Where will you be in 2009? Honestly?

BooMan asks an Honest Question:
Let's say hypothetically that Barack Obama secures the nomination and wins the presidential election in the fall. And let's say that the Democrats substantially increase their majorities in both the House and the Senate. What do you see happening to the progressive blogosphere in 2009? What's our role? What's our significance?

To start off: I don't - and never have - considered myself as a progressive. Nor do have any ties to the Democratic party. I have aligned myself closer to them in the past few years for the simple reason that tend to deal more with reality and less with spin and lies.

The simple fact that Connecticut's progressives were responsibly spearheading the efforts to deal with one of the worst Democratic party abusers of lies and propaganda in the nation - a true neocon through and through - Joe Lieberman (R- Idiot), speaks volumes on how they have chosen to tackle the Democratic party in the past... And, I truly hope, is a telling sign of their future treatment of the worst of the worst politicians that can, and do, come from any and all political parties.

Like most Americans, I believe that most of the worst that American politics has to offer is still rooted deeply in the heart of the Republican party. But that time will likely soon come to pass as they lose more and more power.

I am curious as to what many of my progressive allies, those that I have come to look at as trustworthy friends, in the Democratic party look at as their future goals and objectives?

I already understand that many of them will view "More and Better Democrats" as an obvious part of their agenda if they should clear the hurdles of obstructionism by Republicans in Congress through the likely victories that this election cycle is paving the way for. The shear number of Republican incumbents dropping out coupled with a lack of "top notch" candidates to fill those campaign holes and adding in their lack of grassroots funding at almost every level of national politics is creating the very real likelihood of a tsunami of change with very little the GOP can do to stop this beyond wishful thinking.

I am truly curious as to whether it will be hard for the many on the left that are attached to and/or operating within the Democratic party structure, and have lived off "reality" for so long, to ever find it possible to continue a posture of "cheer leading" for their team while ignoring the failures of some of their own candidates?

If the Democratic party does achieve a complete, or near complete, domination of national politics, what do you Democratic Bloggers view as your goals and objectives?

Like I said: I believe that most of you have more interest in truth. I even believe that the most partisan of you Democrats that I know do honestly have what you think is in the best interests of not just your party at heart but the nations' best interests as well.

My goals will always be to seek out truth. And will always include kicking any dishonest politician regardless of party affiliation. So, I can honestly say that my objectives would never change regardless of who has their hands on the levers of power. Truth and honesty, in a perfect world, would have no political bias. But this world ain't near a perfect world.

Have you considered what your goals and objectives will be, or continue to be, beyond the 2008 election cycle? I am certain that many of your allies, both within and without the Democratic party, would be interested in knowing.

Given the political tides, NOW is probably the time for you to begin contemplating and assessing your future within the blogosphere, and as an activist as well...


Hillary Humor and rumors on suspending her campaign

On the birth of a funny YouTube movie, via Real History Lisa at the BooTrib:
Well, "movie" is stretching it, in that it's about 1.5 minutes. But if you knew all that went into the making of this, movie is the correct term.

As you will recall, Omir here posted a hilarious sketch about "Mrs. C". I loved it and couldn't get it out of my head.

I talked to two people I had met in a screenwriting class, one of whom just completed his first film, and another who was dying to get a project under her belt. Between the two of them, aided by some generous donations from several people, we managed to get this video, birthed right here on Booman, up and running!

As it stands, there are rumors that Hillary Clinton may suspend her campaign:
This just in from AFP:

April 1, 2008 Washington, D. C. Senator Clinton is set to suspend her campaign tomorrow morning, according to senior campaign advisers.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, two prominent campaign officials stated today that Senator Clinton, after consultations with officials at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and other party leaders, has agreed to suspend her campaign in exchange for an agreement to seat both the Michigan and Florida delegations, whose primaries were held in violation of party rules.

Senator Clinton has made it a point to state recently her strong desire to seat these delegations, both of which awarded her the lion's share of the delegates at stake. Senator Obama's campaign has consistently maintained that it agrees with the sanctions imposed by the DNC which stripped both Michigan and Florida of their delegates. It is believed that Clinton's proposal to suspend her campaign was accepted by Senator Obama's campaign late last night, according to a sources at the DNC, who spoke on condition that their identities not be disclosed, as they were not authorized to discuss the matter on the record. No one contacted within Senator Obama's campaign would comment with regard to whether he had agreed to such a proposal from the Clinton camp. [...]

"She really had no viable option at this point in light of her funding problems," said one her chief advisers. "This allows her to preserve her viability as a candidate and to claim that she won a victory by getting the Michigan and Florida delegations seated."

Although Senator Clinton will attend no further campaign events or fundraisers, and will shut down all campaign operations, including television advertising, in the remaining primary states, she will continue to remain on the ballot in each of those states. [...]

In addition, "The suspension of her campaign is not binding on any of her supporters not officially associated with the campaign, who may continue to speak on her behalf, or carry on other activities in support of her candidacy, should they wish to do so," said another Clinton advisor.

It is also not clear at this point whether her husband, former President Bill Clinton, or her daughter, Chelsea, has agreed to withdraw from making any further public appearances on her behalf.

If true, this is quite a significant development. Obviously Clinton's funding issues were more precarious than anyone had previously reported.
Significant indeed, if it were true.

How Many Shovels Have YOU Used?

How many times have you actually picked up a shovel and buried a friend? A colleague? A comrade? A fellow soldier?

You can't buy me on the truth...

Noah Shachtman at Danger Room finds a 2006 report written for U.S. Special Operations Command that suggests ways the military should deal with the blogosphere. One suggestion is for the military to hire bloggers to “pass the U.S. message“:

Information strategists can consider clandestinely recruiting or hiring prominent bloggers or other persons of prominence…to pass the U.S. message. … On the other hand, such operations can have a blowback effect, as witnessed by the public reaction following revelations that the U.S. military had paid journalists to publish stories in the Iraqi press under their own names. People do not like to be deceived, and the price of being exposed is lost credibility and trust.

An alternative strategy is to “make” a blog and blogger. The process of boosting the blog to a position of influence could take some time, however, and depending on the person running the blog, may impose a significant educational burden, in terms of cultural and linguistic training before the blog could be put online to any useful effect.

Only unvarnished facts here.

Do you even know how many American soldiers are dead because of Iraq? How many are seriously injured? How do I politely say "Fuck you!" because you very likely did not know? Hell! The majority of you don't seem to care.

American Deaths

Since war began (3/19/03):40113274
Since "Mission Accomplished" (5/1/03) (the list)
Since Capture of Saddam (12/13/03):35502966
Since Handover (6/29/04):31522641
Since Election (1/31/05):25732379
American WoundedOfficialEstimated
Total Wounded:2949623000 - 100000
Latest Fatality Mar. 31, 2008
Page last updated 03/31/08 12:07 am EDT
Iraqi Casualties
US Military Deaths by Month from Icasualties.org
Just Foreign Policy Iraqi Death Estimator
Other Coalition Troops
US Military Deaths - Afghanistan
American Civilian Casualties
Sources: DoD, CentCom, MNF, and iCasualties.org

20,000 vets' brain injuries not listed

U.S. lacks mechanism to accurately track troops wounded in Iraq

A Running Log of the Wounded

UPI reports :

As many as 1 of every 10 soldiers from the war on terror evacuated to the Army's biggest hospital in Europe was sent there for mental problems.

Between 8 and 10 percent of nearly 12,000 soldiers from the war on terror, mostly from Iraq, treated at the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany had "psychiatric or behavioral health issues," according to the commander of the hospital, Col. Rhonda Cornum.

That means about 1,000 soldiers were evacuated for mental problems.

The hospital has treated 11,754 soldiers from the war on terror, with 9,651 from Iraq and the rest from Afghanistan, according to data released by the hospital.

Also see The Missing Wounded.

American Count

Dates and sources of Americans killed in Iraq since 5/1/03 are documented in this file. Admittedly the file is incomplete, for the Department of Defense does not maintain old records. All data was compiled from http://www.defenselink.mil. If something is amiss in the data collection, please contact Margaret Griffis.

