Cartoon Of The Day

I'm a bit late to this bandwagon, but here's my favorite Texts From Hillary cartoon so far:

Image credit: Kevin Lamarque/Reuters/Texts From Hillary

I'm not a big fan of Hillary Clinton, but my loathing for the Obama Administration's economics team knows no bounds. I'd guess you'd say the relative schadenfreude works about right for me. Mrs. Clinton hasn't completely screwed up at doing her job. In fact, I'd say she's done about as well as anyone could expect. In contrast, it's hard to imagine anyone doing a worse job than Tim Geithner.

So Wrong, It's Gotta Be Right

While I wasn't paying much attention to the Internet, Robert Reich went and said something egregiously stupid:

So the Democratic ticket for 2012 is Obama-Clinton.

Why do I say this? Because Obama needs to stir the passions and enthusiasms of a Democratic base that’s been disillusioned with his cave-ins to regressive Republicans. Hillary Clinton on the ticket can do that.

My Political Prediction for 2012: It’s Obama-Clinton

There aren't a whole lot of things I know about politics, but one of them is surely this: I know, within a half percent of the electorate or so, how many voters who don't live or work in the Washington, DC area care about who the vice presidential nominee is on a ticket. That number is zero. No one cares. Face it, next to who is second in the American League's most walked category each year, there is nothing that matters less in our lives than who is the person who sits around for four years not quite daring to hope that something bad happens to the President.

Unless the Vice President is named Dick Cheney, the person occupying that position has almost no power to affect anything of importance. In fact, President Bush would have been within his rights to tell Cheney to shut the hell up and stay down at the Naval Observatory until he was needed, which would be about the same time that Hell froze over.

That's the first thing Reich got wrong.

The next is what we're upset about. It's not about Obama's "cave-ins" to the GOP. It's that this is what he wants to do, and that no one in the Democratic Party has been willing to tell the truth about that, let alone stand up for what the party should be about.

What they do instead is suggest things like changing Vice Presidents.

All that wrong in a few sentences.

The only thing he may not have gotten wrong is that Obama will make this change. It won't make any difference, but there are plenty of folks like Reich who think it will. One of the things you can count on from our leaders is that when the going gets tough, the tough change the org charts. If I thought Hillary Clinton still had her own ambitions about being President some day, I'd think it unlikely that she'd accept such an offer, but she's in her mid-sixties now. She may really be thinking about retiring soon.

Being associated with the failures of a second term of Barack Obama's presidency would be an excellent way to guarantee having nothing better to do than go home. I suppose that under those circumstances, being the first female Vice Presidential candidate who got to move into the Observatory would be achievement enough.

So it's possible that Reich could be wrong, and still be right. Sadly, that's how things are these days in our nation's capital. Often, doing something dramatic is more important than doing something that makes sense.

Eric Massa Thanks Hillary Clinton

Image credit: Massa For Congress. Reduced by Cujo359

Today I received an e-mail from Slobber And Spittle Blue candidate Eric Massa's campaign. It was entitled "An Open Letter to Senator Clinton", so I feel no compunctions about reproducing it here:

Dear Senator Clinton,

It was with an incredible sense of pride that I watched you speak to the American people today in such unequivocal terms in support of Senator Obama. As a friend and fellow New Yorker, your campaign has been an inspiration to me, and I was proud to have stood with you as you sought to represent all of us on the Presidential campaign trail. I join you in your call for unity, and I thank you for a truly inspiring race.

As you stated today, "Yes We Can" make the remarkable events of the past months seem unremarkable to future generations. The leadership that you have always demonstrated in the face of adversity has encouraged millions, and has inspired untold numbers to seek to serve our nation in countless ways. Your call for equality and unity is precisely the message that we need to usher in a new era in American politics.

While you spent considerable time in your speech graciously thanking your supporters and the American people, it is the American people--regardless of political affiliation, gender, race, or age--who should thank you. Your tireless service to our country now and in the future has made our nation stronger and our lives better. There will always be those who will criticize the warrior in the fight without taking up arms themselves. These are to be ignored. For as a Commanding Officer of mine once wrote, "It is the essence of the fighter, and not the critic, that will change the future." On behalf of all the New Yorkers in the 29th Congressional District who have and will benefit from your leadership, thank you.

I know, as you said today, that you will remain on the front lines of democracy fighting for the future. Be assured that you will always find me there along side you, with all of the energy, passion, and strength that you have inspired in so many.

With Deepest Admiration,

[signature image of Eric Massa]

I'll add a link if I find an official version at his website.

This letter is a sign of the class that earned Massa a place in the SnS Blue list. That he appreciates people who try to do things, rather than just complaining about them, is obvious. That's the sort of person we need in Congress.

Apparently, It's Over

Image credit: HillaryClinton.com, reduced by Cujo359.

I received this e-mail today from Clinton campaign headquarters:

I have been honored and privileged to work with so many dedicated people on Hillary's historic campaign. Your enthusiastic commitment to her campaign through the primaries has been inspirational.

As you know, Hillary will be holding an event tomorrow in Washington D.C. to thank all of her supporters, to express her support for Senator Obama, and to talk about the issues that have been at the core of her public service, the issues she will continue fighting for.

Let me emphasize that, other than to vote for her when I realized I couldn't vote for John Edwards, I have not been a Clinton supporter. I'm just on the junk e-mail list.

There was also this message on her site:

On Saturday, I will extend my congratulations to Senator Obama and my support for his candidacy. This has been a long and hard-fought campaign, but as I have always said, my differences with Senator Obama are small compared to the differences we have with Senator McCain and the Republicans.

I have said throughout the campaign that I would strongly support Senator Obama if he were the Democratic Party's nominee, and I intend to deliver on that promise.

Lindsay Levin: I Want You to Know

So, I'd say it's official. Clinton will be ending (suspending?) her campaign tomorrow.

Of course, there are a whole bunch of asshats who will insist it was way too late, or that this was just unacceptable for some reason. Screw them. My outlook on life is sour enough without having to listen to those whiny pissants. Clinton made mistakes early in her campaign, but bounced back to make it a contest. She displayed grit and organizational talent. Despite the hysterical nonsense coming from some Obama supporters, she conducted her campaign with as much class as her opponent. She certainly would have made an adequate President, maybe even a good one.

When Will It All Be Over?

With Montana and South Dakota having had their Presidential primaries today, all the pledged delegates have now been allocated. according to CNN, these are the current totals:

Delegate Type	Clinton	Obama
Pledged (elected)	1,636	1,762
Super	286	394
TOTAL	1,922	2,156

Including superdelegates, Obama has enough delegates to win by this count.

There are a couple of catches, though.

First, are superdelegates obligated to vote the way they've pledged? I don't believe they are. They probably won't change their minds, unless Obama does (or has done) something really, really stupid that could make him unelectable. Many superdelegates are elected officials. Their word, at least when dealing with each other, is important. But that's one reason for Clinton to hang on.

The other reason is that Obama's only "over the top" by 38 votes at the moment. There are challenges going on in Texas. There is still the very remote possibility that the DNC's decision concerning Michigan and Florida will be overturned. It's a very slim margin. There are still unpledged superdelegates, though, so that margin could become greater.

Conceivably, it could grow smaller, as well.

I expect Clinton will stay in the race until such time as it's completely clear that she can't win. In fact, no one in his right mind would expect any less. That could happen any time between tomorrow and the middle of the convention.

Until then, revel in the suspense.

UPDATE: Filled in the blank on who had the other primary, and corrected my arithmetic (it's a 38-delegate margin). Oops.

UPDATE 2: I also neglected to point out something that should be obvious from this table - when it comes to elected delegates, Obama's lead is 126 votes, not a big lead. For all the caterwauling about how the superdelegates are undemocratic from the Obama side, that's where their margin of victory comes from. If the superdelegates were evenly divided, Obama would still need 16 votes to have the nomination. If they went the way it looked like they would go in January, with Clinton getting the vast majority, she'd be the presumptive nominee at the moment.

UPDATE (Jun. 6): It looks like we have our answer. Think maybe all the whining will be over? Not a chance.

Still Getting Caught Up On E-mail

Image credit: Swapatorium.


As many people do, I suspect, I have an e-mail account that is expressly for political junk e-mail. Needless to say, it's been overflowing recently, and along with the usual nonsense are a few gems:

---

Democracy for America wrote:

How many times this year did you wake up and say to yourself
America needs more from our elected Democrats?

I've said it too many times to count. That's why our Primaries
Matter campaigns are so important.

When Donna Edwards sent Bush Democrat Al Wynn packing a few
months ago, we shook the establishment and sent a message to
Democrats in Congress: move America forward or move out of
Washington.

Now, Ed Fallon is working to beat Bush Democrat Leonard Boswell
on June 3 in the Iowa primary and Rep. Boswell is running
scared.

CONTRIBUTE $30 RIGHT NOW:

[link from the original.; It leads to a Blue America page.]

I've been saying for some time that just electing Democrats isn't enough. We've already done that, and, predictably, it wasn't enough. It's time we got rid of the kind of Democrats who don't vote as their constituents would have them vote. Dianne Feinstein is one such Democrat. Leonard Boswell is another.

Ed Fallon is on Howie Klein's Blue America page. Howie links to this article Fallon wrote for Down With Tyranny a few months ago. Boswell's voting record has been pretty bad, and has only improved since Fallon announced he was running for Boswell's seat.

---

Progressive Democrats for America wrote:

Doubleday just released Bill Moyer's new book entitled Moyers On Democracy. An excerpt from it is printed here. It ends with this paragraph:

"I wish I could say that journalists in general are showing the same interest in uncovering the dangerous linkages thwarting this democracy. It is not for lack of honest and courageous individuals who would risk their careers to speak truth to power--a modest risk compared to those of some journalists in authoritarian countries who have been jailed or murdered for the identical 'crime.' But our journalists are not in control of the instruments they play. As conglomerates swallow up newspapers, magazines, publishing houses, and networks, and profit rather than product becomes the focus of corporate effort, news organizations--particularly in television--are folded into entertainment divisions. The 'news hole' in the print media shrinks to make room for advertisements, and stories needed by informed citizens working together are pulled in favor of the latest celebrity scandals because the media moguls have decided that uncovering the inner workings of public and private power is boring and will drive viewers and readers away to greener pastures of pabulum.

Good reporters and editors confront walls of resistance in trying to place serious and informative reports over which they have long labored. Media owners who should be sounding the trumpets of alarm on the battlements of democracy instead blow popular ditties through tin horns, undercutting the basis for their existence and their First Amendment rights."

Take action now to stop more corporate media consolidation:

[links from original e-mail. The second link leads to a page where you can write your congressman to ask him to vote for the resolution against media consolidation.]

I've written about the deterioration of the news in this country. It's been getting worse, and the consolidation of ownership that's happened in the past couple of decades hasn't helped it one bit. As Moyers observes, it's becoming harder for journalists to express what they feel is the truth when that truth runs counter to what the rich and the powerful want us to believe. A free and open press was one of the things Jefferson and other founding fathers felt was important for a functioning democracy. Today, we seem farther from that state of affairs than ever.

If you feel the same way, click on the link and tell Congress how you feel.

---

Of course, after last night's win/loss in Kentucky and Oregon, both the Obama and Clinton campaigns sent out self-congratulatory e-mails. See if you can guess which is which:

The polls are closed in Kentucky and votes are being counted in Oregon, and it's clear that tonight we have reached a major milestone on this journey.

We have won an absolute majority of all the delegates chosen by the people in this Democratic primary process.

From the beginning, this journey wasn't about me or the other candidates. It was about a simple choice -- will we continue down the same road with the same leadership that has failed us for so long, or will we take a different path?

Wish I had a nickel for every time some politician promised a "different path" and then proceeded to go down the same old path everyone else did. I could afford to buy a few congressmen of my own.

And then, not ten minutes later:

Once again tonight, you and I stood together and showed America what we're made of.

Every time we win another state, we prove something about ourselves and about our country. And did we ever prove something tonight in Kentucky.

We showed America that the voters know what the "experts" will never understand -- that in our great democracy, elections are about more than candidates running, pundits commenting, or ads blaring.

Wish I had a nickel for every time I've heard that one, too.

Of course, as Obi-Wan might say, each is true from a certain point of view. Clinton won a lopsided victory in Kentucky, and Obama is closer to the nomination. Guess you just have to accentuate the positive.

Edwards Endorses Obama

Image credit: The New York Times.


I'm a bit surprised by this, but I suppose I shouldn't be:

At a rally in Grand Rapids, Mich., on Wednesday evening, John Edwards endorsed Barack Obama, who was on the stage with him, to be the Democratic nominee for president.

Sounding a theme of a nation divided into parts by walls, Mr. Edwards said, “The reason I am here tonight is that Democratic voters in America have made their choice and so have I.”

Mr. Edwards then went on to say, “There is one man who knows in his heart that it is time to tear down that wall and make one America, Barack Obama.”

John Edwards Endorses Barack Obama

While Obama's speech on racism, which he gave in the wake of the Jeremiah Wright issue, was certainly compelling, it was, like most of Obama's accomplishments, just a speech. That Obama spent so much time with both Wright and Antoin Rezko, both of whom have done a great deal to make those separations greater, makes me wonder why I should believe there is anything behind those words.

Nevertheless, this has to be a blow to the Clinton campaign, so soon after a resounding win in West Virginia. Edwards' campaign was aimed at working class people, whom Clinton has also courted of late. They represented much of her strength in both Pennsylvania and West Virginia. But I suspect the most important thing about this endorsement is its effect on the minds of superdelegates. I think very few Democratic voters will be swayed by Edwards, but what he says may carry weight with professional politicians and other party leaders.

If that's true, we may have seen the end of the Clinton campaign's chances today.

UPDATE (May 15): Speaking of whiny pissants, here's a choice quote from someone at No Quarter:

John Edwards committed a mortal sin. He joined the gang of liberal elitists busily sharpening their long knifes. He chose sudden relevance over democracy. He threw universal health care out the door without bothering to consider the consequences. Edwards will pay a steep price for this betrayal. Plenty of us will not allow the American people to forget what he did and with whom he aligned. Count on it.

With Edwards Relevance Trumps Respect

What more is there to say? Seems to me that the longer these people write, the fewer options they have. What happens when Edwards, or any of the other folks who have been slagged by one side or another, is the one we have to negotiate with for something? Seems to me that would go a lot better if we just said we disagreed and left it at that.

Politics is the art of the possible, not the perfect.

Why not save the invective for the people who really deserve it?

Yes, I'm Still Resting ...

[This is Bernie, who was recently adopted through the St. Bernard Rescue Foundation, Inc. I'm sure they'd appreciate a donation (or gifts, via Donate.net).]


Yes, I'm still "resting" much as I have been for most of the past three months - meaning I've been on the road doing something that's taking up most of my attention. Right now, I think of this as a good thing.

Why is that? It's because every time I look at political news lately, including much of what's been posted on politically-oriented blogs, all I've seen is one stupid charge of racism, sexism, or whatever from one side or the other. Clinton pointed out yesterday that she does better among white voters. This is an established fact, which is something that Obama supporters should be aware of. Yet no sooner had the ink dried on that story than the chorus of Obama supporters cried "racism". Last week, a Clinton supporter couldn't help but slime George McGovern after he said that he thought Clinton should end her campaign. While I still disagree profoundly with Sen. McGovern, (as do most Democratic voters) he deserves far more respect.

I suspect that even if I weren't this busy, I'd still be reluctant to spend time reading the comments of these whiny pissants. I'd love it if these people would just shut the fuck up and think for once, but that's not going to happen.

The USA Today published an interesting perspective on the race today:

Out of money and facing a decisive loss in the North Carolina primary, the long-shot presidential contender rejected the idea of getting out of the race. Another candidate had the party nomination in hand, but the refusal of his rival to concede reality divided the party in November.

Is it 2008? No. The never-say-die challenger was Ronald Reagan in 1976. The embattled nominee was Jimmy Carter in 1980.

Obama-Clinton race echoes past bouts

Hamilton Jordan, Jimmy Carter's chief political strategist had this to say:

Hamilton Jordan was a strategist for President Jimmy Carter in 1980 as he battled a primary challenge from Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy, who continued his rivalry to the Democratic convention in New York.

"It was the single critical factor in his defeat. When people ask me why we were defeated, I say the (Iranian) hostage crisis - which was seen as a failure of Carter to free the people after being held for so long - the general state of the economy, and the Kennedy challenge. Without any of those three problems, we might have been elected.

"Of those three problems, the most significant was the Kennedy challenge. ... If there hadn't been the Kennedy challenge, there wouldn't have been the (independent candidate John) Anderson phenomenon, which was an outgrowth of the Kennedy challenge.

"If we'd had the whole year to pull the party together and to try to work on the economy, I think Carter would, or at least could, have won."

Obama-Clinton race echoes past bouts

Mr. Jordan may know a great deal more than I do about politics in general, but it's clear that he's in a serious case of denial here. I know that for one simple reason - the moment Ronald Reagan became the Republican nominee, Jimmy Carter was toast.

The reality of that time is that we were in a mess. The Iran hostage crisis had gone on for months, with one television network reminding us every night how many days America was Held Hostage. The economy was in bad shape, with inflation running in double digits. Except for the Camp David Accords, President Carter had little to show for his first term in office. America had a choice between taking a hard look at itself and changing its ways, or believing in a fantasy. Reagan provided the second option, which America, being then as now more interested in sniping and nonsense than in facing reality, chose enthusiastically. If we had made the logical choices back then regarding our dependence on oil, we might not be stuck in Iraq today. Instead, too many people chose to believe that it was "Morning In America", rather than to make their Congress and the rest of their government aware that they didn't want the future to look like an even longer version of the infamous gas lines of that period.

Ted Kennedy's campaign wasn't Carter's problem. It was just another symptom.

Much like Obama, Reagan used his early campaign experiences to become a better campaigner and political strategist. He learned to spin the yarns that people would take up with such relish in 1980.

The lesson I draw from this is that, once again, we're headed for bad leadership in the White House. While it's hard to believe anything could be worse than eight years of George W. Bush, we may be finding out if that's true. Just as with Reagan's disastrous Presidency, a McCain or Obama Administration is likely to do little to help those of us who need it, nor is either likely to correct the things that are most desperately wrong with the country. That's because the same people who whine about the confrontation in front of them in the form of Hillary Clinton will be just as uninterested in facing the hard choices as Reagan's supporters were. The reality, unfortunately, is that the people who are in control at the moment are not going to let go of it easily or politely. Anyone who believes that Hillary Clinton, who sometimes seems to enjoy dancing around an issue, is somehow going to be more divisive than Obama once the Republican-owned press gets through with him is a first class fool.

