This was originally a comment on David Sirota's diary at Open Left.  It was so long I decided to make it a diary......I am hoping that this will be treated with the some consideration.  I did have some trepidatio posting this...but we'll see

Also I think it is important to transform the negative energy about anger that whites aren't voting for him into a positive understanding that women are just as proud and energized by the first serious women candidate for president.  And no matter which one wins the nomination...it is important not to turn those who voted for their candidate but not the other candidate into bigots....however hard it is to resist.

That's not a good general election strategy.  People (except for guilty white liberals) okay most people,  who will vote in the general election, but have not voted in the primary,  will not respond positively to being characterized as bigots if they have concerns about a candidate. Categorizing an undecided white voter...male or female....as a racist if they have hesitatancy about Barack Obama is not a way to get their vote... only their resentment.

Women voted for Clinton, not against Obama

Joan Walsh, editor of Salon, interviewed the CWA member who was intimidated by her CWA union rep.  In that interview she makes it very clear that she was intimidated.  The reporter, Michael Mishik, kept pushing her. "He twisted my words", said the victim. It was very clear to her that she was threatened by the union.

The reporter's idea of acceptable union tactics would make Sam Giancana proud, but I don't think most people, even Obama partisans , would think telling folks that they can't get the time off to caucus unless they pledge to caucus for Obama, or get their shift changed if they don't endorse Obama or in some other way have the union intercede with the casino to make things more difficult for the worker, constitutes persuasion and not coercion.

Here's the relevant portion of a lengthier piece she did on the Nevada caucuses after the fold.  

The piece in Salon
http://www.salon.com/...

I'm an immigrant.  I am a refugee. The immigration bill died, or so I thought, just a few days after my mother died.  I was relieved that I did not have to write this post.  Because I wanted the bill to die with my whole heart.

My mother and father were survivors of the Holocuast.

The personal history tells you why I care about this bill and why it's taken so long to do.

Congressman Marty Meehan is resigning his congressional seat this July to become the new chancellor of the University of Massachusetts-Lowell.  His desire to succeed John Kerry as Senator has now been thwarted by Kerry not running for president in 2008 and running for reelection instead in 2008. Meehan is the most assiduous fundraiser in Congress ...a talent that commended him to the UMASS-Lowell board.  

Indeed Meehan leaves ...at the moment anyway...5.2 million or so in his campaign account. Money that we all asked him to donate in 2006 so we could get more Democrats elected.

We should all remember his name from the "Use it or Lose It" campaign.  To update people this was a campaign begun by Chris Bowers of MyDD in the fall of 2006 to get Democrats with large warchests in very safe seats to donate to party committees when it became apparent that we could not only win but win big.

She has local and national reporters who are EAGER to speak to voters who have been harassed by repetitive robocalls. We need to put some meat on the bones of this story.

If you have been called repeatedly please contact me.  If you have recorded these calls even better because then it might be covered by the TV media, not just the print media. They want to speak to New York State voters only for this story.

I am the conduit for this. My email is d7eb at aol.com

thanks
Sorry this diary is so short but time is of the essence.

The Supreme Court said the map must be redrawn due to voting rights problems in CD 23.  But once you start moving voters around there are potentially up to 4 districts --- CD 23, 28, 21 and 25 THAT may have to be redrawn because of deficiencies in minority representation as defined in the Voting Rights Act.

The extension of the Voting Rights Act could be done in this session but it doesn't have to happen until the next session in the new Congress.

If there was no Voting Rights Act, SCOTUS would have no grounds to say that these maps must be redrawn.    

What could happen depends upon whether the lines have to be redone before or after the 2006 election.  

Please call his office now. Update [2006-1-30 12:56:16 by debcoop]:I got through to Chafee's office in Rhode island.The phone number is 401 453 5294. I told her it was a charade to vote no on Alito without either voting for cloture or abstaining. He has opponents. Ask if he think NARAL will be satisfied with this charade of a vote? It Like a cake made of air.

HARRIET MIERS REMEMBERED AS ANTICHOICE EXTREMIST
rest of story below.

First me and then the link and the newsmax story.  Newsmax is a conservative internet news delivery service.

We should not be mislead.  Just because the right is up in arms --- temporarily I am sure---doesn't mean we should think this is good for the Democratic party or the long term welfare of the American people.

 George's father had to nominate a non controversial, no real trail candidate like David Souter , because the earlier  Bork nomination battle had left such a bitter taste but it did  result in the nomination of  the  slightly more moderate Justice Kennedy.  Kennedy upheld Roe in Casey decision.  Souter was nominated upon the recommendation of a moderate Republican, Sen, Warren Rudman.  No one knew Souter well. Rudman, bush or Republican politicians.

It certainly seems that Collins, as usual, has a sharper and keener understanding of the real issues involved in the Bush administratiion's negligence toward New Orleans that does that MSM apologist, Mr. Keller.  

Go to the Editorial page  or VolvoLiberal's diary to see the difference. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/01/opinion/01thu1.html

Pact May Hinder Efforts to Block High Court Nominee

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/03/AR2005070301146.html

I have excerpted a lot of article because I think we need to see the MSM viewpoint here being formed. It is written by Susan Schmidt, a Clinton persecutor, so there should be some scepticism.  It also presents the Republican view of the accord, not the Democratic view and of course only quotes the biggest Democratic appeaser, Ben Nelson.

But I thought at the time that the compromise was a bad deal for us, especially because it let Brown go by as not extraordinary.

.

 I have checked this site and others; while there were a number of posts condemning the Republicans for their assault, I don't remember anyone posting a diary to say let's organize to tell the Senate Minority leader that we have his back.

It then hit the National Review and sometime tonight it hit Drudge.  

I am surprised that I had to go back 150 diaries to see this in the diary list.  

We get hit by this sh*t too late.The real test of media bias will now occur. Let's see how quickly the MSM picks up this piece of idiocy. I wouldn't be surprised to see it hit them like a bolt of lightning.

It will make CNN faster than the memos did themselves.

Our tack with the MSM should be their bias in coverage, not defending the memos in detail. Defeding them implies that the ridiculous charge is valid. We just need to bash the media for their biased coverage

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/19/13234/6546

Practically this deal killed the filibuster for any judicial nominees in the future.  If Janice Rogers Brown, who thinks FDR was akin to a commie and the New Deal was the worst thing that happened and the Lochner Supreme Court decision which denies the government the right regulate at all is the right decision, if  she becomes a standard of acceptable nominee,  well then there is no one who will satisfy the definition of "extraordinary" as per this misbegotten agreement.  No one will ever be filibusterable again or there will not be another nominee who Democrats and Republicans with conxciences should vote against.

We have effectively given up the right to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee.  We gave it up for NOTHING.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_04_17.php#005458

For starters, you may have seen this AP story that ran over the weekend, which read: "House Democrats have decided to quit emphasizing that they will not negotiate changes to Social Security until President Bush drops his idea for private accounts. The switch in strategy comes after Democrats learned from focus groups that people frown on the lawmakers for being obstinate."

Where to start?