Far be it from me to be a prognosticator or soothsayer, but after last night's game-ending swarm of superdelegate support that put Barack Obama well over the 2,118 delegate threshold, we all want to know what happens next.  The media are already talking non-stop about Hillary Clinton for VP.  I'm just not convinced that it'll happen.

Here's why.

The California Supreme Court just ruled 4-3 to overturn California's ban on same-sex marriage.  Six of the seven justices were appointed by Republicans.  Californians voted 2-to-1 in 2000 to ban same-sex marriage.  And yet, in 2008, we have marriage equality.

---

I am in tears.

And I was there when the decision was announced.

From the April 10, 1992 edition of the New York Times:

Even though Bill Clinton won four primaries on Tuesday, even though Paul E. Tsongas announced today that he would not re-enter the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination, even though many of them concede there is probably no stopping Mr. Clinton now, dozens of Democratic senators and representatives remain reluctant to endorse him.

Kinda makes you wonder if, having been through this 16 years ago, the Clintons understand the psychology of superdelegates and are willing to take advantage of their hesitancy...  

More below the fold.

We finally have seen into the real heart of Hillary Rodham Clinton.  And it is truly, absolutely, utterly... American.

How else to explain her statement today including 18 utterances of some version of "America" in 4 minutes?  How else to explain her blind optimism in the face of one of America's biggest economic declines in years and perhaps since the Great Depression?  How else to explain her statements that Barack Obama is elitist while Clinton, she of the $109 million in income and a posh home in suburban New York, stands for the middle class?  How else to explain her new stories of learning to shoot from her grandfather those many years ago?

I'm a good Democrat.  I'm the President of the SF Young Democrats.  I worked on Bill Clinton's 1992 and 1996 campaigns before I could even vote for him.  And I never thought that I would doubt my ability to vote for Hillary Clinton if she was our nominee.

After her behavior today, my determination to support our nominee, whomever s/he is, has been lost.

Lincoln Chafee announced today that he is endorsing Barack Obama for President.

Former Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee is endorsing Democratic Sen. Barack Obama.

The Rhode Islander told The Associated Press he is endorsing Obama in a conference call Thursday. Chafee left the Republican Party last year and became an independent.

Since seeing John Edwards' rousing speech at the California Democratic Party convention last April 2007, I have been a solid John Edwards supporter.  I'm on his Facebook group, his email listserv, I've spoken on behalf of his campaign to political groups, and I've lobbied for his support privately through friends and political circles.  I've always been open about my support of the man who I have felt is not only the strongest Progressive in the race, but who has shown the most tact and skill in responding swiftly, and accurately, when challenged by the Republicans on issues like terrorism, the economy, and health care.

And, living in California, I was planning for the past year on casting my vote for John Edwards proudly come February 5.

But I have changed my mind.

Anyone remember when the Abu Ghraib story broke in 2004?  And then Seymour Hersh came out with statements that there was a lot more material out there - in photos and videos - and that it would all come to light?  And Donald Rumsfeld confirmed it.  Rumsfeld maintained that these pictures and videos couldn't be shown to the general public because of ongoing investigations.

And remember what happened next?  I remember this and thinking how bizarre it was.  Our Congress - Senators and Representatives all - were walked through a top-secret room with the pictures and videos in question on full display.  Our Congresspeople came out of the room, disgusted, in disbelief, and convinced that these videos and pictures should not see the light of day.

A friend of mine just returned from Iraq.  While he was serving overseas, he wrote letters to me, which I posted on DailyKos (with his permission) here, here, here, and here  

He finally returned home this week from his over-extended tour of duty (extended from 12 months to 16 months when his unit was at about the 11-month mark).  I couldn't wait to see him after hearing so little over the past couple years and wanting to see him and find out about what he'd been through.

And I didn't recognize him.

Why are we still detaining hundreds of people without charges and without legal representation six years later??

The United States announced plans yesterday to hold Taliban and al Qaeda prisoners at its isolated Guantanamo Bay naval base in Cuba, even as a draft proposal for military tribunals was circulated among administration officials.

The proposal suggests that terrorism suspects brought before U.S. military commissions be presumed innocent until proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; be sentenced to death only by a unanimous vote of the commissions' members; and have the right to an appeal.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said yesterday that the United States has no plans to try the men in secret military tribunals at Guantanamo.

What he didn't say was that apparently the plan was to just hold these people indefinitely, in violation of every principle upon which this country was founded.

Nothing like being a wet blanket the day before Thanksgiving, but I wanted to offer a few words of caution to all the enthusiastic supporters from around the country from someone who is seeing a similar pattern unravel nationally as did in California just two years ago.

The governor's job approval ratings, as measured by the Field Poll, dropped to 36 percent late last month.

In September of 2005, a year before he would be re-elected by an overwhelming margin, Arnold Schwarzenegger's job approval ratings had fallen to 36 percent, and in November of 2005 he would get thumped at the polls on all his ballot initiatives.

That statement may come as a surprise to any of us who would say he's one of the world's most repressed homosexuals, but as an openly practicing homosexual myself, I take offense at all the talk about Senator Craig being gay.

He's not gay.

He's a sad, repressed, confused, angry, pathetic man.

And most definitely not gay.

Many thanks to those of you who have sent your thoughts and prayers for all our soldiers in Iraq.  One of those on his extended deployment is a friend of mine who can't get home soon enough.  Following today's news of a helicopter crash, I don't care if the 14 men and women who died today did so in enemy fire or because of a mechanical failure.  As far as I'm concerned, they shouldn't even be there in the first place.

Following up on letters that I diaried here, here, and here, my friend's latest message is below the fold.  Please keep him and all of our soldiers in your thoughts and prayers.  They're doing the soldier's work of fighting to defend our country, even if the cause for which they've been sent to fight is fatally flawed and only making matters worse.

For reasons not entirely clear to me, the San Francisco Examiner devoted half of its editorial space in today's edition (PDF - go to page 13) to three op-ed pieces attacking New York Governor Eliot Spitzer.  Now, I know the conservatives hate him for being successful and taking on unfair business practices, but, as someone who has only been to New York once and doesn't consider myself particularly well-versed in New York politics, I'm stunned at the amount of coverage in a local San Francisco paper's editorial page.

New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer was elected last year as a reformer and proclaimed soon after winning that he would "unilaterally disarm" from taking big money contributions, but a look at state board of election data reveals a very different story.

Wow!  Sounds tantalizing...  And there's more!

Well, he didn't "declare war," exactly, but essentially he wrote off one of the major "news" networks and guaranteed a steady stream of negative coverage for the remainder of his candidacy from Fox "Faux" News.

Today John Edwards called on all Democratic candidates to refuse contributions from any News Corp. (owner of Fox News and Fox News Radio) employees, executives or otherwise:

John Edwards criticized Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday for taking more than $20,000 in donations from News Corp. officials, arguing that the company's Fox News Channel has a right-wing bias and Democrats should avoid the company.

Edwards led the Democratic candidates' boycott of Fox's plans to host a Democratic presidential debate. Now he is objecting to News Corp.'s purchase of Wall Street Journal publisher Dow Jones & Co. and highlighting the relationships that Clinton and other rivals have with the company's executives.

It's good to see at least one of the leading Democratic candidates talking about this assault on our "Fourth branch of government."

Little got my ire going today like watching the MSM coverage of the overnight debate on the Iraq withdrawal legislation scuttled yet again by the Republicans threatening a filibuster.

Yes, it's called a filibuster, and that's what last night was.  Not "theatrics," not a "show," not a "tactic," not a "stunt."  It was the direct result of what the GOP has called for on every single piece of legislation: either endless debate, or 60 votes to end the debate.  And that endless debate is called a FILIBUSTER.  But you wouldn't know it to see or read anything at all put forth in our MSM.

A few choice online clips after the break.

I had the opportunity to meet Elizabeth Edwards a few minutes ago and wanted to post a diary of the experience, the questions asked by people at the event and Elizabeth's answers, and a picture I was thrilled to get at the event (on my crappy Sidekick, but all the same...).

Here's the picture!  :)

Below the fold for the conversation that unfolded...

Per this diary, Elizabeth Edwards just called into "Hardball" to take on Ann Coulter.  While I can understand Elizabeth's earnestness in confronting Ms. Coulter head-on given the opportunity, I feel bad that she was basically talked over almost the entire time by Ann who equated her personal attacks on Democrats as equivalent to free speech, whereas Elizabeth was asking for Ann to elevate, rather than debase, the political discourse.

Video below the flip.

Which may not be a big deal for this diary writer, who cries more than he should.  But I just saw Elizabeth Edwards' Philip Burton public service award acceptance speech from the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights' 2007 Rage for Justice Awards banquet, and it is so totally spot on it is a call to action that no one should miss.  YouTube videos below the fold (total time: 20 minutes), here's some of the transcript of her speech:

You're not a successful public servant unless your actions meet the public's needs. Success in politics doesn't have the same standard. Success in politics is personal. Was the candidate elected? That's it! Frankly, that success is empty unless it is married to a greater goal. I know that I would not have made the decision about continuing campaigning for change if it was about purely personal political success. At the end of our lives we will not be judged by what the highest office was that we attained in our lifetime. If that were true, the current President would hold as much esteem as Franklin Roosevelt in our country or Nelson Mandela in his. That cannot be the case. [emphasis mine]