From The Regressive Antidote
By David Michael Green

It’s over. Maybe Hillary doesn’t know it yet. Almost assuredly Bill doesn’t. But it’s over.

And, no, I don’t just mean the Democratic presidential nomination process. I mean the whole shootin’ match. Obama is the nominee and Obama is the forty-fourth president of the United States. You heard it here first.

Sure, it’s possible for this thing to derail, not least because of an October Surprise abroad engineered by Dick Cheney to keep himself out of jail. But, short of that, fughedaboudit! And even that most despicable of classic political ploys may not work anymore. If anything, the Reverend Wright episode has demonstrated that the historically immature American electorate night just be angry and desperate enough not to be distracted this time by the latest Willie Horton ad or gay marriage spectacle. There are powerful signs that the old black magic doesn’t work anymore.

I watched some in the media talking about Clinton in the past tense Tuesday night, and interpreting her speech in Indiana as a valedictory. Do they really actually pay these bloviators to blunder all over my television screen? Heck, I’d get it right for a quarter of what these would-be pundits charge!

Let’s see here. She twice asked people to go to her website and contribute money. She made her astonishingly duplicitous case, dripping with hypocrisy, for ‘not disenfranchising the people of Florida and Michigan’. She beat the drum of her new issue – the summer gas tax repeal – no less than three times. She began with that idiotic line – complete with that idiotic pasted-on clown-face smile of hers – quoting Obama about calling Indiana the tie-breaker (which state she then proceeded to nearly lose). She’s out there this week campaigning and fundraising.

Read more It’s Over

From Salon
By Joe Conason

As long as Hillary Clinton is willing to spend the money and energy needed to continue her campaign, she certainly can ignore the pundits who insist that the Democratic nominating contest is over. What she should not ignore, however, is the damage that her increasingly reckless behavior is inflicting on her reputation and that of her husband — especially when she starts to sound like a reincarnation of the late George Wallace.

When Clinton blathered on about “totally obliterating” Iran in the event it made a nuclear strike against Israel, and then reiterated that same statement last weekend, she made what was, until then, the single most ill-considered comment of the campaign. But now USA Today has published an interview in which she explained again why she regards herself as a more viable general-election candidate than Barack Obama — except that this time, she crossed a bright white line.

Citing an Associated Press analysis “that found how Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me,” she went on to say: “There’s a pattern emerging here.”

There is indeed a pattern emerging — and it is a pattern that must dismay everyone who admires the Clintons and has defended them against the charge that they are exploiting racial divisions.

Read more Hillary

From The NY Times
By Paul Krugman

The fight for the Democratic nomination seems to be winding down. It’s not completely over, but the odds now overwhelmingly favor Barack Obama.

Assuming that Mr. Obama is the nominee, he’ll lead a party that, judging by the usual indicators, should be poised for an easy victory — perhaps even a landslide.

Yet Democrats are worried. Are those worries justified?

Before I try to answer that question, let’s talk about those indicators.

Political scientists, by and large, believe that what happens on the campaign trail, while it gives talking heads something to talk about, is more or less irrelevant to what happens on Election Day. Instead, they place their faith in statistical analyses that identify three main determinants of presidential voting.

First, votes are affected by the state of the economy — mainly economic performance in the year or so preceding the election.

Second, the approval rating of the current president strongly affects his party’s ability to hold power.

Third, the electorate seems to suffer from an eight-year itch: parties rarely manage to hold the White House for more than two terms in a row.

Read more Thoughts

From The LA Times
By Peter Nicholas

She’s darting around the country like a full-fledged presidential candidate, but within Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s circle of advisors and donors, the conversation has turned to how she can make a dignified exit from the race.

Outwardly, Clinton operated Thursday as if the disappointing results from Indiana and North Carolina never happened. She made stops in West Virginia and South Dakota, while her husband held a conference call with top fundraisers. Before dawn, one of her advisors, Mark Penn, crafted a memo outlining future campaign strategy.

But for all the signs of normalcy, much of the infrastructure that keeps the New York senator’s campaign going — the aides, donors and political allies — is resigned to the hard reality that the Democratic nomination now appears out of reach.

One Clinton aide said Thursday: “There is a profound sadness” among the staff. “I don’t think anyone sees that there’s a clear path to victory here.”

Richard Schiffrin, a national finance co-chairman for Clinton, is scheduled to meet with other fundraisers and her next week. Schiffrin said he would tell her: “Let’s look at the situation as it exists and think about whether there’s a credible path to the nomination, and if there isn’t, what’s Plan B?”

He added: “The bottom line is she’s going to make a decision that in my view will be in the best interests of the party and the country.”

Read more No Clear Path

From The Washington Post
By E.J. Dionne Jr.

Barack Obama’s victory in the North Carolina primary was actually the second important election result for his campaign this month.

The first, which has not received enough notice, was the triumph of Louisiana Democrat Don Cazayoux in the race for an open U.S. House seat despite an aggressive Republican campaign to link the moderate Cajun to Obama, liberalism and high taxes.

That the Obama link did not bring down Cazayoux in a district that voted 59 percent for George W. Bush in 2004 will help reassure Democratic superdelegates from Republican-leaning districts that they can live with Obama at the top of their party’s ticket.

And the failure of old GOP tactics of liberalism-by-association and taxophobia was “a sharp wake up call for Republicans,” in the view of no less an authority than former House speaker Newt Gingrich.

In an important manifesto published this week in the conservative magazine Human Events, Gingrich warned that “the Republican brand has been so badly damaged that if Republicans try to run an anti-Obama, anti-Reverend Wright, or (if Senator Clinton wins), anti-Clinton campaign, they are simply going to fail.”

Significantly, Gingrich argued that the Republican Party’s weakness could “ultimately outweigh” the “personal appeal” of presumptive Republican nominee John McCain and “drag his candidacy into defeat.”

Read more Message

From The Boston Globe
By Ellen Goodman

From time to time during this primary, I’ve wondered about Obama’s mama. In a race that was so much about biography, about beliefs rooted in her son’s “DNA,” she’s made only cameo appearances.

She was the “mother from Kansas” balanced alliteratively with the “father from Kenya.” Or she was the white parent whose genes combined with the black parent. Or she was the woman dying of cancer “more worried about paying her medical bills than getting well.” And on Tuesday night when her son all but sewed up the nomination, she appeared again as the “single parent who had to go on food stamps at one point.”

I have been thinking of her not just because it’s nearly Mother’s Day but because Obama will soon have to reach out to Hillary Clinton’s supporters, especially to women of a certain age who attached their hopes to having a woman in the White House. Obama has not yet had a “gender conversation” with those women.

What better link does he have than his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, the girl whose own father expected and wanted a boy child? Ann Dunham, a nonconformist, a woman of the world who traveled a trajectory of change so associated with Hillary’s generation?

Last week, my eye lit on an odd correction in The New York Times. It read: “The assertion that Mr. Obama had ‘never known’ his Kenyan father should have been that he had ‘barely known’ him.” Surely it was a distinction without a difference.

It’s no surprise that Obama wrote an entire memoir dedicated to his “barely known” parent: “Dreams from My Father.” It was only after his mother’s death that he wrote in a new preface, “I think sometimes that had I known she would not survive her illness, I might have written a different book - less a meditation on the absent parent, more a celebration of the one who was the single constant in my life.” He added that “she was the kindest, most generous spirit I have ever known, and that what is best in me I owe to her.”

Read more Sharing Dreams

From The Washington Post
By Eugene Robinson

From the beginning, Hillary Clinton has campaigned as if the Democratic nomination were hers by divine right. That’s why she is falling short — and that’s why she should be persuaded to quit now, rather than later, before her majestic sense of entitlement splits the party along racial lines.

If that sounds harsh, look at the argument she made Wednesday, in an interview with USA Today, as to why she should be the nominee instead of Barack Obama. She cited an Associated Press article “that found how Senator Obama’s support . . . among working, hardworking Americans, white Americans, is weakening again. I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on.”

As a statement of fact, that’s debatable at best. As a rationale for why Democratic Party superdelegates should pick her over Obama, it’s a slap in the face to the party’s most loyal constituency — African Americans — and a repudiation of principles the party claims to stand for. Here’s what she’s really saying to party leaders: There’s no way that white people are going to vote for the black guy. Come November, you’ll be sorry.

How silly of me. I thought the Democratic Party believed in a colorblind America.

In private conversations last year, several of Clinton’s high-profile African American supporters made that same argument to me — that America wasn’t “ready” for a black president, that this simple fact doomed Obama to failure, that a Clinton Restoration was the best result that African Americans could realistically hope for. Polls at the time showed Clinton leading Obama among black voters, a finding that reflected not only Clinton’s greater name recognition but also considerable skepticism about a black candidate’s ability to draw white support.

Read more Race Card

From TruthDig
By David Sirota

When it comes to race, American politics is as polarized as a red and blue election map. On one side are those who try to distract from the issue; on the other side are those who work to sensationalize it. As this campaign season shows, what unifies both is bigotry.

Take the reaction to my recent In These Times magazine article about Barack Obama winning states with either very small or very large black populations, but losing most states in the middle.

Those results, while troubling, aren’t surprising. In very white states, racial themes are simply not part of the political dialogue, and a black candidate therefore faces fewer inherent disadvantages. In states with large black populations, race is a major political force, but the African-American vote is big enough to offset a racially motivated white vote. It is in the Race Chasm—the states whose populations are more than 6 percent and less than 17 percent black—where race is a political issue but the black vote is too small to counter a racially motivated white vote.

The trend continued in the last few weeks, with Obama losing two states in the Race Chasm (Pennsylvania and Indiana) and winning one outside the Chasm (North Carolina). Nonetheless, the response to this phenomenon by some in the intelligentsia has been willful ignorance.

The Atlantic Monthly’s Reihan Salam said the data are not driven by race, but by Hillary Clinton’s “waitress-mom sensibility sell[ing] well in these regions.” The New America Foundation’s Michael Lind said the evidence does not reflect America’s historic black-white divide, but instead Germanic and Scandinavian migration patterns (I’m not kidding). This is typical behavior from the Establishment’s “serious” thinkers. When confronted with race, they become ostriches and shove their heads in the sand.

Read more Race

From The Seattle Times
By Johann N. Neem

Democracy is premised on a simple claim: All people, by virtue of their humanity, are entitled to respect and to be treated with basic dignity. This is why Thomas Jefferson and other Founding Fathers believed that all people are born equal and have the same natural rights.

To be endowed with these natural rights means that being human is enough to warrant respect. Some will get rich, some will be poor. Some will become famous, others will not. But all our inequalities take place within a larger equality, our shared humanity.

Those who advocate torture are fundamentally endangering democracy. Some have said that we must balance freedom against security, that in certain situations torture is justifiable to protect Americans from impending threats.

According to The New York Times, the CIA recently told Congress that it may engage in illegal interrogation methods in order to prevent a terrorist attack. But there is no way to engage in torture and to protect American democracy. America’s core premise is that all men — today we would say people — are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”

The decline of torture and the rise of democracy were historically connected, as historian Lynn Hunt demonstrates in her recent book, “Inventing Human Rights” (2007). Only when we could respect the innate dignity of all people could democracy emerge. And we learned to respect others when we learned that other people’s sufferings — their pain and agony — were similar to ours.

Read more Torture

From AlterNet
By Danny Schechter

There is a time in the life of every writer when you find yourself fearing that you have become a robo call phone machine — repeating the same message over and over and with diminishing results.

That’s how I felt after 8 months of silence after labeling the credit crisis a “subcrime” scandal, lashing out at the fraudulent activity at its core and calling for the investigation and prosecution of wrongdoers. Almost no media outlets accepted this way of framing the problem, although as usual, the British press was ahead of its American cousins in putting the blame on the bankers, not the borrowers.

When the FBI announced a probe of 14 mortgage companies, I thought that finally some investigators were on the case. But then, word leaked that they were only going after small fish even as big banks reported losses in the billions.

Bank robberies have always been up the FBI’s alley, and after all, this is a bank heist case, perhaps one of the biggest in history. Only it was the banks that were doing the heisting.

The New York Times reported May 5th that a new criminal investigation was finally underway.

A G-Man explained anonymously: “The latest inquiry is broader and deeper. This is a look at the mortgage industry across the board, and it has gotten a lot more momentum in recent weeks because of the banks’ earnings shortfall.”

Read more Accountability