On hiatus until after the election

I'm out of the blogging business until after the election, I cannot support a candidate I don't believe in nor do I trust. So if you want Obama cheerleading this blog isn't going to do it and if you're a Clinton supporter needing to vent trust me there's a growing counter pro Obama blog community that will help with you that i.e. No Quarter, Liberal Rapture and Uppity woman so they do a far better job then I ever could. So in saying the only team in November I will be concerned with will be the Detroit Pistons and maybe the Lions in Madden 09.

Dem lawyers: Fla., Mich. can't be fully restored

Dem lawyers: Fla., Mich. can't be fully restored By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press A Democratic Party rules committee has the authority to seat some delegates from Michigan and Florida but not fully restore the two states as Hillary Rodham Clinton wants, according to party lawyers. Democratic National Committee rules require that the two states lose at least half of their convention delegates for holding elections too early, the party's legal experts wrote in a 38-page memo. The memo was sent late Tuesday to the 30 members of the party's Rules and Bylaws Committee, which plans to meet Saturday at a Washington hotel. The committee is considering ways to include the two important general election battlegrounds at the nominating convention in August, and the staff analysis says seating half the delegates is "as far as it legally can" go. Saturday's meeting is expected to draw a large crowd, with Clinton supporters among those encouraging a protest outside demanding that all the states' delegates be seated. Proponents of full reseating have mailed committee members Florida oranges and pairs of shoes to get their attention. DNC officials are concerned about a potentially large turnout at the "Count Every Vote" rally outside the event and have asked the hotel staff to increase security to keep everyone safe. The DNC says the roughly 500 seats available to the public inside were taken within three or four minutes of becoming available online Tuesday. The DNC analysis does not make recommendations for how the Rules and Bylaws Committee should vote, but gives context from the party's charter and bylaws for the committee to consider. The analysis said there are two options to include half the delegations — either allow half the number of delegates from each state into the convention or allow the full delegations to attend, but give them each half a vote. "The rule does not actually specify whether the reduction is to be accomplished on the basis of delegate positions or delegate votes," the analysis said, giving committee members some justification for sending the entire delegations with half-votes as some leaders in the states want. The analysis also underscores a prickly problem: If the Rules and Bylaws Committee decides to restore any of the states' delegates, there is not a simple way to divide them between Clinton and Barack Obama. That's especially true in Michigan, where Obama had his name pulled from the ballot. He didn't have the option of removing his name in Florida, but all the candidates signed a pledge not to campaign in either state. Clinton won the majority of the vote in Florida and Michigan and has been arguing that the delegates should be fully restored according to the results of the January primaries. But even if they were, it would not be enough for her to overtake Obama's delegate lead. As it becomes clear that Obama likely will win the nomination, he has been working to win over voters in the two states with visits in recent days. He plans to return to Michigan on Monday. The DNC staff analysis argues that the Rules and Bylaws Committee was fully within its rights to strip all 368 delegates from the two states when they scheduled primaries in January. Party rules said their nominating contests could be no earlier than Feb. 5. Michigan voted on Jan. 15, Florida on Jan. 29. The analysis also said there is an option to restore 100 percent of the delegates — by a recommendation of the Credentials Committee that meets later this summer. However, that would mean a final decision would not be made until the first day of the convention in Denver since Credentials Committee decisions have to be approved by the full convention as it convenes — risking a floor fight. Alice Huffman, a member of the Rules and Bylaws Committee from California who is supporting Clinton, said she has been barraged with e-mails in the past few weeks. She said the senders include Floridians who are upset that they are being disenfranchised, and she has started printing out the messages so she'll have a record to explain her decision. "This is a really, really significant issue to women. Obviously it's a significant item to people of color too. So I'm just preparing myself as best I can," said Huffman, president of the California NAACP. The shoe shipments are being organized by WalkAMileInOurShoes.org and1 the orange idea was promoted by a group called Florida Demands Representation, which plans to bus Floridians to Saturday's rally outside the meeting. Blaine Whitford, a volunteer helping organize the effort, said they are unaligned with any candidate. Susie Buell, one of Clinton's top fundraisers, has formed a political action committee encouraging women to support full seating of the delegates. The WomenCountPAC has taken out ads in USA Today and The New York Times promoting attendance at the rally. ___ Associated Press writer Juliet Williams in Sacramento, Calif., contributed to this report. ___ On the Net:

A Special Comment: Keith Olbermann

Via: Taylor Marsh.com A Special Comment Guest post by Grey Five days later, and people are still coming unhinged? Eugene Robinson and Bob Herbert, without an ounce of self-awareness, fed on yet another manufactured controversy like starved pigs at the trough, salivating at another opportunity to slander Sen. Clinton. Still, their opprobrium didn’t match Keith Olbermann’s. After Sen. Clinton's agonized apology; after Randell Beck, Executive Editor of The Argus Leader, issued a statement in support of the Senator's stated intent; after Robert Kennedy’s son defended her, you have the audacity go on the air, as though none of it had happened, to castigate her for all manner of sins, real and imagined? Have you no decency? Your special comment, Keith, was a disgrace. "We"? "We have forgiven"? Do not dare cower behind me to spew your partisan drool, sir. Has your newscast not been sufficiently prejudiced? Have you not taken every opportunity to defend and protect your Chosen One form even the remotest hint of criticism? Your diatribe was irresponsible, a collection of the worst kind of disingenuous prattle one should only hear from FOX News. How gleefully you’ve manipulated and distorted the facts just so you could look into that camera to oh so mournfully share your disappointment in the Clintons, who stood by you when no one else would, who defended you, but. But what, Keith? But she can’t run a campaign? But she can’t make a point? But she can’t make historically sound comparisons? But she can’t run ads? But she can’t criticize her opponent? But she can’t praise a colleague? But she must denounce newspapers you don’t like? But she must not be interviewed by your rivals? But she can’t answer the questions she’s asked in a debate if you don’t care for the premise? Your vituperative sermons are an insult to the memory of the man whose name you carry around like a protective shield. You're no better than O'Reilly, who, for all of his disgusting, hateful rhetoric, at least makes no claims to the pantheon of the greats. You'll be lucky if they let you in with a mop and a bucket. You are not a journalist, sir: You are an impostor. Leave that chair and get a blog. MCL take: If RFK jr didn't take offense why are so many pro Obama bloggers and mouth pieces are going bat shit crazy over her comment? It seems this is the latest effort from team Obama to find excuse for not picking Hillary for VP. Another point I remember when Obama mouth pieces like Ed Schultz and Stephanie Miller were doing political yoga explaining what Obama meant when he used the word "bitter" to describe small town or rural voters.

