Smart Take: The Columbia Journalism Review on "What Wesley Clark really said, and how the press missed it"

Zachary Roth at the Columbia Journalism Review has an new article up rightfully defending Gen. Wesley Clark against the smears by McCain and the media.  Here's Roth's very smart take:

__________________________________________________________

So: The latest round of mock outrage—in a presidential race that has turned the tactic into an art form—now comes in response to comments made by General Wesley Clark.(...)

When moderator Bob Schieffer interjected that “Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences, either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down”, Clark responded: “Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.”(...)

The McCain camp, sensing an opportunity, complained that Clark had “attacked John McCain’s military service record.” Of course, Clark had done nothing of the kind. He had questioned the relevance of McCain’s combat experience as a qualification to be president of the United States. This is a distinction that you’d expect any reasonably intelligent nine-year old to be able to grasp.(...)

This is the perfect embodiment of the press’s unbelievably destructive habit of assessing every piece of campaign rhetoric for its political acuity, rather than for its validity and accuracy. Clark’s comments may (or may not) have been impolitic. But that has no bearing on their validity or lack thereof—which is how the news media should be evaluating them.(...)

It’s crucially important that we have a political debate in this country that’s at least sophisticated enough to be able to handle the following rather basic idea: Arguing that a person’s record of military service is not a qualification for the presidency does not constitute “attacking” their military credentials; nor can it be described as invoking their military service against them, or as denying their record of war heroism.

That’s not a very high bar for sophistication. But right now it’s one the press isn’t capable of clearing.

It's Controversies Like This That Get My Blood Boiling...

Let's be clear: Wesley Clark, GENERAL Wesley Clark, neither said nor did anything to demean John McCain's service to this country.  

Here's the full quote from Gen. Clark from yesterday's Face the Nation that has stirred up all this controversy:

"In the matters of national security policy making, it's a matter of understanding risk.  It's a matter of gauging your opponents and it's a matter of being held accountable. John McCain's never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war.

He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee and he has traveled all over the world, but he hasn't held executive responsibility.  That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded, that wasn't a wartime squadron....

...I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president." 

What is so damn wrong about what Gen. Clark said?  He spoke the truth.  He did say, after all, that he honors McCain's service and that McCain was a hero to him.  But being in the military does not necessarily prepare you for being President.  And although it makes for a sympathetic story, being shot down and held as a POW is not a qualification for being President.  

And for Gen. Clark to be attacked by John McCain for being somehow disrespectful to the military is absurd.  McCain should apologize.  The media should apologize for making this a lead story today.  And Barack Obama also owes Gen. Clark an apology for coming out against them today.  Why isn't anyone standing up and saying that Gen. Clark has said nothing wrong?  But once again, the media and our Democratic nominee is falling into the trap of appeasing the Republicans.  John McCain says Obama needs to go to Iraq.  What does Obama do?  Schedule a trip to several countries around the world, with the anticipation of an unscheduled visit to Iraq.  McCain says that Gen. Clark was disrespectful to the military.  Obama comes out, agrees, and condemns Gen. Clark.  And all the while, the media plays along.  

I'm sick and tired of the reputation of great men and women being destroyed by the Republicans, the media, and the lack of backbone by some members of the Democratic party.  It happened to Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Bob Kerrey, and now Gen. Wesley Clark.  Enough is enough.

Senators Obama and McCain On The Economy

Obama and McCain outlined their approach on how to revive the nation's economy.  Both their plans rely heavily on taxes.  Like Reagan-Bush and Bush 43, their's is a tax policy and not an economic policy so it will not result in a sustained economy or job creation on a sustained basis.  They seem to have learned nothing from the last three Republican Presidents concerning the economy.

 

McCain's Plan:  (1)  Reduce regulation. (Like as if Bush paid any attention to regulation)  (2)  Cut Corporate Taxes;  (3)  Expand free trade agreements;  (4)  Cut Government Spending;  (5)  Maintain Bush's tax cuts for the wealthier Americans.

 

Obama's Plan:  (1) Expand health insurance for all;  (2)  Reducing income inequality;  (3) Raise taxes on Wealthy Americans;  (4)  $50 Billion economic stimulus plan and tax cuts for middle income Americans.

 

McCain plans to pay for his proposal by reducing spending but Republican Presidents and Republicans in Congress including McCain do not have any record of reducing spending.  In fact the Republicans are the biggest spenders of all time and deficit spenders at that.

 

Obama plans to pay for his proposals by raising a variety of taxes including increasing capital gains rate to 20%; increasing taxes for families with incomes over $250,000. and ending the cap on Social Security income now set at $102,000. by also taxing income over $250,000.

 

McCain and Obama's announced plans are not an economic policy to answer the serious problem facing America.  Neither one mentions balancing the federal budget, so they are committed to keep piling on debt which is the main cause of our economic problems.  The United States can not keep paying a half trillion dollars a year just to pay interest payments on the national debt.

 

Where do they stand and what are their plans for the Greening of America, for conservation to reduce Energy usage; for reducing gasoline prices?  Both voted for Bush's energy bill that gave the Oil and Gas Companies $17 Billion in tax breaks.  The Oil and Gas Companies really needed that;  yea, tell me another fairytale.  They should both be urging congress to reduce the speed limit on the Interstate system to 55 MPH like President Carter did.  It worked and worked well.  In fact both of them should be in Washington introducing that measure.

 

I have commented before that stimulus packages do nothing to create a sound economy.  In fact they come after the economy goes south.  In other words, after the fact.  The idea is to have a sound economic policy that is broad based with the intent of balancing the federal budget.  We are near ending eight years of an administration who has wrecked the economy and put the country into record debt.  The President, Republicans and Democrats in Congress have offered no way to pay for the war in Iraq and the cost will soon hit the trillion dollar mark and climbing.  Sadly, Obama and McCain are AWOL on the issue.

 

We the people are asked to believe in change, yet both candidates have had an opportunity to change things in Congress but failed to do so.  New we have their proposals concerning the economy that also fails to change the status quo or to answer our economic problems.

 

We are told that this is an important time in our history, yet, we have two candidates without any original thought and still stuck with recycled proposals that are supposed to pass as an economic policy.  Where are Americas true leaders for the future?

The United States Policy Toward Israel Has To Change...NOW!!!

I have commented before how the U.S. relationship with Israel was not working and how Israel's leaders are the biggest obstacle to peace in the middle east and solving the Israel-Palestine problem.  The Bush administration in particular has done nothing to change the status quo concerning this problem.

 

Now we have a report coming out of Israel by Secretary of State Condi Rice as carried in the New Orleans Times Picayune dated 6-16-08 and I quote from the article.  "Israel's persistent building of Jewish homes on disputed land undermines the U.S. backed attempt to write an Israeli-Palestinian peace draft this year and invites questions about Israel's motives.  Using exceptionally harsh language the visiting U.S. envoy said Israel must understand the pall its actions cast over talks and on the confidence of the U.S. European nations and others that Israel is bargaining in good faith.  She said the Jewish state has apparently picked up the pace of housing expansion since President Bush inaugurated negotiations at Annapolis, Md."

 

The above statement is so hypocritical and comes 7-1/2 years too late for this administration who has over looked Israel's housing expansions since it came to office.  Bush and Rice like to demand a lot from other countries, but when it comes to Israel there are no demands for the peace process and for Israel to change its behavior.  The leaders of Israel and Bush will continue to increase tensions in the middle east with their arrogance.  Israel does not even honor their own agreements with the U.N. concerning the borders.

 

It is easy to see why the leaders of Israel dislike former President Carter.  They can not persuade him to go with their own failed policies.  Carter is the one American who has a handle on the real problem and what it takes to bring peace to the Israel and Palestinian conflict.  The Israel-Egyptian peace treaty that Carter led has been in force for almost 30 years and is working.  It is obvious the leaders of Israel do not want the same success with Palestine. 

 

It is way past time for the Bush administration to admit its failure and change the U.S. policy toward Israel.  Obama and McCain have been silent on the issue but they need to speak out and let the voters know where they stand on the issue.  After all, one of them will be the next President in January.

Bush, Israel, Iraq and Iran: A Deadly Combination

The Bush administration wants a security pact with Iraq on keeping U.S. Troops based there for the foreseeable future.  Bush wants this concluded before he leaves office and will tie the hands of the next President if put in effect.  Keeping American troops in Iraq will insure the U.S. of a continued war in the middle east for years to come with no end in sight.

 

An American presence in Iraq is not needed to protect the middle east or the security of the U.S., just as the war and occupation of Iraq over WMD that did not exist was not needed.  Bush has put America and our men and women in uniform in danger with his reckless policies.  Iran is opposed to the U.S. military pact with Iraq and says the U.S. wants to use such American presence as a base to attack Iran.  They are probably right.  Bush says he does not need Congress to approve such a pact.  If that is true, Congress should not fund any such agreement.

 

Now we have Shaul Mofiz a cabinet minister in Israel's government of Prime Minister Olmert saying that Israel will have no choice but to attack Iran if it does not halt its nuclear program.  The Prime Minister distanced himself from that quote.  Israel, a country that former President Carter said had up to 150 nuclear weapons is secret about their own nuclear program but wants Iran to fess up concerning their program.  Since Shaul Mofiz made a threat of attacking Iran, I guess that means Iran can launch a preempted strike against Israel to protect its people.  Two can play Israel sorry game.

 

The present leaders of Israel and the U.S. are reckless with their policies and talk concerning the middle east and seem bent on having a nuclear war in that area.  The new U.S. President needs to change our policy and relationship in the middle east and Israel and promote real peace and stability in the area.  If the new U.S. President promotes the status quo with Israel and the middle east does anyone think that will make America safer? 

 

Our Presidential candidates, Obama and McCain need to stand up and be counted on what their policies would be in the middle east and with Israel.  So far they have taken no position on Bush's plan to have a treaty with Iraq on keeping a U.S. presence there with U.S. troops.  What a shame.  The status quo with Israel and the Middle East is unacceptable. 

Bush, Israel, Iraq and Iran: A Deadly Combination

The Bush administration wants a security pact with Iraq on keeping U.S. Troops based there for the foreseeable future.  Bush wants this concluded before he leaves office and will tie the hands of the next President if put in effect.  Keeping American troops in Iraq will insure the U.S. of a continued war in the middle east for years to come with no end in sight.

 

An American presence in Iraq is not needed to protect the middle east or the security of the U.S., just as the war and occupation of Iraq over WMD that did not exist was not needed.  Bush has put America and our men and women in uniform in danger with his reckless policies.  Iran is opposed to the U.S. military pact with Iraq and says the U.S. wants to use such American presence as a base to attack Iran.  They are probably right.  Bush says he does not need Congress to approve such a pact.  If that is true, Congress should not fund any such agreement.

 

Now we have Shaul Mofiz a cabinet minister in Israel's government of Prime Minister Olmert saying that Israel will have no choice but to attack Iran if it does not halt its nuclear program.  The Prime Minister distanced himself from that quote.  Israel, a country that former President Carter said had up to 150 nuclear weapons is secret about their own nuclear program but wants Iran to fess up concerning their program.  Since Shaul Mofiz made a threat of attacking Iran, I guess that means Iran can launch a preempted strike against Israel to protect its people.  Two can play Israel sorry game.

 

The present leaders of Israel and the U.S. are reckless with their policies and talk concerning the middle east and seem bent on having a nuclear war in that area.  The new U.S. President needs to change our policy and relationship in the middle east and Israel and promote real peace and stability in the area.  If the new U.S. President promotes the status quo with Israel and the middle east does anyone think that will make America safer? 

 

Our Presidential candidates, Obama and McCain need to stand up and be counted on what their policies would be in the middle east and with Israel.  So far they have taken no position on Bush's plan to have a treaty with Iraq on keeping a U.S. presence there with U.S. troops.  What a shame.  The status quo with Israel and the Middle East is unacceptable. 

Remembering Tim Russert

I was shocked, needless to say, to hear of the untimely passing of Tim Russert this afternoon.  Tim contributed so much to the national discussion regarding politics and policy and he will be deeply missed.

Looking back and reflecting on Tim and his work, many things come to mind.  For one, I didn't always like him.  I despised him for being so tough with Hillary during her appearances. But at the same time, I was glued to the television, with a grin on my face, whenever he took the Republicans to task.  Looking back, Tim was being tough with Hillary, but he was also as tough with all his other guests.  Tim didn't play favorites.  He didn't take sides.  Was he a Republican?  Was he a Democrat?  I don't know and I don't think anyone does.  

In fact, I often heard my Democrat friends complain that Russert was a blatant Republican.  At the same time, if you ever checked out any of the conservative blogs, they were constantly claiming Russert was an out of control liberal.  I suppose thats when you know a journalist is truly doing their job --- not when one side loves you and the other hates you, not even when both sides love and praise you, but when both sides think you're playing for the opposite team.  

When Sunday would role around, there was only one Sunday show I was interested in seeing: Meet the Press.  The frequent hour long interviews with only one commercial interruption were unprecedented and truly covered all the bases.  

And although one couldn't tell what political affiliation Russert had, one could clearly tell one thing: Tim Russert loved politics.  Whenever he talked about politics, Russert's face lit up.  His level of excitement exceeded that of the proverbial "kid in a candy store".  

And the work Russert put in was also unbelievable.  He was on MSNBC's Morning Joe almost every day.  Then you could catch him just an hour later discussing politics with Meredith and Matt on the Today Show.  A few hours later he would be anchoring an hour of news coverage on MSNBC.  In another few hours, he was talking politics with Brian Williams on Nightly News.  He would then be a guest on Hardball or Countdown.  On Saturday, Russert hosted the hour long Tim Russert Show on MSNBC and then on Sunday it was Meet the Press on NBC.  No one worked harder.  And it's not as if Russert had to work like that either; he chose to.  As Vice-President of NBC news, Russert didn't have to do a damn thing: he chose to, though, because he loved politics and he loved sharing his passion with the American people.   

Finally, I just want to talk about Russert's influence on me, an influence I don't think I fully until tonight.  Tim would often, on Meet the Press, read a quote that his guest made in the past and then compare and contrast it with the same guest's most recent statements and positions.  Looking back, I did the same thing many times here.  It was just while reflecting on Tim that I came to realize this.  

In conclusion, I just want to extend my heart and prayers to the Russert family.  Tim Russert will always be remembered and will be sorely missed.  

Barack Obama: The Democratic Party's Nominee for President

Tuesday night Senator Obama reached the number of delegates needed to win the Democratic nomination for President.  That vote will be confirmed at the Convention in August and Obama will carry the mantle of Democratic leadership in the general election in November. 

 

It is now Mr. Obama's responsibility to convince the voters that he is the best candidate to lead the country for the next four years.  Mr. McCain will carry the same burden for the Republican party.  There will now be a lot of focus on who will be picked as V.P. on both sides and the news media will try to tell us how important that choice is, but make no mistake, it is the Presidential candidate themselves who will bear the responsibility for selling their vision to the voters. 

 

There are those in the news media and other supporters of the candidates who are already talking about blaming some one else if the candidate they support looses.  The blame game has already been placed in the fast lane.

 

The chance of a nasty campaign in the general election are high.  The Republicans are masters at saying nasty things about their opponents because they themselves feel inadequate.  Because for the first time an African American is a Presidential nominee the race card will be played when nasty remarks are made even though it may not be a racist remark and before you know it the nasty campaign will be in high gear.

 

Personal attacks and false statements by politicians have been accepted by the voters for many years.  That is why it works.  Voters say they do not like it but end up using it to support their vote.  They also tolerate it by watching it on T.V. and listening to it on talk radio for hours.  Who wants a dull campaign when you can have a nasty one and the winner accomplishes nothing after the election.

 

The voters will find out real soon what kind of campaign Obama and McCain choose to run.  They are both talking change and the people have given them a chance to do so.  Lets see if they deliver on their promises and articulate what kind of change they are talking about. Lets also see if the voters have learned anything.

The November General Electrion And The American Voter

In six months the American people will go to the polls and cast their vote for a new President.  A process that is repeated every four years and in the last twenty eight years, three of the last four Presidents were reelected to a second term.

 

On the Presidential ballot will be a representative of the Democratic and Republican parties and one or more third party candidate representing their affiliations.  Third party candidates have been able to influence the out come of some past elections and no doubt hope to have the same influence in November.  The voting public has the right to vote the candidate of their choice or not vote at all.  That last option does not sit well with many Americans but those who choose to exercise that right are comfortable with their position. 

 

No one really knows how many Americans would like to see some one on the ballot other than the Democratic and Republican nominees representing those two parties, but I believe that number is probably significant.  The long primary season has a way of distracting the people and the candidates away from the issues and continuity is lost.  A shorter primary season would bring out just as many voters and would give the lesser financed candidates a chance to compete and be heard in all the primaries.

