So, I'm reading this over at the Huffington Post. It's about The Denver Group and their hopes to force the democratic party to re-open the nominating process at the convention. They are gunning for delegates to change their minds and vote for Hillary.

With my 8 year old at home for the summer and a dog with some serious cancer, I have to admit to having missed this whole PUMA movement. I had heard the term, but I didn't really know what it was about. So, I'm coming up for a bit of air and I read this article. My concern isn't about these fringe groups, per se. I think they're a little off their rockers. What I'm wondering is why Hillary Clinton isn't speaking out against these "movements".

Okay, I'm very disappointed about this FISA business. Today's post from Senator Obama doesn't change that. I am very impressed with his willingness to allow these expressions of dissent on his own website. (This is cross-posted there.) This acceptance of disagreement and the importance of listening to disagreement and engaging it represents the leadership style I want to see in the White House.

This brings up a question of priorities. What's more important: leadership style or the protection of the constitution? I suppose I wouldn't care what style he embodied if I felt that our constitutional rights were being soundly protected. So, if there were no other considerations, I might opt to withdraw my support based on this.

How many Presidential candidates even get asked this question: "what is the meaning of life to you?" How many would give it more than a dismissive response? And, how many could actually say something meaningful?

For decades, I have been hungering for inspirational leadership within out political ranks. Today Obama demonstrated, yet again, why he fits that bill.

At a political gathering, an attendee asked Obama, "what does life mean to you?"

I usually love "The Daily Show", but I was taken aback last night by a long segment about the accommodations at Guantanamo. Did I miss the satirical point? Or was this in really poor taste?

I have a great appreciation for the skilled use of humor to make a political point. But I didn't see what they were getting at when they made fun of the man who is trying, in some small way, to get U.S. citizens to connect to what the inmates at Guatanamo face every day. It's one thing if you think his efforts are meaningless or hapless. It could be argued that people aren't really going to get much just from seeing the little cubicle he carts around, but it would be simply mean to be interviewing this man in order to ridicule his work. So, there must have been a bigger message, right? Let's see....

In the post-primary debate about what Obama needs to do to win over Clinton supporters, I keep seeing women writing about their willingness to vote for McCain or not vote at all because of their anger at Obama.

It doesn't matter that all their claims of sexism are based on the words and actions of others, not Senator Obama or anyone officially associated with him. For some reason, he is supposed to apologize to all the offended women for what others have done. It also doesn't seem to matter that Clinton was quite comfortable accepting the votes of racists and stating that the fact of some entrenched racism is one reason she's more electable. It doesn't matter that she fanned the flames of the racist use of Reverend Wright by further trying to associate Obama with Farrakhan.

But worst of all, it doesn't seem to matter that John McCain has publicly stated that he would like to overturn Roe v. Wade. How can any feminist use any excuse for helping put this man into office? Imagine the scenario below:

I'm prompted by a recent diary about the boy who sold his bike in order to give a donation to Hillary Clinton's campaign.

The diarist was making a last slash at Hillary before moving onto a unity mindset. A lot of people reacted to that. But what bothers me isn't Hillary. It's the national attitude about using a child for political purposes. She's not the first, nor will she be the last politician to try and capitalize on the story of an eager child. For me, the question is: "how should we respond to that?"

I have a daughter and I have my own feelings and thoughts on the subject, which I will disclose. That said, I'm open to hearing how other people see this and ideas for what the appropriate public response to the use of children is. If you'd like to have that conversation, follow me below the fold....

I was disappointed, but I can't say surprised, at Hillary Cinton's speech last night. Frankly, I didn't even see the point to it. It wasn't a victory speech. It wasn't a concession speech. So, what was it? A power play.

She once again claimed to be the superior candidate. She defied all the party leaders by not conceding. She didn't even acknowledge that Obama had crossed the delegate threshold for securing the nomination. Instead, she asked her supporters to write to her about what to do next and stated that she stands for the votes of 18 million people and she would make sure their voices were represented.

In other words, "I'm taking my 18 million votes and not letting them go until you give me what I want."

But here's what one of her more influential voters has to say about that

Instead she left her supporters empty, Obama's angry and party leaders trashing her. She said she was stepping back to think about her options. She is waiting to figure out how she would "use" her 18 million voters.

But not my vote. I will enthusiastically support Barack Obama's campaign. Because I am not a bargaining chip. I am a Democrat.

(The following is a passage from a novel that's been in my head for a while. I am numbering them for the sake of reference, but they will appear in no particular order. For info on the birth of this novel read here.)

Dirty Work

Everything is a big question now. Did Tommy Meese leave the country to disappear? Or was he disappeared? Rachel can't bring herself to voice the creeping thoughts in her head, but I can hear them. They are like the bittersweet in your garden. The roots never give up and they network under the soil. You pluck one out, but more keep emerging. That weed will spread from her mind to others. They'll all be asking themselves. After all, Rachel's only connection to that man is the compost that I delivered to her garden. It's only natural for them all to be wondering if I did something to him. I can sense the complex confusion of emotions. That's my curse. I sense these things.

(The following is a passage from a novel that's been in my head for a while. I am numbering them for the sake of reference, but they will appear in no particular order. For info on the birth of this novel read here.)