Division, fake outrage

Op-Ed Columnist Divided They Stand By PAUL KRUGMAN It is, in a way, almost appropriate that the final days of the struggle for the Democratic nomination have been marked by yet another fake Clinton scandal — the latest in a long line that goes all the way back to Whitewater. This one, in case you missed it, involved an interview Hillary Clinton gave the editorial board of South Dakota’s Argus Leader, in which she tried to make a case for her continuing campaign by pointing out that nomination fights have often gone on into the summer. As one of her illustrations, she mentioned that Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June. It wasn’t the best example to use, but it’s absurd to suggest, as some Obama supporters immediately did, that Mrs. Clinton was making some kind of dark hint about Barack Obama’s future. But then, it was equally absurd to portray Mrs. Clinton’s assertion that it took L.B.J.’s political skills to turn Martin Luther King’s vision into legislation as an example of politicizing race. Yet the claim that Mrs. Clinton was playing the race card, which was promoted by some Obama supporters as well as in a memo by a member of Mr. Obama’s staff, achieved wide currency. Why does all this matter? Not for the nomination: Mr. Obama will be the Democratic nominee. But he has a problem: many grass-roots Clinton supporters feel that she has received unfair, even grotesque treatment. And the lingering bitterness from the primary campaign could cost Mr. Obama the White House. To the extent that the general election is about the issues, Mr. Obama should have no trouble winning over former Clinton supporters, especially the white working-class voters he lost in the primaries. His health care plan is seriously deficient, but he will nonetheless be running on a far more worker-friendly platform than his opponent. Indeed, John McCain has shed whatever maverick tendencies he may once have had, and become almost a caricature conservative — an advocate of lower taxes for the rich and corporations, a privatizer and shredder of the safety net. But elections always involve emotions as well as issues, and there are some ominous signs in the polling data. In Florida, in particular, the rolling estimate produced by the professionals at Pollster.com shows Mr. McCain running substantially ahead of Mr. Obama, even as he runs significantly behind Mrs. Clinton. Ohio also looks problematic, and Pennsylvania looks closer than it should. It’s true that head-to-head polls five months before the general election have a poor track record. But they certainly give reason to worry. The point is that Mr. Obama may need those disgruntled Clinton supporters, lest he manage to lose in what ought to be a banner Democratic year. So what should Mr. Obama and his supporters do? Most immediately, they should realize that the continuing demonization of Mrs. Clinton serves nobody except Mr. McCain. One more trumped-up scandal won’t persuade the millions of voters who stuck with Mrs. Clinton despite incessant attacks on her character that she really was evil all along. But it might incline a few more of them to stay home in November. Nor should Obama supporters dismiss Mrs. Clinton’s strength as a purely Appalachian phenomenon, with the implication that Clinton voters are just a bunch of hicks. So what comes next? Mrs. Clinton needs to do her part: she needs to be careful not to act as a spoiler during what’s left of the primary, she needs to bow out gracefully if, as seems almost certain, Mr. Obama receives the nod, and she needs to campaign strongly for the nominee once the convention is over. She has said she’ll do that, and there’s no reason to believe that she doesn’t mean it. But mainly it’s up to Mr. Obama to deliver the unity he has always promised — starting with his own party. One thing to do would be to make a gesture of respect for Democrats who voted in good faith by recognizing Florida’s primary votes — which at this point wouldn’t change the outcome of the nomination fight. The only reason I can see for Obama supporters to oppose seating Florida is that it might let Mrs. Clinton claim that she received a majority of the popular vote. But which is more important — denying Mrs. Clinton bragging rights, or possibly forfeiting the general election? What about offering Mrs. Clinton the vice presidency? If I were Mr. Obama, I’d do it. Adding Mrs. Clinton to the ticket — or at least making the offer — might help heal the wounds of an ugly primary fight. Here’s the point: the nightmare Mr. Obama and his supporters should fear is that in an election year in which everything favors the Democrats, he will nonetheless manage to lose. He needs to do everything he can to make sure that doesn’t happen.

Dems may suffer from an Obama candidacy

Party may suffer from an Obama candidacy By Gene Lyons If Hillary Clinton had no other reason to keep running for the nomination, it would be to demonstrate that Tim Russert, Keith Olbermann, Maureen Dowd, David Broder and the Beltway media gas bags don’t decide American elections. Last week, Obama, the supposedly inevitable Democratic nominee, lost the West Virginia primary by 41 points. Democrats haven’t taken the presidency without winning the Mountain State since 1916. To use a geographically appropriate metaphor, if there has ever been a canaryin-a-coal-mine primary, that was it. Naturally, the media consensus saw a meaningless result in a race they’d already called for Obama. Evidently, bitter West Virginia rednecks don’t watch cable TV. In 2000, the same pundit chorus urged Al Gore to quit in Florida for the sake of the country (and the Republican Party ). Everybody knows how that worked out. Today, Gore’s a Nobel laureate. George W. Bush, like Obama a uniter, not a divider, became the most unpopular, ineffective president in U. S. history. Ever heard any media princelings explain how they went so comprehensively wrong ? Me neither. If nominated, Obama can’t possibly defeat Sen. John McCain without bringing Clinton voters to him. Recently, however, I’ve been hearing from many passionate Democrats who say they can’t and won’t vote for him in November, so I asked a few to explain why. Mine is no scientific survey. Ranging from 26 to 86, my correspondents live in seven states, North, South and Midwest. They don’t know each other personally. None participates in politics except on a local, volunteer basis. I chose them because they’re unusually articulate. Most think Obama a sure loser in the McGovern, Dukakis tradition. They believe he’s totally unqualified. “I’ve voted for every Democrat from president to dog-catcher since 1952. That will end with Obama,” insists H. in Maine. “He won’t get 150 electoral votes, more than he deserves. The Democratic Party’s been teetering on the edge of extinction. Obama’s arrogance will kill it.... “ Just four years out of the state Senate. If he were white or female, his candidacy would be a joke. Imagine if he’d opted to run for vice president with Hillary. Mc-Cain would lose, Democrats would come close to 60 Senate seats and pick up 35 in the House. The Democratic left’s need to swoon after eight years of a moron, coupled with unbridled Clinton hatred, will produce a disaster for the party and country.” It’s the Obama campaign’s cynical use of race beginning in South Carolina that’s the deal-breaker for others. “He is making his way to Denver by dividing our party over race, which is maybe the most idiotic campaign tactic ever,” writes C. in Kansas. “This time the witch hunt is coming from our side. It’s heartbreaking. Obama supporters want you to think Bill and Hillary Clinton are lifelong members of the KKK. The audacity of hope campaign has had the audacity to go there.... This fall, they’ll try to make nice and talk unity, but the people they alienated in the most hateful way won’t be there. They deserve to lose for being so callous and childish.” J. in Florida agrees: “Obama and his supporters’ use of the ‘race card’ against the Clintons (with the help of the in-the-tank media ) is sickening. Now we have vile, racist, crazed-for-power Hillary. Obama means to avoid the ‘divisiveness’ of the Clinton years by blaming it on them. That’s a despicable lie, and he knows it. The only way of avoiding divisiveness is to cave to the Republican agenda, which I believe he’s more than eager to do.” “He and his supporters, “ J. adds, “ have systematically sacrificed the central constituency of the Democratic Party —the poor and working class—on the altar of constituencies who look to politics for reaffirmation of their identity: college students and childish Sixties neo-libs. (The African American constituency makes sense, so no gripes there. )” By abandoning the principle of universality in health insurance, most think Obama has guaranteed that meaningful reform cannot be achieved. Z. in Georgia adds that Obama’s vagueness on economic issues foretells disaster. “He has no perceptible position on the economy other than ‘We can do better. Yes, we can. Say it with me.’ I foresee broken campaign promises followed by belt-tightening austerity measures in a one-term presidency. In short, Jimmy Carter in a better-tailored sweater.” “ I view the Obama candidacy as a narcissistic endeavor by a mediocre politician dividing Democrats along social vs. economic progressive lines, ” J. insists. “He’s forcing a choice between winning in 2008 and possibly saving Roe vs. Wade and promoting gay marriage vs. fighting for the poor and working class. “ I’ve decided I won’t help Obama and his personality cult transform the Democratic Party into an organization that represents only the interests of rich, social liberals.” What do I think? I suspect most will grudgingly return by November, but that non-African American working-class voters won’t. MCL comment: Obama followers have burned too many bridges over the past couple of months. The Obama folks well the grown ups at least now realize they can't win with only 13% of the population not all blacks vote Democratic, college students who are not always reliable when it comes to elections and old hippies. You need to get that blue collar, poor, white vote and Barack Obama can't do it. He can't keep the plan of well that state isn't going to vote for me so who cares about them. Gore did that and "lost" John Kerry did it and lost.

