Even as a lame duck, Bush can't help but try to push some truly twisted ideological viewpoints in an attempt to infringe on our rights...

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is poised to put in place new barriers to accessing common forms of contraception like birth control pills, emergency contraception and IUDs by labeling them "abortion."  These proposed regulations set to be released next week will allow healthcare providers to refuse to provide contraception to women who need it.

These rules pose a serious threat to providers and uninsured and low-income Americans seeking care. They could prevent providers of federally-funded family planning services, like Medicaid and Title X, from guaranteeing their patients access to the full range of comprehensive family planning services. They'll also build significant barriers to counseling, education, contraception and preventive health services for those who need it most: low-income and uninsured women and men.

The regulations could even invalidate state laws that currently ensure access to contraception for many Americans. In fact, they describe New York and California's laws requiring prescription drug insurance plans to provide coverage for contraceptives as part of "the problem." These rules would even interfere with New York State law that ensures survivors of sexual assault and rape receive emergency contraception in hospital emergency rooms.

Senator Hillary Clinton is sounding the alarm on this one at Huffington Post, channeling supporters to sign the petition at her HillPAC site.

Senator Clinton knows full well what it will take to fight for reproductive rights for everyone, male and female, in the coming years, and knows that a McCain presidency is going to be exactly more of this same ideological nonsense coming from the Bush Administration. Thank you to Senator Clinton for raising the alert on this attempt, and for truly championing women's rights in a real and concrete way.

This election isn't about Obama. It isn't about Hillary Clinton, either, or the lack thereof.

Its not about your hurt feelings, your sudden devotion to all things female-equality (even though apparently symbolic support is more important than legislative), your foot-stomping toy-throwing threats to take your vote and go home lest your demands are met, or your quixotic quest for attention (sorry, "teaching the Democratic party a lesson").

Its not about your liberal ideals, the voice of the netroots, the ideology of the left, or withholding your donation until the nominee jumps as high as you want him to (I'm looking at you, Kos).

America has had a culture of extremes for so long I'm beginning to think that moderation (especially in the political process) is something that we just can't recognize when we see it.

Our country and our economy is crumbling around us. But that's not even the real reason for this diary.

The rest of the world is depending on us to realize that the planet's most vulnerable moment is not the time to start gasping in hysterics because Obama left his magic problem-solving wand back in Fantasyland.

Its your choice to determine if you care more about the ability of a politician to stroke your ego, or about what happens to our country (and by extension, the world, since we're doing a great job of messing it up far beyond our reasonable sphere of influence). And frankly speaking, none of us really have the luxury of deciding our principles are more important than our economy, the war, the environment, and the lives of Iraqis and Iranian civilians.

Maybe you honestly think that Obama's going to be just as bad as McCain (despite any evidence to the contrary, like actual policy). Vote for him anyway. Hedge your bets. The world is full of choices between options you probably aren't completely in love with. Learning that is a skill most people get comfortable with before they're out of high school - election years aren't a free pass.

If you want immediate, complete reform, take it to the streets. Light up that Molotov cocktail, strap on your AK and overthrow whatever you need to overthrow.

Or, work within the system with what we have. What we have is a perfectly good, centrist candidate who can at least approach complex issues with a sharp stick and poke at them, and who's savvy enough to take advantage of the anti-Bush sentiment to gain some extra seats in the legislature at the same time. There's not a damn thing wrong with that and in a lot of ways its better than other election years. Because a sympathetic legislature is how things get done. Not voting third party to make a point, not holding your breath until UberLiberal McCandidate rises from the Potomac River, and not clinging to a candidate that didn't get the nomination.

So the concern trolls, the ones who flock to any diary asking "well, what has Obama done/said about X?" like you're making some kind of point - you should really put up or suck it up. I expect to see your keyboard commando butts out there leading the the revolutionaries in the charge to storm the White House, or voting for Obama in November.

