A centerpiece of my campaign has been changing the old way of doing politics in Washington, and creating new ways that divest more power to the people.  And I have decided to put that approach into practice in selection of our party's Vice Presidential candidate.

We have had one of the most extraordinary nominating contests in the country.  Some 36 million people have turned out for Democratic primaries and caucuses, more than ever before in our country's history.  And they have chosen delegates from cities, towns, and rural areas across this land.

I believe that our country, and our party, work best when the people have a chance to exercise their power.

A recent diary takes the left to task for not sharply enough attacking Russia's incursion into Georgia.  I would suggest that Russia's attack on Georgia is at least as defensible as the NATO attack on Serbia of 1999, which the left largely supported.

Consider the following:

Yes it's true.  Only one and a half months ago, The National Enquirer published a story entitled "Clinton Mistress Revealed," that gave the name and photograph of Bill Clinton's most recent illicit lover:
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrit y/64991

With Obama having sewn up the Democratic Presidential Nomination, this was obviously an attempt to sabotage Hillary Clinton's chances for the Vice-Presidential nomination.  After all, revelations of Bill Clinton continuing to cavort with mistresses would make anyone weary of bringing the Clintons back into the White House.

Now, was this a secret campaign to bring down Obama, by removing one Vice Presidential candidate that could help him get elected President?  Or was it really a secret attack on John Edwards, by first clearing the field and then setting up Edwards for a subsequent attack?

What's going on here?  Enquiring minds want to know!!

UPDATE And I even forgot to mention the National Enquirer Cover Story of July 30, 2000 -- a year after Clinton supporter Altman acquired controlling interest -- titled "Hillary's Gay Affairs: The Shocking Truth" http://tinyurl.com/5ztw8e

Barack Obama is proving himself to be one of the most talented political leaders in decades.  He defeated the heavily favored Hillary Clinton and is on his way to possibly leading a landslide Democratic victory in November.  I agree with most of Obama's political positions and look forward to a Democratic victory.

However, there are things about the Democrats (in general) and Obama (in particular) that make me cringe.  And one of them is ethanol policy.

Here's an article from MSNBC today, reprinted from the New York Times, on Obama's ethanol policy.  Though I single his policy out for attention, as he is our presidential candidate, my guess is that his position is pretty similar to that of much of the rest of the Democratic Party.

I have voted for the Democratic Party every election since 1972. I have also been a full-time organizer for the United Farm Workers union and the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador. I have a long history as a progressive activist.

Yet I disagree with virtually the entire netroots in the issue of FISA and telecom immunity. Let me state my position and please tell me why  you disagree.

Peniel Conin, President & CEO of Global Basic and eNameWiz.com, has written a detailed 13-page statistical report and analysis of caucus vs. primary results from the 2008 Democratic nominating campaign.  (This has been reported at Talkleft here and here and here.)

Conin suffers from a disability resulting from a car accident 40 years ago, which left her wheelchair bound at  a time when there were no curb cuts or ramps and many places were inaccessible.  That is what fueled her passion about caucus information.

Among the information available in the report:

Bumped, ARG going out of the primaries with a bang, jerome

We can argue how much difference these last two states make, and there will certainly be arguments about the credibility of the pollster, but ARG has startling polls out today from Montana and South Dakota.

First, from Montana, where most people have been expecting an Obama blowout, ARG shows Obama ahead by 4 (with twice that many still undecided):
Obama 48
Clinton 44
Undecided 8

Then, in South Dakota, which was expected to be closer, ARG shows Clinton with a huge 26 point lead:
Obama 34
Clinton 60
Undecided 6

ARG has been widely criticized, and has been way off-base in a number of states, but they pretty much nailed West Virginia and Kentucky.  These South Dakota and Montana polls were both taken on the weekend, which may have tilted them in Hillary's favor.

Obama-supporter Poblano has one of the most interesting electoral analysis sites around.  He keeps tracks of all recent polls and weighs them according to the pollster's historical track record, sample size, and recentness. He also adds a regression analysis to the collection of polls, taking into account 16 variables related to states' political makeup, religious identity, ethnic and racial identity, economic factors, and demographics.  Then, he combines all this together to run electoral simulations.

According to Poblano's analysis, Clinton has improved her likelihood of winning the election relative to Obama's likelihood of winning the election by 20 percent in the last month.  More specifically, one month ago, Obama had a 7% greater chance of winning the GE than Clinton.  Today, Clinton has a 13% greater chance (62.8% for Clinton to 49.9% for Obama.)