The Obama Bolshevik Mentality: Coup, Purge, Purify. Obama, not Democratic, Party

The Obama Bolshevik Mentality: Coup, Purge, Purify. Obama, not Democratic, Party By Bud WhitecloseAuthor: Bud White Name: Joyan and Bud White WhiteEmail: susanunpc@gmail.comSite: About: See Authors Posts (20) on May 15, 2008 at 9:10 AM in Advertising, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Clinton, Current Affairs, David Axelrod, Democrats, Electability, George McGovern, Infrastructure, John Kerry, MoveOn.org, Swift Boat Veterans For Truth Obama is attempting to take control of the progressive infrastructure built over the last 15 years. Ben Smith reports that Obama is seeking to essentially shutdown outside progressive groups and funnel their funding to his campaign: Senator Barack Obama’s campaign is steering the candidate’s wealthy supporters away from independent Democratic groups, calling into question what had been expected to be the groups’ central role in this year’s Democratic offensive against Senator John McCain. Obama’s national finance chairwoman, Chicago hotel mogul Penny Pritzker, told supporters at a national finance committee meeting in Indianapolis May 2, and in other conversations, not to give money to the groups, people familiar with her comments said.“From the beginning of this race Obama has told supporters that if they want to help his effort, they should do so through his campaign,” said Obama spokesman Bill Burton, who confirmed that Pritzker has told donors not to give to the groups. “And he means exactly what he says.” Many of these progressive groups were established to counter movement conservatives’ dominate infrastructure. In 1971, in a reaction against the New Left, Lewis F. Powell drafted a memo for business groups and the Nixon administration on building a conservative infrastruture to counter what he saw as an anti-capitalist, anti-freedom movement of the New Left. This plan was followed and we have had a third of a century of conservative governance, interrupted by 4 years of Carter and 8 years of Clinton. Similarly, after what many progressives saw as an attempted coup d’état by movement conservatives against President Clinton, the left began building its own infrastructure to counter the Rush Limbaugh/American Spectator magazine/Newt Gingrich assault on our first progressive president in a generation. MoveOn.org was born as a muscular defensive of Clinton in a era where the left consisted of stale periodically like The Nation and Mother Jones. Now Obama is seeking to use the fragile progressive infrastructure for his own electoral gain: But in recent days, major donors have begun to conclude that Obama is serious in trying to cut off funds to the outside groups. “It’s given donors pause,” said one prominent Democratic donor of Pritzker’s words. Obama’s remarkably swift and complete consolidation of Democratic Party power. It’s an unprecedented seizure of control that has built him, over the course of a year, the most powerful field organization and the largest financial network in American politics, leaving many existing structures – traditional party organizations in many states, the Clintons’ long-nurtured national network – in the dust. Outside groups, of course, can alter the electoral landscape. Just ask Michael Dukakis and John Kerry, both victims of brutal attack ads run by groups more affiliated with movement conservatives than with the campaigns themselves. But some liberal activists argue that Obama is making a big mistake by consolidating all the power and money into his campaign: But Democrats who support the work of the media 527s say Obama’s making a mistake. Progressive Media USA has aired anti-McCain television ads and developed a website intended to be a hub for negative information about McCain. As I wrote previously, the Republicans and their conservative shock troops have prepared their plan to dismantle Obama, assuming he becomes the nominee. Obama may be disarming himself in his attempt to deny Hillary the nomination, and consequently we can look forward to Obama joining the pantheon of defeated Democrats: McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore [updated], and Kerry.

He can't close the deal

Via MyDD’s Jerome Armstrong today, in “Counting the people“: The AP asks: “Why can’t Barack Obama close the deal?“ The contest in PA was the 4th major chance that Obama had to close the deal, and failed again. Anyone who thinks that Clinton is going to be out of the race in May is delusional. For us political junkies, it’s quite a fix. Boy, did that question bring back memories. Memories of a story I wrote on March 5, 2008: “Hurrah! (He. Can’t. Close. The. Deal.).” It is eerie how much of what I wrote following Hillary’s March 4th victories in the big states of Ohio and Texas, as well as Rhode Island — and the critical quote in that piece from Taylor Marsh — remains true nearly two months later. “The wind at Barack’s back, the press at his feet, but he couldn’t close it out,” Taylor [wrote on March 5, 2008]. In fact, Taylor Marsh revived the point, last night, that Obama can’t close the deal: On to North Carolina. …then Indiana. Last night was a game changer. With all [of his] advantages, Obama still couldn’t close the deal. Here’s more from my March 5th story, about Hillary’s morning show appearances following her big victories, especially in Ohio — a likely “blue” state come November 2008: … Halperin on more morning shows: ABC’s “Good Morning America”: Clinton tried to frame the race around John McCain, saying that now there’s a GOP nominee it’s even more critical to have a Democratic nominee who can stand up to him on national security. Doesn’t accept that she’s gone negative against Obama, said national security is legitimate issue to contrast. Ignored the math questions, still thinks Michigan and Florida delegates should be seated, said it’s up to state leaders. NBC’s “Today”: Clinton said voters are “starting to ask some hard questions” and realizing she’d be best commander in chief and best on the economy. Offered lengthy defense of superdelegates exercising independent judgment, saying that was the reason they were created. Said Florida and Michigan voters should count, and voters “were dragged into” the confusion by GOP governors and legislatures. Also more firmly denied that Obama is a Muslim, called it “a scurillous rumor that should be rejected out of hand.” It’s also amusing to re-read the section of that story about Obama’s complaints about tactics. He’s always whining. She’s always winning — where it counts.

