Election 2012: Clinton vs. Palin

You read it here first - I think.

UPDATE: No, you didn't read it here first. This is all over the internet - Google clinton, palin, 2012 and get a load of stuff.

A scriptwriter couldn't fashion a better scenario.

The Clintons never believed Obama could win and therefore were positioning Hillary to pick up the pieces for a 2012 run against McCain? Who would be 76?

Palin is the new wild card and if she doesn't self-destruct, a very likely Republican candidate in 2012, win or lose. But if she and McCain win... oh what a delicious scenario.

Clinton does pick up the pieces and would waltz into the nomination, thus setting up the dream match-up and the sure bet guarantee of a woman president in 2012.

Hill in '12 - Leo and Randi Attack Me

I've been writing on the issue of whether the Clinton/AFT/UFT machine really wants McCain to win so they can run Hill for Pres in '12 for quite a while. That the fall back position for the Clinton machine [of which the UFT/AFT machine is part and parcel] was to set up the campaign against McCain - in 2012. The NYT Maureen Dowd column on Aug. 13 nails them.

Now I know that many people feel Dowd has a thing about the Clintons, but she does deal with the facts of the protest and addresses the issue that the Clintons could stop the movement with a simple word. But they won't. Closure, ya know.

What we do know is that the actions by the Clinton gang will severely damage Obama to the point of no repair.

From the day the Clintons started to go downhill, we pointed to the quandary for UFT/AFT president Randi Weingarten. Insiders at 52 Broadway had been telling us for years that the major focus by Weingarten was to get Hillary elected and that the joint UFT/AFT presidency was to be used for that purpose. Thus the manipulation of the Hillary endorsement where it was done ass backwards - first the AFT, then NYSUT (NY State) and never the UFT where the members, who constitute the largest local in the nation and are the backbone of NYSUT and the AFT, were presented with a fait accompli. Thus, UFT Obama supporters were never given the opportunity to even discuss an endorsement. We wondered how Obama could be pulling 90% of the black vote nationwide while the Black members of Unity Caucus were silenced into supporting Hillary.

At the April Delegate Assembly, with Obama clearly about to clinch the nomination, ICE's Lisa North asked Randi the million dollar question, which I reported this way on May 9th:

At the April Delegate Assembly Weingarten was asked by ICE's Lisa North - will you be giving Obama the same level of support you are giving to Hillary, she smiled (sort of) and said, "We don't want McCain to win, do we?" The tone with which she answered gave something away. Then this was followed by a slap at Obama. We've also heard about chapter leader training has been used to slam Obama - a great way to get the word out to members without being on the public record.

After the election, the Clintons - and Weingarten - will spend the next few years mending fences.

And they will be aided by the entire AFT/UFT apparatus. Behind the scenes of course. That will be Weingarten's focus as AFT president.

Important to UFT members is how this plays out in the amount of real support Obama will get considering the UFT/AFT has such a big stake in Hillary.


Fred Klonsky ran the piece above at his Chicago-based blog, Prea Prez.

Then the plot thickens as UFT high school VP Leo Casey attacked both Klonsky and me, calling me sleazy and attacking me for not knowing what Randi said at a Unity Caucus meeting [Norman Scott knows this, and he also knows, because he makes it his business to know such things, that she reinforced her statement at the Unity Caucus meeting later that night] - Huh? Make sure to invite me next time.

Remarkably, Casey's attack was followed up with one by Randi Weingarten herself.

Before I get into those and Klonsky's response, a UFT member who was at the April Delegate Assembly meeting sent Klonsky this report backing up some of what I sensed but not all . I think that person got some of it right tbut missed the context of the deep roots that are committed to making Hillary president, by hook or crook.

Anonymous report sent to Klonsky:
At the Delegate Assembly an Obama supporter (and, by the rules of their game, not a member of our leadership’s caucus, they all support Clinton or remain silent) asked the “will we support the candidate even if it is someone other than Hillary” question, and Randi did answer clearly “yes.” And then she hedged. Not nearly as badly as Norm indicates, but it was a hedge. From memory, after her yes, she went on to mention how there hasn’t been outreach from the Obama campaign, that they’ve been hard to talk to. Didn’t make much sense. And, yeah, it sowed some doubt. But not much. It sounded much more like one last negative comment, one last unnecessary shot at Obama. But she was careful. The shot was at “the Obama campaign” rather than at him personally.

I have no doubt that the entire UFT phone-banking and canvassing machine will get to work behind Obama, but they might push a bit more on the local races, and not push quite as hard overall as they would have if Hillary had won.

Here is Klonsky's comment on the Casey/Weingarten's posts (which follow his comment.)

UFT’s Casey berates me. “Proud of support for Clinton.”
preaprez on May 11th, 2008

A few words in response to Casey and Weingarten. A couple of words about the two previous posts [by Casey and Weingarten].

First, I couldn’t be more pleased if the teacher union leadership will enthusiastically support Barack Obama in the upcoming historic battle with John McCain. As a member of the NEA, I wish my own union had done it already.

Frankly, I received the e-mail from UFT President Randi Weingarten with mixed reactions.

Mostly I’m happy about her assurance that her union will energetically support Obama when he is finally formally nominated or when Hillary drops out.

But, Weingarten’s claim that she never said anything negative about Obama seems to be parsing words.

Clinton’s campaign against Obama, particularly in recent weeks, has been repugnant, war-mongering and racist. What of Clinton’s threats to “obliterate” Iran? What of Clinton’s making use of racism in her warnings that Obama would be rejected by white working voters because he is black? Other Clinton supporters rejected this kind of talk.

What was my crime? I reprinted a post from a NY school’s activist (”slimy” according to the wordsmith, Casey) who has a blog that I read and sometimes agree with and sometimes don’t. I reprint a lot of postings and I will continue to do it, even if Leo Casey doesn’t like it. Interesting that he didn’t get so outraged when my anti-war essay was censored on the very site that printed his essay the day before mine was scheduled to run. In fact, not a peep from Casey.

No, Casey’s outrage is limited and targeted. Gerald Bracey writes an article on the Huffington Post about NCLB, and Casey says Bracey’s right-wing critics are justified in their outrage.

Someone from the union opposition speculates about what the AFT’s position might be in the aftermath of the Clinton collapse, given their leadership’s close ties to the Clinton operation, and Casey is outraged. In Leo Casey’s world you are not allowed to speculate about the political dealings of the union leadership, because as we all know, they are always open and above board. I reprint a portion of a post, and in Leo Casey’s world, civil debate is calling me “sleazy” and “shameful.”

