Gentlemen! Behold! Unleash John Kerry!

Despite my serious misgivings about the Big Dog last night and my decidedly mixed reaction to the selection of Joe Biden as Obama's Veep, both men came through with guns a-blazin' for the Big O. Bill's speech especially was a strong endorsement of Obama.

Bill Clinton was one of Barack Obama's fiercest critics during the primary campaign, but Wednesday night the former president delivered an enthusiastic endorsement of the Democratic presidential nominee.

"Barack Obama is ready to lead America and to restore American leadership in the world," Clinton told the crowd of cheering delegates. "Barack Obama is ready to be president."

Clinton pushed back on attacks initiated by himself and his wife during the bitter primary campaign, and later taken up by Republican John McCain, that Obama is ill prepared for the White House, especially on matters of national defense.

"With Joe Biden's experience and wisdom, supporting Barack Obama's proven understanding, insight, and good instincts, America will have the national security leadership we need," Clinton said.

He really put the issue of Hillary 2012 to bed: they are behind Obama 100% (or at least in the high 99% range.) Is it enough to forgive and forget all the nasty things they said? Hell, it's too important NOT to at this point. They've chosen live and let live, and we even saw a bit of the old Clinton magic. It's honestly more than I expected, doing the right thing at the eleventh hour is still doing the right thing.

Joe Biden also crushed one out of the park. Yeah, he made a couple of gaffes, but the guy hit McSame like a prizefighter when he connected...and he connected a lot.

Biden rattled off a list of McCain's positions on issues ranging from taxes to alternative energy, repeatedly saying, "That's not change; that's more of the same."

Sen. Barack Obama joined Biden onstage at the end of his speech, the campaign announced, marking his first appearance in person at the convention that nominated him to be the first African-American to lead a major party ticket for the White House.

Biden praised Obama as a leader who had been right on a wide range of issues, including Afghanistan.

"On the most important national security issues of our time, John McCain was wrong, and Barack Obama has been proven right," he said.

But in all honesty, the best speech of the night was the one you didn't see John Kerry make. You can watch it here, courtesy of Talking Points Memo.

Kerry had some of the best lines of the entire convention.

Candidate McCain now supports the wartime tax cuts that Senator McCain once denounced as immoral. Candidate McCain criticizes Senator McCain's own climate change bill. Candidate McCain says he would now vote against the immigration bill that Senator McCain wrote. Are you kidding? Talk about being for it before you're against it.

Let me tell you, before he ever debates Barack Obama, John McCain should finish the debate with himself. And what's more, Senator McCain, who once railed against the smears of Karl Rove when he was the target, has morphed into candidate McCain who is using the same "Rove" tactics and the same "Rove" staff to repeat the same old politics of fear and smear. Well, not this year, not this time. The Rove-McCain tactics are old and outworn, and America will reject them in 2008.

So remember, when we choose a commander-in-chief this November, we are electing judgment and character, not years in the Senate or years on this earth. Time and again, Barack Obama has seen farther, thought harder, and listened better. And time and again, Barack Obama has been proven right.

When John McCain stood on the deck of an aircraft carrier just three months after 9/11 and proclaimed, "Next up, Baghdad!", Barack Obama saw, even then, "an occupation of "undetermined length, undetermined cost, undetermined consequences" that would "only fan the flames of the Middle East." Well, guess what? Mission accomplished.

So who can we trust to keep America safe? When Barack Obama promised to honor the best traditions of both parties and talk to our enemies, John McCain scoffed. George Bush called it "the soft comfort of appeasement." But today, Bush's diplomats are doing exactly what Obama said: talking with Iran.

So who can we trust to keep America safe? When democracy rolled out of Russia, and the tanks rolled into Georgia, we saw John McCain respond immediately with the outdated thinking of the Cold War. Barack Obama responded like a statesman of the 21st century.

So who can we trust to keep America safe? When we called for a timetable to make Iraqis stand up for Iraq and bring our heroes home, John McCain called it "cut and run." But today, even President Bush has seen the light. He and Prime Minister Maliki agree on guess what? a timetable.

Kerry made a beautiful case, as did Biden later in the evening, powered by the Big Dog earlier. Clinton got a three minute plus ovation from the crowd. They loved him, and he really set the table. Biden cleared that table and despite his classic "George, I mean John McCain" gaffe really showed his passion and fire, but it was John Kerry who really laid out the most powerful argument yet that Barack Obama is far more ready to be President than John McSame, on the basis of the judgement displayed just in the last several months alone.

That is the message Obama's camp has to get across. Obama has been proven right, McSame has been proven wrong. He's already shown himself to be a more capable and much wiser leader than McSame.

Last night was pretty amazing stuff. Let's see what tonight holds when Barry speaks.

What Will The Big Dog Say?

I think Bill Clinton's speech tonight is far more important than Hillary's speech was last night. We knew what Hillary was going to say, that supporting Barack Obama is the most important thing and that her supporters needed to get over it, or John McSame will end up President. Any semblance of a political future she had was 100% dependent on her nailing that speech and making all the right noises. She did.

Bill Clinton on the other hand is not restrained by that. He knows he's the only two-term Democrat President still around, and that gives him a hell of a castle wall to perch upon and direct the slings and arrows at whoever he damn well wants to. He's been Hillary's pit bull since the spring and he's taken some pretty brutal shots. I'm honestly not convinced that he's going to play nice at all. Nobody's making him do so, not even Hillary can control the guy.

Now, he won't come out and attack Obama directly. But I seriously doubt he's going to praise the man either. He's hurt because Obama's camp has portrayed him as a racist, and the Big Dog is all butthurt at that. Too bad. Bill Clinton knew at every step of Hillary's campaign what he was doing and what he was saying. He knows the reality of Plan 2012 and what's coming down the pike for the next four years economically and socially in this country.

Bill Clinton is not a stupid man, especially when it comes to knowing how relationships work. He's acting like a spoiled child because it's politically convenient for him to do so, he can make a mess and still get away with it...he's Bill Clinton. Ain't nobody gonna call him out.

Except the Obama camp did. That wasn't part of the plan. Obama was supposed to step aside and have the Big Dog have another shot at the White House.

Now he's got one final shot at assuring Hillary Plan 2012. It'll come at the cost of African-Americans, but he figures he has four years to mend fences...and we're not going to vote for a Republican after Katrina. It might even work, he figures. That Bill Clinton charm will work in the long run, right?

So, here I am after defending the guy back in the 90's, wondering just how hard he's going to try to screw Obama over tonight. I shouldn't be considering that, really. Bill Clinton should be giving an amazing speech and he should be behind Obama all the way. The reality is he's not, and he has nobody to blame but himself.

So either we're going to see Bill Clinton suck it up and do what he has to do, or we're going to see him blow a hole in the side of the S.S. O-biden and try to sink it. The fact that I don't know what he's going to do scares me a little. But it does NOT surprise me. Not anymore. Bill Clinton could come to bury Caesar and he is the one guy in the party who could get away with it...after all he's been getting away with it for a while now.

Will he emulate Ted Kennedy? That's the kind of passing the torch speech that the Big Dog needs to make, it was a beautiful, emotional speech that sealed Ted Kennedy's role as the real elder statesman of the party and voice of our traditional liberal values. Bill Clinton could do that, he's more than capable. I don't think he will.

If he gives the subtext that Hillary Plan 2012 is on tonight, Obama is in real trouble. If he gives the subtext that it's over and that he's accepted the fact it's over, and that Obama is the way to the future, Obama still has a real shot at winning.

But the fact that I don't know what he's going to do, and the fact that I'm finding myself questioning the guy is the real problem here.

We'll see what happens.

Somebody Put The Big Dog Outside

...because he's crapping all over the nice carpet in the living room.

Bill Clinton appeared to undermine Sen. Barack Obama again Tuesday.

The former president, speaking in Denver, posed a hypothetical question in which he seemed to suggest that that the Democratic Party was making a mistake in choosing Obama as its presidential nominee.

He said: "Suppose you're a voter, and you've got candidate X and candidate Y. Candidate X agrees with you on everything, but you don't think that candidate can deliver on anything at all. Candidate Y you agree with on about half the issues, but he can deliver. Which candidate are you going to vote for?"

Then, perhaps mindful of how his off-the-cuff remarks might be taken, Clinton added after a pause: "This has nothing to do with what's going on now."

The comments are unlikely to be taken as an innocent mistake by those Democrats who continue to be angry with the former president for, they say, not supporting the Illinois senator wholeheartedly, if not implicitly undercutting him.

There's a valid argument that Eric Boehlert brings up at Media Matters that the whole Big Dog 'n' Hill vs Obama is just a ploy for the Village to help the GOP.

