Yesterday I presented a strong case for Obama choosing Optimus Prime as his running mate.  I posted a poll with several options, and while Prime did indeed dominate the poll, he didn't receive the obligatory 51% necessary to win outright.  So tonight we will have a runoff between Prime and our second place candidates, a tie between Homer Simpson and Papa Smurf.

I'll present pros and cons for all three after the fold.

Everyone has been throwing out potential VP picks, so I decided to join in the fun.  In my opinion the most important qualities in a Vice President are leadership, adaptability, and a kick ass laser rifle.  After carefully evaluating myriad candidates I have narrowed the field down to the only one who meets all of the above qualifications: Optimus Prime.

Please follow me through the jump where I will explain just exactly what makes Optimus Prime the best choice for Vice President.

Sure, Dali was probably a deranged misogynist, but he was also brilliant.  His commentary on greed, glutony, and consumerism seems almost prophetic.  

So, I was perusing Virtual Dali and got the idea to put together a "Democratic Primary Retrospective in the Key of Dali."  I want to keep it all together, so it starts below the fold.  I had originally planned on adding commentary, but decided it works better without it.

Warning, image intensive.

I've seen a disturbing trend in the last few years.  "Liberals" no longer want to be called liberals.  Frequently I am corrected and told that the appropriate term is now "progressive."  Their reasoning is that "Liberal" carries negative connotations.  These negative connotations stem from the way the word is used by right-wing nutbags like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly.

It reminds me of a failed movement in the 90s, when some Trekkies decided they wanted to be called "Trekkers."  This may seem like a silly analogy, but their reasoning was the same; "Trekkie" had developed negative associations and stereotypes.  As a Trekkie I was vehemently opposed to this, because I didn't see why we should let people outside of the Star Trek Universe determine how we should feel about ourselves inside of it.

I am similarly opposed to this movement to replace "liberal" with "progressive," but for an even more significant reason; namely, Liberalism and Progressivism are not the same thing!

There are seven stages of grief:

Shock stage: Initial paralysis at hearing the bad news.
Denial stage: Trying to avoid the inevitable.
Anger stage: Frustrated outpouring of bottled-up emotion.
Bargaining stage: Seeking in vain for a way out.
Depression stage: Final realization of the inevitable.
Testing stage: Seeking realistic solutions.
Acceptance stage: Finally finding the way forward.

As the Clinton campaign winds down we can expect her supporters to move through these stages.  Right now they seem to be at the anger stage.  This is problematic, because getting through these stages takes time, and we need them to acceptance before November.

Some Clinton supporters are threatening to vote for McCain in November if Senator Clinton doesn't get the nomination, and Senator Clinton is using this as an argument why the superdelegates should select her as the Democratic nominee.  I understand how these supporters feel, I felt the same way about my candidate a couple of months ago.  After a year volunteering and sinking dollar after dollar that I couldn't afford into Senator Obama's campaign, I felt hurt and angry at the possibility that he may not get the nomination.  I had that "I'll show them!" feeling, and even expressed such feelings, saying that I would vote for McCain or stay home.  But, that feeling didn't last long.

A month or so ago, I stepped back, composed myself, and tried to look at things more objectively.  After a lot of thinking, and talking to friends and supporters of both candidates, I came to the conclusion that no matter what I must vote for the Democratic nominee in November, no matter who that may be.

Why?  The answer is simple: The Supreme Court

As an American, and a Quaker, I believe in one fundamental truth above all others: all people are created equal. It is this same truth that is the foundation of Quakerism: all people are created equal.  For those who may not know a lot about Quakerism, it was founded on egalitarian principles by people who didn't agree with the tradition of women being excluded from leadhsip positions within the church.  In essence, Quakers were the first feminists, and I consider myself a feminist.  But what does that really mean to me?

It means that I believe in universal equality.  But I do not believe in special privilege.  This means equal opportunity, but also equal judgement.  This should not be taken as an argument against affirmative action.  I realize similar language is sometimes used to make dubious arguments against it.  In my eyes, affirmative action isn't special privilege, it is forcing the hand of individuals and institutions that otherwise would not uphold the fundamental principles of equality.

But this isn't about affirmative action.  This is about a White House run and why I don't think voting for Senator Clinton upholds the principles of feminism and equality that I hold dear.  

Wow. This damn primary season has been long.

This has been exhausting.  I just don't have the staminia for this.  Maybe it's because I'm a new voter? (32 and voted first time ever on January 19.)  Voting vets are probably used to it.

Wow.  If I'm this tired, imagine how Barack feels!

I know I'm watching too much political coverage because at least once a day while I am watching MSNBC my satellite box puts up a message that says, "Due to inactivity your receiver is going into stand-bye mode.  Click 'cancel' or select 'no' to cancel." and then I swear.

I wonder if people would have gotten as engaged in this primary if the WGA writers' strike hadn't have happened.

In an attempt to throw a little luck Obama's way, I wore one of my Obama buttons to school today.  It's was the rectangle one with the great picture of him smiling.  While I was getting a snack, the lovely Indian lady that runs the coffee stand asked me if I was voting for Obama.  I said I was, and then we had a little conversation.

