counsel. Even if the notion that Bill Clinton is the mastermind of the campaign, or Mark Penn, or Hillaryland, or whomever – the ultimate responsibility is Hillary’s. It is her campaign. Same is true with the Obama campaign. While we know that Axelrod has been a disaster for the Obama campaign – the ultimate responsibility is Obama’s – who appointed Axelrod and from whom Axelrod derives all his authority.

Bowers then states: “Bill Clinton might be the ultimate Democratic primary campaign weapon for any candidate.”

Having made his initial postulates Bowers then proceeds to even uglier Naderite assumptions: “Within the netroots, Hillary Clinton might have the highest unfavorable numbers of any Democratic candidate, but Bill Clinton has the highest very favorable numbers.” Bowers states that Hillary is unpopular with the “netroots” but does not define what he means by the “netroots”. Bowers relies for his conclusions on a worthless poll of self-selected respondents which is more than a year old – well before Hillary’s impressive debate performances. In other words, on a pure garbage poll more than a year old Bowers builds his latest Hate Hillary theory.

For the record, we here at Big Pink distinguish between the netroots (politically active people online) vs the Nutroots (politically self-interested Big Bloggers and their Naderite friends). The more than 1 million Hillary supporters online to us constitute the netroots as well as the supporters of many truly progressive organizations and other candidates, even Hillary opponents. The real netroots is comprised of more than that small cluster of Bowers’ friends which we appropriately call the Nutroots.

Continuing with the lunacy in a, let’s call it what it is, male chauvenist pig way – Bowers uttlerly dismisses Hillary as the main factor for the rise of Hillary. The Naderite writes as only a true Naderite proudly can:

“This is going to be particularly tricky for any non-Clinton candidate to overcome, especially during the final two weeks of the campaign when Bill will probably be by Hillary side the entire time. One strategy would be to openly take aim at the past, and at Bill Clinton’s record. The only candidate who seems to have waded into these waters so far is John Edwards:

“Small thinking and outdated answers aren’t the only problems with a vision for the future that is rooted in nostalgia,” Edwards said in the prepared remarks. “The trouble with nostalgia is that you tend to remember what you liked and forget what you didn’t. It’s not just that the answers of the past aren’t up to the job today, it’s that the system that produced them was corrupt _ and still is.”

This vile Naderite actually suggests attacks on Bill Clinton and his wonderful record of accomplishments as a viable political strategy. This vile Naderite wants an attack on Bill Clinton in order to preserve what he mistakenly believes are the Nutroots’ big accomplishment – Howard Dean as chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

It will take a lot more than one speech for any candidate to develop a narrative that Democrats should not look to the past for “outdated answers.” I am starting to think that if any Democratic candidate has a chance of defeating Hillary Clinton for the presidential nomination, they will have to start making the argument that many of the problems we have faced as a country under the Bush administration were caused, at least in part, by the way our political system operated in the 1990’s and earlier. Unless there is a repudiation of the 1990’s, it is hard for me to see how anyone except Hillary Clinton will end up as the nominee. Even if she has not hit her poll ceiling, Hillary Clinton is still basically the incumbent in this campaign. If Democratic voters are happy with the way the Democratic Party has operated for the last sixteen years, why wouldn’t they just decide to vote for more of it? Right now, Bill Clinton is asking them to do just that and, if the results of recent Iowa polls are any indication, that appears to be a persuasive argument to a significant percentage of Iowa Democrats. Unless other campaigns start arguing in terms that more overtly repudiate the past sixteen years of Democratic Party leadership, I think we should all expect the direction of the leadership of the Democratic Party to remain more or less unchanged in the future. In fact, whatever gains we have made with Howard Dean as DNC chair, and in terms of the increasing progressivism within the Democratic rank and file in Congress, could actually be wiped away.

This is Naderite self interest in its most naked form. This vile Naderite proposes an attack on the past sixteen years of Democratic Party leadership. The only two-term president elected as a Democrat is to be attacked by these vile Naderites. The very thought processes and people who with their own hands bought George Bush into the White House now want Democrats to attack the much loved and hard working two term Democratic president.

Down with the Naderites.

Please note, later today or very early tomorrow, we will post a list of nominees to be inducted into the Hall of Fame. The Hall of Fame is composed of those of you who venture into the hate swamps of Naderite strongholds to defend Hillary. Defending Hillary in those hate swamps is usually a thankless job. Hillary supporters do thank you – all of you.

Keep up the fight.


Hillary Clinton Fights Fear Fearlessly

In Pissing In The Well, published on Saturday, August 25, 2007, we supported Hillary discussing potential terror alerts and attacks. We wrote:

We wish that Kerry would have talked about the many “terror alerts” well before the 2004 election. We wish that Kerry had prepared the American people for the fear they would feel in case of a Bin Laden tape just before the election. We wish that Kerry has “pissed in the well” so that Ripublicans could not have used fear and “national security” arguments against him. We are sure Kerry wishes he had spoken out clearly and repeatedly about fear and terror threats and alerts.

Polls show the Democrats have closed the “national security” gap between Ripublicans and Democrats. Democrats cannot allow that national security gap to return. Democrats cannot hide from the “terror” issue nor from Ripublican exploitation of fear. Hillary is taking the fear out of the issue by talking about it.

The influential and very right wing New Hampshire Union Leader today agrees substantially with us that this issue should be absolutely discussed.

LAST THURSDAY Sen. Hillary Clinton told the crowd gathered at the home of Gary and Carol Sobelson of Concord that if terrorists attacked the United States before the election “that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world.”

She then let the bomb drop, saying “I think I’m the best of the Democrats to deal with that.”

When her comments hit the news, other Democratic candidates went nuts, accusing her of politicizing terrorism. Left-wing bloggers accused her of stealing a page from Karl Rove’s playbook.

