Oooh, nuance!

As we all know, Florida and Michigan decided to move up their primaries in defiance of the rules of the Democratic National Committee. Thus, their delegates are currently not being seated at the Convention in August.

In a contest with a clear preference, such as the Republican primary (which McCain has already clinched), this would not matter so much. But since the votes were held anyway, and hundreds of delegates would be awarded to the winner, and about 100 delegates currently separate Obama and Clinton...those delegates are suddenly very important.

It appeared yesterday that Florida was settling on a mail-in re-vote solution. But the Obama camp has said that they are worried about the mechanics, and the Florida Democratic House members have suddenly taken a strong stance against it.

I just don't know what the best solution would be. Clearly the Michigan delegates should not be seated, since not all the candidates were on the ballot there. But in Florida - millions of voters showed a marked preference for Hillary, and all the candidates were on the ballot. In addition, Florida is run by Republics. Since when do Republics get to decide how Democrats vote?

Howard Dean is in a real bind here. As Democrats, the last thing we want to do is disenfranchise anyone. That's the Republic way. But he also wants to show that the states must defer to the national party as to when their primaries are held.

I just feel like the best thing to do is for Dr. Dean to get the candidates together, say "Guess what? It's clear that America wants you both. We've had many caucuses and primaries already, and you've won almost exactly the same number of delegates and votes. Get over yourselves, flip a coin and decide who's on the top of the ticket, then shake hands and be friends." Then, the Michigan/Florida delegates won't be seated, but it won't matter.

It's either that, or a brokered convention. Because no matter how hard the campaigns spin, the math does not allow either candidate to win enough delegates to clinch the nomination. If Hillary loses PA, that would be a big boost for Obama's narrative; however, she currently holds a double-digit lead there, according to Survey USA (the only pollsters who have been correct during this whole crazy season).

Of course, Al Gore did say that if the convention was brokered AND he was drafted, he would serve. But considering that no one voted for him in the primaries, I'm not sure how Democrats would feel about it. His campaign might be tarred with the brush of illegitimacy from the start. (I'd personally be thrilled, since I believe he is by far the best possibility out there, but I can't speak for the tens of millions of other voters out there!)

Hmmmmm....very, very interesting. Only the Democrats could make this slam-dunk year such a nail-biter. As Will Rogers said,

"I am not a member of any organized political party.

I'm a Democrat."

It's official. Not only do I not like Barack Obama's campaign style - I actually don't like him.

Until last night, I was planning to vote for any of the top three Democrats. Despite my problems with Senator Obama's right-wing approach, I didn't even consider withholding my vote from him. This election is too important.

But that was before last night.

The brilliant Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake got there first - with video. I won't elaborate too much, but this is what got me permanently angry with the Senator:

OBAMA: I think there is no doubt that [Hillary Clinton] has higher negatives than any of the remaining Democratic candidates, that's just a fact. And there are some who will not vote for her. I have no doubt that once the nomination contest is over, I will get the people who voted for her. Now the question is, could she get the people who voted for me?

I don't know, could she? One thing Obama says is that due to her high negatives, he can get votes Hillary can't. Both he and Edwards are using this type of argument. I think it's kind of a stupid one, considering polls show that she can beat any Republic in the general...and that's without the Republic having to campaign for several months against her. That part doesn't bother me.

But as for Obama's supporters not voting for Hillary, that's an incredible - and offensive - statement. Hillary has, in effect, already asked her supporters to vote for Obama or Edwards if she is not the nominee. In fact, she's done that many times during the campaign - including in her concession speech in Iowa. Edwards also appeared on Olbermann that night, and said that without a doubt, he would also encourage his supporters to vote for the Democratic nominee no matter who it was.

Barack Obama's words are in stark contrast to those of his fellow candidates. They reflect a man who is so in love with himself that he puts himself over both party AND country.

I've got news for Mr. Obama. I would happily vote for Hillary or Edwards without blinking an eye, but as of last night, this is one vote you will NEVER GET. I hope like hell you are not the nominee, but if you are, I will write in Al Gore.

What. An. Ass.

Sigh.

What a tragedy.

Looks like Senator Clinton gets my vote after all. I just don't see any of the others making it past the Fascist Media shredding machine.

Most Americans, excepting brainwashed Rushbots, now realize that global warming is real and a crisis. Even the Deciderer has recently dropped his once hard-line stance on the issue. Of course, his idea of taking action comes down to prayer and privatization, as usual. (Heh-heh. Wouldn't wanna offend Exxon-Mobil!)

Love or hate Al Gore (Run, Al, Run!!!), you have to give him credit for his tireless, decades-long efforts to bring this issue to the forefront of the American mind. But why is it only now, when people can actually see the effects of global warming for themselves - stronger hurricanes, more extreme weather like flooding, early snowfall and tornadoes, hotter average temperatures - that we are finally willing to do something about it?

I'm a little bitter on this subject, because I remember Jimmy Carter's presidency very well. I was in eighth grade, and my teacher was explaining why the President was putting solar panels on the White House, why there were suddenly lines at the gas station, why we had to turn our thermostats down and use less paper in our homes. This was 1978. 1978! Almost 30 years ago, around the same time Al Gore was beginning his long crusade, Jimmy Carter was trying to lead our country away from endless wars over oil, and towards a more responsible energy policy.

Did Americans listen? No, we did not. We fell for the con game of one of the worst Presidents in history, Ronald Reagan, who told us "Hey, everybody, I know it looks bad now, but if you all just go shopping with these shiny credit cards - like I'll do! - everything will be fine! You can still have the American dream, and you won't have to sacrifice a darn thing!" And don't we just love to think the impossible is true in this country? Don't we just love to pretend everything is fine and dandy, as Frank Rich wrote so memorably yesterday?

So here we are, after almost 30 years of environmental ostriching, and waddaya know? Jimmy Carter was right! And of course, there's this guy named Al Gore who just won't go away, and so sorry, but they don't usually give out the Nobel Peace Prize to cranks and crackpots (okay, Kissinger was an exception).

As much as the general short-sightedness and laziness of Murkins makes me crazy, we are no different from the rest of the human race. We are simply not built for long-range planning. Most of us feel we shouldn't act until a crisis is upon us, at which point we go into a flurry of panicked activity. Said activity can be effective - we did, after all, stop using aerosols and DDT - but not nearly as effective as prevention.

We humans have the same tendencies in every area of our lives. One example is our health. We don't fix our diet and exercise habits until we have heart attacks or strokes; even then, we'd rather be on 14 different prescription medications than change our way of life.

If we are to advance out of our current childlike state, I believe the human race needs to create a new Enlightenment. We need to start looking ahead 30, 50, 200 years and planning for a future we will never see. We need to make peace and global responsibility our new mantras and leave bumper stickers and flag pins behind. We need to give up our selfish short-sightedness and start becoming true stewards of this beautiful Earth we have inherited. Otherwise, we may not survive into the 22nd century - and really, would it be such a great loss?

Lately, I've been thinking a lot about the insidious replacement of facts with faith in all areas of life, but most harmfully, in politics.

How many times has President Bush said he prays for this or that group of people? Yet our compliant press never questions him further after he invokes his "faith." Journamalists and pundits even ask politicians if they pray for the troops. What difference could that possibly make? Are the troops less dead because Nancy Pelosi or anyone else prays for them? Are their wounds less grevious, are their hearts less broken, are their families less destroyed? And what about the millions of dead, wounded and displaced Iraqis? Have prayers helped them?

But no one seems to ask those questions - they're taboo in our current faith-based society. Apparently, professing faith is a magic wand that waves all responsibility away and stops all brains from processing. It's amazing how none of the traditional media point out that some of the world's most nefarious politicians claimed to have faith. Hitler comes to mind - not only was he possessed of a terrifying faith in the German myth of the Superman, but he was also insistent on establishing Christianity as the One True Religion.

I am so proud of the founders of our country for putting a firm separation between church and State into the Constitution. But thanks to the far-right Fascist movement that has taken over our discourse, we now need a separation of faith and state.

We have gone so far backwards in our thinking that we have "faith-based initiatives" instead of programs that actually help people with real problems. Prayer can never replace governmental action and responsibility: rebuilding levees and cities destroyed by natural disasters; caring for our sick, our weak and our poor; creating jobs; rebuilding infrastructure; planning for the future of our planet; and on and on.

These feelings are one reason why I am so gung-ho on Al Gore, who wrote a book dealing with this subject. I would like a President who believes in science and facts, not prayer, as solutions to real-world problems.

Would that be so much to ask?

Wow. Just, wow.

Sharing the prize with the IPCC...

"for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change"

This man is a statesman. This man is a leader. This man has hit the REAL trifecta.

The world awaits his next move...

Can't post much today, but there's a movement afoot (sponsored by The Great Orange Satan) to make Blogistan shout "Pay Attention to Global Warming!" on October 15th.

Of course, those of us wishin' and hopin' for Al Gore might include a few words about him on that day as well...especially if he wins the Nobel on October 12th.

This bloggista is in.

Well, from my (admittedly quick) reading of the many emails on the Netroots for Gore group, it appears that some folks want to just add his name to the ballot, such as the "California For Gore" group, and some feel that after the Nobel Prizes are handed out on October 12, Our Al will finally say Yes or No.

I find myself more in the October 12th camp. If the man who "used to be the President of the United States" definitively states that he is not up for a second run - and there could be many reasons for this, not the least being how he was treated the first time - then there is nothing we can, or should, do to try to force him into it.

However, if he says he is open to it, I think a huge letter-writing campaign, freeway blogging with "Run, Al, Run!" signs, and whatever else we can think of SHOULD BE DONE to convince our man that we really, really like him. And if, delirium-inducing possibility indeed, he jumps in the race - he's got my time AND my money, although, most probably, he won't need them.

Just my two cents.

Thank you, whomever invited me to the Google Group "Draft Al Gore 2008!"

Note the new banner on my site, which links to the Al Gore myspace page. Click it and check it out.

Let's make this happen, people! He is a leader the entire world respects and admires. We need him now more than ever.

Okay, I know I was extremely snarky in my little summary yesterday. But in reality, I was pretty impressed with almost everyone on that stage. Joe Biden and Chris Dodd were the ones that came up the most in my estimation. Mike Gravel was just a bit too wacky for me, and Barack Obama, forgive me, is a Hillary clone, and I'd rather have the real thing than the imitation.

I wish I could be really, really excited about my candidate, though. I was a total Deaniac in 2004, and I was thrilled to send him money and promote him any way I could. There is no one that I feel that way about this year, unless...

be still my heart...

AL GORE RUNS FOR PRESIDENT.

Oh please oh please oh please. We need a person of broad, sweeping vision, a person who is scientific rather than faith-based, a person of peace, and Al Gore IS THAT MAN.

I've signed the Draft Al petition - I did it a long time ago. What can I do to make him realize that we're really, really sorry about 2000 and that we'll elect him in the biggest landslide in American history?

Any ideas out there?