It was near the end of June in the summer of 1973, about 3 weeks after my 15th birthday.  Summers were hot in Oklahoma.  In the air-conditioned comfort of our family room that summer, my political consciousness was born.  

A little while ago on Countdown (11 PM West Coast airing), Keith Olbermann interviewed John Dean about his new book on Barry Goldwater, co-authored with Barry Jr.  I think it was the first time I've actually seen Dean since that June that began it all for me.  I was struck with an overwhelming urge to write this diary.

Maybe I'm reading too much into this.

But I'm old enough to remember when "Women's Lib" was considered radical fringe politics.  When "Ms." was the name of a magazine, not a form of address used in front of a person's name.  Well, unless that person was Gloria Steinem.  I remember that back in those days when I was advocating for passage of the ERA and eagerly scanning lists of possible female Presidential candidates within the next decade, Anita Bryant was widely admired for taking a stand against all those man-haters, and urging women to embrace their womanhood -- HER version of womanhood, which was stuck squarely in the 1950's, even though she was speaking in the late 70's.

But even at that time, when publicly questioned, many individuals who opposed "women's lib" would preface their opposition remarks with, "Of course, I think women should get equal pay for equal work, BUT . . . ."

Before I was a teacher, I was a lawyer.  A litigator.  I only practiced law for a few years, so most of my work was behind-the-scenes stuff -- writing briefs and pleadings, filing and responding to motions, gathering evidence, propounding and responding to discovery requests. I didn't have many high-profile in-court moments; those are usually reserved for more senior attorneys in the firms I worked for.

But I did learn a few things about how to effectively cross-examine a witness.  And over the past few days, I've noticed an almost foolproof cross-examination strategy that the Clinton campaign is using to try to cripple Obama's candidacy.

Hey, Keith.  Love your show.  Love how you give us Kossacks sneak previews of the big bombshells.

I'm a little disturbed by something this afternoon.  After reading this morning's WaPo article about McCain's temper [great read, everybody -- check it out if you haven't already!], and a few follow-up diaries here, I headed to my "Favorites" list to find my very favorite video about McCain's temper so I could post it here, and it has diaappeared.  I need your help, because this video needs to get out to the American people.

It was a video from your show.  The episode entitled "McAngry."  Had some awesome footage of various military & political folks who have experienced or witnessed McCain's rage in action, and their opinions about what that means about his fitness for office.  It was some really shocking stuff.

Last night on late night talk radio, I heard perhaps the most chilling statement I've ever heard uttered in public.  

After having had a chance to digest that statement, reflect on it, and consider its implications, I have come to a sobering realization:  No matter which candidate you support, no matter who runs in November and no matter who wins, every American who believes at all in the reasons our nation was founded owes an immense, almost incalculable debt of gratitude to Sen. Barack Obama.

OK, so yesterday after school I went out for a smoke break and to get some coffee before returning to do some grading.  While I was driving back I heard the MSM soundbite version of the "bitter" statement.

My worldview changed at that moment.  Because as soon as I heard it, I thought, "Oh my God.  He just kissed the Presidency good-bye."  Yes, at that moment my audacity sunk below the level sufficient to sustain hope.  The world immediately became a bleaker place, colors faded, and there didn't seem quite as much reason for doing anything as there had just a few minutes before.

Since then, my views of the situation have gone through additional fluctuations.  I don't flatter myself that many people are holding their breath waiting to hear my views, but below the fold I detail not only those views, but the media coverage and reasoning that prompted them, which may be of slightly more relevance.

I have just been reminded why I had sworn off Morning Joe for the past couple of weeks.  Not sure why I slipped up this morning, but I hereby admit it was stupid.

He's at it again.

In a diary here yesterday, Muzikal203 reported that the Obama campaign was going to unleash the argument that Clinton has run an incompetent campaign, and thus by the standards set up long ago by Clinton herself, she has proven herself the less qualified of the two candidates.

In comments to the diary, some Kossacks expressed concerns about how the general public, the superdelegates, and/or the Clinton campaign itself would respond to Obama bringing out this argument.  Fortunately, now it appears he won't have to.

I was reading dsharma's diary that says, in a nutshell, that it's looking like Obama is going to win, and we Obama supporters need to start looking toward party unity and lay off flaming Clinton.

It was a wake-up call for me. And after thinking about it for a while, I decided to write this diary, to try to take dsharma's call one step further.

I spent yesterday at the caucus for Washington's 47th Legislative District, which includes parts of the 8th (Dave Reichert/potentially Darcy Burner) and 9th (Adam Smith) Congressional Districts.  This was the second of three levels of caucuses held to determine the delegates to the state convention.  

Follow me below the fold for a first-hand account.

Or to put it in MSM Pundit-Speak:  "What do we make of the recent poll results?"

I've been a little confused by what I've been seeing and reading in the past 2 or 3 days.  There seems to be some consensus among the pundits (at least the rational ones) around the idea that Wright didn't actually affect Obama's support, except among a few Republicans; and in fact it actually hurt Clinton more than Obama.  Obama is now leading Clinton in Gallup by his biggest margin ever, for instance.  And his lead in Rasmussen and Real Clear Politics is back up to pre-Wright levels.

And yet, what I've been reading in the blogosphere suggests that in fact some of his support has been leaking away as a result of the Wright Hysteria.  My best attempt at reconciling these apparently conflicting pieces of information is below the fold.

I had this thought earlier this evening, while reading (here on DKos, of course) another of those exchanges between old Boomers who, like me, see Obama's candidacy as both indictment and redemption.  Indictment because, regardless of how understandable it may have been, we are the ones who, following the deaths of our trio of heroes, allowed the dream to die.  

Redemption because, against all reasonable hope, we lived long enough to experience one who has re-ignited our dreams and who has the ability to lead us in carrying the dream forward, maybe even to completion this time.

Redemption is made all the sweeter by the fact that this time my generation is not dreaming alone; this time we are part of a multi-generational mosaic that looks very much like the face of America.

Somehow that all morphed itself, in my overtired mind, into this latest take-off on Jeff Foxworthy's excellent Redneck routine.  Below the fold.

I'm sitting here watching the first cable news "analysis" of the new week, and I'm in shock.  

The good news is they've mentioned Bosnia.

I know, I know.  Politics ain't beanbag, and I should be used to this by now.

But it's just so loathsome.

From NBC's First Read this morning:  

[On Saturday, Clinton's] camp held a call in which it slammed Obama for what it called a lack of transparency and called on him to disclose more details about his dealings with Chicago real estate developer Tony Rezko, who is on trial for corruption.

A comment posted a few minutes ago cautioned that Obama should not assume his fundraising superiority will continue as against McCain; now that McCain is the confirmed Repub nominee, the Repub funds may start flowing.

I don't profess to know whether that prediction is accurate or not.  My thoughts below the fold, but I'd love for the Kos community to help me figure it out.  

NOTE: I actually drafted this earlier today, before the Farrakhan torpedo hit.  But I think that endorsement amplifies what I wrote.  

The heads of the Hydra fall in four categories:

1.  Prejudice

2.  Small-mindedness

3.  Ignorance

4.  Cyncism

I grew up in Oklahoma.  Moved there when I was 5 years old, hated it on sight, but stayed till I had completed my undergrad degree.  I was there long enough, and critically enough, to have some insight into "redneck" culture, which is where you can find the staunchest "True Believers" of the meme that Obama hates America (although they aren't necessarily the ones we will be fighting directly -- but more about that below.)

It is with a fair amount of trepidaton that I write this.  No, more than a fair amount.  A lot.  I'm worried that I might be violating some protocol and get myself a bad rep on this site.  (If it's inappropriate, I will be happy to remove it.)

I'm more worried that responses to this diary will contribute to the hysterical and bitter tone that seems to be dominating DKos today.

And I'm even more worried that, although I've always been told I'm a very good writer, I will somehow fail to clearly and credibly communicate what I'm trying to say, and this will be viewed as just one more diary in the primary candidate flame wars, and people won't actually read it.  That worries me a lot. But what would worry me most would be not to put the information out there at all, so with a gulp I begin:

OK, I'll admit it.  I was moved.  

Last night and today in the blogosphere, debate has raged about the meaning of Hillary Clinton's final moments in the debate.  Was she making a cynical attempt to repeat the teary moment in New Hampshire when she "found her voice" -- and won a primary?  Was she really just emphasizing the message of her campaign by contrasting the comfort of being one of the priveleged few with the hardships so many voters are experiencing in our ravaged economy?  Was she signalling to Dems that although she plans to keep fighting for the nomination, they don't need to worry that she'll take the party down in flames if her fight ultimately fails?  Or was it really, in the words of the pundits, valedictory -- a first step on the path toward the moment, on (or even some suggest, before) March 5th, when she will gracefully step aside and not only acknowledge defeat, but pledge her considerable talents in support of the candidate who seems to have succeeded to her mantle of inevitability?

We don't really know, though I, like everyone else, have an opinion.  But I think Jennifer Donahue of the New Hampshire Institute of Politics, speaking on Hardball,  boiled it all down to the essential kernel of truth: