Have an opinion? So does everybody. In America, we take having an opinion a fact and expressing that opinion a right.

Except John McCain.

Now we’ve got the cables. We’ve got talk radio. We’ve got the bloggers. I hate the bloggers. We’ve got all kinds of sources of information.

And apparently he doesn't like it when us little people -- you know, those of us who haven't been entrenched in Washington D.C. power for decades, those of us who aren't married to multi-millionaires, those of us who dare question John McCain's qualifications -- speak out.

Okay, I exaggerated. John McCain hates only 26% of Americans.

Okay, maybe McCain misspoke again. How many passes does he need? Because as we've seen, the mainstream media just love to give John McCain passes. Witness how they hyperventilated in defending McCain against any question that McCain's Vietnam experience "flying in a plane" does not in itself qualify him to be president. (Note that the phrase was made by CBSs sputtering Bob Schieffer when challenging Wesley Clark.) McCain loves the press for loving him.

Bloggers are less likely to give John McCain, or any presidential candidate, a free pass. Maybe that's why McCain hates us so much?

Since the bedwetting conservatives are getting so stimulated by stirring up nonsense like "Barack Obama is a Muslim" and a "terrorist"....

http://www.moremuslimthanobama.com/moremuslimthanobama/

Too funnny!

hmmmm....

Ouch!

‘My marriage ended because John McCain didn’t want to be 40, he wanted to be 25. You know that happens...it just does.’

Her story is a harrowing one -- not because of John McCain -- he just didn't want to be there for it.

[Hat tip to a Twittering blogdiva]

There seems to be a lot of victim mind out there in the blogosphere these days directed at Barack Obama. For example, Reclusive Leftist's post, "Fuck off, Obama":

Actually, what women everywhere now know is that this country still isn’t ready for a woman President. That if a woman runs for President, she doesn’t stand a fucking chance. No matter how brilliant and capable she is, no matter how many people vote for her, the media will crucify her and some shady half-ass snake oil MAN will be handed the nomination instead.

Fuck off, Obama. Just fuck off.

Soviet-style one-candidate election results have now become a rallying cry for a perception of injustice that their candidate did not win. And if she did not win, well, then, it must be because she's a woman, right?

Echidne asks:

Are feminists really divided so clearly along the lines she describes: age, race and class? Are the waves of feminism really so different in their understanding of what constitutes feminism?

I want to leave this post full of questions for you to think about. But I'm already feverishly thinking about some of these issues in terms of my own feminist definitions, about horizontal and vertical equity, about the onion layers of feminism and about which layers we want to work on, about how someone who wasn't part of any of the waves in person might see them and so on. I think we need to go deeper in the onion, to strip off the layers one by one, not to discard them, but to investigate each of them on our way to the core. That probably doesn't make any sense right now, but I think that the way I write about feminism is more in the world of concepts and theories and less in the world of how they ultimately crop up and interact with other phenomena. Is that bad or good or indifferent? Or even true?

Then there's the whole problem of the class "women" being part of so many other classes, defined by race, income, class, religion, ethnicity, so many ties of solidarity of shared experience, of shared oppressions in some cases, too. How does that all play out in defining feminism?

Is it really the case that the nation cannot accept the idea of a woman president? Or is the unthinkable, unacceptable fact is that we as a nation are ready to elect a woman, but Hillary isn't the one, not now?

Some see it as a tragedy that Hillary Clinton did not win the nomination. But I see the real tragedy that so many women (and some men) are stepping into victim mind and seeing a women president as an impossibility. And I do not feel that this is at all the case.

Let's remember that, when she announced, Hillary Clinton was regarded as the front-runner. She had the name recognition. She had the campaign infrastructure. She had the establishment ties with the DLC. She was generally respected in Washington.

But let's not forget that Hillary Clinton was also problematic from the get-go. She had a ton of Clinton baggage. She had the war vote. She had her image problems, leading to a lot of questions of just who she is. She had a disastrous campaign that ignored caucuses and did not imagine having to go on past Super Tuesday. She had her big-money lobbyist ties, and a general lack of grassroots support financially, compared with Barack Obama. And she had Bill popping up, mouthing off, reminding everybody that when you buy Hillary, you get Bill, too.

And her falling into the racist realpolitik analysis on tape and on camera didn't help. It added a real ugliness to her persistent attacks on Barack Obama.

This was during a campaign when Obama couldn't get his message out, thanks to mainstream media obsession with Reverend Wright, flag pins, stealing phrases from his own campaign adviser, and on and on. Clinton was getting plenty of coverage of her own attacks on Obama, while he was buried in a media agenda of trivialities and distractions. Did one reporter ask Clinton why she wasn't wearing a flag pin? (Or McCain for that matter?)

