If anyone asks you why it is important to elect Obama, here is a good reason. Glenn Greenwald talks about today's Supreme Court decision to declare Section 7 of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 unconstitutional. Section 7 effectively abolished the right of Habeas Corpus, giving the government the right to throw you in prison with no charges. If you don't know why this is important, read his column:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/12/boumediene/index.html

But the Update at the end is especially important. The Supreme Court decision was only 5 to 4. Of the five justices in the majority, three are expected to retire within the next 4 years. John McCain has promised to appoint more justices like Roberts and Alito (who were in the minority who voted against habeus corpus), while Obama has promised to appoint more justices like Breyer, Souter, and Ginsbert (all of whom were in the majority).

So the next time a former Clinton supporter says they want Obama to lose so that Clinton can win in 2012, remind them of the potential cost of even four years of McCain. 

This video, of Obama speaking to his HQ staff and volunteers a few days ago, embodies what I love about him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnhmByYxEIo

Everyone should watch it.

The true sign of having achieved equality is when you can lose magnanimously and graciously. For when you blame your gender, or race, or whatever for a failure, you are proclaiming that you don't consider yourself equal.

-------------

Friday night I attended the graduation ceremony of Thomas Edison High school. They are a high school for students with LD (which used to be an acronym for Learning Disabled, but now is more properly Learning Differently). What was amazing was the candor displayed as these students told their stories. Many had been told by teachers and councilors in regular schools to give up, that they would never graduate from high school. And yet, here they stood, graduating, and most of them on their way to university. That was a great success, but they also talked about their failures, and I was struck by the fact that these young people never blamed others, never whined or acted like victims. Beyond graduating, they were in command of their futures, and were personally, quietly responsible for their own successes and their own failures. And in that, they were not only equal to students at any "normal" high school, they were far more mature than many I have seen. I was impressed and humbled.

I wish I could be half as eloquent as this guy in support of Obama:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kica8hmSdAM

Yesterday was an exciting day. I got to see David Wu (my congressperson), Barack and Michelle Obama give speeches in the same day. Something that both David and Barack touched on got me thinking, and I wanted to share that.

Many of the superdelegates in Oregon have been waiting until after the primary (this Tuesday!) before they endorse anyone, but Wu decided on Obama a while ago, pretty much before anyone thought Obama had a chance. It would have been much easier for him just to wait. He talked about the reason he decided on Obama. It wasn't about who had the best chance of winning, or whether endorsing someone would be good or bad for Wu's political career. He endorsed because he was convinced that Obama was the best person for the job.

The reason this was interesting to me is that lots of people are talking about who Obama should pick for his VP, and much of the discussion is about who would help Obama win the general election -- who would bring in the such-and-such vote, or should he pick a woman VP, or should he pick a more mainstream white guy, etc. I have been thinking the same way. But hardly anyone is talking about who would be the right person for the job. It is so easy to think only about the election and winning, but the whole point of picking someone is not about winning, but (as Obama would say) about governing. The important thing is what happens after the election. Who would be the best person for the job. 

Today during a speech in front of the National Rifle Association, Republican Mike Huckabee heard a loud noise offstage and quipped "That was Barack Obama. He just tripped off a chair. He's getting ready to speak and somebody aimed a gun at him and he — he dove for the floor."

Even the NRA crowd didn't think the joke was funny.

An excellent article about how the real loser in the current election is the American people who have been betrayed by a cynical press and party strategists masquerading as journalists (like Karl Rove on FOX News).

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,553068,00.html

Of course, articles like this don't appear in the US media.

http://www.responsibleplan.com/plan

Read it. Endorsed by a host of congressional candidates, including both Steve Novick and Jeff Merkley here in Oregon.

The real political race today is MS-01, a special congressional election in a district that is heavily Republican and has been occupied by a Republican congressman for years. But the Democrat, Travis Childers, has a good chance of winning.  If he does, this will be the third election in a row where a Democratic candidate won an upset in a heavily Republican district.

Both parties have been pouring money into this contest. The Repubicans even sent Dick Cheney down to campaign, but it is unclear if this will help or hurt. The Republican strategy has been to paint Childers as a "liberal" and associate him with Obama. The same strategy backfired in Louisiana (LA-06).

If the Republicans lose 3 in a row, that is a very bad sign for them in the upcoming presidential, congressional, and senate elections. 

I've just started a blog, called Political Irony, as a place for the more twisted side of Politics.

http://politicalirony.com/

I've wanted a place for both humorous and just plain hypocritical stories taken from current political events. If you see something I should post, please send it to me (iron@politicalirony.com).

If you need a good partisan laugh, read this article:

http://nitpicker.blogspot.com/2008/05/right-wing-magazines-attack-cindy.html?view=print

Be sure to read it to the end. I totally fell for it!

There are a large number of news organizations that are tracking the endorsements of Superdelegates, and (not surprisingly) each organization has a different count of which superdelegate supports which candidate. This is not surprising, since superdelegates are free to change their minds at any time up until they vote at the convention. Some organizations will assume a superdelegate is for a particular candidate if they are reported to have said consistently nice things about that candidate, even if they have never definitively said they are endorsing that candidate. Others will wait until they have a confirmed source of a definitive endorsement, even if that candidate is obviously for a particular candidate. It is like preference polling, and as in any imperfect science, the results vary.

But today we passed a milestone, in that at least one of these organizations --  ABC's Political Unit -- is reporting that by their criteria, Obama now has more superdelegates than Clinton. But almost every news organization is reporting that Obama is within 10 superdelegates of Clinton.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/05/obama-now-takes.html

This is amazing because Clinton once held a commanding lead of almost 100 superdelegates, but this lead has continuously been whittled down by Obama since Super Tuesday, even when he was having his roughest days. In fact, some of the superdelegates have even said that they decided to endorse because of Reverend Wright (and how Obama was able to deal with it).

Come on people, play nice. I'm reading some of the blogs and Obama supporters are saying the nastiest things about Clinton. And at a campaign stop in WV, people are booing Clinton. Heck, they are even booing Chelsea.

Is this how we are going to unite the Democratic Party? Is this how we are going to show people that we are the campaign of HOPE?

I know Obama is not doing these things, but he will be judged by the actions of his supporters.  

How easily we fall back into the old politics. Aren't we mature enough to be gracious winners?

Besides,we need to save it for the real fight, which is yet to come.

I know the MSM likes to make fun of Obama supporters because we LOVE math. I guess that's what happens when you are a reality-based campaign. But, as with the Pennsylvania primary, the numbers that are being reported by the media are a little off because they don't seem to know how to round correctly.

If you start with the raw numbers of votes you get the following in Indiana: Obama has 49.44% of the vote, Clinton has 50.56% of the vote. If you -- like the media -- round these first and then subtract (which is wrong) it looks like Clinton has a 2% lead. But if you subtract first (which is correct) then you see that Clinton has a 1.11% lead, which rounds to 1%. So correctly, Clinton won by 1% of the vote in Indiana.

Hardly a lead at all.

As for North Carolina, the same thing happens. Obama has 57.3% of the vote, and Clinton has 42.7% of the vote. If you round then subtract (wrong) it looks like Obama leads by 14%. But if you subtract and then round (correct) then Obama leads by 15%.

And if you haven't had enough numbers yet, consider also that Clinton just had to loan her campaign $6.4 million, on top of the $5 million she lent them a few months ago, plus the money she owes other people (last time she released a number for this, it was just under $10 million, half of which was owed to Mark Penn). If you assume she owes over $20 million (and it could be much higher) no wonder she started out her "victory" speech last night by begging for money.

Talk about deficit spending. 

I notice that the MSM are all talking about how the vote in Indiana and North Carolina was racially lopsided, but they are not mentioning a larger issue: McCain supporters voting for Clinton (or if they do mention it, they try to dismiss it).

How significant was this? Without McCain supporters, Clinton would have LOST the popular vote in Indiana. How can she claim a win in Indiana, or that she is more "electable" when her win depended on the votes of people who have absolutely no intention of voting for her in the general election?

I will freely admit that once upon a time I admired John McCain. But something happened to him during the 2000 election. It is almost like he was replaced by a Stepford wife. The maverick straight-talker was destroyed and became the sycophant for Bush, Falwell, Robertson, Hagee, and even Karl Rove (the man who destroyed him).

Arianna Huffington's article "What John McCain Tole Me, and What it Says About How Far He's Fallen" is a good summary of what happened to McCain and how, as she says "The John McCain the media fell in love with in 2000 isn't on the ballot in 2008."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/what-john-mccain-told-me_b_100183.html

Beautiful editorial in the NY Times:

"Much nonsense has been written about how Hillary Clinton is 'toughening up' Barack Obama so he’ll be tough enough to withstand Republican attacks. Sorry, we don’t need a president who is tough enough to withstand the lies of his opponents. We need a president who is tough enough to tell the truth to the American people. Any one of the candidates can answer the Red Phone at 3 a.m. in the White House bedroom. I’m voting for the one who can talk straight to the American people on national TV — at 8 p.m. — from the White House East Room."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/04/opinion/04friedman.html

Consider this Q&A:

Q: ... do you see it as a mistake for the Senate to proceed with a bill that would suspend the gas tax?

A: ... the problem I have with it, apart from what it might do to the Highway Trust Fund and the spending obligations that have already been incurred by the acts of Congress, the budgets, is that I'm not sure that the savings would be passed along to the consumers ...

Sounds like the person making the answers is opposed to suspending the gas tax for a number of reasons, including doubts that the consumers would see any savings. Is this person Barack Obama? No, it is President Bill Clinton, answering a question at a news conference in March 2000.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E07E0D7143CF933A05750C0A9669C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

In his appearance on "Meet the Press" Obama is asked about his vote for a gas tax holiday when he was a state senator in Illinois. Obama says that he did vote for it, but when they went back 6 months later and looked at the results, they found that the price of gas went up to compensate and that consumers received no benefit at all.  Tim asks "So you learned from a wrong vote" and Obama replies "I learned from a mistake" (emphasis his).

What I wish he had added is that Clinton is running on her experience, but what good is experience if you can't learn from it? Hillary's claims of experience include her time as First Lady, and her largest project there was her failed attempt to pass legislation for universal health insurance. If she didn't learn from what she did wrong then, is there any chance we will actually get universal health insurance under a new Clinton administration?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/24452556#24452556