Iraqi Civilian Count

We maintain a daily count based on news reports. It is not intended to be complete. There is no agency that keeps track of accurate numbers of Iraqis killed. JustForeignPolicy maintains a running estimate based on the Lancet study with the rate of increase derived from the Iraq Body Count.

Sources and Links
Central CommandDepartment of DefenseCost of War
BBC NewsCoalition Casualty CountThe Washington Post
JustForeignPolicyFox NewsListing by month

You know you couldn't answer these simple questions.

If you are afraid of hearing my opinion on these facts... Don't ask me to tell you the truth. Because I will. Too bad for you if you don't like the answers. Too bad for you if you can't handle the truth.


Wiffle Waffle...

Please don't let the dream end!

So when people have asked me whether I think Hillary should drop out I've said I don't think she's under any obligation to do so but that I do think, with her odds now this long, she should not be running a campaign that seems to go out of its way not simply to compete but to damage the likely nominee as a general election candidate and attempt to discredit the nomination process itself.

But when I was writing out my take on her interview over the weekend with Post, I realized that I hadn't made clear enough in what I'd written, or even really in my own head, how much the two things are really combined.

As I said in that post, I don't think Hillary's claim that she's going to stay in the race through the convention in Denver is really about Denver, or staying through August or even till June. It's about keeping her troops motivated and confident so that she can keep in the game through April and May.

And here I think we see the pattern. Hillary doesn't want to run for president in 2nd or 3rd gear. It's beneath her dignity.
But it isn't beneath her dignity to continue to run the campaign she has when she has already clearly lost? Third gear? You are talking about retro girl here. Your opinion has just hit the skids on this one, Josh.

I am starting to think I need to start a "2012" elections (more likely "2016," since it will take her that long for her to reform her character after the shit that flew back in her face) to actually bother to list posts on Hillary Clinton "elections."

The fact that you say your are thinking (or rethinking) beyond this reality says a lot. You just can't justify stupid. Wish in one hand and shit in the other... Then come back and tell me which one fills up first... 'Kay?

Fascinating? No.

Delusional? Yes.


From TPM Reader DS ...

Many Clinton supporters find the current attempts to muscle her out of the race despicable. Maybe now is the time for Obama to take one for the team and accept her offer of the VP slot. It is the position he is better qualified for, would end a situation that is supposedly hurting the party, and would put him in a better position to run next time. Clinton has no “next time,” so it makes more sense for Obama to be the one to step aside.

If the convention is held too late in the election cycle for the presidential nominee to campaign effectively, perhaps the date of the convention needs to be changed. The solution cannot be for viable candidates to set aside their ambitions long before a nominee has been clearly chosen.

--Josh Marshall

Nobody "muscled her out" of anything. She simply lost to someone Dem voters think will be a better candidate and shamelessly refuses to acknowledge that fact. Clinton has no "next time," but only because of the fact that she has run her campaign into the ground effectively eliminating any chance of a "this time." I think reader DS needs to take a step back from the keyboard and take a good hard look around at was has already happened.

The Democratic primary is over - it has been for a while now - and Obama won.

And, IMHO, Clinton has shown clearly through her campaign actions and statements why she should not even be offered the slot as Obama's VP. The Democratic party already had one Lieberman as a VP candidate and that was one too many.


Obama makes Texas Toast out of Clinton

Losing by enven more than before:

The conventional wisdom going in is that Barack Obama will get enough projected delegates today to more than beat Hillary's four-delegate advantage from the state primary, thus crowning him the overall winner of the "prima-caucus" system. A clearer picture should emerge tonight, and we'll be updating when that happens.

Late Update: The latest numbers, with 31% of total delegates counted by Burnt Orange Report, stand at Obama 55%, Clinton 45%.

Late Late Update: With just under 40% of the delegate numbers in, it's Obama 58% to Clinton 42%.

Clinton moves the goalposts all the way to Denver?
Sen. Clinton gave a pretty astonishing interview to the Washington Post in which she appears to say she will stay in the race till the convention in August, where she will take her fight to the credentials committee to have the delegates from the non-sanctioned Michigan and Florida primaries seated.
What about "Hell No!" does her campaign fail to understand?