Saturday

Got a very good night's sleep. Stayed in bed till almost 1:00. I needed the rest--it's been so crazy around here lately and I haven't been able to nap. I went to the gym last night, exhausted as I was--and upset that Lucy didn't seem to be getting better--but I felt fine afterwards, and the rest of the night went well.

This afternoon I ate surf 'n' turf at Flanigan's while reading my magazine. Finished up an article on crazy Keith Olberman, then walked up to Starbucks for a coffee (and after that a Jamba Juice). I sat at a table outside, under the roof (vs. an umbrella), reading an article on prehistoric cave art (not available online). Fortunately it had cooled off by then as the storm clouds rolled in, and I was expecting it to storm any minute but it never did and hasn't since.

We all know about the caves at Lascaux, but actually a good number caves in the region contain prehistoric art. Chauvet was discovered in 1994 and contains the oldest cave art that we know of -- at least 32,000 years old.* Moreover, it's considered to be just as sophisticated as later cave art.

What emerged with that revelation was an image of Paleolithic artists transmitting their techniques from generation to generation for twenty-five millennia with almost no innovation or revolt. A profound conservatism in art, Curtis notes, is one of the hallmarks of a "classical civilization." For the conventions of cave painting to have endured four times as long as recorded history, the culture it served, he concludes, must have been "deeply satisfying"--and stable to a degree it is hard for modern humans to imagine.

The top drawing is from Chauvet and the others from Niaux. What the paintings "mean," if anything, is the subject of much speculation.

The bearded horses have been reintroduced into French animal parks from Central Asia.

_______________________
*The art at Lascaux is 14,000-17,000 years old and was discovered in 1940.

Joan Walsh: 'McCain's offshore oil-drilling flip-flop'

Column here. (Joan needs to read Paul Krugman's "Driller Instinct" column, below.)

I don't understand John McCain's presidential campaign. I know I'm not his target demographic. But at a time when most people believe he should be distancing himself from the least popular president in modern history, he finds a way to draw closer to George Bush. This week it was his bewildering flip-flop on offshore oil-drilling.

My first job out of college was at a Santa Barbara paper in the early 1980s, where politics was still dominated by a coalition of Democrats and enlightened Republicans horrified by the nightmare of the 1969 oil spill off the coast more than a decade earlier. I came of age believing environmentalism was a bipartisan concern.

That's become harder to believe, of course, but McCain was one of the comparative good guys. On Monday night Al Gore praised him as a rare GOP supporter on climate change issues, while endorsing Barack Obama. Now McCain has sold his soul for the alleged 18 billion barrels of oil we'd have access to if every single inch of coastal oil resources were plundered. That's roughly two years' worth of American oil consumption, and we probably wouldn't have access to most of it during McCain's (increasingly unlikely) presidency. So I don't understand what he's doing, but it's not the first time. (Other flip-flops I don't get: embracing the Bush tax cuts for the very wealthy, saying he now wouldn't vote for his own immigration reform bill, and sucking up to former "agents of intolerance" on the Christian right. In case anyone in the McCain camp cares.) My weekly Current video explores the topic in more depth . . . .

But while I'm talking about disappointing political moves by a presidential candidate, I'd be remiss if I ignored Barack Obama's decision to support the tragic House FISA compromise. Obama's promise to work to strike telecom immunity isn't much comfort, as Glenn Greenwald explains here; those forces won't have the votes to strip that language from the bill. The only hope (a forlorn one, I admit) was blocking it. Call me politically unsophisticated, but I was actually surprised by Obama's decision. We'll have more on the issue in the days to come.

Paul Krugman: 'Fiscal Poison Pill'

Column here.

Exhibit A of the poison pill in action is the sad case of John McCain, part of whose lingering image as a maverick rests on his early opposition to the Bush tax cuts, which he declared excessive and too tilted toward the rich.

Since then the budget surpluses of the Clinton years have given way to persistent deficits, and income inequality has risen to new heights, vindicating his opposition.

But instead of pointing this out, Mr. McCain now promises to make those tax cuts permanent — and proposes further cuts that are, if anything, tilted even more toward the wealthy. And how is the loss of revenue to be made up? Mr. McCain hasn’t offered a realistic answer.

You can explain though not excuse Mr. McCain’s behavior by his need to shore up relations with the Republican base, which suspects him of being a closet moderate. But he’s not the only one seemingly trapped by the Bush fiscal legacy.

Barack Obama’s tax plan is more responsible than Mr. McCain’s: relative to current policy, the Tax Policy Center estimates, the Obama plan would raise revenue by $700 billion over the next decade, compared with a $600 billion loss for Mr. McCain.

The Obama plan is also far more progressive, sharply reducing after-tax incomes for the richest 1 percent of Americans while raising incomes for the bottom 80 percent.

But while $700 billion may sound like a lot of money, it’s probably not enough to pay for universal health care, which was supposed to be the overriding progressive priority in this election.

Why doesn’t Mr. Obama propose raising more money? Blame the Bush poison pill.

First of all, Mr. Obama — like, to be fair, his main rivals for the Democratic nomination — isn’t willing to challenge the Bush tax cuts as a whole. He only proposes rolling back tax cuts for those making more than $250,000 a year.

Second, Mr. Obama proposes giving back a substantial part of the revenue raised by this partial tax-cut rollback in the form of new tax cuts.

These tax cuts would mainly benefit lower- and-middle-income families, although this can’t be said of Mr. Obama’s plan to eliminate income taxes on seniors with incomes under $50,000: since most seniors already pay no income taxes, this would do nothing for those most in need. And one wonders why we should create the precedent of exempting particular demographic groups from taxes.

But the big question is, are these tax cuts, however appealing, a top priority? The most expensive proposal, under the title Making Work Pay, would give most workers $500 in tax credits, at a 10-year cost of more than $700 billion. Isn’t it more important that workers be assured of health care?

The problem, I believe, is that even Democrats have bought into the underlying premise of the Bush years — that the best thing you can do for American families, or at least the only thing that can win their votes, is to give them a tax break. . . .

[L]ooking at the tax proposals of the two presidential candidates, it’s remarkable and disheartening to see how effective President Bush’s fiscal poison pill has been in restricting the terms of debate.

Progressives, in particular, have to hope that Mr. Obama will be more willing to challenge the Bush legacy in office than he has been in the campaign.

Paul Krugman: 'Driller Instinct'

Column here. (Emphasis added.)

Blaming environmentalists for high energy prices, never mind the evidence, has been a hallmark of the Bush administration. . . .

[T]he administration has spent the last eight years trying to convince Congress that the key to America’s energy security is opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling — even though estimates from the Energy Information Administration suggest that drilling in the refuge would make very little difference to the energy outlook, and the oil companies themselves aren’t especially interested in punching holes in the tundra.

But it still comes as a surprise and a disappointment to see John McCain joining that unfortunate tradition.

I’ve never taken Mr. McCain’s media reputation as a maverick seriously, because on most issues, he’s a thoroughly conventional conservative. On energy policy, however, he has in the past seemed to show some independence. Most notably, he voted against the really terrible, special-interest-driven 2005 energy bill, which was backed by the Bush administration — and by Barack Obama.

But that was then.

In his Monday speech on energy, Mr. McCain tried to touch all the bases. . . .

The item that made news, however, was Mr. McCain’s call for more offshore drilling. On Tuesday, he made this more explicit, calling for exploration and development of the currently protected outer continental shelf. This was a reversal of his previous position, and it went a long way toward aligning his energy policy with that of the Bush administration. . . .

As many reports have noted, the McCain/Bush policy on offshore drilling doesn’t make sense as a response to $4-a-gallon gas: the White House’s own Energy Information Administration says that exploiting the outer shelf wouldn’t yield noticeable amounts of oil until the 2020s, and even at peak production its impact on oil prices would be “insignificant.”

But what I haven’t seen emphasized is the broader picture: Mr. McCain has now aligned himself with an administration that, even aside from its blame-the-environmental-movement tendencies, has established an extensive track record as the gang that couldn’t think straight about energy policy.