I had hoped this wasn't true. But in the interest of intellectual and political fairness, I think its important that all Democrats see this in order to understand just what will happen in the next few months leading up to November.

Wikileaks has a leaked memo which appears to be an internal memo from the McCain campaign to team members targeting Internet-based campaigning. The strategy? Take advantage of Clinton supporters of a specific demographic, target and inflame their anger to the point that they vote for McCain out of spite and fearmongering.

The following is the memo in pdf form found here. The entire Wikileak article, including arguments for and against its legitimacy, can be found here. Bolding is mine.

MEMORANDUM
To: (redacted)
From: S. Schmidt
Date: May 15, 2008
Subject: Clinton Strategy
According to both internal polling and exit polls by independent news
organizations, the Democratic Party is becoming increasingly polarized along
certain segments of its base. The recent result in West Virginia, while generally
unsurprising and definitely unlikely to cause any real shift in the race,
highlights the growing bitterness between certain supporters of Clinton and
the Obama camp in general. This unique situation has created an opening that
could help depress the turnout of key Democratic demographics in November.
The specific group we are targeting is a cross-section of white, female voters
over the age of 40. Internal polling reveals that this group is the most likely to
support John McCain after Obama wins the nomination. However, we expect
Obama's numbers to improve following Clinton's drop. Our job is to make sure
that number stays as low as possible.
Our limited financial resources and the media's attention on the Democratic
race, however, prevent us from reaching this group. Our aim is to point out
specific issues that we believe resonate well:

1. Sen. Obama's connection to Rev. Wright
   
2. His inexperience
   
3. His links to the corrupt Chicago political machine
   

However, we cannot fully achieve this goal without a greater commitment on
the part of McCain's fundraisers and our various media partners. In lieu of
that, we have developed a number of inexpensive ways to reach this audience.
We have already worked to reinforce the Clinton campaign's narrative about
the unfair treatment that some networks, specifically MSNBC, have given her
camp. We are also planning to unroll a new campaign to highlight Obama's
experience deficit.
Simultaneously, our team has been testing new lines of attack through
independent pro-Clinton communities on the Internet. Our hope is that our
message here will spread by word-of-mouth. Our local community organizing
has also been successful. We have organized dozens of "meet-ups" across the
country for Clinton supporters, and we have used that time to stress the
importance of punishing the DNC for choosing the undemocratically selected far-left Obama. At the moment, this is nothing more than a headache for the
Obama campaign. With a greater commitment on your part, I hope to see it
metastasize into something much more.
Let me know if you need more detail.
-S

The Washington Post's Paul Kane, a congressional reporter, had a revealing Q&A today that gives some brutally honest insight into the current situation of the undecided superdelegates and the candidate currently pinning her last hopes on their endorsements.

Washington: Looking at the most recent Rasmussen daily polls, I see that Hillary manages a tie today against McCain, but Barack is down by five points to McCain. What piqued my interest was that while Hillary had a "highly unfavorable" rating of 32 percent (i.e., as I see it, people who never will vote for her) Barack was at 35 percent. On Jan. 30, as we entered primary season's main show, Barack's "highly unfavorables" were 20 percent and Clinton's were 35 percent. Is this something superdelegates may be watching?

Paul Kane: I've spent the past several months talking to as many super-delegates as any reporter in America, I'd guess, since I cover on a day-to-day basis about 280 of them here on Capitol Hill.

I hate saying this, because all the Clinton people are going to flip out and say, You're biased, you're biased, you're biased. So go ahead and flip out if you want, but the simple basic truth is that the super-delegates stopped paying attention to the Clinton-Obama race about a couple days after the Indiana and North Carolina primaries.

They've stopped paying attention to the primary, and instead they're focused on an Obama-McCain matchup in November. That's the basic, simple, definitive reality that has happened in this race. The "undecided" super-delegates at this moment are not going to "decide" any time soon, because to them the race is over, they're just waiting for Clinton to drop out.

