Anyone who has been married or lived with a significant other or had a domestic partnership has at one time or another heard the words "Honey will you take out the garbage"? And more times than not you begrudgingly answered "okay", dragged yourself off the sofa or away from what you were doing and took out the garbage. And with the July 4th celebration just yesterday and a lot of outdoor barbecues producing left over food and paper plates and cups, there was a lot of garbage to get rid of so there was a lot of "Honey, will you take out the garbage?" going on today across the country.

The other day Bill Clinton issued a one line statement from his office regarding Obama in which he said he would do what he was asked to help Senator Obama's campaign. It was Bill Clinton agreeing to take out the garbage.

Dishonest news outlets like The Disassociated Press, Bloomberg News, The LA Times and others who have had a history of making fools out of themselves by distorting the news in favor of Obama tried to portray this tepid statement as though Obama now had Bill Clinton's unbridled, enthusiastic backing and support and this was proof that the party was uniting behind Obama.

The headline from the article in Bloomberg News was "Bill Clinton Commits to Obama". I'm not kidding. They used the word "commit".

I sent an email to the reporter who wrote the story, Kristin Jensen, and pointed out ("pointed out" is putting it nicely), the dishonesty, bias and absurdity of her article and how obviously it was slanted and agenda driven and didn't even remotely reflect Clinton's statement which sounded like anything but a commitment when it was in fact nothing more than a man agreeing to take out the garbage.

It's hard to know if my email had anything to do with it but the next day the article was changed and the "commit" headline gone and the entire tone of the article was more honest and reflective and surprisingly, (or not surprisingly) attributed many of the original statements in the article to an Obama spokesman whereas the other day they were printed without attribution as if they were fact.

What was actually lost in the Bloomberg article and ignored either out of ineptitude or willful neglect was that Bill Clinton's statement said a lot about his lack of support for Obama, especially if you look at it in its entirety.

First, its obvious Clinton didn't want to make the statement himself in front of cameras and so he didn't. Had he wanted to, he could have held a news conference and commanded first position on the evening news with an enthusiastic backing of Obama. He also didn't want the statement to sound like it was coming out of his own mouth so it was issued from his office which brings us to the second point. He didn't even want an actual human being, any human being, not just himself, to be seen in front of a news camera with this statement emanating from someones actual mouth. So instead his office ( for all we know we can attribute it to the Xerox machine) issued a statement that consisted of one line that said he would do what he was asked to do to help Obama. It was Bill Clinton lying on the sofa saying he'd take out the garbage.

And the press screamed "unity".

After watching Obama the last few weeks and how he has been double crossing all his gullible snake oil drinking enthusiasts, even backing off his promises of withdrawing troops from Iraq and making fools out of Arianna Huffington, Keith Olbermann Jonathan Alter, Newsweek, Ben Smith, Politico, Michael Moore, Andrew Sullivan, The Nation, Daily Kos, the New York Times, John Kerry, Jesse Jackson Jr, Joe Klein, Eleanor Clift, ( I love naming names) and just about everyone else who cast a vote for Obama for what they thought was a rational reason, there are a lot of people who seem to be getting ready to replace Obama's bus with a garbage truck and take Obama to the nearest dump.

He'll have a lot of company ( and have a lot of reading material) with the LA Times, Bloomberg News, the Disassociated Press and any number of other news organizations who will be right there with him for their biased,dishonest irrational, dangerous, and inept reporting. Journalists who refused to see Obama for who and what he was from the very beginning when so many millions of others did.

But with the way things are going, it's starting to look like Bill Clinton might get to stay on the couch after all. It looks like others are starting to pick up after themselves and will soon take out the garbage for him.

In the Obama campaign's most recent bizarre moment, Barack Obama, exercising the judgement he has become famous for, decided it was a good idea to send Wesley Clark onto the Sunday talk show circuit to criticize John McCain's war record and military service saying it was not sufficient for him to be commander-in-chief. This is something like a colander accusing a pot of having holes. It is also crosses the line into incompetence considering that Ret.Major General Barack Obama's war record consists entirely of a successful attack on Alice Palmer to get his start in Chicago politics.

Now we can add another Obama "what were they thinking moment" to go along with his other famous moments including his recent seal of disapproval which doesn't just call his judgement into question, it shows he simply doesn't have any. And while being a Navy fighter pilot and a POW for 4 years certainly doesn't qualify someone to be Commander-in- Chief, being mentored for 17 years by Jeremiah Wright doesn't exactly move you to the top of the list either.

Nancy Pelosi said not too long ago that she supported Obama because he has the judgment to be President. This is of course, like a homeless person giving advice on how to fix the housing crisis. We've been seeing Obama's judgement on display for the past two weeks and it hasn't been pretty. Breaking his pledge on public campaign financing, embracing the telecom immunity bill, reversing himself on Jerusalem within 24 hours which managed to unite both Israelis and Palestinians in their contempt for him, the Johnson episode before that, flip flopping on the recent Supreme Court gun decision while trying to pretend his reversal was because of "inartful" phrasing a year ago, and that obnoxious seal. And now an attack on McCain's military service as being insufficient to be Commander-in-chief in support of a Presidental candidate that doesn't have any of his own.

This is another extension of the judgment Obama showed in his 17 year relationship with Wright and his insufficient and evasive explanations about it during the primary.

After being caught in a series of lies about what he actually knew and heard, he finally admitted what he knew and heard said he disagreed with every inflammatory anti-American statement Wright ever made and found them all reprehensible and despicable. But he never gave a credible explanation as to why it took him 17 years to leave the room.

He has shown a propensity for saying anything to anyone at anytime to get what he wants right at the moment or to try and make a favorable impression and worry about the consequences later and he's been able to get away with it with the terminally gullible.Especially the journalists covering his campaign. But that's how you get reversals and broken pledges and flip flops on Supreme Court decisions and Jerusalem and how the person who claimed he had the judgement to be Commander-in-Chief from day one didn't leave Wright and his church until day 6,205.

Chicago journalists speculate he stayed at Trinity Church for 17 years for political reasons because it was in the district he represented and he did it to continue to get re-elected. Whatever Obama's reasons 17 years is a long time. And his actions and what he had to say about its says everything there needs to be said about his judgement and his credibility and who and what he is as a politician. How he could even think that attacking McCain's military service and war record as making him unfit to be the Commander-in-Chief could have any credibility in boosting his own standing to be Commander-in-Chief should be enough for the super delegates who declared for him on June 5 to undo the damage when they get to the convention and cast their votes when it really counts.

I used to be in advertising. I did print ads and TV commercials and ad campaigns for a living. I won a lot of awards doing it. Everything I did was successful. Everything. I worked for some of the top agencies in the business. And I'm still good at it

It took me less than 5 minutes to write a commercial for John McCain using this one issue, that he could run against Barack Obama from now until election day and John McCain could go fishing from now until November and win an election that would make Reagan - Mondale look like a squeaker.

I'm not bragging. I'm just trying to make a point. I didn't do the commercial as a gift to John McCain. I did it as a gift to the Democratic Party and any superdelegates who still wants to win in November. They have seven weeks to take it. I hope they do.


OPEN ON BLACK AND WHITE STILL OF McCAIN LYING PRONE IN A NORTH VIETNAMESE PRISON CAMP.

VO: For 4 years John McCain stood up for America as a POW in a North Vietnamese prison camp refusing under torture to make anti- American statements to be used as propaganda, never knowing when any given day might be his last.

INTERCUT VARIOUS SHOTS OF OBAMA AND JEREMIAH WRIGHT EMBRACING AND SMILING, THEN WRIGHT ON HIS PULPIT RAILING WITH ONE OF HIS SERMONS.

V.O: For 17 years Barack Obama wouldn't stand up for America against the anti-American statements made by his own pastor in his church on the south side of Chicago until his political ambitions made it neccessary.

TWO STILLS SIDE BY SIDE - A B&W STILL OF McCAIN AS POW - OBAMA AND WRIGHT SMILING FOR THE CAMERA.

V.O.: Years before asking anyone for a single vote each made a choice. On November 4th it will be time to make yours.

FREEZE FRAME: McCAIN IN HIS DRESS WHITE NAVY UNIFORM ON CRUTCHES GETTING A MEDAL.

SUPER: John McCain For President.

SFX: Wright(V.O):"On September 11th the chickens came home to roost.."

See you in Denver.

There was no rain, no thunder and no lightning crackling across the sky. There was no foreboding mansion with creaky doors and broken windows as a stand in for Democratic National Committee headquarters in Chicago. But there just as well could have been.

What the DNC was trying to bill as a show of unity both Thursday night at the Mayflower Hotel and in Unity New Hampshire on Friday was an ongoing horror show produced by those masters of Democratic horror, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean.

Hillary Clinton showed up playing the kidnapped heroine and appeared on stage in New Hampshire with Barack Obama and you could almost feel members of the audience gasping and wanting to shout " No! Don't do it! Watch your back! Get away!" as if they were expecting Jeremiah Wright to leap out from behind a tree any minute.

Clinton read her lines from the prepared script and talked about electing Obama the next President and her supporters cringed in horror. Everyone knew the kidnapped heroine was doing everything that Dean and the DNC and Obama wanted her to do because that's what kidnapped heroine's do, and she played her part to the hilt.

It was ironic because after causing more disunity than the party has ever seen in it's history, Dean, Pelosi and Obama now wanted Hillary Clinton to try and save the day because they know they can't win in November without her.

As Clinton praised Obama and the figurative lightning and thunder crackled overhead, you could sense that most Clinton supporters were watching through their fingers and biting their lower lips at the hard to take parts, like what a wonderful, dashing and decisive commander-in-chief Obama would make. The audience probably bit their lips in solidarity thinking that Clinton was doing the same thing.

When Obama spoke, he talked about his grandmother in Hawaii and how she expressed sympathy for Clinton during the campaign and you could feel the audience suck in their breath, wanting to chant "I told you so". "She was rooting for her grandson," Obama said, adding that she also had complained that Clinton was being treated unfairly.

This little line must have sent more waves of horror through the crowd. Imagine. His own grandmother felt Hillary Clinton was getting unfair treatment. It certainly wasn't a line that is going to inspire a lot of unity with Clinton voters. Having him acknowledge it now after the damage has been done is probably going to evoke more horror for the DNC in the future.

The show had its premiere a few nights ago at the Mayflower Hotel to similarly bad reviews. According to most reports from the Clinton donors invited to the preview, it bombed.

In a brief Q&A that took place Obama was asked if he supported having Clinton's name on the ballot and a roll call vote at the convention. His answer was "I'm not here to negotiate the convention". You could almost hear the major chord from a gothic organ.

The answer was telling. The one who is really scared to death by all this is Obama. He knows he can't win without her if he is the nominee. But he also knows that if he is able to get Dean and the DNC to throw democratic principles over the side and keep her off the ballot in Denver he will alientate her 18 million voters. Given his last two weeks of his own Obama horror show with breaking his campaign pledge on public financing, his reversal on Jersusalem, his embrace of the telecom immunity bill, and the Johnson fiasco, ( not to mention his famous seal) he probably wakes up nights in a cold sweat worrying about a roll call vote.

He was afraid of her in the primaries, he was afraid to debate after getting roughed up at the ABC debate which is why he backed out of the last two, and he is now afraid of what might happen if Clinton's name is on the ballot and super delegates get to vote without pressure from Vampirella herself, Nancy Pelosi.

In the interim, this phony show of unity isn't fooling anyone. Clinton voters see through it, even if they are seeing through it through their fingers. Everyone knows she is playing the role she's been asked to play, doing what she was asked to do.

But in spite of the DNC's best efforts, The Unity Show is laying an egg with audiences. Especially Clinton donors and supporters, the very people for whom it is aimed.

Maybe some day it will become a cult classic with Obama supporters having midnight showings but for now the show gets another performance at the Mayflower on Sunday night. And after the kidnapped heroine makes her entrance, reads her lines, and the show is over, its going to be obvious that it's not Clinton who needs saving but the Democratic Party. And if Obama, Dean and Pelosi should somehow rub their hands together and think they can save it by throwing democratic principles over the side by holding a convention without Clinton's name on the ballot and no roll call vote, the next horror show will be at the Democratic Convention in Denver. And this one will be rocky.

Since so much of what Barack Obama has had to say has sounded like nonsense and snake oil to so many people and since many people consider him to be an underhanded and dishonest politician that cant be trusted , and given that he has recently made news by reversing himself and breaking his pledge on public financing, embracing the anti-civil liberties telecom immunity bill and making statements about Jerusalem that has angered both sides, I decided the best way to find out what it was about Obama that attracted his supporters was to ask one.


MR: So tell me, what has Senator Obama ever accomplished
that qualifies him to be President of the United States?

OS: There you go again playing the old politics of the past.

MR: So accomplishment is the old politics of the past?

OS: Yes.

MR: So the new politics, the one Senator Obama and you
support and represent is that you don't have to
actually have done anything to be President.

OS: Senator Obama represents hope.

MR: Hope for what?

OS: Hope.

MR: Hope for hope?

OS: Yes.

MR: I see.

OS: And Senator Obama represents change.

MR: What kind of change? from what to what?

OS: Just change.

MR: But it has to be change from something to something.That's
what change is.

OS: Senator Obama stands for a new change in Washington
and a new change in politics, ejecting the old
politics of the past.

MR: The old politics where you had to actually
accomplish something

OS: Yes.And hope and change.

MR: But you cant say what kind of hope and change

OS: Not yet.

MR: Why not?

OS; He hasn't told us yet.

MR: Do you expect him to?

OS: I don't know.

MR: What kind of change are we talking about?

OS: A new beginning.

MR: Wouldn't anyone represent a new beginning after 8 years
of Bush?

OS: Not this kind of beginning.

MR: And what kind of beginning is that?

OS: A beginning of hope and change.

MR: If Senator Obama represents change from the old
politics why did he use an old Washington insider to
vet his vice- presidential candidates and then have
to dump him because he was involved in shady loans deals?

OS: You're using that as a distraction.

MR: What's it distracting from?

OS: Senator Obama's message.

MR: And what message is that?

OS: Hope and change.

MR: Senator Obama broke his pledge to finance
his campaign with public money, something he
promised during the primary. He went back on
his word.

OS: Sometimes you have to.

MR:.Why?

OS: To fight against the old politics of the past so he
can do what the country needs.

MR: And what's that?

OS: Bring hope and change.

MR: Hope and change for what?

OS: For what matters.

MR: What matters?

OS: Hope and change
.
MR: Okay so what would be the single biggest change
Senator Obama would accomplish if he were elected?

OS: He's African American.

MR: That's not an accomplishment that's genetics.

OS: You're being divisive. That would be a big change.

MR: But when the country elects the first black President
shouldn't it be because he or she is the best candidate
and the fact that they are black be totally besides the
point?

OS: No. It's about hope and change.

MR: Is it hope for change or hope and change

OS: Either one. its up to you.Its all good.

MR: So it doesn't matter.

OS: No.And he can unify people and bring them together.Help
us over come the divisions that divide us.

MR: Then why is the Democratic Party the most divided in
it's history with almost half the party against him and
most refusing to vote for him?

OS: Uneducated racist Clinton voters.

MR: What flavor Kool-Aid is that?

OS: Cherry.

It's interesting how the mind works.On one level it always wants to tell the truth and sometimes it devises ways to do it on its own even when someone consciously is trying to hide it. That's why people slip up.

Obama's unveiling of his fake presidential seal seems like the perfect example. Its almost as if its both he and his advisors' way of getting the truth out about Obama's and his candidacy.The symbolism of a fake Presidential seal is hard to miss.

After capping off probably the worst first two weeks any supposed Presidential nominee ever had, two weeks where he angered Muslims, Jews, civil libertarians, Democrats who opposed the telelcom immunity bill, and the editorial boards of every newspaper that had endorsed him because of backing out of his pledge on public campaign financing, Obama did what any thoughtful, serious, reflective serious, nominee for President would do. -- he unveiled his own fake Presidential seal. Not the kind that flaps their fins and catches fish in mid air. He already has enough of those with Keith Olbermann, Arianna Huffington, Newsweek and the rest of the news media swallowing everything he throws their way.

This one is supposed to make him look presidential which if you think about it, shows how unpresidential he really is, since if you are Presidential you don't need a prop to make you look like you are. It was obvious they needed a political strategy, something to make him look Presidential because obviously nothing coming out of his mouth has. So in pure Obama fashion they discarded substance and came up with something that looks like it came off the wall of a Knights of Columbus rec room.

No one knows exactly where it came from. One inside rumor has it that he saved box tops and mailed them to Kellog's in Battlecreek Michigan to cash in on their "very own Presidential seal" offer but the box tops didn't count because they were fraudulent. Supposedly Senator Levin intervened and Kellog's sent it anyway. But this is unconfirmed. The other speculation is that it came from a store in Chicago that makes bowling trophies.

But actually, in the end this seal is going to have a very real and useful function. It's going to function exactly the same way the real Presidential seal functions. Its going to remind people of who he is.

Speaking behind a phony Presidential seal is going to be a reminder of everything else that's fake that the seal represents. All the lies, deceptions, deceits and conceits that has earmarked his entire campaign, from his lies about his relationship to Wright and the Trinity Church to NAFTA, Iraq, and his current lies and reversals of the last two weeks. It will act as a warning label, reminding people that when he speaks no one needs to listen because what he has to say isnt any more genuine than the seal he is standing behind.

The seal itself is so preposterous and clownish, it's almost as if Obama is intentionally trying to make a fool of himself and he is succeeding, exhibiting the kind of behavior crisis counselors describe as a cry for help, as if he were saying "I'm over my head and I know it, I know I don't have a clue as to what I'm doing, I've suckered all these people in but now what? What am I going to do? Help me. Get me out of this".

And possibly super delegates who declared for him will do just that, since every day Obama is helping them come to their senses. Which is another reason that Senator Clinton's name needs to be on the ballot in Denver. Aside from the fact that there is a moral obligation to let the democratic process play out and for Senator Clinton's candidacy to be recognized, the Democrats and super delegates need to be in a position to make a choice. They clearly need a safety net. Any attempt by Howard Dean and the DNC to remove Clinton's name from the ballot for the sake of an appearance of party unity that would be as genuine as Obama's seal, would not only destroy any chance the Democrats would have for an alternative, it would also be met with mass desertions from the party by most of Clinton's 18 million voters.For them, taking her name off the ballot would be the last straw. And given the way Obama is going this is not what the DNC needs.

Anyone who had the two weeks Obama's had, would, one would think, lay low and regroup. After all, losing the person you put in charge of vetting your vice presidential candidates because of shady loan deals, adding Muslim women to the list of all the other women he's insulted,making statements about Jerusalem, the thorniest problem in the Middle East and then reversing himself within 24 hours angering Israelis, American Jews and Palestinians who all are now united in thinking that he is an idiot who cant be trusted, then angering most liberal Democrats with his embrace of the telecom immunity bill, and as if that wasn't enough, topping it off by going back on his pledge to publicly finance his campaign showing how shamelessly he can lie and angering editorial boards all across the country who feel betrayed, would not, to a sane person, call for the unveiling of your own fake Presidential seal. But this is Obama. Always looking for something to hide behind. Always looking to put out more snake oil in the hopes that people will buy. Maybe he's been hoping the Philadelphia Inquirer will see this as another "Lincoln moment".

As the Obama people have been saying for months, this is the candidate of change. He is certainly the first candidate to unveil his own Mother's Best Boy Presidential seal. No one can deny that. But he is showing super delegates and the Democrats who have supported him that, as every day goes by, he is becoming not so much the candidate of change, but the reason to change candidates. And it's possible that in Denver super delegates are going to do just that and give him their own seal of disapproval that he can take back with him to Illinois.

NOTE: For those of you who haven't heard, Fox News reported last night that Obama has decided to drop the seal. Either that or Kellog's demanded he return it. This might eventually make it's way into the language. From now on when someone does something incredibly stupid people can say, "He dropped the seal".

FURTHER NOTE: THE DENVER GROUP, a new PAC whose goals are to make sure Senator Clinton's name is on the ballot and that there is a roll call vote at the convention in Denver is now up and running and accepting contributions.

Howard Dean,Nancy Pelosi, the press and super delegates supporting Obama never seemed to understand that running for the Presidency of the United states isn't the same as having open mic night at the DNC.

In the last two weeks alone Barack Obama's candidacy has had a lot more in common with amateur night at the Comedy Store than anything resembling a serious candidate for President

But a funny thing has happened to Obama on his way to Denver. No one is laughing. Obama's act is bombing. And even Howard Dean, Pelosi, Obama's supporters and the super delegates sitting in the audience are looking grim. And for good reason. Obama's act isn't funny. Except to those who didn't vote for him.

