I know I am opening myself up for another thrashing here but I am very curious.  Telcom immunity is, as Obama says, a deal-breaker.  It's not about getting a pound of flesh from the telcoms, it's about getting the truth about who the administration has been spying on, whose rights were violated, and putting that into evidence for post January 2009 accountability.  Saying that it's about getting a pound of flesh from the telcoms betrays a complete misunderstanding of the legal strategy behind the ACLU/EFF lawsuits, which is to put the wrongdoing of the administration on the record.  Immunity means no lawsuits.  No lawsuits, no discovery process.  No discovery, no evidence.  Obama is helping get Bush and Cheney's asses out of one of the most legally airtight slings they have managed to get themselves into, pure and simple.

My question: Where does Hillary stand on this, and is there any conceivable legal scenario under party rules in which, at the convention, a nominee can be renounced and the process thrown back to the floor of delegates, for the nomination of someone, for example, Hillary?  Or Kucinich?  I am admitting my extreme ignorance on these processes; are there any precedents in history?  Hillary was never my favorite candidate, but..

Daily Kos Last year: Projecting perfection on an unknown is better than accepting a wonk who may give us what we want.

Daily Kos Today: The unknown isn't what we wanted, lets stop supporting him.

I didn't support Obama in the primaries.

Truth be told, I don't even like him much.  

But that doesn't matter.  He's the Democratic nominee, and I'm going to vote for him in November.  And I'm going to be enthusiastic about it.  

And this is why:

Brian asked me to write a piece for “The Backchannel Blog” about my recent decision to support Barack Obama in this presidential race.  The Backchannel Blog

(The Backchannel Blog is an independent creation by regular posters on political commentator and author Craig Crawford's Trailmix)  

Craig Crawford's Trail Mix

It probably seems like a sudden change of heart but in reality I was conflicted over what to do if Hillary didn’t win the nomination. My ire was certainly raised after the Iowa caucuses when the MSM determined that Obama had “dethroned” Hillary and he would be the party nominee. I didn’t think it was fair to Hillary or the other 49 states (not to mention Puerto Rico) to say it was basically over even before it really got started. So I was angry.

Yes; The Hillary wars are over (and I certainly don't want to fight them anymore)! She should be repsected, for what's she's accomplished. But the speculation in the media, and by so many Hillary supporters, continues to push the meme (while many of us in net-roots continue to pull our hair out) that HRC would make Obama's best Vice President. I think it's over.

Well,even the informed citizens of the State of NY (which I am one), in the latest Rasmussen Poll says no to this!

Nearly one out of four voters (23%) in New York would like to see Hillary Clinton go away, and a plurality of unaffiliated voters would prefer she stay in the Senate than serve as Barack Obama's running mate.The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in the Empire State found that 29% of all New Yorker voters think Clinton should become Barack Obama's running mate while 37% think she should remain a senator.

Half of New York Republicans (50%) would like to see the former Presidential hopeful go away. Among New York Democrats, 42% would like to see Clinton as Obama’s running mate and 42% think she should stay in Senate. A plurality of unaffiliated voters want the former First Lady to remain a senator.

The issue is not Sen. McCain's patriotism. It is not his bravery. No one (except a few Right Wing nuts) questions whether he deserved all the medals he got. But there are many war heroes who did not make it to President. Ask Sen. Dole. Sen. McCain can be our hero without becoming our President.

Yesterday,  I diaried  that McCain caved in to Bush  on the one issue in which he had unquestioned moral high ground--torture. Today we will ask: how well does McCain represent the interests of his fellow veteran in Congress? Veterans  less fortunate than himself, who don't have a powerful family or a rich wife to ease their way through life.

Vawatchdog.org ratings are interesting. They rated Sen. Clinton very highly: an A. She made it her mission  when she arrived in the Senate to become an expert on the military and to support veterans interests.

Obama fares quite well: a B+. And McCain? A dismal D. Even worse than his academic grades at Annapolis.  Details after the jump.

Excerpts from a two-part essay on the destruction of Hillary Clinton according to the right-wing playbook. Daily Kos has several mentions. I must admit that it required independent thought on my part to not fall for the media's attack, but then the mainstream media tried to sell me Bush over Gore, Bush over Kerry, and the Iraq War so I will vote for the one not being sold by the corporate-consolidated media.

In 1998, as six years of a national campaign to demonize First Lady Hillary Clinton — funded by conservatives and rooted in profound anti-feminism — was reaching a fevered crescendo, then-conservative David Brock (now of Media Matters) penned a book called The Seduction of Hillary Rodham. The publisher's note for the tome says of its subject: "No public figure in contemporary life has elicited more polarized reactions than Hillary Rodham Clinton. The first presidential spouse who pursued a major policymaking role, the beleaguered first lady has been a heroine and role model to her feminist allies - and a malevolent, power-mad shrew to her conservative foes."

Sometime in the last decade, her liberal foes evidently decided that whole "malevolent, power-mad shrew" thing sounded pretty good, too.

I still support him whole-heartedly.

But I did say, many times, that I saw little practical difference between Obama and Clinton.  In other ways, there are worlds of difference.  But not in practical terms.

They both might well bring change or maybe they would just play it safe.

But nothing in either one's actions suggested anything resembling a jolting shift in policy.

I mean, maybe in reality Obama really wants to do it - and his words until last week suggested that he does - while I was less certain about Clinton.

But when push came to shove so far - in voting records and current rhetoric - it seems to be just more of the same either way.

And, mind you, I don't say this as a criticism.

Interestingly, when I said or implied such things in the past, most just assumed I was, in reality, a rabid Clinton partisan.

Odd, that. Especially given that everything I wrote about this subject made it clear that I was quite bleh about the two of them.

Of course, the basic premise I made was correct.

It was proven in the entirety of both of their past voting records.

And it continues now.

But I was curious about the reactions of others...

Today John McCain's campaign decided that it could not advertise on some of the PUMA like web sites-- the ones that promote Hillary Clinton and which are maliciously anti-Obama.

John McCain's campaign will stop advertising on several pro-Hillary Clinton Web sites that have attacked Barack Obama for being unpatriotic and, in one case, compared the Democratic nominee-in-waiting to Adolf Hitler.

This is really nasty stuff.

McCain's ads have also shown up on a pro-Clinton Web site named "Obama WTF" that accuses Obama of being "spineless," having "communist influences," "courting Jew haters" and being "in the pocket of America haters."

SavagePolitics.com, another anti-Obama site that has been targeted with McCain ads, has called Obama a "bold faced liar, a thief, a sexist and a racist."

FLORIDA

PPP (PDF). 6/26-29. Likely voters. MoE 3.6% (3/15-16 results)

Rasmussen. 6/26. Likely voters. MoE 4% (6/18 results)

The Pollster.com composite is tight: McCain 45.3, Obama 43.5.

NORTH CAROLINA

PPP (PDF). 6/26-29. Likely voters. MoE 3% (5/28-29 results)

Pollster.com composite: McCain 44, Obama 41.1.

GEORGIA

Rasmussen. 6/26. Likely voters. MoE 4% (6/4 results)

Pollster.com composite: McCain 50.4, Obama 43.9.

VIRGINIA

SurveyUSA. 6/20-22. Likely voters. MoE 4% (5/28-29 results)

Pollster.com: McCain 45.1, Obama 46.5.

OHIO

SurveyUSA. 6/20-22. Likely voters. MoE 4.2% (5/28-29 results)

Pollster.com: McCain 42.7, Obama 46.1.

TEXAS

Rasmussen. 6/25. Likely voters. MoE 4.5% (6/2 results)

Pollster.com: McCain 46.7, Obama 38.

ARIZONA

Rasmussen. 6/25. Likely voters. MoE 4.5% (4/15 results)

Pollster.com: McCain 48.1, Obama 38.

