Sens. Obama and Clinton to appear together in NH Friday

It has been widely reported that Senators Obama and Clinton will appear together on Friday at a campaign appearance in Unity, New Hampshire. That they chose a town called Unity in New Hampshire is no accident to be sure. New Hampshire could be a key state, and McCain is liked in New Hampshire and Obama could find it an uphill battle to take the state, even in today's political climate.

I think it's a try-out for Sen. Clinton as a running mate. Apparently hubby Bill is not going to be with them. I predict that the response to them together is going to be overwhelming and just add to the obvious pressure to add her to the ticket. Although I know that a lot of pundits are saying that an Obama/Clinton ticket isn't going to happen, I'm still sticking by my prediction that it will happen. I may be wrong, but let's see what happens Friday. If it blows the audience meter off the scale, how can Obama argue with that?

Dick Morris interview on Today Show this morning

I just have to comment about the Dick Morris interview this morning on the Today Show. Morris, disgraced political pundit was interviewed by Matt Lauer under the guise of hawking his new book. However it turned it into a political smear of the greatest magnitude of Democratic presumptive nominee Sen. Barack Obama. 

Morris, who, according to Lauer, had sat in that chair about a year ago and predicted that Sen. Clinton would get the nomination and the presidency, used the occasion to viciously attack Obama. He said that Obama was going to massively raise taxes to the point where it was "dangerous." If that isn't totally Republican, I don't know what is! He referred to Obama as "dangerous" a number of times. In fact, it became obvious that this was the message he was trying to get out - "Obama is dangerous." He sounded like Karl Rove on steroids!

Isn't that interesting? He was introduced by Lauer as a former top aide of Bill Clinton. Hmmm? Morris tried to redeem himself by saying that Obama would win anyway because of the political climate - in spite of himself and his "dangerous" policies. But it was obvious that from the beginning he was there to smear Sen. Obama. Lauer did little to stop him, although frankly, I thought that Lauer was caught offguard and reacted slowly trying to collect his thoughts while Morris just rambled on. 

Morris needs to exercise more. That might help reduce his inner hostility. I'm not interested at all in reading his book, and I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to just pass on it. I am.

The "lamestream" media in bed with AT&T. Where's Barack?

It's worth noting that the issue that's presently burning up the blogosphere wasn't even mentioned on any of the networks Sunday...the House vote to give immunity to the telecoms. How often does a criminal have the luxury of going to Congress, after having committed a crime, and then being granted immunity retroactively? This is historic because it is unprecedented. And yet not a peep from even one "responsible" network talking head. Instead we get "gas prices" and "flip flopping" (a cliched term that needs to be stricken from political discourse.)

It's also worth noting that the most egregious crimes in this area were by AT&T. As a matter of fact we wouldn't have even known about the illegal wiretapping of "all" Americans if not for the whistleblower who came forward. He was the man who installed the electronics in the secret room in California into which all communications...email, phone calls, cell phones, etc. were routed. 

AT&T spends millions advertising on all of the network news shows for the purpose of buying content just like BASF, Cargill, Monsanto, ADM, Boeing and other corporations like them. The next time you watch a BASF commercial ask yourself, "What are they are selling?" Their slogan repeated ad infinitum, "We don't make the products you buy, we make the products you buy better." is the giveaway. They're not selling a product. So why spend millions on a Sunday morning commercial? The answer is that they are buying and controlling the content of the program itself. By doing the same, AT&T guarantees that there will be no negative coverage of them even if warranted. If this past Sunday's blackout of one of the most historic votes in Congress' history is any indication...AT&T's advertising dollars were well spent. 

In general, this is how the network news operates on any given issue, which is why any coverage on any issue by them should be viewed with a jaundiced eye.

However, a "minor" consequence of all of this was the further evisceration of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. It will be interesting now to see how Barack Obama will vote on this issue given his promise last year on the same issue when he vowed to..."support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies." 

We need him to honor that promise. 

If you have a minute to spare call his D.C. office at 202-224-2854 and ask that he block any compromise that includes immunity for phone companies that helped Bush break the law.

Sunday News Shows

I watched Chris Matthews, ABC Sunday morning with Stephanopolous, and a little bit of Meet the Press, and Face the Nation. Chris Matthews played the exact same show as last week, which by the way, was one of his worst, except that he put in a little blurb at the very end about attending Tim Russert's funeral and what a great guy he was. Check my last week's column about how Matthews did a show last week (the same show actually) and didn't even mention Russert's death. All very weird if you ask me. 

Meet the Press started out with Senators Biden and Graham, and it was just a bunch of partisan drivel, and I ended up choosing ABC because they had an interesting roundtable on energy. Actually, all the shows mentioned energy because of the high gas prices, but ABC focused a nice segment on the issue. While many of the people said a lot of right things - wind, solar, etc., they said some not so right things, such as "nuclear is part of the mix." Unfortunately, those that advocate such a system based on nuclear energy's benefits visa vis carbon emissions, don't understand how much carbon the entire nuclear industry emits. It's a lot. And we need to see some of new nuclear design - a design that eliminates long lived radioactive wastes and emissions, before we even consider looking at it. That even Bill Richardson would spew that kind of misleading rhethoric about "nuclear is part of the mix" without giving us anything new is really discouraging. Of course McCain is gungho on nuclear- wanting to build 45 new nuclear plants, apparently just like the ones we currently build. That's just dumb.

The main focus of the talk was about Obama's "flip flop" on taking the public spending limits and public money for the election. I wrote about that a couple days ago. I don't like it, but I understand it, and it's a little bit of the "shoes on the other foot" for the Republicans. They are bitching about it because it puts them a financial disadvantage, a place they aren't used to being. 