In less than two weeks Obama, the candidate who said he was ready to be President on day one, has had Jim Johnson, the person he put in charge to vet Vice Presidential candidates resign within days of his appointment because of questions over shady loans, he angered Muslims, probably all over the world but especially in the US because he removed two Muslim women who were sitting directly behind him because he didn't want them to be seen, then Mr. Agent of Change reversed himself and broke his pledge to have his campaign publicly financed showing for the millionth time his word means absolutely nothing, and last but certainly not least, he told an audience of 7,000 Jews that he completely supported an undivided Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and then 24 hours later after the Palestinians went ballistic, reversed himself again trying, almost hilariously, to say that he didn't make himself clear about what he meant by "undivided".

What he managed to do within a 24 hour time span, was completely shred his credibility with both Israelis' and Palestinians on the most important and difficult foreign policy question in the Middle East.

It looks like Obama is going to have to find another introduction to his act by Howard Dean, his possible MC, who is not going to be able to introduce him as "Mr. Words Matter," or "The Change Candidate". Some people are saying Obama sounds like a loose cannon, but given his campaign slogan maybe from now on he'll be referred to as "loose change".

It hasn't taken Obama long to show what more than half the Democratic party saw throughout the primary. There is no talent or skill there other than for lying and deception and duping the easily duped, and he is leaving no one laughing. Least of all the DNC. Jerry Seinfeld would make a better President.At least he would leave them laughing.

But for the DNC and the Democrats chances in the fall its no laughing matter. Before he has even become the official nominee ( and if the Democrats have an open and honest convention with Clinton's name on the ballot and a roll call vote anything can happen) he has had the person charged with vetting his Vice Presidential candidates resign, he has destroyed his credibility with both Israelis and Palestinians, he has insulted Muslims which can do us no good whatsoever in the war on terror, he has alienated those who believe in campaign finance reform, including the editorial boards who supported him for his position on that, but one thing he has done -- he has miraculously unified Israelis, Palestinians and Muslims who all now collectively agree that he is an idiot.

This should come as no surprise. Obama has lied, backtracked and changed his story repeatedly throughout the campaign, most evident in the Wright episode displaying the same lack of credibility and character we have come to expect. He did the same during the Florida and Michigan controversy, running on a campaign slogan that "voices must be heard" then doing everything he could to keep the voices in Florida and Michgian from counting simply to furhter his own personal ambitions. The press chose to ignore all this rank dishonesty and instead of holding his feet to the fire, acted like it was nothing.

The press actually praised his attempt to wriggle out from under the lies he was caught telling in the Wright episdoe with his Philadelphia speech, the "I am not a crook" moment which the same editorial writers who praised Bush's reasons for going to war in Iraq called his "Lincoln Moment".

Following his "Lincoln Moment", Obama lied to the people of Ohio about his position on NAFTA, misrepresented his position on Iraq which was revealed by one of his former foreign policy advisors and after the Wright episode where he lied repeatedly about his relationship to him and his church,what he knew, when he knew it, and majestically said he couldn't disown Wright or his church, any more than he could disown his own grandmother or the entire black community disowned both Wright and his church when it became to his political advantage to do so..We are still waiting news on his grandmother. And probably so is his grandmother.

Then we had this great line from Obama's Memorial Day speech, something Im sure even Seinfeld envied.

"On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors it's unbroken line of fallen heroes, and I see many of them in the audience today..."

Okay now that was funny.But not if your Howard Dean, the DNC or super delegates supporting him. And not if you were a Democrat hoping to take back the White House which is looking more and more remote every day as long as Obama is the nominee. But maybe now super delegates are starting to see why the majority of the party voted against him in the first place. And why Clinton supporters kept using the term "drinking the Kool-Aid".

But there is still something that can be done and Howard Dean needs to do it. He needs to insure the Democratic Convention in August is an open convention not a coronation. And not the open mic night Obama's candidacy has become.

There is a better act waiting in the wings. Hillary Clinton has not withdrawn her name as a candidate. She hasn't released her delegates. Her campaign is suspended, not over. Obama's actual pledged delegate lead over Clinton is only 1% -- a lead of only 77 delegates not counting the 55 disputed delegates he didn't win and didn't earn in the Michigan compromise that the Clinton campaign said they would take to the credentials committee.And lets not forget that Hillary Clinton is the winner of the popular vote.

Howard Dean and the DNC need to have an open convention with Hillary Clinton's name on the ballot which is what should happen in any case. They must have a roll call vote as the democratic process dictates, so that delegates for Clinton, duly elected have their voices heard and the votes recorded and also so that super delegates can do what they were supposed to do in the first place -- use their judgment to pick the best nominee -- not the judgement of someone with a lower job approval rating than George Bush which is what Nancy Pelosi has, and not Dean's judgement, but their own. It is the only sensible thing to do, and the only thing that can give the Democratic Party time to ensure the best candidate is the nominee.

Obama as the Democratic Presidential candidate has already become the bad joke a lot people thought he would be. And it should be obvious by now that he is not going to leave anyone laughing. Instead the time may be coming for Obama to simply flick the ash off his cigar and say, "Say goodnight Michelle". And if he doesnt, the Democrats still have that cane.

NOTE: THE DENVER GROUP is a new PAC that will be seeking to insure that Howard Dean and the DNC have an open convention and that Clinton's name will be on the ballot and that there will be a roll call vote which the democratic process demands. The PAC should be up and running by Tues and ready to accept contributions.

I don't know if Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi and the DNC had gotten so desperate they kidnapped Tipper to get Gore's endorsement, but they were probably close. Al Gore endorsed Barack Obama and most people yawned. So what else is new? It wasn't anything that wasn't expected. But what it is notable is that it came two weeks after Hillary Clinton endorsed Obama.

There is no doubt that he was pressured heavily by Howard Dean, Pelosi the Axelrod of Evil and the DNC to come out and endorse Obama. Does anyone think he just forgot? The longer Gore waited the worse it looked for Obama and a lot of people in the Obama camp were wondering what he was waiting for.

Gore was being nothing more than a grudging party loyalist, doing what was asked to do, and whose lack of endorsement to date was speaking volumes by it's omission. It's obvious he was asked, cajoled, then finally pressured, then ultimately gave in and came out for Obama.

Given the pathological fear of losing that infects Dean and Pelosi, the pressure must have been enormous. How would you like to hear Nancy Pelosi suffer shortness of breath in your ear? Gore gave them the nightlight, pacifier and endorsement they needed and you can almost imagine Pelosi fanning herself in the parlor moments later.

The truth is if Gore were really enthusiastic about Obama he would have endorsed him a long time ago. I couldn't help but notice that while Pelosi and Dean where whipping super delegates like Egyptian taskmasters to declare for Obama on June 5th, Gore was strangely silent. Moses seemed to have escaped. But last night after either a lot of begging and pleading and "Al, if you don't do it now it looks bad", or Tipper being held captive somewhere, Gore came out and endorsed who he thinks is probably going to be the nominee of the party. And he did it for the sake of the kind of party unity that Dean, Pelosi and the DNC are still in fantasyland about.

The real point about Gore's endorsement is this: Since Hillary Clinton's speech two weeks ago the choices for President looked like they had come down to either Obama or McCain. And for two weeks Al Gore couldn't make up his mind.

Is the DNC preparing for 1968?

No one knows if Howard Dean and the DNC are taking seriously the threat of massive demonstrations against the strong arm tactics of the DNC this year but it seems that the city of Denver is taking it seriously.

A report on Fox News indicates that the city of Denver might be preparing some controversial methods of crowd control against demonstrators at the Democratic National Convention in August. Denver has refused to release information on the kinds of security equipment it purchased with a $50 million grant to be spent on security measures for the Democratic national convention and the ACLU has filed suit to make them public, so far unsuccessfully.

But this something that the Howard Dean-Nancy Pelosi wing of the DNC brought completely on themselves.

First there was the miscalculation Dean made in creating the Florida and Michigan mess which laid the groundwork for the claims that the democratic process was subverted ( which it certainly was) that will be motivating many of the demonstrations. Secondly, there is the fact that the powers that be tied Clinton's hands when she tried to hit back at Obama's attacks which resulted in the feelings of many that there was not a level playing field. And last but not least there was the rush to judgment by Dean and Pelosi insisting that they have a nominee now and pressuring super delegates to make their choices within days of the last primary and not wait till August.

Between Dean's wrecking ball to swat a fly decision to ban the delegates of Florida and Michigan and Pelosi making the statement that super delegates had an obligation to declare according to whoever had the delegate lead in an attempt to pressure the vote in favor of Obama, (if that were the case there would be no need for super delegates in the first place, the DNC Rules would just be whoever had the most delegates wins) the majority feels the whole process was manipulated to achieve a preconceived result.

Super delegates following Pelosi's lead then made their decisions and declared for the popular vote loser. And not just the popular vote loser but the loser of every metric used to gauge the strength of a political candidate. The rationale was that Obama had the most pledged delegates, a 77 delegate lead out of more than 4000 and a lead created solely by victories in outmoded caucuses where the process heavily favored Obama's demographic, not to mention the reports of widespread cheating by Obama supporters at these caucuses ( I myself was contacted by a Clinton delegate who told me about cheating by Obama supporters that she witnessed at a caucus site).

Given all this, what did Dean and the DNC expect? That no one would notice? Or just that people would follow like sheep?

Right now the only people on their way to slaughter is the Democratic Party, first in August, then in November. They have a hornet's nest brewing of their own making and unless they take steps between now and August to fix it they are facing a convention where more than half the party is going to stand against their nominee. They can expect speeches of protest from pro Clinton speakers, demonstrations outside the convention hall against Obama, Dean, Pelosi and the way the process was manipulated, and protests against the same from inside the convention hall.

But they still have time to fix it. And it's simple. The way to fix it is to have Hillary Clinton's name on the ballot at the convention. You know, like an election. And let the convention function the way it's supposed to and for its stated purpose -- to choose a nominee.

Let both sides make their arguments and speeches in support for their respective candidates. Then let super delegates, given the Democrats bizarre nominating system, do what they are supposed to do -- cast their votes for who they believe is the candidate that is both the will of the majority of the Democratic Party and who also has the best chance of winning in November.

Neither Dean nor Pelosi will like that remedy because it will make them look foolish. But given the fact that more than half the party thinks they should both resign, they already look worse than foolish.

Putting Clinton's name on the ballot and letting the process play out will fix some of the damage done by Dean and Pelosi. It's the best they can do now. And it will give a platform to the majority of the party who feel the whole process was manipulated in favor of an agenda to push a questionable candidate with no credentials, no accomplishements and a lot of political baggage, just to fulfill a false set of expectations created by a biased news media, Obama supporters and the Obama campaign itself.

The majority of the party will get their platform. It's up to Dean and the DNC to decide where it will take place. Either inside the convention hall where it belongs as part of the democratic process or on the streets of Denver. It will be up to Dean and the DNC to decide whether they will let the convention choose the nominee by having Clinton's name on the ballot. If they do, it will keep 1968 where it belongs. In the history books.

NOTE: Life imitates art. The information circulating in the last hour is that Dean is moving DNC operations to Chicago to be closer to Obama's home base. So it may really be Chicago 1968 even before they get to the convention.

This came about because the insane Democratic apportionment system which gives almost as many delegates to a landslide loser as a landslide winner, didn't produce a clear cut nominee. So super delegates are asked to do something you hate to see a Democratic elected official do -- exercise their political judgment and pick the candidate they think has the best chance to win in the fall. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Howard Dean insisted it had to be done now even though the convention was 2 months away. And why? Because Pelosi, Reid, Dean and the Obama wing of the party are trying to sell a candidate with a resume and a list of accomplishments that you can read faster than a value meal menu and they didn't think Obama could stand up to 2 more months of Hillary Clinton. Given the way Clinton finished and Obama limped to the finish line they might have been right. But what did super delegates do when they exercised their political judgment? They looked at the popular vote and decided to choose the candidate the majority of voters in the Democratic Party voted against. They looked at the delegate count and saw that, not counting the 55 disputed Michigan delegates, Obama ended with a delegate lead of 77 out of over 4000 even though the democratic apportionment system awarded Obama over 700 delegates in states where he lost by landslide margins. They saw that Clinton was the winner of the 13 biggest and most populous states in the country won every big state in the northeast, took the industrial midwest, the entire southwest from Oklahoma to Nevada, Kentucky, W.Va Tennesse, Florida, Michigan, and California by landslide margins and decided they wanted the loser. And now they've got him and half the Democratic Party is ready to defect. Clinton's 19 million voters are not politicians.They wont say one thing and do another. If 50% - 80% of them say they will won't vote for Obama they wont vote for Obama. They will vote for McCain or a third party candidate or not vote but they will not vote for Obama. Exit polls showed 80% of Clinton voters in Kentucky said they won't vote for Obama, The same is true for W.Va. Exit polls in Ohio and Pa, showed that at least 50% of Clinton voters said they won't vote for Obama. In New York the number was 30% but its a good bet that if 30% are saying it 60% will do it. So how is Obama going to possibly win without the support of half the Democratic Party? Almost everyone agrees the Democrats needed Florida to win. So what are Obama's chances of winning Florida? About the same as Fidel Castro's. The way it looks now there are going to be mass defections from the Democratic party and its not going to be as Clyburn or Obama may try and make it appear, over race. Its going to be because of an spectacularly unqualifed candidate, an unfair process, blatant sexism, party elders that played favorites and said nothing when Obama attacked Clinton in an underhanded way but was all over Clinton if she hit back and pressuring super delegates to declare now and to declare for the pledged delegate winner when the all the primary results taken into account showed that Clinton was clearly the stronger candidate. They short circuited a process that should have been allowed to play out at the convention by more of out of their own fears than anything else. And by not letting it play out at the convention all they did was create a hornets nest of angry and resentful Clinton voters who felt that Obama was the candidate the party elders wanted in the first place and stacked the deck against Clinton. And now more than half the party is going to defect in the fall. If they had allowed super delegates to take their time and wait until August, let everyone have their say, let the process play itself out, let everyone air their thoughts and feelings and let everyone make their case until a decision was made at the convention there might have been time to mend fences and everyone would have gotten what they had to say out of their system which is partly what the convention is supposed to be about in the first place.But that would have been too smart for Pelosi and Dean. Instead the Democratic leadership ( if that isnt an oxymoron I dont know what is) decided to play Mayor Daly with Clinton voters ( for those who don't get the reference Google "Mayor Daly,Democratic Convention, 1968), out of fear that the process would go on too long and possibly damage the Obama kewpie doll, so they shouldn't be too surprised if what they get at the convention is protests of every kind, delegates getting up and walking out, delegates refusing to make the nomination unanimous by acclimation, a party split in half and the potential of Obama giving his acceptance speech in a half empty convention hall. What the powers that be in the Democratic party want in August is a coronation and so they forced the issue, and super delegates actually ignored the math instead of using it. Then they selected the weakest, most unqualified unprepared candidate for President in history. Which may be this year's punch line to the question, "how are the Democrats going to lose this time?" Instead of a coronation what they might have to look forward to is a revolution. Unless they can figure out some way to fix it.

As everyone is well aware, deep divisions have been created by the Obama campaign between Obama and Clinton's supporters. Much of the resentment comes from the free pass given by the press and Democratic Party leaders to some of the most damaging cracks and fissures in a person's character ever seen in a candidate for President. There were also Obama's famous guns and religion comments which alienated most of small town rural America and his underhanded bullying tactics, snide remarks and sexist attitudes towards Clinton which alienated just about all of Clinton's women voters.And then his passive aggressive style which he used to attack by claiming to be the victim, all of which has helped make him the most divisive figure in the history of Democratic politics. But nothing seemed to divide the party more and cause more anger and resentment than Obama's divisive playing of the race card, the architect of which was James Clyburn of South Carolina. Obama and the party knows ( or should know) that far from unity, they are right now looking at mass defections with no contributions to either the DNC or the Obama campaign from any of Clinton's supporters. And the stupefying fact is, this is not a disgruntled minority but the majority of the party.Which shows just how out of touch with reality Pelosi, Reid and Dean and super delegates have been. Everyone in the Obama camp agrees that his first priority was to go about the business of trying to unify the party and Obama stated as recently as yesterday that he was "confident" he could do that. Where that confidence comes from is hard to say. Certainly not from anything connected to reality. And nothing that Obama has ever been able to do in his life. But it didn't take long for even that fantasy to get blown out of the water. Congressman Clyburn did Obama no favors on PBS last night ( June 4) when he said "there is no doubt that there are people in the Democratic Party who wont vote for Obama because of race". So, before anyone has even had a chance to take a breath, the Obama campaign was whipping out the race card which is one of the very things Clinton voters resented from the start. And now it's going to get most of them to dig in their heels against Obama even more. And who can blame them? The ugly assertions and underlying message of Clyburn, the subliminal message they are trying to send, the one trick pony that is Clyburn's brainchild, is that if you don't back Obama you are a racist. Clyburn played the race card in South Carolina and it worked. It not only went unnoticed by the media but 90% of what used to be called the liberal press but which can now be safely described with another "L" word, the lunatic press, took the race bait. Clinton's campaign which should have fought back was passive.The result was that in South Carolina and in every primary since, Obama won 90% of the African American vote. Judgement was supposed to be one of the hallmarks of Obama's campaign even though everyone on the other side saw that if anything, Obama's judgement left a lot to be desired, especially regarding his 17 year close relationship with Wright. The issue was how he could have continued a close relationship with someone like Wright whose anti American, anti-white and anti-Semitic stances were an integral part of his church. And Obama's judgment for not leaving that church and what it said about him is and was fair game. After all, this is the candidate who proclaimed he had the judgement to be President from day one, and it took him to day 6,253 to sever his relationship with Wright and his church. Many Chicago journalists have written that they believe it was for political reasons since the church was in the district Obama represented, and if Obama chose to compromise his personal beliefs for his political career that would come as a shock to no one. But Obama has asserted repeatedly that he did not share the beliefs of Wright and many felt, and rightly so, that the issue was not Obama's beliefs but his lack of conviction, not to mention character and judgment that his relationship with Wright brought to light. But Clyburn has now given people cause to wonder. The race card had already stained and besmirched Obama's candidacy throughout the campaign, but it had been less than 24 hours since Obama talked about post primary unity and an Obama surrogate decided to throw out the race bomb in the typical passive aggressive style that has been the Obama trademark. Attack by playing victim. Racism as we all know is not an issue. Racism is a disease. And if Clyburn had felt the Democratic party had symptoms of this disease where, by implication, white voters or white members of the party who would not vote for an African American because of racist attitudes, in all his years as a Democratic congressman and a Democratic party insider, he never said a word. Until last night. Obviously Clyburn and Obama feel that playing the race card worked to get the nomination and maybe they think it will work to try and bully Clinton voters into supporting him this time around. It wont. It worked to help secure the nomination ( secure it -- not finalize it which can't happen till the convention) but only because super delegates following the lead of Pelosi and Reid, two people with lower job approval ratings than Bush pushed them into it and they followed. Clyburn's comments last night dragged an already tawdry and underhanded Obama campaign into the mud where its probably going to stay. Simply the word "unity" uttered by anyone remotely connected to the Obama campaign is going to remind people of all the reasons the disunity exists in the first place. If Obama is indeed the nominee, he is from a practical point of view, going to have to devise a general election strategy that can win without Clinton supporters and their money, all 18 million of them and the influence they will have on independents, because they have lost those voters and wont get them back. And if the party brain trust is feeling that Obama cant win without Clinton voters they should have thought of that before artificially ending the whole process because of their own fears. Clinton is scheduled to make a speech on Saturday. Everyone knows what the party wants Clinton to say. And if she says all the right things about party unity, Clinton voters understand this is what she is expected to say. It wont mean a thing to her supporters. There are last straws and there is grasping for straws and Obama went past the last straw with Clinton voters a long time ago but just for good measure Clyburn inadvertently piled one on. Now whistling in the dark they are claiming "confidence" in party unity. But they are grasping for straws and Clyburn's clumsy attempts at "unifying" the party by trying to brand those who don't go along with the program racist just made it a whole lot worse. Irreparably worse. News reports say that Clinton is going to concede on Saturday. I'm not so sure. She may very well decide enough is enough. But most of the media is reporting that she is going to "suspend" her campaign. And, as usual, most of the media are too stupid and incompetent to know that suspending and ending are two different things. If Clinton just suspends her campaign and does not concede she is leaving the door open for super delegates to still cast their votes for her in August at the convention. If she does not release her delegates it will mean that while she may not continue formal campaigning, she has not withdrawn. That is the difference between conceding and suspending. The media might have been told that Clinton is going to suspend her campaign and in their usual stupid inept jumping to the wrong conclusion might be assuming that means she is going to quit when she isn't. On the other hand she may very well do just that and concede. But if she suspends her campaign, if that is the word she uses, if she does not release her delegates, she is not quitting. And a few more comments like the one made by Clyburn could be the reason why. Marc Rubin Copyright Marc Rubin 2008

  Last night Barack Obama, CNN, Tim Russert and the rest of the media proclaimed Obama the Democratic nominee for President. For the 4th time in the last two weeks. What else is new?  

The last time a political leader rushed this county into something, we ended up in Iraq. But last week Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Howard Dean let it be known that they want the uncommitted super delegates to declare within 48 hours of the last primary on Tuesday.   In an election this close where one candidate is going to finish the popular vote winner and the other with a delegate lead of less than 5% out of 4000 delegates, (and a lead that is to say the least, tainted both by the decisions regarding Florida and Michigan and the fact that the Democrats' apportionment system awards almost as many delegates to a candidate who gets crushed as it does to the landslide winner).trying to force super delegates to make up their minds before they actually have to when there is so much to consider makes no sense.   Its an exercise in incompetent leadership which is what you would expect from someone with a lower job approval rating than George Bush which is exactly what Pelosi and Reid have. As for Dean, does the Democratic Party really want listen to what is best for winning a Presidential election from Mr. Yee Hah himself?   Pelosi needs to be told to keep her nose out of it. Pelosi and Reid have achieved what most people would have thought impossible -- they have led the Democratically controlled congress to a lower job approval rating than George W. Bush. If super delegates are to exercise any judgment at all before the week is out it should be to ignore them.   Nancy Pelosi and Reid have demonstrated that they have the political instincts of a couple of drunken sailors on shore leave on Bali on a Saturday night.   Right now all of the metrics for the fall election ( which if Obama gets the nomination is going to be renamed the gall election) favor Clinton by a mile. She performs better than Obama against McCain not only in electoral votes by a substantial margin on the RCP electoral vote map but because she creates more toss up states than he does,with many of the toss ups in McCain's column against Obama, (30 for Clinton 6 for Obama) Obama's totals aren't going to change much and give the Democrats a better chance at winning states that went Republican in 2004 than he does.   With an electoral vote lead of 38 it wouldn't take much of a swing to give McCain the election. And these maps are NOT taking into consideration the reality that if Obama were to get the nomination, 95% of Clinton voters are not going to support him or vote for him. That would change the RCP electoral map substantially in favor of McCain.   Clinton with a 61 vote lead in the Electoral College is more likely to add to that lead because most of the toss up states in a Clinton McCain match up are states that go Republican against Obama. And in the important state that went Republican in 2004 that the Democrats need in November( W.Va, Kentucky, Ohio, Florida) all are in the Republican camp vs Obama but become toss ups with Clinton.   In the Electoral-Vote.com match ups the news is even better for Clinton and worse for Obama.On their map Clinton is leading McCain 327-194 with 17 toss ups with Clinton winning Ohio, W.va, Kentucky, and Florida. The Obama map shows a close race with Obama ahead only 276-238 with 24 toss ups but losing Florida, Ky, and W.Va and barely winning Ohio. And again this map is not factoring in the certainty that Clinton voters will desert the Democratic Party if Obama is the nominee.   There is so much for super delegates to think about that for Pelosi, Reid and Dean to be pressuring anyone to make a decision after the last primary because they are afraid of "damage" being done to the Democrats chances in the fall shows that these are people more worried about not losing than winning. It also shows they are driven by fear and weakness which Pelosi and Reid have shown for two years, getting bamboozled by the Republicans.   The last thing super delegates or anyone in the Democratic party needs to do now at a crucial time is listen to Nancy Pelosi. About anything. A job approval rating lower than George w. Bush qualifies you to stop talking and nothing else.   Obama is finishing out the primary season in a whimper and momentum seems to be on Clinton's side. The metrics for Clinton keep getting better including polls which show her leading now in the Democratic preference for the nomination. This in spite of all of Obama's dog and pony shows trying to act like its over and that he is the winner.   And every day there is something else coming out about Obama that even more assuredly guarantees his defeat, the latest being Obama's recent decision to leave his church over another pastor problem. Dont forget, this is the church that Obama said when the Wright story first broke, was "not particularly controversial". It's getting pretty crowded now under Obama's bus.   More recently is the buzz about a video showing Michelle Obama and Louis Farrakhan together on a panel at Obama's non controversial Trinity Church, with Michelle Obama doing a rant about "whitey".   In other words there is a lot to think about. And a lot that can happen. Super delegates need to digest and deliberate. Two months is a long time in politics and once a nominee is picked there is no going back.   There is more than two months before the convention. Pelosi,Reid and Dean need to be ignored and all their vacuous chicken little reasons for trying to force a decision brushed aside.   If super delegates aren't going to ignore political leaders with a lower job approval rating than Bush, and rush into something when it isn't necessary, then they shouldn't be surprised that if they make the wrong decision, when the convention opens in August, the Democratic Party is going to look like Baghdad.

