WHO

IS

OUR

BASE?

Click "READ MORE" to find out why its important to embrace the base....   Read More »

There is a difference of opinion in our country about what constitutes "Winning," and what constitutes "Losing" - about what we see as "Strength," and how we view "Weakness."

We seem to have a disagreement in our culture about this. The disagreement tends to come out a lot in our politics: how we view "Liberals," and how we think of "Conservatives."

Certainly, we tend to value "The Fighter" over "The Peacemaker" - this is something our party of Democrats has had to contend with for some time; a characterization that is not really accurate - we have always been called "weak", but it only depends on which value system you use to weigh "Strength" or "Weakness."

For me, war is fear, and fear is weakness.

Is the answer for liberals simply that we act "Tougher?" Is it true to our values that we emulate the very traits we are supposed to stand against?

Not for me. Not my value system. My values are based in what the great orator Martin Luther King Jr. called The Strength To Love.

King reminds us:

Fear is mastered through love. The New Testament affirms, There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear. This kind of love is not soft, anemic, and sentimental. Such love confronts evil without flinching and shows in our popular parlance an infinite capacity "to take it." Such love overcomes the world even from a rough-hewn cross against the skyline.
(p120 Antidotes for Fear)

My guess is we'll see this sentiment come out more over the next few days.

While some revel in the ritual blood-letting that occurred in the Democratic inquisition last night, others shake their heads in bewilderment. How did wearing a flag pin become more important than delivering affordable healthcare to America?

Perhaps only ABC can answer that, as journalists criticize the network's handling of the debate

The talk seems to be about which of the two ABC News moderators -- Charles Gibson or George Stephanopoulos -- did the worst job, which one was sillier in Philadelphia.

"In Pa. Debate, The Clear Loser Is ABC" is the headline over the piece by style columnist Tom Shales in The Washington Post. "The Debate: A Shameful Night for the U.S. Media," read one headline on the Web site "The Huffington Post" -- while another called it "Worst. Debate. Ever."

"In perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years, ABC News hosts Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous focused mainly on trivial issues as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama faced off in Philadelphia," Huffington Post analyst Greg Mitchell wrote on the site Thursday. "They, and their network, should hang their collective heads in shame.

The damage inflicted on Barack Obama was met with the salivations of a rabid crowd eager to watch gladiators attacking eachother - calls for blood were swiftly answered... and they loved it.

For others, this was a night of shame - a night where we saw the worst brought out in us, and the real issues swept under the rug of gossip and the politics of personal destruction.

Here is what is important: Health Care, the Economy, Jobs, Alternative Energy, Ending the Iraq War. Anything else is merely character assassination, and I think the American people are fed up with the politics of personal destruction.

Someone's got to say it.

I've been trying to focus my recent posts on going after McCain, but must break my silence with this post about the attempted character assassination of Barack Obama at last night's so-called "debate."

I think the people of PA will see this for what it was: a desperate and organized attempt to swift-boat Barack Obama.

Some people say we will never be able to have a fair and balanced debate; some feel we'll never get along.

That's the kind of politics many of us are tired with. We know better. And we think better of the American people.

Those who put words in Obama's mouth conveniently ignore his professed love for our country, and his unshakable faith in the goodness of our hearts.

Sometimes I have a hard time being so forgiving. But my own struggles in life have taught me that optimism is not only productive - it is the only logical response to the sometimes oppressive realities many of us face every day.

I would rather have an optimistic, and honest leader than a conniving and posturing politician. For me that is the only choice based in "reality."

But I understand and respect the rights of others to hold a different view and to support the other candidate. In the end I have vowed to support the nominee whomever they may be.

I do believe that person will be Barack Obama; perhaps the results in PA next week will tell us definitively one way or the other.

Regardless, one thing is clear to me: this debate was a hatchet job of magnificent proportions; we got to see HRC taking advantage of every attack she could, reading from pre-written cue cards as former Clinton communications director George Stephanopolous served the attacks to her on a silver platter.

Until then, as some have said "the die has been cast," and its up to the people of PA to decide.