 

In my judgement and from what I see, even at this late date, If Al Gore or Governor Ed Rendell, both democrats or Senator Chuck Hagel or Mayor  Bloomberg, both independent-minded republicans entered the race and could get on the ballots in every state as third party candidates and have the financial resources to compete, the election results would be something never heard of before. 

 

The election and reelection of George W. Bush has had a traumatic effect on the American voters even though the people gave Mr. Bush their vote twice.  The voters elected the least qualified person to be President in my life time and I go back to the WWII generation.  That is spilling over to the present election and I sense the people are in a bad mood.  Senator Obama, who is the Democratic nominee for President, has much less experience than Bush had at this same junction.  Senator McCain, who is the official Republican nominee, is a veteran with years of congressional experience but has really had no significant impact concerning those things that really matter and make a difference in leading people in the political arena.  Both Obama and McCain talk about change but has not articulated what or how they would change things and has no record of change in the Senate. 

 

So the people are caught in a gotcha situation: Who to vote for, a Democratic, a Republican or a third party candidate?  We the voters have put ourselves in this situation by not holding our elected officials accountable for their actions.  We let ourselves be divided by them as liberals, conservatives, right or left instead of being just a plain American.  In the 2000 election, state officials in Florida allowed a confusing ballot be used by the voters which sure enough confused the voters and threw the election in the lap of the U.S. Supreme Court. 

 

Now we are in another election year cycle and the media and others have taken sides.  Lets see if those who wanted to short circuit the process will make their voice known in the future for a shorter primary season for both parties.  I would not hold my breath. 

 

Senator Clinton and Obama are not very far apart in the popular vote yet a wedge has been used against the people for this close race with a demand for closure months ago.  Those who pursued unreasonable demands may be disappointed in the next four years.  Time will tell.

The Next Four Presidential Years...

...should be an eye opener for America and its people because it will allow the people to judge just how much the new President has learned from the failed policies and leadership of George W. Bush.  The people witnessed Mr. Bush's failed policies, his secret government, an unnecessary War in Iraq, and his violation of our laws as a public servant.  Mr. Bush's reckless behavior was so blatant the next President will have no excuse for repeating the same mistakes.

 

The thing to watch for is the voters' attention as to what is going on.  Will the voters say amen that Bush is gone and then not hold the new President responsible for his actions?  Remember Mr. Bush started an unnecessary war in Iraq that claimed lives and was still reelected by the voters.  Will the status quo be accepted?  What change will take place for a better quality of life for the people instead of more benefits to special interest groups?  We heard the song and dance  before when Bush ran in 2000 and then failed to deliver.  Now we are hearing a new song and dance from a different source.  Are the people prepared to do something about it if the new President does not deliver on its promises?

 

History has shown the people have not yet learned how to deal with politicians who break their promise and go back on their word.  History has also shown the people let themselves get duped by the news media about Presidents who have done well for the people, only to be degraded by the media.

 

What will you the voter do if the next President decides on a new course unlike the one he campaigned on?  The voters should keep that in mind and have a plan of action.

A Void In Economic Leadership

The Labor Department announced that the economy lost 49,000 jobs in May and unemployment increased to 5.5%, the largest monthly increase in unemployment since 1986.  The economy has lost jobs every month so far this year and when Bush leaves office his job creation record will be pathetic. 

 

Budget deficits and creating debt continues to be at record levels under Mr. Bush.  That is a sure way to a failed economy and insufficient job creation for an expanding work force.  This administration reversed all the benefits the Clinton administration created for the economy and the people.  And the sad part is that in a Presidential election year only Senator Clinton said her administration would return to balanced budgets.  The other candidates, both republican and democrats never spoke to the issue during the campaign.  That includes Obama and McCain, the nominees of their party.

 

If any one thinks we can have a sustained and growing  economy, low inflation, low unemployment and steady job creation without a balance budget and creating debt please name that administration.  The only administration to accomplish that in the past 50 years was the Clinton Administration.

 

Congress is about to vote on a multibillion dollar bill that includes over $150 billion for Iraq thru next year with no way to pay for it.  Lets see how Obama and McCain vote on this bill.  They may even skip out on the vote and blame it on campaigning.  A likely excuse and a failure of leadership if that happens.

 

Both Obama and McCain should be talking and promoting the greening of America to begin early in the next administration.  They should be talking about balancing the budget and creating surpluses as Clinton did instead of adding debt to the record levels we have at the present time.  The Republican ploy of reducing taxes for the most wealthy people does not get the economic job done.  The voters have fallen for that line to often.

 

If Obama and McCain do not take the balance budget issue seriously, forget about any economic prosperity in the future.  A balanced budget will allow our country to fund and pay for needed services.  Retention of the status quo, budget deficits and debt will bankrupt the United States.  Our debt is approaching 10 trillion dollars and cost the tax payers over $400 billion each year for the last two years in interest payments alone on the debt.  Wasted money, something that elected officials are good at.  The voters need to think real hard about what is happening.

Democratic Leadership -- Is It Really There?

During this Democratic Primary season, the DNC, namely their chairman, Howard Dean, has a leadership role with the committee members in not only shaping the Democratic Party but to bring the nomination to closure at the Democratic National Convention.  Those leaders of the DNC are also responsible for a lot more leading up to the general election.  Leadership is about leading but those responsible for leading at the DNC failed the voters in Michigan and Florida when they penalized those states for early primaries.

 

In the case of Florida, a Republican governor and Republican controlled state legislature was responsible for making the decision to move the states primary early and the DNC fell for the trap and penalized the Florida voters.  Because of a lack of leadership at the very beginning, the DNC rules committee had to meet this weekend and made a decision of what to do about Michigan and Florida.  That decision will not satisfy the voters in those two states and it remains to be seen how that will affect the voters in the general election.

 

The second area of leadership failure falls to Obama.  He and his supporters have already made him the nominee of his party and he has already started his campaign for the general election.  However, he has recently let Senators McCain and Graham squeeze him.  Those two Republican senators told the public Obama needs to go to Iraq to see what is going on.  And sure enough, Obama jumped at the bait and his camp announced he would be going to Iraq.  Once again, the Republicans are controlling the debate on Iraq.  Does any member of congress, much less a candidate for President, really have to go to Iraq to discover that we still have 150,000 American troops there over WMD that did not exist?  If Obama can be manipulated that easily and he is the Democratic nominee, the party and the nation are in trouble.  A lack of experience equals a lack of leadership.  And leadership is about leading, not following.

The Morning Dose --- 6/1

Today's Morning Dose comes from Taylor Marsh at TM.com.  

____________________________________________________________

Dear Rules and Bylaw Committee Power Brokers...

Could you be more out of touch? Seriously. Have you not talked to any Hillary Clinton supporters, read their emails in your inbox?

For 4 lousy delegates? How small are you people? Could you not understand what was swirling enough to allow Clinton her due in Michigan? Four lousy delegates?

You have no idea what you've done. The fury you have unleashed. Your arrogance is topped only by your ignorance and the sheer stupidity of this "compromise," which sends a message that you just don't get it. Oh, and by the way, you've also likely just thrown the 2008 election.

Taking myself out of the equation, as well as my support for Clinton which is unending, and to encapsulte the carnage wrought by Saturday's idiocy, you have simply given Hillary's supporters the reason they were craving. Outraged already, many of Hillary's supporters were waiting for a reason to raise a ruckus, and you just gave them one. A righteous one. They were already screaming for Clinton to go to Denver. Now the decibel level is ear shattering.

Over 4 delegates? This is the best solution a group of supposedly astute political minds could come up with? No wonder we lose national elections... oh, except in the 1990s, when Bill Clinton won two terms, the first to do so since F.D.R. Hey, but who's keeping score?

This could not have been handled worse. It could not have made Senator Obama's job more difficult to "unify" the Hillary supporters behind him either, which wasn't going to be easy before, but is now even harder, maybe even impossible.

Over 4 delegates?

Let me enlighten you. Senator Obama is ahead in delegates. A gracious split of Michigan would not have jeopardized his lead. But instead, the RBC, in your infinite wisdom, decided to adjust the delegates just enough to infuriate the entire Clinton contingent that is now set on Defcon Activist Revenge.

The perception problem created is beyond comprehension. Honestly, you have no idea the fuse that's now been lit. But to give you an idea. I'm in the minority on my own blog when it comes to pushing back against a McCain presidency. This didn't happen because of anything Clinton did, my friends. You all cemented it all by yourselves. Oh, with the help of some eager, power hungry people thinking they can push the Clintons out of the Democratic Party and take over without half of the people who support the Clintons signing on. Good luck with that one. Trust me, everyone knows what's really going on.

Pure Outrage

These videos speak for themselves and speak for me: