Over the past few weeks the issues of unity, partisan politics, and media objectivity have been hotly debated.  As I listen to people sharply divided on issues like civil liberties, gun control, and the war it’s gotten me to wondering the reason we’re all in this country together anyway.

Why did we go through the Civil War?  Why didn't Lincoln just propose 'the divided states of America'?  Or a ‘two sides of America’- the South could be the lower east side and the north the upper east side of the nation (visually speaking).  Today we have more intricate titles for these distinctions- we have red and blue states. (Which always always seems to conjure up thoughts of Dr. Seuss.)  And just for the fun of muddling it all, the media has recently introduced the term ‘purple states’.  And now we can’t just chop the country in half; there’s no one region that’s completely red or blue.  Wanna declare the northeast Democratland? ‘Not so fast’ says New Hampshire...

Then there’s the real beauty of it all...

I live in gorgeous, wonderful, deep Blue Hawaii. Obama is ahead by a country mile here, and he's going to win easily. We have no Senate race or Governor's race, and our two Democratic reps in Congress are very safe. In short, Hawaii is not really much of a player in this year's election. But I know how Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and other hardcore blue states can be a factor:

ADOPT A SWING STATE!!

What do I mean by that? Jump with me, won't you?

The Clinton campaign has been relentlessly pressing the issue that Barack Obama has failed to win any of the big states that Democrats must win in the general election. Of course primary results on a state by state basis, especially within Democratic stronghold states, have little bearing on the actual performance in the general election, but let's for a moment assume that the Clinton campaign is correct in their assertion and the wins garnered in the primary translate to wins in the general.

Another argument the Clinton campaign has been making is that all the (30) states that Obama has one are relatively insignificant to the primary process because the vast majority of them will go red in the general. Of course this is largely true, but again it has little bearing on the primary process because the results of the primary do not directly translate to general election performance.

Taking these two arguments together--both of which have been made repeatedly and vociferously by the Clinton Campaign and its surrogates, a quick exercise using the electoral college map of 2004 and the current democratic primary map of 2008 results in a simple question: How does Clinton win the general without WI, MN, and IL?

The Every Child Matters Education Fund has released a report called "Geography Matters: Child Well-Being in the States." It assesses the vulnerability of children in all 50 states according to a dozen metrics.

As the mother of two small children in the Des Moines area, I had a particular interest in Iowa's ranking (seventh overall, mixed bag on the individual metrics).

But when I clicked on the page ranking all states in terms of "overall child vulnerability," one thing jumped out at me: the bottom 20 states all voted for George W. Bush in 2004. Of the top 20 states, only three voted for Bush (including Iowa, which he won by a very slim margin).

Follow me after the jump to learn the specific reasons that blue states are better places for children to be born and grow up.

Cross posted from My Blog.

With his victory in Wyoming last night, Barack Obama has extended his delegate lead over Hillary Clinton to 99 delegates. Including pledged delegates (those won in primaries in caucuses) and announced superdelegates (Democratic Party leadership that can vote as they choose at convention), Obama has 1,527 delegates and Clinton has 1,428.

There are 33 delegates at stake in Mississippi on Tuesday, March 11, and Barack Obama is polling anywhere from 6 to 24 points ahead of Clinton in that state. The next contest isn’t until April 22, when Pennsylvania heads to the polls. Hillary is still polling around 15 points ahead of Obama in the Keystone State, but if we look at trends from other states where she had a double-digit lead more than a month ahead of the contest (places like Virginia, Maryland, Washington State–all of which Obama won handily), it’s fairly clear that Hillary’s lead in Pennsylvania will most likely be diminished.

Cross-posted from my blog.

Forget an Obama aide calling Hillary Clinton a monster.  As Kos reported, according to the Times Online, a Clinton aide has called the 27 states that Obama has won "boutique" and "latte-sipping."

"One Clinton aide yesterday derided Mr Obama’s victories in ’boutique’ caucus states rather than the hardscrabble terrain of the rustbelt, saying: ‘Obama has won the small caucus states with the latte-sipping crowd. They don’t need a president, they need a feeling.’"

It is just another Clinton lie that she has won the states we need to win in the fall. Not only has she not won the majority of blue states, she did not win the cities in the blue states she did win. She won those states by splitting the city/rural vote the same way the Republicans do. If you look at the map, Obama wins cities and progressives, and adds independent mountain and northwest voters. Even if she wins Ohio and Texas, they're red states anyway so they don't further the argument that we need her to win in November. Democrats, Independents, Republicans, the majority in all parts of the country have chosen Obama.

Obama:
WA, HI, MN, WI, IL, ME, CT, MD, DE, VT

Hillary:
CA, MA, NY, RI, NJ,

What a bizarre contention, but one that the pundits are pushing, particularly the right wingers like Joe Scarborough on MSNBC  (and he is one of the moderates among them).  The idea that Hillary is winning, will win, or has won primaries in the states that Democrats must win--you know, states like California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts.

These are not states that Democrats must win.  These are states that the Democrats WILL win.  We won these states with lousy campaigns for candidates like Gore and Kerry.  We could win these states if we nominated Krusty the Clown.  But with a divisive and annoying candidate like Hillary, we could see reliable states like Minnesota and Wisconsin, even Michigan and Pennsylvania, in play for the GOP.  How the hell did Kerry lose Iowa and New Mexico?  Do you really think that all the blue states are in the bag if we nominate Hillary?  Maybe it's not an accident that she is campaigning as if those states have to be won.

or, "Who has won 'the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party'?"

This post begins with a hypothesis:  that Obama's wins have been bigger in red states than in blue states.  It was based on the recollection that Clinton had fared best in the northeast and California, including the Big Blue threesome (CA, MA, NY) while Obama had been sweeping the south and west.  If true, it seemed to challenge the conventional wisdom that one must run left in a Democratic primary to win, and the perception that Clinton is the more centrist candidate.  If true, it might also bring interest to how the coin will fall in the remaining Big Blue states, Vermont and Rhode Island, whose March 4 primaries are otherwise overshadowed by the more delegate-rich contests in Texas and Ohio.  

This is a meditation on relevancy.  I am not from a "big" state, but please don't go calling me "small" either.  

In case anything else needs be said about Sen. Clinton's 13-state strategy, please read on.

  Barack Obama, if nominated as the Democratic Candidate will carry the most states in the general election since Ronald Reagan in 1984 (49 States). He will make historic changes that will fall slightly short of what most Progressives (Is that what you call yourselves?) desire, but will be far more sweeping then they could have attained otherwise. He will do this with great support from both sides of the "aisle."
  The problem is, you may not elect him. He may not be your candidate. And it is because so many of you sit in your little liberal bubbles talking with each other so much that you can't see what you have in front of you.
  Wake up Democrats!!!

My partner and I were raised in very strict and devout Christian homes. I, a Mormon and him, a Church of God (Holiness). We often use biblical metaphors when discussing issues with our friends and customers because we recognize that America is a very religious nation.

As gay men who have been together for a long time, we knew there was no place for us in "The Church", so we have built a life on the edge in a predominantly Republican neighborhood in an upscale area. We are fondly referred to as "The Boys" amongst the neighborhood magpies.

We carpooled to our caucuses with our neighbors. Mary confessed she was a Hillary supporter and she wanted to go to the county convention as a delegate for Hillary. Jane said she wanted to go as a delegate for Obama.

I thought, OMG ...this is going to be interesting.

We arrived a half hour early to the middle school and traffic was jammed.

We parked 10 blocks away from the school and WOW! The place was packed and electric with excitement.

The lines were 6 deep stretching out into the cold night air.

Since I already knew our precinct number, we went straight to the cafeteria.

One of the important lessons of the last 50 years has been the successful ability of a political party to unite the major factions of primary base voters who often compete for conservative, moderate or liberal factions within a political party in selecting a Presidential nominee.

While investigating this hypothesis by reviewing the presidential and vice presidential nominees of both parties in recent times, I became aware that some of the most dramatic victories and defeats have generally come from a party willing to represent and unite those competing "factions" by nominating someone who appeals to a wide swath of competing voters within a party by choosing a strategic V.P. running mate.

To know thine enemy, so to speak, might be of a service or least an intersting read as I speculate, and perhaps too simplisticly, of the success and failures of political parties in uniting, healing and coelescing around a Presidential ticket that could  bring Democratic voters together and attract Independents, Republicans and new or disenfranchised voters  into a November Democratic victory.

There will undoubtedly be much hand-wringing over last night’s New Hampshire primary results.  What happened to Obama’s sizeable lead in the polls?  What happened to snatch Hillary’s campaign back from the jaws of doom?  Where did the Mittster lose his way?  And how do you explain McCain’s resurrection?  One thing is for sure, the MSM, relying too heavily on opinion polls, really, as they say, screwed the pooch.  Chris Matthews, in particular, should be tarred and feathered for his incompetence and vindictiveness.  But it’s only one small state, so what does it matter?

The post-Climate Change political America will look very different, with much of the Red part under water, or too dry for human habitation.

I believe that the change our nation needs is truly coming from the bottom up, not the top down.

This week as I struggle with disappointment, frustration and anger over the Mukesay nomination, and FISA, Feinstein and Schumer, Pelosi, and other leaders who I don't feel are truly trying as hard as they can to get us out of this war... This week as I try to stay engaged, and try to choose a candidate that I really believe will be the best president... this week that was full of hard news for grassroots democrats- People have asked me why they should give money to democrats abroad, or the DNC or anyone in the party, considering the voting record of congress recently. Why should we support the 50 state campaign?

I can tell you why...

I've been a Kossack for years. I don't have the lowest UID in these parts, but I'm no n00b jive sucker, either.

I've talked to a lot of people and I've listened even more. A few people know where I'm from in the world, too, and they know I'm not living in a blue state.

But nobody's ever wished me and my people here dead before.

The country of Belgium is having problems forming a new government, the King of Belgium will be calling ministers of state to try to work things out between the deadlocked parties.    At the core of the dispute are the growing differences between the French and Flemish parties in Belgium.  Ethnic and cultural differences are now aligning with economic ones.  Belgium is already a curiosity; between the European Union and the devolution of power to regional governments the powers of the government at the country level seem to be fading away.  The possibility of Belgium splitting into multiple countries is on the horizon.  If Belgium is considering it, why not the United States?