(note, this was originally posted here; my friends, we must be vigilant always: already the news media is repeating the fraudulent Iran-insurgency connection. We cannot allow president Bush to continue to spread this lie)

-----

Today's L.A. Times confirms that most foreign fighters and suicide bombers in Iraq are actually from Saudi Arabia, NOT Syria or Iran:

Although Bush administration officials have frequently lashed out at Syria and Iran, accusing it of helping insurgents and militias here, the largest number of foreign fighters and suicide bombers in Iraq come from a third neighbor, Saudi Arabia, according to a senior U.S. military officer and Iraqi lawmakers.

White House Press Corps, are you listening? Personally, I would like to see the White House Press Corps do its job and ask the president to explain why he supports military action against Iran, when Saudi Arabia is responsible for more suicide bombers than anyone else.

Since we can't contact the press corps directly, this is a perfect opportunity to Write a letter to the editor of your local paper. Clicking on this link will take you to the Partybuilder Letter-writing Tool. Simply enter your zip-code, select the paper you wish to write to, and send your letter. Simple as that!

Click "Read More" to see what I wrote, and feel free to copy & paste for your own letter!   Read More »

President Bush is a coward for sending Gen. Peteraeus to congress.

The president cannot defend his own decisions - so he sends s soldier to deliver a scripted progress report.

A soldier follows orders - and by all indications, Petraeus is a good soldier.

But a good soldier will not offer criticism, nor will a soldier question their mission objective.

Its not the soldier's fault that he had to read from a script, its not the soldier's fault that our progress remains as it was a year ago.

No, it is the fault of the president - who sent these soldiers on a flawed and fatal mission. They will continue to attempt to succeed against great odds, but it's not a failure of our soldiers when they can't complete an impossible mission: it is the fault of their commanders.

And there is one commander who set this all in motion: that is president Bush - the "Commander in Chief" - who hides his decisions behind his "Commanders on the ground."

And who sent a soldier to congress to defend his fatally prideful objective: forcing a country you have bombed to oblivion to become your friend; pointing a gun at religious sects that have been historical enemies and expecting them to get along. Killing over a million civilians and asking their relatives to like you. Folks, that's just not gonna happen.

Iraqis don't want Al Qaeda in Iraq - but as long as we stay in Iraq attracting foreign fighters we are only making it more difficult for real Iraqis to come together.

No one is saying we should recklessly retreat. But the only way to stop the inflow of foreign fighters is by redeploying to the border areas and by asking the Saudis to do more to stop them; and the only way to make Iraqis come to a consensus about how to run their country is by getting out of the way and letting them run their country.

But unfortunately there is another untold story here - a mission objective of the President's that doesn't get talked about enough: his friends at KBR and Halliburton and the billions of tax dollars they have pilfered in this war. They are addicted to our tax dollars and perhaps that is the real reason the president makes us stay: is he using our military as glorified security guards for his rich friends?

Its a depressing thought, but at this point nothing this coward with a fake Texan accent does would surprise me.

For those of you who don't know him, Deepak Chopra is a medical doctor and widely published author on Spirituality.

I came across this great article Chopra wrote on John McCain and his islamophobic preacher Rod Parsley, who calls Islam a "false religion" that should be "destroyed."

I recommend this short article to any voter interested in spirituality, and in changing course of our "war on terror."

Deepak Chopra: McCain's Islamic Problem Isn't a Preacher Problem

But McCain does have an Islamic problem, because Rev. Parsley's view that Islam is a false religion is a view that millions of Americans agree with.
...
Our avid warmakers would be outraged if told that "shock and awe" is a sanitized way of describing terrorism, yet anyone on the ground in Baghdad was certainly terrorized. There's no doubt that an innocent Iraqi citizen is just as dead whether killed by American shrapnel or abducted in the dead of night and murdered by Shiite thugs who drill holes in his head.
...
Which brings us to McCain's central problem, which is that he shows signs of false consciousness born of ideology when it comes to the war. It's a distressing symptom in someone who otherwise seems to be guided by a steady moral compass. Without stooping to the dishonesty and misinformation that the Bush administration used to launch the war, McCain has arrived at the same doomed conclusion: this is a war of honor. Unfortunately, it isn't. It's a war of atavistic vengeance and tribalism on one side and militaristic nationalism and arrogance on the other. It would be easier if McCain only had a preacher problem when in actuality he has a God problem, specifically, an all-too-common American tendency to want to play God around the world.

I am a peace democrat who marched against the war with millions of other Americans. 133 members of Congress voted against this war. Other courageous leaders spoke out against it.