Of course, the networks then did feel obligated to mention that McCain had flip flopped on offshore drilling. First he was against it and now he's for it. The Republicans said across the board that this was ok, because after travelling across the country, McCain decided that th $4/gallon gas was a serious enough problem to make him flip flop. The only problem with this is that all the energy expects said that this won't help for many years, if at all, because growing demand totally out-trumps any potential production increases from drilling the Arctic. There will be no instant relief from this from increased drilling, but there will be instant environmental effects - and I'm not not talking about improvements! And the so-called gas tax is a gimmick. If we dont' pay it during gas purchases, we'll pay it somewhere. The government needs it. McCain should know better. 

Some of the pundits think that Obama's shift to self finance his campaign will hurt him because it so cuts against his main message of reform. But, McCain's advantage has been blunted because McCain himself went from private to public to private funding of his campaign, and probably will go back to public. He's not one to talk about consistency with your fundraising. I don't think it will hurt Obama because it's still early, Democrats are tired of being outspent, and Obama has a decent argument in how the system is broken. But, all in all pretty boring Sunday. I successfully installed a new keyboard on my laptop (which I can't believe I actually did successfully) while I watched.

Obama and public financing

Obama opted out of public financing today. He said that the system is broken. No doubt it is. I'm not going to hold this against him that much. A lot of his money is coming from individuals in small donations. The Republicans have traditionally held a large advantage in fundraising, as they represent the folks that have lots of money. And the mainstream media reports that the GOP has a lot more party money than the Dems, and that could be crucial, as that money is much less regulated than the donations to individual candidates. But just because he may have some justification for doing it, doesn't mean that it's good. It's a lesser of two evils thing, and we know that oftens these kind of choices do not end up good. But the Republican's bellyaching about this is nothing but jealousy over Sen. Obama's ability to raise money. So Obama doesn't really get a criticism from me about this particular decision, although we desperately need a level playing field for all candidates for president. (including the Green Party candidate)

Two 500 year floods on Mississippi in 15 years?

I’m glad I’m not the only person that wonders why the media keeps referring to the current flooding in Iowa and along the Mississippi River a “500 year” flood. But, when you have a top General in the U.S. Army of Corps of Engineers, in an interview on the Today Show today call it that, I guess one can understand. 

But, this label has become obsolete. This is exactly what the authorities called the 1993 flood on the Mississippi - the 500 year flood. Now, 15 years later, we have another flood that seems to be exceeding the previous 500 year flood. In fact, in many places it is exceeding the 1993 flood.

"How possible is it that twice in just the last 15 years we've had two 500-year floods? ... People have been misled into feeling confident that they can live in flood plains," Criss said. (a professor of earth and planetary sciences at Washington University in St. Louis)  http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/18/1151113.aspx

"Anyone who has been around these parts awhile has stopped talking in terms of a '100-year flood' or a '500-year flood.' We know better. Floods like this don't happen every year. But we also haven't had any centuries-long breaks from severe flooding." http://www.thonline.com/article.cfm?id=205846 Dubuque Telegraph Herald

The old assumptions don’t count anymore. The towns along the Ohio better start putting tape measure to their flood walls. But it’s more than that really. It’s the entire management, or mismanagement of the environment for many decades which is leading to events like this. And, I am pretty sure that we will see more of them before we see less of them.

Bush is over in England sipping tea with the queen while the people in the midwest river valleys are struggling with untold disaster. This just proves that Bush didn't learn a thing from Katrina. He's still as detached from reality as ever. Today, after the flood waters have receded from Cedar Rapids and other Iowa Cities and towns, he's going to do a fly over. He should have been there shoveling sandbags. He'll probably do a short stint as a photo op for the nightly news. But once again, way too little, way too late.

Obama, McCain, Energy Speeches (and more)

Both Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain spoke about energy yesterday. The major networks covered them both. Sen. Obama did mention biofuels, clean coal, and safe nuclear as part of his solution. Ok, but how is he going to do it? How is he going to get the mining out of coal, the radiation out of nuclear, the food out of biofuels? What about the transportation required to implement these ideas? He didn’t go into that. But, the way he said it, he preserved some deniability. He can always say that coal turned out not to be clean, and nuclear not to be safe, etc. But, one has to wonder whether or not at this point in time, a majority of the American people don’t just want to hear the down and dirty truth right now and not more political slight of hand? But apparently Sen. Obama and his people think it is necessary. But I’m not sure it is the change that people are hungry for. 

Sen. Obama got himself into trouble on the nuclear issue in the Nevada debate. The people of Nevada do not want Illinois’ high level nuclear waste, but Illinois is the most dependant on nuclear power state. We have lots of that high level waste, and a lot of it is stored not too far from where lots of people are. He can’t serve two masters here. He has to either get behind the nuclear energy call, or say that we need to get away from it. There’s no “safe” nuclear anywhere on the drawing board that I am aware of. If there are ideas for it, then bring them on. 

The thing that is kind of disappointing about Sen. Obama’s talk is that (and I admit I haven’t read the entire text yet, but in terms of what the national media is covering) he didn’t talk about how we need to decentralize the electrical production. When you talk about nuclear and coal, you are talking about maintaining the existing centralized grid. Sen. Obama should at least be discussing the issue of decentralization.

However, the fact that Gore endorsed him and Sen. Obama said that he was going to be consulting with Gore on energy policy did go a ways with me. One of Gore’s big ideas is the decentralization of the electrical generation. If we did that, we would eliminate so much of our dependency on foreign oil. Hopefully Sen. Obama is listening.

