Less than a Week Left

Workout notes yoga, then 3 mile run on the treadmill (varied the incline), 1 mile walk on the ‘mill, then 1 mile on the track (12:52).

I stayed up too late watching the Patriot-Raven game; it was a barn-burner!

Politics Geekesque wrote yet another good Daily Kos diary; this one about Obama being attacked for being “uppity”; er, “presumptous” by the Clinton campaign.

People have wondered why Hillary Clinton’s campaign has been so strident and angry over the past week or so. Why remind people of what they don’t like about Clinton–that she is polarizing, thrives on conflict, and is a generally negative figure.

David Corn pokes around and gets the answer: the Clinton people hate, hate, hate, hate Barack Obama.

So, this latest episode of “When Hillary Attacks” is not about strategy–it’s about the emotions of fear, anger and hatred.

The ugly details, and the latest Clinton smear, below the fold. [...]

The David Corn article (he used to be with The Nation).

Hillary on Obama: Fear and Hatred on the Campaign Trail

By David Corn | December 4, 2007 7:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)

Hillary on the attack.

That’s the narrative of the Democratic contest this week, and it may be the dominant theme until the January 3 Democratic caucus in Iowa. (See here and here.) Sliding in the polls in Iowa–and falling behind Senator Barack Obama–Senator Clinton has begun to swing hard at the Illinoisan. Not just at his ideas, but at him, at his character. Clinton spokesperson Howard Wolfson said the other day, “Senator Obama is a fabulous orator, but we need more than words. We don’t need someone who says one thing and does another, somebody who talks a good game but doesn’t have the courage of their convictions. And on issue after issue, Senator Obama says one thing and does another.” The Clinton campaign sent out an email on Monday calling Obama Karl Rove’s preferred Democratic (ouch!) and blasting Obama for supposedly not understanding his own health care proposal, for lying when he has said he has not harbored presidential ambitions for years, and for allegedly running a slush fund (meaning a leadership political action committee, which he manages in the same manner Clinton runs her own leadership PAC). In other words, the fellow who has inspired thousands–if not millions–is a sleazy, hypocritical, incompetent sham. [...]

When talking to Clintonites in recent days, I’ve noticed that they’ve come to despise Obama. I suppose that may be natural in the final weeks of a competitive campaign when much is at stake. But these people don’t need any prompting in private conversations to decry Obama as a dishonest poser. They’re not spinning for strategic purposes. They truly believe it. And other Democrats in Washington report encountering the same when speaking with Clinton campaign people. “They really, really hate Obama,” one Democratic operative unaffiliated with any campaign, tells me. “They can’t stand him. They talk about him as if he’s worse than Bush.” What do they hate about him? After all, there aren’t a lot of deep policy differences between the two, and he hasn’t gone for the jugular during the campaign. “It’s his presumptuousness,” this operative says. “That he thinks he can deny her the nomination. Who is he to try to do that?” You mean, he’s, uh, uppity? “Yes.” A senior House Democratic aide notes, “The Clinton people are going nuts in how much they hate him. But the problem is their narrative has gone beyond the plausible.” [...]

Even friends of the Clintons can’t understand why her campaign is doing this: (Robert Reich was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton Administration)

Why is HRC stooping So Low?

I’m becoming increasingly concerned about the stridency and inaccuracy of charges in Iowa — especially coming from my old friend. While I’m as hard-boiled as they come about what’s said in campaigns, I just don’t think Dems should stoop to this. First, HRC attacked O’s plan for keep Social Security solvent. Social Security doesn’t need a whole lot to keep it going – it’s in far better shape than Medicare – but everyone who’s looked at it agrees it will need bolstering (I was a trustee of the Social Security Trust Fund ten years ago, and I can vouch for this). Obama wants to do it by lifting the cap on the percent of income subject to Social Security payroll taxes, which strikes me as sensible. That cap is now close to $98,000 (it’s indexed), and the result is highly regressive. (Bill Gates satisfies his yearly Social Security obligations a few minutes past midnight on January 1 every year.) The cap doesn’t have to be lifted all that much to keep Social Security solvent – maybe to $115,00. That’s a progressive solution to the problem. HRC wants to refer Social Security to a commission. That’s avoiding the issue, [...]

I’m equally concerned about her attack on his health care plan. She says his would insure fewer people than hers. I’ve compared the two plans in detail. Both of them are big advances over what we have now. But in my view Obama’s would insure more people, not fewer, than HRC’s. That’s because Obama’s puts more money up front and contains sufficient subsidies to insure everyone who’s likely to need help – including all children and young adults up to 25 years old. Hers requires that everyone insure themselves. Yet we know from experience with mandated auto insurance – and we’re learning from what’s happening in Massachusetts where health insurance is now being mandated – that mandates still leave out a lot of people at the lower end who can’t afford to insure themselves even when they’re required to do so. HRC doesn’t indicate how she’d enforce her mandate, [...]In short: They’re both advances, but O’s is the better of the two. HRC has no grounds for alleging that O’s would leave out 15 million people.

Yesterday, HRC suggested O lacks courage. [...] I just don’t get it. If there’s anyone in the race whose history shows unique courage and character, it’s Barack Obama. HRC’s campaign, by contrast, is singularly lacking in conviction about anything. [...]

Hat tip to Hillary Attacks, who also provided this video:

I got this e-mail message from the Obama campaign today; I’ll see if I can send some “love” after I’ve paid the bills.

Ollie –

When I decided to run for president, I accepted that my opponents would dig through my record looking for something to attack.

I didn’t realize they’d go all the way back to kindergarten.

I’ll respond to each of the Clinton campaign’s desperate attacks directly and honestly. But when I respond to each attack, I want to be able to say that I am not alone.

I want to be able to say that 10,000 people responded with me in the first 48 hours. And we’re almost there.

Respond now with your donation of $25, and show our opponents that this kind of negativity will only make us stronger in our determination to bring about the change America needs:

https://donate.barackobama.com/costofnegativity

It’s going to take all of us to change this game once and for all.

Thank you,

Barack

Social: Why African Americans might see life differently from others. This post is well worth reading.

Mentally disturbed Kheil Coppin was the Brooklyn teenager who was shot and killed by five New York Police Department officers while carrying a hairbrush under his clothing. It is alleged that the eighteen year old pulled the brush out, pointed it at police, and the police responded by firing twenty times and hitting the young man eight times.

The incident began after Mr. Coppin got into a dispute with his mother, Denise Owens, who called police. It is alleged that when she called 9-1-1, her son could be heard in the background claiming he had a gun. Ms. Owens told the emergency operator, “This kid is a problem. You can even hear him?” In the background of the 9-1-1 taped conversation her son could be heard in the background saying that he had a gun. When officers arrived at the home Kheil Coppin was seen pacing around the apartment, while his mother was outside. [...]

In fact, just this past Friday, a white, forty six year old man named Leeland Eisenberg (pictured above) held five people hostage Friday, including a small child, for over five hours at a New Hampshire campaign office of Senator Hillary Clinton with what he claimed was a bomb strapped to his chest. The troubled Mr. Eisenberg complained to police that he couldn’t get mental health care. His bomb turned out to be a set of road flares held together by duct tape.

During the five hour plus standoff, Mr. Eisenberg was able to have three conversations with CNN staffers in which he said he had mental health problems and could not get the help he needed. He also said he wanted to speak with Clinton, but his request was denied. Mr. Eisenberg faces state charges of four counts of kidnapping, one count of criminal threatening, and one count of false use of an explosive device according to Rochester police Captain Paul Callaghan. All charges are felonies with maximum penalties of imprisonment that run between one and seven years. Mr. Eisenberg also could face federal charges. He was being held in a local jail. But the point is he will live.

Obviously, one can’t draw a conclusion from two incidents; there are two many variables that weren’t the same (other than race). But there seems to be a long term pattern that would indicated that society values the life and well being of the lighter skinned among us than the darker skin. What is unarguable is that the perception of this is out there and there appears to be evidence to back it up.

Science: A nice post about entropy at Cosmic Variance. I just wished that they hadn’t used making ice cubes as an example of increasing entropy. It certainly IS such an example, but all too many lay people confuse “entropy” with “heat”; the two concepts are different.

Religion:

Holiday Cards via the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

Why it is futile to argue with fundies: In the Name of Towlie