But what’s the offense? Clinton is running for President. The President’s first priority is protecting the country. She says she’d be better at it, and better at beating a Republican on that issue, than her Democratic rivals would be. Good! By all means, let’s debate that!

If the other Democratic candidates don’t think they’d do a better job than Clinton would, then why are they running? If they do think so, they should make the case. We are at war. Being able to explain how you would make the country safer should be each candidate’s top priority, not a subject considered too delicate to discuss.

On August 27, 2007, the intelligent (and maligned by the media as well as by Naderites in the 2000 race when she advised the very capable and good Al Gore) Naomi Wolf substantially agrees with us as well in almost word for word fashion. Naomi Wolf joins us in decrying the attacks on Hillary as well as the stupidity of the Naderite Big Blogs.

Democratic presidential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) is getting a pounding — from liberal blogs and her Democratic rivals for the presidency — because she had the temerity to warn voters that a possible terrorist attack before the election might strengthen the Republicans’ hand. Chris Dodd called the comment “tasteless” and liberal bloggers are savaging her for, in their view, caving to the Republican framing of the terror issue.

These critics are being extraordinarily historically naive. If all Mrs. Clinton meant was that a genuine terror attack would empower Republicans, then sure — under current social consensus, her comment is in poor taste. (Though this notion — that examining the possible domestic fallout of terror attacks is vulgar, or unpatriotic, is one of those quasi-Victorian conventions that does not serve the vigorous debate needed in a time of crisis). But if Mrs. Clinton is also trying to warn voters about something even more difficult for us to talk about, then she is absolutely right — even brave — and her critics are frighteningly ill-informed of the past.

Here is Naomi’s version of Pissing In The Well. To us it is clear that it is a Ripublican tactic to exploit terror alerts and attacks to gain political benefit. Naderite Big Blogs rather attack Hillary and Democrats:

Mrs. Clinton is right to caution voters to consider the domestic outcome of a possible terror-related event before the election — if you factor into her caution this taboo subtext: if the terror scare in question is exaggerated, or even manufactured, to serve a domestic political purpose.

Naomi Wolf is as indelicate as we were in Pissing in the Well:

Even as I write those words, I understand I am breaching a major social taboo of our particular time and place. There is a general polite consensus right now that maintains two no-debate areas: 1) you are not, if you are a serious person, allowed to note in public that it is possible that this White House — or any U.S. leader ever — might conceivably distort or hype the terror threat for political purposes (though plenty of serious people discuss this possibility in private); and 2) if you are a serious person, you are not allowed to suggest in public that it is remotely possible that in America elections could possibly be deliberately thrown off course any more directly than, say, the vote recount of 2000.

Get the smelling salts – stolen elections and politically inspired terror threats actually discussed – Naderites will faint. Naderites do not want the 2000 elections discussed, nor terror alerts as a political ploy, nor for that matter, the very concept of terror. Naderites do not like being reminded that Bush occupies the White House because of them (they blame “Al Bore” for not doing what they demanded he do). Naderites do not like discussing “terror” because it ‘buys into a frame’. Naderites will stuff their pockets with Ripublican cash in order to attack Democrats.

More Naomi:

Sadly, these two current taboos fly in the face of history — both of the history of weakening democracies overseas and the history of our own nation.

It is standard practice for corrupt leaders who are seeking a certain political outcome to hype or manipulate a terror threat — or a threat of violent domestic subversion. While sometimes the threat is manufactured, frequently the hyped threat is based on a real danger.

Stalin warned of “sleepers” — covert agents of capitalism who would rise up at a signal and wreak mayhem arming peaceful Soviet citizens — an invented threat. But General Augusto Pinochet secured his coup in Chile in 1973 by elaborating upon a genuine threat: citizens were told that armed Unidad Popular insurgents, who were real, were planning a terror attack — a mass assassination of national leaders — a charge which was not real. He even showed their purported arms caches neatly lined up on TV and released, to the horror of Chileans, faked documents planning the alleged attack — the sinisterly named “Plan Z.” Similar tactics have been duplicated by corrupt leaders in many contexts worldwide.

Naomi Wolf in her article provides a history of how in the past the United States has hyped threats for political purposes. From the Sedition Act of 1798, Wilson’s Committee on Public Information to the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II and the red-baiting of the McCarthy era through the civil rights and anti-war movements of the 1960s and 1970s, Naomi Wolf gives us a valuable history lesson. (Don’t forget yellowcake and the selling of the Iraq War, Naomi warns.)

Finally, I am sorry to say, there is the fact that, historically, when leaders are seeking to close down an open society, the months leading up to an election are traditionally the most unstable time — the period most likely to see reports of a frightening purported threat “just-foiled,” an apparent awful breach “just-averted,” or even a dramatic actual provocation — which requires, then, a strong hand to restore “public order.” Mrs. Clinton pointed out that even though it is a “horrible prospect,” sometime you have to ask “What if?”

A call to discuss our fears as a Pissing In the Well strategy which arms voters with knowledge – the only way to fight fear and emotional irrationality:

At the conclusion of my argument about the closing down of our democracy in The End of America: A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot, there is a series of `What ifs?’ positing various scenarios, based on the historical record about closing societies, that could realistically play out — yes, even here in America — in the run-up to the election. To put it mildly: You want to know and think about the history of such scenarios in advance, since one quality such tactics depend upon is the element of surprise.

Let’s also compare the way this White House talks about the terror threat with the way other societies that have decades-long experience with terrorist attacks do. And let’s use our common sense. Anyone who has ever lived in Israel — a country where, since its very birth, sophisticated terrorists have been targeting the civilian population day and night — knows that you NEVER get the equivalent of broad-anxiety-inducing alerts in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem like the “red alert” or “orange alert” system here at home. At the most, in Israel, you get practical, low-key, usable information from the state — for example, “avoid the Machaneh Yehudah marketplace this Friday afternoon” — no matter who is in power. Israelis, consequently, experience, on the day-to-day level, the possibility of terror attacks as a specific, real danger — but not as a state-produced existential condition, a matrix of helpless fear. (Indeed, avoiding national fear from terror attacks is a point of pride in Israel that transcends party lines).

