So the Democrats are going to sit down this weekend and hammer out a solution to the Florida and Michigan situation. Personally, I think this issue goes right to the heart of what is (sometimes) wrong with the Democrats. We're just too gosh-darned nice.
We want to enforce the rules, but...gee, it sure would be mean to disenfranchise all those Michigan and Florida voters, now wouldn't it?
The Democratic leadership of both states made colossal mistakes (and they knew it) by moving their primaries up too early but...golly, those people took the time to vote and, by gum, their votes should be counted!
Of course, the hidden subtext is the fact that Michigan and Florida are HUGE states for the Democrats this Fall and it really wouldn't be too smart to start the general election campaign with a raised middle finger to these two states. As nobody knows better than Al Gore, Florida can make or break you. So...tomorrow's meeting.
My prediction (and my predictions have pretty much proved to be worthless, but let's forget that for a minute) is that the Committee decides to simply cleave the delegates in twain. Half for Barack, half for Hillary. Hillary's supporters will scream bloody murder but really, from the bottom of my heart: to hell with them.
If the Clinton campaign honestly thinks that they are going to snatch the nomination away from Obama as a result of a bunch of guys in a smoke-filled room deciding to break their own rules and award the delegates to a candidate who should never have been on the ballot in either state, then they are just as culpable as the Bushies in 2000 who rammed Bush v. Gore through the Supreme Court, resulting in Chimpy's ascension.
This is dirty politics. The Clintons are trying to buck the rules. And they're playing the victim card, too. As has been widely reported, Harold Ickes, a top aide to the Clinton campaign who is leading the "disenfranchised" mantra, makes it clear that Hillary Clinton, poor thing, didn't vote on the DNC rules barring early primaries and shouldn't suffer as a result.
But you know who did vote for those rules? Harold Ickes.
Plus, Ickes voted in August to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates as a sitting member of the Rules and Bylaws Commission.
So kiss my ass, Harold. You're SOL.
If the meeting tomorrow results in anything more or less than a delegate split, there is going to be a revolution in the party. If Hillary Clinton gets the nomination as a result of tomorrow's meeting, I want to make two things clear:
1) I will fully support Barack Obama running as an Independent and
2) I'll vote for him
Let's see what happens, shall we?
Friday, May 30, 2008
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Scotty Spills the Beans
So Scott McClellan releases his tell-all, insider book about the Bushies and their deceptions and, true to form, the Bushies trot out their apologists to go after the guy. So what makes this so different?
First, there is the odd tone to their complaints. The whole "This isn't the Scott we knew" and "It's as if someone took over his body" mentality. Kinda new-agey, if you think about it, and not exactly the kind of rhetoric we're used to from this White House. Normally, we get the "He's just a bitter, angry, stupid little man." kind of thing (which is also happening now). But their lamentations over the seeming death of "old Scotty who we loved" is decidedly weird.
Why else is it significant? Well, two more things, really. First, this isn't a second-person account. He was there. He knows that there was propaganda used to gin us up to the war, he knows that Rove and Libby were lying about leaking Plame's name, he knows that Bush was being dishonest about his cocaine use because he was right there all the time. Plus the fact that he was one of the "Texas cabal" that followed Chimpy up from the Governor's mansion. He was an insider's insider and for a guy like him to spill the beans is big-ass news.
Finally, and most importantly, however, there is this: At last we have a guy who was as close to the President as you can get saying- once and for all- what those of us on the other side of the aisle have been saying for years. We've been vilified for saying it, we've been called paranoid left-wing nutjobs, we've been dismissed as conspiracy theorists, we've been intellectually maligned.
But Scott McClellan, George W. Bush's mouthpiece and right-hand man came out and verified that we were right and the boobs on the other side were wrong.
So what, exactly, did McClellan say that so closely mirrored our own accusations?
Simply this:
Bush lied. People died.
Now you've got it right from the source.
First, there is the odd tone to their complaints. The whole "This isn't the Scott we knew" and "It's as if someone took over his body" mentality. Kinda new-agey, if you think about it, and not exactly the kind of rhetoric we're used to from this White House. Normally, we get the "He's just a bitter, angry, stupid little man." kind of thing (which is also happening now). But their lamentations over the seeming death of "old Scotty who we loved" is decidedly weird.
Why else is it significant? Well, two more things, really. First, this isn't a second-person account. He was there. He knows that there was propaganda used to gin us up to the war, he knows that Rove and Libby were lying about leaking Plame's name, he knows that Bush was being dishonest about his cocaine use because he was right there all the time. Plus the fact that he was one of the "Texas cabal" that followed Chimpy up from the Governor's mansion. He was an insider's insider and for a guy like him to spill the beans is big-ass news.
