Terrorists Defeat Republicans

It's sadly amusing to see how upset Republicans are that the Obama administration is going to put Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other co-conspirators on trial in U.S. District Court in New York City for their role in the 9/11 attacks. The Republicans are frightened to the core about the thought that America is not good enough, not strong enough, not prepared enough to face up to these monsters. They are, in a word, terrorized.

Giuliani is fretting about the danger these bound and shackled men pose to the city, as if Batman: the Dark Knight was a documentary. He's terrorized.

House Minority Leader John Boehner thinks the terrorists will win their trial, so we should not dare to face them in a courtroom. He's terrorized.

Senator Jeff Sessions is having nightmares about swarthy men, and thinks they "will turn lawyers, juries, and judges into targets, and will needlessly endanger Americans living nearby." He's terrorized.

Thank God we have a president who has defeated terrorism by coolly moving forward as a proud American. He's not terrorized. And neither is America. Just the Republicans.

Raining on Straw Men?

I gotta get this one off my chest. Midtown Miscreant is a dramatic blogger with a flair for tough-guy self-importance, and he writes some interesting pieces. He does a good job taking snapshots of rundown property, for instance, and the descriptions are tolerable if you ignore the "nobody goes into these places and comes out alive, except for me" braggadocio. Those of us who are well-traveled in KC and aren't so gullible just roll our eyes and enjoy the photos.

Today, though, MM tries his hand at punditry, and makes me wish he had stuck with scary tales about seeing broken windows in an abandoned building.

Sorry, MM, you're not big enough to, as you claim, "piss on the parade." If all you can do is put up imaginary straw men like gays who believe he will usher in federal gay marriage, or "black folks" who allegedly believe he will "automatically right history's wrongs in this country" and issue reparations checks, you're wasting electrons.

It's an exciting week for America, and the parade is going to be fantastic. Change - real, substantive change - is coming to our Government, and that is a wonderful thing. It doesn't mean that everything will turn rosy on Wednesday, or that we won't be disappointed in some of the decisions that Obama will make (heck, I'm already disappointed in a couple). But there's a wide gulf between the absolute ideal and the current reality, and I think everyone is ready for movement in the right direction, without expecting to ever get there. America and its voters are smart enough to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Except, perhaps, for that grumpy old man standing there wetting himself, thinking that he's dampening the parade.

Is Rick Warren Abandoning His Principles?

My fellow progressive bloggers are having a conniption fit (that's four links - I could provide a few dozen more) about Obama's choice of conservative pastor Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration. In a nutshell, they accuse Obama of selling out his core beliefs by daring to invite Rick Warren. The various statements attributed to Rick Warren have been dragged out and rephrased so as to make the man appear to be the world's most vicious homophobe, and then my incredulous leftwing friends indignantly ponder which of those statements Obama is adopting as his core beliefs.

Why isn't the shoe on the other foot?

Why is it disgraceful for Obama to invite Warren to speak, but not disgraceful for Warren to accept? If Warren is such a raging, monstrous homophobe to his very core, then why is he stepping onto the inauguration stage of a progressive, gay-friendly new President? Isn't the day going to be much more about Obama, and people unifying behind him, than it will be about the guy giving the invocation? Why is it that some on the left are soooo fearful that a prayer offered by someone who might disagree with them on a few issues will conquer all their hopes and beliefs, converting the entire day into a celebration of homophobia rather than of Obama and our grand new future?

Hilariously, some of us are complaining that Obama is "legitimizing" Rick Warren by inviting him to speak. Umm, yeah, the right wing conservatives have been waiting with bated breath for Obama to choose their next leader, and progressives are going to put "The Purpose Driven Life" on their nightstand right next to "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot". (Those with a memory may recall that Warren was the object of a mirror image of the current hand-wringing furor when he invited Senator Obama to speak at his Saddleback Church in 2006.)

Personally, I fully expected that anyone chosen by Obama to offer a religious invocation at his inauguration would have a few beliefs that differ from mine, on a theological, political, and policy level. I can listen to that person offer a prayer, and not feel like either one of us is abandoning his or her principles.

Obama "not willing to give me anything except appreciation. F*** them.”

The first moral test of the Obama administration has been administered by someone Obama knew from days before he arrived on the national stage. When presented with the essay question on what he would give for the opportunity to choose a Senator - a reliable ally in the seat he was leaving - Obama wrote a one word answer and left the exam room. "Appreciation".

Circle the first letter and give the man an "A".

It did not have to be that way. Any politician at Obama's level knows how to reward someone without bribing them. Blagojevich himself, the filthy crook (allegedly, IUPG), showed that he knows how to make things happen without exchanging envelopes stuffed with cash - "let's not talk about the Senate appointment just yet . . . don't you think I'd make a great person for a well-paying political appointment? Do you have any close friends with corporations or foundations that might be looking for someone with my skill set? Or my wife's?"

And there, on that phone call, with nobody (apparently) watching, we could have seen a political pragmatist make it happen. They could have verbally separated the transactions enough that it wouldn't have even felt like a bribe. "Look, Rod, we aren't going to do any tit for tat here, but you know we look out for people who help us out, and we were just talking the other day about how you have the right stuff to make a great ambassador to Tahiti. But that's a different issue, and we ought to discuss that over a drink sometime real soon. In the meantime, though, I know we both want to get a good person in that Senate seat, and Obama really thinks that X is the person. If you make that appointment, he'll be really happy, and we look forward to seeing you at the inauguration. We can talk details about how you can fit into the administration's goals then, okay?" And, assuming that Blagojevich trusts Obama to deliver, the deal gets done.

Does anybody doubt that Bush's team did similar things hundreds of times? Does anybody doubt that people who did Bush favors wound up on the board of Halliburton, or had their spouses suddenly chosen for sweet jobs? If you do doubt that, then I'm happy for you, because you've avoided the cynicism that the Bush administration has fostered in me.

I'm so cynical that I'm a little surprised - even inspired - by the boyscout behavior of the Obama administration. You mean, it's really true?! The man we elected really, truly, when offered an opportunity to select a Senator, offered nothing except appreciation?!


Maybe it's just the season, but I'm honestly feeling a little bit like the Grinch looking down on Whoville when everyone was singing - my heart grew a size or two when I saw that Obama didn't play ball with a fellow Illinois politician. I'm glad our law enforcement agencies got a warrant and worked effectively caught Blagojevich (IUPG), and that somebody tipped them off.

I have nothing to offer all the heroes in this little vignette - nothing except my appreciation. My deepest, most sincere appreciation.

Br'er Rabbit and the Myth of Hard Work - Oh, Dear, the Privileged are Feeling Persecuted Again

Obama has mentioned redistribution of wealth, and the wealthy are in full freak-out mode. Of course, the furor is completely false, and as wealth gets redistributed every day in every economic transaction, and the "socialist" redistribution that Obama has mentioned is nothing more than reversing the tax breaks that Bush showered on the uber-wealthy. Heck, back when he was a maverick, McCain opposed those same give-aways to the wealthy.

But they are dusting off the apocryphal old tales of how they are smugly demonstrating that those uppity youngsters don't really want to share. Yesterday, I received a story about a guy redistributing a waiter's tip to a homeless guy, as well as a crudely-drawn cartoon of a fat homeowner stealing kids' Halloween candy to go trick-or-treating for themselves. A couple weeks ago, another relatively wealthy friend sent me a story attempting to illustrate the evil of redistribution by comparing it to taking grades from a hardworking student and sharing them with her party-girl roommate.

I love these stories. They are a fascinating genre of fiction, mixing hilariously bogus analogies with self-serving credit to the older (presumptively) white dude outsmarting the naive youngsters. Honestly, if a doctoral student is looking for a thesis subject on mythology, a comparison of these little morality fables to Br'er Rabbit and Native American Coyote Trickster tales would offer some great insights.

The fact that they are being dusted off again, after circulating during Reagan's "Welfare Queen" indignation and the reign of the "Angry White Males" of midterm elections in the Clinton years, is fascinating. What is it now that brings out the stories of white male wit and triumph?

Obama is giving tax breaks to those shiftless, lazy, homeless, naive Americans earning less than a quarter million dollars per year!

These days, from the privileged Republican perspective, redistribution of the tax burden off of the middle class and onto those earning more than a quarter million dollars a year is equivalent to giving money to homeless people. The guy driving a "lesser" BMW and earning only $190,000 is analogous these days to the chimerical Welfare Queens driving their mythical Cadillacs in less skewed times.

Does that strike anyone else as odd? The Republicans are hooting and hollering because the redistribution of American wealth may shift from a shoveling dollars to those with incomes over a quarter million dollars a year to allowing it to stay with those somehow scraping by on something less than a quarter million dollars a year!

And this comes weeks after $700 billion got redistributed to Wall Street firms so they could fund trips and bonuses.

The horrors! The oppression! These are dark times, indeed, if you are struggling to get by on a quarter million dollars a year and a presidential candidate is asking you to step up and shoulder burdens similar to those you had to shoulder during the era of Clintonian Peace and Prosperity.

A better writer would close after mocking the uber-wealthy and their strange obsession with telling apocryphal myths illustrating their wit in the face of oppression by their unworthy underlings, but I have to go one more step and explode another myth that underlies these tales.

On the whole, the very well-paid don't work much harder than the average worker. They happen to be in positions where they generate more wealth, and I have no problem with them getting paid what they are getting paid, but they are NOT, by and large, working harder than you are.

There are a hell of a lot of minor-leaguers working a hell of a lot harder than Johnny Damon is. There are legions of middle-managers putting in longer hours than the people in the Executive Suite. The average factory worker goes home a lot more weary than the owner who happens to have inherited the company.

It's not hard work that pays in our economy. It's education, connections, innate talent, good judgment, the socio-economic class you were brought up in, ability to handle stress, and good old-fashioned luck. I'm not saying that well-paid workers don't deserve their high salaries, but don't try to argue that hard work is what makes the difference. It's harder actual work to run the counter at McDonald's than it is to be regional manager in charge of inventory, but the pay difference favors the regional manager. Again, the stress level, educational and intellectual demands, and other factors more than justify the pay differential, but when the wealthy start describing hard work to you, remember that they have to pay a personal trainer to help them break a sweat.

Debate Parties

Tonight, as on the evenings of prior 2008 debates, I'll be joining friends clustered around a television set to watch the debate between President-elect Obama and Senator-Since-Before-Keating-Scandal McCain. It's kind of a funny phenomenon, but I've participated in and heard about more such parties this year than in prior years. For the home-bound, there's even a blogger chat-room to provide a sense of community, hosted with video by Kansas City's most awesome blogger.

It sucks to be a Republican right now. Most polls show McCain/Palin down by double digits, and the Dems have this overwhelming sense of community, anticipation and excitement that must really be annoying from the perspective on the lesser side of the aisle. Even hopes of some October surprise (what could it be? bin Laden surrendering to McCain personally?) are fading, as they realize that the real October surprise is going to be quarterly retirement account statements that count as campaign mailers for change.

I think tonight is going to be the best debate of the bunch. McCain, quite correctly, believes he needs to score big. He's abandoned the high road already, so look for him to start slinging mud, and look for him to finally summon the courage to look Obama in the eye when he does it. And look for Obama to respond calmly and firmly, triggering that famous McCain rage that is causing him facial spasms already. The only question is how ugly it will get.

Through it all, though, McCain will be somehow less than Obama - an attacker trying to bring down a bigger man. In the end, Obama will appear more presidential than McCain.

It will be good to see it all with friends. Somehow, seeing Obama wax Presidential while McCain wanes is something to be enjoyed with a sense of community, and celebration. Yes, we can.

Single Issue McCain Calls a Time-Out

Honestly, when I first saw the breaking stories that McCain is suspending his campaign to come to DC and address the "fiscal crisis", I wondered if it was some odd "Half-way to April Fool's Day" joke.

How is it helpful to the process or to McCain? He's not on the committee handling the legislation, he's not an expert in economics (that's not a partisan attack - that's a self-assessment), and the last thing anybody needs here is more false urgency as the guys in suits gravely tell us we need to give them money quickly so they can help us.

Is anyone on earth somehow feeling better about McCain because he feels he cannot possibly give this issue the attention it deserves while continuing on with his scheduled activities? In a McCain administration, will the United States have only one issue facing it at a time - will we have a season for making sure Wall Street rich people remain sufficiently "incentivized", a season for national defense/Halliburton, a season for energy policy/Exxon, and a season on tax reform? (But not a day for environment or civil rights, of course.)

I like to think that the next president of the United States will be able to walk from a briefing on China to a policy meeting on immigration to a press conference on corporate governance to an international summit on Greenhouse Gases without hitting overload on his intellectual capacity.

McCain can't do that.

When McCain announced his suspension, he called a metaphorical time-out on third and debate. Like a quarterback looking across the line of scrimmage and seeing the linebackers preparing to blitz, he buckled under the pressure. One linebacker was named Palin's Faltering Image. Another linebacker was Voter Memory of the Keating 5. Another linebacker was Increasing Worries About His Health. 100 Years of Iraq was another linebacker ready to lay a hit on him. And the biggest linebacker was Obama, looking fast and healthy and ready to sprint in and toss him for a bone-crushing loss as soon as the debate whistle blows. It seems like there are too many players on the field!

No wonder he called time-out. Today, he gets to go huddle with his Head Coach, George W. Bush, and maybe regain his nerve. But eventually he's going to have to face that snap. He's scared, he's weak, and he can't hand the ball off to anyone.

He's out of time-outs, and the opposition is ready to swarm him. In the real world, you can't only focus on one issue at a time.

Shamelessly Stolen from BlogCCP

BlogCCP has really come into its own lately, and I anticipate it being the top source of local progressive perspectives on the coming campaign season. During the convention, it had two writers providing content fresh from Denver - great stuff!

Yesterday, it provided the following gem:

Quote of the Day
Sarah Palin mocked Barack Obama for leaving the comforts of a big firm and becoming a community organizer. "I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a ‘community organizer,’ except that you have actual responsibilities."

Quote of the Day - "Or, you know, maybe someone needs to remind Sarah Palin that Jesus Christ was a community organizer and Pontius Pilate was a governor."

Cokie Roberts, John McCain, and the Foreign Land of Hawaii

Cokie Roberts is catching a little heat today because she twice has attacked Barack Obama for vacationing this week in Hawaii, which she describes as "some sort of foreign exotic place." She actually criticized him for not being American enough, because he went to visit his grandmother where she lives, in one of America's 50 states.

Predictably, the leftwing blogosphere is agog at her foolishness. They quite correctly pick up on the fact that the traditional media will stretch to any length if they can make Barack Obama seem scary and different. This is not the longest stretch - merely the most recent and most transparently stupid.

But this particular mistake points to something bigger. When Cokie Roberts was born, all the way through her mid-teens, Hawaii was NOT a state. She was 15 when Hawaii finally became a state - well past the age of geography quizzes and memorizing state capitals.

Like John McCain, Cokie Roberts came of age in an America of only 48 states. To John McCain and Cokie Roberts, Alaska and Hawaii remain foreign, exotic lands. Their America - the America they learned about when they were in elementary school, the America they first pledged allegiance to, the America they grew up with - was not the America of today.

This year's election will be an historic generational shift. The White House will shift from those who view America as something less than what it really is to those who grew up in a country with 50 great states.

And if that makes Cokie Roberts feel like she's a stranger in s strange new land, so be it.

The new America does not see Hawaii as "some sort of foreign exotic place". It's America, and it is time to have a leader from the generation that knows it.

More Paris Hilton/John McCain Fun

If you enjoyed the video that Paris Hilton did in response to John McCain's ad comparing Obama to her because they're both better-liked than he is, you might enjoy their IM transcript.

McCaskill for Veep!

Rumors are plentiful that our local political leading lady, Senator Claire McCaskill, is on the proverbial short list for the Obama Vice President slot. Please, please, please let it be true!

The practical reasons are obvious. McCaskill could help Obama in Missouri - a purple state that could turn blue. She brings a blind loyalty to the Bush administration and its optional war that Obama lacks, and a willingness to support warrantless spying on Americans coupled with an abiding respect for law-breaking telecoms that is new ground for Obama. She could balance out Obama's out-dated support of free speech with an eagerness to use all the power at her disposal to squelch dissent and dictate orthodoxy.

In short, her selection as Veep would be a brilliant way for Obama to demonstrate to America that he supports mainstream Republican values, and will sell America out to the same corporate interests that are accustomed to owning the White House. In selecting McCaskill, Obama could assure a nervous America that change is a buzzword, not a goal.

But those are just the obvious reasons, and I know you expect deeper analysis from me.

Less obviously, but just as importantly, a Veep nomination would be an important step in creating a Lieberman for a new generation. Let's face it - Joe Lieberman is no spring chicken, and America needs to groom a national Democratic voice willing to stand up for Republican values. Just as Lieberman gained that national audience by running in the Vice Presidential slot of a far better person, McCaskill could become recognized as one of the faces of the Democratic Party by being the first tragic misstep of the Obama campaign.

Another less obvious reason for McCaskill to be Obama's veep choice would be her demonstrated willingness to tear down the Democratic Party to promote her own career. She, more than any other Democrat, is responsible for the horror that has been Matt Blunt's term as governor. By opting, against all good advice, to run against sitting Governor Bob Holden in the Democratic primary, she bloodied the eventual gubernatorial nominee and emptied his coffers, making him vulnerable to Matt Blunt. Claire McCaskill represents a "me first" approach to party loyalty that could pay off in ways we cannot even imagine today. Let your imagination run - Claire does. I like to think that she could be the first sitting Vice President to use her Senate seat to filibuster a Democratic bill.

Finally, and this is really why I would, in all sincerity, be thrilled to see McCaskill get the nod for the Vice Presidential slot, it would open up Claire McCaskill's seat for a real Democrat. In exchange for giving her eight years of state dinners and "B list" funerals, we would have an opportunity to run somebody great for her seat without the daunting and improbably prospect of winning both a primary and a general election. With Bond's rumored retirement upcoming, we could wind up with two Democrats from Missouri in the Senate.

McCaskill for Vice President!!

They Pay For this Kind of "Analysis"?

Steve Kraske and Dave Helling needed to team up to produce the ludicrous "analysis" that the Kansas City Star recently published, posted and presumably paid for. In it, they claim that the "hard part" for the Democrats may be piecing the party back together after the primary season.

I wish I had been there to see the article get written. Was it written over the course of a tequila shot drinking contest, with the winner getting to eat the worm and the loser being made to list his name first? That would be kind of funny to watch.

Or did they write it while grilling wieners in an enclosed space, not realizing that the carbon monoxide was slowing their brain activity to a snail's pace? I would have rescued them.

Regardless of the circumstances, it takes a special kind of opacity to worry about the Democrats on the day that Obama clinched the nomination. After a primary season that saw record numbers of democrats, including millions of new voters, come to the polls to vote for their favored brand of CHANGE, the Democratic party has never been stronger.

From the beginning, the overwhelming majority of democrats have voiced the opinion that either Obama or Clinton would be great, regardless of which one they were supporting. While an occasional few have fallen to the intoxication of partisanship, they are not representative of a trend, or even of their more sober sides. Give them a week or two to calm down, and they will be fine. (Mr. Martin, were you really fearing a heart attack while watching a rules committee? That's not normal, and a specialist of some sort should be consulted.)

Because expressions of anger between the Clinton and Obama sides were apparently so hard to find, these two journalists were forced to resort to quotations of anger toward - journalists! They quote Mike Sanders:

“I firmly believe that Hillary Clinton was held (by the media) to a different standard than every other presidential candidate who ran in this cycle,” said Jackson County Executive Mike Sanders. “Not just Barack Obama, not just John McCain, but every other candidate.”

Helling and Kraske are weakly attempting to portray Sanders' dissatisfaction with how badly journalists did their job as some kind of dissatisfaction with his fellow Democrats. I suggest that they ask Mr. Sanders if he will be voting for Senator Obama in a match against McCain, and I promise that the answer will be a strong "yes".

The fact of the matter is that the dissension among the Democrats is nothing compared to that among the Republicans. Of course, in the heat of the moment, a few petulant Clinton supporters are going to overstate their disappointment in seeing their candidate fall short, but nobody who supports Hillary's progressive agenda and Democratic values is going to fail to see those same qualities in Barack Obama.

Within a couple weeks, Obama will be riding high atop a surge of enthusiastic Democrats eager to bring change to our country. I hope Kraske and Helling invite me to observe whatever collaboration they dream up then. It appears they may need adult supervision.

(I enjoy making fun of Kraske and Helling, because I'm frankly jealous they get paid decent money to produce such mediocre foolish verbiage a couple times a week, while I produce high-quality foolish verbiage almost every day, for free. I know, deep in my heart, that the only thing separating me from the professional pundits is a j-school degree and a willingness to really dive down deep into the murky depths of obtuseness and emerge with pearls like the article discussed here.)

Jumping Ship, Onward Obama!

Sorry, Hillary, it's over. A Democratic victory in the General is more important than a Clinton victory in the Primary, and my previous analysis that she is the least "Rove-able" (and hence, more likely to win in the General) has been nullified by the damage to the Democratic Party which will result from her continued campaign.

The historical race has settled into a normal campaign between warring camps, and I no longer believe the Obama supporters would be able to support Clinton enthusiastically even if some miracle gave her the nomination.

I still think she was a great candidate, and less susceptible to being redefined by Rove and the compliant corporate press, but I no longer see any plausible path to the Clinton White House.

I am enthusiastically pro-Obama. Onward to the White House.

"I'm F*ing Obama"

I'm still on board for Hillary, but this is pretty darned funny . . .

The Sermon Saga - Why I Fear Disillusionment with Obama

Let's get one thing clear up front - I am 100% behind the Democratic nominee for President, be it Clinton or Obama. I believe either will be an effective president, and can begin the process of rebuilding our country's standing domestically and internationally after the debacle of the past 7 3/4 years. I lean toward Clinton, but that is solely because of my opinion that she is the more likely to win the general election.

The past week demonstrates that Obama's support is like a cumulus cloud - impressive to see, but vaporous in nature.

It all started with reports about his pastor and "spiritual advisor" of his campaign spouting off with racially charged negativity more fitting on a joke blog than on a pulpit. Obama fumbled his first responses to the criticism, and it blossomed into a full-blown media event, complete with incendiary video and hand-wringing right-wingers shocked, simply shocked, that a black man could find something to criticize in this enlightened land.

It was all so stupid and manufactured. Republicans get in bed with people who claim God launched Katrina as a terrorist attack on us, and nobody raises an eyebrow. But if a loud, scary black preacher says something to provoke some thought and wake up the back pews, we have ourselves a genuine crisis.

But, sadly enough, it's working. For the first time in a month, Clinton has a statistically significant lead over Obama in national polls. Closer to home, the flap has caused Obama's margin of loss to McCain to mushroom from 6% to 14%.

The point is that when we are able to look at Obama as a fresh-faced, energetic symbol of our hopes and dreams for a new America, he's a winner. But when he turns out to be a real person with crazy friends and questionable decisions, his support dissipates rapidly. If people are supporting Obama because of an illusion that he will single-handedly transform us into a united, peace-loving, tolerant nation, I can assure you that the Republicans will supply us with plenty of DISillusion before November.

If a little videotape of a preacher caused an 8% swing in Obama's performance in Missouri, what will be left after Karl Rove gets finished with him?

And what will that do to the Democratic party's gains in Missouri?

Should Super-Delegates Vote with the Majority?

Interesting question. Here is Steve Bough arguing that they should, over at Blog CCP, and here's me taking the opposite side.

I sincerely hope it doesn't come down to a controversy - ideally, the party's choice will be clear by the Convention.

But, if it doesn't happen that way, what do you say?

I Love Obama, but I'm Voting for Hillary

I appreciate all the thoughtful comments on my post about shifting my support from Edwards to Clinton. I also received a few emails from friends disagreeing with my position, but it's been a pleasant disagreement. With virtually no exceptions, Democrats are happy with both candidates, and the dispute is centered on which candidate would be best. Our friends in the Republican party aren't in such a fortunate position - they are facing a choice between those they hate least.

Most of the criticism of Clinton's candidacy concerns her "electability". Les provided a quotation that sums up the fears quite well - "But I heard a pitch from an Obama supporter a while back that stuck with me: He unites the left and divides the right, while Clinton divides the left and unites the right."

I don't see it that way. While it's true that Hillary has a core of frothing crazies who absolutely hate her and her husband, the true Rush Limbaugh fans are a relatively small group, and won't be voting for Obama, either. In fact, as they increase their stridency and vitriol, I think they will discredit themselves even more, and make the crucial swing voters hesitant to align with the crazies. Check out the comments in my post asking why people hate Hillary Clinton so much - it's not an attractive or persuasive crowd. (As an aside, I posted that over three years ago, and I still get commenters visiting. I'm the second site that comes up if you google "I hate Hillary", and I got a spike of traffic after her victory in New Hampshire from people googling similar phrases.)

Even if they don't frighten away all the swing voters, we have seen their playbook. They've been slinging mud at Hillary Clinton since 1992, and there aren't any more Vince Fosters that she's murdered, any more communist parties she's belonged to, or any more alien lesbian love triangles she's joined. Whatever they try to make up now will lack credibility.

Obama does not have that factor - in fact, I fear he may have the opposite dynamic. Right now, it's easy to project our hopes and dreams on the bright young man. So, when you see his smiling face or his campaign logo that looks like an organic cereal box, it's easy to feel like everything is going to be sunshine and happiness through November.

In the last election, the right wing noise machine took a war hero and rebranded him as a traitor and a coward. They took a straight-shooting Senator and made him into a flip-flopper. They are experts at it, and they are ruthless. And, if you're informed and you're honest about it, you know there is material for them to work with.

Already, the negatives on Obama are creeping upward. In fact, by some polls, his are higher than hers.

Standing where we stand, and as a liberal democrat, I see a lot to love about Obama. He's actually closer to my personal views that Clinton is. If he gets the nomination, I'll be thrilled to have him as a candidate and I will work hard to get him elected. I agree with those who see him as a fresh, clean candidate who can bring in more young voters and rejuvenate the Democratic party.

But fresh and clean isn't going to last. I fear that after facing the Republican lie machine, fresh and clean will be questionable and muddy.

With Hillary Clinton, we know who will be on the ballot in November. And we know she can win. It won't be easy, but she can win.

Edwards Out - Go Hillary!

John Edwards was my favorite presidential candidate. With his emphasis on equality of opportunity and his focus on the working man, he represented what I wanted to see in our next President. The fact that such a smart and strong candidate did not dominate the Democratic field demonstrates what a great selection of candidates is running.

His withdrawal from the race is disappointing, but understandable. I'm glad he gave it a try, and didn't get involved in a nasty, vituperative effort. He's a great man, and I wish him and his family, especially his wife, the very best.

It's tempting to take some time off and look at the other candidates with a fresh eye, but there's no time for that. We have a primary coming up, and it represents Missouri's one opportunity to speak on who our party should select.

I'm on board with Hillary. She has the organization, the experience, and the toughness to win the big one. She is prepared and ready. We've seen her sliced and diced and accused of everything from murder to communism, and she's still thriving.

I offer these points as reasons, not as peruasion. If you've bought into the hope and excitement that Obama brings, I don't expect - nor particularly want - to change your mind in a paragraph.

May the better candidate win, and may both campaigns remember that the most important goal is to have a Democrat in the White House to clean up W's mess.