What Hillary is doing is not only good, it is necessary.

Finally, if this administration did not have a seven-year track record of violating other major democratic principles that stand in its way, it would be easier to dismiss the need for a warning of this kind.

Is it irrational to consider the possibility of a hyped threat or even a provocation before the election? It is, at this point, irrational to refuse to do so. If this White House had no actual major record of hyping a threat — if the U.S. had no record of inflating various fears for political ends — and if weakening democracies worldwide had no record of manipulating terror narratives to drive certain outcomes, it would indeed be illogical — even paranoid — to worry about a possible hyped threat or provocation that is politically driven.

But given the current administration’s record of lying to Congress, the American people and the UN about such threats; given that it used fake documents to do so; given that it has often splashed out widely-reported terror charges that then vanish or subside during actual trials (the course corrections of which are seldom as widely reported); given our own nation’s history of not being immune to the temptations on the part of leaders of using fear to drive a political outcome — is it not, rather, almost criminally naive to REFUSE even to consider the possibility of a hyped threat or provocation close to the election?

Hillary’s opponents will cower. Naderite Big Blogs will continue to bamboozle.

Hillary, will continue to fight fear. Hillary is ready to lead.


Hillary Clinton Blooms, Barack Obama Swoons, John Edwards Croons

Update: United Transportation Union endorses Hillary.

The United Transportation Union today (Aug. 28) became the first labor union in America to endorse Hillary Rodham Clinton for President of the United States.

“It is a high honor and a distinct privilege to be the first labor union in making this endorsement,” said UTU International President Paul Thompson. “The UTU has a long history of picking winners early. Hillary will be a president that America’s working families can count on. Time and again, as a United States senator, she has stood with us.

The UTU intends to devote our considerable resources to encouraging our 125,000 active and retired members, their families, friends and neighbors to register to vote and cast ballots on Election Day 2008 for Hillary.”

Hillary Clinton is in Bloom, Barack Obama is in a Swoon, John Edwards Croons.

Hillary Clinton has been blooming beautifully since she announced she was running for President. She is Ready. She is ready to lead and ready to bring about needed changes. Her poll numbers reflect the affection and respect Americans have for her.

Meanwhile, Barack Obama is in full swoon. Here is the Chicago Sun-Times on fad of the month Obama:

As he makes his run for president, Barack Obama often talks about his background. [snip]

For months this strategy had little variation. Over and over, during the winter, spring and early summer, in stump speeches across the nation, Obama talked about his uniqueness, his understanding of the world outside America and his idea of knitting the country together in a common cause, eliminating the rancor and divisiveness that had been polarizing the country, particularly since George W. Bush entered office.

And he got huge crowds out to see him, as he is so often wont to note in his speeches: 12,000 people in Springfield to hear his presidential announcement speech; 20,000 people in Austin, Texas; 10,000 people in Iowa City; thousands and thousands everywhere he went: to Oakland, Calif., to Las Vegas, all coming to hear what Obama described as his message of hope.

Norma ObamaWe noticed in Obama’s Daily Show appearance that Obama loves to talk about the large crowds coming out to meet him. Obama loves to be loved. Obama talked about those large crowds as if they had happened recently, as if they had happened the day before. But like silent screen star Norma Desmond living out her lost years of stardom on Sunset Boulevard, Obama’s days of glory have seen the sun set.

And it worked well, initially. He was considered a fresh voice, a candidate of the young, someone in the mold of John F. Kennedy. And then the crowds started to dissipate. Obama didn’t do as well as his aides had anticipated in the presidential debates and forums. He paused a second or two too long at times. He seemed awkward. He made a few gaffes. A poised Hillary Clinton was often declared the winner.

A few gaffes? More like a gaffe a day – all the while this “honest” candidate pretended that they were not gaffes.

And when he went to the Iowa State Fair in mid-August, the local television station had a booth in which fairgoers were invited to show support by putting corn kernels in jars. Clinton had 4,342 kernels in hers; Edwards had 3,523 in his; Obama had 2,846 in his, less than Republican contender Mitt Romney.

The polls have also reflected Clinton’s national dominance. CNN’s in early August: Clinton 40 percent, Obama 21 percent. Rasmussen’s in late August: Clinton 39 percent, Obama 23 percent. People were getting to know Obama, but they weren’t certain about his ability to don the presidential cloak.

Noting old poll data not consistent with the latest polls, the Sun-Times notes that Obama’s hopes lie in tearing down Hillary and running away from debates.

And this is what Obama is holding onto as he shifts the gears of his strategy, taking bolder attacks against Clinton (note his description of her as “Bush-Cheney lite” on foreign affairs); retreating from many debates and presidential forums; presenting more detailed policies, as in his recent outline about how to resurrect a New Orleans still suffering two years after the debacle of Hurricane Katrina.

Meanwhile the Washington Post hammered in another nail which shows the political calculation that drives Obama’s flowery talk.

Sen. Barack Obama had hired Pete Rouse for just such a moment.

It was the fall of 2005, and the celebrated young senator — still new to Capitol Hill but aware of his prospects for higher office — was thinking about voting to confirm John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice. Talking with his aides, the Illinois Democrat expressed admiration for Roberts’s intellect. Besides, Obama said, if he were president he wouldn’t want his judicial nominees opposed simply on ideological grounds.

