My thanks go out to all organizers, activists, volunteers and donors who helped Obama achieve a hugely significant 15% margin of victory in the 2008 NC Primary.  Several kossacks from NC had previously claimed that North Carolina would be the ultimate firewall for the Obama campaign.  

You were right!

You said Carolinians (Northern flavor) would come out in droves for Obama and stop dead any momentum that Hillary might still be carrying.  And you did.  When NC efforts are combined with efforts in SC, which was also a crucial early victory for Obama, it would appear that all Obama supporters owe a big debt of gratitude for the regional loyalty to our candidate of choice.

Teacherken's recc'ed diary has me thinking...

This primary dogfight has been an unqualified good from beginning to end.  All Democrat (and some Republican & Indie) votes cast, to date, have been very significant.

And the contests go on... just as meaningful as ever.

I made this comment in teacherken's diary:

Well said (3+ / 0-)

I agree with every point you made, Ken.  I have not wavered from my opinion that Clinton should be allowed to bow out on her own terms.  Meaningful elections, primaries, or caucuses are all good.

by rustydude on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:09:55 AM PDT

However, to date, I have not made up my mind which is better... a battle all the way to the Convention or a candidate bowing out in June.

The conventional wisdom, no pun intended, is that this race must be decided before the Convention or it's going to be ugly and damaging to the Democratic nominee's chances in November.

But I'm asking now... will it be such a bad thing to have this go to the convention?  Is the CW wrong?

Amidst all the gnashing of teeth, tearing of hair, and long goodbyes, I have come to admit that I truly like the current State of DailyKos.  It has been especially funny (ironic funny) to me that so many are now writing GBCW diaries.  Were these people asleep during some of the nastiness of December and January?

Democracy and elections and campaigning and monitoring the campaigns all seems to be a rather messy business.  It's surprising we even have to review this truth considering what happened in Nov/Dec 2000.  I'm not sure what Richard Cranium and all the rest were expecting.  If you want purity and 100% goodness then this site is probably not for you.  As for the boorish noobs, why bother with any of their diaries.

The big headline out of South Africa today is:

Uranium One tanks as Froneman jumps ship
Share price loses 12.8% on resignation

This is news that broke Friday and is being trumpeted on the South African newspapers here today, on Monday morning.

To quickly connect the dots here, a few weeks ago Borat-gate broke in the New York times.  Basically, Clinton buddy Frank Giustra created a shell of a company that purported to be a mining company without any mining technology or equipment.  What Frank had was a buddy, Bill Clinton, who travelled with him to a uranium rich place, i.e. Kazakhstan, to meet with high government officials.  

Upon securing some very lucrative mining rights deals from the Kazakh government, Frank sold his faux-uranium-mining company, UrAsia, to a real mining company called Uranium One for $3.1 billion.

Uranium One is a big player here in South Africa, thus the news is big here.

From today's New York Times article, relating how both Democratic candidates are increasing their populist rhetoric on the campaign trail:

Mrs. Clinton, speaking on the eve of the Wisconsin primary but looking forward to primaries in Ohio and Texas on March 4, issued a 12-page compendium of her economic policies that emphasizes programs aiding families stressed by high oil prices, home foreclosures, costly student loans and soaring health care premiums.

In public appearances here and in her economic booklet, she took aim at hedge fund managers, oil company profits, drug company subsidies and trade agreements that she says encourage companies to export jobs.

Umm... isn't Chelsea on leave as a hedge fund manager?

Is this an "oops, we forgot about Chelsea's choice of careers" or an "ahh fuck it, let's say it anyway" moment?

Update: From the comments I gather that Chelsea is a Hedge-Fund-Manager-Wannabe, not an actual Hedge Fund Manager.

who is lovin' this?

I love the tit for tat fundraising.

I love the delegate analyses coming from both camps.

I love the super-delegate and MI/FL analyses.

I love the spin.

I love the passion coming from both camps.

I love that Hillary is going "all in".  (People might have forgot that when Hillary announced her candidacy she said those exact words... "I'm all in".)

I love the horserace!

Barack Obama's Dreams From My Father, copyright 1995, has sealed the deal on my Feb. 9th Caucus vote.  I was leaning toward Obama before (I originally supported the Draft Gore movement), but now I'm firmly behind Obama and will get involved in his campaign.

I believe that if every undecided Democrat read this book, Obama would cruise to victory in the primaries and probably general election, too.

The first thing that stands out is that he wrote this book in 1995, before he even ran for a single political race.  I hate political books written by politicians running for office.  I avoid them like the plague.  "Audacity of Hope"?  Bleaghh!  I simply refuse to read any 200, 300, or 400 page book that ammounts to begging for my vote.  That's why Dreams From My Father appealed to me.  Because it's a chance to gain political insight on a candidate before he became a political figure.

I've always been fascinated that through the years, no 2nd place Democrat nor Republican challenger has ever tried to get a mid-primary season boost by selecting a VP running mate far in advance of the nominating convention.  The potential advantages are obvious, i.e. if the challenger picks a popular VP then he/she gets a voter boost from that selection and he/she gets an extra partner in campaigning as they criss cross the country.

The disadvantages are a little bit more nebulous...

1. Does the move smack of desperation?

2. Does the move smack of unfair competition relative to the leader?

3. Does the move make the challenger look weak?

One problem with answering "yes" on these disadvantages is that we have no data from which to judge this gambit.  It's never happened.

What if Obama tried it?

Open Letter to Al Gore:

Dear Al,

You need to pick up this call.  You have been perhaps the greatest victim of voter disenfranchisement.  A man ready to be President.  The highest office in the World at your fingertips ripped away by people who did not wish to count all the votes and did everything in their power to discourage some Florida voters from voting.

You know it, I know it, we all know it.  You were screwed in 2000, first by local state political hacks in Florida headed up by Jeb Bush, and then by hacks appointed to the US Supreme Court.

We've watched Barack Obama go from Illinois Legislator to Democratic Convention Keynote Speaker to US Senator to viable challenger for President in 2008.  For anyone who watched it, the importance of Senator Obama's Keynote address at the 2004 Democratic Convention is difficult to overstate.

Ask yourself this: Would Obama even be running for President this election cycle had he not delivered that address?

In this diary I want to give some of the highlights of Keynote addresses over the years and demonstrate that this important speech is not the stepping stone to the Presidency that some might believe.

First the list...

In reading Kid Oakland's excellent Reality Break seriesI have connected his thoughtful analysis with something that I keep hearing more and more of amongst my acquaintances.  It's almost a musical refrain...

Bush - boomba - Clinton - boomba - Bush - boomba - Clinton - boomba

It's like bongo drums of destiny are haunting our national political scene.

Kid makes a million great points in his diaries so I guess I'm simply adding one more which is actually a synthesis of several of his points.

[For purposes of disclosure, Al Gore was my favored candidate.  But alas, he chose not to run.  I continue to hold Al in high esteem, but I write this diary to show respect for the Democrats who did have the will to run for President, which Al seemed to lack this time around. --rd]

Barack Obama deserves much praise and congratulations, to be sure, for a historic victory.  But as I watched the results and watched the speeches and read the analysis on various blogs, it occurred to me that this is a victory for every Democratic candidate for President.

The huge turnout was not only due to Obama.  

The huge number of young voters was not only due to Obama.  

The huge numbers of Independents voting in the Iowa Dem Caucus was not only due to Obama.  

Instead, all our Democratic candidates were responsible for this great rising tide where all progressive boats are rising.

This is a Progressive Victory!  What else could you possibly call something where voters in Iowa participated 2 to 1 in an open field Democratic Caucus vs. an open field Republican Caucus.

No... this isn't "BREAKING".  You didn't see that in the title, did you?  And no... I don't have any inside source that is aware of any secret pow-wow between the Clintons and Gore.

The meeting between the Clinton camp and Gore, going on either now or within the next 2 weeks, is simply obvious to me.  

Bill and Hill are two of the most politically oriented people on the planet.  When Hillary announced her "exploratory committee" 1 year ago, she fully expected to be challenged by the likes of Edwards, Obama, Richardson, or even Clark.  She was ready for the challenge.  And in hindsight, she was very well prepared.  The results speak for themselves.  She has shown that she'll be the front-runner heading into Iowa and New Hampshire and has a very good shot at a nice and tidy little primary run ahead of the convention.

All of this political calculation and maneuvering gets hi-jacked by one simple event... the entrance of Al Gore into the race.

So... do you really think Hillary and Bill are going to let this wildcard event ruin their victory parade without at least some effort at preventing it from happening in the first place?

I had the pleasure to attend a presentation by Charlie Savage, the Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and reporter for the Boston Globe who broke the Presidential Signing Statements story.  He was here in Seattle at his second stop to promote his newly published book Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy.

I have not read the book yet, but I now have it on order and look forward to reading Charlie's analysis to supplement my earlier reading of many of his articles from the Boston Globe as well as recent blogging at TPM Cafe.

This diary is more or less a report on his presentation and the Q&A afterwards.

By now, the word's been around that Mitt Romney's 5 sons are all of age to serve nobly in combat serving in the American military but all seem to have other priorities than to fight in a War that their father backs 100%.

However, despite all of the criticism from the left and some quarters of the right for the apparent hypocrisy of Tagg, Matt, Josh, Ben and Craig, it would seem they're only being consistent.  They simply don't seem to enjoy any kind of service unless it's hamming it up for dear old Dad on the campaign trail.

Here are the dots I'm connecting...

As the years roll by, a U.S. demographic bulge is slipping into oblivion with nary a President to show for it.  This generation is sometimes referred to as the Korean War generation, those who were young adults at the time of the Korean War conflict.  Those born between 1928 and 1945.  The U.S. has had many Presidents from the previous World War II generation (1910  to 1927), including: Reagan, Nixon, Ford, Kennedy, Carter and Bush I.

More recently, our last two Presidents, Clinton and Bush II, are both of the Baby Boom generation.

Yup, the entire generation (18 years) in between, has lost out on the Presidential sweepstakes.  And for better or worse, 2008 might be the Lost Generation's final chance at securing the top spot for one of their own.

After reading Al Gore's The Assault on Reason and reading various reviews on this book, I realize that a significant element of the book has not been examined by those who have reviewed the book.

Specifically, if Al Gore runs for President and wins, his hands will be tied.  This book is testament that he will roll back Executive power.  There's no wriggle room.  No half measures, i.e. keep some of the new powers  and ditch some of the new powers.

Al Gore has painted himself into a corner on Executive power.  

And that's a good thing.

Well, it's not really hate.  It's more like confusion.

1. Republicans, please define "Witch hunt".  You have a Republican administration appointing a Republican special prosectuor to investigate a possible violation of law which even the Republican President admitted that he wanted to get to the bottom of.  Is this a witch hunt led by witches or is this a non-witch hunt led by non-witches?  Where is the opposition in all of this which would lead one to use the witch hunt analogy?

2. Republicans, related to the above confusion point, wasn't the time to pardon at the very beginning?  Couldn't the Decider (Cheney) have looked at the situation, deemed no crime was committed, and declared this to the public?  Why are you complaining about the millions wasted on this investigation when it was your guys that initiated it all?