Centerblue.org

ABC News reports that Obama for the first time now carries a majority of Democratic super-delegates. This all comes on top of:

–having the most pledged delegates;
–having the most popular votes;
–having the most states won;
–having the most money raised by far.

The media appears to finally be picking up on the inevitability of Obama’s nomination, with newspapers everywhere writing Clinton’s obituary.

That still won’t stop Clinton hacks and talking heads living in Fantasyland, however. They just won’t stop whining and complaining and making stupid arguments for how the mathematical impossibility of a Clinton nomination can somehow be possible.

“But we have to count Michigan and Florida,” they whine…because if we do, then Clinton might get ahead. Well, as a commentator on CNN said the other night,

If my aunt had a male appendage, she’d be my uncle!

The Clinton camp can come up with all kinds of outlandish hypotheticals–but at the end of the day they cannot escape these inexorable facts:

–All parties (Clinton, Obama, DNC) agreed on the penalties for states who broke the rules.
–Obama was not even on the ballot in Michigan as a result of those rules to which all parties agreed.
–Hundreds of thousands of people did not vote because they believed the primaries in those states were invalid, and therefore the count of those who did says nothing about what the majority of voters in these states wanted.
–There is no possible argument Clinton can make so that she gets every super-delegate in these two states, and any more reasonable split gets her no closer to the nomination.
–Even if you count the popular vote in these two states, Obama is STILL ahead because of his blow-out victory in North Carolina.

So as you can see, leaning on the Michigan/Florida argument only delays the inevitable (quite apart from the argument being bogus.)

“But..but…Clinton leads among white working class voters, and therefore is the only one to assemble a broad coalition,” the Clintonites whine. Well, since when do working class white voters constitute a broad coalition by themselves? Since when do white working class voters even turn out for the Democratic nominee in large numbers come the general election?? Clinton’s wins are predicated solely on winning rural parts of states–areas that never go Democratic in November. Every vote matters of course, including rural ones….but the point is that the Democratic nominee needs to carry substantially more than the rural working class vote in November–and Obama trounces Clinton in every other constituency except seniors 65+ and white women, often by huge lop-sided margins.

“But…but…we can still convince super-delegates that Clinton is the better choice,” the Clinton whiners argue some more. GET REAL. Do you really think that the super-delegates are going to take the nomination away from someone who is ahead in every metric, and in the process mortally insult the 25% of the party that are African Americans along with every other party member including myself with any sense of justice and fair play? Do you really think they’re inclined to destroy the party like that for the sake of your candidate’s ambition? NO.

It’s time to see the writing on the wall the way everyone else is seeing it. It is now time, Hillary, for you to step down graciously, and we thank you for your effort. If you do it right, you’ll be an elder party statesman, continue to wield much influence, and have another shot at it in the future. If you go kicking and screaming and trying to damage the nominee, then you’ll wreck your standing in the party.

Make the choice, but quickly—because I’m tired of you.

adipexbuy ambienbuy viagraviagra onlinetramadol onlinebuy xanaxbuy valiumtramadol onlineultram onlineviagraonline pokercasino pokercasino bettingonline blackjackcard gameephedralevitrahydrocodoneherbal viagrabuy tramadol

A couple of days ago I posted about the death of Mildred Loving, the woman involved in Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 Supreme Court case on interracial marriage. I noted there that gays should honor her passing given the importance of that case in any future argument for gay marriage.

It turns out that Loving supported same-sex marriage, a fact not disclosed in the media obituaries (hat tip to Crooks & Liars). In a letter last year, she wrote:

Loving for All

By Mildred Loving

Prepared for Delivery on June 12, 2007,
The 40th Anniversary of the Loving vs. Virginia Announcement

When my late husband, Richard, and I got married in Washington, DC in 1958, it wasn’t to make a political statement or start a fight. We were in love, and we wanted to be married.

We didn’t get married in Washington because we wanted to marry there. We did it there because the government wouldn’t allow us to marry back home in Virginia where we grew up, where we met, where we fell in love, and where we wanted to be together and build our family. You see, I am a woman of color and Richard was white, and at that time people believed it was okay to keep us from marrying because of their ideas of who should marry whom.

When Richard and I came back to our home in Virginia, happily married, we had no intention of battling over the law. We made a commitment to each other in our love and lives, and now had the legal commitment, called marriage, to match. Isn’t that what marriage is?

Not long after our wedding, we were awakened in the middle of the night in our own bedroom by deputy sheriffs and actually arrested for the “crime” of marrying the wrong kind of person. Our marriage certificate was hanging on the wall above the bed.

The state prosecuted Richard and me, and after we were found guilty, the judge declared: “”Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.” He sentenced us to a year in prison, but offered to suspend the sentence if we left our home in Virginia for 25 years exile.