Also:
AL: M 51, O 36
MA: M 40, O 53
MS: McCain 50, Obama 44
NJ: M 33, O 48
NY: M 37, O 57

So an article in the New York times talked about the charge made by brooklyn 10th congressional district's constituents against Congressman Edolphus Towns, who was a Clinton Supporter

It may be unrealistic in a 24-7, rapid-response team culture, but a few recent fake-media-driven-hullabaloos have shown that Obama's official spokesperson, Bill Burton, has his reaction timer calibrated a little too tight.  He's made a few quick comments that have fueled a media forestorm that Obama has then had to try to quell the next day.  

Cross-posted from The Blame Blog

Let me get "full disclosure" out of the way: Barack Obama was not my first choice for the Democratic nominee. I was onboard for John Edwards until he dropped out. But since I live in Arizona, which voted on Feb. 5, I had to make a choice between Barack and Hillary. I wanted to vote for the candidate who most represented my views, who had the best chance to win in November and who had the best command of the issues. To me, that was Obama. Hillary was too tied to the traditional power structure of DC and was too aligned with the DLC, which seems to be content with letting the GOP set the agenda. I would enthusiastically support Clinton were she the nominee, just as I support Obama.

I just wish he wasn't so wishy-washy.

UPDATE: I just realized there are 2 separate groups calling themselves PUMA; this is merely one that is being represented in the MSM.
UPDATE#2: For those unfamiliar with the term, PUMA is an acronym for Party Unity My Ass, which is supposed to reflect droves of disgruntled former female supporters of Sen. Clinton that are now supporting Sen. McCain.

What a surprise--I never saw that one coming; you could knock me over with a feather.

As Renault stated in Casablanca: "I'm shocked, shocked to find out that gambling is going on here!"

Right after the Ohio Democratic Primaries ended, I remember watching the talking heads on both CNN and MSNBC (I refuse to watch Faux News for electoral coverage).  As everyone knows, Hillary Clinton won that state with 54% of the vote.  The talking heads went on to say how if Hillary didn't get the nomination, that the blue-collar hard hats (sometimes known as "Reagan Democrats") would go for John McCain.  And of course, Pat Buchanan, politics' Archie Bunker, said it was inconceivable that blue-collar workers would vote for Obama in November. On CNN, you had one of Hillary's supporters, Lanny Davis saying Ohio was much in doubt should Barack take the nomination.

Gail Sheehy's Vanity Fair piece "Hillaryland at War" is a must-read for political junkies.

I'll give credit to Sheehy. How can one NOT read a piece about Hillary's campaign that starts:

Are you here for the Deathwatch?"...That was how my friends in the traveling press corps welcomed me into the bub­ble of the Clinton campaign plane. It was three days before the March 4 Democratic primaries in Ohio and Texas, and they were boarding the 737 with the sullen obedience of inmates after an outing in the yard. Some had been following the once inevitable front-runner since the January 3 Iowa caucus when she was first pronounced to be in a "slump."

This piece was written in retaliation to a comment I got on facebook .. I am a Hillary Supporter I reserve the right to say that I am declining all Obama invites as I did ..

I got a message on my wall later that said .. "you bring shame to hillary and bill if you support McCain"

I was shocked an allie of mine would say such a thing ...

Yes, those are the silly lines you hear from those who thought they had a puppet instead of a candidate. What you hear from the countless idiots who blog against the MSM and then listen to the shit they spit like it is the gospel. Do any of the idiots out there repeating this garbage know that the classic way to destroy an opponent is to divide and then concur? That is what the right, with MSM help, is doing to us. Shortly we will take a ride together through the countless stream of media bullshit out there, but first:

1. A report came out saying that Al Kaeda in Pakastan is growing to the point that we must commit military to the threat.

2. A report came out that said that Bush is doing covert operations in Iran with the help of Reid and Paloski and the past help of Clinton (and her Iran vote) in order to throw the country into chaos in the hope that Iran will get clumsy and strike and then we can hit them.

3. And Bush included McCain’s name in the thanks for the G. I. bill, even though he had nothing to do with it, and ignored Obama, even though he was the Co-fucking-sponsor and the MSM is sucking it in.

And some of you are pissing at Obama?

More......