But the candidate that they support runs a cheap-shot, Karl Rove-like campaign, and Casey’s outrage disappears.

Casey’s hysterical rant suggests that maybe there’s something to the speculation. A reasonable response would have been, “There’s nothing to it. The UFT will enthusiastically support the Democratic nominee in the race against McCain.” Because all the name-calling aside, that’s what I’m going to do.

By the way, I don’t know Norm Scott. Never met him. He’s never written to me. Never called me a name. Casey’s finger-pointing about how I joined Norm Scott in some exercise is not true. The only one who I join in exercising is Ulysses, my sweet Wheaten Terrier. And Ulysses is neither slimy, sleazy, divisive or blindly critical. On the contrary, he is blindly accepting of everyone. We need more like him.


[Note: The last time Casey attacked me [Konsky] it was because I said the UFT had supported Clinton. He said that the UFT didn’t support Clinton. Now he says he is proud of their support. You pick.]

Casey’s e-mail follows:

Leo Casey comment:
I am personally proud of the principled way in which the UFT and AFT has supported Clinton, sticking entirely to our view of the issues and Obama’s and Clinton’s positions on them.


This is one of the sleaziest and most outrageous seen in quite a while, and you do yourself absolutely no credit by reproducing it on your blog and giving it credence.
Every time the question of what we would do if Obama [or earlier, Edwards] won the Democratic nomination over Clinton has been posed, been completely clear and unequivocal: the differences among the Democratic candidates on the issues that are paramount for us — education, labor, human rights — pale next to their differences with the McCain, and we would actively support whomever won the nomination. When the question was posed at the April Delegate Assembly, at a time when Clinton’s candidacy looked like it was gaining momentum after Ohio, Texan and Pennsylvania, and Randi’s answer there was as clear as it could possibly be:
The person who asked the question, an Obama supporter, thanked her for her answer. Norman Scott knows this, and he also knows, because he makes it his business to know such things, that she reinforced her statement at the Unity Caucus meeting later that night, explicitly refuting misrepresentations of Obama’s positions on Israel — an issue of great concern to many of our members — and telling members that we would call upon them for November.
Since her words are so clear on this question, he is reduced to a slimy attempt at suggesting that she means something other than what she has actually said, again and again.
I am personally proud of the principled way in which the UFT and AFT has supported Clinton, sticking entirely to our view of the issues and Obama’s and Clinton’s positions on them. Regardless of what others have done, we have refused to go down any road other than that of the issues. Our endorsement, our focus on the issues and our ability to put people into the field in key battleground states has been one of the few important and consistent strengths of the Clinton campaign — a point which, I am sure, is not lost on an Obama campaign looking to November.
If you share with us the view that is potentially a realigning election that could put a progressive majority in command, than clearly the task is one of building the most powerful coalition possible for November, so that we can win the Presidency with strong majorities in Congress. A major component of that coalition will necessarily be teacher unions, as we are probably the most significant electoral force in the union movement. Norman Scott could care less about that goal of winning in November — as always, his purpose is to sow division. How shameful that you would join in him that exercise, and give credence to his outrageous misrepresentations.

Leo

And Randi follows with:

I agree with Leo. I have never said a negative word about Senator Obama. When asked at the April DA about this I was very emphatic about how we must unite the Democratic Party. Only someone who wants to be devisive or blindly critical, or simply lie, could have possibly misprepresented the content or tone of my remarks.

Randi

Anyone who was listening carefully caught the hesitation but there was also a quick recovery. But I always say, watch what Randi does, not what she says. Her actions in Denver will give us a clue as to whether my analysis has been correct.

OK Randi. Now is the time to put up or shut up. Roundly condemn the attempt to derail the Obama camppaign in Denver. As a super delegate, make a stand and just VOTE NO on roll call vote. And don't give us the democracy crap which we see very little of in the UFT.

Campaign 2012: Pro-Clinton Group Runs Anti-Obama Ad

More on the Clinton undermining of Obama so McCain can win. Told ya so.
(And for anyone who doesn't think the Clintons aren't behind this no matter how much Hillary campaigns for Obama, there's a bridge to nowhere in Alaska I have to sell you.) And remind me of where Randi Weingarten and the UFT/AFT stands on this issue.

Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Newsmax

A group of Hillary Clinton supporters has bought an ad in an influential Washington, D.C. publication warning against turning the Democratic convention in Denver into what they call a “coronation” of Barack Obama.

The ad states: “If Democratic processes and principles are not respected, then the party will have a much bigger problem – a genuine revolt of more than 18 million voters.”

Another pro-Clinton group, 18 Million Voices, is organizing a march on that day in Denver “and nationwide to support Sen. Clinton and advocate for women’s rights worldwide,” according to its Web site.

Some of the Denver Group’s goals are at odds with those of the Democratic Party, The Hill newspaper reports. It wants an open convention, with Hillary’s name placed in nomination, as well as a genuine roll call vote with Clinton as a legitimate candidate instead of what it calls a “coronation” of Barack Obama.

Clinton backers in Denver will hold signs reading, “Denounce Nobama’s Coronation,” according to the Denver Post.

Read more

Thanks to FL

2012: A Presidential Odyssey

by David B.

And Then There's THIS

If you doubt the post below this on Hill in '12, check out the Huffington Post reports on Clinton campaign internal memos to be printed in Atlantic Monthly.

Leaked Clinton Camp Memos: Paint Obama As Foreign

A Shill for Hill in '12

To Hillaryites, the Democratic Convention is all about the 2012 presidency

With the death of Bernie Mac yesterday, the dearth in comedy is made up by Michelle Cottle, a senior editor at The New Republic, in today's NY Times. Her op ed urges the Democrats to enter Hillary Clinton's name for presidential nomination which would precipitate a roll-call that would prove embarrassing for Obama and result in damaging his already fragile campaign against John McCain.

The roll-call campaign caused an incredulous Matt Lauer took a few minutes from the Olympics the other day to say, "What are they doing?" Not many are willing to say it, but this is not about so-called respect or closure for Hillary's supporters. It is about running Hillary for president against John McCain or whoever in 2012. The more Obama is damaged, the better the chance for a hoped for 1972 McGovern like disaster, thus executing the prime directive – getting Hillary elected as president.

Even Cottle admits that,

"Nearly everyone in the Democratic Party seems to think that officially entering Hillary Clinton’s name into a roll-call vote for the presidential nomination at the Democratic National Convention would be a dangerous show of disunity.

