All day, I’ve been furious at the whole “Clinton Supporters Hate Barack Obama” storyline. My rage boiled over when the despicable founder of “Clintons 4 McCain” propagated disgusting, racist lies live on Chris Matthews.

But I’ve come to peace with the whole thing tonight. In fact, now I think it might be a huge stroke of genius.

Four days from now, we’ll have heard awesome pro-Obama speeches from Bill and Hillary Clinton. We’ll have heard the first presidential roll-call vote in American history pitting a black man against a strong and powerful woman. We’ll also have an awesome Democratic candidate who will make a terrific and transformative president.

Then - I bet you - we’ll have another flood of stories about the amazing reconciliation and joyous catharsis of the Democratic convention, with lots of good Barack and Hillary victory-pose photographs. Which will make us all forget about everything we’ve spent the last few months worrying about.

I’ve become convinced that you can predict press narratives weeks in advance and that virtually nobody does. The tough part is that the media itself doesn’t seem to have any notion that two weeks from now actually exists, so you still have to play their game in the present.

I’m not sure that made any sense, but the idea is that if you know where the press is going, you can lead them there like the fabled Pied Piper. You’ll see what I mean at the end of the week.

It seems to me that the last two months of the Democratic presidential race have played out exactly as most observers predicted after Obama’s narrow win on Super Tuesday (Feb. 5).

In other words, we’ve known all along that Obama was going to rack up victories in February. Clinton was going to win Pennsylvania. Obama, North Carolina. And Indiana was going to be close.

So why the sudden decision now that the race is over? It seems to me that if we were content to let this thing drag out for months and months, it’s just respectful to give Hillary the chance to see things through until she’s satisfied. What’s an extra two to six weeks at this point?

Anyway, if this race really is over, hats off to Hillary. She ran a great campaign and energized millions of Democratic voters. I was always moved by the stories of 90-year-old grandmas who remember a time before women could vote at all and were awestruck by one of their own running for President.

Now, let’s go out and stop McCain before he tricks another American into liking him.

Tracy made me watch the view this morning and Elisabeth Hasselbeck was ranting about something that really ticked me off. So here I am clearing up one of the worst misconceptions in American civic life.

Hasselbeck was complaining about Barack Obama’s tax plan that may - may - impose new taxes on American families making more than $97,000 annually. She was very, very concerned about “raising taxes on Middle America.”

Families making $100,000 a year ARE NOT middle class. Period. End of story.

The median household income in America is $48,201.00 according to 2006 US Census Bureau statistics. Fully one-half of American families survive on less than that income. If you and your husband both have $25,000 a year jobs, you’re not only not poor, you’re better off than half your neighbors.

I think the elite among us - including Elisabeth Hasselbeck and those who control our civic and cultural institutions - really have no visceral understanding of just how out of whack their understanding of “normal” really is.

That family making $97,000 a year that Hasselbeck is so worried about being taxed? Turns out that household is in the top 17% of American incomes. Now, I have a good word to describe a family better off than 4 out of every 5 American families - rich.

Read more about these numbers at Wikipedia.

I think I’ve figured out why I find the debates so boring.

Here are our two champions debating the finer points of how many people will get health insurance under their plans, but I, like way too many Americans don’t really have any faith either of them can actually accomplish anything.

They both have arguements (“unity” vs. “experience”) but they never spend any time on this issue during the actual debates: Washington is broken. How will you fix it?

I have entered my friend Gavrie’s Super Tuesday picks pool. Here are my best guesses:

Tiebreaker

Breaking News: Congress has solved all the important issues.

War. Terrorism. Osama. Rebuilding New Orleans. Poverty. Health Care. Global Warming. All fixed.

How else can you explain that Congress had enough time to shame MoveOn.org after the grandaddy of the netroots dared called General Petraeus a bad name? General Petraeus, remember, is the guy in charge of the failed status quo in Iraq.

Anyway, MoveOn called him a name and the Republicans were very, very outraged. So they introduced a sham resolution condemning those dirty nogoodniks. Over a newspaper ad!

It gets better. My dad got all hot and bothered by this stupid waste of time that targeted a cause he believed very much in. So he called his Congressman to complain.

The woman answering the phones at Rep. Henry Brown’s (R-South Carolina) told my dad in no uncertain terms:

MoveOn.org? That group shouldn’t be allowed.

Shouldn’t…be…allowed…? WHA!? Funny, I thought there was some law or something some where that basically said every group, no matter how offensive, is de facto allowed.

Oh wait. Cue the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So, near as I can tell, Congressman Henry Brown doesn’t mind employing people who think your First Amendment rights should be completely and entirely revoked the instant you do something they don’t like.

We can argue up and down, left and right over what MoveOn.org said. Same as we can argue up and down, left and right over what stupid thing Bill O’Reilly said this week.

But it’s pretty obvious that it should all be allowed. That’s the whole idea behind democracy.

And if we give up what makes America great - say it with me - then the terrorists have already won.

P.S. Here’s the phone number for the Office of Congressman Henry Brown: (202) 225-3176

Feel free to call and congratulate him for solving all the big issues and advocating a suspension of the Constitution!

…And you should to!

Click here to make a secure online contribution to Texas Senate candidate Rick Noriega. Even $10 makes a big difference.

I love the new ad from people-powered Texas Senate candidate Rick Noriega.

First, he does shy away from Hurricane Katrina. I feel like too many have brushed this episode under the rug, but Noriega remembers that the wounds are still raw and points out that he did all he could to help.

Second, there are two great lines that are totally dog-whistle politics to me:

America is not afraid.

We will use our strength to build a lasting peace, in place of never-ending war.

The first line is a direct repudiation of the “Fear Itself” politics coming from George Bush and his Republican cronies. The second is a too-rare example of a politician using the word “peace.” As an honest-to-god pacifist, that does it for me.

Anyway, I was so impressed, that I gave $10 to his ActBlue page. I think you should to. Noriega faces a well-financed primary challenger, so every little bit will help put the race on a level playing field.

Click here to make a secure online contribution to Texas Senate candidate Rick Noriega. Even $10 makes a big difference.

Bush, during today’s press conference:

Enemies that would like to harm the American people would be emboldened by failure [in Iraq].

Todd, ready to throw a shoe at the TV:

Then stop failing in Iraq, you moron!

We certainly cannot call Iraq a success right now. George Bush’s failed status quo can and must change. The sooner the better.

1. If you need to record streaming video (Windows Media, Real Player, etc.), use Snapz Pro X.

   It’s the quickest, easiest way to grab a video stream off the web and turn it into a Quicktime movie suitable for Blip.tv or YouTube.

2. When creating a central point for your audio/video podcast or other media content, use Blip.tv to store and manage the files. But post everything to YouTube too.

   This was good advice from my friend, Baratunde. Blip.tv is an excellent service that stores your media files (including multiple formats and sizes), quickly and easily cross-posts your content to a variety of different sources (Facebook, MySpace, blog, etc.), provides advanced statistics compared to YouTube, and can help you create branded media players for your website - all for free!

   It’s a pretty slick service that I’m just getting into, but so far it’s been great.

   Thing is, you still gotta post to YouTube. I know that my friend had some experience using both services. When I asked him, he reminded me that no matter how great the blip.tv tools are for you, the content producer, the audience still sees YouTube as a destination for video.

   When people come to your website looking for audio or video, feel free to serve up the blip.tv player. But you never know what will go viral, so you have to have your content on YouTube, too, to reach the widest possible audience.

   I haven’t done a mountain of video in my day, but I thought this was solid advice. Consider it something learned today.

3. Congressional campaigns can’t put video clips of the House floor on the campaign website.

   Needless to say, my plan for today was to grab a cool clip from the C-SPAN archives and repurpose it for a campaign I work on.

   C-SPAN has no problem with this. In fact, they recently restated their copyright policy to make this explicitly OK. As far as C-SPAN is concerned, the proceedings of the House are in the public domain.

   Thing is, we learned that House ethics rules forbid Members from using footage of the House floor for campaign purposes. It seems like a dumb rule to me, but thems the breaks.

Conclusion: The bad news is that number 3 basically made numbers 1 and 2 useless to me for now. But the good news is that I did learn 3 new things today.

Tracy and I watched tonight’s CNN / YouTube Democratic debate tonight. So I’m proud to present the next entry in BTP’s EXCLUSIVE series:

1. I thought the YouTube integration really worked. I’m not sure the questions were better per se than those asked by a panel of journalists, but they certainly packed a stronger emotional punch. Plus, they added some much needed levity to the entire affair.

   I also thought that just seeing some real people on CNN talk about politics was refreshing. Particularly since some of them said some things that don’t usually get said on CNN.

2. I still think candidates should engage in some “second grader speechifying.” I know I’m tilting at windmills, but just answer the questions as bluntly and succinctly as possible. We’ll reward you for talking like a human being. Honest.

3. I think we need to get the hell out of Iraq. Tomorrow. Tracy and Joe Biden disagree with me. They they keep saying we have to do it orderly and safely and that it will take months.

   Now, I’m not advocating being unsafe or unthoughtful, but it sure seems like if we were able to invade the country with the force and velocity of lightening, we oughtta be able to get out the same way. March the troops through the desert if we have to. Just get the hell out.

   Bill Richardson’s position on the war is the closest to mine, I think.

   I will grudgingly accept that Biden has a point about protecting US civilians. We should get them out of Iraq tomorrow, too.

4. I still want to be inspired. I would happliy and excitedly vote for any of the Dem candidates, but none of them are yet speaking directly to me.

   It’s a little frustrating. In both of my presidential elections as a voter, I had candidates that inspired me using precisely the same language I use to sort these issues out for myself. Bill Bradley spoke eloquently and passionately about race in 2000. And Howard Dean said over and over again the political mantra I use myself: “We’re all in this together.”

   None of the current crop of candidates do that yet. I hope they start soon.

In honor of today’s Live Earth concerts, I’ve identified two very simple ways you can do your part to combat global warming right in your own home.

1. Buy and use high-efficiency light bulbs. New LED and Compact Fluorescent bulbs both last longer, shine brither, and use less energy than traditional incandescent bulbs.
   >>
2. Buy and use cold-water laundry detergent. According to Rolling Stone, this practice alone could “eliminate enough CO2 each year to meet eight percent of the U.S. target under the Kyoto treaty.” Read the whole article by RFK, Jr. It’s good stuff.

So there you go. Two simple ways you can save the world.

So Bush all put pardons Scooter Libby and Tracy says, “Wow. I didn’t think Bush would have the guts to do something so stupid.”

Right. Because timidity when spurning overwhelming evidence and public opinion has been the real hallmark of the Bush presidency. Exactly.

I had a hand in putting together the email sent today by the Bill Richardson campaign. Richardson is the only Democrat in the race who would bring all the troops home from Iraq within the calendar year.

This is music to the ears of this "bring 'em home" Democrat.

Bill Richardson is the only major candidate who would withdraw ALL American troops troop from Iraq before the end of 2007. At the debate in South Carolina, he repeated his commitment to leaving behind no residual force.

Every other major candidate supports leaving at least some troops behind. While others refine and rephrase their positions, Bill Richardson is the only major candidate who is committed to getting all our troops out and ending this war.

It's time to bring the troops home. All of them. Click here to support Bill Richardson's plan to end the war in Iraq.

More on the Richardson blog.

Since I had to sit through last night's Democratic debate for work, I figured you - the BTP readers - should be subjected benefit from my exclusive and insightful analysis. Without further ado...

1. The candidates need better coaching.

MSNBC tried to be just a little edgy by asking for one sentence answers, shows of hands, and only letting a few candidates respond to each question. They also limited almost every answer to just 30 or 60 seconds.

The candidates, however, still did their best to fill up those 30 to 60 seconds with rambling, long-winded answers that said almost nothing! They know the format of the debate in advance. You'd think they'd come up with ultra-short explanations of their most important positions and plans.

I think I find this especially aggravating because my whole job is basically boiling down political bloviating to just a few bullet points suitable for the web and email. It's actually quite difficult to say your piece succinctly and powerfully. But no one said running for President was easy!

One question that stuck in my mind as particularly poorly answered was when John Edwards was asked how he'd pay for his health care plan. The question was fair, and Edwards did a good job trying to turn it into an opportunity to actually explain his plan.

The problem was, he just went on and on. He's not going communicate all the finer details of his solution to the healthcare crisis in 30 seconds. And by saying more than just the basics, he opens himself up to gaffes.

So, as a public service to John Edwards and all the other candidates, I will answer the question for him. Mr. Edwards, I give you permission to steal this answer. To the other candidates, let this be a guide for how to respond to debate questions.

MODERATOR: Senator Edwards, you have said you would raise taxes to pay for a health care plan. The question is: Which ones?

ANSWER: My health care plan does two things:

1. Lower your health insurance bill.
2. Provide critical health care for the 47 million Americans who don't have any coverage.

I don't have time to go into all the details now, but you can read all about it on my website, johnedwards.com.

To pay for my plan, I would repeal George Bush's unfair tax cuts that gave huge >windfalls to the very rich.

I timed myself. 15 seconds.

Here's a bonus answer for Sen. Biden on the issue of judges and abortion.

MODERATOR: Senator Biden, as president would you have a specific litmus test question on Roe v. Wade that you would ask of your nominees for the high court?

ANSWER: Yes. Roe is established law under the constitution.

Some say "litmus tests" are scary. I say it's second-grader speechifying: Saying what you mean, and meaning what you say.

2. There was one good question.

MODERATOR: [I]f, God forbid a thousand times, while we were gathered here tonight, we learned that two American cities have been hit simultaneously by terrorists and we further learned, beyond the shadow of a doubt it had been the work of Al Qaida, how would you change the U.S. military stance overseas as a result?

It's a terrifying prospect, but it's a really good question. There's no challenge more presidential than leading the nation through a crisis. I would encourage future debate moderators to ask more of these rhetorical questions. I think they at least give us a glimpse to how a candidate would react if thrust into such an awful situation.

I thought the answer last night were good, if not great. The big thing missing on this issue was some real emotion. Governor Richardson came closest when insisted on answering the question when it was his turn to talk a few questions later.

There are two emotions that would have been good to show in the face of this question: sadness and anger. Perhaps sadness would be seen as a sign of weakness, but it sure seems like it would be genuine.

Most of the answers talked about the need for swift and serious retribution, which is fine enough, but insisting on bombs and guns isn't quite the same as righteous anger that evil people would take the lives of innocents.

It would have been nice to see more passion in the responses.

3. Mike Gravel is nuts.

But he still wins the Al Sharpton Award as the "Democrat we all secretly want to vote for." Yeah, he seemed crazy and cantankerous, but he also was real clear that war should not be a tool of foreign policy. Sad to think that's crazy talk in today's politics, but it shouldn't be.

What kind of stuff should go on a great campaign website?

Here's what I have so far:

• Front Page Features
• Sign Up
• Contribute
• About the Candidate
• Issue Statements
• Latest News

For my purposes, I see "Latest News" as something of a catch-all for Press Releases, Favorable Press Coverage, Campaign Event Previews / Recaps, Photos, and Video. (Shh...don't tell my client, but it's essentially going to be their campaign blog.)

I can imagine for a bigger race, you'd draw finer distinctions between those different content areas.

Anyway, is there anything I'm missing?

So, I have two choices on how to deal with this video published by the fundamentalists at the American Family Association. I can make a reasoned, detailed, point-by-point refutation of all the distortions, inaccuracies, and fear-mongering contained therein.

Or I can mock it mercilessly. Hm...tough one.

Moral of the Story: If the Democrats let us beat our kids, Virginia Tech never would have happened.

The sad part is that I'm not really even joking. This dreck is disgusting.

So I'm watching Fox News Sunday for client work AND because a friend will be featured, and Chris Wallace just asked Al Sharpton if he will protest Timbaland. Not totally absurd, but Wallace said something like "I'm not familiar with Timbaland myself, but I understand he's just as bad as the other rappers."

So...How can Wallace ask anyone to protest anything he's never actually listened to?

Sigh....this is what I get for watching Fox News.

John Edwards has very publicly admitted he made a pretty big mistake.

Hillary Clinton believes she displayed sound judgement when she believed the intelligence given to her by George Bush. She also never expected him to screw it up so badly.

Today, kos takes Hillary to task for not having the courage to admit a mistake and learn from it. Now, both Clinton and Edwards made a tough vote that they probably regret now. There's no good way out of that box and I really don't want to criticize the way either of them are handling it.

At the end of the day, however, I'd much rather have a President that doesn't make big mistakes than one who's good about learning from mistakes or one who knows how to make it look like they weren't really mistakes.

That's why I lean more and more towards Barack Obama. After all, he opposed the Iraq War from the very beginning and he's got the best plan for ending the fiasco as soon as possible.

I don't mean to rag on Edwards and Clinton when I say that. There's a lot to love about both of them. They're just in a tough spot now because of a tough vote years ago.

Bill Clinton used to say the American people would vote for "Strong and Wrong" over "Weak and Right." I don't know about you, but I think they'll go for "Strong and Right" too.

CBS currently has George Bush's approval rating at 28%. That's only a few points off the all-time low, when Richard Nixon hit 24% just before he resigned.

Why then, exactly, are we still giving this guy even a shred of the benefit of the doubt? If George Bush proposed it, it's probably wrong. There's just way, way too much evidence to support that idea.

That's why we have to stop the "surge" in Iraq.