Obama, like Reagan, is someone who speaks in glittering generalities. Like Reagan, he is appealing to the unrealistic expectation that everything will be alright if we just trust him. Like Reagan, his rhetoric isn't matched by his political record. While I don't think Obama will be as disastrous as Reagan, I also know that I'm not looking forward to all the excuses we'll be hearing from his more clueless supporters about how he couldn't possibly have made things any better, because there were all those other folks (led by the Clintons, no doubt) who were in the way.

I don't have much more hope for a Hillary Clinton presidency, other than that it will be a bit less awful. The presidential candidate who has shown the most interest in protecting the Constitution lately is Bob Barr. This is how low we've sunk.

Needless, to say, right now I view being busy as a blessing. I wonder if I can keep it up for the next four years?

UPDATE (May 21): Thanks to a link that appeared here today, I found out that Hamilton Jordan died yesterday at age 63, of cancer. It was the fourth time he had cancer, Undoubtedly, his previous experiences with cancer inspired him to found, along with his wife, Camp Sunshine, a camp for children with cancer.

Gail Collins On the PA Primary

Gail Collins must have been reading my mind today:

The clamor for Hillary Clinton to drop out of the presidential race has reached new levels of intensity since the Pennsylvania primary. Of all the things Hillary has done, Obama supporters find her tendency to win large elections in swing states as by far the most irritating. If she beats him in Indiana, they’ll be surrounding her house with torches.

Hillary's Smackdown

It's been a long couple of weeks of competing charges of elitism and, well, Ms. Collins continues:

Then out came Chelsea and a pink and glistening Bill Clinton, fresh from that peculiar radio interview in which he referred to a mysterious memo that he said proved the Obama campaign played the “race card” in South Carolina. When asked about it later, he accused the reporter of not caring about the issues.

Hillary's Smackdown

I thought maybe this elitism thing was because the charges of racism and sexism were becoming passe, but it looks like I'm mistaken. Thankfully, Collins can keep this in perspective, too:

If you want to worry about something, worry about the way both of them have been pandering themselves over the edge. There was the dreaded read-my-lips, no-new-middle-class-taxes pledge during the Pennsylvania debate. Then Hillary tried to demonstrate her toughness by announcing she would “obliterate” Iran if it messed with Israel. And when it comes to political piñatas, we’ll always have Nafta. They both went into the tank on agricultural issues back in Iowa, so heaven knows what they’re saving for Indiana. Mandatory use of corn in highway paving materials?

Hillary's Smackdown

I can't wait for the general election, when the pandering goes large.

A Good Sign?

Most of the results (99.44 percent) are in for the Pennsylvania primary, and here are the results as reported in the unofficial count on the PA Department of State's elections page:

CLINTON, HILLARY (DEM) 1,237,696 54.6%
OBAMA, BARACK (DEM) 1,029,672 45.4%

That's as of 11:00 AM PDT. So it looks like it will end up being a 9 percent margin of victory. That's not huge, but she beat the spread. This means nothing's decided yet, which isn't what some folks want to hear.

There was a good sign, though. In the 15th Congressional District, the vote totals looked like this:

15th Congressional District
Democratic Primary

BENNETT, SAM (DEM) 62,600 100.0%

Republican Primary

DENT, CHARLES W. (REP) 23,485 100.0%

Results are here. While neither candidate was opposed, and more Democratic voters could be expected to show up than Republican thanks to the fact that the Republicans had already decided their Presidential primary, this still strikes me as a hopeful sign. Out of a total of 86,000 votes, Democratic challenger (and Slobber and Spittle Blue candidate) Sam Bennett won almost 73 percent of the vote. Eighty-six thousand votes is quite a few votes for a congressional district even in a general election.

If I were in Charles Dent's campaign, I'd be concerned right now. This doesn't prove he's in trouble. I'd bet only half the folks who would have voted for him showed up for this election. This does show that it's not going to be easy for him, though.

You can help replace Dent by contributing to Sam Bennett through Slobber and Spittle Blue.

We Get Letters ...

Image credit: Pollster.com

Actually, I get e-mails from the Democratic Presidential candidates on a regular basis. It's not that I'm special, it's the same e-mails everyone gets who might conceivably give them money. Tonight, of course, they're talking about the Pennsylvania primary. Clinton's campaign writes:

Thanks to you, we won a critically important victory tonight in Pennsylvania. It's a giant step forward that will transform the landscape of the presidential race. And it couldn't have happened without you.

I'll just point out that it really wasn't thanks to me. I'm just on a list. Obama's campaign writes:

Votes are still being counted in Pennsylvania, but one thing is already clear.

In a state where we trailed by more than 25 points just a couple weeks ago, you helped close the gap to a slimmer margin than most thought possible.

Once again, whatever happened here, it wasn't my doing.

Let's just say that I'm loving this contrast in realities here and leave it at that.

Meanwhile, the margin of victory looks to be roughly 10 percent:

CNN: 95% in, 206K lead by Clinton, 10% gap.

State:92.5% in, 203K lead, 9.8% gap.

Looks very very close to double digits, but the CNN official delegate count is still just 52-46 with 60 outstanding still.

VERY close to double digits

To me, there's nothing magical about ten percent. It's a number. It just happens to be the threshold some folks have decided is the difference between Clinton actually winning and just coasting. My opinion is that she's won, but the opinions that really matter are those of the superdelegates, who must decide who looks more electable based on this and other races.

As the Obama campaign has observed, they came from 25 points down. The chart at the top of this article, courtesy of Pollster.com, shows that clearly. It includes polls results through yesterday. What it also shows is that the margin looked closer to many of the polls. This wasn't a light turnout, either. Quite the contrary, according to the New York Times:

Pennsylvania is on its way to the record turnout that election officials have been predicting for weeks, according to poll workers from across the state.

Election officials were reporting extremely heavy voter activity in many of the state’s 67 counties throughout the morning, starting with long lines reported even before the polls opened at 7 a.m.

The Caucus: Heavy Turnout In Pa.

Obama also spent a tremendous amount of money:

Flush with cash, Obama reported spending $11.2 million on television in the state, more than any place else. That compared with $4.8 million for Clinton.

AP: Clinton Grinds Out Victory Over Obama In Pennsylvania

So Clinton beat the expectations, it seems to me.

With primaries left in Indiana, Kentucky, North Carolina, and Oregon, this thing isn't over. Nor should it be.

UPDATE: As of 11:45 PDT, it's looking like the unofficial count at Pennsylvania Dept. of State elections page has Clinton ahead 54.3 - 45.7, an 8.6 percent margin. This is a bit closer to the expected result - Pollster's prediction was a 6.6 percent margin. It probably means that the delegate count will not heavily favor Clinton. (h/t cinnamonape at Firedoglake for the link).

I'm Still "Resting", But ...

I'm still "resting" in much the same manner as The Doctor is resting here, but I'm honked off anyway thanks to this item at No Quarter:

This is breaking news. Well, it may breaking news to Howie Kurtz that he has an “unreliable source” feeding him false information. And that his unreliable source on CNN’s Reliable Sources, his 10 a.m. ET weekly Sunday show, was …

… none other than Howie Kurtz himself. Check out the April 6, 2008 CNN transcript of Reliable Sources, and the video of Kurtz who parroted unvetted media reports written before the story was fully checked out by his own Washington Post colleague Anne Kornblut and by No Quarter’s Big Kahuna.

Howie Kurtz’s Unreliable Source

Kurtz accused Hillary Clinton of making up a story about a woman and her baby who died because they couldn't afford preventive medical care, apparently without checking out if it was true. In any case, two days later he has not set the record straight.

That jackasses like Kurtz continue to have jobs on national news networks, while so many real journalists can't find work that pays the rent, is enough to honk off anyone. If you happen to be one of those people, I suggest reading SusanUnPC's article and then following the link she provides to Howie's e-mail page.

Stay In The Race

Image credit: HillaryClinton.com, reduced by Cujo359.

Bloomberg reports today:

Supporters of Democratic presidential contenders Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton said neither candidate should feel compelled to leave the race until June, after all states have held their nominating contests.

Clinton, who trails Obama in total votes and pledged delegates, has spent the last four days rejecting calls to drop out of the race from politicians who say she can't overcome Obama's lead in delegates for the nomination. Clinton told the Washington Post yesterday that she may continue running until the Democratic nominating convention in August.

Obama, Clinton Should Stay in Race Until June, Supporters Say

In one sense, I no longer have a horse in this race. Of course, anyone who's read my comments on the two remaining candidates knows I favor Hillary Clinton, but that's beside the point. Even if I were in favor of Obama, but otherwise possessed of my senses, I'd be writing that she should stay in the race until there's clearly no chance she can win. Bill Richardson, an Obama supporter, agrees, at least to a point:

"She has every right to stay in the race," New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who's supporting Obama, said today on the CBS Face the Nation program. "But I think it's important, at the end of the June 3 date, we look at who has the most delegates, who has the most popular vote, who has the most states."

Obama, Clinton Should Stay in Race Until June, Supporters Say

I think she should stay in until it's clear she can't win, whenever that is, but otherwise Richardson's right. Barack Obama adds:

"My attitude is that Sen. Clinton can run as long as she wants. Her name is on the ballot. And she is a fierce and formidable competitor, and she obviously believes that she would make the best nominee and the best opponent," [Obama] said. "I think that you know she should be able to compete and her supporters should be able to support her for as long as they are willing or able."

Obama: Calls For Hillary To Quit Are Premature

To think this race is over is to not be aware of where it is at the moment. Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, a Clinton supporter, provides some perspective:

“Just flip it for a second,” Mr. Rendell said. “Let’s say Senator Clinton was ahead by about 110 delegates and ahead by less than 1 percent of the vote cast, and she and her supporters started to call on Senator Obama to get out. Just picture what the media would be saying. They’d be saying you’re being racist, you’re being everything in the world. It’s nuts! It’s nuts!”

Endorsement of Obama Points Up Clinton Obstacles

This thing isn't over. Not by a longshot. That's particularly true when superdelegates make up a substantial part of the delegate count. They aren't pledged to vote for anyone.

Being President requires more than just giving pretty speeches. It involves gaining enough support from Congress to get legislation passed in a way you want it to. For an example of how things go when this works, see Lyndon Johnson. For an example of how things go when that doesn't work, see Jimmy Carter. As both Vice President and President, Johnson managed to push through a tremendous amount of progressive legislation. He managed to get the Dixiecrats to allow the Civil Rights Bill to pass. Carter, on the other hand, despite initially strong support of the electorate, couldn't get anything he wanted out of Congress.

I know that any suggestion that Johnson helped pass the Civil Rights Act, as Senator Clinton did not all that long ago, will send Obama supporters into overload. Somehow, they seem to think that this is demeaning to Martin Luther King and all the other civil rights workers who brought that issue to the nation's attention in the first place. If you're one of the people who believe that, then you either know far too little about your government's history, or you're a raving shithead. Johnson got that bill passed, with some help from others in Congress and pressure from around the country. If he hadn't gotten the Dixiecrats to cooperate by not filibustering, we'd still be waiting for it to pass. The Republicans' pandering to the "states rights" crowd would have been enough to keep that bill in committee for a generation. That he did that in no way diminishes what the civil rights movement did to get that legislation there.

That's why I think that Hillary should stay in this race until it's certain she can't win. Being President is about being able to deal with your own party and the opposition to get things done. If Barack Obama can't do that, then he shouldn't be President. On that score, Kevin Hayden had an interesting observation a couple of weeks ago:

Clinton keeps utilizing spin to try and achieve victory. Obama’s team keeps out-organizing them though, gaining what counts: more delegates. Ohio and Rhode Island have been the only exceptions since Super Tuesday. 13 out of 15 times since, Obama’s walked away with more delegates and he’s also pulled in far more superdelegates in the same period.

Obama wins more delegates today by being well organized

In short, Obama's not bringing a knife to that gunfight. He's doing very well at courting superdelegates, as Bill Richardson's endorsement should make clear. Speaking of fights, Kevin has a few more words of wisdom:

Sure, there’s Obama supporters so angry they say they won’t vote for Clinton and there’s even more Clinton supporters saying the same about Obama. And the tenor of the campaign is part of why that’s so. But even that’s not the whole story. Race, gender, and past records account for some of that obstinacy. And how people feel by June 3rd is not a good predictor of how they’ll act on Election Day.
...
And don’t start expecting Clinton to concede the nomination easily. After Pennsylvania, which she’s heavily favored to win, she really needs Indiana at minimum, and probably North Carolina, which will be very hard to do. So if you thought the Reverend Wright flap was bad, you ought to be prepared for another fresh revelation and new line of attack to emerge before that pair of primaries. Because that’s how political campaigning is done when it’s the fourth quarter, and the two minute warning occurs.

The candidate that’s behind starts throwing Hail Marys, hoping for a lucky break. So it’s likely to get contentious all over again. Folks will get apoplectic again. And at the end of it all, a nominee will emerge. Half of the party will sulk. Pundits will ask if the party’s broken.

And frankly, the party won’t be broken, as much as I wish it were. After all, what I want from the nominee is someone who represents me, my family and community and the US of A. The party’s just a vehicle, not the destination.

It’s the stupid primaries, stupid

This primary fight won't have any effect that I can see on the outcome of the general election, other than to determine who goes into it as the Democratic nominee. In the end, most of us will choose between whatever is the lesser of evils presented us. There's already plenty of hard feelings and there are more than a few people whose judgment I've learned not to trust. All that aside, I have yet to see any evidence that an acrimonious primary fight in and of itself will lead to defeat in November. If anyone has an example of one from the last century, let me know, but all the typical examples had plenty of alternative explanations, including the things that caused those fights. By those standards, this thing's been a pillow fight.

So, I invite all the Obamabots and pundits to get over themselves and consider the fact that this might actually be a Democratic convention that decides something. Revel in the suspense, and remember that this is why we have conventions.

UPDATE: You can add Alegre and Mick Arran to the list of folks who can tell you about hard feelings.

How Stupid Is Chris Matthews?

How preternaturally stupid is Chris Matthews? You don't have to answer right away. Consider this:

On the March 24 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, MSNBC Hardball host Chris Matthews asserted: "We're stuck in Iraq; 4,000 people are dead now because of decisions made by politicians like the Clintons." Matthews did not explain how "politicians like the Clintons" were responsible for the deaths of "4,000 people" in Iraq, nor did he mention President Bush, who actually made the decision to invade Iraq. Sen. Hillary Clinton herself has accused Bush of "misus[ing]" the authority given him by Congress.

Matthews: "4,000 people are dead now because of decisions made by politicians like the Clintons"

Nor did he mention that John McCain could be considered one of those politicians. Here's what he had to say on the day of the vote for the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) against Iraq:

"Giving peace a chance only gives Saddam Hussein more time to prepare for war on his terms, at a time of his choosing, in pursuit of ambitions that will only grow as his power to achieve them grows," McCain said.

Senate approves Iraq war resolution

McCain repeated the lie that Hussein was prepared to fight the United States after he voted for the resolution. All of the Republican Senators save one voted for the resolution. The vote was 77 to 23. Why were "politicians like the Clintons" responsible for this, when politicians like John McCain, who was a cheerleader for this disastrous war from the start, and is one of the few willing to expand it, were not? Yet Matthews never misses a chance to fluff McCain's reputation. Here's what he had to say about McCain that morning:

I think McCain, although we all agree he's a good man, has left it up to the Iraqi politicians how long we stay. It's not their call. It's our foreign policy. and we should re-establish control of our own foreign policy. The american people should decide on american foreign policy and war policy, not the iraqi politicians. I don't know why the Vice President is able to get away with saying our opinion doesn't matter, but iraqi politicians' misbehavior matters. we have to reassert our control over our forces, I think.

Chris Matthews: Victory means 'Americans get to come home'

[capitalization corrected]

Matthews talked as if McCain was just not quite getting the idea, not that McCain was one of the principle cheerleaders for this war from the beginning. Yet he's a good man and Hillary Clinton is especially responsible for the carnage.

John Kerry voted for this resolution, as well. If anyone should have known better, it was he.

Hillary Clinton deserves criticism, perhaps even scorn, for her vote. To say that somehow she belongs to a class of politicians who bear a special responsibility for this war that does not include McCain or Bush, which is what Matthews was clearly implying, is absurd.

OK, now you can answer. How much of a fucking moron is Chris Matthews? Why does he have a job as a political reporter, when there are so many people who are far more qualified?

Yes, I know - the same reason that Joe Klein has a job.

The Gap Closes

In national polls this week, Barack Obama's lead over Hillary Clinton has begun to diminish, according to Pollster. The latest graph, which is based on polls through Wednesday, March 18, shows that the gap between them on the smoothed chart has closed to 1.8% (47.5 - 45.7). Obama's support had leveled off, and Clinton appears to have picked up undecideds and "otherwise-decideds" - people who were for other candidates and have now picked between the two who are left.

These numbers don't include the effect of the revelations about Obama's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, nor Obama's response. Next week's numbers should tell that tale.

One possible explanation of this recent trend is bias in the polls conducted recently. Most have been from one organization - Gallup. Gallup does show a gradual trend in favor of Clinton, but it's not quite as large as the gross numbers would indicate. Gallup's numbers generally have shown Clinton doing better than average. As other organizations conduct new polls, this effect, if any, should also become clearer.

Meanwhile, eRobin, over at her blog Factesque, sums up my feelings about this race pretty well:

I think I have NAFTA Derangement Syndrome. If the PA primary were tomorrow, I'd vote for Hillary. How's that for American voter crazy? But I just saw her on SNL and she was likable enough and now she's the underdog and they're both Republicans anyway. And that NAFTA CTV story is really bugging me. How am I supposed to vote for that guy?

Deciding the Lesser of Two Evils Turns Out to be Harder than I Thought

While I don't agree that they're Republicans (at least, they wouldn't pass for Republicans these days), they definitely are less desirable than some of the earlier candidates. They're also less progressive than I'd like, by a long ways. But that's the choice we're left with. I seriously doubt the wisdom of any progressive who pictures either of these two as the ideal candidate, or the other as the anti-Christ. It's pretty clear to me that they're neither.

So, take your pick, but don't try to tell me it's a great choice. It's just better than the alternatives. Particularly these alternatives.

UPDATE: Rasmussen's results for today indicate that Clinton has experienced a ten point bump in the last couple of days. A look at their daily results table shows that she's seen such bumps before, for whatever reasons. I'd call this within the margin of Rasmussen's error for now. There is some bad news for Obama, though. His numbers seem to be nearly identical to Clinton's now:

On Saturday, Obama’s favorable ratings slipped a little further—46% favorable, 51% unfavorable. Before the Pastor Problem became big news, Obama was viewed favorably by 52%. One month ago, he was viewed favorably by 56%. McCain is viewed favorably by 54% of voters nationwide and unfavorably by 43%. For Clinton, those numbers are 43% favorable, 54% unfavorable (see recent daily results).

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll: March 22, 2008

As voters get to know a candidate, they often start to like him less. Clinton supporters have argued that we've been through that process before, and her numbers are what they are likely to be. That may or may not be good news, considering that her unfavorables are also higher than her favorables. Personally, I don't get why her unfavorables are as high as they are, but I don't watch much TV news. Nevertheless, that's where they are, and they don't seem likely to change. Here's why that's bad:

Looking ahead to the General Election in November, John McCain continues to lead both potential Democratic opponents. McCain leads Barack Obama 49% to 41% and Hillary Clinton 49% to 43% (see recent daily results). New polling shows McCain leading both Democrats in Georgia and Arkansas. In Minnesota, the race is very close.

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll: March 22, 2008

The only antidote to this, I think, is for the news to start covering McCain's numerous indiscretions regarding lobbyists. So far, as Media Matters observes, they haven't done that.

(h/t Taylor Marsh reader Scan.)

Not Too Surprising

Image credit: Pollster.com.

John McCain locked up the Republican nomination for President yesterday:

John McCain secured the Republican presidential nomination yesterday with a four-state sweep, getting a head start against the Democrats going into November's general election.

McCain's rival, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, 52, dropped out of the race after losing to the Arizona senator in Texas, Ohio, Vermont and Rhode Island.

McCain Clinches Republican Nomination After Sweep

No one who has even glanced at the news on that race could be too surprised. McCain's been ahead for a while now, and he's the choice of the Republican establishment. That he would be their choice this time would seem to suggest just how apprehensive they are about this election - McCain is one of the few candidates in that field who have any real support among independents. As the Washington Post observed:

The exit polls showed McCain with a clear advantage among moderates and independents across the board, while Huckabee -- a Baptist minister -- was tied or leading among evangelicals in several states. Self-described conservatives have shown more varied tastes, though Romney out-performed McCain in most states among that constituency, including Arizona. McCain scored solid victories with seniors and military veterans.

McCain Surging; Huckabee Strong In The South; Romney Winning in Rockies (Feb. 5, 2008)

[emphasis mine]

In the not-too distant past, they would have been revolted by a candidate who even gave lip service to deviating from the party line, which is about all McCain's actually managed to do in the past eight years. Now, they seem to think that if they have any chance at all, it will be with someone who appeals to the middle.

On the Democratic side, of course, things are a bit less settled:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s victories in Ohio and Texas on Tuesday night not only shook off the vapors of impending defeat, but also showed that — in spite of his delegate lead — Senator Barack Obama was still losing to her in the big states.

In 2 Battlegrounds, Voters Say, Not Yet

The New York Times isn't quite right, though. Clinton's been strong in most states where there were primary elections, rather than caucuses. The latter have been Obama's turf. Clinton's also more popular among Democratic voters. Obama tends to win in primaries where voters of one party can vote for candidates of another. As usual in their coverage of this race, the press have overlooked the obvious.

Speaking of which, here's a bit of conventional wisdom that I could do without:

For Mrs. Clinton, the battle ahead is not so much against Mr. Obama as it is against a Democratic Party establishment that had once been ready to coalesce behind her but has been drifting toward Mr. Obama. The party wants a standard-bearer now to wage the war against the newly minted leader of the Republicans, Senator John McCain, who enjoys a head start with every day that the Democrats lack a nominee of their own.

In 2 Battlegrounds, Voters Say, Not Yet

Did the NYT think to check whether these party elders also happen to be Obama supporters? I bet they haven't. I've encountered this nonsense before, mainly from Obama supporters in this election cycle. Yet, when I've called them on it, they haven't been able to come up with a single example of how a long, drawn out primary fight was actually detrimental to the party's chances. There are at least a few examples of a where such a battle was followed by a defeat in the general election, but in all the cases I can think of, there were underlying difficulties that either precipitated those fights or were another symptom of the party's own difficulties. Yet this particular pearl of wisdom goes unchallenged in the news, and unexamined as well.

That the same geniuses who have lost nearly every Presidential election of the last 25 years cling to this nonsense, and the press is uninterested in checking it out, shouldn't be terribly surprising to anyone.

Meanwhile, I feel there's at least some hope that we won't have to choose between Obama an McCain for President, and that's something to be thankful for.

Pollster.com hasn't updated its polls in almost a week. I haven't been following the polls enough to know why. The graph in this article still shows Obama with a 6.9 point lead. It will be interesting to see what effect the last couple of weeks of debates and elections have had.

Obama's Lead Widens, Or Does It?

Image credit: Pollster.com

[Click on the image to see it full size]

This Friday's Pollster graph seems to show that Barack Obama's lead over Hillary Clinton has windened compared to last week. The gap is now 47.8 - 44, or 3.8 percent. As you can see from the chart, some of Clinton's support has wavered. This is to be expected when she hasn't won in a while.

There are two interesting things about the poll results, which you can view here. First, it looks like the number of undecideds is going up again, and the latest polls mostly show Clinton and Obama in a dead heat. One recent poll, the Feb. 15 Gallup, has Obama up by seven points, but the remainder from the week show it neck-and-neck. Obama's line is still going up thanks to that one poll, I think, plus "momentum" provided by the smoothing algorithm. It may be that Obama has gotten as popular as he's going to.

Obama is running into more trouble, but as in earlier times, his disciples seem to be able to ignore it and press on. This week, his ties to William Ayers, a former Weatherman, became more evident:

Obama tries to dismiss the tie to Ayers by claiming he was only eight years old when Ayers was planting bombs in the United States. That is true. But when Barack subsequently met Ayers he knew about Ayers’ past and Ayers’ belief he had nothing to apologize for. So here we have a guy who dreams of running for president and he does not understand the implications of letting an unrepentant terrorist raise money for him?

Obama Tries To Hide Ayers Tie

I doubt this will affect Obama supporters much. Reality seldom seems to intrude on their political beliefs. Unfortunately, middle America won't feel the same way. What they'll see is that he is a lawyer who let himself be connected politically to a terrorist, and an unrepentent one at that.

Once again, Democrats have zeroed in on the worst possible candidate, it would seem.

UPDATE: Here's an example of how reality hasn't intruded. Blue Texan writes at Firedoglake:

Using words like "snobs" and "pampered" to describe Michelle Obama, who grew up the daughter of a Chicago water plant employee, and Barack Obama, who grew up without a dad and eschewed a cushy, six-figure legal gig to work as a community organizer on Chicago's posh South Side is really rich.

Peggy Noonan: The Obamas Are Unpatriotic Liberal Snobs

Anyone who thinks the once-poor can't be snobs needs to go meet a few. I don't know if the Obamas fit that description or not, but just having been poor is no proof against it. Second, most folks who eschew "six-figure legal gigs" to work as community organizers don't manage to ingratiate themselves with the corrupt local party machine. Yet Obama did. A realist would wonder why. Realists are few and far between amongst Obama supporters.

What's Wrong With Superdelegates?

One thing I've been having trouble figuring out, when I discount the obvious political motivations, is all the yammering this week about superdelegates:

Hillary Clinton will take the Democratic nomination even if she does not win the popular vote, but persuades enough superdelegates to vote for her at the convention, her campaign advisers say.

The New York senator, who lost three primaries Tuesday night, now lags slightly behind her rival, Illinois Senator Barack Obama, in the delegate count. She is even further behind in "pledged'' delegates, those assigned by virtue of primaries and caucuses.

But Clinton will not concede the race to Obama if he wins a greater number of pledged delegates by the end of the primary season, and will count on the 796 elected officials and party bigwigs to put her over the top, if necessary, said Clinton's communications director, Howard Wolfson.

Clinton counts on superdelegates

A political strategist has decided that a way of winning that's within the rules is OK. Yawn. What are these "superdelegates", anyway:

"Superdelegate" is an informal term for some of the delegates to the Democratic National Convention, the quadrennial convention of the United States Democratic Party.

Unlike most convention delegates, the superdelegates are not selected based on the party primaries and caucuses in each U.S. state. Instead, the superdelegates are seated automatically, based solely on their status as current or former elected officeholders and party officials. They are free to support any candidate for the nomination.

Wikipedia: Superdelegates

In short, they're the professionals. They're the people to whom power accrues in the system anyway. The Democratic Party, it seems to me, have just found a way to institutionalize, and perhaps quantify, that influence. According to that Wikipedia entry, which is unsourced on this particular issue, the superdelegates will make up about one-fifth of the total at the convention.

What that amounts to, of course, is that in a close primary election, like this one is turning out to be, they could be the folks deciding who gets the nomination. Why is that so bad?

First of all, as I already wrote, they are people who wield considerable influence within the party already. What's more, it's pretty clear at this point that the party members can't make up their collective mind who they want. If Obama was ahead 60-40 (or vice versa) then I could see being offended by this possibility. However, neither candidate is ahead now, when you assume there's even a one percent margin of error.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, there's the question of who works for whom here. As I've already mentioned, at least once or twice, they're supposed to be working for us. If we want to be effective bosses, we need to give our employees at least a little say in how they have to do their jobs. I've certainly learned in my own work that you need to listen to the people who work for you, or who will be affected by whatever you mandate. They're the ones who have to carry it out, and if they say they don't see how they can do that, you'd better discuss it with them.

So while I'd rather see this determined by the party as a whole, I don't see any reason that it's less democratic when the 0.1% of the party who end up having to do much of the work decide an outcome, as opposed to 0.1% of the rest of the party. Call me crazy, but I think either way many of us won't be happy.

UPDATE (Feb. 17): Paul Lukasiak has an interesting take on this, as well. If I can sum it up, it's that if you count actual Democratic voters who voted in the primaries so far, Hillary Clinton is ahead in the popular vote.

UPDATE 2: Via TPM Election Central, Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean is quoted:

The Democratic National Committee has given me what appears to be Howard Dean's most extensive and detailed answer to date on the role of super-delegates amid the ongoing battle between Hillary and Obama for their support.

Dean's verdict: "Their role is to exercise their best judgment in the interests of the nation and of the Democratic Party."

Howard Dean On Super-Delegates: "Their role is to exercise their best judgment"

If they're not going to use their judgement, why have them?

Obama Pulls Ahead

In the last few days, Pollster's composite poll ratings have changed to show Barack Obama in the lead nationally. If I'm reading this thing correctly (and Pollster, could you guys please try to avoid putting yellow type on a white background?) Obama is ahead of Hillary Clinton by 0.8% - 46.8% to 46.0%. As you can see, Clinton's gained a bit of support as well. Given the timing, I'd guess that was mostly due to former Edwards supporters, some of whom clearly went to Obama as well.

The main thing I take from this is that at the moment, we're about evenly divided, and that there are very few undecideds left out there. Clearly, the make up less than 7.2 percent of the Democratic voters. That's to be expected - almost half of the primaries have already happened, and most of the remaining ones will happen in the next couple of months. That leaves voters little time to make up their minds.

On Attendance, Revisited

As I've mentioned before, one of the things Sitemeter can tell me is how folks end up at this site. There are numerous reasons, of course, referrals from other sites, e-mailed articles, search engine results, and just plain bad luck. When you don't have many visitors, it's easy to watch these things.

An interesting thing has happened recently, and I'm not sure why. Up until a week ago, people who visited the article On Attendance did so because they wanted to know about Barack Obama's attendance record, which, as I observed was pretty normal for a Senator who is a presidential candidate. This week, though, people have showed up because they were interested in Hillary Clinton's record, which I'd call better than average.

I've just looked at the Washington Post article on vote attendance, and it appears little has changed. Clinton's record is still better than Obama's, which is much better than John McCain's. Considering how long ago he dropped out, I'd say their records were both better than Sam Brownback's.

I don't understand the sudden shift in interest, but it's been remarkable.