It’s true that having America watch as some portion of Mrs. Clinton’s 1,640 pledged delegates thumb their noses at BarackObama would disrupt the party’s vision of a carefully scripted Denver love-in." [Emphasis mine]

Ya think?

Cottle needs to come up with some rationale to cover up the real intention.

But finding a constructive way for Mrs. Clinton’s seriously aggrieved loyalists to channel their anger and disappointment could wind up being the path of less destruction for Mr. Obama’s campaign. Plus, it’s the right thing to do.

OMG. The ole "right thing to do" ploy, words that have often been found missing from the vocabulary of the Clintons. Think maybe the right thing to do is to do everything possible to get Democrat elected?

But Cottle continues, "More than a few of Mrs. Clinton’s devotees, including plenty headed to Denver this month, are in need of catharsis and a bit of closure."

Ahh! the old C&C - Catharsis and Closure. So what if the venting leads to Bush 3. Well, actually, that is the point, isn't it?

More. "She was a victim of sexism, that the historic nature of her candidacy was callously dismissed in all the hullabaloo over the historic nature of Mr. Obama’s, and on and on and on. Some of these allegations ring truer than others."

Hey Michelle, exactly which allegations ring truer than others?

But many of Mrs. Clinton’s supporters believe them intensely enough to want to make trouble for Mr. Obama. Discouraging Mrs. Clinton’s name from being entered into a roll-call vote would give her legions yet one more opportunity to feel that their candidate had been snubbed. Giving them the chance to see their beloved candidate honored in a highly public forum could, just maybe, help release a little steam from the pressure cooker. Beyond that, there could be other, more direct benefits for Mr. Obama’s candidacy. A roll-call vote for Mrs. Clinton could help Mr. Obama look magnanimous instead of messianic.

Fair or not, the man has earned himself a reputation as arrogant.

Arrogant and messianic. What's worse? A&M or Catharsis and Closure?
Let's make sure to get in a shot at Obama that could have come right from the McCain campaign. Or Karl Rove.

Yes, we would all be reminded of how close the Democratic race for president was when, on the convention floor, delegation after delegation rose to cast its votes. (A few die-hards for Mrs. Clinton might even get mouthy.)

Bet they will. The more mouthy, the better to start the Hill in '12 campaign.

In February I wrote:

[Randi's] plan being to use a national forum [as AFT President] to help Hillary get elected. Ooops! Actually, if Obama is the candidate and loses to McCain, Hillary becomes very viable in 2012, so think long-term. Who do you think the Weingarten/Clinton forces will really be rooting for?) An Obama loss and AFT HQ becomes Hillary Central.

We've been chronicling the ties that bind the UFT/AFT to the Clintons. Is there any doubt that, Randi Weingarten, our leader who is a super delegate, will support this roll call move, though look for carefully parsed language (probably written by Hillary/Randi common advisor Howard Wolfson) that will enable Randi to wiggle out of the mess when the shit hits the fan and McCain wins.

But of course they will paint the reasons as not due to the actions of Clinton supporters but to Obama's failures as a candidate.


In March I posted this:

Is Clinton Strategy Designed to Undermine Obama Chances to Win?

If Obama gets the nomination and loses to McCain, Hillary gets to say "I told you so" and becomes the instant candidate for 2012. At the time, I read the piece to my wife, upon which she, basically a Hillary supporter at the time, said "WHY? HOW COULD THEY WANT McCAIN?" I responded because for the Clintons and their supporters it is about them, not the party. I told her we would be watching the true level of enthusiasm Randi Weingarten and the AFT/UFT have for Obama – oh, there will be lots of surface stuff, but with Randi's star so hitched to Hillary, an Obama win, leaving Hillary in Siberia, would not be part of the plan.

Maureen Dowd ("Hillary or Nobody") raised this same point in March:

Even some Clinton loyalists are wondering aloud if the win-at-all-costs strategy of Hillary and Bill — which continued Tuesday when Hillary tried to drag Rev. Wright back into the spotlight — is designed to rough up Obama so badly and leave the party so riven that Obama will lose in November to John McCain.

If McCain only served one term, Hillary would have one last shot. On Election Day in 2012, she’d be 65.

Why else would Hillary suggest that McCain would be a better commander in chief than Obama, and why else would Bill imply that Obama was less patriotic — and attended by more static — than McCain?

Why else would Phil Singer, a Hillary spokesman, say in a conference call with reporters on Tuesday that Obama was trying to disenfranchise the voters of Florida and Michigan. “When it comes to voting, Senator Obama has turned the audacity of hope into the audacity of nope,” he said, adding, “There’s a basic reality here, which is we could have avoided the entire George W. Bush presidency if we had counted votes in Florida.” So is Singer making the case that Obama is as anti-democratic as W. was when he snatched Florida from Al Gore?

Some top Democrats are increasingly worried that the Clintons’ divide-and-conquer strategy is nihilistic: Hillary or no democrat.

(Or, as one Democrat described it to ABC’s Jake Tapper: Hillary is going for “the Tonya Harding option” — if she can’t get the gold, kneecap her rival.)

I'm not the only one out there on this. The other day I came across this:

Hillary Plots, Eyes 2012 Bid

From Inside Cover
August 1, 2008

by Rick Pedraza

With hopes of being chosen as Barack Obama’s vice-presidential running mate dashed, Hillary Clinton has begun the process of carving out her political future.

The New York Post reports Clinton met earlier this week at a secret ladies-only dinner in Washington to discuss where she can go from here.

After learning she would address the Democratic National Convention on its second night – traditionally not the night the vice presidential nominee would speak – Clinton reportedly gathered her female posse together to discuss a possible White House run in 2012.

The entire piece is here.

Oh, and it you doubt the above and want to point to the Hillary/Obama unity event or the fact that Hillary will campaign for Obama, think:

...pay campaign debt so campaign '12 can begin.
...make it look like you really want Obama to win even though the Clinton campaign said time and again that he can't.

And if you believed this all along, then you wouldn't want to touch the VP with a 10 foot pole, so I see any of that talk as part of the distraction - see, he dissed us again?


Other sources:

Clinton Backers Plan Rules and Bylaws Protest

The Gothic Politics of Hillary Clinton

Hillary's $6.4 Million is a Wise Investment, for 2012

Huffington Post

This is not really a case, as some have suggested, of throwing good money after bad.
Hillary Clinton's decision to dump another $6.4 million into her lifeless campaign actually makes an odd and devious kind of sense. Because for her the end game is no longer November, it's 2012.

