It is so typical of Fox that they would deny Ron Paul a place in the debate, despite his meeting their objective standards...

...while simultaneously condemning Obama for freezing them out because they smeared him with out-and-out lies several times too many.

A little schadenfreude crept into my heart while watching Hannity and Co. scoot away from the peasants sans torches.

When I read many of the letters on Salon defending Obama -- usually extremely enthusiastically and questioning the progressive credentials of supporters of Clinton or Edwards -- they mention Obama's "politics of hope and change" and such, how he's a uniter, how he's fresh, how he'll appeal to "the moderates", how he's non-partisan, not a political shill, how the voters support him (at least in Iowa) so, and especially how that whole package will win America over in 2008. (I for one, cannot square this argument: that a "true progressive" like Obama will appeal to as many moderates -- and even Republicans -- as his supporters claim. After all, back home in Texas (or Georgia or Arizona), a "moderate" is usually still a conservative most elsewhere.)

On top of that, is the constant argument I've read in posts from Obama supporters that Americans are so fed up with the current administration, Republican Party rule, and state of affairs that they will surely vote "the change" Obama so nicely personifies. Especially "the moderates" and "the independents". Especially. Especially. (The implication in such arguments being that Clinton nor Edwards could do the same, or that either -- especially Clinton -- would do the opposite.)

I remember hearing similar arguments in 2004. And then too most thought a mass of angry young voters would help vote the President out (hey, Eminem even got on board). And then too President Bush still won, with the support of independents and moderates. Even with the mess in Iraq at the time.

I wonder how Obama's supporters in these Salon letters have grown so sure of Obama (at least their posts seem so). I'm a young man living in a liberal area on the East Coast where I constantly hear excitement for Obama too. But I too remember that back home in fly-over country and in those still expanding "ex-urbs", Obama's "change and hope" dynamism and youth still mean nothing if they still think the Republican candidate is tougher on terrorists, won't tax them so much, or just reassures them more for whatever reason. Even for "the moderates" and "the independents".

If Obama wins the nomination, I hope his supporters do not so strongly assume Obama's ability to draw in moderates and independents that they become blinded (or worse, paralyzed) by such optimism.

I have a secret stash of economist jokes. My Favorite:

Heard at the Wharton School.

Man walking along a road in the countryside comes across a shepherd and a huge flock of sheep. Tells the shepherd, "I will bet you $100 against one of your sheep that I can tell you the exact number in this flock." The shepherd thinks it over; it's a big flock so he takes the bet. "973," says the man. The shepherd is astonished, because that is exactly right. Says "OK, I'm a man of my word, take an animal." Man picks one up and begins to walk away.

"Wait," cries the shepherd, "Let me have a chance to get even. Double or nothing that I can guess your exact occupation." Man says sure. "You are an economist for a government think tank," says the shepherd. "Amazing!" responds the man, "You are exactly right! But tell me, how did you deduce that?"

"Well," says the shepherd, "put down my dog and I will tell you."

patg,

I wasn't yelling at you.

I WAS YELLING AT BEBOP SO HE FOLLOWS THE DIRECTIONS RELIGIOUSLY THIS TIME AND TAKES ALL THE PILLS WHEN HE SHOULD!

The news media wants the democratic candidate to win whom they believe the republican candidate can defeat. There is no reason for progressives, liberals, and democratic voters to attack the democratic candidates, because the right wing and the republicans will criticize, undermine, and ridicule whomever the democratic winner is.

Older people can relate to Hillary because they can reflect on how she grew up, where she went to school, her maturing from an enlightened college student who wanted to make a difference just as her husband did to First Lady, and Senator. She chose her fight wisely. They remember that she was recognized as one of the top one-hundred lawyers in America. They look back on her "failed" health care program and remember that the republicans refused to read the bill, partially because it was comprehensive and large, and partially out of spite. Yes, petty little men, doing petty little things, with their empty little minds, and shrunken hearts - spite. Yes, they were immature. Yes, they were self-serving. However, mostly they were small.

On Hillary's part, she forgot about the human side of selling legislation. She needed to include short summaries that would actually be read. These summaries would have to permit representatives to grasp all the major points, and allow them to talk intelligently about them in public. She forgot that most other representatives were not policy wonks as she was. She read much more than the distilled version she introduced, certainly they could read her bill. Nevertheless, they could not, because they had her bill, fundraising, meetings, committees, and other bills to review or, have staff members read for them. She forgot to "keep it simple".

Her error in judgment or lack of savvy when it came to doing business with busy people ended her dream of creating a health care plan that would improve health care delivery and reduce individual and family costs. While well intentioned, it was marketed poorly. I do not believe she would make the same mistake in the future. All the details she introduced made the representatives' heads hurt, and they saw no way of looking good when it was over, so they killed it. The news media helped them kill it.

Hillary stood up to and continues to stand up to over a decade of salacious insults, false accusations, and ludicrous assumptions about her and her personal family. She is a realist.

She remained married when others in her situation would have left. I cannot think of any other couple in the history of the U.S. when so much money and a ridiculous total of man-hours were wasted just to "get" two people. One might suspect that such efforts would be reserved for enemies of our nation, not the president and first lady of the United States.

As the saying goes, "What doesn't kill you only makes you stronger." Hillary has proven herself to be resilient, self-reliant, intelligent, serious, independent, and reasonable, (Barack Obama's greatest selling feature.)

Somehow, John Edwards, although a successful attorney, seems out of his league with the bad players and narrow thinkers with whom he would have to contend. It is easy for progressives to go along with his agenda, but they do not seem to believe that he is the one who should fight for it. I recall his debate with VP Cheney, when he behaved like a kid dominated by a strict and conniving father figure. We cannot have that type of nonsense going on in high level diplomatic meetings.

Obama's energy plan includes a mix of coal and nuclear, while neither has resolved the issues of emissions into the air or waste disposal. Obama caught my attention because he came across as clear, motivated, and most importantly, reasonable.

What a breath of fresh air that would be. Imagine our representatives inspired by reason rather than personal gain.

Forget I wrote that. Now as he climbs into the realm of first and second place his lofty intent has been reduced to the application of formulas. Once one has a taste, one does not want to let go.

It is chilling what the want of something can do to people. As soon as one wants something badly he or she becomes attached to the strings held by those who can satisfy that desire. It is one of the main reasons we are where we are today, and it is not good.