Sen. McCain said a lot of the same things as Sen. Obama in terms of “alternative energy” and coal and nuclear. He’s more gungho than Sen. Obama on nuclear. He also wants to open up the offshore areas for drilling. But what he isn’t telling the people is that the increase in the demand worldwide so far outstrips the ability to increase production to meet the demand, regardless of where we drill, that, under the classic “supply and demand” model, prices are going to continue to rise. 

I was interested by an article that came across my email yesterday evening about how the polls, exit polls, and other interesting election oddities, kept coming out in favor of Sen. Clinton.  http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0806/S00182.htm
I wrote earlier in the year about the New Hampshire primary. There were questions that were raised and not answered in that primary about discrepancies between polls and results. I think it’s worth noting. 

The premise of the article, I think, is that Karl Rove and his buddies played mischief with the Democratic primaries to stop Obama from gaining tremendous momentum and to create dissention within the Democratic party. Could be. The thing that gets me is that the media is still relying on the same exit poll methodology that all of a sudden failed in the Bush - Kerry race, and yet no explanation at all about that. Either they aren’t reliable or they are. If they keep relying on them, except for the Kerry case, then the Kerry case is an exception that needs to be looked at. But the mainstream media covered that up. That’s my beef. It’s one or the other - it can’t be both.

 

Put your John Hancock on the ‘Ex-Hillary Fans for McCain’ Pledge

By BERRY CRAIG

“Guffmanian” posted a tongue-in-cheek “Ex-Hillary Fans for McCain” Pledge on the Daily Kos Internet blogsite.

There are various versions of the pledge for “McCainocrats,” folks who aim to prove their loyalty to Sen. Hillary Clinton “by ignoring her call to support Obama and supporting McCain,” according to Guffmanian.

The blogger explained, “You've asked yourself WWJMD (What Would John McCain Do) and you've decided to vote against your own interests and principles while furthering Senator McCain's. Before you're allowed on the band wagon, we are asking you to sign the following oath. A McCain presidency will mean different things for different people, so we have tailored the oaths accordingly.”

Guffmanian didn’t post a pledge for union members. But one might look like this: 

I, _____________, swear, or affirm, that while I voted for Sen. Clinton, I want to be a “McCainocrat” and ride the “Straight Talk Express” all the way to the White House. 

John, I promise to stand by you as you 

-- support a national right-to-work law

-- oppose the Employee Free Choice Act

-- oppose the prevailing wage on construction projects 

-- oppose protecting overtime rights

-- oppose extending unemployment benefits

-- oppose increasing the minimum wage

-- support NAFTA and CAFTA

-- oppose bargaining rights for federal employees

Also, as a card-carrying union member, I pledge to 

-- be glad when workers in every state can freeload and enjoy union won wages and benefits without paying union dues 

-- smile when the boss – a fellow McCain supporter – closes the plant where I work and moves production to a cheap labor country so he can get richer by shafting some poor foreign guy and me

-- be thankful for our “free enterprise” system – meaning “union free” – even when I lose my good union job and end up flipping burgers with high school kids for minimum wage or when I can’t find other work. 

(In my spare time – and until the electricity gets turned off because I don’t have a job and can’t pay my bills -- I promise to watch Fox News on TV and listen to Rush on the radio because they know, as John and I know, that unions are what’s ruining America.) 

Thank you, John McCain!
Signature: __________________________________________________

 

Sunday News Show

Of course the big news of the day across the board was the unexpected, shocking sudden death of NBC News Bureau Chief, and moderator of Meet the Press, Tim Russert. I do share the shock. And I do agree that Russert had a childlike excitement about politics that was contagious. I share that excitement. And I do agree that Russert did great research, and would often catch his guests in obvious contradictions in their publicly recorded and reported statements. 

The one obvious exception to this was the Chris Matthews show, and NBC show. At no time during the 1/2 hour Matthews' show did anyone on the show mention Russert's name. HMMMM? One would be brain dead not to notice that! Even the shows on other networks that compete with Meet the Press talked glowingly about Russert. 

One thing that was weird about today is that is was a day to tout the conservatives. Matthews' show's panel had what I consider to be all conservatives in various degrees. The most "liberal" of the day was Katty Kay, his every week guest from the BBC, who gets little press coverage in the US, but who always sits closest to Matthews. HMMMMM about that too! I don't really consider her a strong liberal. The rest of the panel, Jim Kramer, the cable TV financial advisor who long ago lost it, Kathleen Parker, and Andrew Sullivan, the voice I guess I would reluctantly trust the most out of the 4. Kramer showed his ass the other day on the Today Show when he threw a hillspell about the evil environmentalists that are stopping the oil drilling in the controversial Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which he said we desperately needed.. In fact, during his hillspell, he claimed that he was a "conservationist" (a code word in the environmental world) but that we needed to drill. That in and of itself told me a lot.

But today he trumped that by responding to a question by Matthews about what stocks he was recommending as saying that he was recommending any and all "oil" stocks. Uh huh! I'm beginning to wonder if this whole oil "bubble" is nothing more than a desperate manipulation of the markets to create political pressure to allow drilling in the Arctic NWR. Clearly Kramer is nothing more than a oilman, and one has to wonder how he got on Matthews as a credible talking head? Talk about a pig in a polk! 

If you read anything about peak oil, you come to realize that drilling in the Arctic NWR will do nothing for the regular person, but line the pockets of a few really rich people. Hopefully we've have enough of that.

But why did Matthews have such a panel on the Father's Day a few days after Russert died unexpectedly? Doesn't that indicate a "cats away, the mice will play" attitude? My respect for Matthews has been reduced. It was so obvious and inappropriate. But who was really behind it? We'll probably never know. But it was obvious.

I didn't watch Meet the Press. They were going to have a full hour on Russert, and I already had heard enough. As I have written before, in our TV market, while for years Meet the Press and ABC Sunday Morning were at different times, about 2 months ago, ABC changed the Stephanopolous show times in our market and they now conflict. I watched ABC Sunday morning, because I didn't want all Russert - I wanted some politics too. Life does go on, for better or worse. I think we were a better nation with Russert, but he's gone now.

(It is an interesting question as to who will take over for Russert? I'm going to guess David Gregory is going to take over Meet the Press, although he may not become bureau chief. I think Andrea Mitchell will get that job. But I'm not sure she wants a weekly committment like that. She's getting older and so is hubby, Mr. Greenspan. I'm sure they have plenty of money. If I was her, I'd want to keep some flexibility in my life. But Gregory is still younger and I think hungry. He seems the likely candidate for Meet the Press. But the bureau chief could become a sort of symbolic position for a few years given to Mitchell to show that the glass ceiling as been broken at NBC. We'll see.)

Stephanopolous had John Edwards and Fred Thompson on as initial interviews. The reason he had them on was to ask them whether or not they were interested in being VP? They both said they weren't seeking it but wouldn't rule it out. Other than that, they both served their function as political hacks for their respective parties. 

The substance of the discussions on the shows was mostly about the Obama/McCain race. The main discussion was whether or not McCain can win on a campaign of saying that Obama is going to raise your taxes? Most of the people, and I agree, thought that McCain could not win solely on that platform, especially with Obama going around with his speaking skills telling people that he was only going to raise taxes on the richest Americans. 

The other issue discussed in all the programs who would be the VP picks by the various candidates. Every single pundit that spoke to the issue said that Sen. Clinton would NOT be the pick of Obama. I don't know how they could be so sure. Interesting though. 

Apprarently Karl Rove went on Fox News show (which we don't get) and said that McCain should pick Romney for VP. Considering Rove's standing in the country, that should be the death knell for Romney. 

This brings us to Face the Nation. Bob Shieffer took the week off, and Chris Reed took his place. He had nothing but Republicans on the show. It was so biased it was obvious. But, the purpose of the show was to present Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal, an Indian-American Republican. This young man is a Ivy leaguer, like Obama, and was also mentioned by Kathleen Parker on Chris Matthews. The GOP is touting him as one of the future leaders of the Republican party. I don't know - he of course indicated that he would be willing to accept a McCain invitation to join the ticket. He's a smart guy, and smart guy so young might be willing to let 8 years go by while he serves a governor of Louisiana and gets more national exposure. We will see. 

Goodbye Tim Russert. I will miss you. 

While the pundits do wonder how McCain can be as close as he is in the polls with the Republicans being in such low regard, I don't think it's such a mystery. There's still a lot of disappointment in the Clinton camp, and those people aren't yet willing to put their support behind Obama. While I don't exactly understand it, that seems to be how it is. Whether it will take Obama to choose Clinton as a running mate to get them still remains to be seen. I've already spoken to that, although my opinion seems to be at odds with the pundits. Those that spoke today said that Obama would NOT choose Clinton. I guess time will tell. I stand by my prediction, although I have to say in the light of all these pundits saying the opposite, I am questioning myself.

Prejudice in the voting booth is wrong and dumb

by Berry Craig

MAYFIELD, Ky. – Apparently, some white Democrats didn’t vote for Sen. Barack Obama in the primaries because he is African American.

That’s wrong. It’s also dumb if you pack a union card.

“It’s been a long time since we had a president who stood up and said unions are good thing,” MSNBC quoted Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee. “It’s been a long time since we had a president who said workers are not getting their fair share.”

Pro-union deeds back up Obama’s pro-union words. He has a 96 percent positive labor voting record, according to the AFL-CIO’s Committee on Political Education. Few senators score higher.

Now that Sen. Hillary Clinton has conceded defeat to Obama, Sen. John McCain is wooing Democrats who voted for her. The “straight talker” Republican nominee would never admit it, of course. But the Clinton voters McCain thinks he’s most likely to get mainly are the white folks who rejected Obama because of his skin color. 

At least Sen. McCain is color-blind when it comes to working class Americans, according to one top labor official. McCain shafts them all, no matter if they “are white, Black, Hispanic or otherwise,” says Leo W. Gerard, international president of the United Steelworkers of America. 

The numbers support Gerard’s claim. McCain has a 16 percent pro-labor COPE score. 

Jeff Wiggins, a Kentucky Steelworker leader, agrees with Gerard. “We’re on to McCain,” said Wiggins, president of the Paducah-based Western Kentucky Area Council, AFL-CIO. “He’s ‘John McSame,’ as in the same old anti-union policies of George W. Bush.”

Voting on race or gender is wrong, period. To have voted against Clinton because she is a woman is stupid, too, if you belong to a union. Her COPE score is 94 percent. 

I’d bet the farm that Obama would be the first person to say it is also wrong for anybody to vote against McCain because he’s a white man. He may have said it already.

Anyway, I learned in the Presbyterian Church that racism and sexism are not what Christ taught. Jesus said we are all God’s children. Like a good parent, God loves us all the same. That’s in the Good Book, too.

In addition, Jesus admonished us to do unto others as we would have others do unto us. Christians call it the Golden Rule. But the same principle can be found in other religions, including Judaism and Islam.

For the record: Obama is a Christian despite the lies being spread by religious crazies, notably Internet nut jobs. One of my teaching buddies calls these wackos “the Christian Taliban.” 

“You need to come to church in the first place precisely because you are first of this world, not apart from it,” Obama said in one of his best known speeches. “You need to embrace Christ precisely because you have sins to wash away -- because you are human and need an ally in this difficult journey.”

Wiggins added a Baptist “amen.” 

“Unions believe in ‘do unto others,’” he said. “But we don’t just preach brotherhood and sisterhood. We practice it every day. In a union everybody is equal.”

The record backs him up. African Americans and women have been delegates to his council or on the council executive board for a long time. That’s true for other labor councils across the Bluegrass State, Wiggins said.

The W.C. Young Award, the highest honor the Western Kentucky Area Council bestows, is named for its first recipient, an African American and national labor and civil rights leader from Paducah.

“W.C. was a brother to those of us fortunate enough to have known him,” Wiggins said. “He is an inspiration to our younger brothers and sisters who didn’t know him.” 

My guess is that very few white Democrats who voted against Obama on race are union members. I am confident Obama will do well among union voters from Paducah to Pikeville and, for that matter, from Palo Alto to Presque Isle. 

Come November 4, most union members will do what they always do. They will vote for the candidate who will best protect their unions and their jobs. “That’s Barack Obama,” Wiggins said.

 

Obama chooses experience over change???

Can you believe that Sen. Obama now is immersed in the resignation of his first big appointment as nominee? Geez. He says he's going to change things, and then picks a big time, big money party insider to lead his VP committee who gets roiled in big money scandals and has to resign. Is this Obama, Clinton, or Bush? Give me a break. That isn't reform. 

I'm really disappointed. I'm glad I've endorsed Cynthia McKinney. Come on Sen. Obama. You don't get a free pass. Either you actually change things or your support is going to be shallow. Don't think that your appearance can disguise a mainstream attitude. As has been said many times times before, if people have a choice between a republican or a republican, they'll vote for a republican every time. You better think about that Sen. Obama.

What about getting some new thinkers in there? Look at where the old thinkers have gotten us - in a huge mess. This is exactly what people want changed. This is the kind of thing that desperately needs change. My suggestion to Sen. Obama is to make himself head of his selection committee to pick his vice presidential candidate. And then get some new people in next to you instead of these same old "washington insiders." 

I doubt if this is going to do any huge damage, and I know the pressure to conform to the already existing party structure and it's main leaders must be enormous. But, the ultimate irony of this is that you picked the guy because of experience. (he had been involved a number of times in this process and probably knew the protocol and all that) You chose experience over change. Huh? But aren't you asking people to pick change over experience? You got it bassackwards, Senator! Stop doing that! We can't afford a Bush 3rd term.

I Predicted Obama's Nomination, May 11, 2007

I decided I wouldn't write this entry until I was pretty sure that Sen. Obama would actually get enough support to get the nomination. I am pretty sure that he will, at this point, now that Sen. Clinton has backed him and suspended her campaign. I think I deserve some bragging rights on this. I was far ahead of the high paid DC and NYC pundits, and ahead of almost all of the pundits in predicting that Obama would get the nomination.

I didn't start this blog until August of 2007. But on May 11, 2007, as part of an ongoing political discussion, I posted on the "Stumps" email list, (hosted by Tim Hermach and the Native Forest Council in Eugene, OR) which at the time was, (and probably still is) I believe, the largest and most political email list that I am on, the following email. In that email, I predicted that Obama would receive the nomination. Oh yes, I was plenty chided and teased by my fellow list members, with a number of offers to wager (which I didn't take!). 

I do have to say, though, that I was somewhat wrong about the "horrible disclosure," which did happen - i.e. the Rev. Wright conundrum. Although I do believe that it has been overplayed by the media, it, neverless, as Obama admitted, is a legitimate political issue. However, I was correct is tto the extent that under my definition of "horrible disclosure" as something that would derail the nomination, there has been no "horrible disclosure."

Nevertheless, the Wright episode, combined with already existing racial fears, did cause Obama to somewhat back into the nomination rather than gallop in, which is where I thought it was heading. 

Since the Wright link was going to come out sooner than later, I guess Obama's team thought, why should we bring it up? It did get them far down the road with the campaign unencumbered by the issue. And, legitimately, it could be possible that had it come out earlier, it may have been enough to block him in Iowa, thus crushing his renegade campaign. So it was a hard call, and they did eek through, but barely. Obama blew it by not realizing the problem and dealing with it himself months before he ever announced. "A stitch in time saves nine," as the saying goes, and it's ohhh so true. 

But I'm still proud of Sen. Obama. I have met him twice now, which I'm sure he can't possibly remember. The first time was when he was campaigning for his Senate seat. There was a hastily scheduled public appearance at the courthouse lawn in Metropolis and I attended. Sen. Durbin was there, along with aides, and several state and local politicians. There weren't many people there, maybe a dozen at the most, and I got to speak with Sen. Obama. Maybe a year ago or so, he came back to Metropolis for a town meeting. This time he had gained "rock star" status, and he packed the community center with standing room only, this time hundreds of people. They came from Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee, and so did the media. It was a spectacle event. After he spoke and answered questions, he hung around and shook hands and spoke to people as he made his way out. I got in his way and he turned and shook my hand. I lobbied him briefly on national forest issues. He said he was interested and to write him. I thanked him and moved out of the way. He is very calm and engaging, no doubt. 

Interestingly, I attended Carol Moseley Braun's kick off of her bus tour on her successful Senate campaign, which occurred on that same courthouse lawn in Metropolis. I thought a lot of Braun at the time, and still do. Her campaign generated a lot of excitement. I spoke for a long time at that event with a young African American female reporter from the Boston Globe who was reporting on Braun's historic campaign to become the first African American female U.S. senator. If I remember, I was quoted in one of her stories. But Braun just didn't have the same "rock star" status that Obama has obtained. Nevertheless, there must be something in the water in Illinois to breed these barrier busters. In fact, Hillary Clinton is from Illinois also!

So Chris Matthews, Tim Russert, George Stephanopolous, George Will, Cokie Roberts, the whole lot of you high paid big time media talking heads - you were out-punditized by a low income guy who lives in the woods and posts his blog entries via solar power. Shouldn't you be at least a little embarassed!

Here's the May 11, 2007 message:

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Donham [mailto:xxxxxxxxx@earthlink.net]
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 11:18 AM
To: 'stumps@forestcouncil.org'
Subject: RE: [Stumps] Obama

As an Illinoisan who watched Obama come out of nowhere to win decisively in a crowded primary with a number of other good candidates that had more statewide name recognition and party backing, I am predicting that Obama, short of some horrible disclosure, which I doubt will happen, will win the nomination. I see the same things happening in his national campaign that happened in the race for Senate. I hope to write about what happened in Illinois in more detail and publish it somewhere online in the near future. But, (and I'm not saying this necessarily because I've jumped behind him 100% but because this is honestly what I see happening) I am going to go out on a limb, so to speak, and predict that Obama will become the Democratic nominee. I think Alex Beam, while making good points, has yet to really experience the mysterious charisma that Obama has and is underestimating, like most of us in Illinois did. Time will tell.
Mark D.

Sunday News Show

I didn't get to see Chris Matthews this morning. Because of the French Open Men's finals they moved up the Today Show and Meet the Press, but cut Matthews. But, because MTP didn't compete at the same time with ABC Sunday Morning, I got to see all of the Stephanopolous show. I also watched Face the Nation on CBS. As it turned out, nothing should have been cancelled for the French open men's finals, as Nadal stomped Federer in a boring match. 

MTP had a large roundtable of all of their major national pundits. They were discussing primarily the democratic nomination race. Of course, the historic nature of the Obama nomination in the context of Clinton's speech of yesterday was the number one topic of conversation.

Most everyone agreed that Clinton had made a good speech yesterday, and had set the stage for the possibility of her joining the ticket. Some of the pundits said she had blown it by not conceding on Tuesday after Obama claimed the nomination. But most said that it hadn't. I don't think it has totally eliminated her at all. 

There was a lot of discussion about whether or not Obama would choose Clinton to run with him. Of course I've written about that before. The pundits seemed split about 50-50 as to whether or not that would be a good idea. I did learn that former president Carter had written recently that Obama would be making a huge mistake to pick her. But others, such as Rep. Rangel, said they thought it was an unbeatable combination.

I have to stand by my posting of several weeks ago, when I wrote that I thought that it was heading for a Clinton VP nod. I mean, she has to be asked. Maybe it will be arranged that she won't accept, but it has to be asked. Too much is on the line. But I am sensitive to the problems that it would cause. It's going to say a lot about Obama's judgment on how he handles it. 

One of the most interesting aspects of the pundits conversation today was about Bill Clinton. What I found interesting was the notion that Obama has in the near future a private meeting with Bill Clinton about his role in the campaign, administration, and party. Some of the pundits say that Bill Clinton is pissed off because he blames the Obama campaign for painting him as being racist when really he is "the first black president." 

He needs to get over it. First, he more than anyone should know how politics is. Second, he did say some pretty unseemly things that smacked of some kind of weird attitude toward race. He definitely has blown his reputation as being very racially sensitive. That's his fault, and he needs to do what needs to be done to fix it. Oh, the damage isn't irreparable, but it's real. If he blows it off and never fixes it, then he will have his reputation forever scarred. But he shouldn't blame that on Obama or his campaign.

Several of the pundits said that Obama will wait until August, to see if the polls remain polarized by gender and race, or if they begin to shift. If the polls remain polarized, it becomes more likely that Obama will pick Clinton to fill his ticket. If he feels he can win without her, he will try to find a way to finesse around her. It's going to be interesting, that's for sure.

Crystal Gayle show at Harrah's Metropolis

Kristi and went to see Crystal Gayle perform last night at Harrah's Hotel on the Ohio River in Metropolis, Illinois. We do not gamble, but we go when they bring quality entertainment. 

Crystal Gayle has had some huge hits in the past. She also comes from a famous country music family - that of Loretta Lynn. We didn't have anything going, the price was right, and we decided to go. We knew that she would have one of these Nashville backup bands that are always of excellent quality. 

Fact is, we got a lot more than we expected. The show was awesome. Ms. Gayle, who has her trademark black hair that touches the floor as she often looks straight up and sings, sang beautifully, and the band was magnificent. She had her sister, Peggy Sue, with her, singing backup. The two of them spent about 10 minutes at one point of the show standing at the front of the stage together making jokes about their family. It was very entertaining. At one point, one of the surprising moments for me was when Ms. Gayle said that Peggy Sue had written one of the top 50 country songs ever as judged by CMT - that being Loretta Lynn's monster hit, "Dont' Come Home a Drinkin' with Lovin' on your Mind." Crystal did say that Loretta had added some. Interestingly, a search on the internet indicates that Peggy Sue gets limited credit. Who knew? 

Between the music and the jokes, plus the family ambiance, the show was awesome. The crowd was small, but she had done another show. But, it does show the importance of being on the radio. Ms. Gayle has not had a radio hit for many years, and her financial stocks as an entertainer have fallen, no doubt. But her artistic stocks are still very high. And, all it would take would be one song with radio exposure to make her a big star again. 

After her last song, Kristi and I both jumped up and gave her a standing ovation, and the rest of the crowd joined us. Hurray for Crystal Gayle and her fine band. We both highly recommend that if you have a chance to see her, you do so.

Another Strike Against McConnell's Nuclear Worker compensation TV Ad

In the Monday, June 2, 2008 edition of the "Southern Scene," a weekly mailer published by the Metropolis Planet, the Metropolis, Illinois weekly newspaper, an article appears on the front page entitled "Nuclear facility cancer case backlog is probed." The article concerns "a backlog of former workers at the Paducah gaseous diffusion plant who have been diagnosed with cancer." I spoke to the article's writer, Jim Hall, long time reporter for the Planet, by phone yesterday. 

Jim told me that the article was based on a press release they had received recently. The press release was about a letter sent from (I believe but I'm not sure) the House Energy Oversight and Investigations subcommittee, signed by chair Bart Stupak, from Michigan, and our two local Republican Reps Ed Whitfield from Western Kentucky and John Shimkus, from Southern Illinois. I searched on all three of their websites, plus the subcommittee website for a copy of the letter or press release, but I can't find it. 

The "Scene" story does quote the letter however, in the sentence "To think that some of these workers are being forced to wait up to seven years for their cases go through is especially troubling." The article states that "as of May 20, there were some cases from the Paducah facility dating as far back as 2001. 

The article does not provide a total number of former workers in this backlog, but Hall said that there was a number in the press release, but it wasn't broken down by site, so they didn't use it. My understanding is that it amounts to tens of thousands of workers.

What's wrong with this picture? Even McConnell's Republican cohorts, Whitfield, his fellow Kentuckian, and Shimkus, another Republican lapdog from immediately across the river, are questioning the program - joining with a Democratic lead investigation. 

So how does McConnell get off just so blatantly lying about how great the program is in his TV ad? It's just so disgusting that I refuse to let go of it. It's time that the mainstream media look into this. It can't be both ways. It can't be the greatest program that is saving all these little people's lives and at the same time be so backlogged that his own people are investigating the problems. 

Three strikes and your out - that's baseball. McConnell's run out of pitches. Let's hope the people call him out!

Sunday News Shows

Happy June! May was an interesting month, lovely in a lot of ways. It went fast! We watched Chris Matthews, back and forth between ABC Sunday Morning and Meet the Press, and then Face the Nation, as well as watching the Today Show and listening to some NPR. 

The Sunday News shows today were of course obsessed with the Presidential race, particularly the never-ending Obama/Clinton contest. The DNC’s Rule’s Committee yesterday determined, at least the mainstream media is reporting, that the full delegations of Michigan and Florida would be seated but each would only have ½ a vote, thus supposedly complying with the rule that a state that didn’t adhere to the scheduling requirements would have half of their delegates taken away at the convention. 

There were plenty of interviews of reps from both Obama and Clinton. I still believe that this is moving toward an Obama/Clinton ticket, although I think that Clinton’s comments about staying in the race because something might happen like Robert Kennedy’s assassination could have come close to severing that chance. But, there is going to be so much pressure from “party elders” that are supporting both, such as Gov. Rendell and former Sen. Daschle. Both today spoke in code that I read to say that they were very supportive of such a ticket. It’s going to be interesting to see. I’m sticking with my prediction of May 16, in my entry about the Clinton’s storming across Western Kentucky.  http://www.ruralthoughts.net/?q=node/104 I believe that Clinton feels a responsibility to the predominantly female base of her support to keep her boot on Obama’s neck until he finally says, yes, I’ll run with you. If she does anything less, and she doesn’t get the nod, there will always be doubt as to whether or not it was blatant sexism. But if she fights right up to the end and she is just a razor hair behind, and she is still calling for the nomination, the only way to settle that and bring her supporters behind the campaign is to let her join the team. 

Let’s get back to the “problem of the moment,” Florida and Michigan. I have been disappointed that the mainstream media seems to have missed an opportunity to keep the important discussion of racism on the front burner where it tries to be but keeps getting missed in sometimes obvious places. Newsweek, to their credit had Obama on the cover recently and published a number of “memos” from various influential people to Obama about dealing with racism. So the issue is still wafting around in society quite significantly. 

But with so much coverage of the Michigan/Florida delegate situation, you would have thought that there would have been a widespread analysis of the reasons behind the rule in the first place. And that was....(drum roll)....racism in the presidential selection process. In the past, with Iowa and New Hamphshire, for better or worse, virtually locked into being the 1 and 2 primary states, (and it is possible that this could change but there is an argument that this is “traditional” and therefore should continue, although not everything “traditional” has been good) other primary states that followed on the heels were predominantly white - to the point where the momentum for the campaigns were often well established and the nomination was a foregone conclusion before the primaries started hitting states with a higher than average number of minority voters. Putting South Carolina and Nevada third in the process immediately on the heels of New Hampshire gave a little more diversity into the process. Apparently party leaders felt that this was so important to maintain throughout the process that it imposed these penalties on states that tried to jump in front of South Carolina and Nevada. It’s laudable, but one would have to know the details of the entire plan, which I don’t, to be able to judge whether it was a real plan to share influence or just a sham for the sake of appearances. Maybe a bit of both?

I saw a clip of Sen. Levin talking about how Michigan had come to move their primary up - in response to a rules violation by New Hampshire that the rules committee ignored, and how that created a question over the entire process. I suspect that, as a Clinton supporter, that statement is less than completely accurate, and is shaded by politics. The fact remains though, that if Clinton’s ardent supporters are whipped into a frenzy that the process was fatally flawed, that could hurt Obama in the fall. That’s why the fall back position is the joint ticket. Again, I’m not saying it’s my preference, I’m just seeing the political reality. I certainly think that Clinton supporters, such as Harold Ickes, who got a bit of airtime this morning, are being abrasive and not persuasive in their analysis. How can they say that the results wouldn’t have been different if Obama had put his considerable campaign machine into action in Florida and Michigan? That’s an absurd notion. Perhaps at that time of the campaign, Clinton would have won both states. I’d say there would have been a good chance. But, it would have been close, and the delegate difference, with the proportional representation the Dems use in their presidential primaries, would have been less than it turned out, and the popular vote difference would have been less. For Clinton supporters to now be demanding a full accounting of the existing election results seems desperate and degrading to Clinton herself. Is this her sense of fairness? Let’s hope not. But there’s still a ways to go, and like I said, Clinton is positioning herself as best she can to make it impossible for Obama not to ask her to be on the ticket.

On the Republican side, it was McClellan’s book sucking up their time. And of course, it now must be sinking in to the average viewer because we’ve heard the story now more than the required 6 times for something to soak in, that something was (and is) rotten in the White House. And here’s McCain, seen with Bush this week, talking up the Iraq war, with his gimmick of his clock counting down the days until Obama visits Iraq. The only problem is that he made one more inaccurate statement about Iraq. First he got the Sunni and Shiite sects confused. He got stuff about Iran wrong. Now he doesn’t know how many troops we actually have or have had in Iraq. And he’s calling himself the expert? Not a good week for McCain. I did see a clip of Obama, in a speech, calling McCain on this in a very effective way. I don’t believe those clips made the network news yet, at least I hadn’t seen it yet. So there may be some press hanky panky going on there. But at least it got on today. 

Most of the pundits said they did think that Obama was being forced to visit Iraq. Obama’s camp is saying that he probably will. What with Newsweek reporting about racism in the Secret Service, the frightening, but I have to say, significantly widespread belief among a cross section of people that I know both professionally and personally, that they fear for Obama’s safety, and how a major incident in Iraq involving Obama could be internationally politically explosive on a number of fronts, and potentially difficult to assign blame, leading to all kinds of international accusations and counter accusations, and giving a shot in the arm in our country to fear and oppression. 

If I was Obama I would plan this trip very carefully, and make sure he has a trusted team of people around him. Maybe he should go with McCain and a number of other senators, and they should stay together at all times in public. I’m not a security expert, but I can see enough to know that it could be a highly dangerous trip, and people who are plotting ill will and conflict could see this as a tremendous opportunity to make trouble. The world does not need that at this time, that's for sure.

Gerard to McCain: the Steelworkers are on to your pandering

by Berry Craig

MAYFIELD, Ky. -- We Presbyterians – the “Frozen Chosen” – don’t do “amens” like our Baptist brothers and sisters.
But I’d like to “amen” some recent remarks by Leo W. Gerard, international president of the United Steelworkers of America.

Gerard said his union’s leadership is concerned “about the media’s ongoing attempts to sensationalize and mischaracterize the contest between Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination.”

He added, “Most disturbing have been attempts to define working people’s voting decisions in this contest as somehow racially based, while completely ignoring the fact that for years Senator McCain and many of his Republican colleagues have treated all working people with complete disdain, whether those workers are white, Black, Hispanic or otherwise.

“Shouldn’t that be the issue for 2008, and not this absurd and unfair focus on race and sometimes on religion?”
Amen.

While agreeing that Clinton has the right to keep running, Gerard took her to task, warning she “will be making a terrible mistake for herself, her Party and for the nation if she continues to press her candidacy through negative campaigning with disturbing racial undertones.”
Amen. 

But Gerard also stressed “that both [italics mine] Democratic candidates would be far superior advocates for the rights of working people and their families than Senator McCain.”
Amen.

In addition, Gerard warned that McCain’s backers “are already engaged in the politics of divide and conquer,” especially against Obama, the almost certain Democratic nominee. Gerard called the Republican tactics “destructive…deeply troubling and completely unfair.” 

Gerard pointed out that Obama’s grandparents, who helped rear him, “fought in World War II and worked honorably in manufacturing jobs to support their family. Obama, Gerard added, “has pledged his own undying allegiance to our country and to working-class Americans.”
Amen.

Gerard said that “dividing working people along racial and ethnic lines is the oldest and meanest game in the book, and it is the one the Republicans are already using to distract attention from the fact that Senator McCain has made it abundantly clear that he offers nothing more than a continuation of the Bush administration’s sorry record of relentlessly assaulting the well-being and interests of working people and of our nation’s unions.”
Amen. 

The record could hardly be clearer.
McCain votes the Bush party line almost 90 percent of the time, according to the AFL-CIO. The senator has voted “right” on labor bills only 16 percent of the time, says the AFL-CIO’s Committee on Political Education.
By comparison, Obama’s COPE rating is 96 percent. Clinton’s is 94.
McCain is against the Employee Free Choice Act and the Davis-Bacon Act. Obama and Clinton support them.
McCain is for a national right-to-work law. Obama and Clinton are not.
While the Steelworkers have endorsed Obama, other unions, including the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, are sticking with Clinton. 

But unions agree on the most important part of this year’s presidential campaign, says Joe Delio of AFSCME. “We’ve got to beat John McCain,” he told the Paducah-based Western Kentucky Area Council before the Kentucky primary.
The delegates added an amen with loud applause.

With the economy and Iraq, all McCain has got is “the politics of divide and conquer.” Also look for him to trot out the old Republican red herrings -- “the Three Gs,” meaning God, guns and gays.

Anyway, you’d think convincing a union member to vote for an anti-union candidate like McCain would be mission impossible. Labor leaders like Leo W. Gerard are working hard to make sure it won’t be mission accomplished for McCain.