in my comments or diaries? I have mentioned a few times that I haven't been able to figure it out, and some helpful souls have directed me to various places, but I still don't understand. I would appreciate a simple, step-by-step set of instructions. I was not exposed to HTML or other computer codes, lingo, etc., in my education, and I need some very basic tutoring.

Since John McCain brought up Williams Jennings Bryan, I thought it was only fair and decent to remind him that even back in 1900, when Bryan ran as a Democrat against the Republican ticket of McKinley and Roosevelt, dirty tricks were a factor in the campaign. Humorist Finley Peter Dunne, the Chicago creator of "Mr. Dooley," poked fun at the efforts of the candidates to avoid embarrassment. This is an excerpt from "Troubles of a Candidate," which is from the election campagin of 1900. For the benefit of readers: Mark Hanna was the Karl Rove of the Republican party back then, Emilio Aguinaldo was the leader of the Phillipine resistance to the Americans, and Andrew Carnagie was not seen as a friend of the Democratic party, which had positioned itself as the advocate for the working man. Dunne’s essays were first published in Chicago newspapers, but he quickly achieved national recognition, and for a brief time was one of the most popular commentators on politics, culture and contemporary events in America.

I was just over at Hillary Clinton's website, surfing through the comments on her blog. Far too many to count were saying "I respect and love Hillary, but I won't vote for Obama." WTF? I think that the mask has been ripped off of something that has been hidden in the Democratic party for a very long time; it is beyond my capacity to analyze - is it frustrated privilege, taking their ball and going home? Is it venting that will release loud noises and gouts of steam, and then calm down? Have these people actually ever been supporters of democratic ideals? I think what worries me the most is the ahistorical, unreflective approach taken by these people. Have they never faced adversity in their lives, or had to settle for less than the whole pie?

Today is both a day of wonder and a day of reflection. Forty years ago, RFK was cut down at his moment of victory, just as 103 years earlier, our greatest president (thus far) was denied any opportunity to savor the victory to which he had lead this country, by assassin's bullets. But this is also the day when, taking a deep breath, the entire world looks with amazed eyes at the nomination of Barack Obama, a man with both African and European ancestry, to lead our country forward, our stained and dishonored nation, still and once more representing, as Barack quoted on Tuesday, the "last, best hope of earth." There is a lump in my throat and a tear in my eye as I remember, as Jesse Jackson reminded us from a summit in Tanzania, "the martyrs who paid such a big price for this moment." What is it about America that causes people the whole world over to regard us with so much intensity, as something special and remarkable?

through Springfield, Illinois." Many of us have reflected and commented on the curious fact that no Illinois politician has made it to the White House since Abraham Lincoln, and now it appears that the next president will be from Illinois, and the heartbreaking symbolism of Lincoln's sacrifice being fullfilled by the election of a young Black man who readily acknowledges the "mystic chords of memory" connecting us to the ideals and aspiration of that time. Now I am going to indulge my taste for quoting old-fashioned poetry, with one from Vachel Lindsay:

IT is portentous, and a thing of state  
That here at midnight, in our little town,  
A mourning figure walks, and will not rest,  
Near the old court-house pacing up and down.

continued over jump

A. E. Housman, perhaps the purest lyricist of English poetry, published very few poems (four thin volumes) but he had a facility for memorable phrases. Maybe it it too harsh to quote this one, apropos of our recently concluded Democratic primary contest, but this somehow fits into the tenor of recent days:

Her strong enchantments failing,

continued over jump:

I just watched Hillary "apologise" for her tasteless reference to Bobby Kennedy's assassination. She said that she didn't intend it to be offensive and she was sorry if anyone took it that way (paraphrase). That isn't an apology, it's a defensive reaction.

Caroline Kennedy?!!

I was just thinking back to the moment when it was announced that she was going to endorse Senator Obama. I was watching CSPAN for the results of the South Carolina primary, thinking about the uphill battle Obama was facing to displace Hillary Clinton for the nomination, and wishing for some political stroke of lighting when the banner streamed across the screen: Caroline Kennedy to endorse Obama. Zowie! I started to hyperventilate and tear up at the realization that this icon of my childhood, who had stayed strictly away from politics for so much of her life, was willing to put her prestige and mythic aura to work for Obama.

I have received a number of negative replies to my past suggestions that Barack Obama would be helped in November by adding Nancy Pelosi to the ticket. I have tried to get my head around the thinking expressed in those comments, but I am still not convinced that there is a better choice. Let me explain:

In honor of International Worker's Day, a gem from Sarah Cleghorn:

The golf links lie so near the mill
That almost every day
The laboring children can look out
And watch the men at play.

How many other Kossacks recognise this simple lyric? I grew up with the songs and poetry of the American left, from Pete Seeger and the Weavers to Carl Sandburg, Vachel Lindsay and many more. Too often we lose sight of the roots of our movement. May Day as an international worker's day originated in America, when

in August of 1864 - he wrote a memo and had his cabinet sign it:

This morning, as for some days past, it seems exceedingly probable that this Administration will not be re-elected. Then it will be my duty to so co-operate with the President elect, as to save the Union between the election and the inauguration; as he will have secured his election on such ground that he cannot possibly save it afterwards.

Remember what happened next: Sherman took Atlanta, Sheridan cleared the Shenandoah Valley and Lincoln was re-elected with 55% of the popular vote.

After watching Barack Obama deflect and avoid the mud-slinging during last night's debate I once again blessed him for bringing the skills of a community organizer to this struggle on a national level. And then, this morning, the words Pete Seeger sang in Talking Union rang in my head, expressing the spirit that moves us forward:

That if you don't let red-baiting break you up,
And if you don't let stoolpigeons break you up,
And if you don't let vigilantes break you up,
And if you don't let race hatred break you up,
You'll win. What I mean, take it easy, but take it!

I have previously stated my belief that Senator Obama will pick Hillary Clinton as his running mate, basing this opinion on the traditional political compromises that get brokered in most election cycles. However, Senator Clinton has been burning bridges at such a rate that it may become impossible for her to be placed on the ticket. If she is not the VP nominee, the problem for the Democratic party wil be to select a nominee who brings some feeling of unity and progress to the campaign. I think that a male VP nominee would be profoundly alienating to substantial sections of the electorate who have become deeply invested in seeing women recognized as potent and legitimate participants in the electoral process.

Feminists

Jane Hamsher’s comment on the recent recantation by the Day, a Connecticut newspaper, of its endorsement of Joe Lieberman for Senate in 2006 got me to thinking about the role that certain feminist advocates have played in advancing an agenda that subordinates all other considerations to the single goal of advancing the influence of women politicians and women-led organizations. Jane pointed a finger at NARAL and Planned Parenthood for their inexplicable support of the embattled Lieberman, whose stated position on the issue of reproductive rights appalled many observers (Guerney Ride Joe?). I remember reading much speculation about what could have motivated these endorsements, and the consensus seemed to be that the women who controlled the endorsements were more interested in preserving their access to the perquisites of power than in supporting the anti-war progressive candidate. And when I look beyond this example, to the

for VP. I woke up this morning thinking harsh thoughts about Senator Clinton, and wishing that she hadn't "thrown the kitchen sink" at Senator Obama in her latest electoral push. However, then I started trying to think like a leading presidential candidate faced with a tenacious opponent who is willing to "burn down the house" in order to pursue the top spot on the ticket in the fall.

Back when I graduated from law school, in 1977, there was very little taught to us about how to negotiate. A few years later, it became much more common to teach about this topic. I was watching the debate in Austin when I had a flash of insight into a fundamental difference bewteen the Clinton arguments for her election and the Obama appeal, which I think can be seen as a fundamental difference in negotiation stategies.

I just got back from Michelle Obama's appearance at the old Capitol Theater in Madison.

Talk about Daniel in the Lion's den! His positions on many issues are unpalatable, but such courage would be an admirable trait in our own leaders. What I saw: