It's starting to sound a bit like an Obama/Clinton ticket may be in the works. From the AP:

Hillary Rodham Clinton's former campaign manager, now on Barack Obama's team, says she could easily work for her old boss again if Clinton were on the Democratic ticket.

Gotta wonder if Patty knows something we don't. When she first went to work for Obama, many claimed it was a sign that Clinton would NEVER be the VP nominee. But if that's the case, it seems that Patty wouldn't give this interview, or answer these questions this way.

Solis Doyle told The Associated Press on Wednesday she didn't think their longtime friendship was permanently damaged. She joined the Obama campaign last month as chief of staff to Obama's eventual running mate...

...She says the move to Obama came with "very complicated emotions" because of that past. So she checked with her old boss before joining Obama's team.

"She's a friend of mine and I just wanted to, both on a personal and professional level, let her know what I was doing and make sure that she was, you know, good with it. And she was," Solis Doyle said.

The two exchanged phones calls -- but kept missing each other -- so Solis Doyle sent Clinton an e-mail. She said Clinton congratulated her and told her she was sure she would do a great job.

Perhaps this is pure speculation (and wishful thinking) on my part. But it seems there's been a steady stream of articles linking Obama and Clinton. Considering how disciplined the Obama campaign tends to be about staying on message, I can't help but believe there is something behind all of this.

One of the best solutions for increasing funding for Social Security without impacting the middle class is what's known as the "Donut Hole" approach (which I first heard proposed by Al Franken). This approach leaves Social Security as-is for the vast majority of Americans who pay the 6.2% payroll tax on all income up to $102,000. Currently, no one pays Social Security on income about $102k. Today, Senator Obama proposed a "donut hole" where income between $102k - $250k will not be subjected to Social Security, however all income above $250k will again be subject to the 6.2% payroll tax.

In prepared remarks the campaign distributed to reporters, Obama plans to say that such an increase "can extend the promise of Social Security without shifting the burden on to seniors" while leaving "absolutely no change" in taxes for 97 percent of Americans."The best way forward is to adjust the cap on the payroll tax so that people like me pay a little bit more and people in need are protected," Obama plans to say.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail /2008/06/13/obama_clarifies_social_secur it.html?hpid=topnews

I think a donut hole from $102k-$250k is appropriate and $250k is a good point at which payroll taxes should kick in again. Earlier in the year, Obama's proposed extending payroll taxes to all income above $102k, and I disagreed with that approach (as did Hillary Clinton). Living in California, $102k doesn't go very far (especially if you're supporting a family) and I felt that subjecting middle-class wage earners to even higher payroll taxes was completely unfair. I do think that $250k is fair and that people at that income level can afford a bit more payroll taxes.

I am very pleased that Senator Obama has embraced the $250k donut hole. The time has come to increase funding for Social Security, and stop raiding the trust fund. Next on the agenda: Universal Health Coverage!

Number of uninsured U.S. young adults grows

Among the findings in a truly depressing new study, over 15% of Americans lack health insurance, and 30% of 19-29 year olds lack health insurance. It is shameful that a nation as wealthy as the U.S. leaves so many people without health care coverage. Think about these numbers. This is not some abstract issue. This is a real problem that affects people you know.

Some of the "highlights" from the report:

13.7 million people aged 19 to 29 had no health insurance, either public or private, in 2006.

The government estimates that 47 million people have no health coverage in a country of about 300 million.

The U.S. uninsured rate rises dramatically at age 19 -- from 12 percent of children up to age 18 up to 30 percent among men and women aged 19 to 29, according to the report.

Hispanic and black young adults were at greater risk of being uninsured than whites, the report showed. While 23 percent of whites ages 19 to 29 lacked insurance, the figure was 36 percent of blacks and 53 percent of Hispanics.

We need universal health coverage now. Your fellow Americans are literally dying because they lack access to health care. Our health care system has become a huge strain on the finances of individuals, businesses, and the U.S. economy. We cannot afford to wait another decade or presidential term while our nation's health care crisis worsens every day.

Air America has suspended Randi Rhodes for her "comedy" routine. Press release below (http://www.airamerica.com/):

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 3, 2008

New York - Air America has suspended on-air host Randi Rhodes for making inappropriate statements about prominent figures, including Senator Hillary Clinton, at a recent public appearance on behalf of Air America in San Francisco which was sponsored by an Air America affiliate station.

"Air America encourages strong opinions about public affairs but does not condone such abusive, ad hominem language by our Hosts," said chair Charlie Kireker.

Sorry to just post a press release without commentary, but I'm waiting to hear more details.

[Update]

Here's some additional info I found on the NYT blog (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/air-america-host-suspended-for-clinton-remarks)

The network called Ms. Rhodes’ suspension “indefinite” and did not elaborate on the fate of her daily three-hour radio show. “The Randi Rhodes Show” is normally broadcast from 3 to 6 p.m. weekdays. Sam Seder, another Air America host, was scheduled to fill in for Ms. Rhodes on Thursday.

Did anyone hear the beginning of the show today? Did Sam Seder say anything about this?

(I've never updated a diary before, so hopefully I did this correctly.)

I've been listening to Sam fill in for Randi and he's encouraging listeners to go to their site and write to Air America in support of Randi. So some of you who aren't listening might want to write to them and let them know how you feel too.

Jesse Jackson Jr. is already one of the most egregious players of the race card with his "she didn't cry for Katrina" comments. But today I found this a quote by him that really shows the kind of racial politics he's playing -- and this time he's targeting black politicians.

From AP article about the pressure some black lawmakers feel to support Obama (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080215/ap_o n_el_pr/clinton_superdelegates_6;_ylt=Ap eAuR7qy3M.kGJ6rUOZk50E1vAI):

One black supporter of Clinton, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri, said he remains committed to her. "There's nothing going on right now that would cause me to" change, he said...

...In an interview, Cleaver offered a glimpse of private conversations.

He said Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. of Illinois had recently asked him "if it comes down to the last day and you're the only superdelegate? ... Do you want to go down in history as the one to prevent a black from winning the White House?

"I told him I'd think about it," Cleaver concluded.

Jackson, an Obama supporter, confirmed the conversation, and said the dilemma may pose a career risk for some black politicians. "Many of these guys have offered their support to Mrs. Clinton, but Obama has won their districts. So you wake up without the carpet under your feet. You might find some young primary challenger placing you in a difficult position" in the future, he added.

So now Jackson Jr. is threatening black politicians that unless they fall in line and support Obama they may find themselves in a "difficult position". It would be one thing if he made this statement about all politicians who represent black districts, but the fact that he's specifically threatening black politicians makes his statement truly disturbing.

Unfortunately, this apple has fallen far from the tree.

I keep hearing people say that Barack Obama will be a stonger GE candidate because he attracts "independent" voters, but assuming McCain is the GOP nominee, I think Obama is the weaker candidate in the GE and here's why:

Much of Obama's primary support in the primaries has been from independents, many voting in open primaries. But independents generally love McCain, so when it comes time for the GE, a significant part of Obama's primary voters will vote for McCain in the GE instead.

On the other hand, Clinton's support comes from women, unions, and the Democratic base. These supporters will not abandon her for McCain in the GE. They will be highly energized to defeat him and will continue the GOTV efforts and have huge Democratic turn-out in November.

The question is: Without independents, does Obama really have enough support to win the GE? I'm not convinced he does, and I think he could easily lose to McCain.

Trust me, I don't think Clinton will be a shoe-in agains McCain, I just think her supporters are more loyal Democrats and more likely to be there for her all the way to the GE.

This is an (almost) unbelievable item from TPM Horse's Mouth
(http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesm outh/2008/01/cnn_says_no_mor.php)

After Obama Complaints, CNN Bans James Carville And Paul Begala From Appearing As Analysts Until Dem Primary Is Settled

Don't like the message? Time to kill the messenger! As Greg Sargent reports:

I've just learned that CNN has told top Dem strategists James Carville, Paul Begala, and Robert Zimmerman -- who are CNN mainstays but are all Hillary supporters -- that they will not be doing any more political analysis on the network until the Democratic primary has reached a conclusion.

I'm also told that this move came after the Obama campaign repeatedly complained to high level officials at CNN about the presence of Carville and Begala on the network.

Aaaah. The sweet smell of censorship. Sponsored by the mainstream media, encouraged by a presidential campaign, and endorsed by our friends in the liberal blogosphere:

Carville and Begala's presence on CNN has led to criticism for the network in the past. A few months ago the liberal blogosphere roundly condemned CNN for presenting them as neutral observers without identifying them clearly and frequently as Hillary supporters. In response to the criticism, CNN started identifying them as Hillary backers....

..."People inside CNN are surprised," one person involved with CNN programming told me. "No other network buckled to this political pressure. CNN has removed from its lineup top analysts who know about the national political scene."

But Donna Brazile, Ariana Huffington, Jesse Jackson Jr. and the cadre of Obama supporters who grace the studios of CNN have not been banned. Now how exactly does that work?

Guess we can't call it the Clinton News Network any more.

I am a Hillary Clinton supporter, but I like John Edwards very much and would be happy if he were the Democratic nominee. However, JRE doesn't seem to be getting the media attention and early state results that he needs to win the nomination. This is all subject to change and I expect JRE supporters to be very loyal to their candidate, but I am curious how you would answer the following hypothetical question: