The LA Times has reported that actress and former anti-Vietnam war activist Jane Fonda has endorsed Barack Obama.

This endorsement is not surprising in itself, nor is it the first time a liberal like Fonda has given their nod to Obama.  However, some people, such as Michael van der Galien over at Poligazette, have a warning for Obama:

My advise for Obama, then: don’t appear publicly with Fonda. It can only hurt you; you’ve already got the support of the far-left of the Democratic Party, you don’t need her to in order to get the radicals to support you.

Though I don’t think that Fonda can really harm Obama that much (he weathered the Wright affair), I am inclined to agree with this statement.  We’re on the final leg of the primaries, and while Obama still needs all the liberals he can get to the win the nomination, that will soon change.

Assuming he becomes the nominee, appearing with Fonda may become a bad idea.  This is because he’ll need to start reaching out to moderates and conservatives if he wishes to become President.  Now, I can’t speak for everybody, but I’m willing to bet the old stigma Fonda has for appearing in those photos with the Vietcong still exists for perhaps all but the most liberal of people in this country.  That’s an association Obama really doesn’t need, given his already vocal denunciation of the Iraq war.

Lets face the facts.  The conservatives will start sending out their troops again if Obama does appear with Fonda, just as the liberals did with John McCain and John Hagee.  I don’t agree with the tactics employed by either side, but it is what happens.

Obama came through Wrightgate with some scratches, but also with some newfound respect by supporters and opponents alike.  Could he survive yet another pounding by the media and blogosphere?  Probably.  But why incur such wrath if you don’t need to?

My advice therefore remains largely the same.  Quietly accept the endorsement,  but stay away from Jane Fonda.

Just when I thought I was getting sick of writing about the events of the primary season, a class assignment recharges my enthusiasm. So, for the first time, cross-posted from class.

Over at Firedoglake, Jane Hamsher says that Senator Joe Lieberman has stabbed Barack Obama in the back. Lieberman recently appeared on Fox News and discussed those two words that have come back to haunt John McCain, “100 years.” Says Lieberman:

If we did what Sen. Obama wanted us to do last year, Al-Qaeda in Iran would be in control of Iraq today. The whole Middle East would be in turmoil and American security and credibility would be jeopardized.

On the specific question of the 100 years, I think that’s an unfortunate example of the way Sen. Obama has used it, of playing political gotcha with a national security question.

Hamsher does not much appreciate Lieberman speaking out against a fellow Democrat, and makes it pretty clear:

This is gold for McCain, having “liberal, bipartisan Democrat Joe Lieberman” standing by his side, trashing Obama on experience and national security credentials.”

For the longest of time, I have considered McCain’s “100 years” statement to be taken out of context. So does McCain, because he’s gone back to clarify the comments. He has explained that he sees a presence in Iraq lasting long after the majority of operations have ended there.

A presence.

Like the one we have in Germany, or in Japan, or in South Korea. You know, in all those places that we have gone to fought over the last 100 years. I know the reason why we have maintained a presence there: stability. Who wouldn’t want to make sure Germany didn’t return to Nazi control after 1945, or make sure Japan didn’t continue fighting after their surrender?

Now, I would argue that a place like Germany or Japan no longer needs our presence. On one hand, I know in the case of Japan, their constitution bars the formation of a military. Yet, I think the time has been long past where these countries are a threat to the U.S.

Likewise, Iraq will need a presence after major military operations are over, if that’s ever the case. Assuming the extremists can be weeded out, and assuming the government of Iraq gets off their kiesters and starts taking control of their country (both huge assumptions), most of our people can be taken out. However, to ensure that someone like Iran is not going to immediately invade, we’ll need some kind of presence there. Whether we’ll actually need 100 years or not is the question that must be asked, but it isn’t one that can be academically debated, I think. However, once the U.S. government sees that things will remain relatively stable, then I think it will be time to fully remove our forces from the country.

So, McCain is not referring to 100 years of the continued military presence and operation we’ve been seeing for the past five years. He refers to ensuring stability, and I think it will be needed. Perhaps it will not take 100 years, but I think it will take several years.

That Obama keeps playing on the “100 years” statement is smart in some ways, and annoying in others. It’s a good way to pull in those who are sick of the war. On the other hand, it smells of the old and dirty politics that everybody hates in this election cycle. The kind of tactics the mainstream media keeps linking with the likes of Hillary Clinton or Karl Rove. Yet, because it’s Obama, he seems to get a pass on it.

Obama has shown he is better than that. It’s all right to question your opponent on something they have said, but to keep bringing it up is annoying to me.

When the big stories hit, I prefer to sit back a little.  This allows me to view the whole range of messages, and gather my thoughts.  Then I can go back and have a completed, thorough, piece to present.

The situation I speak of right now is, of course, Wrightgate (if it hasn’t already been coined). What did Obama know, and how long did he know it?  Does he really not agree with Wright, or is he just pretending?  Is he right to not have left the church, or is staying okay?  Why add Wright to his campaign?  Is it actually an issue?  The last two questions are my own, and I’ll get to them toward the end.   I won’t go into the nooks and crannies of the whole thing, since they have been covered elsewhere.

Look, it’s no secret, I think, that Obama’s gotten a pretty clean ride so far in the media.  I won’t go as far to say, “Oh, that liberal media,” but I don’t think people can deny this.  Sure, he’s gotten a few things thrown his way.  There was the pamphlet thing, and NAFTAgate, but otherwise, he hasn’t gotten much flack.  Compare him to the other two candidate, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain, and he was looking pretty good before this, in terms of negative media coverage, anyway.

Well, it’s full court press now, isn’t it?  I’m going to take a skeptical approach, though?  Besides the clips we’ve seen, was Reverend Wright saying all this crap about how white people are responsible for all the ills of black people every Sunday?  I doubt it.  Saying this is like saying that every Christian right church is espousing the evils of abortion or homosexuality every Sunday.  I no more believe that than I do about what’s being said at Trinity.  And before anyone says, “Mike, you don’t go to church, so how can you know?”  Well, I doubt people who go to Trinity all the time can really know, either.  I’m just taking my best educated guess, going on what I know about churches.  And my best guess is that mostly, they’re all talking about accepting Jesus Christ in to your heart, or some related topic.

So, is it going to be a problem for Obama?  A lot of conservatives or Clinton supporters seem to think so, but consider this.  After the whole Ferraro incident, a lot of people thought it was the end for Clinton, as many times they have said before.  Also remember Shoutingate after Pamphletgate, where Clinton lost traction…and then ended up winning Ohio and basically tieing in Texas.  My point is, these things come and go in phases.

Understand how the media works.  A big story comes along.  It floats around for a while, and is debated by everybody.  Then a new comes along, pushing the old one out of the way.  Keep in mind that a couple weeks ago, McCain was getting pounded over the maybe-sorta-probably not affair with the lobbyist, and whatever unethical actions he might have had there.  Now, most people probably don’t remember it.

So, I predict that within a week’s time, something new will come along, and probably for one of the other candidates.  There’s six weeks to go before Pennsylvania.  If Clinton can recover after losing 11 states, I think Obama has a good chance of re-gaining ground in the next six weeks.  So, is it an issue?  Right now it is, but the media moves quickly.  In six weeks, it might not be such a big deal.

Only time will really tell…

CNN is reporting some comments from former President Bill Clinton about how he thinks a Clinton-Obama ticket would be unbeatable.

For a long time now, many commentators from the media and blogosphere have suggested that a Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton ticket might be necessary in order to keep the party together, once the convention is done and over.  The theory is that, the closeness of the the pledged delegate count, plus the possibility of a split superdelegate vote, would harm the party.  I’m not sure about that, because since Obama since winning 11 states in a row, he had quite a few jump overs.  Still, it is a fear.

Yet, instead of focusing on a “marriage” of convenience, President Clinton focuses on one of strength.  If you think about it, he has a good point.  Consider the demographics the two cover.  Clinton has a huge advantage with women voters.  I think that she might even be able to woo some female Republican voters for that reason alone.  Obama, on the other hand, holds a enormous hold on the African American vote.  Clinton, likewise, has a big advantage with Hispanics.  Finally, Clinton would seem to be doing well those who formerly supported John Edwards – those poor and rural voters, and Obama has a hold on the youth and city vote.  Take all these together, and you have a large swath of the country.

Then you have the message vs. substance debate.  Clinton’s bark about Obama’s “angelic” rhetoric probably sounds worse than she means it to.  We don’t see a lot of Obama’s speeches, especially his stump speeches in states he visits to garner primary votes.  So, he probably has a lot more substance than we think.

Then there’s geography.  Now, technically, both candidates would be considered “northerners,” and that’d go against the old strategy of pairing up North with South.  However, lets not forget that before heading to D.C., Clinton was from Arkansas.  So, conservatives know Clinton.  And despite all this stuff about conservatives hating her and Bill, I think that’s mainly garbage spewed from the talk-radio crowd.  And even if they are both northerners now, the strategy of picking a running mate from the same region of the country isn’t new.  Bill did it in 1992, picking Gore, a southern man.

So, we have a pair that could win some key demographics.  Politically, we see some similar things going on, with Obama having gotten on the good side of many Republicans.  Unlike John McCain, who I think who is probably right to accept Bush’s endorsement, but should probably keep a firewall between himself and Bush, Obama, Clinton, or Obama and Clinton, need the Republicans.

I don’t think they can simply win on their own, unless all the Republicans were to stay home.  Considering the differences in turnout during the primaries, that could very well be the case, but lets not speculate those numbers this far away from the general election.  Lets assume for now they will need a good amount of Republicans in order to be the clear winners in November.  This is where I think Obama’s “I will cross party lines” message is going to help them.  Voters don’t want to hear about partisanship, and I certainly don’t.  If Clinton becomes the nominee, she needs to pick up on this message as well, I think.  Otherwise, she’ll have trouble climbing the hill toward the election.  If they can get a decent amount of Republicans, they’ve got it in the can.

My only concern in this ticket is military experience.  Neither can claim it.  Still, neither could former President Clinton.  Only his running mate, Gore, could.  Still, this may not be an incredible barrier.  Lets not forget that Gore was in the last conflict that required a draft, and Obama came of age after that.  Clinton, on the other hand, has the advantage of 8 years of looking over Bill’s shoulder on his military decisions.  This could help, as Clinton can claim some knowledge of how an actual President makes military choices.

So, to conclude,  an Obama-Clinton, or Clinton-Obama ticket may indeed be more than just a necessity.  It may be indeed a strong ticket destined to win.

No, not Independence Week. That doesn’t come until the first week of July. This is Independents Week, a whole different roll of gum.

Starting tomorrow, and for every day this week (it may go longer depending on how many people I find), I will be profiling Independents who are running for President. As a non-affiliated voter myself, I can understand how Independents who are running find it frustrating that they don’t receive the media attention afforded to an Obama or a Clinton or a McCain. Heck, even Ralph Nader, that perennial candidate for President, is an Independent who’s getting some media attention. I’ll be getting to him last, as he’s known so well, and as long as he remains an Independent by the end of the week. Who knows, the Green Party could pick him up again by then. I’ll eventually be getting to the third party candidates.

I’m going to have to make a decision on one or two of them, as they may call themselves Independents, but are actually part of a party with “Independent” in its name, which really is affiliating yourself with a party when you come to think about it. It’s not the same as running on your own, with no party affiliation.

So, I’ll profile them, give an idea of their history and what they stand for. I’ll then give my own opinions on the candidate. Ultimately, however, it is for you to decide. You may find a new favored candidate, or perhaps my profiles will re-affirm your choice in one of the major party candidates.

Why am I doing this? Because nobody else is doing it. Even I’ve been mostly covering the major party candidates, and it is two of them which I currently like. So, I hope to turn the tide a little bit, and inform you of who else is out there.

It may also perhaps change my favored candidate, since I’m really starting to get sick of both parties. So, tune in tomorrow for the beginning of Independents Week here at Dymersion.

Matt Drudge of The Drudge Report isn’t someone to consider in the eyes of many, especially if you’re liberal, but the aftermath of his report is causing waves of fury, especially if you’re an Obama supporter.

This morning, Drudge put up a photo of Obama dressed in traditional Somali garb during a visit to the country in 2006.  Worse yet, he pinned the circulation of the photo on Clinton campaign staffers.

No matter who actually did it, this is bad for Clinton, and the aftermath of the event is worse than the actual circulation of the photo itself.  In their response to the charge of putting up the photo, seen here on Politico, the campaign says:

Enough.

If Barack Obama’s campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed. Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely.

This is nothing more than an obvious and transparent attempt to distract from the serious issues confronting our country today and to attempt to create the very divisions they claim to decry.

We will not be distracted.

What’s missing from this response is an outright denial.  If they didn’t circulate the photo, what harm is there in denying you did it?  It would turn attention away from themselves and on to another source.  Perhaps an unaffiliated Clinton supporter, or even someone from the McCain camp.  Yet, their response is to essential say, “We won’t deny it, we just want you to forget about it.”

The whole situation is ridiculous, and it comes on the heels of the “Obama is a Muslim” emails that were circulating several months ago, and which some people still believe.  I think this blog post sums it up best in showing that a lot of our political leaders don traditional clothing on their visits around the world.  Even Clinton has done it before, as you can see.

Maggie Williams, Clinton’s campaign manager, is the source of the above quote.  So, if they really didn’t send it, I hope Clinton either reprimands or fires her.  It’s simply bad press to not deny something if you didn’t do it.  It’s even worse press to not come out and admit that you did, but try to ignore the situation entirely.

I must say, though, the next couple days ought to be interesting.  I wasn’t incredibly big on Clinton before, but was willing to accept her into the fold if she should win the nomination.  Now I have to say that if it can be proven beyond a doubt that it was her campaign that circulated this, she is completely off my consideration list now.

Fear mongering is a bad, bad way to run your campaign.  It’s a Karl Rove tactic, and not something you should be emulating.

I suppose that with my recent hits on the McCain and Clinton campaigns, I can hardly leave Obama out of the fun. As much as I like the guy, I’m not with him on everything he’s done in his run for the White House.

As much as Obama supporters will probably like to mention to me that he doesn’t play dirty “like McCain and Clinton,” there is something I don’t like Obama doing.

In every speech lately, he keeps bringing up the 100 years thing McCain said a few weeks ago. For those who don’t follow this campaign cycle as much as me, take a look at this YouTube video. For all those “tl;dr” people, I’ll be extra generous: McCain is responding to an inquiry someone has on what he thinks about what Bush said about the possibility for being in Iraq for the long haul, even 50 years. McCain mentions that he’d be okay with 100 years, and goes on to mention some places, like Germany and Japan, that we’ve been in for more than a decade.

Since then, lefty news organizations and commentators have been attaching their claws to the “100 years” phrase like a vulture tearing at a carcass, possibly trying to achieve the same effect. Unfortunately (in my opinion), Obama’s been going along with this, even after McCain has clarified his position further, as seen in this article.

I’m going to have to go along with McCain’s “they took it out of context” argument here. I think it’s pretty clear from the video what McCain means. He mentions Germany, Japan, and South Korea. All places we’ve been stationed, but not actively engaged in fighting, for many years. So, it’s pretty clear to me that’s what “100 years” means. Yet, in speeches after McCain had clarified his position, Obama was still using the phrase against McCain. He was bringing up the phrase at least as late as after his wins last Tuesday.

For someone who presents them self as the “anti-Washington establishment” candidate, Obama playing on that statement for so long is pretty Washington establishment to me. I’d expect such a thing out of Clinton (well, expect is not the right word, as she’s playing on the phrase too) or McCain, both Wasington veterans, but not Obama.

I feel like, in a general sense, and this isn’t just directed toward Obama, that all the candidates have varying amounts of demagoguery going on within their campaigns. Some candidates are worse than others, but in the end, it tends to be a lot more about style and presence than talking about the real issues.

I think Obama needs to change his tact, and stop calling McCain on something that’s he’s already clarified as the U.S. having done for many years (with two of his examples first starting under a Democratic administration). The longer he keeps it up, the more it starts to look like dirty politics.