Why Liberals Lose

Pic from:

Huffington Post has been nothing but gracious to me when I post on Clinton over at their blog, minus a couple of posts which they buried, including a critique I did on Obama whining about the ABC debate. But Arianna needs to reign in her editorial department, starting with Tom Edsall, who is failing her on a multitude of levels. The above picture of two white guys is the latest example. This is not helpful to Barack Obama or the Democratic party. The disrespect shown in this screen capture is an example of why Clinton took Pennsylvania, but also why Obama cannot close the deal. Is this picture supposed to be representative of Clinton supporters? Of white male voters who prefer Hillary? Disdain for Democrats and looking down your nose at people isn't going to get us into the White House. Certainly Arianna has to be aware of this fact. Obama's team should certainly understand it after losing big state after big state to Hillary Clinton who is cleaning his clock on average lunch bucket Democrats. These same voters who will cross over and vote for McCain in a heart beat if we're not careful. The New York Times is infected with the same type of elitism; missing the call in Pennsylvania by a mile. Try listening to the voters. They'll tell the story if you wait for it to unfold. Obviously, Barack Obama is listening to people who have no respect for the Democrats who have helped elect Democrats in presidential elections, which hasn't happened all that often in modern history. It's these same people who actually need a Democratic president, average Americans, who are simply trying to make ends meet. It's disheartening to see this type of stereotypical insult blasted across one of the biggest progressive blogs on the web. The editorial department should be ashamed. So consider this free advice. It's nothing personal to me because my guy is a hunk, but my husband is a white male, one of those blue collar workers with cracked, stained hands who works himself to a frazzle to keep a roof over our heads so I can help change the world (with a lot of help from you). When our family sees this on a Democratic blog we wonder what we're fighting for and why we should ever consider voting for Barack Obama if he ends up being the nominee (which is now in real jeopardy), because neither of us have any intention of voting for a man who has no respect for us. I assure you we are not alone. We speak for tens of thousands of Clinton supporters who feel the same way. Mind you, I have advocated non-stop that we must join together and support the Democratic nominee no matter who it is, but this type of stuff really makes me wonder. The symbolisim that showed up on Hufftonton Post is representative of why Clinton keeps winning, while Obama's candidacy continues to lose altitude. It's representative of why elite progressives, especially Democratic bloggers who specialize in spreading sexism, sneer at Bill Clinton, never forgiving his faults while ignoring his victories in the face of the right-wing smear machine, and who is still the only two-term winning Democratic president since F.D.R., and beloved by so many. WJC is someone who still irks the Democratic elite who are trying to shut down this primary contest before it's over in order to stop Hillary at all costs. These same anti-Clinton people are also leading the charge to stiff Florida and Michigan voters as well, which is coming under increasing attacks, because Democrats do so at our general election peril. From the moment bitter-gate erupted, many elite progressives and people in the Obama contingent just didn't understand the uproar. The further out of touch Democrats get from understanding this human outrage the more likely it is we will lose in November. I can't say it any plainer. It's remarkable that this simple to understand storyline is held in such contempt. It's equally alarming that the online Obama elite think representative stereotypes of white Democrats for Hillary should be presented in a way that drips with condescension and out right contempt. But it does explain why Obama keeps losing the big bellweather states and why his team's argument that he's the best candidate for the general election is failing, numbers be damned.