And then Rouse, his chief of staff, spoke up. This was no Harvard moot-court exercise, he said. If Obama voted for Roberts, Rouse told him, people would remind him of that every time the Supreme Court issued another conservative ruling, something that could cripple a future presidential run. Obama took it in. And when the roll was called, he voted no.

“Pete’s very good at looking around the corners of decisions and playing out the implications of them,” Obama said an interview when asked about that discussion. “He’s been around long enough that he can recognize problems and pitfalls a lot quicker than others can.”

Pete Rouse is the Outsider’s Insider, a fixer steeped in the ways of a Washington that Obama has been both eager to learn and quick to publicly condemn. The meticulous workaholic rose through three decades of unglamorous legislating to become arguably the most influential Democratic aide in the Senate when he worked for then-Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.).

His familiarity with Washington makes him somebody whose judgment I trust,” Obama said. And yet this is the Washington of “cheap political points” and “petty” partisanship that figures prominently in Obama’s public speeches these days. “I know I haven’t spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington,” Obama tells his audiences. “But I’ve been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change.”

As Obama’s star falls steadily in the polls, Obama’s poll numbers are meeting those of that crooner of popular but meaningless speeches which contrast so sharply with his record – John Edwards. Today’s poll numbers show that Edwards is now tied or at least closing in on Obama.

Soon Hillary will earn with actual votes the Democratic nomination. Obama and Edwards will sit at home reliving old glories and enjoying happier memories. Like the disgraced fake pop duo Milli Vanilli all they will have are memories.


Life On Mars

According to Joop Houtkooper of the University of Giessen, Germany the “soil on Mars may contain microbial life.”

Earlier explorations of Mars had detected no life signs.

But Joop Houtkooper of the University of Giessen, Germany, said on Friday the spacecraft may in fact have found signs of a weird life form based on hydrogen peroxide on the subfreezing, arid Martian surface.

His analysis of one of the experiments carried out by the Viking spacecraft suggests that 0.1 percent of the Martian soil could be of biological origin.

That is roughly comparable to biomass levels found in some Antarctic permafrost, home to a range of hardy bacteria and lichen.

Inspired by Joop Houtkooper we decided to seek out signs of life on the microbial level in the Obama and Edwards campaigns.

We set our political electron microscopes on maximum and proceeded with our examination.

We first uncovered a latter-day Woodstock Summer of Hate on the Big Blogs. The Naderite weeds are in full bloom. These hayfever Naderites are pollinating the Big Blogs with their loathing of all things rational. In 2000 they deplored “Al Bore” and decided not to vote for him based on their very very very high principles. They are still very very very high minded even as they fill their pockets with Ripublican money and deride Hillary and Bill Clinton and swear to repeat the 2000 Naderite travesty. The Naderites believe what the satirical Onion newspaper wrote in January 17, 2001, as a total joke. The Naderite Big Blogs believe, along with Bush, that:

“at long last, we have reached the end of the dark period in American history that will come to be known as the Clinton Era, eight long years characterized by unprecedented economic expansion, a sharp decrease in crime, and sustained peace overseas. The time has come to put all of that behind us.”

Bush swore to do “everything in [his] power” to undo the damage wrought by Clinton’s two terms in office, including selling off the national parks to developers, going into massive debt to develop expensive and impractical weapons technologies, and passing sweeping budget cuts that drive the mentally ill out of hospitals and onto the street.

During the 40-minute speech, Bush also promised to bring an end to the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years.

“You better believe we’re going to mix it up with somebody at some point during my administration,” said Bush, who plans a 250 percent boost in military spending. “Unlike my predecessor, I am fully committed to putting soldiers in battle situations. Otherwise, what is the point of even having a military?”

On the economic side, Bush vowed to bring back economic stagnation by implementing substantial tax cuts, which would lead to a recession, which would necessitate a tax hike, which would lead to a drop in consumer spending, which would lead to layoffs, which would deepen the recession even further.

Wall Street responded strongly to the Bush speech, with the Dow Jones industrial fluctuating wildly before closing at an 18-month low. The NASDAQ composite index, rattled by a gloomy outlook for tech stocks in 2001, also fell sharply, losing 4.4 percent of its total value between 3 p.m. and the closing bell.

Asked for comment about the cooling technology sector, Bush said: “That’s hardly my area of expertise.”

Turning to the subject of the environment, Bush said he will do whatever it takes to undo the tremendous damage not done by the Clinton Administration to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He assured citizens that he will follow through on his campaign promise to open the 1.5 million acre refuge’s coastal plain to oil drilling. As a sign of his commitment to bringing about a change in the environment, he pointed to his choice of Gale Norton for Secretary of the Interior. Norton, Bush noted, has “extensive experience” fighting environmental causes, working as a lobbyist for lead-paint manufacturers and as an attorney for loggers and miners, in addition to suing the EPA to overturn clean-air standards.

Bush had equally high praise for Attorney General nominee John Ashcroft, whom he praised as “a tireless champion in the battle to protect a woman’s right to give birth.”

“Soon, with John Ashcroft’s help, we will move out of the Dark Ages and into a more enlightened time when a woman will be free to think long and hard before trying to fight her way past throngs of protesters blocking her entrance to an abortion clinic,” Bush said. “We as a nation can look forward to lots and lots of babies.”

Noting the Naderite spawn, we continued our search for even non-carbon based life forms in the Obama and Edwards campaigns.  We were saddened to detect no lifesigns in Iowa for Obama, though there was a promise of activity from Edwards.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s decision to opt out of all but a handful of appearances with his opponents this fall means an influential Iowa audience will lose the chance to judge him alongside his rivals next month.

Obama plans to skip AARP’s Sept. 20 forum in Davenport, where New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson will address about 2,400 Iowa seniors and a national public television audience.