Next: Why I think Obama won't win. Not because of narcissism (oh, that was Edwards.) Or messianic tendencies. Or arrogance. Can you guess the reason? Triple DUH if you can't.

Postscript: I do not write this as an Obama supporter and am still 50-50 about voting 3rd party. But for true Democratic party people to support the roll call vote, it is shameful.

The Ties That Bind

In recent posts we have tied what looks like the unlikely combination of Randi Weingarten and Joel Klein, who on the surface seem to have so much to disagree about.

But sometimes, there are ties that bind. The key is to follow the Clinton connection.

In a post back in December (Triangulation - Clintonism as a Model for UFT Policy) we speculated that there has been a merger between the Clintons and the UFT/AFT.

This is a given when you follow the bouncing ball of a union/Clinton relationship that goes way back to the Shanker years of the early to mid-80's when Al Shanker and the Clintons established an ed reform partnership.

Joel Klein's relationship to the Clintons has been given less scrutiny, but is also a strong one.

David B came up with this item from a Jan. '94 Time magazine article:

As their somewhat wonky way of celebrating New Year's, President Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton and their daughter Chelsea joined about a thousand other people on Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, for the "Renaissance Weekend," an annual gathering the Clintons have attended for a decade, at which successful liberal yuppies talk about policy and personal growth and make contacts.

Hillary's Favorite Activity: Hanging out with friends, including FDIC nominee Ricki Tigert, attorney Renee Ring, and Patsy Davis, wife of lawyer Joel Klein, who replaced Vince Foster.


According to Wikipedia, Klein's current wife Nicole Seligman, is an attorney who "appeared with Clinton when he testified before the grand jury in the Monica Lewinsky scandal, and she spoke on his behalf before the Senate at the impeachment trial.

Klein was the U.S. Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Justice Department's Antitrust Division in the Clinton administration.

And leave it to Leo

to hand his lede on the Chicago AFT convention at Edwize over to Hillary. The AFT may have finally endorsed Obama, but to Leo what’s most important is that Hillary spoke to them.

Comments on UFT VP Leo Casey, Obama and the AFT.
Fred Klonsky at PREA Prez.

Randi and Hillary

Sent to ICE-mail:
I heard Randi is looking very glum these days because of Hillary's defeat. I guess her political future is finished. Will Randi gain anything if Hillary is VP?


This is barking up the wrong tree. People who think Randi was in this for a cabinet position are way off base - those are at most a few years and out and she would have lost the power base she has.

Randi's future is and always has been to move up in the labor movement. Her political future on the national stage is just beginning. The next step is to unify the NEA and AFT which would give her a massive base. That is how she is much more useful to the Clintons in a 2012 campaign.

The Clintons have been open about the fact that they think Obama can't win - and they have played a not small role in that - and in essence declared McCain the winner. They will play the support Obama game to the end. My view is that for them and Randi, the 2012 campaign begins the day after the election. And Randi will be perfectly positioned as AFT president to use that platform for Hillary.

Don't get me wrong, this is not a one way street and Randi's career exists outside the life of the Clintons. Reaching the status of an Albert Shanker for her would not be a bad achievement. I hope she doesn't get ahold of the bomb. But then again, can you imagine Woody Allen using that line about Randi?

Clinton Campaign Declares McCain the Winner: Obama to Withdraw

Modified after discovering the ENN Reporter was suffering from a hangover.

Ed Notes News is reporting that Barack Obama is considering withdrawing from the presidential race upon hearing Hillary Clinton political consultant Harold Ickes declare Obama flat out has no chance of winning against John McCain and that the only chance the Democrats have is to choose Hillary Clinton as the nominee.

Obama understands that these criticisms from Clinton are sending a signal to Democrats: Don't waste your money and time on Obama since he can't get elected.

The final straw for Obama occurred when Ickes dropped the dreaded "McGovern" bomb. If Obama suffers a McGovern-like disaster that would also take him out of the running as a viable candidate in 2012 (losing by a little would not be good enough to accomplish that.)

So his strategists have decided to get out now, figuring the Republicans want Hillary as the candidate all along and that she might have the better chance of pulling a McGovern disaster than he, which would make him the 2012 candidate, while giving him time to win over all the demographics that have opposed him. The nation will be better prepared to accept a black man as a candidate in '12, especially after 4 more disastrous years of Republican rule.

Clinton strategists are reportedly rethinking the question and have decided there is a better strategy to make Hillary president. Keep Obama in the race, graciuously agree to make him the presidential nominee, browbeat-er- even more graciously accept the vice-presidential nomination, unite the party, beat McCain, wait for shit to happen.

Dissidents in the UFT are divisive...

...or so goes the UFT/Unity line. But they undoubtedly support a Clinton protest in Washington to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations because that is democracy.

Hmmm. As the lead in the article says:
The cracks in the divided Democratic Party just got a little deeper.

So what if it divides the Party? Maybe the Democratic Party needs division.
I don't object to a protest. More democracy, I say.

It is the hypocrisy of the UFT leadership I object too. When ICE and TJC ran campaigns against Randi and the 2005 contract: DIVIDERS, AGENTS OF BLOOMKLEIN were hurled at us. Remember when Randi tried to run unopposed in 2004 by buying off the then opposition, New Action? That was why ICE got started and worked with TJC to try to rebuild an opposition practically from scratch.

Then when we won 6 out of 89 on the Executive Board they went crazy over having to deal with them and came up with a strategy to get even these 6 off the Board by co-endorsing 8 useless New Action people who sit there mute.

But when it comes to Hillary, they will give you the holier than thou "Let the democratic process play itself out."

Coming soon: Randi and Leo Casey attack me - on a blog in Chicago.

That RFK Thing: Piling on Hillary -Updated

This blog has been pretty rough on Hillary Clinton, but this flack over her RFK assassination issue is a case of piling on. How can any of us who lived through 1968 forget any of it, especially since we were so young at the time? That it's exactly 40 years later with so many similarities is so freaky. I don't think she was making a bad point.

I am not an outright Obama supporter and think some of his stuff is pretty conservative, but I will probably vote for him, as opposed to some more left Green party or even Nader.

