According to Howard Finneman @ Newsweek Mohommed Ali contacted Obama's headquarters requesting attendence to his acceptance speech. According to Howard Finneman Ali stated due to the historic nature of the moment along with the anniversary of Martin Luther King speech also he would like to experience the moment in person.

Is it possible that Obama's Springfield, IL event on Saturday is to introduce an Illinois native as his running mate?  Just conjecture at this point.

Having been an Obama supporter from the beginning and thinking that Clinton would be a terrible choice just a few months ago, I'm starting to warm up to the idea.

Thoughts?

I actually spoke with an army Captain who blogs on right-wing blogs, and expressed (polite) disagreement about Obama during a casual discussion.

Before I begin, I want to make this clear since people might get the wrong idea. He was not using his position or authority to try to pressure me. It was a brief, civil discussion between two adults.

He strikes me as a reasonably intelligent person and he's obviously college educated.

He actually questions the validity of Obama's birth certificate!

All this talk of houses, finance, and the economy make me wonder if we shouldn't contemplate the big stakes gamble we are looking at with a guy who can't even remember where he lives.  

The only way to address this is with the level of seriousness he gives to his own positions ....in other words:  Caption Contest!!!

Rules are simple:  Add your caption in comments. Vote on the one(s) you like by reccomending them.  Add as many captions as you like.  Most rec'd comments wins....

Oh... and remember, we don't refer to Obama's opponent by his name anymore since he has diminished his stature to the point that he is only relevant because he is Obama's opponent...  

Chris Mathews on Hardball tonight had two guests to discuss why some Hillary supporters simply would never vote for Barack Obama.

One of those guests was Bonnie Eber, a host on NPR's To the Contrary. She said something that left me feeling like a fist suddenly came flying out of the screen and caught me square on the jaw.

Look at the past Democratic candidates who had success in winning the Presidency. Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter.

Look it, both Southern WHITE (her emphasis) men ... the country hasn’t changed that much in the last 12 years ... I think a lot of these [Democratic] voters are looking at the Democratic leadership and saying [about the current nominee, Barack Obama], ‘What were you thinking??!’"

It was clear (and shocking) to me that her point was, "A black man??? Our nominee for President????? How could you let this happen, Democratic Leadership?? What were you thinking!!!!????"

I am offended to the core!!!

    As noted before: even if Obama has picked a VP, he can unpick. Biden in particular: slurs against Asians are more McCain's territory, you would think; why would Obama want to go there with his VP pick? And I almost wonder if Georgia got a little hint from Bush to call Biden, to make him look better to Obama, or at least to confuse Obama? Hm. May be worth a diary...

    Note this insightful Time interview with Barack, at Obama's VP: The Candidate Drops Some Hints,

    ...I try to surround myself with people who are about getting the job done, and who are not about ego, self—aggrandizement, getting their names in the press, but our focus on what's best for the American people.
    I think people will see that I'm not afraid to have folks around me who complement my strengths and who are independent. I'm not a believer in a government of yes—men. ...

    Like guy #1 below?

.

Was just at securingamerica.com and listened to the audio of Clark's most recent interview on the Georgia/Russia problem.  Hearing the host of the radio show say how much he wanted to see him as VP or something else important in the Obama administration and hearing the disheartened sound of Clark's reply.

You want this "7 houses" story to have REAL legs?  Then let's go for the jugular.    Please join me in making noise in every media outlet we have available, insisting, No DEMANDING that McCain immediately fire his Spokesman Brian Rogers.

Who the hell is he?  

He's the guy who gave the McCain Camp's official response to the Story when it broke today; and while you think you've heard it, I'm willing to bet you haven't.  

Most media outlets that carried it, censored  it, making it sound almost intelligent, if nasty.  But
But here's the real deal in all it's slanderous, nasty, juvenile, glory
check these highlights:

"We're delighted to have a real estate debate with Barack Obama,"[Obama's house. is] "a frickin' mansion. He doesn't tell people that. You have a mansion you bought in a shady deal with a convicted felon."

..

"In terms of who's an elitist, I think people have made a judgment that John McCain is not an arugula-eating, pointy headed professor-type based on his life story."

is there more? Oh you betcha:

Cue country music --- "he cheated on his wife, will he cheat on his country?"
(don't groan too loud-- I could have spelled it cuntry :-)

Thank God for John McCain and his propensity to go "off script".

This Saturday, Barack Obama will be appearing in Springfield, Illinois at the Old State Capitol complex, to hold a rally and introduce his still-unnamed running mate.  Obama rallies are never small affairs, but this one promises to be especially over-the-top, given that the VP choice is going to be on stage with our candidate for the first time.  

I live just 91 miles away, in Alton, IL, and there is no way I'm going to miss this!  If you're planning on going also, this diary will serve as an information resource and maybe a chance to arrange some meetups.  

I was watching Keith Olberman, and he showed this cover:

That reminded me of an old photo of Barack and Michelle I saw a while back:

Cong. Rahm Emanuel and Sen. Lindsey Graham have completed the debate negotiations.  Here's what the campaigns have agreed to:

First Presidential Debate.  Friday, Sept. 26

• Site: University of Mississippi
• Topic: Foreign Policy & National Security
• Moderator: Jim Lehrer
• Staging: Podium debate
• Answer Format: The debate will be broken into nine, 9-minute segments. The moderator will introduce a topic and allow each candidate 2 minutes to comment. After these initial answers, the moderator will facilitate an open discussion of the topic for the remaining 5 minutes, ensuring that both candidates receive an equal amount of time to comment

Vice Presidential Debate. Thursday, October 2nd

• Site: Washington University in St. Louis
• Moderator: Gwen Ifill
• Staging/Answer Format: To be resolved after both parties’ Vice Presidential nominees are selected.

Second Presidential Debate.  Tuesday, October 7

• Site: Belmont University (Nashville, TN)
• Moderator: Tom Brokaw
• Staging: Town Hall debate
• Format: The moderator will call on members of the audience (and draw questions from the internet). Each candidate will have 2 minutes to respond to each question. Following those initial answers, the moderator will invite the candidates to respond to the previous answers, for a total of 1 minute, ensuring that both candidates receive an equal amount of time to comment. In the spirit of the Town Hall, all questions will come from the audience (or internet), and not the moderator.

Third Presidential Debate, Wednesday, October 15

• Site: Hofstra University (Hempstead, NY)
• Topic: Domestic and Economic policy
• Moderator: Bob Schieffer
• Staging: Candidates will be seated at a table
• Answer Format: Same as First Presidential Debate
• Closing Statements: At the end of this debate (only) each candidate shall have the opportunity for a 90 second closing statement.

All debates will begin at 9PM eastern.  The candidates have also agreed to the Commission on Presidential Debates' rules on third-party candidate eligiblity, which require candidates to (a) be constitutionally eligible to the office, (b) be on enough state ballots to win 270 electoral votes, and (c) "have a level of support of at least 15% (fifteen percent) of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations, using the average of those organizations' most recent publicly-reported results at the time of the determination."  In other words, Bob, Cynthia & Ralph?  You'll be watching.

This makes sense.

If Obama's campaign had planned to roll out their vice presidential pick at any point today, that announcement is likely to be put on hold. Why? The campaign believes the story about McCain's many houses is political gold and they won't want to step on it with a veep announcement that would immediately change the day's storyline.

(Via MyDD.)

I know this is the day of multiple McCain houses and huge disconnect between McCain and the lives of everyday Americans.  But it is also the day that the New England Journal of Medicine came out with a great summary of McCain and Obama's health care systems and it also demonstrates McCain's supremely dangerous plans for the health care of ordinary Americans.  New England Journal of Medicine is one of the most influential in the world.  Their comprehensive summary on health care plansof the two presumptive nominees- Obama and McCain- outlines some scary possibilities.  The most disturbing possibility?  

I don’t often feel compelled to write to politicians, nor am I naïve enough to think that anything I can say to the Obama campaign will prompt reconsideration of their policy on holding the Bush administration accountable. Nonetheless, for some reason this one was clearly going to bug me until I did it.  So, a few days ago, I sent this letter (below) to the Obama campaign.

The point: Congress (and apparently the Obama campaign, as expressed by legal advisor Cass Sunstein) have made a short term, political "cost/benefit" assessment about holding Bush administration officials accountable for their crimes.  They all seem to have decided that the cost is too high, the benefit too small.  For everyone’s sake, I suggest they recalculate with an eye on the mid-to-long-term costs of NOT holding these criminals accountable.

Just take a moment to read this and reflect:

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle - as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.