Remember, they didn’t just insist that the Iraqis would welcome us as liberators; on the eve of the Iraq war, administration officials were also adamant that regime change in Iraq would add millions of barrels a day to the world oil supply, driving oil prices way down. (In fact, Iraq’s oil output took five years just to recover to preinvasion levels.)

So why would Mr. McCain associate himself with these characters? The answer, presumably, is that it’s a cynical political calculation.

I’m reasonably sure that Mr. McCain’s advisers realize that offshore drilling would do nothing for current gas prices. But they may believe that the public can be conned. A Rasmussen poll taken before Mr. McCain’s announcement suggests that the public favors expanded offshore drilling, and believes (wrongly) that this would lower gasoline prices.

And Mr. McCain may also hope to shore up his still fragile relations with the Republican base. As anyone who has read what’s in his inbox after publishing an article on oil prices can testify, there are many people on the right who believe that all our energy problems have been caused by sanctimonious tree-huggers. Mr. McCain has just thrown that constituency some red meat.

But I very much doubt that Mr. McCain’s gambit will work. In fact, it’s almost certainly self-destructive.

To have a chance in November, Mr. McCain has to convince voters that he isn’t just Bush, continued. Energy policy is one of the areas where he could best have made that case.

Instead, he has ceded the high ground on energy to Mr. Obama, and linked himself firmly to the most unpopular president on record.

Lucy report

I'm glad it's the weekend and I can devote lots of time to the cats. I know that Lucy especially misses the attention she used to get while B. was here and I was at work. She's hanging in there, however.

Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (one of the Bills of Rights)

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers [including now e-mails], and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

This is the law of the land. And our president swears to abide by the law when taking office. (IT people don't have to swear this.)

Left blogosphere's reaction to FISA legislation

My take on it is: abuses happened but they should be prevented in the future. I've read nothing showing that the telecoms' breaking the law for President Bush made us safer. There are legal (and expeditious) means of gathering intelligence that do not in any way compromise its effectiveness. We don't need a police state. Frankly I don't care whether the telecoms get retroactive immunity or not--they were being coerced by the lying Bush Administration at the time. Now all the lies have been exposed. (More on Sista Soljah here.)

Digby writes:

Sistah Soljah'd ?

There's lots of blogospheric angst today, and for good reason, around this FISA legislation. Senator Obama's commitment to support the "compromise,"(while promising to "work" to remove the offensive telcom immunity) is a big disappointment to many.

I am tempted to say this is a Sistah Soljah moment, wherein Barack makes it clear to the Villagers that he is not one of the DFH's [dirty fucking hippies], despite all their ardent support. Nothing is more associated with us than this issue. It may even make sense on some sort of abstract level. He's obviously decided that he has to run to the right pretty hard to counteract that "most liberal Senator" label.

But, I actually have no idea what his motivation is any more than the rest of the Democrats, who seem stuck in some 2004 time warp, fighting the battle of Fallujah with Don Rumsfeld. He may genuinely think the legislation is good or just be afraid that the Republicans will use it against him. (I don't think that's going to help frankly --- he voted against it last time and that's all they need for the scare ads.) He does say that if he wins, he promises not to abuse the power it gives him, so I guess we should feel good about that.

I do know this: they would not have made this "compromise" and then brought this to the floor without his ok, and probably without his direction. He is the leader of the Democratic Party now, in the middle of a hotly contested presidential campaign. If he didn't come to them and say to get this thing done before the fall, then they came to him and asked his permission. That's just a fact. They aren't going to do anything he doesn't want them to do.

So, it's not really a capitulation. It's a strategy.

Update: Jack Balkin says Obama just wants the power as president. He may be right. That would also be a good reason to keep him from having it.

'Be A Patriot, Take Bush's Secrets to the Grave!'

From TPM.

'One in three IT staff snoops on co-workers: survey'

A co-worker sent me this. (I don't know where he found it.) These people have nothing better to do? They should be fired.

Thu Jun 19, 2008 11:57am EDT

FRANKFURT (Reuters) - One in three information technology professionals abuses administrative passwords to access confidential data such as colleagues' salary details, personal emails or board-meeting minutes, according to a survey.

U.S. information security company Cyber-Ark surveyed 300 senior IT professionals, and found that one-third admitted to secretly snooping, while 47 percent said they had accessed information that was not relevant to their role.

"All you need is access to the right passwords or privileged accounts and you're privy to everything that's going on within your company," Mark Fullbrook, Cyber-Ark's UK director, said in a statement released along with the survey results on Thursday.

"For most people, administrative passwords are a seemingly innocuous tool used by the IT department to update or amend systems. To those 'in the know' they are the keys to the kingdom," he added.

Cyber-Ark said privileged passwords get changed far less frequently than user passwords, with 30 percent being changed every quarter and 9 percent never changed at all, meaning that IT staff who have left an organization could still gain access.

It added that seven out of 10 companies rely on outdated and insecure methods to exchange sensitive data, with 35 percent choosing email and 35 percent using couriers, while 4 percent still relied on the postal system.

Kitchen update

I was back at Home Depot tonight for quite a while, going over details and ultimately paying for the Silestone countertops (under $4,000 with discount). I may have mentioned that I didn't get my HELOC because my condo wasn't on the bank's approved list of condos (condos are shaky right now, but mine is actually doing OK). (I immediately went and took out an unsecured loan from my bank and paid for the cabinets.)

Last night I went on the Home Depot website and saw they had a much better deal on unsecured loans for home improvements. To make a long story short, today I got a loan from Home Depot at a much better interest rate and on more favorable terms and used that to pay for the Silestone today. Also, they're going to get the cabinets paid from the Home Depot loan. So I'll be able to pay off the bank loan immediately and may just incur some processing charges. I also have quite a bit of time to accumulate funds to retire the Home Depot loan as soon as possible.

Cat update

All is well. I had administered her ear medicine shortly before I took this.

Obama's first general election ad

From MyDD.

The campaign also announced the states where the ad will run: Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Virginia.

Complete MyDD post here.

She dances, too, at 82

Queen likes to dance to Abba, DJ Chris Evans claims

THE Queen stunned guests at a Windsor Castle bash by strutting her stuff to an Abba disco classic, it was claimed yesterday.

The 82-year-old monarch showed her moves when the Swedish group's Dancing Queen came on at the end of a dinner dance.

Radio 2 presenter Chris Evans told listeners: "A friend of mine went to a dinner at Windsor Castle hosted by the Queen.

"The meal was had, the speeches were made and then the disco commenced.

"Apparently, she loves to get down on the dancefloor.

"And what was the song being played? It was Dancing Queen by Abba. She was on the floor and everybody said, 'My goodness me, there is the Dancing Queen.'"

Evans added: "That is a true story and she said audibly to the guests around her, 'I always try to dance when this song comes on because I am the Queen and I like to dance.'"

Story here.

All about hats at Royal Ascot

Royal hats here. Story here.

'Voting Reform in FL Still Moving Too Slowly'

Talk Left post here.

Americans who are convicted of crimes do not lose their citizenship, are not relieved of their obligation to pay taxes, and should be just as entitled to participate in the democratic process as everyone else. In Florida, however, even after felons are released from prison and from supervision, even after they've paid their fines and made restitution, there are still barriers to voting. Those barriers stem from an ugly history of disenfranchising black voters. . . .

The issue of voting rights here has long been intertwined with race. The ban on voting by felons became part of the state Constitution in 1868, when many Southern states found ways to suppress black votes in the wake of the Civil War.

Florida's Gov. Charlie Crist has advocated a measure of reform that, since April, has reinstated voting rights for 115,232 ex-offenders. But 80 percent of them remain disenfranchised. . . .

Gov. Crist bases his call for reform upon his belief in the value of redemption. . . .

It is the voting system in Florida that needs redemption, in the form of additional change. Civil rights are restored automatically in most states after completion of a sentence. Florida needs to follow that example if it wants to move past the vestige of post-Civil War vote suppression.

Lucy report

She's acting almost normal again. Her ears still bother her (that was normal) but the new ointment (EnteDerm) is working miracles. The mildew has almost disappeared! Plus she didn't complain as much tonight when I gave her a dose.