The decision to not attend the AARP event, aimed at issues important to people 50 and older, could nag at the Illinois senator, some Democrat activists and political observers said. AARP is a national association formerly known as the American Association of Retired Persons. [snip]

Obama also has skipped some events in Iowa and elsewhere that would have put him on the same stage as his opponents, including the Iowa Democratic Party’s annual summer banquet in June.

That event drew five candidates and an audience of 1,000 of Iowa’s most influential party leaders.

Obama does not plan to attend a candidate forum Monday in Cedar Rapids to discuss fighting cancer. The forum, hosted by Tour de France champion Lance Armstrong’s Livestrong Foundation, will include Clinton, Edwards, Richardson and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich. A Republican event Tuesday will include Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

The AARP forum is expected to focus on issues such as health care and retirement security, top concerns for Iowa’s 50-and-older crowd.

That group also has carried disproportionate clout in recent caucuses, according to Iowa Democratic Party statistics.

In 2004, 64 percent of the people who participated in the Democratic presidential caucuses were 50 or older. In 2000, the figure was 63 percent.

Of course Iowa is hostile territory for Obama since it has all those dumb old voters over 50 years of age.

“everybody knows a lot of 50-, 60- and 70-year-olds that don’t have good judgment, because they keep on making the same mistakes over and over again.”

Our search for life in these campaigns continued through the pages of Time:

Once questions have been raised about your foreign policy judgment, it’s not easy to put the genie back in the bottle. [snip]

Whatever it may be saying publicly, the Obama campaign knows its man stumbled in recent weeks on foreign policy and that he needs to start over. But he is not backing away from the idea of changing U.S. foreign policy either. “Barack’s judgment on the war has been good. New thinking without judgment just leads to mistakes.”

Time was no help. We proceeded to examine a quotable mustache:

A top adviser for Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) said Friday that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), the front-runner for her party’s presidential nomination, is obsessed “with what she calls the Republican attack machine.” “I think we need a candidate who is obsessed with unifying this country again,” said Obama adviser David Axelrod. He added that Obama could break “the sort of decades-long battle we’ve had over this jagged divide — red state, blue state, American against American — and try to bring people together and attract disaffected Republicans and attract independent voters so that we could build not just a victory, but a governing coalition in this country.” Axelrod also took a swipe at former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), who is third among Democratic presidential candidates in national polls. Edwards, the party’s vice presidential nominee in 2004, said this week that the country needs more than rhetoric about change in what was viewed as a jab at Obama.

The quotable, but soup-stained mustache, was no help. The Ripublican attack machine is real and living candidates and living campaigns need to prepare for their onslaught.  We persevered in our search for signs of life. The Washington Post, we surmised, might have at least fossil remains. Alas, we only found more Naderite slogans and Naderite thinking:

Toiling behind Hillary Rodham Clinton in most national polls, her two main rivals in the 2008 Democratic presidential field, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and former North Carolina senator John Edwards, are increasingly seeking to contrast themselves with the New York senator.

The sharpest attacks are coming from Edwards, who in a speech in Hanover, N.H., on Thursday took several thinly veiled swipes at both Clinton and her husband’s administration. Invoking the 1990s controversy over the Clintons’ allowing major campaign donors to stay overnight at the White House, Edwards declared, “The Lincoln Bedroom is not for rent.”

Oh, how the Naderite Ripublican PINOs love that Lincoln Bed they are all rolling in. Of course the “Lincoln Bedroom” was yet another Ripublican construct long since debunked. The Naderite ventriloquist dummies persist however in their slurs.

In distinguishing themselves from the front-runner, Obama and Edwards are portraying Clinton as yesterday’s news. Democrats looking for a restoration of the 1990s have aspirations that were “rooted in nostalgia,” Edwards said, while Obama says he’s part of a new generation that will change politics.

Clinton’s communications director, Howard Wolfson, said in response to Edwards’s comments that “angry attacks on other Democrats won’t improve Senator Edwards’s flagging campaign.”

Howard Wolfson is such a kind man. He described the opposition as a “flagging campaign” instead of diagnosing rigor mortis. Such kindness, such Jane Austian condescension. Howie bought tears to our microscope laden eyes. The Washington Post analysis continued:

One of the challenges for Edwards and Obama is that the leading Democratic candidates have few major differences on policy, with all supporting changes to the health-care system, withdrawal of troops from Iraq, and more federal efforts to combat global warming.

Clinton is not only well known but well liked by Democrats. A recent Pew poll showed 88 percent of Democrats have “favorable” views of her, and 38 percent “very favorable,” both higher numbers than Obama and Edwards scored. “Hard-edged attacks can cut both ways, particularly if you’re attacking someone with an 88 percent approval rating among Democrats,” said Stephanie Cutter, a Democratic strategist.

No life signs there. Perhaps in New Hampshire we would detect signs of life.

“I would agree with you that experience doesn’t affect wisdom — we do know that,” responded a woman who was among about 75 squeezed into a home. “But by any stretch of the imagination, it would be a leap of faith to vote for you just because of the lack of years of experience.”

She asked how he would choose the staff and advisers who would help him make decisions. Obama answered that he would surround himself with competent people with integrity and independence — like Abraham Lincoln, he said. He pointed out that Lincoln also was a former Illinois legislator who faced great skepticism about his experience. “I guess that was a leap of faith, too,” Obama said.

Obama has less than four months to persuade skeptical voters to make that jump. His campaign says part of the challenge is getting those who know a lot about Clinton to learn more about Obama.

In New Hampshire, the campaign has set up book clubs to read Obama’s autobiographies and three-on-three basketball tournaments — the candidate’s favorite sport. He is meeting personally with voters who have yet to make up their minds.

Book clubs to read books written by the candidate – how Oprah.

And poor Lincoln. Lincoln, who fought in the Mexican wars, had a long career on the national stage as a respected voice and advocate on national tariffs and abolition of slavery, among other issues in the growing nation he helped expand as a youth, founder of the then honorable Republican Party, Lincoln, the great Lincoln – employed with such tawdry comparisons.

