The NRA Institute for Legislative Action has launched a strong anti-Obama campaign ahead of the DNC in Denver. After a week and a half's worth of watching the Olympics, regular people are starting to think about the Presidential Election. The NRA is poised to frame the election in anti-gun terms and explain Obama to undecideds. The language is strong, pointed, and clearly directs members to vote for Obama's opponent, that what be the free-shooting, gun loving John McCain. More on the flip.

The onslaught is coming. And it’s coming fast. The time is now for the Republican 527’s to define Obama. They know Obama is smart so they have to be smarter. Meaner. Bolder.  And they’ll need some new tricks.  Rove is ready.

I am not "officially" an ecologist, but have worked with ecologists for a large portion of my career as a scientist.  My contibution to the projects was usually the computer models of large ecosystems, but I also worked on the theory behind those models.  Right now I am reviewing a book by Dorion Sagan for Chelsea Green Publishing (the politics and practice of sustainable living) entitled: Notes from the Holocene{A Brief History of the Future}.  I was contacted by them after someone on their staff read my diary Who cares about rain forests?  right here on Daily Kos!  I will not be citing lots of statistics about the demise of the planet and most things on it, but rather I'll try to go to the root problem in the center of the collective consiousness that has led us to where we are.  Come along and see if my presentation can really say something new about this much discussed topic.

Ms. Gpclay here.  I wasn't going to post.  I'm exhausted.  But, here I am . . .  

First, those of of you who responded to my hopeful post of Monday, 4/21 - you were right and I was wrong.  HRC won by 9%.  Not the Obama squeaker I thought might be possible.  

But that's not why I'm posting.  Others may have already posted about these factors (racism, political machines, voting machines), and I apologize if I'm repeating other more timely and eloquent posts, but I was in a rural pocket of the state on Tuesday, and observed some sobering things.

MSNBC, quoting the L.A. Times, is reporting that the Obama Campaign is refusing to pay the "traditional" Philadelphia Street Money PAYOLA for the Primary Election.

It's custom in Philly for Democratic Party insiders to get "Walking Around Money" for thier GOTV efforts.

Folks, it's EXACTLY this type of near-corruption that we MUST stop.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/...

For better or for worse, most people would agree that Barack Obama represents "hope" and Hillary represents "the machine."  It's not that either candidate is objectively superior or inferior (each have their pros and cons based on what your perspective is), but it's pretty clear that each represents a specific way of getting things done in Washington.  

If you believe in hope, then you think knowing how Washington works is bad, and if you believe in the machine, then you think the Clintons' Washington know-how is a distinct advantage.

If you see things through this lens, then it's clear that Obama represents Hope Against The Machine.  Where 'the machine' is 'politics as usual.'

Today was my fourth election, and yet again, I've recieved a cold Kirkwood shoulder. Each time I've voted I've had similar run-ins with older, more conservative, poll officials, today was no different. In fact, by the time I finally pushed my ballot through the scanner I felt as if I had gone through a Customs check.

That's okay with me, after nearly a year protesting the war/bush/torture in one of St. Louis county's most conservative districts (birth place of Jim Talent, yet ironically home to Claire McCaskill), I've grown a thick skin from the insults, thrown food and accusations of treason...

What's the problem I faced? The poll worker didn't want me to vote on a paper ballot--no--he insisted that not only should I vote on the machines, that not doing so was "wasting our time."

This San Francisco Bay Guardian article elaborates on the perception and perhaps reality of the Obama/Clinton endorsement phenomenon.  The article, entitled Who wants change? Local endorsements of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama fall along familiar ideological lines chronicles the San Francisco pol endorsements.

The perception of course is that the machines are supporting Clinton while the grassroots movements are supporting Obama.  This is an oversimplification of course, and how you define "machine" and "grassroots" is often more subjective than objective.

More under the flap.

I'm sorry, but Clinton agrees to a truce to the MLK Wars and less than a day later, big time Hillary supported Charlie Rangel calls Obama's remarks about Clinton's remarks Stupid?  Wow.  Well, say goodbye to Barak Obama -- the Clinton's are full steam ahead and they've got the entire cast of superhero democratic members of the Hall of Justice lined up to shill for them.  Sorry Barak, but you can't beat this machine. (there goes my money...again.)

<just a little more>

In all fairness, Harrthe Dems are up to some great things today, like sticking to their guns on war funding as well as blocking Bush recess appointments. I hope these are signs of good things to come.

Sorry, but I feel little sympathy for her.

Guess what? It's happening again in Columbus. Diebold machines are keeping people from voting!!

About a month ago I had a discussion with a co-worker of mine. She insisted that the media was liberally biased and that she routinely saw this bias and came to that conclusion on her own.

Now this person is not some dittohead bushite. If anything I would describe her as an apolitical type person who thinks both republicans and democrats are not all that great politcs wise. Needless to say I was dumbfounded as to how this otherwise intelligent person could possibly come to the conclusion that the media was liberally biased. So I took a look at some older news coverage to see if I could see what she saw.  And I think I figured it out. More below.