A good move by Gregoire. She wants to get on the Obama bandwagon before it leaves Washington. He will win big time tomorrow.

Endorsements by either John Edwards or Al Gore would arguably translate into votes in this race.

Social psychology says that the "bandwagon effect" has power. It is true, you ask for a show of hands on any topic, and before people commit they often look around the room, and they may look first at the "opinion leaders" in the group. So it doesn't hurt Obama to have elected officials standing up and saying, "Yes, this is a train headed for victory and I want to get on it before it leaves the station."

This brings up the issue of elected officials and super-delegates. Should Gregoire, or Patti Murray, or Maria Cantwell over-rule what the voters who caucus today to front for their candidate and ensure their nomination at the convention? Even Donna Brazile, Gore's campaign manager says she would leave the party if that happens, likewise for people like Chris Bowers, the progressive blogger and prominent Demcratic activist in Pennsylvania. Why are the media even counting these "super-delegates"? So the arguments might be that on the one hand, that officials simply reflect the voter bandwagon, or, on the other, that they try to shape it for their own interests, and the interests of the candidate they see as being "one of them."

Governor Chris Gregoire's endorsement of Barack Obama is in line with demographic data that is frequently quoted: Obama gets the better educated among the voters.

One of the problems I had with Obama, whom I support, was his having Zbigniew Brzezinski as an adviser. I was appalled by some of Zbig's actions while working for Jimmy Carter. However, I recently had cause to skim through several articles related to ZB and came away with an impression that he makes some sense on current Middle East affairs. Whether that judgment will hold up to further scrutiny remains to be seen. So far, I haven't had any cause to reconsider my negative opinion about Madeline Albright who is in the Clinton camp.

Good move for Gregoire. I hope this helps her somewhat keep her position as governor come November. She has quite a challenge ahead from Dino Rossi and Washington hasn't had a republican governor since 1981.

Correct that last one...1985 was the last year for republican Governor John Spellman.

So where in God's name are Edwards and Gore? Do they not understand the potential value of an Obama victory for our nation and world?

from: http://www.alternet.org/story/75233/

In Barack Obama versus Hillary Clinton, we've basically got Kennedy-Nixon redux, and I mean that in the most negative possible sense for both of them -- a pair of superficial, posturing conservatives selling highly similar political packages using different emotional strategies.

Obama is selling free trade and employer-based health care and an unclear Iraqi exit strategy using looks, charisma and optimism, while Hillary is selling much the same using hard, cold reality, "prose not poetry," managerial competence over "vision."

The last, bogus message from "Mike" Taibbi is in fact quoting an article by one Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone. Read the article. it has all the vitriol of Hunter Thompson with none of the humor.

A British perspective: Whoever wins the presidency will most likely fail to take on the unholy trinity of arms manufacturers, the Pentagon, and Congress

from: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/18349197/the_chicken_doves Rollingstone.com

The really tragic thing about the Democratic surrender on Iraq is that it's now all but guaranteed that the war will be off the table during the presidential campaign. Once again — it happened in 2002, 2004 and 2006 — the Democrats have essentially decided to rely on the voters to give them credit for being anti-war, despite the fact that, for all the noise they've made to the contrary, in the end they've done nothing but vote for war and cough up every dime they've been asked to give, every step of the way.

Even beyond the war, the Democrats have repeatedly gone limp-dick every time the Bush administration so much as raises its voice. Most recently, twelve Democrats crossed the aisle to grant immunity to phone companies who participated in Bush's notorious wiretapping program. Before that, Democrats caved in and confirmed Mike Mukasey as attorney general after he kept his middle finger extended and refused to condemn waterboarding as torture. Democrats fattened by Wall Street also got cold feet about upsetting the country's gazillionaires, refusing to close a tax loophole that rewarded hedge-fund managers with a tax rate less than half that paid by ordinary citizens.

But the war is where they showed their real mettle. Before the 2006 elections, Democrats told us we could expect more specifics on their war plans after Election Day. Nearly two years have passed since then, and now they are once again telling us to wait until after an election to see real action to stop the war. In the meantime, of course, we're to remember that they're the good guys, the Republicans are the real enemy, and, well, go Hillary! Semper fi! Yay, team!

How much of this bullshit are we going to take? How long are we supposed to give the Reids and Pelosis and Hillarys of the world credit for wanting, deep down in their moldy hearts, to do the right thing?

Look, fuck your hearts, OK? Just get it done. Because if you don't, sooner or later this con is going to run dry. It may not be in '08, but it'll be soon. Even Americans can't be fooled forever.