Once upon a time I had hoped to run for a national delegate spot at my state convention.  Unfortunately this has proved to not really be possible for me.  Not only am I financially unable to shoulder the expense, but the convention coincides with the start of the fall semester, making it really impossible for me to go.  But this got me thinking about other delegates.

Our nominating conventions seem to be designed to favor the "elites."  Aftrerall, how many people have an extra $2000+ laying around to cover these costs.  I have been thinking it would be a really great thing to put together a fund to help support convention delegates, so that regular people will have a chance to support our candidate.

Despite certain folks claim that Obama supporters are "elite, latte drinkers," the realitity is that we are varied.  I have met many delegates in my state and they are high school students, college students, mill workers, nurses, waitresses, teachers, etc.  These "ordinary" people probably can not afford the expense of going to a national convention, but certainly would like to support their candidate.

Senator Clinton has repeatedly stated that the Clinton/McCain "Gas tax Holiday" will save the average family $70.

Besides the general interest in gas prices among voters, Clinton has been increasingly drawing the line distinguishing her from her opponent along the contours of the gas-tax debate. "If you look at the record profits at the oil companies, they sure can afford to pay the gas tax for you, which will save the average family $70 over the summer," she told the Indiana Tech audience. "So you know there’s a big difference between us. And the question is, who understands what you’re going through? And who can you count on to be on your side to get us to solutions that are going to help you for a change instead of folks who are already doing very well?" she said.

Where could this number possibly come from?

(more after the jump)

As it becomes increasingly clear that Senator Clinton won't catch up to Senator Obama in pledged delegates, states won, or popular vote, it appears she is changing her strategy once again.  Senator Clinton is now focusing on nullifying a large block of votes Senator Obama has received or may receive by proposing two constitutional amemndments.

The first proposal would repeal the Fifteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1870.  The Fifteenth Amemndment guaranteed that the right to vote "shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."  Clinton defended the action by saying that African Americans are "a very strong and very proud electorate, which I totally respect and understand that, but they have not proved that they appreciate the responsibility of voting."

This is very similar to her reasoning for making her second proposal, to repeal the Twenty-sixth Amendment.  The Twenty-sixth Amendment was ratified in 1971 and lowered the voting age to 18.  According to Senator Clinton, "I've seen those Girls Gone Wild ads late at night.  These people should not be deciding who our next president will be."

If you're an independent childless person, like me, and you are considering going back to school, as I have, be prepared to get shafted.  Everyone knows that federal financial aid often does not adequately cover the cost of attendence for even the most inexpensive state schools.  What you may not know, however, is that it is designed in a way that punishes independent childless students.

Curious?  Read on.

This is just opinion.  

I feel very strongly that if the government is going to bail out lenders, then people should be allowed to walk away from their loans without suffering negative credit.  

George Bush just said "some folks probably shouldn't have tried to buy a home in the first place."  A few months ago John McCain said some people in subprime mortages are "doing the right thing" and working "two or three jobs to make the payment."  Both of these attitudes overlook the fact that the subprime mortgage lenders targeted people who could not afford the homes.  

The lenders were looking for a quick profit, and they got it.  Now they are paying for it, and Bush and McCain want to blame the victims.

I hate to say it, but I think Wright is intentionally hurting Barack Obama.  Jeremiah Wright is an intelligent man and surely knows the damage he is doing.  He has recently made statements and done things that he has to know are causing Obama problems.  Yet he remains defiant and continues to dig the whole deeper and deeper for Obama.

What makes me believe these actions are intentional is his body language.  When I have watched him recently, he has not appeared angry or hurt, he seems to be filled with glee.  I have gotten the impression that he is thoroughly enjoying himself.

I have some theories as to why Wright may be sabotaging Obama's candidacy, after the fold.

I haven't been doing Sunday Afternoon Fortune telling because I freaked myself out last time, but I thought it would be fun to run numerology on the candidates.  I did so at this website.

Intrigued?  Read on.

It is starting on CSPAN now.  Does anyone want to talk about it?  It should be interesting.  I'm not sure how Craig Fergusen will do, I'm not realy a fan.  It should be streaming online soon.  The "watch now" link wasn't working when I clicked it a minute ago, though.

Uh... we can also talk about Dirty Jobs, if you like.  Or Deadliest Catch.  Or The Soup.

citizenx has started a new diary here.

Hedwig has started the third diary here.

Edited for wayward apostrophes.

In February I was elected as a delegate to represent Obama at the Nevada state convention.  I was stunned last night when I went to register and discovered that there is a $50 delegate fee?  There was no mention of that during our county convention.  Is this standard practice?

$50 may not sound like much to most people, but it is a lot to me.  At my county convention we elected three high school students to represent Obama.  I'm betting $50 is a heck of a lot to them, too.

The county convention had a registration fee, but it was optional.  The only options when I registered for the state convention were pay now or pay at the door.  Obviously, I opted for pay at the door.  Hopefully I can scrape together $50 before the convention, but it is not going to be easy.  The convention is at the same time that I will be buying books and paying tuition for my summer classes, and I already am struggling to do that.

I did some googling and it looks like most of the conventions don't have a mandatory registration fee.  The only other one that I saw that did was MA, which has a $75 fee with a $25 late fee.  I guess I should be glad I don't live in MA.

Does your state have a mandatory fee for convention delegates?