Watching the desperate efforts of Hillary Clinton to push her failed Presidential bid long past the time to gracefully bow out, is increasingly troubling.  She is campaigning in three states, today.

She has events scheduled today in the upcoming primary states of Oregon, South Dakota and West Virginia. Barack Obama will be in Washington today.

With her money drained and her options dwindling, a resolute Hillary Rodham Clinton vowed to press on with her presidential bid even as she and top advisers were hard-pressed to describe a realistic path for her to wrest the nomination from Barack Obama.

I just heard a portion of a speech by John McCain at a town hall meeting in Michigan.  He was railing against the internet.  <sigh>

His speech, delivered to an audience which looked to have an average age of around 60, decried "pornography, loss of innocence, and the children".  He was trying to make the case that the world is on the brink of ending.  And all because none of these things existed before the internet.  <sigh>

Come on John.  I'm older than you are and I can't believe that you think that clump of fear and stupidity will carry the day!

As we anxiously await the polls closing, make those GOTV calls, and read the reports from the field by dedicated Kossacks, I want to take a break to offer a charming little rant.

I Heard it!  I actually HEARD IT!!

Last night on the Chris Matthews' Show, Mr. Matthews looked straight into the camera and said, "The people are facinated by Rev. Wright.  Our ratings prove it."

Why is our Democratic Presidential candidate being selected, according to all the pundits, by "white, working-class, voters"?  Aren't these what we call Reagan Democrats?

Aren't these the people whom we refer to as "low-information" voters?  People who historically can't identify their own interest?  People who vote on the basis of beer, and bowling?  People who, in spite of every indication to the contrary, in spite of both historical and current trends, lose their shirt every time a Republican is elected to the Presidency?

When Dr. Howard Dean was selected to head the Democratic Party, we were jubilant.  He ran on a new strategy, that of involving, and building the Party, in all 50 states.  We thought that was great.  We cheered him on.  We kept reminding each other that reclaiming the handles of power involved competing in all of those regions that had been abandoned, or ignored, by the Clinton's, their inner-circle, and the DNC of old.

Then we got distracted by shiny things.  We got all excited by the power of selecting, and working for specific candidates, and giving them our money.  We flexed our muscle, dug up a $10 or a $20, and made a difference in the chances of those we supported.

Dear World,

There are a lot of very stupid people in American.  Those people say they will not vote for Barack Obama because some one told them that he is a Muslim.  

(I apologize to all Muslim, everywhere, but those same people have been terrified by our government into casting a religion as a terrorist organization, and there is just no talking to them, now.)  

They have also been told that Hamas is a terrorist organization.  They ignore that, however you feel about their policies, they were elected to govern Gaza.  We keep claiming that we want to spread democracy, but we really mean we want to spread Democracy, only if we like who you elect.  

So, anyway.  If you are a member of the Hamas Government, please shut up.  By expressing pleasantries at the possibility of an Obama victory, you are pretty much making sure that those stupid people will never be convinced to vote for him.

We figure that 18 cents a gallon, over 90 days, will put $11.34 in our pocket. (You can calculate your individual savings at Jabberwonk.)

That savings may not be so impressive when I drive over that bridge that collapses under my van, falling on 9 unemployed construction workers, taking shelter with those 4 Iraqi war vets.  

Hillary tells me that she is the only one who "appreciates my need".  What "need" is that, Hill, old girl?

When even Tom "Units" Friedman tells you that your proposed program is stupid and pointless, why would you keep on pushing it in Indiana and North Carolina?

I am listening to Jeremiah Wright at the National Press Club and I weep for 7 decades of lost understanding.  And, although my title may be misleading, as this atheist has not had a moment of conversion, I am so compelled by his speech that I feel bereft at his words.

I grew up in the pale, intimidating, bleached religions of European colonialism.  I was early bathed in Catholicism, the faith my mother said, "Always makes me feel warm".  When I protested, at the age of 9, my father intervened and led me to the cold, Episcopal church of his New England fore bearers.

Everyone has weighed in on the "damage" the Democratic Party is doing to it's brand by prolonging the Primary for months.  Everyone has pointed out why this is a horrible and futile exercise.  Everyone cackles, and chortles, at those "wacky Dems" who can't decide, can't make up their minds, and threaten to bolt the party if their beloved candidate is not the nominee.

There have been some sane voices, such as Frank Rich this morning, who have tried to inject some contrarian wisdom, but they are generally being shouted down by the Cable Twits.

There is one element of this discussion that no one (to my knowledge) has pointed out, though.

When will this evil man be yanked from the public airways?

Talk show host Rush Limbaugh is sparking controversy again after he made comments calling for riots in Denver during the Democratic National Convention this summer.

He said the riots would ensure a Democrat is not elected as president, and his listeners have a responsibility to make sure it happens.

"Riots in Denver, the Democrat Convention would see to it that we don't elect Democrats," Limbaugh said during Wednesday's radio broadcast. He then went on to say that's the best thing that could happen to the country.

The Channel 7 ABC News outlet is reporting on their web site that Limbaugh then tried to brush the whole thing off as a joke.

Everyone has massaged the voter break downs in the demographics of Pennsylvania.  Everyone has claimed to identify who is voting for whom.  And, once again, we see the same, poor fools being lead down the path by their own stubborn clinging to fantasy.

By casting the divisions between the Republicans and Democrats as either "conservative" or "radical", Lee Atwater managed to set the voting patterns of Democrats way back in 1980.  Who wanted to be labeled a "radical"?  These were, after all, those dope smoking hippies.  People who protested the war.  Folks who seemed to challenge every "Mer'kin" value as presented by the media, the marketers, and the men who were heavily invested in no change to anything.  

Conservative Democrats became Reagan Democrats, and have continued to vote for the tag lines, and promises, offered to corral them ever since.  They abbhor anything that suggests change as being representative of that Republican Boogie Man, "radical".

As a harbinger of the looming change, the Wall Street Journal on Line has a new columnist!  Thomas Frank, author of What's the Matter with Kansas has joined the stable of right wing frothers with a new take on my favorite topic:  what's the matter with being smart?

According to the general clucking of the national punditry, my 2004 book – "What's the Matter With Kansas?" – is supposed to have persuaded Barack Obama to describe the yeomanry of Pennsylvania as "bitter" people who "cling to guns or religion or . . . anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." Mr. Obama's offense is so grave that the custodians of our national consensus have elevated it to gatehood: "Bittergate."

I have followed and, I admit, participated, in the blow up about the debate, and the various media personalities intent on making the topics covered central to the selection of the next President.

We rage, and fume, at the trivial and nonsensical nature of the public posturing of the Concern Trolls on cable TV, the pandering to their imaginary friends by the various columnists, and the hatchet jobs endlessly repeated on Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.  Handy work of a destructive and terrible force in American politics.

But there is something much more insidious going on here and we have to lay it out for careful examination.

While both cable networks seem intent on broadcasting all  46,000 people in a baseball stadium taking communion, in wallowing, voice over, faux reverence...

While we, and most of the international media, dissect the abysmal "debate" performance on ABC...

While all of our FP'er decry the state of media in this democracy...

While we all celebrate the importance and "new found relevance" of the Net and Blogs...

A dangerous idea has occurred to me.

Davidkc reports that Bill Clinton has, once again, stepped in it.

We have seen multiple examples during the past year and a half, of Big Dog seeming to be "off message", "angry", and occasionally deliberately "misstating" some fact or event to the imagined benefit of his wife's candidacy.

There is another possibility.

You have heard the expression "Uppity Nigger", right?

We cringe and screw up our faces.  We turn away, in horror.  When we reference the expression we are so disgusted that we have found a host of socially acceptable way to report that "others" have said such demeaning and blantantly racist words.  We substitute, "The N Word".  

"America has moved beyond that that kind of thing!", we assure ourselves.

"No one I know would say that!", we protest.

I have been advised that my zeal in posting this diary on Saturday night was ill-advised.  You were all out at the bars and pool halls while I was here, begging for justice, and that I needed to give more folks a chance to join in.

Last night, we raised $1,150.10 bucks in 90 minutes.
 This is your chance to join in!

There have been multiple diaries today slamming both John McCain and Hillary Clinton for their disingenuous comments on Barack Obama's sociological truths.  We, in the Reality Based Community have rightly acknowledged, and understood both the power and truth of his comments.  We have taken John and Hillary to task for their deceitful manipulation and misrepresentation of a skillful analysis of the "What's Wrong with Kansas" phenomena in western Pennsylvania.

But I have another idea.

There have been multiple diaries today slamming both John McCain and Hillary Clinton for their disingenuous comments on Barack Obama's sociological truths.  We, in the Reality Based Community have rightly acknowledged, and understood both the power and truth of his comments.  We have taken John and Hillary to task for their deceitful manipulation and misrepresentation of a skillful analysis of the "What's Wrong with Kansas" phenomena in western Pennsylvania.

But I have another idea.