I've been looking for some way to get the world to acknowledge the grassroots support Hillary Clinton's campaign has ignited this past couple of month.

On Friday, April 11th- a week from tomorrow - there will be a demonstration at Rockefeller Center. Yes indeed, Rockefeller Center, headquarters of the Obama news network, generally known as NBC.

I think this will be a great way to focus the country's attention on the unfair treatment our candidate has received and demand that both candidates for the Democratic nomination receive the proper scrutiny they deserve. Also, I speak for myself personally, this will be a great way to show the broad appeal Hillary has in the electorate. According to the media, I should be an Obama supporter because of the color of my skin (I'm black) and my relative youth (I'm 24).

So please, if you're in the NY metropolitan area please make an effort to go to Rockefeller Center that day. Things start at 8 am (maybe we'll make it on the Today show- lol).  The full details are at:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/actioncent er/event/view/?id=12045

I

All true Democrats, All strong women, and All proud Americans must read and reflect on this poem.

http://blog.hillaryclinton.com/

It's interesting how Obama regularly talks about bringing a new type of politics, yet it appears that he always gets caught up in scandals that remind us of the past.

This week we learned that the governor of Puerto Rico, one of the first politicians to join the Obama bandwagon, surrendered himself to federal officials under suspicions of illegal campaign activities. Not a big deal in my opinion in terms of Obama;s campaign, but today I saw this article in the Financial Times.

Governor faces fraud charges
By Stephanie Kirchgaessner in Washington
Published: March 27 2008 22:06 | Last updated: March 27 2008 22:06
The Democratic governor of Puerto Rico and 12 associates have been indicted for fraud and conspiracy as part of an alleged corruption scheme that spanned from the Commonwealth to Philadelphia, the justice department announced on Thursday.

Anibal Acevedo Vila, who is a former non-voting member of the House of Representatives, and a dozen business and political consultants were charged in a 27-count indictment that accused him of accepting illegal contributions for his campaigns in exchange for government contracts.

Mr Acevedo, who is up for re-election this year and had pledged to support Barack Obama as a super-delegate at the Democratic party convention, yesterday shrugged off the indictment, calling it a "a spectacle designed to damage me", according to the Associated Press.

The indictment alleges Mr Acevedo and others conspired to defraud the US government and violated campaign finance rules by accepting illegal and unreported political donations to pay off large and unreported debts.

The charges allege the def-endants sought to defraud the Puerto Rico Treasury of $7m by pledging to comply with public funding laws in Mr Acevedo's 2004 gubernatorial run. The laws required Mr Acevedo to report fully his contributions and expenditures in exchange for $7m of public funds.

The indictment alleges an unnamed media company created fake invoices for payments made by Mr Acevedo's "collaborators" to make it appear the payments were used for legitimate corporate purposes, when they were really part of a fundraising scheme.

************** ************** **
Also ensnared in the indictment is Robert Feldman, a Philadelphia political consultant who served as Mr Acevedo's campaign finance chairman in 2002. Mr Feldman's relationship with another politician, Bob Casey, was highlighted in campaign advertisements by Senator Rick Santorum, his Republican rival, during the 2006 congressional election in Pennsylvania, in which Mr Casey defeated the conservative Republican.
************** ************** **

The justice department hailed the indictment as proof that no politician was above the law.

It will be interesting to see how the media treats this story as Bob Casey has just hopped on the Obama bandwagon- I mean bus tour.

I've noticed a flurry of postings about the "success" of Operation Chaos, otherwise known as Rush Limbaugh's campaign to get his Republican listeners to "Rush the Vote." Well, if this campaign is really having an impact, Obama brought this entirely upon himself. [I could make a reference to karma, but I'll stick to the Rev. Wright expression in the title.]

The campaign about hope took a malicious turn last fall during an October debate when Obama tried to take Hillary Clinton down regarding the driver's licenses for illegal immigrants issue in New York. Conscious of the fact that the issue was a delicate one- and without any solution of his own (surprise, surprise) - Obama made use of his early Christmas gift- a Karl Rove playbook. Indeed, he saw no other opportunity to establish his candidacy other than by recycling Republican attacks against her.

Sadly, even though most intelligent observers of this campaign cycle have noted that this would be insufficient for Obama to get the support needed to take him to the White House, he has not relented. Obama's campaign continues the most divisive and destructive line of attacks against Hillary in true Republican style.  

Thus, Obama should not be surprised that the Republicans have tired of watching his impersonation of them. It's like preschoolers who grow impatient letting the new kid play with their toys for longer than 5 minutes, just as the newbie is learning how the toy works. It may be a harsh wake up call for Obama and his supporters, but let there be no mistake about the fact that he brought this upon himself.

For a quick timeout from the intense debates going on between us Clinton and Obama supporters, I was hoping to get people's reactions to what I noticed to be new methods the campaigns are using to attract new donors.

I recently came across Barack Obama's website and saw that there is contest going on for "an intimate dinner with Barack." A donation is called for in order to participate. Similarly, Hillary Clinton's website is offering a ticket to the "One Night Only with Elton (John) and Hillary" event to one online donor.

Upon seeing this I was immediately struck by this new fundraising approach. A little torn, however, as to whether this is a positive development. Does this cheapen the concept of political participation? Yet, on balance, I think it is definitely a good sign to see how both campaigns are making significant progress in getting so many people involved and most importantly appear committed to keeping it that way.

Any thoughts?

If anyone watched Morning Joe this morning, one would have noted an exceptionally passionate Chris Matthews talking about the Richardson endorsement Obama received on Friday. In particular, when criticizing Carville, who has no official post in the Clinton campaign, for his comparison of Richardson to Judas, Matthews made the incredibly unfounded assertion that only the Clinton campaign has been using old ties and promises of future spoils to win over superdelegates. In contrast, he posited that Obama's campaign only promised the superdelegates nothing but a "New America."

This is interesting because I would assume that the freshly elected Bill Foster, the Democrat elected to Dennis Hastert's old seat and new Obama superdelegate, made his decision in part due to the campaign assistance Obama gave to him. Furthermore, there are also reports of Obama helping other Democrats - who are superdelegates - through campaign contributions.

Indeed, after Bill Richardson finished his interview on Mornin' Joe, on CNN, an actual journalist named John Roberts asked Richardson the legitimate question of whether Richardson was promised anything in return for his endorsement.

All this led Mika Brzenski, whose own father works for the Obama campaign by the way, to ask whether Chris Matthew just made an endorsement of the Obama campaign. If that doesn't speak volumes,  I don't know what does.

Will supporters of non-partisan journalism join me in some sort of campaign against NBC and the Obama press, if outlets like MSNBC don't clean house soon?

I continue to be profoundly bothered by reports that in the weeks before the Pennsylvania primary and possibly afterwards the Obama campaigns hopes or plans to roll out big names in the party with the purpose of showing that Obama is the "inevitable nominee" and that Hillary Clinton must drop out. I don't know who these "elders" or big names are but I have a hard time thinking that any would see it in the party's interest to force anyone out of this race.

My reasoning relies partly on this recent poll taken in PA. While many people believe that PA is a lock for the democrats, recent history hasn't shown that to be the case.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp? Page=/Politics/archive/200803/POL2008032 1a.html

The poll indicates that already 20% of both Obama and Clinton supporters will support McCain in the general election if their candidate is not the nominee. This is unsettling because as most of us who are fair-minded will admit, the "attacks" on both democratic candidates have been very mild, especially considering what will likely come to light in the general election. I believe that supporters on both sides will most likely find the defeat of their candidate at least palatable if the voting plays out - and that means Michigan and Florida - and the decision of the superdelegates should be made on the dynamic at that time. I don't think that party leaders should force someone out of the race because of any "writing on the wall."

While there is a credible argument to be made that the sooner the primary ends the better for the Dems, I sincerely do not believe that there is any need to rush this thing. In either case, the party will be making history and there is no good argument for shutting this whole thing down before each state or territory has had its say.

Thus, I think there needs to be a message sent to the higher-ups in the party to stay out of this thing. But, should they decide to get involved, at least they should keep it private or refrain from putting themselves in the comical, but infuriating situtation of Mr. (not a delegate to his name) Bill Richardson telling Hillary Clinton to drop out.

I do not enjoy writing the diaries about the media's conduct during the primary stage of this presidential election, but what I've witnessed over the past two days is simply revolting.

Certainly one cannot impose the journalistic scruples of print media on cable news broadcasts, but I draw the line at news anchors  feeding Oliver Stone-esque fantasies.

Today around noon, MSNBC anchor Contessa Brewer made the assertion, pitifully presented as a question, that the fact that the passport files of Barack Obama and John McCain were hacked by the same person it is legitimate to inquire whether Clinton campaign was responsible. I find this despicable.

Fortunately, I was not subjected to MSNBC early coverage of the story last night, but I have read on other blogs that Howard Fineman similarly posited that the Clinton campaign was responsible for the invasion of passport files.

In my humble opinion, I think that Brian Williams or someone must  take responsibility. This election is too important for suspicions to be rampant about our news sources.