Gorilla Warfare

When she explained whose ring it was, it brought back so many memories and evoked painful political struggles. No one was sure what to make of it. What was his ring doing in this woman's garden? When she found it, she saw that it seemed unique and was sure it must be valuable to somebody. It was simply a sense of compassion that compelled her to find out who it belonged to. She had imagined a joyful reunion full of "saudadé", those melancholy feelings that come with warm remembrances of the past. That sense of gratefulness to have such experiences along with the grief that they are past. She certainly hadn't expected this. When two different jewelers explained to her how valuable it was, she knew she couldn't sell it or give it away without notice. Her conscience kept her from burying it back into the ground. She felt obligated to bring it to the authorities. It didn't take long for them to trace it's ownership.

Prompted by a comment exchange with jwestfield (story here and our comments here), I have decided to post passages of a murder mystery novel that is in my head. Today, I'll explain the origins of the novel. Then I'll start posting random passages. My hope is that by finally pouring some of this out of my brain and into the light of day, I might actually produce all the pieces parts for a whole story. (And, perhaps, I'll get a little feedback along the way.)

So, here's the birthing story:

Update: I'm going to figure out a system for editing the writing. If you have ideas about how to do this while preserving the process, I'd appreciate the input. Thanks!

Are all these insinuations that Barack Obama is Muslim, communist, socialist, or terrorist really just ways of saying they won't vote for a black man? Sometimes blatantly and other times self-deceitfully?

What if Obama asked that question every time he was presented with these ignorant and malicious inquiries?

Here's how my idealist self imagines that conversation:

Since we know what the pledged delegate outcome will be (pretty much, anyway) and the campaign has hit the point of being destructive. (Exit polling says that 60% of Clinton voters who won't vote for Obama has grown significantly since Ohio and vice versa for 40% of Obama voters) then why are the super-delegates holding out? Why not close ranks?

The ABC debate moderators made it unclear if Clinton is really a candidate. And if so, is she running for the title "Her Imperial Highness"?

I'm an Obama supporter and, still, I saw the lopsided nature of tonight's debate. Certainly, it was mostly about attacks being aimed at Obama, but for the first hour of the debate it was as if Clinton were not even a candidate. She was an extra given a few supporting lines as a member of the rabble. All the pundits will be talking about whether or not he handled it well. Not much to say about Clinton. Except her continuing surrogacy of the Republican campaign.

When they did finally let her take some questions, I was shocked by her response to the one about defending Israel from Iraq.

SENATOR CLINTON: Well, in fact, George, I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States, but I would do the same with other countries in the region.

Whoa!

I was listening to "Here and Now" on WBUR earlier. They were doing some early analysis of today's hearings on Iraq. A quote from Ambassador Crocker jumped out at me. Robin Young reported that he said, "Al Qaeda chose to fight us in Iraq...." He went on to claim that since they are losing it has been very demoralizing for Al Qaeda and that this is why the Pre-Emptive Invasion of Iraq has made the United States safer.

I'm looking for transcripts and will listen to the "Here and Now" program again this evening. But this quote made me wonder...

The question seems to come up a lot: why is Hillary Clinton still in a race that she can't win without a power-broker tactic?

I suppose it's easy to sit on the outside and pretend to be more objective and claim some kind of pathology behind her insistence to stay in the race. I hear things such as, "She has to stay in, this is the only reason she's put up with Bill this long." Or, "She's so angry that everyone doesn't recognize that it's her turn that she's more willing to tear us apart than walk away." But are there more pragmatic reasons? What pragmatic reasons might there be? I thought I'd venture a few guesses as a way of processing some of the data out there. (I don't profess to have any idea if any of my thoughts represent actuality.)

[disclosure: I'm an Obama supporter and I'm trying to think of positive reasons Hillary might stay in because generally people are doing what they think is best, but I'm pondering one that disturbs me a bit.]

my letter to Keith Olbermann didn't seem to be going through. So, I'll thank him here for comments this evening. (I could also address this to Camille Paglia, with whom I often have substantive disagreement with.)

Mr. Olbermann,

I'm sure you are getting thousands of emails, still I wanted to thank you for your comments this evening. It seemed that they were personally painful for you to make. Which reflected how I've felt about the utter failure of Hillary Clinton to demonstrate what good might come if women were to obtain a more equal share in the halls of power.

Senator Clinton is constantly touting experience as a litmus test for whom you should vote. Putting aside her manufactured experience, and how using that litmus test would work against her in a face-off with McCain, I've been wondering how important "experience" is. Luckily someone else compiled the info for me to ponder.

Let's face it, very few people have occupied the White House. Very few have been a Head of State period. You only get two terms here, so quite often we have to elect someone who hasn't had to handle national crises. If being First Lady gives you the requisite experience, doesn't that argue for hereditary monarchy? I think history has already proven that being in close proximity, even being groomed, doesn't make you qualified.

But have we found the kind of experience Senator Clinton is touting to be such a key factor throughout out history? And, has this experience necessarily proven out to produce the best Presidents?

You decide:

I see a lot of references to how rabid Obama supporters are traitorous for saying that they won't vote for Clinton in the general election. Certainly, if you come to a site like this which has such a pro-Obama population, you will see a higher rate of those declarations than in the average demographic.

But is the accusation that Obama supporters, those cultists who have been duped by a fancy speech coming out of an empty suit, are more likely to turn coat in the general election?

Well,