Pam's House Blend - Hillary Clinton

State Department enacts same-sex domestic partners benefits for those serving abroad

Pam Spaulding — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 16:00:00 GMT

The U.S. Department of State, under Secretary Hillary Clinton, has implemented benefits for partners of foreign service employees. The Blend has obtained the cable sent to employees by the Secretary of State confirming that the implementation this past Friday.

The interim changes to the Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) referenced below were also forwarded to the Blend and can be read by clicking this link or the image at right. These changes will be added to section 3 FAM 1610 of the manual. Below is the cable of the announcement containing the requirements to obtain the benefits.

R 262320Z JUN 09 FM SECSTATE WASHDC TO ALL DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR POSTS COLLECTIVE AMEMBASSY TRIPOLI UNCLAS STATE 066740 FROM U/S KENNEDY E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: AMGT, APER SUBJECT: Implementing Benefits for Same-Sex Domestic Partners of Foreign Service Employees Serving Abroad Ref: State 063819 1. Last Thursday, the Secretary announced that the Department is extending the full range of legally available benefits to same-sex domestic partners of members of the Foreign Service sent to serve abroad. I am pleased to advise that the implementing changes to the Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) will be effective for the Department of State on June 26, 2009. If other agencies decide to implement these changes as well, they may choose the same date or any subsequent date. 2. The interim changes to the FAM are available on line at http://hrweb.hr.state.gov/prd/... tic_partners.cfm. We expect them to be published in final within 30 days, following interagency review. We encourage you to review them to gain a fuller understanding of the benefits extended in reftel. 3. To obtain benefits for their same-sex domestic partners, employees must: (1) file an affidavit of eligibility for benefits and obligations (also available at http://hrweb.hr.state.gov/prd/... tic_partners.cfm) and, (2) update their OF-126 (Residency and Dependency Report, see para 6). Please read and consider the affidavit carefully before signing. 4. Domestic partners must also comply with the same security requirements and undergo the same background review as spouses. Domestic partners must also have a valid medical clearance for the post of assignment. Those already at post should follow the procedures for a newly acquired dependent - they will be given access to the overseas health unit for up to 90 days pending completion of their medical clearance. It is important to note that domestic partners must have health insurance as the Department acts only as a secondary payer in event of overseas hospitalization. 5. As per the FAM regulations, the affidavit must affirm, among other things, that the employee and his/her domestic partner: (a) are each other's sole domestic partner and intend to remain committed to one another indefinitely; (b) have a common residence, and intend to continue the arrangement; (c) are at least 18 years of age and mentally competent to consent to contract; (d) share responsibility for a significant measure of each other's common welfare and financial obligations; (e) are not married to, joined in civil union with, or domestic partners with anyone else; and (f) are same-sex domestic partners, and not related in a way that would prohibit legal marriage in the State in which we reside. 6. For State employees, both documents should be directed to your Assignment Technician in HR/EX. The OF-126 must be filed electronically. An updated version is available to each employee through his/her GEMS account on HR Online. The signed affidavit can be e-mailed to your assignment technician at "HR-EX-ASU" on the Global Address List or faxed to 202-663-0449. You may file these forms immediately. 7. Employees of other foreign affairs agencies should consult their Human Resources Office for filing instructions. We offer that the OF-0126, available on the Department of State's intranet, might be amended with a pen-and-ink change to add "domestic partner" in the box requesting "relationship". 8. Additional instructions and guidance will be issued in the coming days on specific benefits. In addition, while we are willing to offer diplomatic and official passports to eligible US citizen domestic partners, diplomatic visas and work eligibility for them depends upon host governments. In this regard, bilateral work agreements may have to be renegotiated. 9. As we proceed to implement this important initiative, we welcome any suggestions you may have for improvement. 10. Minimize considered.
CLINTON

Hillary recognizes Gay and Lesbian Pride Month at State Dept.

Pam Spaulding — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 18:30:00 GMT

Just hit my inbox...still nada from the White House, but I'm sure a statement is right on the way.

Secretary's Remarks: In Recognition of Gay and Lesbian Pride Month 2009
In Recognition of Gay and Lesbian Pride Month 2009
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
June 1, 2009
Forty years ago this month, the gay rights movement began with the Stonewall riots in New York City, as gays and lesbians demanded an end to the persecution they had long endured. Now, after decades of hard work, the fight has grown into a global movement to achieve a world in which all people live free from violence and fear, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
In honor of Gay and Lesbian Pride Month and on behalf of the State Department, I extend our appreciation to the global LGBT community for its courage and determination during the past 40 years, and I offer our support for the significant work that still lies ahead.
At the State Department and throughout the Administration, we are grateful for our lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees in Washington and around the world. They and their families make many sacrifices to serve our nation. Their contributions are vital to our efforts to establish stability, prosperity and peace worldwide.
Human rights are at the heart of those efforts. Gays and lesbians in many parts of the world live under constant threat of arrest, violence, even torture. The persecution of gays and lesbians is a violation of human rights and an affront to human decency, and it must end. As Secretary of State, I will advance a comprehensive human rights agenda that includes the elimination of violence and discrimination against people based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
Though the road to full equality for LGBT Americans is long, the example set by those fighting for equal rights in the United States gives hope to men and women around the world who yearn for a better future for themselves and their loved ones.
This June, let us recommit ourselves to achieving a world in which all people can live in safety and freedom, no matter who they are or whom they love.

Tammy Baldwin calls on Sec. Clinton to change State Department LGBT policies

Pam Spaulding — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 03:00:00 GMT

Last week I brought you a scoop about the letter sent to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies (GLIFAA), requesting action to work for full recognition of same-sex partners. Over 2,200 GLIFAA members, allies and fellow State Department workers signed the letter.

Tonight I have the release and full letter to Clinton from Rep. Tammy Baldwin, who also calls for the elimination of discriminatory practices against partners of foreign service workers, many of whom place themselves in harm's way serving the U.S. abroad, without many of the rights that opposite-sex partners take for granted. From Baldwin's statement:

Baldwin Calls on Clinton to Change State Dept. LGBT Policies

Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) has asked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to address inequities in employment practices concerning gay and lesbian State Department employees and to take remedial action.
Former U.S. Ambassador to Romania Michael Guest, a distinguished diplomat, resigned last year from the State Department because of inequitable employment practices. Such disparities "should not be the reason why highly qualified employees leave the State Department at a time when their service is needed more than ever," Baldwin wrote. More than 2,200 government employees, members of the group Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies (GLIFAA), also sent a letter to Clinton expressing their concerns on this issue.
Citing Secretary Clinton's pledge during her confirmation hearing to examine current policies relating to lesbian and gay employees at the State Department, Baldwin and her colleagues wrote: "As you work to advance America's national security and exemplify this great country's values around the world, we hope you will follow through on this pledge and also work to fully support your diverse workforce."

More below the fold, including an exclusive -- the entire letter from Rep. Baldwin to Sec. Clinton.
Here is Rep. Baldwin's letter to Secretary Clinton, also signed by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR):

February 2, 2009
The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton Secretary of State
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20520
Dear Madam Secretary:
Congratulations on your confirmation as our new Secretary of State. We welcome your leadership in promoting America's security and standing in the world and look forward to working in partnership with you. As you begin your work, we hope that you will also focus on equalizing the internal State Department rules and regulations for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Foreign and Civil Service employees.
Recently, you received a letter from the group Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies (GLIFAA), signed by over 2,200 government employees, expressing their concerns on this issue. As in the case of former Ambassador to Romania Michael Guest, the inequitable treatment of LGBT Foreign and Civil Service Officers (FSOs) and their partners should not be the reason why highly qualified employees leave the State Department at a time when their service is needed more than ever. Many of these inequities, however, could be remedied through your leadership as Secretary, without legislative changes.
As you may know, by not including same-sex partners in the definition of an "Eligible Family Member" (EFM), the Department excludes them from many of the State Department benefits, protections, and services afforded to family members of FSOs. These benefits are important to the safety, effectiveness, and morale of our communities abroad.
We are particularly concerned that the Department has not taken enough steps to assure the safety and security of non-EFM partners of FSOs. According to the State Department's own literature, 85% of FSOs are likely to be a victim of crime at some point during their overseas career. While same-sex partners are now allowed to take security classes through the Foreign Service Institute, their access is only on a space-available basis. Moreover, they are still denied access to embassy health services, even in countries where grave health crises exist. They are not included in protocols for the distribution of Tamiflu in the event of an avian flu outbreak, undercutting the most basic preventive step against a potential pandemic outbreak.
Further, if an evacuation is ordered, same-sex partners are financially responsible for their own evacuation - creating a frightening choice between safety and resources.
The lack of equitable treatment could force dedicated, intelligent, and needed FSOs and officials to make an unfortunate choice between serving their country and protecting their families. As you noted during the question and answer session of your Senate Foreign Relations confirmation hearing, many other nations now extend training, protection, and benefits to the partners of LGBT employees. Further, the State Department's past inattention to these disparities places it below parity with the best employment practices used in the private sector, where the majority of Fortune 500 companies extend employee benefit programs to cover the domestic partners. Without remedying these inequities, the State Department may fail to attract and retain qualified personnel.
Madam Secretary, we urge you to take the initiative in addressing these basic concerns, all of which can be handled through internal regulatory changes and would not require Congressional action. Your leadership in these policy areas would make a difference in the safety and morale of those who support American policy goals overseas:
* Inclusion in travel orders for same-sex domestic partners of FSOs
* Access to training, including all language classes, area studies, and embassy effectiveness classes for same-sex domestic partners of FSOs
* Emergency evacuation and medevac from post when necessary for same-sex domestic partners of FSOs
* Access to post health units for same-sex domestic partners of FSOs
* Visa support for same-sex domestic partners accompanying FSOs to overseas postings, and for same-sex foreign-born domestic partners accompanying FSOs to postings in Washington or elsewhere in the U.S.
* Preferential status for employment at post comparable to that enjoyed by EFMs for same-sex domestic partners of FSOs
Many of these changes might be efficiently addressed through the inclusion of same-sex domestic partners under the definition of an EFM in the Foreign Service Standardized Regulation 040(m). None of the changes above are contrary to the letter or spirit of the Defense of Marriage Act.
In addition to these issues, we ask you to consider leading the State Department in recognizing partners of diplomats from other countries while they serve in the United States. This offer of equality and hospitality can restore our nation's leadership role on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights while bolstering our diplomatic efforts.
Also, we similarly hope you will provide guidance to U.S. Missions to the United Nations to enable American employees at the UN to designate their same-sex partners as domestic partners. It is our understanding that the UN will defer to the instructions of the relevant Permanent Mission of the country of origin of the staff member when deciding whether to grant benefits to same-sex partners of UN employees. While they are not FSOs, these individuals lead dedicated lives of service, and deserve the opportunity to provide for their families.
During your confirmation hearing, you pledged to examine current policies relating to lesbian and gay employees at the State Department. As you work to advance America's national security and exemplify this great country's values around the world, we hope you will follow through on this pledge and also work to fully support your diverse workforce. Madam Secretary, we would be pleased to work with you in addressing these matters and look forward to your response. If you have any questions, please contact Amber Shipley of Rep. Baldwin's staff at 202-225-2906.

On Friday, the president of Gays & Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies, Michelle Schohn, met with Clinton and the newly sworn-in Secretary of State confirmed receipt of the GLIFAA letter and promised to review the matter.

"It was an overwhelmingly positive meeting," Schohn said. "There wasn't a lot of time to talk with her because she was meeting with all the affinity groups, so we each got a tiny chunk of time to be able to say something to her."
Schohn said Clinton seemed "generally interested in what we had to say." No timetables or other details were discussed, Schohn said.

As I said in my last post on this, these irrational and illogical institutionalized discriminatory practices do affect the our country's diplomatic effectiveness abroad. Removing these barriers for same-sex couples can be a meaningful, political win for the Obama administration by moving on an important LGBT issue in a proactive manner.

Gay/lesbian foreign service org delivers letter to Sec. of State Clinton: provide equal benefits

Pam Spaulding — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 21:45:00 GMT

It's a new administration and the chance to forge ahead on equality issues that are long overdue. For same-sex partners of diplomats and other foreign service workers who often are stationed in countries where they are in harm's way while representing the United States, they haven't the same rights as opposite couples in the same situation.

Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies (GLIFAA) has delivered a letter to the new Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, a request to support and work for full recognition of same-sex partners. The president of the organization, J Michelle Schohn, gathered the signatures of nearly 2,200 colleagues and friends across the State Department and foreign affairs agencies in support of the request by GLIFAA. Here is the letter that was delivered to Sec. Clinton today.

The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20520
cc: The Honorable Barack Obama, President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Madam Secretary:
We congratulate you on your Senate confirmation, and we look forward to working with you in promoting America's interests and strengthening our national security in this rapidly changing world. Whether assigned stateside or overseas, Civil Service or Foreign Service, active or retired, we are all proud to be serving our nation.
We, the undersigned and representing the diversity of the foreign affairs agencies, would like to bring to your attention a matter that concerns us all. All of us are troubled that our families are not all treated equally and with the same respect. We are concerned that access to the federal health care insurance program is denied to same-sex partners of employees serving in Third World countries with substandard medical care. We question the logic of leaving same-sex partners to fend for themselves during an emergency evacuation of a high danger post. We are embarrassed when the Department will reimburse a variety of moving expenses, including the cost of transporting a pet, when an employee is assigned overseas, but will not do the same for a same-sex partner. We are saddened that individual and community safety are put at risk because full language instruction is not available to same-sex partners. We are uncomfortable that same-sex partners receive less compensation and fewer benefits for performing exactly the same job inside the mission as an opposite-sex spouse, that is, when same-sex partners are given a chance to work.
An order from your office designating same-sex partners as Eligible Family Members (EFMs) could remedy many of the inequalities that these families face. Other remedies will require coordination between the Executive and Legislative branches.
Madam Secretary, we believe that no colleague of ours is a second-class colleague, and no colleague's family is a second-class family. Given your commitment to protecting the safety and promoting the welfare of all Foreign Service families, we ask for your full consideration of our concerns and we hope that a dialogue aimed at ending this unequal treatment can be started.
Your loyal staff

The missive was also sent to those heading up the U.S. Agency for International Development, U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Peace Corps and Millennium Challenge Corporation.

What do you think the response will be from Sec. Clinton's office, and is she ready to speak out for equality now that the rubber meets the road? The host of issues raised in the above letter clearly shows the impact of irrational and illogical institutionalized discriminatory practices that affect the our country's diplomatic effectiveness abroad. Beginning the process of removing these barriers for same-sex couples representing our nation, given the host of other LGBT issues on the table, seems a relatively non-controversial and proactive way to open the dialogue on the Hill, where we know the resistance and spinelessness often lie.

Hat tip, Life After Jerusalem.

Report: Gov. David Paterson to name Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand to Hil seat

Pam Spaulding — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 01:56:48 GMT

Who did he pick? According to WPIX in New York, it's...

PIX NEWS is being told that Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand is the reported choice of Governor David Paterson to fill the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Hillary Clinton. Two Congressional sources say members of the New York delegation have been invited to join Governor Paterson for the announcement in Albany at noon tomorrow.
Two members of that delegation, agreeing to speak without attribution, confirmed to reporter Marvin Scott that the Governor has telephoned New York's Democratic members of Congress for their views after Caroline Kennedy withdrew herself from consideration. One of the contenders, longterm Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney canceled a scheduled appearance on "PIX News Closeup" tomorrow because of a "conflict," which she did not disclose. She too will be in Albany. According to the sources, Gillibrand, now in her second congressional term, was favored by Secretary of State Clinton herself. Paterson has been under pressure to select a woman.

Kirsten Gillibrand represents New York's 20th Congressional district (upstate counties of Saratoga, Dutchess, Columbia, Rensselaer, Washington, Warren, Delaware, Greene, Essex and Otsego). Upstate representation, as well as pressure to name a woman to the seat, were factors discussed in the media.

There is expected to be a webcast of the event, so stay tuned and check the Governor's web site. If I learn more I'll post it.

How is Gillibrand on LGBT issues? Her web site doesn't say anything about it. She's pro-gun, pro-family farm and wants health care reform. Looking at this site, it's a mixed bag. She supported non-inclusive ENDA.

* Voted YES on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation. (Nov 2007)
* Re-introduce the Equal Rights Amendment. (Mar 2007)
* Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
* Ensure access to and funding for contraception. (Feb 2007)
* She's a member of the "Blue Dog" Coalition of conservative Democrats. (Nov 2007)

UPDATE: If you look at the HRC scorecard, she scored 80 out of 100. And...

According to the Human Rights Campaign, she voted against the repealing of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" legislation, opposed legislation that would grant equal tax treatment for employer-provided health coverage for domestic partners, opposed legislation to grant same-sex partners of U.S. citizens and permanent residents the same immigration benefits of married couples and opposed legislation to permit state Medicaid programs to cover low-income, HIV-positive Americans before they develop AIDS.

Fail. We can't have an unreliable Dem vote in the U.S. Senate, but that's what the Empire State has now.
A little earlier today, Paterson's office released a statement regarding Caroline Kennedy's eleventh-hour decision to withdraw her name from consideration. All kinds of speculation has been under way in the MSM -- from Caroline being upset over her uncle Ted's declining health to a face-saving pullout because Paterson wasn't going to name her.

Last night Caroline Kennedy informed the Governor that she was withdrawing her name from consideration for an appointment to the United States Senate for personal reasons. This decision was hers alone.
The Governor had a private conversation with Ms. Kennedy yesterday afternoon. Out of respect for her decision making process, the Governor's Office did not respond to any inquiries in order to allow her time to deliberate. The Governor considers Caroline a friend and knows she will continue to serve New York well inside or outside of government. We wish her well in all her future endeavors.
The Governor is now entering the final phase of his selection process. He has not informed any Senate candidates that they have not been selected, nor has any information gathered during this selection process created a necessity for any candidate to withdraw. Any speculation to the contrary is both inaccurate and inappropriate.

Since this leak about Gillibrand is now out, it looks like the face-saving excuse was closer to the mark.

UPDATE 2: Now we know what the personal issues are, according to the NYT...

There was incredulity in Democratic circles Thursday afternoon after the governor's camp engaged in a ferocious public back-and-forth with Ms. Kennedy's side, reaching out to numerous news organizations early Thursday afternoon to disparage her qualifications; one person close to the governor said that her candidacy had been derailed by problems involving taxes and a household employee, but declined to provide details.
That account was at odds with Ms. Kennedy's own description of her reasons for withdrawing. While not denying that issues had arisen, aides to Ms. Kennedy downplayed their significance, saying they had been aired out in discussions between the Paterson and Kennedy camps over the last two weeks and were not considered by either side to be disqualifying.
...The person close to the governor also said emphatically that Mr. Paterson "never had any intention of picking Kennedy" because he had come to consider her unready for the job.

Clinton confirmed. Guess who voted against her?

Pam Spaulding — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 22:00:00 GMT

Hillary Clinton was confirmed as Secretary of State today. Two senators voted against her. Who were they?

FMA supporter Diaper David "DC Madam" Vitter and 0% HRC-rated Jim "Fetus Americans" Demint.

Daniel O'Donnell sits in the Paterson interview chair for the Hillary Senate seat

Pam Spaulding — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 02:00:00 GMT

This would be a quick way to increase the number of openly LGBT U.S. Senators by 100%.

NY State Assemblyman Daniel O'Donnell was interviewed by friend of the Blend Governor David Paterson yesterday, one of several pols being considered for the Empire State U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Hillary Clinton.

Assemblyman Daniel J. O'Donnell, a Democrat who represents the Upper West Side. Mr. O'Donnell met with Mr. Paterson for about 45 minutes on Monday afternoon in the governor's Midtown office for what Mr. O'Donnell said was his formal interview for the Senate seat.
To say Mr. O'Donnell, known for his active support of gay rights issues, including same-sex marriage, was overly optimistic about his chances would be a stretch. He put his odds of getting the seat at about one in 10, or "about the same as the population of gay people in the world." But Mr. O'Donnell did offer that he believes the governor has yet to settle on a final choice.
"I didn't get the impression that a decision was coming anytime soon," Mr. O'Donnell said. "I have the sense that he was really weighing what people were saying. I can tell when people are listening to me and actually listening, and listening to me just because they're supposed to listen. He seemed to be very intent on focusing on and absorbing what I think my strengths might be."

BTW, I met Assemblyman O'Donnell at the International Gay & Lesbian Leadership Conference in 2007 and he said that visits the Blend whenever he has the chance (I'm sure he doesn't exactly have a lot of time on his hands!). I don't know what O'Donnell's chances are, or what Gov. Paterson is weighing as critical for this seat since the occupant will have to run for the office once the Clinton term is up. Will he go for the historic pick? A sure-fire fundraiser (Kennedy)? It will be interesting to see what the governor chooses to do.

Hat tip, Joe. My. God.

Hillary as Secretary of State

Pam Spaulding — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 15:00:00 GMT

It looks like whatever murky international ties to the finances of Bill Clinton have been addressed and Barack Obama plans to name Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State. Steve Clemons had this to say:

Clinton may be the bad cop to Obama's good cop. Because she is trusted by Pentagon-hugging national security conservatives, she may legitimize his desire to respond to this pivot point in American history with bold strokes rather than incremental ones.

So what say you, Blenders?

California Delegate Caucus Breakfast of August 25, 2008

Autumn Sandeen — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 06:20:15 GMT

Since this is Pam's House Blend, we will be rating coffee at events -- so let me begin by saying the Starbucks coffee provided for the reporters at the California Delegate Caucus Breakfast of August 25, 2008, was particularly bitter. Perhaps there was a little bit of irony to that, found in the topic of the majority Speaker Pelosi's speech to the Caucus.

The scheduled speakers were Speaker Pelosi and Senator Clinton. So, on one hand it really felt like we were scheduled to listen to "yesterday's news." The rise of Pelosi to Speaker Of The House was two years ago, and, well...Sen. Clinton turned into an also ran this year in her run for president.

Speaker Pelosi talked about the disappointment of some delegates without saying the words "Hillary" or "Clinton" (that's where the bitter irony of the coffee came into play). Speaker Pelosi then stressed confidence and unity, about fairness and opportunity, and then asked us to think about what direction our country is going.

At that point she kind of spun off into a tangent about "dangerous foreign oil," and saying California won't approve new drilling off California's coast, and about how big oil companies want subsidies to drill for oil in the U.S. while they're making record profits. I'm not sure how that will play this year, as the polls I've seen have two-thirds of Americans wanting off-shore drilling.

Then, she spun back to other Democratic issues, stating that if one cared about social security, jobs, healthcare, protecting the environment, education, ending the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan, and national security, and that voting for Sen. John McCain in the wake of disappointment of one's candidate not being the Democratic Party's nominee would be a wrong choice.

Next she talked about Sen. Obama's intelligence and his charisma, and about how California has historically led the way in supporting Democratic change. Finally, in her conclusion, she emphasized how Sen. Obama was the correct candidate for Democratic values.

After her conclusion, as an afterthought to her speech, she mentioned support for marriage equality.

And here's the funny part. The spot in her speech where she mentioned marriage equality was the only part of her speech where she received any applause at all -- where she appeared to have the full attention of the caucus. I think that says something about how the freedom to marry has turned into such an important, Democratic issue for at least the state of California.

After that, Congressman Mike Honda, Vice-Chair of California's Democratic Party spoke -- apparently as one of the replacement speakers for Hillary Clinton. Hey, even if you consider Sen. Clinton an also ran, her first replacement speaker was a pretty poor substitute as a speaker. Sen. Clinton is relevant to America's future, and she can hold a crowd's attention.

So following Congressman Honda was a series of speakers, none of whom really grabbed the attention of the crowd. Leaving the event became an option for many, both in the audience, and in the press corps.

Pam and I stayed until we were pretty close to being the last folk in the room, at which time I discovered the decaf wasn't so bitter. Any symbolic meaning in that? Who knows. :P I certainly don't feel bitter.

I believe Speaker Pelosi hit the right message, and did it with the right tone -- but hey, it just wasn't very exciting to watch. Drama is exciting, but it isn't always desirable.

McCain's tactics get thumbs up from Mark Penn (who's waiting for his paycheck from Hillary)

Pam Spaulding — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:00:00 GMT

With a boatload of debt to retire, the news that Hillary Clinton has more than $2 million in the hole with consultant and campaign-destroyer Mark Penn is a serious sore point. To make matters worse, consultant Penn is now praising John McCain. Why should anyone pay off a dime of anything that might end up in this snake's pocket?

It's not just his old campaign memos shooting across the Web, courtesy of anti-Penn leakers, but a new op-ed praising McCain's attack ads as effective, memorable and attention-grabbing. When such ads are fair, he adds, they "serve a legitimate role." You go into the general election with the Democratic strategists you have, not the ones you want, obviously. Penn's transgressions are not only rhetorical. He is still working for a host of anti-Democratic clients, and he has ties to major Republicans -- including a senior aide to Sen. John McCain.
Normally these insider antics have no consequences, but Clinton's situation changes the leverage. Donors and activists could stipulate that any money they raise for Clinton be spent only on debts other than Penn's consulting fees. Better yet, sympathetic Clinton donors could pool their money in online pledges, which will only be released when Penn forgives Clinton for his remaining bills.

Also read bkmn's diary, The Hillary memos from the Atlantic-notes from inside the campaign.

Rick Perlstein also has more, with "Mark Penn: Boy Republican."

Guest post on Open Left: sexism and racism - what lies beneath...

Pam Spaulding — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 11:30:00 GMT

NOTE: This is the guest post I have up on Open Left today. I was invited by front-pager Jon Pincus to participate in a mutual guest-blogging series to bring more diverse perspectives to that progressive blog. The subject selected was the treatment of Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama by the mainstream media. Please join in or read the comments over there to see the views and reactions of that reader base. As part of the series, I plan to be active in the comments of my post at Open Left to respond to folks there.

In looking back at the MSM treatment of Hillary Clinton over the course of the primary season, there was an expected eruption of misogyny -- from Chris Matthews Greatest Hits and The Tweety Effect, to the infamous Hillary nutcracker -- yet what I found most interesting was the handwringing over the whole matter. Similarly, there was desperation by some on the left (and right) to declare 2008 a "post-racial" election; they saw their hopes dashed as the bloody chum was tossed out to the hungry media sharks by Clinton surrogates and the usual GOP shills, rife with allusions, counter-charges and just plain old race-baiting idiocy (see Geraldine Ferraro, Andrew Cuomo, Bob Johnson).

More after the jump.

But back to gender. Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton have had to deal with the media's obsession regarding on their appearance, dress (Hil's "pantsuit schedule," Obama evoking Jackie O), and emotional restraint (or perceived lack thereof).

Women who run for political office -- as well as wives of candidates -- undergo an extraordinary amount of scrutiny by the mainstream media. Given the nature of the demographics in most newsrooms and the need for eyeballs and revenue, there is a strong desire to cater to low-info, image and celebrity-obsessed America by playing into the superficial aspects of what a women in the public eye should look like.

I attended the International Gay and Lesbian Leadership Conference conference in 2006; the annual event gives openly LGBT elected and appointed officials a chance to get together to hear war stories about running for public office, and they share ideas and strategies on how to run successful campaigns. At the women's roundtable, women at all levels of elective office discussed the consistent advice given by consultants to openly gay lesbians -- everyone has an opinion about what you should wear, the amount of makeup you need, the kind of haircut you must have in order to lower the "fear factor" with potential voters -- it can be ludicrous. One has to sufficiently "femme up" for public political consumption, as well as be on top of your issues, lest people get distracted by thoughts of your sexual orientation.

And as we've seen, gay-baiting charges are in abundance from the right when it came to Hillary Clinton.

Turning to Michelle Obama, there's been baiting of a different sort, most recently revealed in the "misunderstood satire" of the New Yorker's cover art. Editor David Remnick, has come under quite a bit of fire for the decision to run Barry Blitt's illustration. Remnick's defense:

I ran the cover because I thought it had something to say. What I think it does is hold up a mirror to the prejudice and dark imaginings about Barack Obama's - both Obamas' - past, and their politics. I can't speak for anyone else's interpretations, all I can say is that it combines a number of images that have been propagated, not by everyone on the right but by some, about Obama's supposed "lack of patriotism" or his being "soft on terrorism" or the idiotic notion that somehow Michelle Obama is the second coming of the Weathermen or most violent Black Panthers.

He neglected to take the direct route and refer specifically to Angela Davis when describing the imagery used by Blitt. A good question to pose here is whether there was something else at work here -- a little unexamined white privilege, of course -- in what makes the generously Afro-ed Mrs. Obama on the cover so intimidating (aside from that rifle slung over her shoulder).

That hair. Some people of a certain age may have no clue who Angela Davis is, but what is deeply embedded in our culture is the sense that kinky hair = bad, ugly, dangerous, non-conformist, animalistic, sluttish, and unseemly -- a visual manifestation of what I call The Secret Black Radical Trojan Horse Agenda that Michelle Obama allegedly represents to paranoid voters who cast a ballot based on the Fear of a Black Planet, the wrath of the Negro Overlords. These people, who will not see the irony, believe that agenda will be fulfilled through the vessel of the pleasant, benign Michelle and Barack Obama not depicted on that cover. This imagery brings all of those fears to the surface, and that big kinky fro is part of the package.

I had been blogging about the politics of hair for quite some time before people started to take the matter seriously (I was also in a documentary about it). The tipping point on the blog was the Don Imus "nappy headed hos" debacle, and the fallout from that in the media gave people a window into the deeply held views -- including self-loathing of black women -- about natural hair. Its very nature screams disobedience to some people, including those who thankfully leave their political correctness at the door so the pathology can be exposed. From my post on March 31, 2006, Neal Boortz just lets it fly:

BOORTZ: For instance, or for goodness sakes, jump in and I'm gonna say -- I'm gonna start out with something controversial. I saw Cynthia McKinney's new hair-do. Have you seen it, Belinda?
SKELTON: No.

BOORTZ: She looks like a ghetto slut.
SKELTON: Well, how is it?

BOORTZ: It's just -- it's hideous.
SKELTON: Is it braided? Or --

BOORTZ: No, it's not braided. It just flies away from her head in every conceivable direction. It looks like an explosion in a Brillo pad factory. It's just hideous. To me, that hairstyle just shows contempt for -- no, it's not an Afro. I mean, no, it just shows contempt for the position that she holds and the body that she serves in. And, I'm sorry, there's just no other way to -- it's just a hideous and horrible looking --

...MARSHALL: It looks better than the braids she was wearing.
BOORTZ: No, the braids had some dignity. They had some class.

MARSHALL: The braids had dignity?
BOORTZ: They had more class than this thing.

MARSHALL: This says, you know, kinda 2000s, you know, stepping up to the plate. Contemporary look, you know?
BOORTZ: She looks like Tina Turner peeing on an electric fence.

Boortz later apologized.

More recently, the paranoia about the Black Radical Trojan Horse and Michelle Obama reached a fever pitch with the breathless rantings of Larry Johnson, who made an ass out of himself promoting a non-existent tape of Mrs. Obama screaming the mucho-retro "whitey" in a public venue.

So with that coursing through the veins of the blogosphere and the MSM, it is no surprise to see how the "radical" Michelle Obama would be portrayed on the cover, satire or no satire.

It is what lies beneath the polite discourse, and it is an uncomfortable subject to have a frank, but constructive dialogue about because race is a third rail topic. It gets a superficial workout, but never examines the white privilege, much the same as male privilege is not explored in the context of women in politics.

Help send Pam's House Blend to Denver...

I would probably use 'ass' in a different context

Pam Spaulding — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 12:17:04 GMT

Bill Clinton is a jackass -- he continues to crap on his own legacy and reputation. The MSM has speculating about when and how the former president will come around and openly campaign for Obama -- apparently he's telling friends that he wants Obama to bow and scrape before him. Uh, fat chance, Bubba.

[Clinton's] lingering fury has shocked his friends. The Democrat told the Telegraph: "He's been angry for a while. But everyone thought he would get over it. He hasn't. I've spoken to a couple of people who he's been in contact with and he is mad as hell.
"He's saying he's not going to reach out, that Obama has to come to him. One person told me that Bill said Obama would have to quote kiss my ass close quote, if he wants his support.
"You can't talk like that about Obama - he's the nominee of your party, not some house boy you can order around.
"Hillary's just getting on with it and so should Bill."

Hillary Clinton, the actual candidate who ran, understands the importance of party unity to get to the finish line. Mr. Clinton is showing his ass -- and his visions of grandeur and sense of entitlement that he should be the one about moving (back) into the White House.

Obama's team asked to retire $10M of Clinton's $22M debt

Pam Spaulding — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 03:15:00 GMT

That's a lot of scratch to raise. Hillary's video request to supporters is here.

Barack Obama asked his finance committee this afternoon to help Senator Hillary Clinton retire her debt. On a conference call that lasted about 45 minutes Obama made a personal plea to his top donors, telling them he considered it a personal imperative now that Democrats are all "one big family," a donor who was on the call recounted to TIME. The Illinois senator praised the historic campaign run by Clinton. "You could tell these two folks have come together because, quite frankly, they are the only two people who knew what it was like," the donor said. No amount was mentioned on the call, though Clinton has an estimated $11.4 million in personal debts to the campaign and more than $10 million in outstanding vendor debts.*

Obama was not asked to retire her personal debt; that tops $11 million.

In other fundraising news, if you put some money in McSame's till, he is offering a ride on his bus as a prize:

Join John McCain aboard the Straight Talk Express! Be the lucky supporter to ride with John McCain on the Straight Talk Express on an upcoming bus tour. Everyone who donates between now and June 30th is eligible. To donate before the deadline on June 30th, please make your donation online today.

In the Official Rules and Restrictions, the estimated "value" of the prize ride on the bus is $1000 "although the actual value will vary depending upon the winner's particular travel arrangements, which shall be determined at the sole discretion of the Committee" and "Making a contribution will not improve your chances of winning."

Clinton to suspend campaign and strongly back Obama today

Pam Spaulding — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 15:45:00 GMT

(UPDATE: CNN's article on her speech is here.)

Hillary Clinton will deliver a speech at the National Building Museum in DC shortly (noon on Sat). She will formally declare the suspension of her landmark campaign and endorse Barack Obama.

She has a tough job ahead of her; this will be an important party unity message to deliver that will carry great weight and immediately be dissected, given the tensions that have developed between supporters of both candidates during the primary season. That is certain, particularly after her defiant speech on Tuesday. Many of her staunch supporting superdelegates and political allies, expecting the unity message at that time, were taken aback.

Even some of her own supporters suggested that Clinton may have hurt the reconciliation process when she did not immediately concede the race to Obama after he won the 2,118 delegates needed to capture the party's nomination Tuesday night.
In a conference call Wednesday, members of her home congressional delegation pushed her to quickly endorse her former rival. Rep. Charles Rangel, D-New York, said, "The New York congressional delegation are with her to the end, and we thought the end was the end."
But the Clinton camp resisted the move so it could gauge what her supporters wanted and allow Clinton to bow out of the race on her own terms. Tensions between the two camps may have also increased when some of Clinton's most prominent supporters launched a campaign Wednesday to get her on the Democratic ticket as the vice presidential nominee, arguing that it would help unify the party.

The "unity ticket" concept has been swirling around the Intertubes for some time now, including an official movement Jim Neal backed earlier this week. There's been some rethinking on his part. That's below the fold.
Jim Neal's U-Turn on Obama/Clinton ticket

Hillary's non-concession speech on Tuesday, as well as Hilary Rosen's Huff Post column, "I Am Not a Bargaining Chip, I Am a Democrat," caused former U.S. Senate candidate Jim Neal to reconsider his support for a joint ticket.

After reflecting on the content of the speeches by Senators Obama and Clinton last Tuesday, I did a bit of soul-searching on the issue of my having supported the draftobamaclinton.com movement.
I am uncomfortable with the notion that any candidate can lay claim to deciding how they are going to use their 18M votes going forward as did Senator Clinton-- in spite of the fact that Sen Obama is the presumptive nominee.
Your votes are entrusted to a candidate, and they can be withdrawn. And in the aftermath of her remarks on Tuesday evening Senator Clinton has obviously changed her course.
It's understandable how she must have felt as she spoke on Tuesday. I imagine that in the moment-- after such a historical, grueling primary season-- the pressures and emotions with which she was grappling were daunting.
However, I read a post the next morning by the Political Editor at the Huff Post, Hilary Rosen, who had been a staunch and steadfast supporter of Sen Clinton. Hilary announced her support for Sen Obama and said "I'm not a bargaining chip." She's right.
Maybe Obama and Clinton are the most formidable duo. There is an argument to be made and I did so a few days ago. However, I've gotta say that I jumped the gun.
Sen Obama is about changing the status quo. As he said Tuesday evening, "changing Washington is about more than just changing parties...."
I want Barack Obama to be our next President. But, I don't want him to have to compromise a quality which makes him the transformational, inspirational politician he is: his commitment to changing the culture of politics. That is going to be one helluva tall order. Senator Clinton, accomplished and competitive and compelling as she may be, is representative of status quo politics. And Senator McCain as an agent of change-- well that's a curious notion.
I'll support whomever Senator Obama selects as his running mate. He's run the smartest campaign any Democrat has waged in my lifetime. Part of his genius is that he surrounds himself with very smart people and he listens to them.
I've pulled my endorsement of the movement to forge an Obama Clinton ticket.
I'll eat crow on this one without hesitation. Senator Obama is entitled to choose who he wants and not who he thinks he has to get.
jim

This is crossposted at DKos and BlueNC.

Mike Signorile tries to bore into the 'if not Hillary, I'm voting McCain' logic

Pam Spaulding — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 13:00:00 GMT

It was a difficult day on The Michelangelo Signorile Show yesterday, as Mike spoke with several callers who are ready to vote for John McCain before casting a ballot for Barack Obama.

In the clip below, the caller cites a few reasons I've seen out there, including: 1) we know McCain, we don't know Obama; 2) There's just something about him (Obama) I don't like. Watch it:

This whole call needs to be transcribed and circulated because we seriously need to have a discussion about the underlying issues here that are hitting on the third rail. Mike challenges the caller to explain these positions, given the huge political gulf between McCain and Obama on nearly every issue. The caller ends up admitting that his decision to vote for McCain is not based on logic.

Caller: My arguments aren't logical...this is what my gut is telling me; I don't consider myself a racist or bigoted...there's just something about the man I don't like and I'm not going to vote for him."
Mike: It's funny that you say your gut is telling you this and then you go on to say that you're not a racist, funny how that works, right? Because maybe your gut is telling you something that you're not wanting to admit...but listen, but you should be voting based on logic, based on rationality. What Republicans want is for you to vote on emotion. And you are a perfect example of how they get votes from people who are voting against their own self interest.

Obama's and Clinton's positions are far closer than Obama vs. McCain -- it doesn't make any sense to vote for McCain. For some, not all - there really is a deep-seated fear out there about being led by a black man, so much so that they'd vote for McCain. They think electing Barack Obama is somehow going to erase white privilege -- as if it was possible -- and then exact some sort of revenge for past wrongs perpetrated on minorities. Jesse and I blogged about this jokingly the other day, but this aspect of the rejection of Obama is not being honestly articulated -- the caller in this case went out of his way to bring up how he's not racist -- when race had not come up in the conversation at all up until that point.

Another caller provided a comment on Mike's blog. Read it below the fold.
He makes a charge about "black racism" that I don't understand at all, and cites a personal story about being harassed by blacks for supporting Hillary.

I called in to today's show and said that I was concerned about the black racism being displayed over the campaign. I know that you only have a short time to make your point, so I want to elaborate on what I was saying. First, of all, I have been so sick and tired of the Obama-files belief that everyone who does not support their demi-god of being a racist. Where yes I do believe racism exists, everyone that doesn't vote for him will have their own reasons not simply because of his skin color.
As I was saying on the show today, the thing that has really turned me off to voting for Obama is this permission that he, his supporters, and the media give to blatant black racism. The implication that black voters are more valuable than white voters (seems to me I remember a shit storm when Hillary referred to the "hard working, white Americans" referring to Obama's problem in that demographic, since obviously he didn't have problems with the hard working, black Americans, why would she include them in her statement, notice the placement of the comma) But I digress, the fact that after both of the Pastorgate controversies no one said anything about the excitement level (the hooping and hollering) of the blacks listening during the very sexist and blatant racists statements being said of Clinton.
This point is strictly anecdotal, but I drive a truck for a living (which is why I am James from somewhere new every time I call) and I meet many people every day, at truck stops, shippers, receivers, you name it. I also have a Hillary Clinton for President sticker on my truck. I on two occasions in different states was called a N*****HATER in Mississippi and a Klansman in Georgia, both of these comments were made by black people and all based on a sticker I have in my window. This brings me to my concern, will electing Obama bring about a movement where black racism against whites will be commonplace and come out of the proverbial closet??? I seems to have been excused this entire primary process from the supporters of the black candidate, and for the white candidate it seemed to be a minefield covered by eggshells.
I have to ask does this concern you Mike or anyone else? Is this something that anyone but me things needs to be discussed. Where I will NEVER vote for John McCain, I think this being unchecked could seriously damage the Democratic Party's chances of retaining the White House in the years to come. Please let me know what you think.

Now, the behavior of these people in these two instances is ridiculous and offensive -- and it's inexcusable. That does not mean, however, by default, all black people feel that way, or all white people who voted for Hillary are racist. Barack Obama ran a campaign that intentionally did not focus on race -- it always came up in the context of someone else raising it. But it was raised, and the heat generated from it laid bare all the discussions we haven't had as a country about race.

I agree with the commenter that leaving the feelings out there unanalyzed and unchecked is damaging -- but precious few people want to speak frankly about their fears and feelings on this subject.

How can we pull apart and discuss these issues? We cannot continue to bury them -- all this does is benefit the GOP, which loves seeing this unfold.

UPDATE: I wanted to include this exchange over at Pandagon (where I cross post), because it adds another dimension to the issue:

My parents are in their sixties both of them are lifelong Democrats and right now both of them are saying they wont vote for Obama. I think they may change their minds as they are afraid of what McCain might do to the economy, especially as it relates to social security and medicare.
Both of them say they don't trust Obama, and I think they don't trust him because he doesn't live up, or down, to what they expect a black person to be. In other words in their mind black people are not supposed to care about white people, so he must be faking it when he talks about programs that would help the entire country, including white americans.
It is hard to explain but it seems that if you have low expectations of someone when they exceed those expectations it is like you assume they are cheating, if you know anyone who teaches high school you can see this at work whenever they grade papers.

My response there was:

Personally, this is the kind of thing that makes me feel hollow sometimes makes me feel despair. I've had to deal with not being "black enough", or hailed for being "not like most black people" or some other insane yardstick of judgment that I'm sure rings true for many POC out there. If you're too smart, you're arrogant and uppity, if you aren't brilliant enough or make mistakes most human beings do, then you represent all of the black, low-info, shiftless underclass. Having been the first or only black person in many of the professional positions I've held, I'm keenly aware that white privilege means I'm a racial stand-in for a whole group of people, and that any POC who follow me will be judged, fairly or unfairly, by the trail I've blazed. I cannot even begin to imagine the pressure on Barack Obama.

Hilary Rosen: Clinton missed her chance to 'pass the torch and cement her grace'

Pam Spaulding — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 19:00:00 GMT

That says a lot coming from Hilary Rosen, one of the power brokers in DC and the LGBT community, who was all over the airwaves as a tireless, staunch supporter of Hillary Clinton. Rosen's column on Huff Post (where she is the new political editor) is a very strong signal from a Washington insider that a sad line has been crossed. Last night the senator from New York had an opportunity to seize the moment by bowing out with class and grace, acknowledging both her own success and Barack Obama's. It would have begun the reconciliation that is now hard to visualize.

The life's work of Bill and Hillary Clinton in partnering with so many African Americans uniting our purpose and promoting our mutual issues is as responsible for Barack Obama's success as our first African American nominee as anyone. And yet, that joy is being denied for them by themselves. It is so sad.
So, I am also so very disappointed at how she has handled this last week. I know she is exhausted and she had pledged to finish the primaries and let every state vote before any final action. But by the time she got on that podium last night, she knew it was over and that she had lost. I am sure I was not alone in privately urging the campaign over the last two weeks to use the moment to take her due, pass the torch and cement her grace. She had an opportunity to soar and unite. She had a chance to surprise her party and the nation after the day-long denials about expecting any concession and send Obama off on the campaign trail of the general election with the best possible platform. I wrote before how she had a chance for her "Al Gore moment." And if she had done so, the whole country ALL would be talking today about how great she is and give her her due.
Instead she left her supporters empty, Obama's angry and party leaders trashing her. She said she was stepping back to think about her options. She is waiting to figure out how she would "use" her 18 million voters.
But not my vote. I will enthusiastically support Barack Obama's campaign. Because I am not a bargaining chip. I am a Democrat.

Even in her belief that Hillary Clinton would make a fine president -- the whole column is worth the read -- Hilary Rosen is willing to point out, diplomatically, that the sense of entitlement that engulfed the campaign, along with the crippling denial as the losses mounted, resulted in an inability to pass that torch. Clinton obviously heard from Rosen and other trusted supporters about the impact and importance of the tone of the senator's exit from the stage. How she handles it will also be part of her legacy -- one wonders why the concerns and advice fell on deaf ears. Given the historic nature of this landmark campaign (that succeeded on so many levels, with the ardent support of so many), it is unfortunate -- and perhaps quite revealing -- that the bubble of Hillaryland was that impermeable.

***

And it is hard to wind down a campaign if some surrogates are continuing to operate in full campaign mode. See the role one big-dollar donor, Black Entertainment Television founder Bob Johnson, is playing today. It's below the fold.
Billionaire Clinton donor Bob Johnson's 'put Hillary on the ticket' pressure letter

No shame. I was getting ready for work this AM and on CNN, there was Clinton supporter and founder of Black Entertainment Television Bob Johnson, discussing his letter to House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn that "urges" the Congressional Black Caucus to tell Barack Obama that he needs to put Hillary Clinton on the ticket as his vice presidential running mate. He said it was "for the sake of party unity."

Let's do a little rewind; for the sake of party unity, Bob Johnson is a questionable emissary.He wasn't exactly thinking about party unity (or race-baiting for that matter), when he said this:

At a rally here for Mrs. Clinton at Columbia College, Mr. Johnson was defending recent comments that Mrs. Clinton made regarding Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. She did not mean to take any credit away from him, Mr. Johnson said, when she said that it took President Johnson to sign the civil rights legislation he fought for.
"And to me, as an African-American, I am frankly insulted that the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Hillary and Bill Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues since Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood - and I won't say what he was doing, but he said it in the book - when they have been involved."

He later "clarified" this with a ridiculous statement:

My comments today were referring to Barack Obama's time spent as a community organizer, and nothing else. Any other suggestion is simply irresponsible and incorrect.

It's hard to see Johnson as an honest broker. But maybe that's not the point -- since we're talking about party unity, right?

June 3, 2008
The Honorable James Clyburn
U. S. House of Representatives
H-329, The Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Jim:
Now that you have endorsed Senator Obama as the Presidential Nominee of the Democratic Party; I, as a long-time supporter of Senator Clinton and of the Democratic Party, urge you to do everything possible to unify this party to win the Presidential election in November. For me and millions of other Democrats, I believe that the most important step that you can take now is to encourage the Congressional Black Caucus to urge Senator Obama to select Senator Hillary Clinton as his Vice Presidential running mate.
As a businessman I understand the vitally important role that a Democratic President can play in establishing programs and policies throughout the government that stimulate and support economic opportunities for African Americans. As African Americans we agree that the stakes in this election are far too high to take any chances that this party will not be unified from the top to the bottom in our effort to gain control of The White House.
You know as well as I the deep affection that millions of African Americans hold for both Senator Clinton and President Clinton. You also know that Hillary Clinton has been a long-term advocate for racial and gender equality, from her early days as a lawyer with the Children Defense Fund to her prominent leadership roles on these issues as First Lady and as Senator from New York. But most important, we need to have the certainty of winning; and, I believe, without question, that Barack Obama as President and Hillary Clinton as Vice President bring that certainty to the ticket.
Jim, as the highest ranking African American in Congress, I encourage you to follow your commitment to build a unified party by helping to make this a historic election of Senators Obama and Clinton who both have demonstrated that they have the courage and the ability to inspire and lead this nation to greatness today and for years in the future.
Warm regards,
Bob Johnson

There's nothing wrong with the letter itself of course, it's a matter of reading between the lines. On CNN, Johnson alluded to the "support" he's given to members of CBC.

JOHNSON: What I'm doing is saying there were Congress people on Senator Clinton's side on the caucus. There were Congress people on Senator Obama's side of the caucus. What I've said to Congressman Clyburn is what we want is to have the best team on the field. I think the best team on the field is Senator Obama at the top and Senator Clinton as vice president.
ROBERTS: Let me ask you, Bob, about the timing of this. You're doing it at 7:00, the day after he went over the finish line. Some people might say that by getting out this publicly on it, by going to Congressman Clyburn on it, you are trying to limit his options for who he can pick as a running mate. Almost forcing him to take Hillary Clinton.
JOHNSON: Not at all, John. In fact, let me correct something you've been saying. My letter was not a pressure letter. My letter was an urge and an encouragement.
As I said before, Senator Obama will make the decision based on what he thinks is in the best interest of the person who can help him win the election, and most important, the person who can help them best govern when he is elected president. So this is Senator Obama's decision.
What I've asked members of the Congressional Black Caucus, many of whom I know and many of whom I support, is that we were on both sides of the primary party. Hillary Clinton supporters, Barack Obama supporters. If the caucus members can come together and agree as I do that it would be in the best interest of the party to have Senator Clinton on the ticket, they carry that petition to Senator Obama.

Now, in DC-speak, that probably means $$$upport, don't you think? Hey, I could be wrong, but this wouldn't be the first time big donors for Sen. Clinton have tossed their weight around this primary season.

This is hardball, so it's not a stretch to believe -- since it's politics, after all -- that any and all leverage can and will be used to ensure she's on the ticket, though Johnson did specifically say that he and Clinton would support Obama even if she isn't selected. He didn't say to what extent. The process is in motion; we're just along for the ride.

Jim Neal backs Obama/Clinton ticket

Pam Spaulding — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 16:00:00 GMT

(NOTE: CNN is reporting that Hillary will concede tonight. UPDATE: LOL. No surprise -- Camp Clinton says CNN/AP is wrong: "Senator Clinton will not concede the nomination this evening.")

I'm a huge fan of former U.S. Senate candidate Jim Neal fan, as Blenders know, but I can't get behind a "reconciliation ticket." Jim endorsed Obama, but he believes this is the pairing that will ensure success in November. He makes his case at Daily Kos and BlueNC. We report, you decide. A snippet.

Now that the Presidential primary season is winding down after months and millions of votes cast, it's now time to set our focus on November and winning back the Presidency.
Both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama have energized millions of new voters, and all of them are committed to seeing a Democrat in the White House in January.
Certainly, there has been a great deal of back-and-forth bickering between Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton's campaigns - and each candidate has millions of passionate supporters. But now it's time for unity - and I believe the best way to unite the party is to unite the two strongest candidates our party has ever seen.
That's why I support an Obama-Clinton ticket.
I hope you'll join me by adding your voice to those calling for an Obama-Clinton ticket. You can add your signature at DraftObamaClinton.com.
The DraftObamaClinton.com web site gives regular citizens a way to weigh in on the VP selection process. Senator Obama has said he will have to make his vice presidential choice quickly after the primaries end this week.
Citizen involvement and grassroots organization is a cornerstone of Senator Obama's campaign, and frankly, a foundation of our democracy. We've seen millions of new voters involved this campaign season. Their voices make a difference, and that's what DraftObamaClinton.com is all about.

You can rank your pick for VP here. Meanwhile, my thoughts are below the fold.

Obama has campaigned on changing DC; Clinton represents everything that's wrong with business as usual in Washington. With all the new registered Democratic voters seeking change, why go this route? Her debt-riddled, consultant class-laden campaign, the obvious sense of entitlement in her universe and the way she her team has polarized voters (and tried to capitalize on open wounds of racism) would only be validated by such a move. As others have said, it presents the same opportunities for Republican smears as if she were at the top of the ticket. They've been waiting and hoping for that opportunity.

That pairing would drag a lot of downticket races into the can.

There are other ways to unify the party than to compromise the Obama "brand" with this move; folks need to think outside of the box on this one. The disaffected Hillary supporters who would cast their vote for McCain before Obama should not be dismissed, but what kind of commitment do they have to party principles if they are willing to throw away Roe v. Wade, for example, in their anger?

For instance, I received this email twice yesterday, and posted it in another thread. How many people do you think this supporter represents?

Your last chance for Women's "Equal Rights!

Never again will most women voters in this upcoming Election have an opportunity to
choose a WOMAN as a Presidential Nominee, with a chance to be PRESIDENT!

Don't lose the one opportunity you may have in your lifetime, to finally bring the equality of:

"Equal Rights" for women?  It is guaranteed by the US Constitution!

Consider for a moment that:
Women in 2008 are still fighting for 'Constitutionally guaranteed' "Equal Rights"!

Women are not fairly represented in the US Supreme Court! 1 woman---8 men!

Women were granted the "Right to Vote" 50 years after Afro-Americans!

Women are still paid much less than men when doing the very same job!

Most all State, and Government executive offices are held by men!

Women have never held the office of President of the US!

Women are not fairly represented in Congress!

Chauvinist men revel in their power over women.

Men vote for men, and against women.

       Oddly, some women vote the same.

  You can help!      Promote & VOTE    Hillary!

43 men----0 zero women!

Twenty four (24) years is eternity! (Last women candidate!)

----------------------------------

If you really care for justice and equality Hillary is a MUST!

Remember this inconsolable Hillary supporter, Harriet Christian, who unloaded her anger on reporters at the outcome of the DNC Rules Committee hearing on Saturday 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."

How many people do you think she represents? And I don't mean that in terms of vitriol or volume, but in terms of commitment to either stay home or vote for McCain regardless of that impact on the country?

The part that disturbs me is the idea that there is some sort of line of social progression that must be followed, and Obama's legitimate win (by the standards set by the party) is somehow jumping ahead in line as a black man before a woman. No matter that this is toxic thinking, but it completely leaves out the position women of color are in. Are we to choose between our gender or our race, or are we just some irrelevant group somewhere way back in the social progression line? It's dismissive, myopic thinking that has gone on throughout this primary race, and it's divisive and damaging -- but not surprising given our country's inability to rationally discuss gender and race matters.

An honest question -- for Clinton supporters who are disappointed but pragmatic, is there any scenario that is acceptable if she is not Obama's VP choice? Are we able to have a healthy discussion when this is so raw for so many?

So, is it over?

Pam Spaulding — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 19:38:55 GMT

Clinton Summons Top Donors, Supporters For Tuesday Speech.

Hillary Clinton has summoned top donors and backers to attend her speech tomorrow night in an unusual move that is being widely interpreted to mean she plans to suspend her campaign and endorse Barack Obama. Obama and Clinton spoke Sunday night and agreed that their staffs should begin negotiations over post-primary activities. In addition to help raising money to pay off some $20 million-plus in debts, Clinton is known to want Obama to help out black officials who endorsed her and are now taking constituent heat, including, in some cases, primary challenges from pro-Obama politicians.

"This has never happened before," one donor said, referring to the personalized request by email to attend the event in New York Tuesday night.

Of course, suspending the campaign does not mean folding the tent and packing it up. Anything could happen if negotiations don't work out between the two camps.

UPDATE: Then again, maybe that trial balloon just popped.

Ken Vogel reports from the Clinton bubble a Clinton spokesman is pushing back on the notion of a concession soon, something even many of her aides and top supporters now expect.
Hillary Clinton will not drop out of the presidential race Tuesday or in several days that follow, the spokesman,Mo Elleithee, said Monday afternoon.
"It's pretty clear that she's not conceding," Elleithee told reporters on Clinton's campaign plane en route from Rapid City, S.D. to Sioux City, Iowa.
Instead, Elleithee said Clinton would be "aggressively courting" superdelegates and "putting together the next phase of the campaign," which he said could include campaign events around the country.

Report: Clinton campaign advance staff given walking papers

Pam Spaulding — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 13:15:00 GMT

So does this mean, despite the spin that the nomination brawl will go all the way to the convention, the Clinton tent plans to fold after tomorrow's primaries? (The Politico):

Members of Hillary Clinton's advance staff received calls and emails this evening from headquarters summoning them to New York City Tuesday night, and telling them their roles on the campaign are ending, two Clinton staffers tell my colleague Amie Parnes.
The advance staffers -- most of them now in Puerto Rico, South Dakota, and Montana -- are being given the options of going to New York for a final day Tuesday, or going home, the aides said. The move is a sign that the campaign is beginning to shed -- at least -- some of its staff. The advance staff is responsible for arranging the candidate's events around the country.

What do you all think, also considering the earlier post, Cabinet position offer for Hillary?

Hillaryland erupts over Vanity Fair piece on Bill

Pam Spaulding — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 04:00:00 GMT

What can you say -- we've all seen Bill Clinton piss away his reputation this primary season engaging in "strategy" designed to help the Senator from New York obtain the nomination of her party. Now Vanity Fair explores Bubba in a Todd Purdum feature called The Comeback Id. The Clinton campaign is on fire over this.

This winter, as Clinton moved with seeming abandon to stain his wife's presidential campaign in the name of saving it, as disclosures about his dubious associates piled up, as his refusal to disclose the names of donors to his presidential library and foundation and his and his wife's reluctance to release their income-tax returns created crippling and completely avoidable distractions for Hillary Clinton's own long-suffering ambition, I found myself asking again and again, What's the matter with him?
As I sought to answer that question for myself, in conversations with dozens of current and onetime Clinton aides, many of whom I have known all these years (Clinton himself declined to be interviewed), I realized just how much about the former president is not known, and not knowable, at the moment, mostly because of his unapologetic stonewalling. Virtually no one, except Ron Burkle, knows just what Clinton put into Burkle's investment business, or just what he has done since to earn millions of dollars, with the prospect of reaping millions more. Most of the names of the donors who have contributed some $500 million to Clinton's library and foundation over the past decade are not known, either. Virtually no one, except his doctors and family, knows the precise state of Clinton's health. Virtually no one really knows what strategic role he has played in his wife's campaign.

Ron Burkle, by the way, is a fast-living California supermarket billionaire who jet sets all over with Clinton in a Boeing 757 referred to by Burkle aides as "Air Fuck One." Anyway, leaving zipper issues behind (that's what the GOP loves salivating over), observations about the former president's role in the campaign -- are far more interesting, as are the questionable business relationships. The parsing of words, the belief that he can skate by on charm and avoid truth telling is a familiar pattern. See a snippet below the fold.

Clinton's temper has continued to get the better of him. By the eve of the Pennsylvania primary, he was reduced, in a Philadelphia radio phone interview, to denying that his comments in South Carolina had been in any way racially charged, and instead insisted that the Obama camp "played the race card on me." He sputtered, "I mean, this is just, you know ... You really gotta go something to play the race card with me-my office is in Harlem."
At the end of the interview, apparently unaware that he was still on the air, Clinton was heard to say, "I don't think I should take any shit from anybody on that, do you?" Asked the next day by another reporter what he had meant by saying the Obama campaign "was playing the race card," Clinton would have none of it. "No, no, no, that's not what I said," he erupted, as if he did not know that his earlier comments had been recorded and were all over the Internet. He added, "You always follow me around and play these little games, and I'm not going to play your games today." It's a nice question, just who was playing the games. When I asked a Clinton campaign official how the former president could have issued such a flat denial, the aide immediately responded, with no trace of irony, that the offending reporter had used the word "playing," while in the radio interview Clinton had used the word "played." I'm not sure whether that makes Clinton's outburst better or worse, but it's of a piece with the parser the public knows so well.

The Clintons were so incensed by this Vanity Fair article that they issued a 2,244-word response that you can read at The Politico. One of the charges is that author Todd Purdum has a conflict of interest because he is married to former Clinton White House Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers. Huh? How does that work? As a pundit and recent author, she's been positive in her commentary on the former First Lady, so what on earth is the problem here?

On the charge that Clinton hurt Hillary's campaign, this is the official response from Hillaryland. I'm not sure how this spin addresses matters, but we report, you decide.

VF Claims: President Clinton had a negative impact on his wife's campaign.
The Facts: Independent observers continue to praise President Clinton's abilities on the stump: "I have always said that Bill Clinton is still par excellence among all of them [speakers on the stump]." [Michael Smerconish on MSNBC, 5/12/08]
In his role as spouse/surrogate, Bill Clinton is still the gold standard: "And a spouse who I think gives the best stump speech of any spouse I`ve seen, with the exception of Bill Clinton." [Mark Halperin on Charlie Rose, 5/6/08]
The New York Times has praised President Clinton's "command of language," "appreciation of the urgency" of the campaign, ability to boil down a subject to its essence resulting nodding heads, and "political skills and fighting style." [New York Times, 5/5/08]
Finally, the data shows that Sen. Clinton won by huge margins in several rural counties that her husband visited: 44 percentage points in Armstrong County, 44 points in Cambria County, 48 points in Carbon County and 50 points in Greene County. This compares with an edge of 26 points for Hillary among rural voters statewide. In Bucks County, a Philadelphia suburb that Mr. Clinton visited, Sen. Clinton won by 26 points, compared with only three points in suburban Philadelphia as a whole. [WSJ, 4/26/08]