I'd bought all kinds of stuff at pet stores and over the Internet to treat her ears, but apparently she needed serious drugs. The vet even told me don't bother to clean them anymore (as I'd been doing when I felt it was necessary). I was glad to hear that. It was always a big ordeal for Lucy and me both.

This morning she was up and at 'em and out of the bedroom. She didn't want to be shut up in there again.

When I got home from work, she ate canned food in the kitchen with Bootsy (on her own paper plate). She even walked up to me after I'd opened the can, eager to be fed.

Both Lucy and Bootsy have lost interest in the dry food (and I'd even tried a different brand which at first they seemed to like). I'll just feed them more canned food (and still keep the dry food out for them in case their interest picks up again).

I still have a cat box and food and water supply back in my bedroom (where Lucy's basket is) to make things a little easier on her, if necessary.

Both cats were traumatized emotionally by B's departure (not my doing!) but they seem to be pulling through. I give them all the support I can.

'German court rules fear or letters is no excuse' (?)

I couldn't figure that one out! See story here. (It's fear of letters.)

A German court has ruled against a woman who claimed a phobia of official letters in her appeal of authorities' decision to cut off child support benefits. . . .

There was a time in my life when I dreaded going to the mailbox myself.

'Bush Backs McCain’s Highly Innovative, Out-Of-The-Box “More Drilling” Plan'

Post at Firedoglake here.

President Arbusto loves McSame's "give the oil companies exactly what they want" proposal so much, he's giving it the kiss of death his stamp of approval:

President Bush asked Congress Wednesday to permit drilling for oil in deep water off America's coasts to combat rising oil and gas prices.

"There is no excuse for delay," the president said in a Rose Garden statement.

Tough talk for a man who's pissed away 7 years. And wasn't the invasion of Iraq supposed to lower gas prices? I thought we were going to kick their ass and take their gas.

Anyway, Big Oil is absolutely thrilled with the Bush/McSame proposal. When you see headlines like "oil execs respond favorably," that sort of tells you everything you need to know. But here's where I'm confused.

* Bush has a 24% approval rating.
* Cheney has an 18% approval rating.
* And 90% (90%!) of Americans think Big Oil is culpable for high gas prices.

So people hate Bush, hate Cheney and really, really hate Big Oil -- yet McSame is lining up with them. Again.

I'm starting to think an Obama mole is running the McSame campaign.

Lucy's still hanging in there

She didn't like being shut up in the bedroom today, so I won't do that again. Appetite is pretty good. As I wrote in an email to a friend.

I don't know about the "thing" in her abdomen (and neither does the vet), but her ears have bothered her for a long time (it's like they're mildewed from the Florida humidity). That was the stated reason why I took her to the vet (but the real reason was the weight loss and not eating right). The vet gave me an ointment for her ears. But I can't administer it the way the vet did. She goes nuts. I did my best. I wish they had ear drops or a spray for this condition. (I think I'll ask the vet about that.) I'm supposed to insert the elongated tip of a tube of ointment into her ear canal, every day. I can barely make out where the ear canal is. Please.

'Scans see "gay brain differences"'

BBC story here.

The brains of gay men and women look like those found in heterosexual people of the opposite sex, research suggests.

The Swedish study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal, compared the size of the brain's halves in 90 adults.

Gay men and heterosexual women had halves of a similar size, while the right side was bigger in lesbian women and heterosexual men.

A UK scientist said this was evidence sexual orientation was set in the womb. . . .

Dr Qazi Rahman, a lecturer in cognitive biology at Queen Mary, University of London, said that he believed that these brain differences were laid down early in foetal development.

"As far as I'm concerned there is no argument any more - if you are gay, you are born gay," he said. . . .

Gore endorses Obama (?!)

Wow. Did anyone think Gore was going to endorse John McCain? Maybe I'm missing something here, but Alex Koppelman at Salon's War Room makes this into a big deal.

Koppelman always slanted toward Obama during the Democratic primaries. Now that the dust has settled and Hillary is out of the race, he writes as though Gore is endorsing Obama over Hillary. (Gore was smarter than to do that.) (Emphasis added.)

Monday night, Al Gore took to the stage at Joe Louis Arena in Detroit, Michigan, to finally deliver the endorsement many political observers had been waiting for all year. By now, though, there was no suspense as to what candidate Gore would endorse; instead, with Barack Obama beaming next to him, Gore added his voice to the growing chorus of Democrats coming out to support their party's presumptive presidential nominee. . . .

I've never been impressed by what Alex Koppelman has to say. He comes across as a political neophyte. I miss the other guy at War Room. I trust he has a better job now.

Lucy OK

Talked to the vet today. Kidney function is normal, despite the "thing" (as she called it today) the vet had felt during the examination on Saturday. Lucy does have some infection, however, and is anemic. Tomorrow morning I'll pick up some antibiotics from the vet's and give Lucy a dose before going to work. I'm also shutting her up in the bedroom by herself, so she won't have to deal with Bootsy while she's recuperating. (I'll be sure to open the hurricane shutters, however, so she'll have some light and can look out the window.) (I normally like to keep the bedroom as dark as I possibly can.)

Quote from the dirty trickster

I got a kick out of this (presently Roger Stone is trying to get published the "rules" by which he lives):

Rule: “Get your carbs from booze—not potatoes, rice, pasta, or bread.”

Do check out the beefed-up post on the Miami-based slime artist (below) if you haven't already

Lucy's hanging in there

She's on my bed right now, nestling by the comforter, which she likes to massage. A while back, I bought some fabric-covered pet stairs in case the cats should ever have trouble hopping up onto the new, higher bed. Actually I bought them for Bootsy, since, at the time, he was the denizen of the bed. He's got arthritis and moves more slowly these days.

Sure enough, Bootsy stopped trying to spring up onto the bed in one swoop. Now he first jumps up onto a chair by the nightstand, then onto the nightstand, then the bed. (He never used the stairs, so I set them aside.) But in case Lucy should need to use the stairs, I put them back tonight. (My guess is that she didn't use them to get up onto the bed tonight, but they're there.)

I'm monitoring Lucy and the situation here closely. Bootsy has acted more sensitive since yesterday. He knows something's not right; I think he's now aware of Lucy's condition. Today he even gave her some kisses while she was sitting here at my feet. (If he'd have swatted her, I'd have swatted him back, but I was touched by his gesture.) The cat carrier is still sitting in the living room, so he's on his best behavior, at least while I'm watching.

They'll be alone here throughout the day tomorrow, however, since I have to go back to work. They mostly sleep anyway. But I have Lucy set up in my closet (where her basket is), with her own food and water supply. I was going to keep the cats separated but decided not to. I think Lucy would hate being locked up in the bedroom all by herself while I'm gone (I shut her in there last night and she wanted to get out), and I'm hoping Bootsy won't pester her. (He didn't this weekend.) And the cat carrier will be sitting out in the open...

Who'll be the running mates?

MyDD post here.

Mark Warner says that he's only running for the Senate: "I have not sought and I will not accept any other opportunity." Too bad, as Obama & Warner would be a great team. If I had to bet, I think it'll come back to an Obama-Clinton ticket. Not that I want it or think its the only ticket-- just that its the only one that really makes sense for Obama to take a decisive advantage. Especially with both Strickland and Warner, the best two Gov options, having taken themselves out of contention. Well, there is another couple of Governors that could happen still, Schweitzer being the best, Sebelius & Richardson too. So maybe Clinton is the 'fallback' option still.

On the GOP side, hasn't Lieberman already taken himself out of contention? I don't see it happening, as it would only fire up Democrats, and Lieberman does not do anything for the social conservatives. McCain is going to choose a conservative to shore up his credentials on the right, and he's going to choose someone that's younger than himself. Sarah Palin is who I'd be the most afraid of him choosing, she'd engage the conservative moms that Bush had going for him the past two elections.

Overall, it seems to me that the race has become sorta at a summer standstill. The latest Gallup poll, at 45-42 Obama leading, has a pretty high number of other/neither/undecided voters, at 14 percent, given that name recognition is at 98% or thereabouts for each candidate. . . .

I still think Hillary should be the running mate, only because it would be a winning ticket.

Obama as father

John Aravosis still at it

I hadn't visited AmericaBlog in months on account of all the Hillary-bashing. I just popped on there, and what's the first thing I see?

FRANK RICH: McCain's new blogger said Hillary is a "monster"

John, enough already.

'America: A Progressive Nation, Not a Conservative One'

Post is here.

I've written a couple of times already about the latest polling from NBC News and The Wall Street Journal (.pdf), but I wanted to mention one more set of data found in the survey, one that I think is more fundamental than any other. The pollsters who conducted the poll, one Democratic and one Republican, asked respondents the following question:

In thinking about the next president that we'll be electing, which of the following two statements comes closer to your point of view? (IF "BOTH," ASK:) I understand that you feel that they are both important, but if you had to choose the ONE statement that comes closer to your point of view, which would you choose?

Statement A: This is a time to have a president who will focus on progress and help move America forward.
Statement B: This is a time to have a president who will focus on protecting what has made America great.

In short, without using the exact keywords, NBC and The Journal asked respondents if they were fundamentally progressive (looking forward to create an America better than ever before) or fundamentally conservative (looking back to restore a great America that once was).

Back in November 2007, when the question was first asked to registered voters, the split was nearly even, with 50 percent implicitly identifying as progressive and 46 percent as conservative. By this past March, however, the spread became much wider, with progressives outnumbering conservatives 57 percent to 39 percent. That wide progressive advantage among American voters has held to today, with 59 percent choosing the progressive option and just 37 percent choosing the conservative one. So according to these numbers, America is a progressive nation, not a conservative one -- or, at the least, has the potential to be as such.

Lucy and Bootsy

Getting along well, since Bootsy saw the cat carrier sitting in the living room. Dynamic is changing. Bootsy knows the dread cat carrier. (He was transported here in it over four years ago, howling all the way.) He's acting very cautious now while Lucy is dealing with her kidney problem.

Tim Russert

Here.

'Sunny place for shady people': GOP slime artist calls Miami home

"THE POLITICAL SCENE about Republican political consultant Roger Stone. Miami Velvet is the leading 'swingers’ club' in Miami, and Roger Stone took the writer there to explain the role he may have played in the fall of Eliot Spitzer, the former governor of New York."

Our own Karl Rove. See "The Dirty Trickster" here. A few passages:

Hank Sheinkopf, the veteran Democratic political consultant, who has known Stone for many years, values his political insights. “He was able to use the Democratic teachings on voter turnout and class warfare and turn it against us,” Sheinkopf told me. “He knew what populism was in reverse. He thought like a Democrat and dressed like a plutocrat. He once said to me, ‘Are you black? Are you Hispanic? Are you gay?’ When I said no, he said, ‘Then why the fuck are you a Democrat? You should be with us.’ ”

* * *

Like Stone, [Roy] Cohn combined conservative politics with an outré personal life. “Roy was not gay,” Stone told me. “He was a man who liked having sex with men. Gays were weak, effeminate. He always seemed to have these young blond boys around. It just wasn’t discussed. He was interested in power and access. He told me his absolute goal was to die completely broke and owing millions to the I.R.S. He succeeded in that.”

* * *

In the nineties, Stone divorced Ann and married Nydia Bertran, whose father had been a diplomat in pre-Castro Cuba. His wife, whom he invariably refers to as “Mrs. Stone,” had family ties in south Florida, and the couple began spending time in Miami.

Stone served as a senior consultant to Bob Dole’s 1996 campaign for President, but that assignment ended in a characteristic conflagration. The National Enquirer, in a story headlined “Top Dole Aide Caught in Group-Sex Ring,” reported that the Stones had apparently run personal ads in a magazine called Local Swing Fever and on a Web site that had been set up with Nydia’s credit card. “Hot, insatiable lady and her handsome body builder husband, experienced swingers, seek similar couples or exceptional muscular . . . single men,” the ad on the Web site stated. The ads sought athletes and military men, while discouraging overweight candidates, and included photographs of the Stones. At the time, Stone claimed that he had been set up by a “very sick individual,” but he was forced to resign from Dole’s campaign. Stone acknowledged to me that the ads were authentic. “When that whole thing hit the fan in 1996, the reason I gave a blanket denial was that my grandparents were still alive,” he said. “I’m not guilty of hypocrisy. I’m a libertarian and a libertine.”

* * *

Stone’s move to Miami seems almost inevitable. The weather facilitates year-round tanning. And the byzantine politics of the city, with anti-Communism at its core, suits Stone’s temperament. “You are at the nexus of Cuban internecine politics, with family rivalries that have carried over from Cuba,” Stone said. “This is the nexus for Colombian politics, also a hotbed for Puerto Rican politics. It’s all going on right here.”

Also see Daily Kos post here.

Lucy not well

This morning the vet discovered that one of her kidneys is twice the size it should be and lumpy. The vet took blood to be tested and she'll call me with the results on Monday. She said the outlook is not good.

The vet also said that Lucy is in no condition to be putting up with Bootsy's bullying. So it would be best if he weren't here.

Tired

Been dealing with cat conflicts all week (on top of work--no big deal in comparison). That may sound trivial but it's a huge dynamic here at home, a matter of life and death (no less). Lucy is going to the vet tomorrow at 11:00. She's lost a lot of weight and no longer has much of an appetite.

Despite the fact I love Bootsy, tonight I called B. at work and told him he had to take Bootsy back, that the cat situation wasn't working. (I didn't tell B. "in his absence," and he appeared not to appreciate that that was a big part of it.) Everything has changed here since B. left. There's no longer an equilibrium when it comes to the cats' ability to co-exist and thrive. Lucy feels she has been forsaken and that Bootsy's now my new best friend. Not true, as I've tried to reassure her. (He was ailing a while back and I was giving him extra attention.) So I figured Bootsy has to go back to his father.

We'll see what the vet says tomorrow. Lucy will hate that ordeal. She hasn't been to the vet in years.

Joan Walsh on Obama's first week solo vs. McCain

Thursday Night

Today I made an appointment at the vet's for Lucy. I'm taking her on Saturday morning. (I think she's OK and doesn't have a fatal medical problem, but I do want her ears checked out, since they bother her so much.) I'll explain to the vet about the situation here at home and Bootsy's domination and hogging the food. I tried calling B. tonight about taking Bootsy back, but he was off from work. I'll call him tomorrow.

Much as I love Bootsy, I think Lucy would be better off without him here, since there's too much conflict and jealousy. Bootsy is B's cat and ultimately B's responsibility, and unfortunately he's got to go. If the cats got along, it would be another story.

Lucy will be by herself during the day, but I think she'll have more peace of mind. She hasn't been thriving.

Just to get out of the house tonight, I went to Starbucks shortly after 9:00 and drank a decaf while reading the short story by Mary Gaitskill. I never liked decaf, but I have to say the Starbucks is the closest to the real thing that I've ever tasted. (I'm not a connoisseur of decaf coffee or of coffee, for that matter. I don't even drink that much coffee, but when I do, at home I drink Yuban, although my cousin recently sent me some Caribou coffee and that was pretty good.)

Good short story

By Mary Gaitskill here. Oops. You can't read it online. So you'll have to go out and buy the latest New Yorker. (No, I don't work for them. Wish I did.)

Here's something, however (it's 27:25 minutes long). (Didn't listen to it.) Gaitskill talks about one of her favorite stories, by Nabokov.

'California’s Battle Over Marijuana'

Slideshow here. (Site contains a variety of slideshows.)

Silly video on "Sex and the City"

Foreign take on Obama's win

'Corn Pops Past Record'

Forbes article here.

LONDON - A surge in corn prices took a bite out of food company shares Monday. Chicago corn futures rose to an all-time high in Asia, as the American grains and oilseed futures markets extended their rally from late last week on crude oil's surge to a record high of $139.12 per barrel.

Torrential rains sweeping America's midwest boosted corn prices on worries about young crops, along with a decrease in U.S. production of the crop. . . .

Popping corn with a cell phone

This is your brain on wireless.

(Snopes says this is a hoax but it's still fun to watch).

Norway legalizes gay marriage

Advocate story here.

Members of Norway's parliament approved a bill Wednesday that will allow same-sex couples to wed in civil marriages, according to Agence France-Presse.

The new law, which passed 84–41, requires that the terminology in marriage documents be gender-neutral.

A 1993 law gave gay and lesbian couples the right to enter into civil unions, similar to marriage, but they could not be wed in church or adopt children. The new law allows adoption and permits lesbians to be artificially inseminated.

Norway becomes the sixth country to allow gay marriage, joining Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, South Africa, and Canada in legislating full marriage equality.

'How Much Sleep Do You Really Need?'

Article here.

Sleep is one of the richest topics in science today: why we need it, why it can be hard to get, and how that affects everything from our athletic performance to our income. Daniel Kripke, co-director of research at the Scripps Clinic Sleep Center in La Jolla, Calif., has looked at the most important question of all. In 2002, he compared death rates among more than 1 million American adults who, as part of a study on cancer prevention, reported their average nightly amount of sleep. To many his results were surprising, but they've since been corroborated by similar studies in Europe and East Asia. Kripke explains.

Q: How much sleep is ideal?

A: Studies show that people who sleep between 6.5 hours and 7.5 hours a night, as they report, live the longest. And people who sleep 8 hours or more, or less than 6.5 hours, they don't live quite as long. There is just as much risk associated with sleeping too long as with sleeping too short. The big surprise is that long sleep seems to start at 8 hours. Sleeping 8.5 hours might really be a little worse than sleeping five.

Morbidity, [or sickness,] is also "U-shaped," in the sense that both very short sleep and very long sleep are associated with many illnesses - with depression, with obesity, and therefore with heart disease and so forth. But the [ideal amount of sleep] for different health measures isn't all in the same place. Most of the "low points" are at seven or eight hours, but there are some at six and some even at nine. I think diabetes is lowest in seven-hour sleepers, [for example]. But these measures aren't as clear as the mortality data.

I think we can speculate [about why people who sleep 6.5 to 7.5 hours live longer], but we have to admit that we don't really understand the reasons. We don't really know yet what is cause and what is effect. So we don't know if a short sleeper can live longer by extending their sleep, and we don't know if a long sleeper can live longer by setting the alarm clock a bit earlier. We're hoping to organize tests of those questions.

One of the reasons I like to publicize these facts is that I think we can prevent a lot of insomnia and distress just by telling people that short sleep is OK. We've all been told you ought to sleep eight hours, but there was never any evidence. A very common problem we see at sleep clinics is people who spend too long in bed. They think they should sleep eight hours or nine hours, so they spend eight or nine hours in bed, with the result that they have trouble falling asleep and they wake up a lot during the night. Oddly enough, a lot of the problem [of insomnia] is lying in bed awake worrying about it. There have been many controlled studies in the United States, Great Britain and other parts of Europe that show that an insomnia treatment that involves getting out of bed when you're not sleepy, and restricting your time in bed, actually helps people to sleep more. They get over their fear of the bed. They get over the worry, and they become confident that when they go to bed they will sleep. So spending less time in bed actually makes sleep better. It is in fact a more powerful and effective long-term treatment for insomnia than sleeping pills. View this article on Time.com.

Worried about my cat

I may take her to the vet this weekend. She's lost a lot of weight. She's so bony now that her hair sticks straight out from her body (rather than lie flat against the flesh she had). Also, I haven't seen her show much interest in food lately (catnip, yes). I realize she may be depressed that B. left and maybe has lost hope over his coming back (I can sympathize)--he gave her so much attention. But maybe it's more than that and has to be checked out.

Got a kick out of this

"What's Next for the Hillary Haters?"

I'm not into post-mortems and haven't and won't be writing any about Hillary's campaign. As I said Saturday, I'm moving forward, just like she asked us to. But I like this part of Richard Cohen's column today in the Washington Post and thought I'd share it:

I often had more problems with her critics than I did with her. Some of them, clearly, needed to be medicated.

Now, though, an eerie silence has settled over the land. With Hillary Clinton out of the race, thousands of computer keyboards have been stilled, dozens of books have been abandoned in mid-chapter, and enormously influential bloggers, most of them unknown to me, have vanished from the Web. Some anti-Hillary obsessives (see the latest Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) must be feeling the sickening vertigo once experienced by Vaughn Meader, whose entire show business career was based on impersonating John F. Kennedy and who, in essence, died when Kennedy did.

It's over, ladies and gentlemen. Hillary Clinton lost. And so did you.

The hateful attacks that have appeared in comments at TalkLeft have slowed down. My intolerance for those who continue to post them has risen. I'm erasing these users rather than deleting their comments one by one. Life is too short to be consumed by irrational hate.

Amen.

Stephanie Miller at Gay Pride parade in West LA this weekend

She was Grand Marshal. Kind of skanky, huh. More pics here.

New book out: 'The Prosecution Of George W. Bush For Murder'

On this morning's Stephanie Miller Show, I heard Stephanie's live interview with prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi.

Bugliosi said impeachment would be too good for George Bush and explained why Bush should be prosecuted for murder for going to war with Iraq. Bugliosi's also written a book on the subject. Excerpt at Huffington Post here. Stephanie's interview is here.

Bugliosi prosecuted Charles Manson and wrote the book "Helter Skelter" about the trial. He's a graduate of the University of Miami and received his law degree at UCLA.

'Obama Pledges to Support LGBT Issues'

From The Advocate.

Sen. Barack Obama released the following statement regarding the 2008 Pride season on Saturday:

“I am proud to join with our lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered brothers and sisters in celebrating the accomplishments, the lives, and the families of all LGBT people during this Pride season. Too often, the issue of LGBT rights is exploited by those seeking to divide us. But at its core this issue is about who we are as Americans.”

“It’s time to live up to our founding promise of equality by treating all our citizens with dignity and respect. Let’s enact federal civil rights legislation to outlaw hate crimes and protect workers against discrimination based upon sexual orientation and gender identity or expression. Let’s repeal 'don't ask, don't tell' and demonstrate that the most effective and professional military in the world is open to all Americans who are ready and willing to serve our country. Let’s treat the relationships and the families of LGBT Americans with full equality under the law.”

“We are ready to accomplish these goals because of the courage and persistence of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered people who are working every day to achieve equal rights -- the gay couple who demands equal treatment in our family laws as they raise their children, the lesbian soldier who wants nothing more than to serve her country openly and honestly, the transgendered workers who asks for the simple dignity of being judged by the quality of their work. Generations of LGBT Americans, at once ordinary and extraordinary, have made possible this moment in our history. With leadership and hard work we can fulfill the promise of equality for all.”

Obama’s website has a section directed toward his LGBT constituency (http://pride.barackobama.com/). The site features the senator’s views on LGBT issues and allows visitors to search for pride events in their area. On Saturday Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton endorsed Obama and pledged her full support in helping him win the presidency.

'Blogging--It's Good for You'

From Scientific American, via Hullabaloo. "The therapeutic value of blogging becomes a focus of study"

Self-medication may be the reason the blogosphere has taken off. Scientists (and writers) have long known about the therapeutic benefits of writing about personal experiences, thoughts and feelings. But besides serving as a stress-coping mechanism, expressive writing produces many physiological benefits. Research shows that it improves memory and sleep, boosts immune cell activity and reduces viral load in AIDS patients, and even speeds healing after surgery. A study in the February issue of the Oncologist reports that cancer patients who engaged in expressive writing just before treatment felt markedly better, mentally and physically, as compared with patients who did not. . . .

Digby goes on to write.

Considering the cost of prescription drugs, this is a relatively cheap way to keep healthy. (It's actually less satisfying and cathartic than throwing my Le Creuset dutch oven lids at Tim Russert's face on TV, but considerably less alarming to friends and family.) . . .

[NOTE: I would urge all people with AIDS or HIV to seek professional medical help (but continue writing, of course).]

'Now We Can Talk About The Flawed Nominating System'

Talk Left post is here.

NYTimes Editorial:

A guiding principle behind American democracy is “one person, one vote.” All voters should have an equal opportunity, regardless of who they are or where they live, to affect the outcome. The process should be transparent, the ballot should be secret, and there should be no unnecessary barriers to voting.

Tested against these principles, both parties’ systems fall short. Among the most troubling elements:

Caucuses. These are often promoted as pure small-town democracy. But participants generally have to commit themselves for hours, a sizable burden on the right to vote, especially for people who care for children or sick relatives. There is no absentee voting, so caucuses disenfranchise voters who have conflicting work schedules; who are out of town, including in the military; or who are too sick to travel to the caucus site.

The ballot is not secret, which intimidates some voters into staying away or not expressing their true choices. Vote totals are not reported. The parties should abandon caucuses and switch entirely to primaries. . . .

Read the whole thing.

Weekend update

My weekends are starting to feel almost normal since B. left. B. had been here well over four years and his sudden departure was a big shock. I didn't cook for months, but this weekend, for example, I made a giant pot of chicken gumbo with andouille sausage. (I'll take most of that to work.)

Lucy has lost weight since B. left, which concerns me. B. gave her the most attention (more than he did his own cat). Actually, she insisted on it. She was constantly sitting on his lap. She must really miss B., but I think Bootsy (whom B. left here) does too.

Just to get out of the house, I've been enjoying walking over to the Starbucks or the Jamba Juice with my magazine and sitting at a bistro table under an umbrella (hot as it's been), sipping whatever it is I'm sipping. It's a little like Lincoln Road over there (even kind of cruisy), and it's just across the street. (There's also a Ben & Jerry's, but I dare not go there.)

I've been eating dinner at Flanigan's on Saturdays (it's just across the bridge in the other direction). Been mostly walking everywhere, or riding the bike. Fortunately I can do that in this neighborhood, since everything's so close.

A new "Design Star" starts tonight on HGTV. I'll watch it after I walk to the gym and the store.

Book review: 'Holiday in Hellmouth'

"God may be dead, but the question of why he permits suffering lives on." Read it all here.

“The reality is that most suffering is not positive, does not have a silver lining, is not good for the body or soul, and leads to wretched and miserable, not positive, outcomes.” . . .

“Come quickly, Lord” is the great refrain of both the Old Testament and the New. But the problem for Jews is that the Messiah never came, and everything stayed the same (or got worse), while the problem for Christians is that the Messiah did come, and everything stayed the same (or got worse). Jews and Christians are dependent, in different ways, on an always deferred Second Coming. Heaven—because it comes next and is not now—is, as so often in religious thought, a solution that merely creates another problem. If God supposedly wipes away all tears from our faces in Heaven, why does he not do it now? Why does God not now establish paradise on earth, as the Jehovah’s Witnesses believe he will do? And what is the purpose of these eighty or so years we spend on earth not having the tears wiped from our faces?

Bounce for Obama

See MyDD post here.

Rasmussen Reports sees a bounce for Barack Obama over John McCain since clinching the Democratic nomination Tuesday night.

Candidate___June 8_____June 4
Obama.....................48................43
McCain....................40................41

Those results do not reflect leaners. The results with leaners are similar and get Obama to the magic 50%.

Candidate___June 8_____June 4
Obama.....................50................47
McCain....................43................45

Rasmussen breaks down the reason for Obama's bounce:

Obama's bounce is the result of growing unity among the Democratic Party. Eighty-one percent (81%) of Democrats say they will vote for Obama over McCain. That's the highest level of party support ever enjoyed by Obama.

He's also seeing an uptick in his favorability.

Obama's bounce can be seen in his favorability ratings as well. Fifty-eight percent (58%) of voters now give the Illinois Senator positive reviews. Just 41% have an unfavorable opinion. Those totals include 36% with a Very Favorable opinion and 27% with a Very Unfavorable opinion. Today's results are the highest ratings yet recorded for Obama.

As for McCain, he is viewed favorably by 52% and unfavorably by 45%. Opinions about the presumptive Republican nominee are less firmly established. Just 16% have a Very Favorable opinion of McCain and 21% have a Very Unfavorable view (see daily results).

Interestingly, while the Gallup daily tracking poll does not see such dramatic movement toward Obama (yesterday's result shows Obama up just 1 point over McCain since Tuesday), Gallup's analysis reveals that it's likely just a matter of time. . . .

(Is there a better way to do a chart in Blogger?)

"Sex and the City"

Movie review here. (I haven't seen the movie.)

Digby has this

Eye Opener

Clinton has officially suspended her campaign and thrown her support to Obama. I'm sure we'll hear a lot of very nice encomiums over the next few days. The media never loves a Democrat more than immediately after he (or she) concedes.

C&L has the video of Clinton's speech. I thought it was very, very strong --- inspiring, conciliatory, intelligent and respectful of her supporters and her rival. John King and Chris Matthews insist she was "auditioning" for VP. (The implication being, naturally, that she doesn't mean a word of it unless she gets what she wants.) Carl Bernstein said that she made a good start but needs to do much, much more before anyone will believe her. Clearly, the media is going to have a hard time giving up their obsessions.

These people are asserting, without apparent irony, that if she had asserted her feminist credentials more forcefully and run "as a woman" she could have won. I don't have the energy to write much more about this right now, but I will eventually. It's been a long campaign and I tried my best to deal with the subject in real time as it became clear to me that there was something truly ugly going on with the media, even by their low standards. It wasn't the most popular thing I've ever done. (I'll never forget the reaction, that's for sure.) . . .

Clinton's campaign ripped open a hole in our culture and forced us to look inside. And what we found was a simmering cauldron of crude, sophomoric sexism and ugly misogyny that a lot of us knew existed but didn't realize was still so socially acceptable that it could be broadcast on national television and garner nary a complaint from anybody but a few internet scolds like me. It was eye-opening, to say the least.

Is Al Qaeda finished?

See post here, on an article in the June 2 New Yorker.

This August, Al Qaeda will mark its twentieth anniversary. That is a long life for a terrorist group. Most terror organizations disappear with the death of their charismatic leader, and it would be hard to imagine Al Qaeda remaining a coherent entity without Osama bin Laden. The Red Army Faction went out of business when the Berlin Wall came down and it lost its sanctuary in East Germany. The Irish Republican Army, unusually, endured for nearly a century, until economic conditions in Ireland significantly improved, and the leaders were pressured by their own members to reach a political accommodation. When one looks for hopeful parallels for the end of Al Qaeda, it is discouraging to realize that its leadership is intact, its sanctuaries are unthreatened, and the social conditions that gave rise to the movement are largely unchanged. On the other hand, Al Qaeda has nothing to show for its efforts except blood and grief. The organization was constructed from rotten intellectual bits and pieces—false readings of religion and history—cleverly and deviously fitted together to give the appearance of reason. Even if Fadl’s rhetoric strikes some readers as questionable, Al Qaeda’s sophistry is rudely displayed for everyone to see. Although it will likely continue as a terrorist group, who could still take it seriously as a philosophy? . . .

I asked Zuhdy how [Egypt] might have been different if he and his colleagues had never chosen the bloody path. “It would have been a lot better now,” he admitted. “Our opting for violence encouraged Al Jihad to emerge.” He even suggested that, had the Islamists not murdered Sadat thirty years ago, there would be peace today between the Palestinians and the Israelis. He quoted the Prophet Muhammad: “Only what benefits people stays on the earth.”

“It’s very easy to start violence,” Zuhdy said. “Peace is much more difficult.”

Just for fun

More on sexism

"Now They Notice"

Sexism:

Now that a would-be first female president is ending her quest for the White House, the race is more about women than ever before. . . . Even the Democratic National Committee chairman is avidly trying to make up for accusations that he allowed sexism in the race to pass unchallenged. “The wounds of sexism need to be the subject of a national discussion,” the chairman, Howard Dean, said in an interview. “Many of the most prominent people on TV behaved like middle schoolers” toward Mrs. Clinton.

(Emphasis supplied.) This is true Mr. Chairman. The discussion COULD have come a little earlier. But, better late than never.

BTW, I highly recommend the entire article. Some of our readers are going to enjoy the sudden onslaught of wooing you are going to receive.