After win Clinton says tide is turning

April 23, 2008 Seizing on Her Primary Win, Clinton Says Tide Is Turning By MICHAEL LUO and PATRICK HEALY Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton today seized on her decisive victory over Senator Barack Obama in Pennsylvania to proclaim “the tide is turning” in the Democratic nominating fight, arguing that her performance on Tuesday proved she was best suited to take on Senator John McCain in the fall because of her capacity to carry key swing states. “I won the states that we have to win — Ohio, now Pennsylvania,” she said on CNN in one of six appearances on morning news shows Wednesday. “It’s very hard to imagine a Democrat getting to the White House without winning those states.” Mrs. Clinton won the Pennsylvania popular vote, 55 percent to 45 percent, giving her a critical boost as the she heads into the next nominating contests in North Carolina and Indiana in 13 days. Polls suggest that Mr. Obama is better positioned in those states than he was in Pennsylvania. Meanwhile, Mr. Obama’s campaign was left struggling to explain on Wednesday why he had once again been unable to leave his opponent on the mat, as well as his troubles gaining the backing of white working-class voters. But Obama campaign officials were able to point to at least one unyielding reality on their side: he still possesses a lead in pledged delegates that will be almost impossible for Mrs. Clinton to erase. In a memo sent to reporters late Tuesday, Bill Burton, Mr. Obama’s national press secretary, called the race “fundamentally unchanged,” meaning that Mrs. Clinton’s victory had done little to help her cut into Mr. Obama’s pledged-delegate lead. The Obama campaign announced early on Wednesday that it had secured another super-delegate endorsement, that of Gov. Brad Henry of Oklahoma, who had previously said he would wait until the convention to make public his choice. Mrs. Clinton’s victory in Pennsylvania indeed did little to close the pledged-delegate gap. It yielded her at least 80 pledged delegates, compared with at least 66 for Mr. Obama, with 12 still to be awarded, according to the Associated Press. David Plouffe, the campaign manager for Mr. Obama, said on Wednesday that while the final breakdown of delegates from Pennsylvania was not yet complete, he too projected that Mrs. Clinton would have a net gain of about 12 pledged delegates from her victory, whittling Mr. Obama’s overall lead to about 159 pledged delegates by the campaign’s calculation. A total of 187 delegates are at stake in the next big primaries on May 6. “We don’t believe that the structure of the race is going to change,” Mr. Plouffe said. In a conference call with reporters, Mr. Plouffe sought to dismiss concerns about how Mr. Obama would fare against Mr. McCain. He ticked through a list of states where polls indicated Mr. Obama was a stronger opponent than Mrs. Clinton in facing Republicans. “We think this is a flawed exercise, to somehow suggest that performance in primaries is a leading indicator or what would happen in a general election,” Mr. Plouffe said. He added that Mr. Obama had a high favorability rating among Democrats who supported Mrs. Clinton. In making her case today, though, Mrs. Clinton pointed to the popular vote totals and contended that, counting those cast in the Florida and Michigan primaries, she had now garnered more primary votes than any previous Democratic nominee. But both candidates were barred from campaigning in the Florida and Michigan contests, and Mr. Obama’s name was not on the ballot in Michigan, because the states moved up their primary dates against the national party’s wishes. The states’ convention delegates were stripped by the Democratic National Committee. As the race moves to Indiana and North Carolina, much of the immediate focus in the Clinton campaign is on scrounging for cash to combat what has been a widening disparity in resources with the Obama campaign. In Indiana, where polls show a toss-up at this point, Mr. Obama has spent more than three times as much as Mrs. Clinton on television advertising so far; in North Carolina, where Mr. Obama is leading by a significant margin in polls, his spending on TV ads has been more than double hers. During her television interviews Wednesday morning, Mrs. Clinton took pains to mention her web site, as she did the night before in her victory speech, saying that her campaign had brought in over $3 million online overnight. That would seem to prime the campaign for its best 24 hours of online fundraising to date, exceeding the $4 million it brought in after the news broke following the Feb. 5 nominating contests that she had loaned $5 million to her campaign. The campaign is scrambling to take advantage of the spike in contributions, transforming its home page into a donation page, something it had experimented with for the first time on several days last month. Mrs. Clinton also defended herself against criticism that her attacks on Mr. Obama have engendered a negative tone in the race that is damaging to the Democrats’ prospects in November. She said the current contest had been decidedly mild compared to past races. “Everybody is going to compare and contrast,” she said on MSNBC. “I think that is part of the way campaigns are run.” With the pitched battle for the Democratic presidential nomination now set to rage on at least through the May 6 primaries in Indiana and North Carolina, its harshening tone has become an issue for many party leaders. Appearing on MSNBC, Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts urged Mr. Obama, who he is backing, to avoid negative campaigning in favor of “a compelling vision that unifies people.” He said the American public is “not well served” by campaign tactics that seek to diminish an opponent. For their part, the North Carolina Republican Party is planning to roll out a television advertisement on Monday that attacks a pair of Democrats running for governor in the state for endorsing Senator Barack Obama. The ad includes a video clip of Mr. Obama’s former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, excoriating the United States. The release of the commercial, which Republican officials said would first be seen during 6 p.m. newscasts in the state on Monday, injects a potentially divisive racial element into the state’s primary. Mrs. Clinton faces major challenges going forward. Her campaign had essentially run out of money before the overnight spike in contributions, with a pile of unpaid bills, and she faces growing frustration among some Democratic officials, who would that she quit the field in light of Mr. Obama’s overall lead. Mrs. Clinton’s victory was propelled by her strong performance among women, older voters and less affluent and less educated voters; among white union members with no college education, she won almost three-quarters of the vote, polling showed. Speaking to supporters in Philadelphia on Tuesday night, Mrs. Clinton emphasized that she had triumphed despite trailing Mr. Obama financially. “He broke every spending record in this state trying to knock us out of this race,” she said. “Well, the people of Pennsylvania had other ideas.” Still, she said in calling for more donations, “we can only keep winning if we can keep competing with an opponent who outspends us so massively.” Amid chants of “Yes she can” — a riposte to Mr. Obama’s motto, “Yes we can” — Mrs. Clinton described herself as “a president who is ready to lead on Day One — that means ready to take charge as commander in chief and make this economy work for middle class families — and I thank you, I thank you Pennsylvania, for deciding I can be that president.” Mr. Obama congratulated his opponent at a Tuesday night rally in Evansville, Ind. But he also implicitly chided Mrs. Clinton for the negative tone of her attacks over the past week — and, tacitly, acknowledged his own missteps. “It’s easy to get caught up in the distractions and the silliness and the tit-for-tat that consumes our politics, the bickering that none of us are entirely immune to,” he said. “That trivializes the profound issues — two wars, an economy in recession, a planet in peril.” He added that Americans “believe that the challenges we face are bigger than the smallness of our politics.” Chief among the challenges facing Mrs. Clinton, besides paying bills and financing new advertising, was persuading impatient Democratic superdelegates — party leaders and elected officials — to at least remain neutral in the contest and let the remaining primaries play out through early June. The Pennsylvania Democrats who cast their ballots in Tuesday’s primary did so with the economy weighing heavily on their minds, according to surveys of voters leaving polling places. Those surveys showed that more than half the voters questioned believe that the worsening state of the American economy is the most important issue confronting the country, with about 90 percent saying the United States has already slipped into a recession. Half of those polled also said that they were looking for a candidate who could bring about change, which has been the main theme of Mr. Obama’s campaign. Mr. Obama leads in delegates, but has consistently trailed Mrs. Clinton in polls taken in Pennsylvania, though the gap had been closing in recent days. About one-quarter of those who participated in the exit polling, conducted by Edison/Mitofsky for five television networks and The Associated Press, endorsed the idea that experience, which Mrs. Clinton has emphasized in her campaign, is the most important quality to be sought in a candidate. For the polling, the margin of sampling error in the sample of 40 precincts across the state was plus or minus four percentage points. Both candidates performed strongly among the same constituencies that have supported them in other primary states. Mr. Obama was backed overwhelmingly by black voters, and also scored well among voters younger than 45 and among college graduates, the results show. Geographically, he performed best in Philadelphia and its suburbs, which has the largest concentration of population in Pennsylvania, while Mrs. Clinton won the majority of the vote in the rest of the state. Just as a loss in Pennsylvania would probably have ended her campaign, Indiana poses another make-or-break challenge for Mrs. Clinton, according to several of her advisers, who said that they would urge her to quit the race if she lost that state. Mrs. Clinton, former President Bill Clinton and their allies have campaigned frequently in Indiana in recent weeks, and she has obtained some important endorsements there, including support from Senator Evan Bayh, the state’s former governor. “She has to win Pennsylvania and Indiana — pretty much everyone in the campaign agrees on that,” said one senior Clinton adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the campaign’s electoral expectations. But Clinton advisers emphasized that neither they nor Mrs. Clinton were feeling anything close to defeatist — rather, they said, they believed that a Pennsylvania win would help her build momentum in Indiana and other states in the region with coming contests, like West Virginia and Kentucky in May. Clinton advisers said they were already picking states, cities and towns where they would dispatch staff members and volunteers from Pennsylvania, and were budgeting for television advertising. They are also planning a busy travel schedule for the Clintons, for their daughter, Chelsea, and for an army of surrogates. They are expected to focus heavily on Indiana, and to a lesser extent in North Carolina, where Mr. Obama is widely seen as strong. A greater concern in the shorter term for Mrs. Clinton is fundraising: She raised $21 million in March, compared with Mr. Obama’s $42 million. In the latest campaign finance filings, Mrs. Clinton reported $10.3 million in outstanding primary debts but only $9.5 million available to cover them, leaving an $800,000 shortfall at the end of March. In February, the Clinton campaign had a $3 million surplus. By comparison, Mr. Obama had $43 million in cash for the coming primaries and a campaign debt of less than $660,000 at the end of March. Mr. Obama is spending 75 cents for every dollar he is taking in; Mrs. Clinton is spending $1.10. Michael M. Grynbaum, John Holusha and Jeff Zeleny

MLC comment:

I've heard the spin coming from Barack Obama's team and his flunkies in the media, well he cut into a 20 point lead yeah I guess you would too if you broke state primary spending records. The point is he outspent Hillary 3 to 1 and still lost by 10 points. I'm not saying I won't support him if he gets the nod but Dems gotta ask themselves alot of questions about him.

Obama goes after McCain on economic stance

Obama Criticizes McCain on Economic Stance By Jeff Zeleny ERIE, Pa. – Three days before the Pennsylvania presidential primary, Senator Barack Obama barely mentioned his Democratic rival here today, but rather criticized Senator John McCain’s assessment of the American economy. “John McCain went on television and said that there has been great progress economically over the last seven-and-a-half year years,” Mr. Obama said. “John McCain thinks our economy has made great progress under George W. Bush? How could somebody who has been traveling across this country, somebody who came to Erie, Pennsylvania, say we’ve made great progress?” Mr. Obama, speaking on the campus of Penn State Erie, was referring to remarks that Mr. McCain made Thursday to Bloomberg Television. When asked if he believed Americans were better off now than when President Bush took office, Mr. McCain conceded that people were facing “very challenging times.” But he went on to say, “You could make an argument that there’s been great progress economically over that period of time.”To an audience of about 1,800 voters here, Mr. Obama telegraphed a general election message for Democrats. He seized upon Mr. McCain’s quotation to make a point that Americans have suffered under the administration’s stewardship of the economy. “Here’s what happened since George Bush took office, here’s what John McCain calls great progress,” Mr. Obama said. “We went through the first period of sustained economic growth since World War II that saw incomes drop; 11 million more Americans don’t have health care; 2 million more Americans are out of work; millions of families are facing foreclosure. The poverty rate has gone up. You are working harder for less.” “You’re paying more for tuition, you’re paying more for groceries, more at the pump. That’s what John McCain calls great progress,” Mr. Obama said. Later, he added: “Only somebody who spent two decades in Washington could make a statement as disconnected from the hard times that people are facing all across America.” Mr. Obama, who often criticizes the politics of parsing words, did not tell voters here that in the next sentence of Mr. McCain’s interview he said: “But that’s no comfort. That’s not comfort to families now that are facing these tremendous economic challenges.” Tucker Bounds, a spokesman for Mr. McCain, called Mr. Obama’s remarks “recklessly dishonest.” “It is clear that Barack Obama is intentionally twisting John McCain’s words completely out of context,” Mr. Bounds said in a statement. “Obama is guilty of deliberately distorting John McCain’s comments for pure political gain, which is exactly what Senator Obama was complaining about just yesterday.” In addition to criticizing Mr. McCain, the remarks from Mr. Obama were intended to send another signal: He is striving to look beyond the 10 contests still to come in the Democratic primary fight. It remains an open question whether that strategy is premature, particularly when the banner headline of today’s Erie Times-News declared, “Vote of confidence,” with a photograph of former president Bill Clinton’s visit here yesterday. “If Pennsylvania says ‘Yes,’ and says it loudly to Hillary,” Mr. Clinton said, “she’ll be the nominee, she’ll be the next president.”

Air Obama radio?

Air America - All Obama, All The Time? I stopped listening to Air America quite awhile back. All the shouting and yelling in between the commercials was tiresome and irritating. But today I had a long car trip and tuned in to see what I'd been missing out on. What I heard wasn't very pretty. It seems that Ed Schultz is furious, just furious, that people would misconstrue Barack's "bitter" comment and he took every opportunity to lecture any caller who tried to explain why it was offensive just exactly what Obama really meant. Geez. For the world's greatest orator, he sure has a lot of people 'splaining what it was that he really meant. It didn't take long for Ed's ridiculous Obamamania and Clinton-hating to get old. Later in the afternoon I got brave enough to switch it back on and heard a high-larious comedy bit about how "Joe Six Pack" would just love the new White House with Hillary the party animal there. (See, she had a shot and a beer at a bar in PA.) Yee-haw!!! Talk about the exact example of what Ed was arguing against! Only Joe Six Packs and rednecks would vote for Hillary. I tuned out to listen to music for awhile and when I switched back Richard Belzer and his sidekick were going on about how outraged "people" were at Hillary's attack against Obama as "elitist". Then Richard's quote blew me away. It was something to the effect that he couldn't believe how different these two candidates were; one was unflappable and the other was "shrill". Damn! I wish I had better cell phone coverage there because I was tempted to call in and congratulate him on turning the tables and calling his Messiah "shrill". He couldn't possibly be referring to Senator Clinton in such sexist terms could he?? Right... Hey Ed and Richard - Here's a nice t-shirt you guys might like.

Where Ed Schultz in this pic? Like Randi he claimed he had no dog in the fight, yet his show is becoming an three hour ad for Barack Obama.

Obama’s remarks feed class resentment

Obama’s remarks feed class resentment Gene Lyons Posted on Wednesday, April 16, 2008 Email this story Printer-friendly version Some weeks ago, this column asked a rhetorical question: What could Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama possibly have been thinking about, sitting in a Chicago pew for 20 years listening to the crackpot effusions of Rev. Jeremiah Wright ? Surely the one-time editor of the Harvard Law Review didn’t subscribe to Wright’s delusional view that the U. S. government invented the AIDS virus to exterminate black Africans, so why did he expose his children to it under God’s authority ? Unlike many observers who swooned over Obama’s moving speech about race, I thought it ducked the most salient question: Did he actually buy Wright’s theology ? His successive rationalizations failed to satisfy. First, he hadn’t heard the offending sermons. Then he’d heard things he disagreed with, but thought of Wright like an eccentric uncle. Finally, Obama said he’d have quit the church had his spiritual mentor not retired. “Anybody named Clinton or Gore who sat still for something like that,” this column observed, “would be derided as an inauthentic phony patronizing black folk for political gain—a faker, a con man.” Predictably, this unfashionable observation drew accusations of racism. I responded by e-mailing news reports of Obama’s final renunciation of Wright. As the candidate himself had now thrown the controversial preacher overboard, was it still racist to criticize him ? Nobody responded. The national media declared the controversy settled. The caravan moved on. My rhetorical question, however, remained unanswered until last week, when Obama gave an off-the-cuff response to a questioner at a $ 2, 000-per-person fundraiser in, yes, San Francisco who asked, in effect, how Mr. Hope could possibly be having trouble selling his vision to Pennsylvania voters. Obama apparently didn’t think he was being recorded. Being a black man named Barack Obama, he allowed, was only part of the problem. “[O ] ur challenge,” he continued, “is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” Like the poor, deluded peasants in Wright’s congregation, in short, rednecks out in the boondocks cling to superstition, bigotry and conspiracy theories because the world’s too complicated for them to understand. Never mind that Obama’s been touring Pennsylvania touting his own religious piety and opposition to NAFTA, or that Sen. Hillary Clinton seized upon his remarks with the awkward zeal of a basset hound pouncing on a pork chop. A more perfect expression of pseudo-Marxist / academic cant—or a greater gift to Sen. John McCain and the Republicans—would be hard to imagine. This is what Democrats get if they choose an inexperienced faculty-lounge lizard as their presidential candidate. People tend to assume that a black candidate has a lot of street sense, but Obama increasingly comes off as a classic Ivy League brainiac too impressed by his own SAT scores to change a tire without delivering an oration on the economics of rubber tree cultivation. Since 1968, when Richard Nixon put his famous “Southern strategy” into play, two big themes have kept the GOP in the White House most of the time: race along with class and regional resentment. In seeking to transcend the former, Obama has handed them the latter on a silver platter. Republicans won’t have to caricature him as a condescending snob who looks down on working stiffs. He’s already done it to himself. Sheltered, cosseted and treated as a wonder of nature most of his life, Obama’s never run against a tough opponent, and it’s showing. Obama’s attempts to joke his way out of this mess amuse only the already converted. No, Clinton’s not a very convincing huntress, but she certainly knows that nobody goes duck hunting with a “six-shooter.” For pointing these things out, the Clinton campaign, hitherto run on strict standards of political correctness—too timid even to point out that it was Obama’s fellow Chicagoan and national co-chair Jesse Jackson, Jr. who “racialized” the campaign by accusing Hillary Clinton of shedding no tears for black victims of Hurricane Katrina long before Bill Clinton alluded to his famous father—can now be accused of helping Republicans make their case. But what should she do ? Stand silently watching the disaster unfold ? Instead, she might try pointing out that it was working-class Democrats Obama insulted. Also, that far from falling during the Clinton administration, employment in Pennsylvania rose by more than 500, 000 jobs between 1993 and 2000 while unemployment dropped from 7. 3 to 4. 1 percent. That’s the perfectly rational reason that many cling to her candidacy. —–––––•–––––—Free-lance columnist Gene Lyons