Let's not forget that Hillary has about 50% of the Democratic Party support. And, no, I do not think she should drop out. Why not take it to the convention? Lincoln won on the 4th ballot and I don't think he led on any of the first three, running 4th initially.
Will all this help McCain? Maybe, maybe not. I'm for the most democracy we can have.
Now, if only the Hillary support network led by the UFT would allow a bit of democracy to shine so Obama supporters get to say their piece.

Oh, and let's not neglect to mention the shameful performance of Unity Caucus lapdogs New Action Caucus, where some of their members furtively pass around anti-Hillary literature but remain silent at Executive Board and Delegate Assembly meetings.

Zero Obama Supporters in the UFT

UPDATE: Fred Klonsky slaps Leo Casey.

One of the most remarkable, almost a miracle one might say, undercurrents in this Hillary-Barack battle where the entire Democratic Party has split down the middle, has taken place in the United Federation of Teachers where 200,000 members support Hillary Clinton – unanimously.

Even more remarkable has been the reversal of what is happening nationally: 90% of black voters support Obama, yet not one single black Obama supporter has emerged in the UFT.
Nationally, Clinton gets the older, blue collar and less educated vote while Obama gets the younger, white collar, college educated vote.

Not in the UFT, which everyone would agree is not only white collar and college educated, but has had a massive influx of young teachers. Again, not one Obama supporter amongst these demographics has been spotted.

Likened to the way Hasidim vote en masse in elections, the membership has followed the lead of Randi Weingarten in one of the most remarkable operations in political history.

Hillary in 2012 Commercial

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUyce6224Mk

What Will the Tough Liberals in the UFT Do?

With a UFT Delegate Assembly coming up this week, it will be interesting to watch how Randi plays the Obama/Clinton issue, if she does so at all - we don't see how she can ignore it.

In his post (reprinted below) to ICE-mail, Sean Ahern challenges the Tough Liberals in the UFT's controlling Unity Caucus and makes the important connection between the "Tough Liberal" world of 68/72 and 08/12.

First let me try to put some of the stuff in historical context. Though I lived through all of it, Richard Kahlenberg's "Tough Liberal" bio of Al Shanker has allowed me to make many connections between the current Obama/Clinton battle with the past.

One of the striking aspects is Kahlenberg's attack on McGovernites, Jimmy Carter, the new left, the old left, and just about any progressive forces – the New Democrats. As I read the book it seemed in some ways like a campaign statement for the Clintons. I won't get into the education stuff here, but the Clintons are the epitome of the candidate TL's are looking for. No wonder the book is funded by the likes of Eli Broad and the New Century Foundation, among other backers of BloomKlein.

A book praising Al Shanker backed by the very attackers of teachers and unions? No surprise in these quarters where we have been howling about collaboration for years. It provides some philosophical underpinning of the utter betrayal so many teachers in NYC feel over the actions of their union. But you'll have to wait for our review of the book for more details when it appears in the New Politics summer edition.

Kahlenberg raises issues surrounding race time and again in terms of critiques of affirmative action. Of course, Shanker was not a racist (and I believe that) as his credentials as an activist in the Civil Rights movement are trotted out time and again, as is his relationship to Martin Luther King. But the net effect of Tough Liberal actions were and are often severe racial divisions. The parallels between '08 and '68 are astounding. Perhaps they see Obama as a recipient of some kind of affirmative action while Hillary has worked her way up the ranks. You know. The good ole' merit system, which in their world Obama appears to have skipped. (Does a wife of a president count as affirmative action?)

What irony in the replay of 40 years ago when the '68 convention, which followed the first lesser known UFT strike in Ocean-Hill Brownsville that spring and then was followed by the famous strike later that fall, an event that caused so many rifts in the Black/Jewish relationship, though Gerald Podair points out in his "The Strike That Changed New York" there were many already existing fault lines.

Similar fault lines also existed between the white– "hard working" as Hillary recently put it– working class which Tough Liberals are courting so assiduously and the pointy headed intellectual (Obama supporters today?) over the Vietnam War. Remember the attacks by NYC construction workers on peace marchers? Or the police assault on Columbia students in '68? The white working class vs. college students replayed today. Jeez. My choice to be a history major is reaffirmed every day in the fascination replay of events.

A major focus of Kahlenberg is on foreign policy. Tough Liberals preferred Nixon over any Democrat not aligned with them. Shanker was perfectly aligned with Ronald Reagan in that area despite his attacks on labor. The number of Shankerites that became neo cons is worth noting (Linda Chavez is a prime example.)

Thus, what we are seeing today in Tough Liberal Clinton's battle against what they perceive as New Democrat Obama. Again it often comes down to foreign policy. Enough damage has been done that the undercurrent I get from much of the Jewish community is that they will never vote Obama. Hillary will bomb Iran to smithereens while Obama might engage in a dialogue.
Who do they want? A Lyndon Johnson type candidate who will do non-threatening civil rights stuff while bombing the gooks/Arabs into oblivion.

Education? That takes 2nd place to wars and bailouts in the TL world. After all, their main focus is to keep any hint of socialism out. Tough Liberals will do with whatever piece of pie they are given to work with. Thus, ed reform means improving teacher quality by eliminating seniority and union rules and investing in peace corps, missionary teachers and staff development. But never in class size reduction.

So watch Unity Caucus and their supporters in New Action continue to sit and squirm - there must be some people, especially African-Americans who are not comfortable with what's going on. What Randi says at the Delegate Assembly this Weds. should be interesting. Since she reads the blogs, she will tread very carefully knowing full well her words and nuances will be out there.

This is something Weingarten is very good at and how she says it will be an indication of the way the Clinton campaign will begin attempts at reconciliation – with the 2012 conept in mind if Obama shoud have a McGovern-like disaster. (I know the paid pundits are discounting this, but I am not as anything can happen in politics.)

I'm betting on a strong statement from Randi about how all the union's resources will be out there for the Democratic nominee no matter who he - oops - is. After all, an AFT Pres. must play the proper political role. But if Obama loses in November, Hill in '12 begins.


Will the "Tough" Liberals sit out an Obama candidacy in 2008 like they did McGovern in 1972?
by Sean Ahern

Don't let the Unity Caucus slink quietly back into the woodwork until 2012. I think some of them will have to be brought into the campaign against McBush kicking and screaming. The Shankerites sat out the McGovern campaign in '72 and ended up with Gerald Ford as President in '75. Ford told the city "Drop Dead" during the fiscal crisis and 20,000 teachers were laid off. Ford was followed by Carter who sounds alot better now than he did in the 70's.