Fact: Many in the press have portrayed Clinton's planned convention address, as well as the fact that her name is being placed into nomination, as an unprecedented, heavy-handed power grab.

Fact: It's not. In years past, Democratic candidates who won lots of primaries and accumulated hundreds of delegates (sorry, Howard Dean and Bill Bradley) have always been allowed to address the convention and very often place their name into nomination. It's the norm. It's expected. It's a formality.

This newly manufactured media attack on Clinton is just the latest in a long line of press grenades thrown her way this year. But this time, she's not the only victim, because the media's concocted story line is being used to unfairly skewer Barack Obama, too.

Consider New York magazine: "Obama Agrees to Roll-Call Vote for Clinton. Does That Make Him a Sissy?"

What's so startling in watching the coverage of the Clinton convention-speech story has been the complete ignorance displayed about how previous Democratic conventions have dealt with runners-up like Clinton. It's either complete ignorance or the media's strong desire to painstakingly avoid any historical context, which, in turn, allows the press to mislead news consumers into thinking Clinton's appearance (as well as the gracious invitation extended by Obama) represents something unique and unusual. Something newsworthy.

And while that's certainly very true, there's really no excuse for Bill Clinton to still be saying stuff like this especially when the media is looking for any reason to go "AHA! THE DEMOCRATS ARE HOPELESSLY BROKEN AND SPLIT!"

Bill Clinton knows better than to say something like this and not expect it to be taken in the worst possible context. But he's doing it anyway. Think about that.

It Smacks Of Desperation, It Does

Amanda Marcotte over at Pandagon argues that the wingnuts are so completely out of ammunition that they are resorting to (and I kid you not) going to the Planned Parenthood clinics in the Denver area and having protests proclaiming Democrats are genocidal racists for trying to convince women of color to have abortions, thus killing off all their race.

Mostly, it’s a distraction. One thread that’s interesting is how they’re picking their targets for abuse. The African-American Caucus was targeted for disruption, as was the interfaith prayer service. In other words, they’re targeting black delegates and religious delegates for abuse, though I have little doubt that they think they’re “educating” people by yelling at them. As if there’s a single person in America who is unaware of the parameters of this discussion. Which goes to show that the targets of anti-choice protests are assumed to be especially stupid by anti-choicers. Why black people and religious people especially? There’s a host of complex reasons, but it boils down to this---anti-choicers feel like they are entitled to dominate and control those two groups of people, as well as women. (Yes, I’m aware there’s significant overlap between these three groups, but that just makes it worse. If you’re a black Christian woman, they probably think they get to set your alarm clock for you and monitor your underwear purchases.)

Michelle Malkin especially thinks that you are stupid. Her entire career is built on exploiting racist anxieties in white people and she trucks with white supremacists, but all of a sudden she expects you to think she’s a great spokeswoman for racial harmony. She’s so against abortion she sucked up her nerve and spoke to actual non-white anti-choice protesters to bolster the bizarre claims of anti-choicers that reproductive rights especially hurt women of color. Considering that black and Hispanic women use abortion just like white women, I’m hard-pressed to understand why it would somehow be better for these women would be better off being sent to back alley butchers. The slim bit of evidence that anti-choicers cling to in these assertions is the fact that black women have a disproportionate number of abortions---so the conclusion is that Planned Parenthood is out to get black people.

Because as we all know, the modern GOP has a long history of helping people of color over the last 50 years.

This kind of thing really bothers me. I'm strongly against abortion personally, but it's my choice to be against it. Your choice may differ and I may not agree with it. But you still have the choice because the law says you do, and quite frankly we have enough bad laws on the books over the years that have told one group or another "you don't have a choice." Would the world be a better place without as many abortions? Sure. Would it be better to make them illegal in every single case? That's equally barbaric.

To use that as a weapon against the Democrats accusing them of mass genocide when the same wingnuts gleefully spread the gospel of purging the country of Hispanics and purging the world of Muslims? Not going to work.

It's Too Obvious For Them

It's a bit disconcerting to see Taylor Marsh, one of Hillary's strongest blogging allies, and Big Tent Democrat (another solid Hillblogger) over at Talk Left, discuss the events of the last 48 hours. It's clear Taylor smells an obvious rat in Denver.