Later on in the Q&A, the topic was broached again, this time from the "who's more electable in the fall" position that Clinton has been floating to the media:

Centreville, Va.: I was surprised and disappointed that The Post did not seem to address the Gallup poll yesterday which seemed to say Hillary Clinton had somewhat of an advantage over Barack Obama in the so-called swing states. The news of that poll was bandied about all day on the political blogs, and I have to say the Obama supporters seemed to be getting the worst of it. (Or is it "worse" with only two candidates in the poll?)

washingtonpost.com: Hillary Clinton's Swing-State Advantage (Gallup, May 28)

Paul Kane: Again, don't yell at me because I'm only the messenger here. But the super-delegates have moved on, they're no longer looking at how Hillary Clinton fares in battleground states against McCain. This is very hard for Clinton supporters to hear, I'm sorry, but the super-delegates are not paying attention to your candidate anymore. These head-to-head matchup polls (Clinton v. McCain, Obama v. McCain) are not having the impact on people's thinking anymore.

Mr. Kane's remarks jibe remarkably well with the general truth of the matter - that elections aren't decided by theoretical matchups 6 months down the road. Polls from that far out simply aren't reliable on any measure. And the superdelegates know that.

Note that Mr. Kane isn't responding with his own assessment of the primary race - he's simply bearing the truth about how the superdelegates see it. Considering that Clinton's arguments have been directed squarely at this group, its a telling situation that they're not making the effect Clinton was hoping for.

To ward off cries of bias, I'm going to include a Q&A about the general tone of the election and the supporters on both sides. This part is purely personal opinion on the part of Kane, so if you're upset about the above two statements, hopefully this will help put his own viewpoint in perspective:

Lashing out?: Why? I know that there are many out there who vastly prefer Sen. Clinton to Sen. Obama. I know they think that she's more qualified and better-equipped to beat John McCain in the general election. I know they think that Clinton has been unfairly treated by the media and that the primary system is all screwed up. I've heard all their arguments. And I don't doubt that they genuinely believe all of these things. My question, though, is this: What realistic outcome are they still holding out for?

Paul Kane: They want their candidate to win. I'm not sure they know how that outcome would occur, but they want Clinton to win, it's that simple. If Obama was losing this campaign by just as narrow a margin, his supporters would be just as upset. It's important for Obama supporters to realize just how narrow a victory he appears to have pulled off, rather than running around the country acting like they blew out Clinton. If she had been semi-competitive in the post-Super Tuesday states in February -- rather than losing them all 60-40 or worse -- it's highly possible she would be the nominee.

I'm proud of Erica Jong for using her widely respected voice and feminist viewpoint to endorse unity in supporting the Democratic nominee. What is especially striking about her latest Huffington Post essay is the dramatic change in tone from her previous pieces on the Democratic primary.

The violence of the political dialogue lately has made me understand how desperate the electorate is after nearly eight years of Repugnicans and three stolen elections. I totally understand Obamamania--and I also get the frustration of voters who wanted this to be the year we broke through the glass ceiling for women.

But let's get real. It's time for Democrats to put all personal bias aside and unite behind the things we believe in: a planet we can live on, reproductive choice, workers rights, health care for all, education for poor and middle class students, fair taxes, a Constitution made whole, rescuing America from war profiteers -- if indeed there is still time.

Ms. Jong has broken through into the acceptance stage, and her words ring true. She understands both sides and the emotions - and disappointments - that have boiled to the surface. But she also understands that personal bias is just that - personal - and there are much larger issues at stake.

I don't believe that passionate Hillary supporters will vote for McCain in fits of pique. I sure won't. The truth is that Obama and Clinton are so similar politically that without generational and gender differences they'd be indistinguishable. Perhaps the passion for or against these two Democrats was revved up by how very close they are in vision. Sometimes people need to disagree for the sake of disagreeing.

Disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing - I think she's onto something here.

I'm proud of Ms. Jong as a feminist, because she's made her personal journey through this election very public. She has been deeply emotionally and professionally invested. And after the harsh words and the anger, there is reason and logic and understanding that what we all fight for is something larger than our own interests and our own desires. It is for the chance to turn this country back on track - and we have an admirable and able candidate in Senator Obama.

From Will Thomas at the Huffington Post, McCain is looking for brave volunteers to help him ctrl-v his way into the White House:

Help spread the word about John McCain on news and blog sites. Your efforts to help get the message out about John McCain's policies and plan for the future is one of the most valuable things you can do for this campaign. You know why John McCain should be the next President of the United States and we need you to tell others why.

Select from the numerous web, blog and news sites listed here, go there, and make your opinions supporting John McCain known. Once you've commented on a post, video or news story, report the details of your comment by clicking the button below. After your comments are verified, you will be awarded points through the McCain Online Action Center.

While I'm intrigued by the mental image of a McCain Online Action Center (two out of those four words don't traditionally evoke thoughts of McCain), I'm a little more curious about the guidelines - or lack thereof - that McCain's campaign is offering to the Fighting 101st Keyboard Brigade.

The page offers today's "Talking Points" - a grand total of 2 - that offer strong, issue-based heartfelt support such as:

John McCain will put the national interest ahead of partisanship, he will work with anyone who sincerely wants to get this country moving again. If John McCain is elected President, the era of the permanent campaign will end. The era of problem solving will begin.

While its bland, false, and as deep as dew, its not patently offensive. Its a standard copy/paste comment page white noise example, but its not revolting. In fact, its a lot better than the anti-Democratic hit pieces I've seen, at least on a "using your inside voice" level.

But why there are absolutely no rules or recommended guidelines for people that don't want to copy and paste the same two messages all day? After all, these "talking points" are only recommended - and the campaign doesn't offer any guidelines whatsoever about freelance commenting. It does say that you have to report each comment so it can be reviewed before you get your Super Action Election Megacenter points, but nothing giving any information on what exactly qualifies as something you would or would not get approved for. Its irresponsible enough to make me wonder if its a legitimate oversight, or if the McCain campaign just has no idea what its potentially endorsing.

At the very least, this demonstrates a couple things about McCain heading into the General Election:

- Someone's a trifle concerned about how to harness this Internet thingie.
 - There's either a lack of legitimate commenters willing to boost McCain on Conservative blogs (there's a massive list of those, with only 4 moderate blogs and 1 liberal one - Daily Kos)...or there's too many online McCain supporters not behaving in a manner especially flattering to images of McCain's base.
 - Bizarre statements about putting the country ahead of partisanship (nice track record on that John) is exactly how McCain wants to target that nasty "issues" problem that keeps cropping up in polling.
 - My McCain Online Funtime Action Center broke and the spinning World Domination Map fell over and snapped off the arm from my Karl Rove Politikin' Action Figure, and I had to toss the whole thing in the trash.

At what point does this stop being a "warning" and turn into actually making the attack?

A high-ranking labor supporter of Hillary Clinton is distributing
to union leaders and to Democratic strategists a document detailing the
radical activities of Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, two former members of
the '70s group the Weather Underground, who decades later, in Chicago,
crossed paths with Barack Obama.

The document - a three-page emailed essay by Rick Sloan,
communications director for the International Association of Machinists as
Aerospace Workers (IAMAW) -- takes both literary and political license to
outline what Sloan believes would be the thrust of a hypothetical
Republican campaign against Obama focusing on his tangential connection to
Ayers and Dohrn.

The goal of the essay appears to be to discredit Obama as the
prospective Democratic presidential nominee.

This went out to the exact demographic meant to rile it up at the last second - labor union officials. Apparently communism is the last-second surprise this time around.

Sloan sent his anti-Obama material out in an email to 40 political
and communications officials of key unions supporting Clinton. The unions
include American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; the
American Federation of Teachers; United Farm Workers; Amalgamated Transit
Union; and the Office and Professional Employees. Sloan said he also sent it
to a number of Democratic operatives, but he declined to identify them.