We left, and got a lawyer. Richard and I had to fight, but still were not fighting for a cause. We were fighting for our love.

Though it turned out we had to fight, happily Richard and I didn’t have to fight alone. Thanks to groups like the ACLU and the NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund, and so many good people around the country willing to speak up, we took our case for the freedom to marry all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. And on June 12, 1967, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that, “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” a “basic civil right.”

My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God’s plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation’s fears and prejudices have given way, and today’s young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry.

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the “wrong kind of person” for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.

Sphere: Related Content

Mildred Loving has died, and gay people everywhere should mourn her passing.

Why should they do so? Because when the day comes that gays and lesbians argue their case for gay marriage before the Supreme Court (as that day must someday come), Mildred Loving will speak out from the dead on their behalf.

Mildred Loving was a black woman in Virginia who fell in love with a white man. They wanted to marry, but fell afoul of Virginia’s anti-miscegenation (interracial marriage) statute. They filed a lawsuit claiming a violation of their constitutional rights that found its way to the Supreme Court in 1967. The result striking down the statute was announced in Loving v. Virginia, arguably one of the most important Supreme Court cases of all time.

Chief Justice Warren delivered the Opinion of the Court, and said the following words, profound in their implications:

Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. (emphasis added)

The Court affirmed that marriage is a fundamental right that may not be abridged by the state absent the showing of a compelling state interest (a standard that is very difficult to meet.) These words in Loving v. Virginia are the best weapon that gays and lesbians have for persuading the Supreme Court that the fundamental right of marriage should be extended not only to members of different races, but also to those wishing to enter a same-sex marriage. In both cases, the state is preventing an individual from marrying the consenting adult partner of his choice.

So as we go about our business today, let us all honor the memory of this brave woman who will be forever remembered as part of the civil rights tradition in this nation.

“We’re going to go right at OPEC. They can no longer be a cartel, a monopoly that get together once every couple of months [and] decide how much oil they’re going to produce and what price they’re going to put it at. That’s not a market, that’s a monopoly.”

–Hillary Clinton in North Carolina

————————–

OK, so let me get this straight. OPEC has most of the world’s oil. Western civilization NEEDS this oil lest its economy crashes to a grinding halt. They are the masters, we are the slaves. Since when do slaves dictate terms to their masters?

What are we going to do–tell them we don’t need their oil anymore? That we’re going to get it from somewhere else? That we’re going to invade their countries and divert their pipelines? Are we going to nuke them?

Please, Hillary–tell me how we’re going to “go right at OPEC.”

The problem isn’t OPEC. The problem is us. They didn’t ask us to become dependent on their product, we did that all by ourselves. Every time we load up our huge SUV’s getting 10 miles to the gallon, live in the exurbs and commute two hours to work each way, hop in the car to go to the store that’s just around the corner, and sit in traffic choking on our own fumes, we’re causing the problem. OPEC is only too happy to feed an addiction of our own making.

So now we complain when gas prices are sky high (and going much higher)–and threaten to go after our masters? Please.

There’s only one thing we could do practically to OPEC–pressure them to tell the truth about their oil reserves. There are reasons why prices are going sky-high and OPEC is mysteriously declining to take advantage of that windfall. Some people believe that’s because they can’t–because they have reached the limits of their production. Oil reserves are akin to a state secret in places like Saudi Arabia, and we have nothing to go on except their claims of what remains on the ground. So…what if they’re lying? What if peak oil really has come and gone and they’re trying their best to hide it with excuses about why they don’t “want to” further increase production? It is criminal to run our oil-based economy on mere promises of more oil without being damn sure of what’s left.

But that’s about all we can do. Other than that, Hillary should look voters in the eye and tell them that we’re the cause of the problem, and that therefore we need to find the solution on our own. We need to tighten our energy belts while we create a solution. There are a lot of very promising technological advances going on out there right now in energy production–from algal production of biofuel, to designer bacteria that could break down switchgrass into ethanol, to the making of inexpensive solar panels.

All of these things have the potential to break our oil addiction and allow us to give the Saudis the finger once and for all, and in less time than we think. But….it requires a huge and concerted effort to change how energy is made and distributed in this country.

We need a Manhattan Project of energy–one that will incidentally create a lot of jobs while breaking our addiction. It would be money so much better spent than continuing to pour it into the black hole of Iraq (we would already be energy independent if we’d used the nearly $1 trillion for energy development instead of throwing it away in Iraq.)

If Brazil could become energy independent on sugar-based ethanol, we can do the same with our uniquely American technology and wealth. We need politicians with the backbone to give Americans the non-sugar coated truth (including the problem of diminishing oil supply worldwide) and commit us to fundamentally changing how we live and consume energy.

That’s what we need, instead of some idiotic platitudes about “going after OPEC.”