Al Gore is an open book.  If you want to see what he stands for, it's not hard to find out.  No carefully vague policy statements.  If someone wants to make the case that Obama has the same priorities as Gore, send me a copy - please.  Otherwise it's just people asserting that a respected and influential figure is shoulder to shoulder with Their Guy because it sounds good, because he ought to be because Obama is the Good Guy and Clinton is the Bad Guy.  Because it's the way things should be.

The Economist, which calls the current crisis the silent tsunami, reports that  last year wheat prices rose 77% and rice 16%, but since January rice prices have  risen 141%. The reasons include rising fuel costs, weather problems, increased  demand in China and India, as well as the push to create biofuels from cereal  crops.

[snip]

The New York Times lectured Haiti on April 18 that "Haiti, its  agriculture industry in shambles, needs to better feed itself."  Unfortunately, the article did not talk at all about one of  the main causes of the shortages -- the fact that the U.S. and other  international financial bodies destroyed Haitian rice farmers to create a major  market for the heavily subsidized rice from U.S. farmers.  This is not the only  cause of hunger in Haiti and other poor countries, but it is a major force.

Thirty years ago, Haiti raised nearly all the rice it needed.  What happened?

Citizens of the USA know very little about the role of their  government in helping create the hunger problems in Haiti or other countries.   But there is much that individuals can do.  People can donate to help feed  individual hungry people and participate with advocacy organizations like Bread for the World or Oxfam to help change the U.S. and global rules which favor the  rich countries.  This advocacy can help countries have a better chance to feed  themselves.

I simply don't understand it.  It makes clear at least that grassroots doesn't necessarily equal populist.  I think his bitter remarks are quite revealing (and I give him credit for having a pretty coherent worldview).  He talks about going into (from the outside) small towns where people don't believe in the capacity of Washington to do anything for people.  

As far as his defense of those comments go:

"The truth is that these traditions that are passed on from generation to generation, those are important. That's what sustains us. But what is absolutely true is that people don't feel like they are being listened to. ...

"What we need is a government that is actually paying attention."

He has refused basically every opening to be seen as a fighter.  He doesn't even always frame himself as a listener, just as someone who is mindful enough to broaden the coalition.

Obama's bitter comments are incredibly revealing.  People, according to him, should not be cynical about government (but again, no populist tie there - not because government comes from them, but because government can do good for them).  If you read the bitter comments, the "we" he speaks of is pretty distant from the people he is talking about (the Pennsylvanians).  It doesn't seem like the same "we are the ones we've been waiting for" we.  Obama seems to believe his explanation of why people in PA or white voters in general don't support him as much as he'd like.  But I think he needs to expand his worldview to incorporate a different kind of political style if he wants their votes.  Framing the working class as people who are "cynical government can do anything for them" is not going to be as successful as "I will fight for you."  And he has not made the latter message clear at ALL in his calls for moderation.  Some people feel their lives have enough moderation already, thank you very much.

Clinton's message can seem stale, although her healthcare battle brings new passion into her campaign.  But with that staleness comes traditional Democratic campaigning and appealing to the working class and the fighter image.  It works because after all this time people still do want a fighter.  Not a Congress deadlock tattler, but a fighter.  And Clinton has set herself up to go into that mold.  

I miss C&J over at the orange. I tried to keep it non-bashing, alas that was in vain. ::sigh::

And my favorite line is "Can I believe the magic of you sighs".  One of the all time great double entendres (sighs/size).

I thought this article was interesting:

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120873309012529689.html

LINK

4/21/2008
Bozeman Legislator Franke Wilmer Endorses Hillary Clinton for President

Montana House Member Franke Wilmer today announced her endorsement of Hillary Clinton for President. Wilmer represents Montana House District 64, and is professor of political science and international relations at Montana State University. In 2005 she was appointed by Gov. Schweitzer to serve as chair of the Human Rights Commission.

"I'm proud to endorse Hillary Clinton for president. She not only has vision, she has substance. Hillary is the candidate with a plan and the know-how to make real change," Wilmer said.

"I am thrilled to have the support of Franke Wilmer. For years Franke has been committed to promoting social justice and human rights in Montana, through both public service and academics," Clinton said.

Wilmer cited Clinton's understanding of issues facing Montana and rural America as a deciding factor in her endorsement.

"Children, the elderly and the neediest Montanans should all have health care, not just some of us. Hillary's healthcare plan is the only one that will take care of all Montanans," Wilmer said. "Also, Hillary understands the need for alternative energy, knows how to get there, and knows Montana can be a leader in the effort."

When Clinton was +14/+6, they made it:
55% Female
45% Male

Considering Pennsylvania is supposed to be more female than many states that have continuously seen turnout at 58% female, why the downgrade in amount of females?

Also, the age:

When Clinton +18:
24% 65 and Over (C: 65%  O: 29%)
19% 18-24 (C: 45%  O: 44%)

Now:

They have 65+ and 18-24 TIED at 21% each (65+ C: 62%  O: 32%) (18-24: O: 57%   C: 36%), which also confuses me considering Pennsylvania is obviously not only older than almost all states, but the poll two weeks ago was still polled when voting registration was over -- why would SurveyUSA think there's going to be an increased youth vote turnout equal to those 65+?

The DNC is dragging its feet, putting off a decision on the Ausman appeal. MHO is that they are hoping to settle the election without ever having to take up the issue again.

Quote from the article:

David Bositis of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies said the angst felt by black Clinton supporters is exaggerated.

"Have some people been put in the position where they are uncomfortable? Yes," Mr. Bositis said. "On the other hand, will they get over it? Yes."

"Speaking to a crowd of San Francisco liberals, Obama attacked the values of people who live in small towns," says the ad, which appears to be airing in several of the state's smaller markets.

Tuesday's Election Will be 'Unrecountable, Unverifiable, and Unauditable'...