By Big Tent Democrat

Sexism in America

Absolutely shameful.

Email from Wesley Clark

Dear [moi],

There has never been a more important election in my lifetime -- with a war waging, gas prices at record highs, our health care in crisis, and our nation's standing around the world severely diminished. I spent the last year traveling across the country talking to great Americans in Iowa, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Ohio, Texas, South Dakota, Indiana and many other places. They all agree on one thing: This country needs new leadership, and it's time for change.

Many of you in the Clark community answered the call. Some of you worked tirelessly for Senator Clinton while others poured hours into Senator Obama's campaign. You did this because you were willing to sacrifice your time and energy to bring the change we so desperately need. I can't thank you enough for all you have done.

Now I am asking you to come together and make sure Barack Obama is our next president. This is a critical mission.

Hillary Clinton ran an amazing race. She inspired millions. Our party is a better party because of her campaign, and our nation is a better nation because of her service. She is and will always be a friend whom I admire.

I congratulate Senator Barack Obama on securing the nomination. His historic campaign has touched lives and his message has moved people in every corner of America. I believe he is not only ready for the challenge but will be a great President.

It's time our party comes together to stand behind Senator Obama as we move forward in this election season. I look forward to doing everything I can to help Senator Obama's campaign. While I respect John McCain's service, I know exactly what he stands for -- Bush's third term. America is a great nation, and our people deserve more. We need Barack Obama to be our next president.

Sincerely,

/s/

Wes Clark

CNN: 'Poll finds majority of Dems want Obama-Clinton ticket'

Article here. I think it would be a good idea for a lot of reasons, but mainly to help Obama beat McCain. The ticket might attract Hillary supporters who presently are wary of Obama and might otherwise vote for McCain (or not vote at all). I'm all for whatever it takes to keep McCain from getting elected and enduring four more years of decline and endless war. (And I always thought Obama was a great candidate, even though I supported Hillary this time around.)

A majority of Democrats think Barack Obama should select Hillary Clinton as his running mate, according to a new national poll.

Fifty-four percent of registered Democrats questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Friday think Obama should name his rival as his running mate; 43 percent disagreed.

The poll is the first national survey conducted since Obama claimed the Democratic presidential nomination Tuesday night, at the end of the primary season. Clinton is expected to announce Saturday that she's suspending her campaign and backing her Senate colleague.

Men and women don't see eye-to-eye on the question. Sixty percent of Democratic women said Clinton should be Obama's running mate, but only 46 percent of male Democrats agreed, while 51 percent of them said no.

" 'What do women want?' Sigmund Freud famously asked," said Bill Schneider, CNN senior political analyst. "The answer appears to be Clinton on the ticket. It's pretty clear that many Democratic women are miffed and that Obama has to be very careful how he deals with Sen. Clinton." See the poll results » . . .

Email from Hillary

Dear [moi],

I wanted you to be one of the first to know: on Saturday, I will hold an event in Washington D.C. to thank everyone who has supported my campaign. Over the course of the last 16 months, I have been privileged and touched to witness the incredible dedication and sacrifice of so many people working for our campaign. Every minute you put into helping us win, every dollar you gave to keep up the fight meant more to me than I can ever possibly tell you.

On Saturday, I will extend my congratulations to Senator Obama and my support for his candidacy. This has been a long and hard-fought campaign, but as I have always said, my differences with Senator Obama are small compared to the differences we have with Senator McCain and the Republicans.

I have said throughout the campaign that I would strongly support Senator Obama if he were the Democratic Party's nominee, and I intend to deliver on that promise.

When I decided to run for president, I knew exactly why I was getting into this race: to work hard every day for the millions of Americans who need a voice in the White House.

I made you -- and everyone who supported me -- a promise: to stand up for our shared values and to never back down. I'm going to keep that promise today, tomorrow, and for the rest of my life.

I will be speaking on Saturday about how together we can rally the party behind Senator Obama. The stakes are too high and the task before us too important to do otherwise.

I know as I continue my lifelong work for a stronger America and a better world, I will turn to you for the support, the strength, and the commitment that you have shown me in the past 16 months. And I will always keep faith with the issues and causes that are important to you.

In the past few days, you have shown that support once again with hundreds of thousands of messages to the campaign, and again, I am touched by your thoughtfulness and kindness.

I can never possibly express my gratitude, so let me say simply, thank you.

Sincerely,

/s/

Hillary Rodham Clinton

'Gallup: Hillary Gives Obama 5 Point Bump As VP'

See this.

But can he win?

See here ("Can He Win The Red States?"). So Obama's team had a winning strategy in the Dem primaries. Can he rescue the country from another disastrous Republican regime, which is, of course, the whole point?

The Washington Post runs a good analysis of how Team Obama used a delegate-centered strategy to beat Team Clinton. In short, Clinton and her woeful team focused on big battleground states and locking this up early without ever taking caucus states seriously. Conversely, Team Obama planned for the long haul and aimed to hold down her delegate counts, focusing on all 50 states and especially caucus states to keep a continual stream of delegates coming his way. . . .

A strategy based on piling up delegates across all fifty states significantly through caucuses is effective in getting the Democratic nomination, as the party rules are currently written. But as pointed out before, winning the nomination largely in caucus and red states while holding your opponent’s battleground state gains down has its limits in winning a general election. If Obama cannot capture Hillary’s battleground states himself, and if he cannot convert his primary season success in red states into actually winning some of these states in November, this self-described campaign of personality over policy will all be for naught.

I realize that the assumption by Team Obama is that their 1,500,000 . . . donors constitute an army across all 435 districts that give him a credible chance to capture red states and their electoral votes. We're about to see if the army and the crowds at the rallies can get him to 270 and hold her base in those battleground states, all while McCain appeals to her voters as well. . . .

(Emphasis added.)

It's never been about whether the Democrats could nominate a black man (and not a woman?) for president, though it appears some Democrats thought that was what this whole thing was about. (I always thought Hillary should be the nominee this time around, and Obama next.)

'Majority of Iraqi Parliament Wants Us Gone'

From Steve Soto here.

Is anyone surprised at this, or the fact that it is being virtually ignored by the American media today?

A majority of the Iraqi parliament has written to Congress rejecting a long-term security deal with Washington if it is not linked to a requirement that U.S. forces leave, a U.S. lawmaker said on Wednesday.

But I thought from reading our papers and watching our TV that the surge was working so well that we were finally being treated as liberators, just like Shooter said?

"The majority of Iraqi representatives strongly reject any military-security, economic, commercial, agricultural, investment or political agreement with the United States that is not linked to clear mechanisms that obligate the occupying American military forces to fully withdraw from Iraq," the letter to the leaders of Congress said.

. . .

Update: Commenter Mickey points us to this piece in tomorrow's Independent newspaper out of England, where it is reported that the Bush Administration is trying to ram through a secret long-term agreement for permanent bases that would undermine Iraqi sovereignty, without the Parliament there or the Congress here having any role or say in the matter. So when does Joe Biden drag Condi's and Ryan Crocker's asses in front of Senate Foreign Relations for a civics lesson on the separation of powers? . . .

Europe's ebullient over Obama's win

See The Guardian (UK) here. Then you get crackpots like this, commenting:

Obama has less than 180 days experience from the day he was elected a Senator to the day he formed his Presidential committee. He is not a veteran and avoided military service. His record is void of any significant decisions throughout his political life. Even if Hillary is his Vice Presidential pick. Obama will not be the next President of the United States of America. Before the election IRAN and SYRIA will be bombed into oblivion. ISRAEL will be under seige. Marshall Law will be declared in the United States and there will be no election.

These pair will not garner sufficient electorial votes to be elected President if the above scenerio does not play out as prescribed.

'Poll: Obama leads McCain nationally by small margin'

This is good news.

Barack Obama, 48 percent
John McCain, 42 percent . . .

The poll shows the Democratic Party remains divided after Obama's five-month primary fight with Hillary Rodham Clinton. One in eight Democrats say they'll back Republican McCain in the fall, including one in five Clinton supporters. Far fewer Democrats voted for President Bush in 2004. More than half of Democrats think the long battle hurt their party's November chances. Obama backers are about evenly split over whether he should make Clinton his vice presidential running mate, while Clinton voters love the idea. McCain is 8 percentage points ahead of Obama among independents. McCain is seen as likelier to be the better commander in chief, Obama the more caring about people's needs. Three in 10 say McCain's age — he is 71 — would hinder his effectiveness as president.

I'm all for Hillary becoming Obama's running mate. I think my father would make a better president than McCain, and he's 85 (and also a Republican), so I'm not into the age-bashing. (I wouldn't vote for him, however.)

Kitchen project update

KraftMaid called today and said the cabinets would be delivered on June 24. I'll have to make room for them in the living room. The cats are going to freak out. (Actually this project might be good for the cats--a distraction from the loss of one or their providers/worshippers, i.e., B.)

'Poll: 63% Believe Same-Sex Marriage Is a Private Decision'

Who knew?! Advocate story is here.

A USA Today/Gallup Poll found that 63% of adults say same-sex marriage is "strictly a private decision" between two people; 33% believe the government has the right "to prohibit or allow" such marriages, while 4% had no opinion.

The greatest support for no government intervention regarding same-sex marriages was in the East (71%), followed by the West (64%), Midwest (63%), and South (56%).

The percentage of participants who believe that same-sex marriage is “strictly a private” matter decreased as the age of the respondents increased: 79% of 18- to 29-year-olds, 65% of 30- to 49-year-olds, 62% of 50- to 64-year-olds, and 44% of those 65 and older.

The strongest support for government regulation of same-sex marriage came from people who say they attend religious services weekly (56%), are Republicans (56%), or are politically conservative (54%).

'When The Blog Pack Attacks'

See Firedoglake post here. As I've said before, my whole take on the blogosphere has changed. I've lost a tremendous amount of respect for bloggers I used to respect and enjoy reading--now I don't even bother to visit their sites anymore. (Love the hyenas, from the post.)

We here in the blogosphere often rain contempt on the media for how they run in packs; for how they repeat the wisdom of the "village", a self anointed group of a few hundred key people who think that their opinion is the same as the opinions of America, which is why they constantly go on about what Americans want in ways that are completely disconnected from poll results or reality. The "center" to the village, is the consensus opinion of the Village.

We like to think we're better than them. That we see through the BS, that we are more objective—that we're not as insular or addicted to our predetermined storylines as they are. That we are independent and willing to strike out on our own, not addicted to the cover of the pack, not playing high-school games of in-groups and out, of dominance and hierarchy, of cool-kids and outcasts.

If only it were so. Oh, I suppose we aren't quite as bad as them. There are a few more mavericks. There is more truth telling about certain things.

But when the pack decides on a storyline, we're as good at sticking to it as they are and of refusing to see either contrary evidence or why the other side feels as it does as the media is.

This primary season has to have dispelled the myth of the objective blogosphere that doesn't drink the kool-aid. If it hasn't, it certainly should have. The majority of the blogosphere became pro-Obama and savagely so, so much so that many major bloggers will tell you with a straight face that nothing misogynistic has ever come from the Obama campaign. . . .

Kitchen improvements

After work today I "closed" on the kitchen cabinets at Home Depot, i.e., forked out the money. But I think it's money well spent--plus I'm getting a 15% discount (originally it was 10%--which I thought was good enough). The figure came out in the low-ball range of the original estimate, which was good news, even with all the "bells and whistles" I'm getting. Friday morning the measuring company is coming back to take the final measurements.

There was 6" of space left between the stove and the wall, so she threw in a bank of little drawers and a pull-out spice rack above that. I'd also ordered one of those pull-out pantries between the fridge and the wall. I'll have a lot more storage space than before (and I already had quite a bit). There will be no dead or marginally usable space at all. One corner will contain corner cabinets with doors that open at a diagonal (the lower one is bi-fold). I was going to get the lazy susans below but opted for more shelf area instead. One lower cabinet will have large pull-out drawers for pots and pans. All the drawers close by themselves when you give them a push. How exciting is that!

Old kitchen.

The current Islamic mindset

The Rebellion Within
An Al Qaeda mastermind questions terrorism.

Good New Yorker article if you want to learn more on this topic (and I suggest we do). It seems Islam is pretty fluid when it comes to resorting to violence, or not. (Let's not even get into the violent history of Christianity.) This faith seems to be at a crossroads now. We should do everything in our power to respect and nurture its non-violent, rational tendencies. (Not invading Islamic countries for no reason would help.) The Islamic people are eager to catch up with the rest of the world and make a better life for themselves. The violence and terrorism advanced by a handful of radicals have served only to shatter their societies and set them back. The people want to move forward. More power to them!

As I've said before, the Muslims rescued our own classical culture from oblivion. We owe it to them now.

Dental appointment today

So I wasn't quite on the ball. I dread going to the dentist. I think it's the closest thing to torture that's legal. Took some Valium before the appointment, at 4:00. (My regular doctor also medicates himself before going to the dentist and had no qualms about writing the Valium prescription for my dental appointments.) My dentist did some bonding work, which requires drilling, so I had Novocaine too. Had a great talk with the dentist, however, whom I've been seeing for years. I always liked him (notwithstanding the torture), and it turns out we're both from Miami and almost exactly the same age. We even grew up near each other (and had a junior high in common) and reminisced about the area as it was years ago and praised Royal Castle hamburgers. He's married and has kids in college now.

'Clinton Campaign Statement On The RBC Ruling'

And Todd Beeton's take on it.

In an e-mail addressed from Maggie Williams, the Clinton campaign sends along this statement:

. . .

We strongly object to the Committee's decision to undercut its own rules in seating Michigan's delegates without reflecting the votes of the people of Michigan.

The Committee awarded to Senator Obama not only the delegates won by Uncommitted, but four of the delegates won by Senator Clinton. This decision violates the bedrock principles of our democracy and our Party.

We reserve the right to challenge this decision before the Credentials Committee and appeal for a fair allocation of Michigan's delegates that actually reflect the votes as they were cast.

Certainly sounds like they're prepping for a fight over Michigan, doesn't it? I was actually fairly shocked that they decided to seat Michigan as they did but seriously, why are Ickes and Flournoy bitching? This is about as good a result as Clinton could have hoped to get. Sure Obama took himself off the ballot in Michigan, but everyone knows a good chunk of the uncommitted vote was for Obama, so if the Clinton team is really making an intent of the voter argument then they should be pleased with this result. . . .

See Jerome Armstrong's take on it here (recommended reading, grammatical mistakes notwithstanding).

'The Epitaph'

Big Tent Democrat is not happy.

Via Political Wire:

"My momma taught me to play by the rules and respect those rules. My mother taught me, and I'm sure your mother taught you, that when you decide change the rules, middle of the game, end of the game, that is referred to as cheatin'."

-- Donna Brazile, quoted by NBC News.

The DNC Rules and Bylaws committee did not change the rules yesterday, they did not even pretend to follow them. What the RBC did yesterday simply is not allowed by the DNC Rules. There is not a person in the world that can say that RBC played by the rules. So Donna, what would your momma call that?

DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee and the rules controversy

This gets to the bottom of it. (From Kagro X at KOS, seen at The Left Coaster).

Now, everybody knows that a substantial portion of the people who came out to vote for "uncommitted" in Michigan did so because they really wanted to vote for Obama, but he wasn't on the ballot (which was his own doing, whatever you may think of his motivations for doing it). But the bottom line is that the consequence of that withdrawal is that the only facts that can be definitively stated about those votes is that they were for "uncommitted." They could mean this. They could mean that. But they do mean "uncommitted."

Or at least they did, until they were sprinkled with magic pixie dust over lunch this afternoon. Because when the RBC came back, they were magically transformed into votes that said, "Yes, we said 'uncommitted,' but we really meant 'Barack Obama.'"

And maybe that was even true. The point, though, is that the RBC had no mechanism under the rules by which they are entitled to make that decision. No mechanism, that is, except one: the prerogative of the rules committee to say -- provided it can muster the votes for it -- that the rules can go jump in the lake.

And that's what they did today.

Joan Walsh on Scott McClellan's conscience