Throughout this campaign, Clinton has set up, or tried to set up, Obama time and again only to do a turnabout and make making nice a pretext for spitting in his face.  For example, she talked at one debate about honored she was to be running against him and the next day if I remember right, pulls the "Shame on you.  Shame on you, Barack Obama." with a bogus attack on some of his mailing that were accurate and had been in use for some time.

Go read the email Clinton sent out announcing her Saturday event.  Is there anywhere in there where she says explicitly that she concedes?  No.

She's still playing games and is setting herself up to pull the football away again.  She's either got something planned or is putting this promise to hold the football in the bank in case she needs it.  I wouldn't trust her as far as I could kick her.

I need to get this out of my system.

Pretty much all you hear about what would happen if Hillary somehow wrests the nomination from Obama is what would happen to the black vote.  Yes, it is almost certainly true that this would dispirit and reduce turnout of black voters for the general election.  But there are other, in some cases overlapping, groups that would be similarly affected: new voters, young voters, cross-over voters, independent voters and the 60's generation voters.  That's a lot of people.

More ...

Short diary but you have to watch and disseminate this video.

For backgroud from TPM:

... video of a 2004 appearance by Barack Obama on the Charlie Rose show in which he talks about the same issue of rural and working class Americans and the Democratic party. It's from November 23rd, 2004, so just after Obama was first elected to the senate but a couple months before he was sworn in.

It's interesting to watch since it's in a very non-campaign setting and almost four years ago. He makes exactly the same point, but explains it differently. Some of it is likely equally demagoguable, but shows up some of the tendentious misconstruals of what he said. I clipped out the three minutes or so of the hour segment where he addresses this issue ...

(If someone could imbed the video below, I'd be grateful)

A quiet Easter weekend, but the Sunday pundits will still be there trying to be insightful, although few are.  What will be the topic of conversation this week?  The Wright business is already old news, expecially now that Obama dealt with it so deftly and the polls show the people are satisfied with his response.  And even Fox's own people are sick of it (who'd a thunk it).  Rezko has been put to sleep.  Plagarism is completely out of the collective consciousness.

The passport story seems flat now that all the main candidates have been violated, although if there's really some there there, it could be hot again.

Will they switch to a McCain love-in or hate-in? I doubt it - too boring.

A bit more ...

Ok, a very short diary, but I can't find any information beyond published reports that the photo in which Obama is shown in native Kenyan dress was first published by Drudge who claimed to have received it from Clinton staffers.

Q:  Why do I want to know?

A:  Because this happened on February 25th, just a few days after the February 21st peak at Obama's passport file.

Connections are being made between the leaks and primary elections beforehand.  If any information was used, it's likely to have been used after, rather than before, the information was acquired.

Anyone who has watched your show knows you are gutsy.  Well, here's a challenge for you:  Put Tim Russert on your "Worst Persons" list.

Many of your Worst Persons are those who mislead by cherry picking facts, especially those in the media.  This morning on Meet the Press Tim Russert pulled a doozey.

In discussion with David Broder, David Gregory and Michelle Norris, he referred to the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times' 90 min interviews with Barack Obama this past Friday and then quoted this from the Tribune:

More below ...

A common theme regarding Hillary Clinton is that it's all about her.  She will do anything to be elected no matter what or who it hurts, including the Democratic party. In short, when it comes to Hillary, we're not talking about the greater good, only about Hillary.

Her self-centered attitude is reflected in different ways; for example, when asked about Tim Russert's question to Obama about Farrakhan at a news conference, she talked about how she's been given a hard time by the press.   To me, Obama is strikingly much the opposite - he doesn't turn everything into something about him. In an attempt to test this hypothesis that Clinton is more self-centered than is Obama, I've collected some objective, quantifiable data.

More below ....

Barack Obama's foreign policy advisor, Samantha Power, called Hillary Clinton a "monster" in comments she thought would be off the record during interview with The Scotsman.  Although not welcome by the Obama campaign, Ms. Power was expressing what many feel in light of Clinton's vicious, venomous attacks in recent weeks.  