Daily Kos: Obama or violence?

Excerpt: This election is a battle between Beta (Clinton, McCain) and positive Gamma (Obama). The forces of the status quo however do not realize that they can not stop Gamma, they never do. This election, and the way an Obama administration is going to perform, is the crossroads for the American Nation. Either reform or revolution. The powers to be are not going to cede their powers voluntarily. They never do. If Obama fails, there will be someone else and there is no guarantee that this is not going to be someone like Lenin, or worse, Hitler. The United States of America are on the brink of a major revolution. I am not talking about some fuzzy "internet revolution" or similar hogwash but the real McCoy. I mean armed uprising, riots, civil war. So if Obama fails, the Kossacks are going to riot?

Alan Keyes left the Republican party?

Alan Keyes Campaigns In Hazleton PW's Alli Katz notes that everyone's favorite presidential candidate, "Cowboy" Alan Keyes, is in Hazleton today to announce his presidential bid, even though he's already said he's running for president. But he's formally doing it in the city where the mayor hates illegal immigrants, just to show what a compassionate Christian he is. Because third party candidates really have a shot at running the country, Keyes has left the Republican party and is now in the Constitution Party. What's Alan Keyes going to do as president? Oh, I dunno, declare a war on pornography. I'm fond of reminding people that the meaning of the word "pornography" in its Greek root, pornos graphein, means to describe the harlot's work, to describe the business of the harlot. He's fond of reminding people the root of pornography comes from the Greek for prostitution. A hit at parties! He is definitely getting my vote this November. There's a live video stream on his website; his speech is apparently at 8:30 tonight. Out late on a school night!

Obama supporters take aim at... Tavis Smiley

I’ve been out of town visiting my family for the past several days, and it’s for the best that I haven’t had the energy to blog, because I needed to let the news about Tavis Smiley resigning from the Tom Joyner Morning Show truly soak in and marinate before I came here to vent. There is a lot of speculation about why he is leaving the show, but he says in a statement released on Friday: “Contrary to what has been suggested, I have decided to clear some things off my plate so that I can devote my time and attention to some exciting and empowering projects.” I don’t know if this statement is true to word, but if I were him, I would have resigned because I was sick and tired of the death threats, tired of the completely unfounded insults and just damn tired of trying to make a people see some of the most basic necessities of survival. Examine your surroundings and assess the situation… Other groups are doing it. Do you think any number of organizations that have endorsed Obama have done so without at least attempting to make sure he has their interests at heart? Do you think they haven’t requested, in many cases, and received some sort of idea as to how he feels about their issue or cause? But, the majority of African-American Obama supporters are in a sick fog of emotions that convinces them that it is okay for him to ignore our issues while campaigning–because after all, we’ll all be going down the Soul Train Line and doing the Soulja Boy and the Electric Slide at the Inaugural Ball after he wins and it will all have been worth it in the end…….silly, silly fools.Tavis never once said a negative word about Obama. Not once. He merely cautioned Black America to truly examine him along with the other candidates and not simply hand him our votes just because he is Black. I believe that’s only common sense, considering the fact that most African-Americans don’t even know who Obama is [hell, who does???]! They only see his skin tone and that’s more than enough for them. If Colin Powell had run, even though he’d more than likely have run as a Republican, at least we know who he is. Same for that kook Alan Keyes. We know who those guys are. But Obama, this flash in the pan, does not deserve unquestioned support. The mere idea is unconscionable to me. Even in the comment section of the previous post here, some idiot calls this little water cooler in the blogosphere the Uncle Tom Network. Probably hasn’t read a single post outside of the NO-bama posts, but feels comfortable enough to call this the Uncle Tom Network. The ignorance is palpable. In a Washington Post article Saturday, Roland Martin, that fat stooge, says this about Tavis Smiley’s resignation: “You have to expect to get heat the moment you decide to offer critical comments about politics or social issues,” Martin said. “You have to be tough enough to take it.” Added Martin: “For a long time, Tavis was used to people applauding him for taking tough stances. . . . This was the first time he had taken a position that flat-out ticked off his core audience. But [criticism] comes with the territory.” It’s one thing to “criticize” with concrete examples of why you believe a person is wrong in their view. It’s quite another to simply say that someone is “hating” or to call them an “Uncle Tom”. Oh, that’s right. They couldn’t exactly say, “Look at all of the work Obama’s done as Chairman of that Senate Foreign Relations Sub-Committee,” because he hasn’t done a damn thing. They also couldn’t say, “Look at how well he organized those neighborhoods and looked out for minorities in Chicago,” because we should all know by now that he and his pal Rezko sold those folks up the river and let a number of his “constituents” freeze their asses off in the dead of winter due to political expediency. Those were Black asses freezing might I add. Tavis, keep your head up. I can only imagine what you have been going through, seeing as how you’ve been trying to slap some sense into millions of folks on a weekly basis. I’m sure you will come out on the other side of this even stronger than you are now. Tom [Joyner], you are as much to blame for this as your listening audience. You guys sat in that booth and had some great laughs at Tavis’s expense over the past few months when if anybody, Tom, you should have been the voice of reason. There will be a high price to pay when this is all said and done. A very high one. So, let me go ahead and issue a collective, “kiss my ass” to all of you Obama supporters who will wake up soon with one helluva hangover, wishing you hadn’t drank that kool-aid…..regretting how you’ve wronged so many.

Pocket

I wonder how Big Eddie, 99.9 of the pro Obama blogs and the other Obama worshippers explain this?