Just as I mourn the 3,000 people killed on 9/11 and the more than 4,000 soldiers killed in Iraq, my conscience also requires that I mourn the more than 1,000,000 Iraqis killed as a result of our invasion.

How ironic is it that the American Invasion of Iraq will have killed more Iraqis than Saddam himself in his acts of "Genocide." It is an irony worthy of a Greek tragedy, but it is not over yet - we will continue down this disastrous course as long as we have leaders who refuse to talk with our enemies; leaders who choose preemptive war over investigation and international law.

For those leaders who continue to gamble with the lives of our troops and the lives of countless innocents who will die from our bombs; leaders who refused to condemn this war - who refused to speak out against this immoral invasion: The blood of innocents is on your hands, and as Bob Dylan once sung in Masters of War, "Even Jesus would never forgive what you do."

war·mon·ger: -noun a person who advocates, endorses, or tries to precipitate war.

The Arizona Senator's feelings were hurt when radio talk show host Ed Schultz referred to him as a "Warmonger" at North Dakota Democratic Party event.

Obama campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki responded to the flap by saying,

"John McCain is not a warmonger and should not be described as such. He's a supporter of a war that Senator Obama believes should have never been authorized and never been waged,"

If McCain is so sensitive about people thinking of him as a warmonger, maybe he should re-think his association with the Republican Party; after all, its not too hard to figure out why people think of him that way: John McCain is a member of a party that has actively endorsed war as a means for solving problems. He supports the platform of an administration that has precipitated war. John McCain voted for the Iraq War, and has been a member of a political party that continually seeks to profit financially from war.

Indeed, the "Warmonger" comment was technically accurate if we look at the definition of the word. John McCain's association with the GOP is an endorsement of those values. Since John McCain is so upset about being thought of this way, maybe he should think about the people and ideologies he represents in his run for the presidency.

Maybe he should leave the GOP and just drop out of the race now, if he can't handle being associated with the warmongering Republican Party.

Rumors have circulated that he considered switching the the Democratic Party - well, if he changes his tune about 100 years in Iraq, he might be welcome - but take note John, us Democrats are plenty used to being called much worse. If you can't take the heat, get out of the fire.

(originally posted here, reposted in the spirit of other PB posters today)

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

Normal people like you and I are taking back our country. We're tired of lobbyists and special interests who think they own our government. The Founders were clear: we shall not be taxed unless we are represented.

Barack Obama's campaign is a shining example of what happens when normal people take on the special interests. Today, it was reported that Obama raised over $40 million from more than 442,000 individual donors.

Barack Obama's campaign announced a March haul of more than $40 million, raised from more than 442,000 donors. There were more than 218,000 first-time donors, and the average contribution level was $96.

Meanwhile, CNN reports the Clinton campaign is staying silent about their fundraising, waiting until the official deadline to post their earnings - two days before the Pennsylvania primary

What is the Clinton campaign afraid of releasing? Clearly, they think this information might hurt them in the Pennsylvania primary. Otherwise, you'd think they want the information out there.

Maybe its because Hillary Clinton accepts so much money from Washington Lobbyists - in fact, Clinton has received more money from the Drug Industry than any of her Senate colleagues, including republicans.

Or maybe it's must that she doesn't have so many individual donors - and relies more on large, corporate donations.

One thing that this election has shown is that ordinary Americans are sick of politics as usual, and when we come together and pool our resources we can compete with the big-money special interests that have dominated Washington for too long!

Bonus information on the highly anticipated Clinton tax returns:

Wolfson also said he expected Clinton's tax returns to be released soon. Clinton pledged on March 25 that she would release her returns within a week.

Note: it has been 8 days. Ahem. We wait.

These are words Foreign Policy expert Lee Hamilton - top Democrat on the Sept. 11th Commission and co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group - used to describe the leadership of Senator Barack Obama.

Hamilton, who was chairman of the Foreign Affairs and Intelligence Committee during his 30 year career in the House of Representatives, endorsed Obama for president today:

Lee Hamilton endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for president Wednesday, praising his ability to transcend partisan division and calling his foreign policy outlook "pragmatic, visionary, and tough."
...
"Barack Obama has the best opportunity to create a new sense of national unity and to transcend divisions within this country, not by ignoring them or smoothing them over, but by working together with candor and civility to meet our challenges,"

Barack Obama's foreign policy ideas are indeed a refreshing change from the reckless swaggering of the Bush/Cheney administration. Of all the candidates running for our highest office, Barack Obama is the only one to adopt John F. Kennedy's ideal of never negotiating out of fear, but never fearing to negotiate.