A McCain victory gives Clinton and the 'Tough" liberals another shot in 2012 or so they think. Sitting out the Obama candidacy, at least unofficially, makes sense from their view. I think the 'tough' liberals at 52 B'way will need some 'tough' love, like a proverbial slap for their own good, to awaken them to the greater danger. As for those who prefer Nader or McKinney, or some other party, I say more power to you and the people you bring out, as long as you are bringing people into the fight against McBush in one way or another. The Obama camp is the main contingent as far as I see and that where I will be, but there is plenty of room in a movement for different candidates and different platforms provided the focus is positive and not fratricidal . The polls make it pretty clear, if the people's vote is counted , the Republican control of the executive branch will end.

It's a very dangerous gamble to bet that the Republic will survive four more years of McBush and the neo cons. It is a very dangerous thing to 'triangulate' with or embrace facists, white supremacists, right wing evangelicals, Likud fanatics thinking that you can control them for your own ends. The German ruling class thought they could use the Nazis against the Communists. The Republican oligarchs have made a similar pact to hold onto to power and prolong the Empire by embracing a very hard core right wing which they continue to believe they can control. It is dangerous for any citizen in a democratic republic to dawdle and fret over the unsatisfactory programs of both Clinton and Obama while our basic rights and the rule of law are being eliminated by the Executive Branch under Republican control.

The race baiting used by the Clinton campaign was a 'coming attractions' for the Republican campaign (assuming Obama is the Democratic candidate) but Hillary and Bill haven't told the Republicans anything new here. All Hillary accomplished was to disqualify herself. The Republicans will go further into attack mode because they have far more to loose than Hillary and Bill.The Clintons just took a page from an old playbook of the Republicans, who took it from the Dixicrats before them. (And this from the candidate endorsed by the AFT leadership, whose members are charged with educating children of color in many of the country's largest urban school systems?)

What may we expect from the Republican executive during the campaign season? An attack on Iran following some new phony Tonkin incident? A domestic terror attack just prior to election day? Hackable voting machines (no question mark here, they are already in place!), on top of the racial disenfranchisement that has already gone on, and who knows what additional schemes are in the pipeline to keep the Republicans in office. There are too many skeletons, too many crimes. The neo cons will do anything to escape the prison cells they so richly deserve and politicians only care about winning. It's a deadly mix.

The threat to freedom is real. We all have to come together, sound the alarms and stop McBush from setting the world on fire. Whether you are for the Democrat Obama, the Independent Nader, the Green McKinney, or any other candidate who opposes the current regime, get out there and agitate, organize, picket, vote. If you are a Unity Caucus member or a supporter of Clinton you can't afford to sit this one out. The world as you know it won't be there after four more years of Republican control of the executive branch.

Peace,
Sean Ahern
Sean, a former NYC transit worker, teaches high school in Manhattan.

Hillary in '12

The campaign has begun.
The surprise is that so many pundits don't see it.
They ask"What is the rationale?" for Clinton to continue.
It's all about getting elected president – in 2012, stupid.

Education Notes has been speculating on this for months.
March 26 Education Notes: Is Clinton Strategy Designed to Undermine Obama Chances to Win? We focus on the role the UFT/AFT has played and will continue to play in the goal of making Hillary president.

The Feb. 12 The Randi Weingarten Succession Obsession in where we claim Hill in '12 campaign begins the day Obama gets the nomination.

Randi, Hillary and Oback on April 12 inspired a comment asking what Weingarten has to gain with a Republican administration. A lot to gain in terms of having an enemy to blame all the things Unity can't win for teachers. Dictatorships require enemies. McCain would be perfect.

And if Obama were to win, having him in the White House is not user friendly to the UFT. Better to wait for the big enchilada Clintons, which can inspire so many sleepovers in the Lincoln bedroom. Pajama parties, anyone?

Richard Gizbert's Hillary's $6.4 Million is a Wise Investment, for 2012 in the Huffington Post (May 7) makes many of the same points. "Clinton's only chance, for 2012, is to continue to damage Obama so badly that McCain wins in November. That would allow Clinton to take a run at McCain or some other Republican, four years from now."
I posted the entire piece at Norms Notes.

Scenario: Obama loses to McCain - the bigger the loss the better for Clinton (the longer the Clinton campaign, the better the chance to bloody Obama and the more votes lost).
McCain is a disaster as president.

Voila: Victory in '12 for the old war horse who will have another 4 years to build up resources and power. That is why I think the very idea of an Obama/Clinton ticket is so unlikely – unless they think someone will try to bump Obama off – something in the year 2008, 40 years after MLK, is on so many people's minds. (Imagine the crazy charge to come from the right wing Clinton-haters.)

I still think that no matter what the voting patterns in the primaries, Obama still has the better chance considering the enormous magnet for hatred the Clintons have become for too many people.

While there is truth to the point that Obama is winning the black vote overwhelmingly while losing some of the white vote, the sooner the campaign ends, the better Obama's chances of winning over the Clinton votes, though my feeling is that racism is so endemic that any little excuse – and the Clintons are providing plenty of excuses– and a sizable chunk of people will refuse to vote for Obama under any circumstances. This doesn't necessarily mean he can't beat McCain because of the overwhelming factors of the Republican failures.

So, the Clintons are going to do everything possible to make sure that doesn't happen using the "let everyone have their say" argument. They will then make a big show of supporting Obama -wink, wink - after the convention, knowing it is too late. Remember to do what we always tell you about Randi Weingarten - watch what they really do, not what they say.

At the April Delegate Assembly Weingarten was asked - will you be giving Obama the same level of support you are giving to Hillary, she smiled (sort of) and said, "We don't want McCain to win, do we?" The tone with which she answered gave something away. Then this was followed by a slap at Obama. We've also heard about chapter leader training has been used to slam Obama - a great way to get the word out to members without being on the public record.

After the election, the Clintons - and Weingarten - will spend the next few years mending fences.

And they will be aided by the entire AFT/UFT apparatus. Behind the scenes of course. That will be Weingarten's focus as AFT president.

Important to UFT members is how this plays out in the amount of real support Obama will get considering the UFT/AFT has such a big stake in Hillary.

The fact is that the entire union was manipulated into supporting Hillary with not one debate taking place in bodies like the Delegate Assembly or Executive Board. More intriguing, with Obama winning 90% of black votes, where have the black members of Unity Caucus and their supporters in New Action been hiding? Are we being led to believe that not one black member is for Obama? Not one even is willing to stand up and call for a debate at any level?

Where have the Obama supporters in the UFT been all this time? And will they continue to sit by in silence? Will someone get up at an upcoming DA or Exec Bd meeting and call for the UFT to end the sham and support Obama?

There's a Delegate Assembly on May 14. Will we continue to hear the sounds of silence?

Obama, Clinton, the UFT, Shanker, Kahlenberg

Boy, that's a mouthful.

With today's primaries promising to be somewhat important (my belief is that Obama has been damaged to such an extent, he will be hurting badly by tonight) I wanted to comment on a bunch of stuff related to the Democratic party and the splits going back 40 years to 1968.

Remember that year? Assassinations, the crazy Demo convention in Chicago, the UFT 3 month strike in Ocean-Hill Brownsville - all events that have major impact on today's events. Richard Kahlenberg's "Tough Liberal" spends a lot of time justifying Shanker's actions and blaming the New left, the New Democrats, the limousine liberals, etc for the problems the party has had.

As I read it I kept saying- this book came out at this time as justification for Hillary Clinton to be president. Do many of the attacks on Obama point back to 40 years of splits? Do the wounds of the '68 strike still play a role in the Obama-Clinton split? These are issues worth exploring and we'll take a shot at it at some point this week - if I can force myself to open up Kalhlenberg's book once again.

By the way, a review of Kahlenberg's book (funded by Eli Broad and other foundations that just love the ed reform teacher attack movment) written by Vera Pavone and myself will be published in New Politics summer edition. Interestingly, Michael Hirsh, a writer for the NY Teacher and a member of NP's board, will write a response in the following edition. Hmmm. Will Shanker/Kahlenberg come up smelling like roses? A funny thing, but the NY Teacher edition following our submission of the review had an article by Kahlenberg "explaining" Shanker's real position on charter schools.

Al had a lot of splaining to do that goes way beyond charter schools.

Uppity.... With Malice Toward None

I was talking to some supposedly liberal teachers not long ago and was surprised at their animosity to Obama. "Distant. Arrogant. Slick. Thinks he's better than regular people." For a second I thought the next word to be uttered would be the dreaded "Uppity." Well, we haven't gone that far. (Well, maybe we have - look upper left.)

Now these are people active in the UFT. Has the Clinton machine been aided in the onslaught on Obama in more subtle ways by UFT underground propaganda? (ie. Randi Weingarten's hint at the April DA that they tried to reach out to him but have been ignored. It was more the way she said it than the actual words that made me take notice.)

I headed home with the intention to write about this but it seemed best to stay away from such a volatile topic. But I now feel free to put my toe in the water after Maureen Dowd used the word today in her column in the NY Times. Quoting Bill Clinton, she wrote:

“The great divide in this country is not by race or even income, it’s by those who think they are better than everyone else and think they should play by a different set of rules,” the former president said. “In West Virginia and Arkansas, we know that when we see it.”

Oh, well, at least Bill didn’t use the word uppity. And don’t you love this paean to rules coming from a man so tethered and humbled by rules that he invented an entirely new sexual etiquette to suit his needs in the Oval Office?

Why does Obama, the one with the bumpy background and mixed racial heritage, the one raised by a single mother who was on food stamps, seem so forced when he mingles with the common folk?

Karl Rove and other Republicans say he comes across as the snooty product of a Hawaiian prep school, Cambridge, Columbia and Hyde Park, and that is what led to the damaging anthropological “bitter” disquisition. Yet George H. W. Bush’s attempts to paint over his patrician style with a cowboy veneer was a silly sort of masquerade, obviously engineered by Lee Atwater, who brought the props of pork rinds and country music.

Voters also don’t seem to mind Hillary, with her $109 million bank account, selling herself as the champion of the little people. The blue-collar queen shared her thoughts about the “outrageous” Rev. Wright with the blue-collar king, Bill O’Reilly, last week. In reality, as first lady, Hillary was renowned for her upstairs-downstairs tussles in the White House, and her high-handed treatment of the little people in the travel office, on the switchboard and on the residence staff. The reports were legend about the Clintons’ problems with the Secret Service, and I once saw Bill dress down an agent in a humiliating way over a couple of autograph seekers who got past a rope line in Orange County, Calif.

Obama, on the other hand, may seem esoteric, and sometimes looks haughty or put-upon when he should merely offer that ensorcelling smile. But he is very well liked by his Secret Service agents, and shoots hoops with them. And I watched him take the time one night after a long day of campaigning to stand and take individual pictures with a squadron of Dallas motorcycle police officers on the tarmac.

It must be hard for Obama, having applied all his energy over the years to rising above the rough spots in his background, making whites comfortable with him, striving to become the sophisticated, silky political star who looks supremely comfortable in a tux. Now he must go into reverse and stoop to conquer with cornball photo ops.

“I do think that one of the ironies of the last two or three weeks was this idea that somehow Michelle and I are elitist, pointy-headed intellectual types,” he said, adding sincerely, “I filled up my own gas tanks.”

It’s hard not to be who you are, but it’s doubly hard to be who you’ve strived not to be. Obama not only has to figure out how to unwind with a Bud. He has to rewind his life.

If people think the love of the white male working class for Hillary, so many of whom despised her not too long ago, has nothing to do with racism, they are ignoring something endemic to American society. That the Clintons have chosen to exacerbate it all will cost them dearly in the short and long run.

Dowd touches on points of personal relationships in comparing Obama and Clinton. I remember a friend almost not marrying a guy because, though he treated her very well, he demeaned waiters and other help on a regular basis. There are lessons about character in the way people treat others at all levels. Abraham Lincoln was the master (Dorris Kearns Goodwin is a MUST read.) When some people compare Obama to Lincoln, that is part of what they are talking about. (Check out George Schmidt's personal reflections of Obama that we posted on norms notes.)

But there are other areas of comparison. Obama is painted as weak when he doesn't hammer Hillary in a negative manner and he has been forced to respond because he is branded as a wimp if he doesn't.

If Lincoln were out there today, he would be attacked for being weak and indecisive. No matter how badly he was attacked he never struck back. It used to drive his advisors crazy. (But Lincoln had the strength to put every single opponent in his cabinet.) Obama has tried to take a similar tack and has been pushed to show how "tough" he is.

Some more quotes from Maureen Dowd's column illustrate this point:

Paul Gipson, president of a steelworkers local in Portage, Ind., hailed her “testicular fortitude,” before ripping into “Gucci-wearing, latte-drinking, self-centered, egotistical people that have damaged our lifestyle.”