Clinton supporter Bob Johnson says Ferraro was right

Clinton Surrogate Bob Johnson Says Ferraro Was Right, Obama Only Is Where He Is Because He's Black April 15, 2008 12:06 AMjaketapper--> Billionaire Bob Johnson, the founder of BET, last seen publicly raising Sen. Barack Obama's youthful drug use, then denying it, then apologizing for it, has stepped into the spotlight again. In an interview with the Charlotte Observer, Johnson says that former vice presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro was right. If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she said, just before the resulting firestorm forced her to step down as an adviser to Obama rival Hillary Clinton. "What I believe Geraldine Ferraro meant (is) if you take a freshman senator from Illinois called 'Jerry Smith' and he says I'm going to run for president, would he start off with 90 percent of the black vote? And the answer is, probably not. Would he also start out with the excitement of starting out as something completely different? Probably not. He would just be a freshmen senator ... "Geraldine Ferraro said it right. The problem is Geraldine Ferraro is white. This campaign has such a hair trigger on anything racial. It is almost impossible for anybody to say anything."

WTF Tigers?? 0-7 worst since '03

BOSTON -- It's difficult to believe any parallel could exist between the youth-stocked, 119-loss Tigers of 2003 and this season's high-cost, established Tigers. And yet one such parallel already has festered into being. These current Tigers have become the first team to start 0-7 since those 2003 Tigers. Following an 0-6 home stand, the Tigers made their road debut Tuesday. Their bats stayed somnolent in a 5-0 loss amid the Red Sox's home-opener celebration of last year's World Series title. Starting pitcher Kenny Rogers (4 2/3 innings, two earned runs) blamed himself for the loss, then said: "There isn't one phase of the game we've done even adequately." The Tigers have been outscored, 44-15. They have scored the fewest runs of any American League team, and entering Tuesday night, they had allowed the most of any AL team. Manager Jim Leyland continues to see the shutdown as a classic team-wide hitting slump -- not as some sign that the lineup somehow isn't nearly as strong as everyone thought. "When something like this happens, you do what every team in baseball does: You look at film. You hit a little extra. You prepare for the pitchers," Leyland said. Leyland said some hitters -- including Magglio Ordoñez and Miguel Cabrera -- will take extra batting practice today. On Tuesday, as in so many games already, the sixth inning played a noticeable part. The Tigers haven't scored in the sixth inning this season. But they've given up 17 runs in the sixth. To put that another way: They've allowed two more runs in the sixth inning than they have scored all season. The Tigers trailed, 3-0, in the sixth when they loaded the bases with two out for Carlos Guillen. He flied to center against starter Daisuke Matsuzaka. Reliever Jason Grilli allowed two runs in the Boston sixth. In 2 1/3 innings this season, Grilli has allowed five earned runs. The right-handed Matsuzaka made the best of his three career starts against the Tigers, Leyland said. He fanned seven and allowed four singles. Matsuzaka allowed only four hits combined in his first two starts (both against Oakland), so he's not someone a pack of struggling hitters would want to face. Before the game, several Tigers watched from the dugout as the Red Sox hoisted their championship banner on the centerfield flagpole. Many folks picked the Tigers to win this year's World Series. But Tuesday, even as the banner was in the Tigers' midst, it seemed far from their current reach.

House Democrat says Iraq policy left nation vulnerable to attack

House Democrat says Iraq policy left nation vulnerable to attack By ANNE FLAHERTY • Associated Press Writer • April 9, 2008 WASHINGTON — The Bush administration’s Iraq policy has left the United States with insufficient resources to protect itself from attack, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee said today. “When looking at the needs in Afghanistan, the effort in Iraq — however important — is putting at risk our ability to decisively defeat those most likely to attack us,” said Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo. “Iraq is also preventing us from effectively preparing for the next conflict.” Skelton’s comments on the second day of testimony by Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador there. Petraeus told lawmakers that security gains in the war zone are too fragile to promise further drawdowns. “The situation in certain areas is still unsatisfactory and innumerable challenges remain,” Petraeus told the House panel.Skelton and other Democrats on the committee were expected to focus on the health of U.S. forces, which they contend are stretched too thin by the war.Republicans also planned to voice their concern about the strain on the military but said they were considerably more optimistic about the situation in Iraq than last year.“No one can deny that the security situation in Iraq has improved,” said Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, the No. 1 Republican on the committee.Petraeus said he has recommended to President George W. Bush that the U.S. complete, by the end of July, the withdrawal of the 20,000 extra troops. Beyond that, the general proposed a 45-day period of “consolidation and evaluation,” to be followed by an indefinite period of assessment before he would recommend any further pullouts.Bush is expected to embrace Petraeus’ plan, which reflects a conservative approach that leaves open the possibility that roughly 140,000 U.S. troops could remain in Iraq when the president leaves office next year — a strategy Democrats are criticizing.

Greenspan: US 'in the throes of a recession'

Note if you want to see the interview hit up the link. This video is from NBC's Today Show, broadcast April 9, 2008. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said on Tuesday the U.S. economy was in recession, and said it would be appropriate to tap public funds to resolve the mortgage-related crisis that has helped pull the economy under. In an interview with CNBC television in which he defended his chairmanship of the U.S. central bank against charges that his policy missteps had laid the groundwork for the current crisis, Greenspan said Fed decisions on his watch were rationally constructed based on evidence at the time. "I have no regrets on any of the Federal Reserve policies that we initiated back then because I think they were very professionally done," Greenspan said. It is unfair to hold his Fed to task for the housing bubble or the current crisis in credit markets, because global market forces were at work to keep long-term interest rates low, not just Fed policies that brought short-term U.S. interest rates down to multi-decade lows, he said. "Clearly, certain of our anticipations of what would happen as a consequence of those policies were off but there's no way of avoiding that," he said. Greenspan went farther than the Fed has by saying outright that the economy is in a recession, although he said it is too soon to say how deep or prolonged the downturn will be. "Consumers are beginning to shrink in, the automobile markets are beginning to contract, production is beginning to ease, and we are in the throes of recession," he said. The U.S. economy will not stabilize until housing markets recover, Greenspan said. To speed that process, the Bush administration should look to the 1980s savings and loan crisis for lessons on settling the crisis by committing taxpayers' money to the project. "I think if you're going to deal with a situation like this it's an issue for appropriated funds of the Treasury to set up something like the Resolution Trust Corporation, which as you remember was very successful in resolving the S&L crisis," Greenspan said. The RTC was set up to liquidate assets of troubled savings and loan associations that had been declared insolvent by the Office of Thrift Supervision. It operated between 1989 and 1995 and closed or helped resolve hundreds of thrifts, many of which had gotten into trouble through sloppy lending practices. The Bush administration so far has adamantly refused to commit public money to help settle a housing crisis in which millions of Americans are expected to lose their homes through foreclosure. Greenspan has in recent days made a series of public statements defending his record at the Fed in light of criticism that a long period of low interest rates and a laissez-faire oversight approach led to reckless market behavior that resulted in the sharp housing correction and the ongoing credit freeze. The Financial Times this week published an article of his entitled, "The Fed is blameless on the property bubble." In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Greenspan said, "I was praised for things I didn't do. I am now being blamed for things I didn't do." Greenspan's office did not respond to a request for an interview on Tuesday.