The presidency is not a pulpit of pride, as the other candidates would have us believe; no, the president must be willing to put themselves on the line on behalf of the American People. It is not the other way around - where our troops pay the price for the inability of world leaders to simply talk with each other.

Regardless if we agree with all these foreign leaders, the president must have the courage and humility to put themselves on the line first. Anything else would be prideful and cowardly.

And we've certainly had enough chicken-hawks in Washington these last few years. Its time for a change, and there is only one candidate who offers us a new direction in foreign policy leadership.

The Topic: Health Care Reform

The Subject: Barack Obama's plan to reform the Health Insurance Industry and to make high-quality and affordable Health Care available to all US Citizens.

The Questions: Which plan has a better chance at passing? Which one works better? Why?

If the answers to these questions matter to you, please click the image below, and listen to young Derrick Ashong's detailed and informed explanation.

(Click the image to watch the video)

This has got to be one of the most detailed and reasonable explanations of why Barack Obama's plan to reform the health insurance industry is the better plan.

When people say it's not possible to change the way we do things in Washington, maybe we should ask ourselves why? Is it because the way Washington works ultimately benefits these people?

Perhaps its because they are beholden to the very special interests they promise to reform? For example, Hillary Clinton and John McCain accept millions of dollars from Washington Lobbyists - in fact, Clinton herself is single largest recipient of Drug Lobby money in the entire Senate.

Barack Obama asks us to think about this: It's not a lack of solutions that prevents positive change in Washington, its a lack of political will.

If that doesn't give you pause about the competing health plans, then it should. Now I'm off to the library to try and get about half as educated as young Derrick.

Best,
D. Tree
(sign the pledge to support our nominee:click here).

P.S. - please watch the video before commenting, thanks!

Did you know that Trinity United Church of Christ is part of the larger United Church of Christ, a predominantly white denomination? Did you know there are more than 1.2 million members of this church - mostly white?

How is it then, that some people believe this church is somehow "militant black supremacist," and why are people so angry about rev. Wright's sermon - a sermon which was certainly critical of American foreign policy - but was hardly the racist and hateful thing so many reactionaries believe it to be?

Well, the answer is quite simple: those angry critics have neither listened to the complete sermons of rev. Wright, nor have they made an effort to learn the truth about this church and what it represents. And yet, they have the gall to condemn not only rev. Wright as "full of hate," but they also have the audacity to claim the same about Barack Obama and every one of the 1.2 million members of UCC for even being associated with the church.

I'm willing to bet most of these folks have not even taken the time to read or listen to Barack Obama's historic speech on race relations. As one writer put it, "it is truly disingenuous and deceitful to insult someone without even bothering to hear their side of the story."(source)

This is a call for all those who consider themselves rational people: Reverend John H. Thomas, President of United Church of Christ (pictured above) has a message for you:

Those who sifted through hours of sermons searching for a few lurid phrases and those who have aired them repeatedly have only one intention. It is to wound a presidential candidate. In the process a congregation that does exceptional ministry and a pastor who has given his life to shape those ministries is caricatured and demonized.
...
But what was his real crime? He is condemned for using a mild "obscenity" in reference to the United States. This week we mark the fifth anniversary of the war in Iraq, a war conceived in deception and prosecuted in foolish arrogance. Nearly four thousand cherished Americans have been killed, countless more wounded, and tens of thousands of Iraqis slaughtered. Where is the real obscenity here? True patriotism requires a degree of self-criticism, even self-judgment that may not always be easy or genteel.
...
How ironic that a pastor and congregation which, for forty-five years, has cast its lot with a predominantly white denomination, participating fully in its wider church life and contributing generously to it, would be accused of racial exclusion and a failure to reach for racial reconciliation.
...
Today we watch as the gap between the obscenely wealthy and the obscenely poor widens. More and more of our neighbors are relegated to minimal health care or to no health care at all. Foreclosures destroy families while unscrupulous lenders seek bailouts from regulators who turned a blind eye to the impending crisis. Should the preacher today respond to this with only a whisper and a sigh?
...
I pray we will be shrewd enough to name the hypocrisy of those who decry the mixing of religion and politics in order to serve their own political ends.

I beseech every person who considers themselves rational and objective to set aside your anger, and take a minute to learn about UCC and what it really stands for. Please maintain respect when commenting, and at least demonstrate your fairness by reading the excerpts of Rev. Thomas' message before posting your replies. (Click Here to read the full text of Reverend Thomas' message.

Peace,
D. Tree

Once upon a time in the Democratic Party, we gave our fellow progressives the benefit of the doubt. It seems in this increasingly bitter nomination fight, your fellow dems have become fair game - perhaps to the point of alienating forever, one of our most dedicated voting blocs.

From the New York Times

Some black ministers said that their sermons might address how the reputation of a man many of them revere was reduced to sound bites. They pointed out that sermons in black churches covered a long and circuitous path from crisis to resolution, and it was unfair to judge the entire message on one or two sentences.

"I may not use his exact language," said the Rev. Kenneth L. Samuel, pastor of Victory Church in Stone Mountain, Ga., "but I can tell you that the basic thrust of much of my preaching resonates with Dr. Wright. I don't think I'm necessarily trying to preach people into anger, but I am trying to help people become conscious, become aware, to realize our power to make change in society."

As the angry mob continues to attack and condemn the hardworking and decent people of the United Church of Christ, with the all but explicit call-to-arms of a "Kitchen Sink" strategy, the Democratic Party itself treads a razor's edge.

It is a gamble indeed, to put the importance of one's own career above the good of the Democratic Party, and the traditional voters who have been among our most dedicated supporters.

In the end, I feel it may be one candidate's lack of action in reigning in their more angry and mob-like supporters that will make them lose the nomination.

Barack Obama's historic speech on race relations seems to be having a significant impact on the religious discourse among devoted Christians. Over the weekend, the New York Times reported on how Obama's call for an open dialogue has made its way into the Easter sermons of Churches across the country

The response to the controversy from the pulpit will vary, of course, depending on a church's denomination, racial composition and political and theological leanings, as well the predilections of the pastor. The Wright controversy is a natural topic for those in the United Church of Christ, a predominantly white denomination that includes Mr. Obama's and Mr. Wright's church, Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago (the largest church in the denomination).

Here are some notable excerpts....

Philip L. Blackwell, senior pastor at the First United Methodist Church at the Chicago Temple:

"The church needs to be a community within which the pain can be shared," said Mr. Blackwell, who is white and leads an urban, racially mixed congregation. "The grievances can be aired, and the power of that can be directed toward the "new creation" that is portrayed in the Resurrection."

The Very Rev. Tracey Lind, dean of Trinity Episcopal Cathedral in Cleveland:

"I'm going to talk about the stones that need to be rolled away from the tombs of lives, that are holding us in places of death and away from God," Ms. Lind said. "One of the main stones in our churches, synagogues, mosques, communities, countries, world is the pervasive stone of racism. What Obama has done is moved the stone a little bit.

"I will ask our congregation to look at the stones in our lives," she said.

The Rev. Dean Snyder, pastor of Foundry United Methodist church, (which was the Clintons' home church during President Bill Clinton 's tenure):

said he noticed the rising awareness among some African-Americans of white Americans, he said, "who don't understand the history of black people in this country and the role of the black church as a prophetic voice, and that in church you can say things that you couldn't in larger society."

The Rev. Kent Millard of St. Luke's United Methodist Church in Indianapolis:

said he felt Mr. Obama had explained the reality of the relationship between a pastor and his congregants.

"Senator Richard Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is member of our congregation, and I would hope he would never be held accountable for everything I have said in the last 15 years," said Dr. Millard, who is white. "Why is there any assumption that a person in church is expected to agree with everything a pastor says?"

So, what do others think about these statements? At the very least, Barack Obama's speech seems to have inspired the religious community as being the words of a man who has thought deeply on this issue, and who has worked his entire life to bring people together. He showed true presidential leadership by transforming something hurtful into something helpful; by challenging us to be the better country we want to be; and by acknowledging our historical differences with honesty, and then setting them aside in an effort to inspire unity, common purpose, and hope for a better future.

In an apparent violation of both the spirit and the letter of the law, the White House disclosed in Federal Court that computer hard drives containing over 10,000,000 e-mails from 2003-2005, "have been destroyed.":

The White House revealed new information about how it handles its computers in an effort to persuade a federal magistrate it would be fruitless to undertake an e-mail recovery plan that the court proposed.
...
The White House says it does not know if any e-mails are missing, but is looking into the matter.

Contempt for the American people; disdain for our Constitutional values; obstruction of justice; and, plain old dishonesty... all in a day's work for the Bush/Cheney White House.

Such gross disregard for the American people is not merely negligence, it is a blatant violation of the Presidential Records Act, which states the Archivist of the United States must be consulted before any White House records are disposed of.

These people knew they were supposed to preserve records, and they knew these records contained important information about the run up to the Iraq War and Plamegate - and they destroyed them to avoid accountability.

What can you do? Click here to contact your senator, and tell them you are concerned the White House is breaking the law in and effort to obstruct a legitimate investigation.

Given the track record of this administration, and it's 1,000 documented lies in the rush to war, we must demand the appointment of an independent council, or at the very least a manual recovery effort on each individual White House computer.

It's never too late to send a signal to the Bush Administration, that the American People are tired of the lies and dishonesty. We are sick of being treated like imbeciles: Mr. President and VP Cheney, you have disrespected America. We will not tolerate your abuse of the law and your contempt for the american people any longer.

I'd like to recommend this very informative article from the New York Times, which compares the legislative records of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on the issue of civil liberties.

A Card-Carrying Civil Libertarian, by Jeffrey Rosen:

Throughout his career, Mr. Obama has been more consistent than Hillary Clinton on issues from the Patriot Act to bans on flag burning. At the same time, he has reached out to Republicans and independents to build support for his views. Mrs. Clinton, by contrast, has embraced some of the instrumental tacking of Bill Clinton, whose presidency disappointed liberal and conservative civil libertarians on issue after issue.

Mr. Obama made his name in the Illinois Legislature by championing historic civil liberties reforms, like the mandatory recording of all interrogations and confessions in capital cases. Although prosecutors, the police, the Democratic governor and even some death penalty advocates were initially opposed to the bill, Mr. Obama won them over. The reform passed unanimously, and it has been adopted by four other states and the District of Columbia.

In the Senate, Mr. Obama distinguished himself by making civil liberties one of his legislative priorities. He co-sponsored a bipartisan reform bill that would have cured the worst excesses of the Patriot Act by meaningfully tightening the standards for warrantless surveillance. Once again, he helped encourage a coalition of civil-libertarian liberals and libertarian conservatives. The effort failed when Hillary Clinton joined 13 other Democrats in supporting a Republican motion to cut off debate on amendments to the Patriot Act.

That wasn't the first time Mrs. Clinton tacked to the center in a civil-liberties debate. In 2005, she co-sponsored a bill that would have made it a federal crime to intimidate someone by burning a flag, even though the Supreme Court had struck down similar laws in the past. (Mr. Obama supported a narrower bill that would have satisfied the Constitution.) And Mrs. Clinton opposed a moderate proposal by the United States Sentencing Commission that would have retroactively reduced the draconian penalties for possession of crack cocaine - a proposal supported by Mr. Obama, and by liberal as well as conservative judges.

If Civil Liberties is an important issue to you, please read the rest of the article to find out why Barack Obama is the stronger candidate for protecting your rights.

As we approach the General Election, it is too risky to run a right-leaning Democratic candidate against John McCain. On issue after issue, from her vote for the war, to issues of privacy and trade, Hillary Clinton's record is too close to that of John McCain's. I for one, do not want to see another John "flip-flop" Kerry going against a republican who also voted for the war.

While Hillary Clinton has been hanging out with her pal the governor of Michigan looking for a do-over vote, Barack Obama has been taking the fight to John McCain. For those of you who missed it, here's a few highlights:

"Just yesterday, we heard Sen. McCain confuse Sunni and Shiite, Iran and Al Qaeda," Obama said during a speech on Iraq Wednesday morning. "Maybe that is why he voted to go to war with a country that had no Al Qaeda ties. Maybe that is why he completely fails to understand that the war in Iraq has done more to embolden America's enemies than any strategic choice that we have made in decades.
...
"Now we know what we'll hear from those like John McCain who support open-ended war. They will argue that leaving Iraq is surrender," he said. "That we are emboldening the enemy. These are the mistaken and misleading arguments we hear from those who have failed to demonstrate how the war in Iraq has made us safer. " source
...
"John McCain once opposed these tax cuts -- he rightly called them unfair and fiscally irresponsible. But now he has done an about face and wants to make them permanent, just like he wants a permanent occupation in Iraq. No matter what the costs, no matter what the consequences, John McCain seems determined to carry out a third Bush term," Obama said.
...
Using the words of Robert Kennedy, "past error is no excuse for its own perpetuation," Obama claimed that McCain has refused "to learn from the failures of the Bush years."

"Instead of offering an exit strategy for Iraq, he's offering us a 100-year occupation," Obama said. "Instead of offering an economic plan that works for working Americans, he's supporting tax cuts for the wealthiest among us who don't need them and aren't asking for them." source

As Barack Obama begins to take off the gloves with McCain, its clear he will be a lot less nice to his GOP rival than he has been to Hillary Clinton. And let me tell you, this is a fight I am looking forward to seeing. I can't wait until Barack Obama gets in the ring with John McCain - his position on the war is a stark contrast to any other candidate in this race, and he will slam McCain with it at every opportunity. With over 70% of the general public against this war, Barack Obama will have the will of the American People like a wind at his back.

As Hillary Clinton's Whitehouse schedules are just now being looked at, and as her recent tax returns and earmark requests have yet to be released - one thing becomes more evident every day: Barack Obama is by far the most vetted of the Democratic candidates. As Hillary scrapes for votes in FL and MI and tries to answer questions about NAFTA and Healthcare only now showing up this late in the process, we see that Obama has his head and his campaign in the right place to take this fight to the finish.

(Note: this post delves into the topic of racism in America. If you are overly sensitive about this topic, or if you feel your emotions will get in the way of rational discussion you might not want to read any further.)

-----

We are Democrats. I sure hope we can all agree that as Democrats we oppose racism of any kind. When real, empirical racism comes to our attention, we should do our utmost to speak about it truthfully and we should each do our part to help stop it. We cannot afford to let real policy debates get mangled and lost in our bitter fight for the presidential nomination.

This post is not about Obama, Clinton, Wright, or Ferraro. This post is about a significant policy issue facing our society.

With that said, some comments on Partybuilder have made me realize there is still a lot of education that needs to be done on the subject of race in America. We will only be able to solve these problems if we are educated about the policies that cause them.

This is an actual quote from PB blogs, one that illustrates the wide knowledge gap within our party:

"it's not whity's fault that one in every 15 black americans are incarcerated."

Such a statement leaves open the question of: well, whose fault is it then? As Americans, we like to think that every person, black or white, controls their own destiny.

Well, that is only true to a certain extent. What if I told you there was a specific law on the books today that treated black people differently than white people - I ask, would you consider such a law racist?

Well, I'm about to share something with you that might blow your mind. But, in order to protect those who would become angry when discussing this topic, I have placed the content of this blog on extended post.

Click "Read More," if this subject is of interest to you and if you are genuinely interested in finding out why indeed so many black Americans are incarcerated....   Read More »

This has been the message of Obama's campaign from the beginning; whether you are republican or democrat, black or white, Obama has called for us to rally together around our common goals, and to chart a new course for our nation:

Obama said that his belief that all people want to move in the same direction comes from his "unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own American story."

Obama emphasized his upbringing -- "the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas."

"I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible," he told an audience at Philadelphia's National Constitution Center.
....
"The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through -- a part of our union that we have yet to perfect," he said.
...
"But I have asserted a firm conviction -- a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people -- that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union,"

A few months ago, we all asked "who is real candidate of change?" The American People have answered with resounding clarity: we are ready to turn the page to a new chapter in our history, and Barack Obama is leading the way.

Barack Obama seems to be the only candidate in this race who actually cares about healing the wounds of our past. He has spoken about this since day one of his campaign.

Men, women, black, white, liberal and conservative have joined together in a movement to change our country for the better.

For those of you who feel great anger and passion at this moment, I ask you only to ask yourself: are you ready to leave these problems behind?

I think those who are angry right now are sincerely sick of the wounds of the past. They feel hurt and confused. Their concerns need to be heard - and we need to open our hearts to them, just as we ask them to do for us.

I ask you to close your eyes, open your hearts, and to picture the future: Do you want to experience a future where we cast aside our differences and come together to solve the problems we face?

America, I believe we can do this. It's time to rally together and become the great team we know we can be. Let's go for it America, what do we have to lose?