James Carville helpfully told Eleanor Clift of Newsweek that if Hillary gave Obama one of her vehicles of testicular fortitude, “they’d both have two.”

"With malice toward none, with charity for all" were not just words Lincoln used in a speech, but words he lived.

Can't you just imagine the workup Bill Clinton and James Carville would be doing on him?

Lincoln is proof that toughness can take many forms. I have a sneaky suspicion there's a whole lotta more Lincoln in Obama than he is given credit for.

And did Thomas Friedman in essence endorse Obama in his column today (Who Will Tell the People) when he touched on a similar theme:

Much nonsense has been written about how Hillary Clinton is “toughening up” Barack Obama so he’ll be tough enough to withstand Republican attacks. Sorry, we don’t need a president who is tough enough to withstand the lies of his opponents. We need a president who is tough enough to tell the truth to the American people. Any one of the candidates can answer the Red Phone at 3 a.m. in the White House bedroom. I’m voting for the one who can talk straight to the American people on national TV — at 8 p.m. — from the White House East Room.

Who will tell the people? We are not who we think we are. We are living on borrowed time and borrowed dimes. We still have all the potential for greatness, but only if we get back to work on our country.

I don’t know if Barack Obama can lead that, but the notion that the idealism he has inspired in so many young people doesn’t matter is dead wrong. “Of course, hope alone is not enough,” says Tim Shriver, chairman of Special Olympics, “but it’s not trivial. It’s not trivial to inspire people to want to get up and do something with someone else.”

While you're perusing the Week in Review section, check out Frank Rich's "The All-White Elephant in the Room" which compared how McCain's preacher supporters get a free pass even when they attack the Catholic church.

Randi, Hillary and Barack

UPDATE2: George Schmidt on Obama and the Chicago Teachers Union
A remarkable piece by George (who disagrees with so much of Obama's program) but talks about him as a man.
"I remember the numerous times he'd come by the union offices (before he was an intergalactic star) and thank us or just talk. He was also at just about every union event. After he was elected to the Senate, he came by the CTU to thank everyone on the staff."

And read why Michael Moore has just endorsed Obama.
_______________________________________________________________
UPDATE1: Clinton and Labor
from Counterpunch, Vol 15, no 7: April 1-15
"U.S. labor unions bitterly point out that Clinton (along with two of her own top staffers, Mark Penn and Howard Wolfson) has been lobbying for Colombia’s Alvaro Uribe, while the latter has consolidated his regime’s record as the most dangerous in the world for labor organizers. In the six years since Uribe took office, over 400 labor activists have been killed. In 2008, almost one unionist a week has been assassinated."

Bill Clinton was paid $800,000 by Columbia based Gold Star Int'l to promote the US-Columbia trade deal that Hillary is supposedly denouncing. Did she tell Bill to give the money back?
________________________________________________________________

We all know where the UFT/AFT stands - four square for Hillary.

Ed Notes has been speculating what Randi et al. will do when Obama gets the official nomination.

So, when she was asked exactly this question at the Delegate Assembly on April 16 - will you be giving Obama the same level of support you are giving to Hillary, she smiled (sort of) and said, "We don't want McCain to win, do we?"

Well, do we?

How do Hillary and Randi benefit if Obama wins? Four and probably eight years in the wilderness. Basically, for Hillary, it's over.

But if Obama gets the nomination and loses, the bigger the better for the Clintons, then it's "I told you so" time and the "Hillary in '12" campaign begins.

Some pundits have speculated as to why with so little chance, the Clintons continue to cut up Obama. Her fighting spirit is what they attribute it to. Nah! It's all part of the cut-your-losses-today-plan-for tomorrow strategy. Sort of like what happened with their "support" for Gore and Kerry.

So Randi's follow up to the question was insightful. "We have reached out to Obama, but they don't respond," was what she said. Hmmm. You know, code for -- arrogant.

I've heard from chapter leaders about the not so subtle anti-Obama stuff at chapter leader training sessions. Videos of Obama coming out in favor of individual merit pay. Terrible. After all, Hillary and Randi are for their own versions of merit pay, so that's all right. And they were fed all the stuff about how Hillary wants to rid us of NCLB while Obama is ho-hum. Hmmm. Naturally the history of AFT/UFT/Randi/Clinton support for NCLB from day one is somehow left out.

Using chapter leader training to spread the anti-Obama message is a sign of the undercurrent of what things are all about.

There's a story in Kahlenberg's "Tough Liberal" Albert Shanker book about Bill and Hillary Clinton favoring testing of veteran teachers when he was governor of Arkansas in the 80's. Shanker was toying with the idea as part of his reform movement, saying in 1984, "there is ample evidence that states – through past hiring practices– have hired people who are illiterate."

Admittedly, these tests for vet teachers were supposedly for literacy. But if you were for testing vets, why not in subject areas and beyond? Were Shanker and the Clintons in favor of a literacy tests for, say, politicians? And how about having lawyers retake the Bar exam every 5 years? And doctors retake med boards? Oh, boy!

Shanker invited Hillary the 1985 AFT convention to debate Rand researcher Linda Darling-Hammond, who was apparently opposed to testing veteran teachers. Kahlenberg writes, "Politically, [Hillary] Clinton said, the weeding out of incompetent teachers helped create the political environment in which the public would support new taxes and further investments in education."[p. 290]

Linda Darling-Hammond is now one of Obama's chief education advisers, and a noted critic of Teach for America.

Ahhh! Hillary arguing the case for testing veteran teachers opposed by one of Obama's chief education advisers. Wish I had a video of that debate to show chapter leaders.

I’m going to Obama with a banjo on my knee

The Wave's Howie Schwach editorialized on how Obama’s refusal to wear a lapel pin that would demonstrate his patriotism will cost him votes. My guess is that Obama can wear a jacket made of lapel pins and he will not get those votes. No matter what polls show, when it comes time to pull the lever, a lot of people will not vote for a black man for president. I think it’s called “racism.”

Some comedian said that the only time you see a black man as president in movies and on TV is when some cataclysm is about to hit. What’s more likely? Obama as president or the earth getting hit by an asteroid? He has my vote anyway, but I’m writing this from under my dining room table.

Coming soon: What Randi said about supporting Obama at the Delegate Assembly on Apr. 16 and how she said it - I wish I had a picture of that crocodile smile when she said, "We don't want McCain to win, do we?"

Starting Now: Hillary in '12