Fellow Hillary supporters!

Make your feelings known to the DNC about the nominating process by writing an actual letter and posting it in the mail to the DNC. Here's what I wrote:

Democratic National Committee
430 S. Capitol St. SE
Washington, DC 20003

SUBJECT: Hillary Clinton Is My Choice

To Whom It May Concern:

My name is X, and I am a lowly and humble member of the Party here in California. I am a Hillary Clinton supporter. I have been devastated by the results of the primary for my chosen candidate, as we have witnessed a woman win the critical primaries of New Hampshire, Nevada, Florida, Michigan, California, Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania and still be denied the nomination because of arcane rules of delegate apportionment and the unfair structuring of the nominating calendar. The resolve and the dedication of we her supporters are unrivaled from Main Street to the Information Superhighway, as Soccer Moms and Hillary's Bloggers alike have taken to support a woman whose centrist politics and clear thinking are a triumph of the Women's Movement.

I am a 28-year-old African American male, so I fit the perfect mold of a Barack Obama supporter. But I have come to understand in my adult life that ideas are more important than identity politics. And in my mind, Hillary does the best job of any Democrat of presenting to a skeptical electorate the issues that are important to me and others in our Party: affirmative action, women's reproductive rights, labor issues, LGBT issues, education issues, kitchen table economics and national security. This is one of the closest nominating fights in modern political history, and I don't think that one side can discount the other out of a sense of political expediency or simply that the other half of the Party "just didn't get it."

We are at a crossroads. And my question to you is: with everything that is at stake, are we going to risk another close Electoral College loss or do we want a guaranteed win with Hillary Clinton?

If we let our feelings be known, there's no way we will be denied.

Terre Haute, IN-- Illinois Senator Barack Obama made the following remarks at a rally on Friday, April 4 with respect to Pennsylvanians' reluctance to jump on-board the Obama bandwagon:

"People don't vote on economic issues because they don't expect anybody is going to help them," Obama told a crowd at a Terre Haute, Ind., high school Friday evening. "So people end up voting on issues like guns and are they going to have the right to bear arms. They vote on issues like gay marriage. They take refuge in their faith and their community, and their family, and the things they can count on. But they don't believe they can count on Washington."

At a private fundraiser in San Francisco the following Sunday, Obama continued his high-brow condescension:

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years. ... And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Madame Hillary's reply:

"Well, that's not my experience," Clinton told a Drexel University crowd, describing the state's residents as resilient, optimistic and hardworking.

"Pennsylvanians don't need a president who looks down on them," she said. "They need a president who stands up for them."

In yesterday's NY Times, a Republican columnist admits why he really supports Obama:

So throughout the Democratic primaries, I've been rooting for Barack Obama. The nobler side of me admires him, even across party lines, for the tremendous interest and enthusiasm he has engendered among younger Americans. But the larger, less decent part of me believes that Hillary Clinton would be a more formidable general election opponent for the Republican nominee. She's certainly on the ropes right now: her campaign has been flailing through the last few rounds of primaries in a way that Clintons are usually able to avoid. But we've been losing to Clintons for a long time now: I'd still just as soon avoid her in a general election campaign.

There's something other than superstition at work here: there's also a question of ideological positioning. Many of my fellow Republicans don't believe it, but Mrs. Clinton has actually fashioned a relatively centrist career as a senator. By contrast, Mr. Obama's voting record has been designated by the respected and nonpartisan National Journal as the most liberal of any of the Senate's 100 members. This is not merely an epithet: it represents a series of policy choices and legislative votes that leave Senator Obama to the left of Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Barbara Boxer. Even the most inspirational and inclusive language in the world will face a stern test in the face of accusations on that front.

Dan Schnur, "Why I'm Afraid of the Clintons," The New York Times, February 28, 2008

Hillary will still prevail!

There's a story breaking on MSNBC.com which describes the Pentagon's refutation of Obama's claim in the debate last night that a solider who has served in Afghanistan did not have enough ammunition or vehicles:

The Pentagon on Friday tried to cast doubt on an account of military equipment shortages mentioned by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, whose campaign team stood by the story.

In a debate with rival Hillary Clinton on Thursday evening, Obama said he had heard from an Army captain who served in Afghanistan and whose unit did not have enough ammunition or vehicles.

Obama said it was easier for the troops to capture weapons from Taliban militants than it was "to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief," President Bush.

"Pentagon questions Obama's soldier story," MSNBC.com, Friday, February 22, 2008

The media's love affair with Obama is at an end.

With Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Barack Obama today, I realized that for the first time in a long time the national Democratic Party is a major coalition party with two separate wings: the moderate wing, headed by Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Bill Richardson, and the liberal wing, headed by Barack Obama, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.  What is new and exciting about the liberal wing is that thanks to Senator Obama, the liberals have BROAD crossover appeal, considering Obama's endorsements in Kathleen Sebelius (Kansas governor), Claire McCaskill (Missouri senator), Tim Johnson (South Dakota senator) and Janet Napolitano (Arizona senator).  These states aren't Democratic friendly, having gone for Bush in the previous two election cycles.  

This evening per American Research Group:

South Carolina
Democrats    

                   Jan      Jan      Jan     Jan
               15-16   17-18   22-23   24-25
Clinton     38%     39%     36%     36%
Edwards     9%     10%     12%     22%
Kucinich      1%      1%      1%      1%
Obama       44%     45%     45%  39%
Undecided   8%      5%     6%     2%

Reuters/Zogby Poll: Obama's Lead Slips in South Carolina

Sen. Barack Obama's lead over Sen. Hillary Clinton in South Carolina has shrunk by four points overall and by nine points among black voters, during the last 24 hours of polling, but he retains a sizable edge, the latest Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby survey shows.

Obama in in front with 39% support from likely Democratic voters, followed by Clinton at 24% and John Edwards at 19%.

Key finding: "Obama still has a healthy lead among African American voters, but lost almost nine points since yesterday, dropping from 65% to 56% support among that group. Edwards, who registered no support from black voters the day before, picked up five points and Clinton added about two points to reach 18% of black support."

To: All Liberals, Some Independents and Other Message Senders

From: The Powers That Be

RE: Senator Barack Obama's Historic Win

Your message re: Obama's win has been received. Thank you for your remarks. The Powers That Be wish to acknowledge your fervent participation in the caucusing process. We look forward to hearing again from you in the future.

Our concern, however, lies in the fact of your true motivations for promoting the candidacy of a man with the least experience in the entire field of candidates. Also, The Powers That Be wish to express our sneaking suspicion that your vote was more of anti-establishment message than a true vote for the candidate himself. We ask that you elaborate in New Hampshire.

Also, we ask that you broaden your base of participants. We ask that you involve the working-class, the non-whites, the non-educated, the true blue rank-and-file members of your group. Do not leave these people out because their opinion counts, too. Finally, The Powers That Be wishes to express our appreciation of your inclusion of younger voters.

Sincerely,

The Powers That Be, et al.