Sickened by that spectacle, the abuse of Lincoln’s good name, we checked the Nevada papers

“The American people deserve to know that their presidency is not for sale. The Lincoln Bedroom is not for rent,” Edwards said to applause, referencing a Clinton-era controversy in which high-dollar donors were allowed to stay in the White House’s famed bedroom.

He said the past isn’t going to solve today’s problems or “a corrupt a corroded system.”

“Those wed to the policies of the ’70s, ’80s or the ’90s are wedded to the past, ideas and policies that are tired, shopworn and obsolete. We will find no answers there,” he said.

Clinton served as first lady during most of the 1990s.

Edwards later said he didn’t mean to target Clinton during his new stump speech.

“Going back doesn’t move us forward and we need to move forward,” he told reporters beside his campaign bus.

Edwards said voters have a choice: “Either move forward boldly into the future for our children … or the alternative, which is to stay in the same stale direction, which we’ve been traveling in the recent past.”

Edwards’ speech, his toughest yet against his top rivals, sought to draw clearer lines between himself and better-polling Democrats.

“Small thinking and outdated answers aren’t the only problems with a vision for the future that is rooted in nostalgia,” Edwards said. “The trouble with nostalgia is that you tend to remember what you liked – am I right? – and you forget what you didn’t. It’s not just that the answers of the past aren’t up to the job today, it’s that the system that produced them was corrupt – and it still is corrupt.”

Edwards said voters can’t simply “replace one group of corporate Republicans with a group of corporate Democrats, just swapping the Washington insiders of one party for the Washington insiders of the other.”

No difference between Democrats and Ripublicans. Lord Nader could not have said it better.

By the way, we found more life on Mars than we did in the Obama and Edwards campaigns.


Women’s Equality Day

You’ve Got The Vote. Use it. Make Herstory:

On August 26, 1920, after decades of struggle, women finally won the right to vote. For many women, the19th Amendment was only the first step in the battle for equal rights. Women’s Equality Day celebrates the women who refused to back down, and fought to ensure our right to vote.

Today, we’ve got the vote and it’s our responsibility to use it. Hillary has fought for decades on issues important to women. Now is the time to use our votes to elect a president who will be a champion for us.

43 Presidents


Pissing In The Well

We dislike being so indelicate. Some Democrats are so very well-mannered.  However, this is an important learning moment.

The Senator from Connecticut is sure to object to our lack of finesse, our tastelessness.

Handsome Johnny from McMansion, and the Governor from New Mexico, will sniff at us for being so vulgar as to discuss political calculation.

The nutroots will rush for appropriate quotes from Foucault, Dawkins and Derrida. They will dust off their Lakoff to lecture about their “memes” and their “frames” – concepts they have no real-world knowledge of.

While the Big Blogs and others conjoin with “memes” and “frames” and other such rot let’s discuss the concept of pissing in the well.

“Pissing in the well” is also known as “spitting in the punchbowl”, “poisoning the wellwater”, and other, much more graphic, verbiage. The reason to “poison the well” is so that water cannot be drawn from it. The person who poisons the well does so because they will derive some advantage from doing so. In most cases the person who poisons the well has a hidden supply of water and by poisoning the well deprives an opponent from having water. Sometimes the idea is to merely deprive use of the wellwater.

An associated concept is that of a blind person in a fight with a sighted person who shoots out the lightbulb in order to even the chances of winning the fight.

Yesterday, Hillary upset the Big Blog memers and framers when she said

“It’s a horrible prospect to ask yourself, ‘What if? What if?’ But if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world. So I think I’m the best of the Democrats to deal with that as well.”

Was Hillary right? (1) Is Hillary the best person to deal with potential terror threats or attacks? (2) Will Ripublicans have an automatic advantage “again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world?”

The first question is easy to answer: Yes, Hillary is the best person to deal with potential terror threats or attacks. As we pointed out yesterday Hillary is viewed by Americans and the world as “tough” not weak. Terrorists and enemies of the United States remember Hillary’s clear warning as a deterrent “If we are attacked, and we can determine who is behind that attack, and if there are nations that supported or gave material aid to those who attacked us, I believe we should quickly respond” Edwards and Obama have signaled confusion and have “stumbled on a few occasions, particularly on how to respond to any new terrorist attacks.”

What about the contention by Hillary that has given Big Blogs, PINOs and Naderites the vapors: Will Ripublicans have an automatic advantage “again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world?”

Hillary opponents, whether out of desperate opportunism or genuine disagreement, argue first that we should not discuss such a topic in the context of domestic politics and/or that the Ripublicans and Bush are so very very discredited that Americans will actually think rationally in case of a terrorist threat or worse, an actual terrorist attack in the United States, just before the elections.

Will Americans react rationally in the face of fear by putting the blame where it belongs – on Bush and Ripublicans?

Many on the Big Blogs, PINOs and Hillary opponents have forgotten the many “terror alerts” before the 2004 elections. They forget the massive television coverage and the gripping fear many Americans FELT. Fear trumps rationality at least in the short run and only a Democratic candidate who prepares for such an eventuality can beat fearmongering revolving around terror threats, let alone an actual terror strike, close to an election.

Here is what Kerry said about the in retrospect bland Bin Laden video which came out just before the 2004 election:

“US Democratic Senator John Kerry says a video message from Osama Bin Laden sealed his defeat in a presidential race dominated by the 9/11 attacks.

Mr Kerry told NBC TV his opinion poll lead over President George W Bush fell away after the tape was broadcast.

He said national security was the decisive issue in the November 2004 poll, won eventually by President Bush.

Osama Bin Laden’s video, shown days before the vote, urged Americans to back neither Mr Bush nor Mr Kerry.

“I believe that 9/11 was the central deciding issue in this race,” he said.

He said the impact of Bin Laden’s message was evident by the dent in his ratings that followed its appearance.

“We were rising in the polls up until the last day when the tape appeared. We flat-lined the day the tape appeared and went down on Monday

We wish that Kerry would have talked about the many “terror alerts” well before the 2004 election. We wish that Kerry had prepared the American people for the fear they would feel in case of a Bin Laden tape just before the election. We wish that Kerry has “pissed in the well” so that Ripublicans could not have used fear and “national security” arguments against him. We are sure Kerry wishes he had spoken out clearly and repeatedly about fear and terror threats and alerts.

Polls show the Democrats have closed the “national security” gap between Ripublicans and Democrats. Democrats cannot allow that national security gap to return. Democrats cannot hide from the “terror” issue nor from Ripublican exploitation of fear. Hillary is taking the fear out of the issue by talking about it.

We have nothing to fear but fear itself.


Hillary Clinton To Blame For EHS

Hillary Clinton’s message of real hope and real opportunity and real progress continues to resonate throughout the nation. Hillary Clinton dominates the polls. Hillary Clinton dominates the debates.

Hillary Clinton is also to blame for this late August outbreak of EHS.

The latest outbreak of EHS has spread rapidly. Emergency treatment is required.

Let’s call in the epidemiologists. From Politico:

Some puzzled buzz among Democrats about remarks Sen. Clinton made at what the AP’s Holly Ramer calls “a backyard gathering of supporters” in Concord, N.H., on Thursday. According to the AP’s story, Clinton said she also would be better than rivals at handling the unexpected, including a terrorist attack. “It’s a horrible prospect to ask yourself, ‘What if? What if?’ But if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world. So I think I’m the best of the Democrats to deal with that as well.”

That is the root, trunk, branches, and leaves of Hillary’s statement. The New York Post explained the “story” this way: “The former first lady made the surprising comments as she explained to supporters that she has beaten back the GOP’s negative attacks for years, and is ready to do so again.”

No one who has witnessed Hillary at the debates questions that Hillary can, with Wiimbledon skill, lob back any trick Ripublicans try. And Ripublicans will try just about anything. How many of us were worried months before the presidential election of 2004 that the all too convenient “terror alerts” would turn into an actual “terror attack” a few days or weeks before the 2004 election? There were plenty of those “terror alerts” before the 2004 election and none after. We did however get a well-timed Bin Laden video just before the election.

We expect Dailykooks and MyDud to melt down like August snow, today we were treated to the uncloaking of more duds.

Josh Marshall of TalkingPointsMemo wrote:

I agree with Matt on this one. It is extremely important for the Democrats to nominate someone who doesn’t think like a loser. And assuming that any failure of the president’s anti-terrorism policies will automatically be a political boon for the Republican party means thinking like a loser.

It also signals a lack of confidence either in your own policies or the American people’s reasoning powers. And quite possibly both. And whether or not your policies make sense and whether or not the American people know jack you just can’t be an effective advocate of those policies unless you think average Americans can be persuaded that they make sense.

Otherwise, you are permanently off balance, ill-prepared and incoherent.

Uh, Josh, on this one you really should watch the use of the words “off balance, ill-prepared” and “incoherent”. Frankly, in this case those are self descriptions. But thank you for unmasking your feelings about Hillary. Now we know. And in case you don’t know Josh, we agree that we must nominate “someone who doesn’t think like a loser.” Recall Josh when Obama was asked at a debate what he would do if the U.S. was attacked? He responded with some nonsense about first responders.

And also Josh, if you don’t think that a terrorist attack would benefit Ripublicans unless handled appropriately (like Hillary would) please go back and read about the “terror alerts” which hurt Democrats in Ohio precincts in 2004. Face reality.

Of course Josh was not the initiator of this nonsense – the dishonor goes to Matt Yglesias. Here is Matt’s uninformed opinion:

Two points in response. The first is that I think the Democrat best positioned to deal with GOP political mobilization in a post-attack environment is going to be the one who isn’t reflexively inclined to see failed Republican policies resulting in the deaths of hundreds of Americans as a political advantage for the Republicans.

The other is that I think there’s a pretty clear sense in which the further one is from Bush’s Iraq policy, the easier it is politically to say that the failures of Bush’s national security policy should be blamed on Bush’s failed policies. Obama has a straight shot (“this is why we should have fought al-Qaeda like I said”) and Edwards (and Matt Yglesias) has a straightish one (“this is why we should have fought al-Qaeda like I think in retrospect”) whereas I’m not 100 percent sure what the Clinton message would be. Most of all, though, I think the politics of national security call for a strong, self-confident posture that genuinely believes liberal solutions are politically saleable and substantively workable, not the kind of worry-wort attitude that says we need to cower in fear every time Republicans say “terror.”

Again, Matt needs to face reality and acknowledge the depths of depravity the Ripublicans are capable of. Second Matty, in case of attack, Obama would be under the bed with his flashlight looking for first responders. Check out the debate videos Matt. Edwards would be busy apologizing for his sponsorship of the Iraq resolution and ordering new apology drafts from his staff.

Obama and Edwards do not inspire confidence and will be devoured by Ripublicans:

Mr Obama and the third of the frontrunners, John Edwards, started slowly and stumbled on a few occasions, particularly on how to respond to any new terrorist attacks. Mr Obama, who has been gaining in most of the polls and has matched Mrs Clinton in fundraising, showed little of the dynamic rhetoric on which he has built his reputation.

Here is what Hillary said she would do if attacked and why Hillary can, without doubt, handle any “October Surprise”, Commander In Chief Hillary Clinton:

If we are attacked, and we can determine who is behind that attack, and if there are nations that supported or gave material aid to those who attacked us, I believe we should quickly respond,” she said.

Hillary as Democratic Nominee will respond with the same vigor and sure footedness as President Hillary Clinton. 

The Big Blogs we expect boobery from. Now we know what to expect from Matty and Josh.


Top Ten Reasons To Vote For Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton appears on the 14th anniversary broadcast of the David Letterman show next Thursday.

The 44th President to be – Hillary.

Among the “Top Ten”s that Dave’s already done:

Hillary Clinton Internet Screen Names, Ways The White House Is Different Now That Hillary Has Moved Out, Surprises in the Barbara Walters-Hillary Clinton Interview, Signs Hillary Clinton is Running for President, Ways Hillary Clinton Could Improve Her Image, Things Heard In Line To Buy Hillary Clinton’s Book, Signs There’s Tension In The Clinton Marriage, Signs Hillary Clinton Wants To Be Vice President, Ways Hillary Clinton Can Ruin Her Approval Rating, Signs Hillary Is Not Taking Her Job Seriously, Signs Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Understand New York City, Ways Things At The White House Are Different When Hillary Is Away, Highlights of Hillary Clinton’s Grand Jury Appearance, Things Hillary Clinton Whispered To Me Before The Interview, Chapter Titles In Hillary Clinton’s Book On Entertaining, Hillary Clinton’s Financial Tips, Signs Hillary Clinton Might Be Pregnant, Highlights of Hillary’s Appearance on Larry King, Chapter Titles In Hillary Clinton’s New Book, Ways Hillary Clinton Celebrated Her 50th Birthday.

The Hillary Clinton Campaign has a Top Ten List of Reasons To Vote For Hillary:

10. To build a more tollerant, united America, working to achieve big goals again, with a president who’s ready for change and ready to lead from day one.

9. To restore America’s standing in the world and repair our alliances.

8. To combat terrorism, strengthen our military, and care for our veterans.

7. To restore competence and end cronyism in government, with a president who cares about and works for Americans who have been invisible to this administration.

6. To return to fiscal responsibility, move back toward a balanced budget, and safeguard Social Security and Medicare for future generations.

5. To promote 21st century scientific innovation, including stem cell research.

4. To provide world-class education, from universal pre-kindergarten to affordable college for all.

3. To create good jobs for middle-class Americans with the right investments in modern infrastructure and in new clean, energy-efficient technologies that reduce our dependence on foreign oil and combat global warming.

2. To achieve universal, affordable healthcare.

1. To end the war in Iraq.


Every Picture Tells A Story

Sandy1938’s pooch “Tiny” canvasses for Hillary with Hillary Is 44 button on collar.

Tiny For Hillary

Hillary Clinton, winning from sea to shining sea.

From a graph of National Polls:
National Poll

From a graph of Iowa Polls:
Iowa Poll Graph

From a graph of New Hampshire Polls:
NH Polls Graph

From a graph of Nevada Polls:
Nevada Polls Graph

From a graph of South Carolina Polls:
South Carolina Polls Graph

From a graph of Florida Polls:
Florida Polls Graph

From a graph of Michigan Polls:
Michigan Polls Graph

From a graph of California Polls:
California Polls Graph

From a graph of New York Polls:
New York Polls Graph

And a verbal picture (from a comment in the previous article) by commentor OkieAtty:

For the last year, I have been a Hillary supporter. I have always admired Hillary. Not that I would have always acted as she has (i.e ML scandal), but I have admired the woman who kept her family together (much as my own mother or own grandmother in their times) and did so with as much dignity and grace as one could muster in such trying and public times. And since she has become a Senator, she has built coalitions and instead of looking for the limelight with cheap stunts, has made a quiet difference. I have examined her whole legislative record and think she has done an admirable job of pushing legislation meaningful to real people, not corporations. I admit I wanted Russ Feingold because he is closer to my own FU attitude, but the adult part of me is ready to move on to adult ideas.

But knowing Russ is unelectable and more importantly, that he’s not running and never will, I go to the absolute next best- if not better- candidate- Hillary. And I am grateful Russ isn’t running. If this were a perfect world in which he could accomplish all things real progressives promise- all things I dreamt of as a young Yellowdog, I would still be sad.

I am not.

Instead, I am proud. Just like I was at the ripe age of 18 when I volunteered at OU and in the state campaign for Bill. I see promise.

I see a candidate, like Gore who is educated beyond comprehension, and like Kerry who understands the nuances of all potential decisions. And the more I read about her, understand her upbringing, her enlightenment and subsequent activism (yes, even pre-Bill), the more I understand why she stayed with Bill after a very public embarrassment and why she is a member of certain committees that seem less than her capabilities suggest. She is strong, she is resolved to a greater idea than her individual self, and moreover, she is committed to a greater Union.

I do not know about you, but I was raised with the concept that two things were sacred- the protection of those who were without power and the power of good government. I am still after years of adulthood, years of practicing law, and years of the Bush administration, resolved to focus on the greater good of my neighbor and my neighbor’s neighbor. After much research, soul searching and observation, I have determined that “[she] is [my] girl.”

I am proud to say that. I am willing to put my money where my mouth is. I am willing to endure public ridicule. And best yet, I am willing to prostrate myself by calling out to my fellow Okies to help me in that endeavor.

So now, I call upon you guys, my fellow Yellowdogs to tell me what you know insofar as who is heading up the state campaign, where I can volunteer, who I can place other nationwide contacts in touch with and what ideas you want to see advanced.

I admit, to a certain extent, I am gushing with admiration with her. I love having the same feeling I did as a first time voter in 1991. I look forward to canvassing our state with my hammer in my passenger seat (again) for months on end to pound signs and a good Fleetwood Mac album on my radio. For the first time in my life I have a feeling of the joy I had as young pol and the certainty of my adult understanding.

I like that. A lot.