This from Sunday's NY Times: "Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, who endorsed Mr. Obama nearly two months ago, recently called Gov. Bill Ritter Jr. of Colorado, who has yet to endorse a candidate. “Hey, Ritter!” Mr. Richardson said. “After June 3, it means nothing. Those who take a little bit of a risk, he’ll remember you.” Aside from the fact that Richardson sounds like a Mafia soldier trying to convince a capo from another family to come join them, Clinton supporters might want to remember too. Below is a list of super delegates and elected officials courtesy of Politically Drunk whose constituents voted for Clinton but who have come out for Obama and the political cash contributions made by Obama to their re-election campaigns. The one under it are undeclared super delegates whose constituents voted for Clinton but who also recieved contributions from the Obama campaign. Clinton supporters might want to let these super delegates know that they are being watched and, in Bill Richardson's words, will be remembered when the time comes for their re-election.They can also let them know what they can expect if they ignore the will of their own constituents especially those taking money from Obama. Elected officials whose constituents voted for Clinton but who voted for Obama Robert Cramer – Alabama Gov. Janet Napalitano – Arizona George Miller – California Gerald McNerney – California - Obama Donation $5,000 Fortney Pete Stark – California Zoe Lofgren – Cal. Howard Berman – Cal. Adam Schiff – Cal. Henry Waxman – Cal Linda Sanchez – Cal Joe Donnely – Indiana - Obama $7,500 Donation Baron Hill – Indiana – Obama $12,500 Donation Ben Chandler – Kentucky – wow Obama drew less than 10% Bill Delahunt – Massachussetts Gov. Deval Patrick Mass. Sen. Ted Kennedy Mass. - $10,000 from both candidatesS en. John Kerry – Mass. Gov. Bill Richardson – New Mexico Carol Shea-Porter – New Hampshire Gov. Brad Henry – Oklahoma Patrick Murphy – PA Donations from Clinton $2500 Obama $18,826 Sen. Bob Casey – PA Patrick Kennedy – RI Charlie Gonzalez - Texas Eddie Johnson - Texas Rick Boucher – Virginia Nick Rahal – WV Sen. Robert Byrd –WV $10,000 from both candidates Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV – WV - Obama $5000 Donation Uncommitted delegates whose constituents voted for Clinton and those accepting money from Obama. Sam Farr – Cal. Jim Costa – Cal. - Obama Donation $5,000 Bob Filner – Cal Joe Courtney – Connecticut - Obama $5,000 Donation Gov. Steve Beshear KentuckyRep. John Oliver – Massachussetts Rep. Niki Tsongas – Mass. – Obama $5,000 donation John Tierney – Mass. Ed Markey – Mass Travis Childers – Mississippi Sen. Frank Lautenberg – New Jersey - Obama $9,000 Gov. John Lynch – New Hampshire Charlie Wilson – Ohio – Obama $7,000 Marci Kaptur – Ohio Dennis Kucinich – Ohio Zack Space – Ohio - Obama $7500 Sen. Sherrod Brown – Ohio $10,000 from both Dan Boren – Oklahoma Jason Altmire – PA - Obama $10,000 Tim Holden – PA Gabriel Gifford – Arizona Obama Donation $9,000 Michael Honda – California Sen. Jack Reed – RI – Obama $5,000 Lincoln Davis – Tennessee Bart Gordon – Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen – Tenn. Nick Lampsen – Texas - Obama $5,000 Alan Mollohan – WV Gov. Joe Manchin – WV

(NOTE: The following is an unedited version of an open letter to be published as a full page ad that I was asked to write for a PAC on behalf of seating Florida and Michigan. The final letter to be published has been edited at the request of some members of the PAC who are themselves super delegates who felt some of the language too harsh and inflammatory. I am posting the letter in its original form and the differences between this unedited version and the version that will be published is solely my responsibility). Florida and Michigan are part of this country and they are part of the process by which the Democratic Party is going to choose its nominee for President of the United States. One way or the other. To disenfranchise 2.3 million voters in two states and affect the choice of the nominee of the Democratic Party for President as well as the affairs of the nation for the next four years over what amounts to nothing more than a parking violation is using a wrecking ball to swat a fly. And the repercussions of this wrecking ball is that its momentum can swing back the other way and impact the party and its chances in November in ways that will be disastrous. All the delegates must be seated. All the votes counted. With regards to the scheduling conflict that was the source of the problem in the first place let the punishment fit the crime. Ban the party leaders from the convention, not the duly elected delegates representing 2.3 million voters. Levy heavy fines against the state parties. Make the party leaders hop on one leg and promise never to do it again. But you don’t disenfranchise 2.3 million voters and their delegates in a process to choose a nominee for President of the United States because of a dispute over a scheduling conflict over which the voters had no say. The most resistance to fully counting Florida and Michigan has come from Senator Obama and his supporters. Their argument is that those states broke "the rules" when they moved their primaries up and therefore should not count. And what rules were those? No rule that in any way invalidates or calls into question the validity or accuracy of the results of elections in which 2.3 million people participated. Saying that "the rules are the rules" is not good enough. This country was founded by people who said there were higher and more important principles at stake than King George’s rules, especially when "the rules" were unfair. Supporters of Senator Obama on the Rules Committee has referred to both those elections as "beauty contests". And what makes them "beauty contests"? The date on which they were held? To mock and diminish more than 2 million voters who went to the polls that day to make their voices heard and in record numbers, shows a degree of arrogance, stupidity and disrespect for the democratic process that the DNC cannot rubber stamp. Equally unacceptable is the suggestion of Obama supporters on the committee that you find a compromise that has no affect on the outcome of the nominating process. For a committee member to suggest such a compromise is nothing more than a smoke and mirrors game that would have the same result as not seating them at all. It’s an insult to anyone’s intelligence. Senator Obama consistently opposed a re-vote as a way to remedy the situation, a remedy that is party of the Committee’s Rules and By Laws, perhaps understanding that a re-vote would not change the results and it is the results that Senator Obama opposes not any support of a rule which had nothing to do with him. This cannot be decided by taking into consideration the wishes of one side or another. One side is going to gain and the other side is going to lose. That is what happens in elections. That is why we have elections. It can only be decided based on what is right for the millions who voted in those primaries and the democratic process. Regardless of whom anyone supports, no Democrat can support votes not being counted. Not anytime but especially not after what happened in Florida in 2000. The Democratic Party cannot send out a candidate for President who is there only because votes weren’t counted.. It cannot send out a candidate for President who is carrying an asterisk on their back. All the delegates must be seated and all the votes counted as per the results of two fair and full elections. Another of Senator Obama’s suggestions and those of some of his supporters is that he and Senator Clinton split the Florida and Michigan delegates 50-50. This is unconscionable. It is a proposal to steal delegates. Those are delegates Senator Obama did not win, did not earn and were not intended for him as expressed by the people of Florida and Michigan and in landslide numbers. It is not a proposal fitting for a candidate for any office much less President of the United States. The only fair and democratic solution is to seat all the delegates and find another more appropriate sanction against the respective party leaders responsible for moving up the primaries. That is the only issue not the results of those elections. TO THE NEWS MEDIA: The issue of the Florida and Michigan delegates is and has always been, an internal DNC issue. The popular votes in those primaries are not. Regardless of what the DNC decides with regards to the delegates, there is not now, nor has there ever been, even a remotely rational reason not to count the results of the popular vote from both states. The popular vote is just that -- the popular vote. People went to the polls. They voted. Their votes were recorded and certified and they are a legitimate reflection of the will of the people. By not including Florida and Michigan in the popular vote totals and an auxiliary delegate count that shows the true results including both states, the media has skewed, distorted and misrepresented the true status of this nominating process. They have given the country a completely false impression of the status of the race, the true will of Democratic voters at any given time, and have created a false atmosphere surrounding this entire process. By ignoring Florida and Michigan and their impact on this election, the media has not only slighted the people of those states, but the 17 million people who have cast votes for Senator Clinton and the democratic process itself. The news media has been nothing less than irresponsible in not including the votes from Florida and Michigan, the validity of which has never been called into question. WITH REGARDS TO MICHIGAN: Many people, with no knowledge of the events in Michigan (and some who do know but choose to ignore them) try to point to the claim that Senator Obama wasn't on the ballot: This is a straw man and entirely untrue as it impacts the results of that election. As reported by the Des Moines Register in October of 2007, Senator Obama chose to take his name off the ballot for political reasons after his polling showed him losing in Michigan by 20 points and to win favor with a show of solidarity with the first in the nation status of the upcoming Iowa caucus. Senator