Once HRC endorsed Obama, the Clinton camp immediately worked to help me get access to Obama's people. Meanwhile, the Obama team reached out to me at the same time, through the Clinton camp. As most know, I was the first to do hard reports on Obama, with many tough posts all primary season. The Obama team has been nothing but accessible and worked to give me everything I've asked for so far.

So, Big Tent Democrat, whose writing I appreciate very much, is off the mark on this one. The truth is that some HRC supporters wouldn't listen if Obama showed up on their doorsteps carrying an equivalent to the political clearing house check. The other truth is that Obama has a larger field to convince than the remaining HRC supporters who are willing to cut off Lady Liberty's nose to spite democracy's face.

So this "tensions boil" baloney is only managing to do one thing: help John McCain, who continues to put out ad after ad targeting the junior high division of HRC's former supporters.

And yet both of them magically fail to miss the point: There are plenty of voters who are going to vote McCain regardless of what Hillary says, they wanted a woman in the White House. But it's the Clinton surrogates who should know better who are making the most egregious attacks. This are people Hillary can certainly control, people like Howard Wolfson and Paul Begala.

And Clinton's not making any effort to stop them. The point is that the attacks against Obama and the Democrats by the Village and the GOP are being fed by Hillary's own people while Hillary merely denies any involvement.

Obiden Party!

Courtesy of Cincinnati Blog, those of you in the Cincy area, there's an Obama watch party for Thursday's big speech. In NKY the party's at DownUnder in Covington (underneath the Obama campaign office there) and in Cincy the party's on Fountain Square where you can watch the speech on the big screen.

Party starts at 8. You may even find a Zandar there.

So It's Live And Let Live From Clinton, Right?

The 800-pound plaid hedgehog in the room that nobody's talking about is "What will Hillary's supporters do about O-biden"? Will they accept the ticket and work to help it win, or will they go to the dark side and put McSame in the White House in order to give Hillary a shot in 2012?

It seems like an unusually cynical and downright cruel thing to ask. After all, Hillary's a Democrat. But the fact remains only about half of her supporters are behind Obama right now. And there's increasing evidence that the Clinton camp and their supporters are going to make O-biden pay.

Evan as Hillary Clinton praised the newly-minted Democratic presidential ticket Saturday, some in her circle are furious Barack Obama did not appear to give the New York Democrat serious consideration for the No. 2 spot, or even ask for her consultation on the matter.

"Set aside that Obama said she'd be on anybody's short list, set aside anybody's feelings on whether she was deliberately snubbed and the pros and cons of whether it should be her," a former Clinton strategist told CNN's Candy Crowley. "Focus on the politics of it and you have about a quarter of Clinton loyalists still not joining the caravan…for God's sake, not to even make a show of taking her seriously is flatly stupid."

A top Clinton advisor also told CNN they were "outraged," over how the process was conducted.

"You can't put [Obama VP vetters] Eric Holder and Caroline Kennedy on an hour plane ride to Chappaqua just to check the box? They should have done it just for the optics," this person said. "Barack never even said to her, 'Here's how I envision the job'– not one discussion with her about [the position]."

"They thought her supporters were mad before? They are really mad now," this person also said. We knew it was never going to happen but you would have thought they might at least make a show of it."

What the hell is going on here? Do the Clinton surrogates have no sense of shame or even political propriety? And while Hillary herself is solidly behind Joe Biden and Barack Obama, some voters are most certainly not.

"This is a voter's revolt," said Darragh Murphy, who founded Puma PAC, a pro-Clinton political action committee whose acronym stands for People United Means Action.

Polls suggest Obama's narrow national lead is all but disappearing amid attacks from a newly aggressive and disciplined McCain campaign. One reason for this appears to be that barely half of Clinton's supporters plan to vote for Obama, according to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released last week. With the last two presidential elections decided by a small number of voters in swing states, Obama needs a unified party to win in November.

Puma PAC is among a multitude of pro-Clinton groups that formed online to protest a variety of issues, including perceived media bias and flaws in the primary process. In Denver, Murphy's group plans to show the premiere of an unfinished movie, "The Audacity of Democracy," and is cosponsoring a protest and candlelight salute to Clinton tomorrow. Another group, PUMA 08, will coordinate communication between its members and the press, and provide a home base for bloggers who support Clinton.

A separate organization, 18 Million Voices Rise Hillary Rise, is calling on Clinton supporters to join a march and gathering celebrating Clinton's achievements and the 88th anniversary of women's suffrage on Tuesday.

Democratic analysts downplay the significance of the demonstrators because Clinton's top aides and prominent supporters have shunned them. But analysts are aware they could be a distraction.

"I think the vast majority of the Hillary folks did fall in love with Hillary - and now are certainly falling in line with Obama," said Democratic strategist Chris Lehane. "Having said that, there's going to be the largest gathering of press outside of Beijing in Denver this week, with all of them on a hair-trigger for the slightest sign of dissonance and conflict. . . . It has all the elements of a tinderbox environment."

The goal for O-Biden at the Denver convention tomorrow is to bury the hatchet with these voters, but it's going to be a tightrope walk. The Village will be looking for any excuse to make the Democrats seem inept, broken, and weak. They always do. And the GOP is already making the pitch to disaffected Hillary voters.

In a blistering new ad, John McCain’s campaign accused Barack Obama of passing over Hillary Clinton as his running mate because she pointed out his flaws during the Democratic primaries.

Obama announced Delaware Sen. Joe Biden as his vice presidential pick Saturday, following reports that Clinton was not even vetted for the job.

McCain’s ad capitalizes on the lingering tension between Obama and Clinton’s supporters, with just one day remaining until the Democratic National Convention in Denver.

“She won millions of votes. But isn’t on his ticket. Why? For speaking the truth,” the narrator in the ad says.

The ad then quotes Clinton criticizing Obama for being vague and “increasingly negative.”

“The truth hurt. And Obama didn’t like it,” the narrator says.

The subtext, as subtle as a 20-pound sledgehammer to the privates, is "Screw O-biden! Vote McSame!"

Let's get one thing perfectly straight, folks. This is an organized effort from the beginning to sink Obama. The Clinton camp allowing this kind of stuff to air publicly on the weekend before the convention is proof enough for me that Hillary Plan 2012 is on...and the speed at which these pro-Hillary groups have organized for Denver all but locks it down as the plan all along. As the Clinton people say, they knew it wasn't going to be her from the start. They made no effort to disabuse the Village or their voters of the hope that she was going to be Obama's pick. Hillary could have put an end to it, but chose not to.

So instead of Hillary Clinton being the bridge to unite the party behind O-biden, now Hillary Clinton will become the wedge the GOP hopes to drive into the heart of the Democrats in 2008 and split off enough voters to give McSame a fighting chance in November. The Villiage may be aiding and abetting the GOP's tactics...but so is Hillary.

She's working for the other side now. She has been since became clear she wasn't going to win back in early May. The Clintons will make no real effort to help O-Biden. Surrogates will continue to attack Obama in front of the Village while Hillary professes her undying support. The GOP will continue to feature her in attack ads. It's the same tactics we'd expect the GOP to pull. Any attempt to denounce Hillary will only draw further attacks from not the Clintons, but the Village talking heads and the GOP coming to her defense.

Hillary knows she has a shot in 2016. But she knows she has a better shot in 2012. All she has to do is screw over America to get it. Strap in, kids. It's gonna be an ugly week. You need a scorecard to keep track of the good guys and bad guys, and Hillary falls directly into the latter.

Cross-posted at BooMan Tribune.

Obama's Nightmare Scenario: Hillary Makes Her Move

In the last post I talked about a scenario where the city of Denver is thrown into chaos by a false-flag operation by the GOP to assure Obama loses.

But there's another scenario I'd like to discuss:

One where Obama doesn't even end up as the nominee.

Again, look at the chessboard and where the pieces are. See how the moves could play out from here.

First we have Hillary's name being put on the nomination ballot as a favor to her and her supporters.

"I am convinced that honoring Clinton's historic campaign in this way will help us celebrate this defining moment in our history and bring the party together in a strong, united fashion," Obama said in a statement.

Observers have been wondering for months whether there continues to be a rift between the two former opponents, and there have been several reports that Clinton supporters plan to demonstrate at the Aug. 25-28 convention in Denver, Colo.

Placing both names in nomination will serve as "a show of unity and in recognition of the historic race she ran and the fact that she was the first woman to compete in all of our nation's primary contests," said another joint statement by the campaigns of Obama and Clinton.

A move to restore party unity, while the Hillary or Bust faction of the Democrats proudly call themselves the PUMAs...Party Unity, My Ass! It's not being put on for their show. It's being put on like wool over our eyes.

Second, both Bill and Hillary will speak at the convention. I am convinced they will make the case not for Hillary, but against Obama.

Third, party leaders are now openly questioning Obama, and the Village media is going right along with it, a week before the convention.

As Senator Barack Obama prepares to accept the Democratic presidential nomination next week, party leaders in battleground states say the fight ahead against Senator John McCain looks tougher than they imagined, with Mr. Obama vulnerable on multiple fronts despite weeks of cross-country and overseas campaigning.

These Democrats — 15 governors, members of Congress and state party leaders — say Mr. Obama has yet to convert his popularity among many Americans into solutions to crucial electoral challenges: showing ownership of an issue, like economic stewardship or national security; winning over supporters of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton; and minimizing his race and experience level as concerns for voters.

Mr. Obama has run for the last 18 months as the candidate of hope. Yet party leaders — while enthusiastic about Mr. Obama and his state-by-state campaign operations — say he must do more to convince the many undecided Democrats and independents that he would address their financial anxieties rather than run, by and large, as an agent of change — given that change, they note, is not an issue.

“I particularly hope he strengthens his economic message — even Senator Obama can speak more clearly and specifically about the kitchen-table, bread-and-butter issues like high energy costs,” said Gov. Ted Strickland of Ohio. “It’s fine to tell people about hope and change, but you have to have plenty of concrete, pragmatic ideas that bring hope and change to life.”

Or, in the blunter words of Gov. Phil Bredesen, Democrat of Tennessee: “Instead of giving big speeches at big stadiums, he needs to give straight-up 10-word answers to people at Wal-Mart about how he would improve their lives.”Does this look like party unity to you? It looks like a revolt to me. These are folks supposedly on Obama's side, but is this being sent as a clear warning that the Democrats believe Obama should decline the nomination for Hillary? When's the last time you heard of a presumptive nominee getting attacked like this a week before the convention?

Fourth, The Media is playing along. Everywhere you look we're being told that "Obama has a slim lead that is tightening." He's not 15 or 20 points ahead when by all accounts he should be. The Village seems to think Obama has already lost. McCain is the maverick underdog, while Obama is the faltering and fading star. The reality is McCain is running a miserable campaign...but the Village and the noise machine are selling the "Obama is in trouble" narrative as hard as they can in a year when the GOP as a whole is about to find itself losing another 30 seats in the House and possibly enough in the Senate to give the Dems a filibuster proof 60.

And yet the "Obama in trouble" narrative won't end. Why is that?

The obvious answer is that Hillary's move won't come now, but in 2012. She figures she can beat McCain. But there's still a slight chance that she'll go for the brass ring. Obama won't have the support when he needs it. It could happen...there's a chance the nomination vote will get held up, then contested...then fought out for real. Neither side will have the 2,118 needed for the nomination.

A brutal floor fight could go Hillary's way. Things would have to play perfectly for her, but it's possible. Obama could give up for the good of the party.

From there it's anyone's guess. I'm hoping I'm crazy. But I forsee some bad, bad things in Denver for Obama.

Chicago 1968 Redux And What It Means For America

Over at BT, Steven D talks about First Amendment rights and the DNC Convention opening in a week. He brings up a very good point about the Village perception of the convention in Denver however.

But seriously, with all this talk and speculation about "violence" at the Democratic Convention it does make me wonder if someone in the government (i.e., the Bush administration) or the RNC has a false flag operation set to go to disrupt the convention and give the appearance that Democrats/Liberals are dangerous, violent, irrational and anti-American. Sort of like the ads we keep seeing from the McCain camp. Just saying, there appears to be something rank and rotten emanating from all this fear mongering and speculation about massive and violent protests which will, of course, require a massive police response along the lines of Chicago in 1968 or Seattle during the WTO meeting there in 1999.

Am I crazy, or does anyone else smell a rat? It's not like our government doesn't have a history of infiltrating protest groups for the purpose of instigating violence which can than be blamed on the "Left." Or has anyone forgotten Cointelpro already? Frankly, after 8 years of vote suppression, vote stealing, corrupt political prosecutions by the DOJ, unwarranted domestic surveillance and spying on Americans on an unprecedented scale, and a host of other dirty tricks by republicans, why should we believe they will not take the opportunity to deliberately attempt to disrupt the Democratic Convention in which the the first African American nominee of either party for President is to receive his widest national exposure to date?

After all, we know the Denver cops have a converted warehouse that they plan on using as a massive detention center and that Rush Limbaugh has said on his radio show in April that "Riots in Denver, the Democrat Convention would see to it that we don't elect Democrats" like it would be a GOOD IDEA to make sure that would happen.

Limbaugh said with massive riots in Denver, which he called part of "Operation Chaos," the people on the far left would look bad.

"There won't be riots at our convention," Limbaugh said of the Republican National Convention. "We don't riot. We don't burn our cars. We don't burn down our houses. We don't kill our children. We don't do half the things the American left does."

He believes electing Democrats will hurt America's security and economy and appeared to call on his listeners to make sure that doesn't happen.

"We do, hopefully, the right thing for the sake of this country. We're the only one in charge of our affairs. We don't farm out our defense if we elect Democrats ... and riots in Denver, at the Democratic Convention will see to it we don't elect Democrats. And that's the best damn thing that can happen to this country, as far as I can think," Limbaugh said.

And with the American people angrier than ever at the GOP, suddenly the Village is mightily concerned that the DEMOCRATIC national convention will the site of riots and tear gas. What's wrong with THAT logic?

Not to at all suggest that rioting at the Repulican National Convention is a good idea, mind you. But it makes no sense to riot in Denver unless you're trying to discredit the Dems and scare the voters. And yet the Village is expecting it to happen, and so are the Denver cops. The nutjobs on the right are hard at work trying to spread the meme that Barack Obama is so hated by his own party that a massive riot in Denver is inevitable, and every time I see that put out there, it's connected to a group called Re-Create '68.

The interesting thing is that this group is indeed protesting the convention...but is protesting it peacefully while giving a large three-day concert. And yet the right is licking their chops, saying R68 is going to burn the city down and assure McCain wins this fall.

Something's not right here. I'm sure the Bushies would love nothing better than to declare Denver under martial law for a week and make sure the convention is canceled or delayed, blame the "liberals" and assure that the GOP remains in power for another four years.

Think about what that would do. Think honestly about the third and fourth order consequences of this. Look at the chessboard and make the moves in your head.

You'd have images of riots and cops busting in heads, the right winger SCREAMING on the teevee about those dirty fucking America hating liberals and how if Obama is elected every US city over 5,000 people will burn in dirty hippie flames. The Republicans would lock the Twin Cities down for their convention fucking tanks at the Mall of America, and of course it would go off without a hitch, the media would report happily. Denver would have served as a lesson, and a brutal, brutal warning to the peaceful protesters. Of course, more "violent protesters" would be detained ahead of the convention in Minneapolis as a "safety precaution after Denver." The need for more domestic surveillance like the kind suggested yesterday would be "instantly made clear".

The ads would write themselves. For the next two months the airwaves would be filled with replays of the "Denver Riots" and the guilt welded on to every Democrat in the country as permanent baggage. The GOP would promise bold new measures to make sure "we never have another Denver."

McCain would win in a landslide. Most likely, the Democratic majority in the House and Senate would be intact, but barely. It wouldn't matter however. Republicans bring American order and safety! Democrats bring un-American hippie chaos and death! President McCain would make his first priority to announce even MORE new domestic safety measures to "prevent any more domestic terrorism like Denver" from happening again. Just like after September 11, we would do everything he asked. Anytime the Dems tried to do anything, they would be literally beaten with images of the "Denver Riots."

The RNC convention in the Twin Cities meanwhile would become the symbol for the new locked down, police state America. Even more power would be invested in the executive branch, law enforcement would have sweeping new abilities, and the "surveillance state" would become a fact of life, like it is now in the UK. We would be told before we can defeat enemies in Iran and Russia, we would have to defeat enemies in Indiana and Rhode Island. Clean, neat, orderly America!

The next target would be the internet. Once it became clear that the "Denver terrorists" were using the ordinary internet to coordinate their activities, the GOP would demand an "iPatriot Act" that would subject all electronic communication to monitoring. We would be told it was necessary to stop another Denver, and of course we would comply. The internet would get locked down, and free speech and uncontrolled information on the net would be a thing of the past. We'd make the Great Firewall Of China look like a broken Commodore 64.

Of course, the logical endpoint of all this would be where the Constitution would be suspended for terrorists, then criminals in general, and then citizens. And it all would have started in Denver.

One week from now.

How easy would it be to sell a Denver Riot to the media and the world?

It's already been done. And you know what? If the Denver Riot plan doesn't work, the GOP has Plan B.

Be prepared.