No, it seems Obama has been the whipping boy in the campaign coverage.

What's the narrative we have this week? Rachel S. writes on Alas, a Blog:

One thing that struck me about Clinton and Obama is that I didn’t notice either one of them make note of the historic significance of having the first black nominee for President on a major party ticket. In contrast, both of them noted the groundbreaking campaign by Hillary Clinton, arguing that she was blazing a path for women, but I didn’t hear the same for Obama. Isn’t that an interesting distinction between racial politics and gender politics? The colorblind ideology silences almost any public discussion of racism by black candidates, who are vying for white votes. In contrast, we don’t have as much silence on the gender front (from the candidates). That has been a fairly consistent pattern in this Presidential election over the past few months.

Let's look at Barack Obama then. John on Liberal Rapture writes:

The problem is Obama. Clinton supporters came to her initially because of her experience. We liked her. We did not - in large part - become fervently committed to her until the media and Obama's campaign began to trash her. Obamites, quit pretending this trashing did not happen. It did. Anyone who spent 32 seconds on Kos-co or watching MSNBC knows you were ugly and relentless in your vilification. Stop lying about it. It is insulting. Our passion for Hillary arose out of her response to this hatchet job. She went from being the best person for the job - to the fierce leader of a huge part of the Democratic Party.

Policy is not the issue. Cue: Obamites going nuts. "How can you say this??? Supreme Court etc etc" This is an ironic response to say the least. You guys have not voted, rallied, and donated to Obama based on policy - ever.

Oh really? Talk about the strawman/straw-woman! What about the major policy difference between Clinton and Obama: the war on Iraq? I'd say there's a very large contingent of voters who would not vote for Clinton because of her vote authorizing the war, and her failure to really own up to it. (Sorry, but just saying "I've taken responsibility for my vote" doesn't cut it.)

Almost to a person the commitment to Obama has been put in terms of personality.

Personality counts, though, doesn't it? We elect a person, not a platform. This isn't parliament. You can't just dismiss personality when it comes to leadership -- true leadership.

Putting what we know about his past aside for a moment - why don't you appeal to Clinton voters based on what you find so suitable in this man? I am not kidding. I am filling in a gap I see in the play for Clinton voters. Honestly - in over a year I have yet to hear WHY HIM?

Why him?

• Because one of the most broken things in DC is the fact that lobbyists are not only dominating the Congressional agenda, they are actually writing the bills, and Obama is running against that idea, while Clinton embraces it.
• Because Clinton is part of the DLC, which has been a huge sell-out to lobbyists.
• Because Obama's voting record is progressive.
• Because Obama paints a vision of the future, while Clinton was running on the past, on her resume.
• Because Obama is a very smart guy who doesn't insult our intelligence when discussing the issues.
• Because I can sense Obama's authenticity, while every time I've seen Clinton over the past 8 years, I've been left wondering who she is, what she really believes.
• Because of the Iraq War, his opposition of it.
• Because I'm seeing a lot of Republicans fascinated and interested in Obama.
• Because Obama speaks centrist but votes progressive.
• Because Obama's financial support comes from 1.5 million individual donations from ordinary people, not from a few thousand elites and lobbyists.
• Because he worked his way up from humble beginnings.
• Because of his background as a community leader.

Them's just a few off the top of my head. But I wonder if the real question here is whether an older generation of people, who tend to have, let's face it, more hang-ups about race than younger Americans, are willing to vote for a black man.

He just loves Government spying on Americans.

So I'm listening to the crazy hoohah being offered up by pundits about whom Barack Obama should pick for a running mate. Jim Webb? Oh, puhleeze, not a coathanger Dem! Wes Clark? He was interesting 4 years ago, but he started flat and ended flat. Obama is already calm, we don't want to put people to sleep. Hillary? I don't think that will happen, or is even a good idea.

So here's a wild idea: Christine Todd Whitman. What? Am I crazy? Hold a sec:

1. She's pro-choice, so nix that one concern about Republicans.
2. She quit as EPA head for the Bush Administration over their unwillingness to address pollution and global warming.
3. As former governor of New Jersey, she's known and trusted by northeasterners as an administrator. She's not an ideologue.
4. She's a Republican, so disgruntled Hillary supporters turning a jaundiced eye towards the Democrats have something to think about.
5. She's known and respected by liberal pundits and personalities, including Bill Moyers.
6. She's a fiscally conservative, socially liberal Republican, making it harder for the wingnuts to attack her without alienating much of their base.
7. As an advocate of pushing the Republicans back towards the center, and opponent of third-party endeavors, she plays into Obama's uniter message.

Okay, so maybe it's crazy, and she's not likely to bite on the idea, but you have to admit, it's an interesting idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Todd_Whitman

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/01/03/2008-01-...

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Christine_Todd_Wh...

Is Hillary losing her grip on reality, or is she the 3rd Party candidate? Surely we saw when Joe Lieberman run in 2006 after he lost the primary he felt was denied him and decide to run as an independent, but that was for a senate seat.

Ross Perot formed a third party, but he did not run in any primaries, save his own.

Then there were the Dixiecrats who ran Strom Thurmond in 1948, after a credentials fight. But what strikes me as interesting is that in 1912, Teddy Roosevelt did not accept the fact that the Republican party chose to renominate the incumbent, William Howard Taft. So Roosevelt continued on after losing that bout and created his own party, The Progressive Party, sometimes called the Bull Moose party.

This split the Republican vote and Woodrow Wilson headed to the White House.

With all the votes seeming to be in Obama's favor, nomination-wise that is, what is Hillary playing at? She claims she's ready to lead on "day one," or so she says, but real leadership is knowing when a cause is lost and when it's time to quit.

And on this one, she is like George W. Bush. The surge is on and victory is around the corner and don't tell either of them anything else.

In the end, if her intractability prevails, she may end up in history books as the spoiler of 2008.

Instead, all the talk is about how Hillary's supporters are upset she did not win, how they're all going to go vote for McCain, how Obama is so mean because ... he won? I don't get it.

Anyway, maybe it's time to talk about the disrespect directed at Barack Obama for attacking him and obsessing about Hillary Clinton on the night that the first African American wins the nomination of a major political party.

This is history, people! Watch, listen, hear him, and see if you aren't moved.

Note: He doesn't talk about himself much, and does not talk about this momentous occasion.

This is leadership.

In our country, I have found that this cooperation happens not because we agree on everything, but because behind all the labels and false divisions and categories that define us; beyond all the petty bickering and point-scoring in Washington, Americans are a decent, generous, compassionate people, united by common challenges and common hopes. And every so often, there are moments which call on that fundamental goodness to make this country great again.

So it was for that band of patriots who declared in a Philadelphia hall the formation of a more perfect union; and for all those who gave on the fields of Gettysburg and Antietam their last full measure of devotion to save that same union.

So it was for the greatest generation that conquered fear itself, and liberated a continent from tyranny and made this country home to untold opportunity and prosperity.

So it was for the workers who stood out on the picket lines; the women who shattered glass ceilings; the children who braved a Selma bridge for freedom's cause.

So it has been for every generation that faced down the greatest challenges and the most improbable odds to leave their children a world that's better, and kinder, and more just.

And so it must be for us.

America, this is our moment. This is our time. Our time to turn the page on the policies of the past. Our time to bring new energy and new ideas to the challenges we face. Our time to offer a new direction for the country we love.

And here on this night, the first time an African American -- or a non-white person of any kind -- has won the nomination of a major political party in America, he speaks not of this but of Hillary:

At this defining moment for our nation, we should be proud that our party put forth one of the most talented, qualified field of individuals ever to run for this office. I have not just competed with them as rivals, I have learned from them as friends, as public servants, and as patriots who love America and are willing to work tirelessly to make this country better. They are leaders of this party, and leaders that America will turn to for years to come.

That is particularly true for the candidate who has traveled further on this journey than anyone else. Senator Hillary Clinton has made history in this campaign not just because she's a woman who has done what no woman has done before, but because she's a leader who inspires millions of Americans with her strength, her courage, and her commitment to the causes that brought us here tonight.

We've certainly had our differences over the last sixteen months. But as someone who's shared a stage with her many times, I can tell you that what gets Hillary Clinton up in the morning — even in the face of tough odds — is exactly what sent her and Bill Clinton to sign up for their first campaign in Texas all those years ago; what sent her to work at the Children's Defense Fund and made her fight for health care as first lady; what led her to the United States Senate and fueled her barrier-breaking campaign for the presidency — an unyielding desire to improve the lives of ordinary Americans, no matter how difficult the fight may be. And you can rest assured that when we finally win the battle for universal health care in this country, she will be central to that victory. When we transform our energy policy and lift our children out of poverty, it will be because she worked to help make it happen. Our party and our country are better off because of her, and I am a better candidate for having had the honor to compete with Hillary Rodham Clinton.

A fabulous speech.