I didn’t watch cable news most of Sunday—has the MSM in the U.S. mentioned this? From the UK Telegraph:
Hillary Clinton will be offered a dignified exit from the presidential race and the prospect of a place in Barack Obama’s cabinet under plans for a “negotiated surrender” of her White House ambitions being drawn up by Senator Obama’s aides.
The former First Lady would get the chance to pilot Mr Obama’s reforms of the American healthcare system if she agrees to clear the path to his nomination as Democratic presidential candidate.
Senior figures in the Obama camp have told Democrat colleagues that the offer to Mrs Clinton of a cabinet post as health secretary or to steer new legislation through the Senate will be a central element of their peace overtures to the New York senator.
...The Obama camp, however, remains nervous about Mrs Clinton’s intentions and ambitions, and is preparing a face-saving package that will allow her to continue to play a role in health care reform, which has been her signature issue for more than a decade. Despite pressure from some Clinton allies, Mr Obama and his advisers do not wish to ask her to be his vice-presidential running mate. “They will talk to her,” one Democrat strategist close to senior figures in the Obama camp told The Sunday Telegraph. “They will give her the respect she deserves. She will get something to do with health care, a cabinet post or the chance to lead the legislation through the Senate.”
Oh my - the bigot knives came out big time at the Rules Committee hearing chaos. Take at look at what Jane Hamsher captured— this inconsolable Hillary supporter, Harriet Christian, screaming at reporters in this clip about how the party is…
”...throwing the election away…for what—an inadequate black male who would not have been running had it not been a white woman that was running for president. I’m not going to shut my mouth anymore. I can be called white, but you can’t be called black…God Damn the Democrats.”
You have to watch the whole thing. This is out of control; this chaos must end, however…
The result of today’s meeting: In the case of Michigan, delegates will get 1/2 vote (Clinton nets 34.5 and Obama 29.5. For Florida, delegates also have 1/2 of a vote; Clinton receive 52.5 and Obama 33.5 (Edwards 6.5).
While Ms. Christian has lost her cookies, she’ll be happy to know that Clintonista Lanny Davis is threatening to take this to the credentials committee (and thus the convention—will the PHB baristas need flak jackets?), based on an update I just received from Jane. This is likely an attempt to extort the VP slot for Hillary, but I can’t imagine that after all of the BS during the primary—and still with a growing lead in delegates—Obama is even giving this serious consideration.
It was simply time to cut his ties to the Trinity United Church of Christ. (AP):
Barack Obama has resigned his 20 year membership in the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago in the aftermath of inflammatory remarks by his longtime pastor the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and more recent fiery remarks at the church by another minister.
Obama campaign communications director Robert Gibbs said Obama had submitted a letter of resignation to the church and would discuss his decision in a session with reporters later Saturday.
It happened “over the last few days,” Gibbs said. Messages left for a church spokeswoman in Chicago were not immediately returned Saturday afternoon.
...On Thursday, Obama was again forced to reject another man of the cloth, this time Pfleger, who made racially charged comments mocking Clinton in a guest sermon at Trinity United Church of Christ, Obama’s church.
Obama made it clear he wasn’t happy with the comments — in which Pfleger pretended he was Clinton crying over “a black man stealing my show” — and said he was “deeply disappointed in Father Pfleger’s divisive, backward-looking rhetoric, which doesn’t reflect the country I see or the desire of people across America to come together in common cause.”
It’s an abject lesson that mixing church and politics can inevitably get any pol in an endless amount of trouble. From McCain sidling up to Hagee/Parsley or Obama and the latest remarks by Father Michael Pfleger, it’s a crap shoot to inject your faith into “your game” of political ambition.
In Obama’s case, and for the Democratic party generally, the courting of the faith based vote has been purposeful—to make inroads into these communities and voters. Wearing faith on one’s sleeve was thought to be the best way to counter the belief that the Democratic party is a bunch of heathens, atheists, paganists, Satanists, you name it - all trying to persecute “Christians.”
However, pastors aren’t beholden to any focus group or poll; they don’t have to guard what they say—it’s inevitable that blowback, explanations and apologies can’t outweigh the endless MSM bleating about all of it.
Quite frankly, with the economy crumbling, an endless military action, and corruption at the highest levels of government, focusing on religious clerics and their misguided, inflammatory remarks is a waste of air time.
I just want to write a quick post about the issue of “silence” arguments—-i.e., the “why aren’t group A writing more about topic B?” posts. It’s similar to the “you can’t prove a negative” fallacy. All too often, when we get angry with someone for not blogging a specific news item, it’s not that they don’t care, but something more mundane. They were napping when it came out and missed it in their news reader. They don’t feel they have anything useful to add to the discussion, and think someone else blogged about it more eloquently. They cover similar topics so often that they occasionally skip a news item on the topic lest they come across as shrill, one-note bloggers. There’s only so many hours in a day, and even the most devoted bloggers spend some of those napping, earning money, or keeping their marriages together. And of course, at least 50% of the time someone is accused of ignoring an issue or story, they actually blogged it and the complainer is ignoring that or conveniently missed that to make a point.
For me, the number one determinant on whether or not I blog a news item is whether or not I have anything entertaining or useful to say on the topic. If you really feel strongly that I have an obligation to blog about X, Y, or Z, and I don’t, please consider that I might not be all-powerful and have witty, intelligent things to say on everything.
I just want to write a quick post about the issue of “silence” arguments—-i.e., the “why aren’t group A writing more about topic B?” posts. It’s similar to the “you can’t prove a negative” fallacy. All too often, when we get angry with someone for not blogging a specific news item, it’s not that they don’t care, but something more mundane. They were napping when it came out and missed it in their news reader. They don’t feel they have anything useful to add to the discussion, and think someone else blogged about it more eloquently. They cover similar topics so often that they occasionally skip