"Vicious"? "Venomous"? Sounds more like an animal than a fellow Democrat.  Continue below to learn what kind of animal fits the Bill ...

On Monday, in response to the kitchen sink, dirty politics of Hillary Clinton, John Aravosis threatened to expose Hillary's dirty laundry that has been kept hush-hush despite all of Washington, D.C. knowing about it. Aravosis hasn't wanted to do this:

... because I'm, surprisingly, still pulling punches with regards to what I write about Hillary.  I don't want to damage Hillary should she become our nominee...

More ...

Or tried to when asked on 60 minutes if she thought Obama is a muslim.  First she said she'd take him at his word.  Then she tried, I think, to leave a bit of doubt.  I'd like to see that part again, but it surely seemed to me that the correspondent had to pull it out of her that she thought it was ridiculous.  Anybody else get that impression?

What a shame.  Or should that be "How shameful!"

As reported here:

State Department Inspector General Howard Krongard, under scrutiny for his brother's link to the Blackwater security firm, has decided to resign, U.S. officials said on Friday.

Krongard, the State Department's top investigator, has been accused by current and former subordinates of thwarting probes into waste, fraud and abuse in Iraq, including alleged arms smuggling by Blackwater.

"We thank him for his dedication to public service and wish him well in the future," State Department spokesman Gonzo Gallegos said.

Gonzo?  This is getting confusing.  But then 3-ring circuses are confusing ... and fun too!

Barak Obama's best moment last night in the Democratic debate was when he talked about the Republicans using fear - the politics of fear - to motivate voters.  As shown below, he said:

Does a day ever go by when this administration or its associates do not screw up?  This is a short diary, but I just can't hold it back.

In short, the architectural firm hired to design the new embassy in Baghdad let slip some plans showing the layout as described here.

More below ...

Just a quickie to bring the article in today's Philadelphia Inquirer about Democrats making inroads in Chester County to attention.

Much of this county is part of PA-06, one of the most contested congressional districts and one on the list (again) as a possible Democratic pick-up.  Jim Gerlach (R) currently holds the seat.

More ...

On April 16, as part of a discussion about who could run against Jim Gerlach, Adam B referred to

... a woman considering this race who would be quite intriguing.

and went on to say it was

Someone who's familiar with the inner workings of the West Wing.

Now the cat - and Adam B's joke - is out of the bag ....

Here's your chance to be a Senior Major Gifts Officer who is

responsible for identifying, cultivating, soliciting and stewarding major gift prospects and donors.

It's also your chance to go undercover.  See why by reading the complete ad below ....

Bush's response to the Congressional investigations into the US Attorney's firings has Karl Rove written all over it.  They are using the same strategy  they have always used and are doing so because it has been effective.  And it's been effective because the Democrats fall for it every time and never call them on it.  It's simple:
         
             ACCUSE THE OPPONENT OF WHAT YOU ARE GULITY OF

In this case, it's being partisan.  Why were the USAs fired?  Because they refused to carry out the Republican partisan agenda.  They did not go after Democrats and/or went after Republicans.  At bottom, the scandal is based on political partisanship.  Bush's administration is guilty of being partisan in what should be a nonpartisan endeavor.  Therefore, being attacked for being partisan, they accuse their accusers of being partisan.  It's Karl Rove's game and frame once again.

The Democrats should call them out on this, making the point that there is a controversy because of Bush's partisanship.  They are being investiated because of their partisanship, not because of Congressional partisanship.  Bush started it.  It's that simple.

I mentioned in an earlier post that with the additional support troops going to Iraq to support the surge that the Bush administration, which started this endless war, is now into an endless expansion as we learn every few days that it going to be more than the 21,000 combat troops going in.

Now from the BBCwe learn that they are sending 2,200 more, this time military police to Bagdad.

The extra forces will help deal with an anticipated increase in detainees during the Baghdad security crackdown.

Top US military commander in Iraq, Lt Gen David Petraeus, made the request.

"That's a new requirement by a new commander," said Mr Gates of Gen Petraeus, who assumed command last month, ahead of a fresh push to quell violence in Baghdad.

Obviously, they are still not thinking ahead. They just keep making it up as they go along.