Finally, and most importantly, however, there is this: At last we have a guy who was as close to the President as you can get saying- once and for all- what those of us on the other side of the aisle have been saying for years. We've been vilified for saying it, we've been called paranoid left-wing nutjobs, we've been dismissed as conspiracy theorists, we've been intellectually maligned.
But Scott McClellan, George W. Bush's mouthpiece and right-hand man came out and verified that we were right and the boobs on the other side were wrong.
So what, exactly, did McClellan say that so closely mirrored our own accusations?
Simply this:
Bush lied. People died.
Now you've got it right from the source.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Hillary's RFK Gaffe
Boy, this lady just can't catch a break, can she?
I mean, she wallops Barack in West Virginia, but all anybody can talk about is that Obama finally has a plurality of delegates. She whomps him in North Carolina and it's all about how close it was in Indiana.
Then, this past weekend. Defending her insistence on staying in the race, Hillary Clinton mentioned that her husband didn't clinch the nomination until June and, hey, let's not forget that Robert Kennedy was assassinated in June. A lot can change between now and the convent--
Wait a minute. What did you just say? Did you just mention a Kennedy assassination as an excuse to stay in the race? Ooooh, dear. Oh, dear, dear, dear. That wasn't good.
So what happens? It becomes (again) "Pile on Hillary Day." Keith Olbermann ripped her a new one in a "Special Comment." And Daniel Schorr....yes that Daniel Schorr, the NPR nanogenarian, went so far as to suggest that she was making it plain that someone could wind up shooting Barack in the next month so, gee, the voters better have a backup, right?
Oof. It was rough. I mean, she was stupid, really stupid, to mention RFK getting shot. But I'll tell you, I don't think she meant what everyone thinks she meant. And believe me, as a rabid Obama supporter, I would normally be the first one to pounce on something like this.
But, not this time. I think she meant what she said. Sometimes these races are concluded late in the game. That's it.
Now, should she still be in the race? No. Is she hurting Barack by staying in the race? Yes. Is she being selfish and egotistical to continue to run? Absolutely.
But to suggest any deep, hidden meaning behind this really freakin' stupid comment is going a bit far, in my humble opinion.
So I won't chastise her for it. I'll just say what I've been saying for weeks.
It's over. Now shut up and go away.
I mean, she wallops Barack in West Virginia, but all anybody can talk about is that Obama finally has a plurality of delegates. She whomps him in North Carolina and it's all about how close it was in Indiana.
Then, this past weekend. Defending her insistence on staying in the race, Hillary Clinton mentioned that her husband didn't clinch the nomination until June and, hey, let's not forget that Robert Kennedy was assassinated in June. A lot can change between now and the convent--
Wait a minute. What did you just say? Did you just mention a Kennedy assassination as an excuse to stay in the race? Ooooh, dear. Oh, dear, dear, dear. That wasn't good.
So what happens? It becomes (again) "Pile on Hillary Day." Keith Olbermann ripped her a new one in a "Special Comment." And Daniel Schorr....yes that Daniel Schorr, the NPR nanogenarian, went so far as to suggest that she was making it plain that someone could wind up shooting Barack in the next month so, gee, the voters better have a backup, right?
Oof. It was rough. I mean, she was stupid, really stupid, to mention RFK getting shot. But I'll tell you, I don't think she meant what everyone thinks she meant. And believe me, as a rabid Obama supporter, I would normally be the first one to pounce on something like this.
But, not this time. I think she meant what she said. Sometimes these races are concluded late in the game. That's it.
Now, should she still be in the race? No. Is she hurting Barack by staying in the race? Yes. Is she being selfish and egotistical to continue to run? Absolutely.
But to suggest any deep, hidden meaning behind this really freakin' stupid comment is going a bit far, in my humble opinion.
So I won't chastise her for it. I'll just say what I've been saying for weeks.
It's over. Now shut up and go away.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
The Wall Street Journal
Okay, I admit it. I'm a New York Times reader. I got hooked on the paper after they offered me a free 8-week daily subscription in the weeks leading up to the 2000 election. Suddenly, the paper started appearing on my doorstep every day and I'd crack it open and say to myself, "Wow! So this is what a newpaper is supposed to be like!". Up until then, my only daily paper was the Chicago Tribune which, yes, has it's merits (Doonesbury!) but is a pale comparison to the Grey Lady. (Plus the Trib is run by some pretty odious right-wing hacks. But I digress.)
I have long steered clear of the Wall Street Journal for many, many reasons, the chief among them being their Op-Ed page writers. If you remember, it was these guys who hounded Vince Foster into committing suicide during the Clinton administration. So I've given the WSJ a wide berth for years.
Today, I found myself with a little time to kill and what should appear at my elbow but a copy of the Wall Street Journal. Simply out of curiousity, the way you might tip over a rock to see the crawly things beneath, I flipped to the Op-Ed page to see what it was that I've been avoiding all these years.
I have to say, what I saw really surprised me. I thought I knew what to expect, but nothing could have prepared me for the actual contents. It just goes to show you: Never judge a book by it's cover and do NOT pre-judge something. The only way to properly form an opinion is to examine something carefully and then weigh in.
So here's my new take on the editors and contributors to the Wall Street Journal:
You're all a bunch of douchebags.
Let me be clear: I thought it would be bad. It wasn't. It was horrifying. How horrifying? Let me count the ways:
The lead editorial was about Exxon's attempt to wean itself off oil and explore new, perhaps renewable, forms of energy. Not a bad plan, given the oil drying up and prices through the roof. Probably be good for the planet, too. The Journal's reaction was to pooh-pooh such naive business practices and pointed up shareholder discontent. The money quote: "Exxon will do more for its shareholders, and for society, if it avoids political fads and keeps its focus on investments that promise the highest return on shareholder capital."
Translation: "Fuck you, earth! We're here to make money!"
Douche. Bags.
Next?
They decide to kick up a fuss because the Senate Environment Committee decided to nix the nomination of a guy named David Hill as General Counsel for the EPA. They whine that Mr. Hill should have "zipped through the Senate" but those mean, nasty Democrats beat him down for political reasons. By the way, Mr. Hill's current job is General Counsel for the White House's Department of Energy. So, hey, no conflict there.
So you know what I did? I went and looked at Mr. Hill's opening statement to the Committee and actually read it. It contains the usual b.s. about what an honor it would be to serve, blah, blah blah, but what really jumps out at you is this: His refrain is "within the law." He will do whatever is "legally permissible." And I couldn't help but think..."Well, DUH. You're the General Counsel! That's the least we should expect from you! Stop saying 'I will obey the law' like it's a new idea you came up with."
The Senate, tired of political hires in these kinds of sensitive posts, kicked him the the curb. So the WSJ whines.
Next: Well....I kinda, sorta agree with them on this one. They're bitching about the new farm bill, which is a train wreck. Even the Times agrees with them on that one so...I'll let this piece slide.
Now to the contributors. Let me keep this short and sweet: Two complete D.B.'s (you know what I mean) named William M. Issac and Bjorn Lomborg have their say on two topics- the mortgage crisis and global warning. Short versions: Mr. Isaac- "What mortgage crises?" Mr. Lomborg (this is a quote): "Global warming shouldn't be at the top of anyone's priority list."
Appalling. Sickening. Yet published in a major metropolitan daily.
Yeah, I was totally wrong about the Wall Street Journal all right. They aren't bad.
They're the fucking devil.
I have long steered clear of the Wall Street Journal for many, many reasons, the chief among them being their Op-Ed page writers. If you remember, it was these guys who hounded Vince Foster into committing suicide during the Clinton administration. So I've given the WSJ a wide berth for years.
Today, I found myself with a little time to kill and what should appear at my elbow but a copy of the Wall Street Journal. Simply out of curiousity, the way you might tip over a rock to see the crawly things beneath, I flipped to the Op-Ed page to see what it was that I've been avoiding all these years.
I have to say, what I saw really surprised me. I thought I knew what to expect, but nothing could have prepared me for the actual contents. It just goes to show you: Never judge a book by it's cover and do NOT pre-judge something. The only way to properly form an opinion is to examine something carefully and then weigh in.
So here's my new take on the editors and contributors to the Wall Street Journal:
You're all a bunch of douchebags.
Let me be clear: I thought it would be bad. It wasn't. It was horrifying. How horrifying? Let me count the ways:
The lead editorial was about Exxon's attempt to wean itself off oil and explore new, perhaps renewable, forms of energy. Not a bad plan, given the oil drying up and prices through the roof. Probably be good for the planet, too. The Journal's reaction was to pooh-pooh such naive business practices and pointed up shareholder discontent. The money quote: "Exxon will do more for its shareholders, and for society, if it avoids political fads and keeps its focus on investments that promise the highest return on shareholder capital."
Translation: "Fuck you, earth! We're here to make money!"
Douche. Bags.
Next?
They decide to kick up a fuss because the Senate Environment Committee decided to nix the nomination of a guy named David Hill as General Counsel for the EPA. They whine that Mr. Hill should have "zipped through the Senate" but those mean, nasty Democrats beat him down for political reasons. By the way, Mr. Hill's current job is General Counsel for the White House's Department of Energy. So, hey, no conflict there.
So you know what I did? I went and looked at Mr. Hill's opening statement to the Committee and actually read it. It contains the usual b.s. about what an honor it would be to serve, blah, blah blah, but what really jumps out at you is this: His refrain is "within the law." He will do whatever is "legally permissible." And I couldn't help but think..."Well, DUH. You're the General Counsel! That's the least we should expect from you! Stop saying 'I will obey the law' like it's a new idea you came up with."
The Senate, tired of political hires in these kinds of sensitive posts, kicked him the the curb. So the WSJ whines.
Next: Well....I kinda, sorta agree with them on this one. They're bitching about the new farm bill, which is a train wreck. Even the Times agrees with them on that one so...I'll let this piece slide.
Now to the contributors. Let me keep this short and sweet: Two complete D.B.'s (you know what I mean) named William M. Issac and Bjorn Lomborg have their say on two topics- the mortgage crisis and global warning. Short versions: Mr. Isaac- "What mortgage crises?" Mr. Lomborg (this is a quote): "Global warming shouldn't be at the top of anyone's priority list."
Appalling. Sickening. Yet published in a major metropolitan daily.
Yeah, I was totally wrong about the Wall Street Journal all right. They aren't bad.
They're the fucking devil.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
It's Over. Again.
Deja vu time.
Remember Indiana and North Carolina? Well, add a week and you've basically got Kentucky and Oregon, except this time Barack won the latter state.
The result? Predictably, nothing has changed. Hillary will "fight on," trying out her new "sexism" charges while Barack veeeerrrry cautiously slips on the nominee mantle, which he has earned many times over.
Hillary will be in this to the bitter end but, in this case, the bitter end does not mean the convention. It means the last primary on June 3rd. By then, combining the pledged superdelegates, who keep piling on Obama, and the elected superdelegates, a majority of whom are now committed to Obama, should push him over the top and Hillary, at last, will have no recourse but to concede.
It may even happen before then, if the supers get off their duffs and get busy. Actually, they'd be doing Hillary a huge favor, as it would save her millions of her own dollars to be forced out a week or so early.
But I'm not bettin' on it. I'm predicting that Hillary Clinton will cling to the possibility of being nominated until her nails are ripped from her fingers. And maybe even after that.
Be patient, Barack. Soon all will be yours.
At least I hope so.
Remember Indiana and North Carolina? Well, add a week and you've basically got Kentucky and Oregon, except this time Barack won the latter state.
The result? Predictably, nothing has changed. Hillary will "fight on," trying out her new "sexism" charges while Barack veeeerrrry cautiously slips on the nominee mantle, which he has earned many times over.
Hillary will be in this to the bitter end but, in this case, the bitter end does not mean the convention. It means the last primary on June 3rd. By then, combining the pledged superdelegates, who keep piling on Obama, and the elected superdelegates, a majority of whom are now committed to Obama, should push him over the top and Hillary, at last, will have no recourse but to concede.
It may even happen before then, if the supers get off their duffs and get busy. Actually, they'd be doing Hillary a huge favor, as it would save her millions of her own dollars to be forced out a week or so early.
But I'm not bettin' on it. I'm predicting that Hillary Clinton will cling to the possibility of being nominated until her nails are ripped from her fingers. And maybe even after that.
Be patient, Barack. Soon all will be yours.
At least I hope so.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Sad Day
Not feeling up for writing much today. I lost a dear friend over the weekend and I'm still in shock over the whole thing. I'll try to be back up and running by tomorrow's primaries.
Here's to you, PH.
Here's to you, PH.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Edwards Hops the B-Train
Just in time to neutralize the effect of Hillary Clinton's smack-down in West Virginia, John Edwards grabbed the headlines yesterday with his enthusiastic endorsement of Barack Obama. Apart from this supremely-super superdelegate pledging his support of the all-but-incumbent nominee, Edwards' endorsement also gives Barack a leg up in the whole white-votors-won't-vote-for-him struggle.
Endorsements, as has often been noted, don't often mean much but this endorsement in particular could mean a lot. White, working class votors (especially Southern white, working class votors) are not big fans of Obama. But they sure do like that nice fella from North Carolina. With Edwards on board, there is a chance that he could sway some of these folks to pull a lever for Barack. Maybe not. Kentucky's primary should be a good test of that theory.
In the meantime, Hillary is probably still wincing from the fact that her headlines went *poof* with this announcement. She had a moment of momentum there and then...Edwards put on the brakes.
Well done, John. And listen...could you put in a call to Al? We could use another endorsement just like yours real soon, ya hear?
Endorsements, as has often been noted, don't often mean much but this endorsement in particular could mean a lot. White, working class votors (especially Southern white, working class votors) are not big fans of Obama. But they sure do like that nice fella from North Carolina. With Edwards on board, there is a chance that he could sway some of these folks to pull a lever for Barack. Maybe not. Kentucky's primary should be a good test of that theory.
In the meantime, Hillary is probably still wincing from the fact that her headlines went *poof* with this announcement. She had a moment of momentum there and then...Edwards put on the brakes.
Well done, John. And listen...could you put in a call to Al? We could use another endorsement just like yours real soon, ya hear?
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
It's Subpoena Time!
Karl Rove, dubbed "Bush's Brain" (a more demeaning nickname cannot be imagined) has so far stonewalled the House Judiciary Committee who has kindly asked him to drop by and give sworn testimony in the investigation surrounding former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.
You remember Don Siegelman, don't you? If you don't, it's complicated to explain, but the basic story is that Siegelman was pursued vigorously by the Alabama U.S. attorneys starting in 1999 and in 2004 they got an indictment. Then, miraculously, the day after his trial, all charges were dropped. And that, you figure, was that.
Not so. Over a year later, Siegelman was again indicted, this time for bribery and mail fraud. Again, the story is complicated, but the real story is his conviction. He was found guilty in May of 2006 and sentenced to seven years in prison and a $50,000 fine.
Now you might be thinking, "Hey, corrupt government official gets his comeuppance! Good! 'Bout damn time!" Except...it's not quite that simple.
See, this Republican lawyer, Dana Jill Simpson, has sworn in a statement that she heard that Karl Rove (yes that Karl Rove) had a thing for Siegelman and was seeking to neutralize him politically. Rove was even willing to use the U.S. Department of Justice to take Siegelman out. Simpson heard Rove's name mentioned not once, but three times and even went so far as to tell "60 Minutes" that she was ordered by Rove to catch Siegelman "cheating on his wife."
We all know about the Bush Administration's use of the DOJ to further it's nefarious ends, but this case in particular has sparked an investigation that continues today. And they would very much like to have Mr. Rove drop by and chat with them about it, preferably under oath.
Karl, for his part, has agreed to answer written questions, but the House is putting the kibosh on that. They want him in person and have given him until May 21st to respond. After that, their next option is to issue a subpoena and MAKE him show up. (Didn't work with Harriett Meyers, but never mind.)
Keep an eye on this one, folks. Could get interesting.
You remember Don Siegelman, don't you? If you don't, it's complicated to explain, but the basic story is that Siegelman was pursued vigorously by the Alabama U.S. attorneys starting in 1999 and in 2004 they got an indictment. Then, miraculously, the day after his trial, all charges were dropped. And that, you figure, was that.
Not so. Over a year later, Siegelman was again indicted, this time for bribery and mail fraud. Again, the story is complicated, but the real story is his conviction. He was found guilty in May of 2006 and sentenced to seven years in prison and a $50,000 fine.
Now you might be thinking, "Hey, corrupt government official gets his comeuppance! Good! 'Bout damn time!" Except...it's not quite that simple.
See, this Republican lawyer, Dana Jill Simpson, has sworn in a statement that she heard that Karl Rove (yes that Karl Rove) had a thing for Siegelman and was seeking to neutralize him politically. Rove was even willing to use the U.S. Department of Justice to take Siegelman out. Simpson heard Rove's name mentioned not once, but three times and even went so far as to tell "60 Minutes" that she was ordered by Rove to catch Siegelman "cheating on his wife."
We all know about the Bush Administration's use of the DOJ to further it's nefarious ends, but this case in particular has sparked an investigation that continues today. And they would very much like to have Mr. Rove drop by and chat with them about it, preferably under oath.
Karl, for his part, has agreed to answer written questions, but the House is putting the kibosh on that. They want him in person and have given him until May 21st to respond. After that, their next option is to issue a subpoena and MAKE him show up. (Didn't work with Harriett Meyers, but never mind.)
Keep an eye on this one, folks. Could get interesting.
Happy Birthday, Dad
Raise a glass to my father, if you would. Lord knows he will.
After all, he's in Italy, for God's sake. Wouldn't you?
Hope you're having a great one, Dad.
After all, he's in Italy, for God's sake. Wouldn't you?
Hope you're having a great one, Dad.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
The Stupidest F**king Guy on Earth
For those of you who missed it, Jon Stewart interviewed Douglas Feith last night. Remember Dougy? He was the Under-Secretary of Defense for Don "Big Balls" Rumsfeld back in the He-Man Women-Hatin' Days of the Bush Administration. An "architect," if you will, of the Iraq war.
Here's a link to the interview.
My own reactions are as follows: First, I just love how Jon Stewart, the host of the nation's premier "fake news" show, is still the best political interviewer on TV. He asks the hard questions because he actually gives a shit, as opposed to 99% of the other hacks out there.
Second, I can hardly stomach the arrogance that Feith and his neo-con buddies demonstrate with these after-the-fact, tell-all books. Feith should be under a rock somewhere, hiding in shame for his dastardly deeds but instead he probably got a couple hundred thousand dollars from his publisher as an advance on his crap book and here he is, after all this time, still trying to defend this morally bankrupt administration. Bottom line: I'd like to smack him right in his fat kisser.
Finally, notice how even a joke of a human being like Feith, trying to spin, spin, spin his way back into relevance, still manages to throw Dubya under the bus.
Still, this is just the latest example of another millionaire walking away from the Bush Administration without his hair getting mussed. Makes me want to vomit.
Enjoy!
Here's a link to the interview.
My own reactions are as follows: First, I just love how Jon Stewart, the host of the nation's premier "fake news" show, is still the best political interviewer on TV. He asks the hard questions because he actually gives a shit, as opposed to 99% of the other hacks out there.
Second, I can hardly stomach the arrogance that Feith and his neo-con buddies demonstrate with these after-the-fact, tell-all books. Feith should be under a rock somewhere, hiding in shame for his dastardly deeds but instead he probably got a couple hundred thousand dollars from his publisher as an advance on his crap book and here he is, after all this time, still trying to defend this morally bankrupt administration. Bottom line: I'd like to smack him right in his fat kisser.
Finally, notice how even a joke of a human being like Feith, trying to spin, spin, spin his way back into relevance, still manages to throw Dubya under the bus.
Still, this is just the latest example of another millionaire walking away from the Bush Administration without his hair getting mussed. Makes me want to vomit.
Enjoy!
Monday, May 12, 2008
Video of the Week
Oh, this is nasty. Unfair. Kinda mean, too.
But God help me, it's funny as hell.
Courtesy of my cousin Jack, I bring you: Hillary's Downfall.
But God help me, it's funny as hell.
Courtesy of my cousin Jack, I bring you: Hillary's Downfall.
Obama Takes the Lead
With the supers now moving towards Obama in greater and greater numbers (and a number of previously-committed delegates for Clinton switching sides), Barack has now taken the superdelegate lead. He's not only within 200 delegates of clinching the nomination, he is now leading Clinton in superdelegates pledged (274 to 273, by CNN's count) and is almost 200 delegates ahead of Clinton altogether (1,865 to 1,697).
Tomorrow is the West Virginia primary where Clinton is expected to do very well.
But...HOW very well? Double digits? High double digits? Given that everyone is predicting a huge Clinton victory, what would be viewed as an upset by Obama? If he keeps it within 5 percent? 10 percent?
Remember: Clinton was expected to wipe the floor with Obama in Indiana and they wound up in a dead heat up until the end. This was viewed, despite her ultimate victory, as a loss of sorts.
So what margin of victory is a "loss" in West Virginia?
Keep an eye on the supers, by the way, at this handy link.
Tomorrow is the West Virginia primary where Clinton is expected to do very well.
But...HOW very well? Double digits? High double digits? Given that everyone is predicting a huge Clinton victory, what would be viewed as an upset by Obama? If he keeps it within 5 percent? 10 percent?
Remember: Clinton was expected to wipe the floor with Obama in Indiana and they wound up in a dead heat up until the end. This was viewed, despite her ultimate victory, as a loss of sorts.
So what margin of victory is a "loss" in West Virginia?
Keep an eye on the supers, by the way, at this handy link.
Friday, May 9, 2008
The Steady Drip
It begins small, just a crack or two in the dam, and then...a rush.
Here are the cracks.
Bring on the flood!
Here are the cracks.
Bring on the flood!
Thursday, May 8, 2008
How Obama Blows It
Courtesy of my friend Chris Koch, Slate provides us with various doomsday scenarios that would cost Obama the nomination.
Enjoy!
Enjoy!
Here It Comes
Hear that? That distant rumble on the horizon? Know what that is?
It's the supers. They're coming to the rescue. That's the buzz.
Here's my prediction: five more for Barack today. Twenty, at least, by the end of the weekend. By Tuesday's primary, we're done.
At last, mercifully, done.
Can you feel it?
It's the supers. They're coming to the rescue. That's the buzz.
Here's my prediction: five more for Barack today. Twenty, at least, by the end of the weekend. By Tuesday's primary, we're done.
At last, mercifully, done.
Can you feel it?
And Now It's Just Sad
Watching the Clinton campaign continue to limp along, you can't help but shake your head.
I suppose the idea is that we are to admire her tenacity, but...that ship has sailed. Now, with Hillary loaning her own sputtering campaign in excess of $11 million, it is becoming a sad spectacle, an object lesson in futility and an emotional drain on the party.
The superdelegates, in a trickle and not a rush, are moving inexorably toward Obama and each day brings him closer and closer to the nomination. Hillary's only momentum is backwards.
There is virtually no scenario that puts her over the top, even if you include, as they want, the dreaded Michigan and Florida delegates. Even then, Barack comes out on top.
The odds of Clinton getting the percentages she needs in the remaining races are so staggering that there isn't a single pundit that predicts her eventual victory. This race, as I've said before, is over. And Hillary's stubborn prolongation of this primary season has lost whatever charm it had.
Quick side note: I remember when I saw the first new Star Wars movie, "The Phantom Menace" a few years ago and witnessed the horror that was Jar Jar Binks. I thought, at the time, that what George Lucas desperately needed was someone close to him who had the freedom to be totally honest, tap him on the shoulder and say "George, that's a terrible idea. Terrible. Have you lost your mind?" Every powerful person should have that kind of confidant. Someone to stand at your shoulder, as Caeser had during his grand parades in Rome, and whisper in your ear "Fame is fleeting" as the float rolls on.
That's what Hillary needs. She needs someone close to her who will tell her the hard truth:
It is time to go.
I suppose the idea is that we are to admire her tenacity, but...that ship has sailed. Now, with Hillary loaning her own sputtering campaign in excess of $11 million, it is becoming a sad spectacle, an object lesson in futility and an emotional drain on the party.
The superdelegates, in a trickle and not a rush, are moving inexorably toward Obama and each day brings him closer and closer to the nomination. Hillary's only momentum is backwards.
There is virtually no scenario that puts her over the top, even if you include, as they want, the dreaded Michigan and Florida delegates. Even then, Barack comes out on top.
The odds of Clinton getting the percentages she needs in the remaining races are so staggering that there isn't a single pundit that predicts her eventual victory. This race, as I've said before, is over. And Hillary's stubborn prolongation of this primary season has lost whatever charm it had.
Quick side note: I remember when I saw the first new Star Wars movie, "The Phantom Menace" a few years ago and witnessed the horror that was Jar Jar Binks. I thought, at the time, that what George Lucas desperately needed was someone close to him who had the freedom to be totally honest, tap him on the shoulder and say "George, that's a terrible idea. Terrible. Have you lost your mind?" Every powerful person should have that kind of confidant. Someone to stand at your shoulder, as Caeser had during his grand parades in Rome, and whisper in your ear "Fame is fleeting" as the float rolls on.
That's what Hillary needs. She needs someone close to her who will tell her the hard truth:
It is time to go.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
The Solution
After last night's primaries, campaign-weary Democrats once again look forward to a continuation of the never-ending primaries. Hillary, despite her inability to deck Barack last night, has vowed once again to soldier on, going so far as to beg supporters for money in order for her quest to continue.
I stated earlier that it is time for her to quit, but she appears unwilling (or unable) to do so.
So how to break the stalemate? Simple.
Send in the supers. There are approximately 260 or so uncommitted superdelegates. They can throw their support behind any candidate at any time. Many have waited this long to see who might deliver the KO punch so that they could be sure to back the winner.
That time has come.
The uncommitted superdelegates must commit NOW. And for those who think it is premature for them to do so, I can only point to the math. Obama is about 200 delegates away from clinching the nomination and Clinton stands almost no chance of overtaking him, either in the delegate count or the popular vote. And don't you dare say the words "Michigan" or "Florida" to me. I won't have it.
Over the next few days, if even 50% of the up-til-now uncommitted superdelegates threw their support behind Obama, this thing would be over. Clinton would have no choice but to fold up her tent and pledge herself to Obama's campaign. Truth be told, she should do that without the delegates forcing her to do so, but if she's going to be stubborn, well...what choice do they have?
My prediction is that over the next three days or so, a substantial portion of these uncommitted supers will throw their support to the Obama campaign. The question is:
Will Hillary take the hint?
I stated earlier that it is time for her to quit, but she appears unwilling (or unable) to do so.
So how to break the stalemate? Simple.
Send in the supers. There are approximately 260 or so uncommitted superdelegates. They can throw their support behind any candidate at any time. Many have waited this long to see who might deliver the KO punch so that they could be sure to back the winner.
That time has come.
The uncommitted superdelegates must commit NOW. And for those who think it is premature for them to do so, I can only point to the math. Obama is about 200 delegates away from clinching the nomination and Clinton stands almost no chance of overtaking him, either in the delegate count or the popular vote. And don't you dare say the words "Michigan" or "Florida" to me. I won't have it.
Over the next few days, if even 50% of the up-til-now uncommitted superdelegates threw their support behind Obama, this thing would be over. Clinton would have no choice but to fold up her tent and pledge herself to Obama's campaign. Truth be told, she should do that without the delegates forcing her to do so, but if she's going to be stubborn, well...what choice do they have?
My prediction is that over the next three days or so, a substantial portion of these uncommitted supers will throw their support to the Obama campaign. The question is:
Will Hillary take the hint?
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
A Whoopin' in NC
North Carolina voters have spoken and they've spoke LOUD.
Barack beat Hillary by double digits in NC and, boy, that's really, really gotta hurt.
Things, at this point, are too close to call in Indiana, which means two things: first, Hillary may win, but she's sure as hell not going to clobber him (which she really needed to do) and secondly...
...it's over.
Someone, anyone, somewhere has to sit down with Hillary Clinton and break the bad news. She's done. Even if she wins by a slim margin in Indiana...she'll never catch him now. He's got the popular vote, the delegates and, now, he's got the momentum back.
Bottom line: She MUST quit.
For the sake of the party. For the sake of the country. To ensure a Democratic win in November.
She. Must. Quit.
It's over.
Barack beat Hillary by double digits in NC and, boy, that's really, really gotta hurt.
Things, at this point, are too close to call in Indiana, which means two things: first, Hillary may win, but she's sure as hell not going to clobber him (which she really needed to do) and secondly...
...it's over.
Someone, anyone, somewhere has to sit down with Hillary Clinton and break the bad news. She's done. Even if she wins by a slim margin in Indiana...she'll never catch him now. He's got the popular vote, the delegates and, now, he's got the momentum back.
Bottom line: She MUST quit.
For the sake of the party. For the sake of the country. To ensure a Democratic win in November.
She. Must. Quit.
It's over.
Monday, May 5, 2008
The Impossible-To-Call Primaries
Once upon a time, you could pretty much bet how a primary would turn out.
Pennsylvania? The only question was: would Hillary win by double digits? (She didn't, but she beat Barack just the same.)
South Carolina? That was a gimme for Barack.
New York? Clinton-land.
Illinois? Obama country.
But Indiana? North Carolina? These are now up for grabs, especially given the tumult of the past month. The Wright factor, Hillary going negative, Barack's fading luster and so many other big changes.
Any favorites out there?
Pennsylvania? The only question was: would Hillary win by double digits? (She didn't, but she beat Barack just the same.)
South Carolina? That was a gimme for Barack.
New York? Clinton-land.
Illinois? Obama country.
But Indiana? North Carolina? These are now up for grabs, especially given the tumult of the past month. The Wright factor, Hillary going negative, Barack's fading luster and so many other big changes.
Any favorites out there?
Sunday, May 4, 2008
I Have Seen America...And It Scares Me
Spent the last couple of days with the family at a little resort in North-Central Illinois. Had a really fun time. Indoor water park, indoor amusement park. Cheesy? Oh, you bet. But the kids had a blast.
It also gave me the opportunity to take a good, hard look at a cross-section of middle-class America. They were all there: black, white, Asian, Hispanic and everything in between. But you want to know what they all had in common?
I'll tell you: They were FAT.
Not "gee-I-sure-could-lose-a-few-pounds" fat. No, no. Not even, "Okay, I should take this seriously" fat. Uh-uh. We're talking "Holy crap! Did you see the ass on THAT guy? It has it's own Congressman!" fat.
Huge. Whale-ish. Limbaugh-like. Ginormous. SCARY fat.
Yeah, that fat.
But you know, it wasn't even the adults that bugged me so much. I mean they were huge. HUGE. There was a lady with more cellulite on her arms than most people will ever accumulate on their entire persons. And it was pretty repulsive, sure. But you know what was really upsetting?
The fat kids. The HUGE kids. The "heart-trouble-before-they-are-sixteen" kids. I saw more kids with twice the body fat they should have over the past 24 hours than I ever hope to see again in my life.
What kind of parents are these? If my kids looked like the tubbos these kids were, I'd sure as hell do something about it beyond throwing more Twinkies into the crib. It was really disturbing. You wanted to run out and buy a truckload of celery and yell to these kids "There is another way! Leave your fatty parents behind and enter a new world of non-blubbitude!"
But no. These poor little tykes are going to grow up and be the same corpulent swine as their parents.
And it's a damn shame. It really, truly is.
It also gave me the opportunity to take a good, hard look at a cross-section of middle-class America. They were all there: black, white, Asian, Hispanic and everything in between. But you want to know what they all had in common?
I'll tell you: They were FAT.
Not "gee-I-sure-could-lose-a-few-pounds" fat. No, no. Not even, "Okay, I should take this seriously" fat. Uh-uh. We're talking "Holy crap! Did you see the ass on THAT guy? It has it's own Congressman!" fat.
Huge. Whale-ish. Limbaugh-like. Ginormous. SCARY fat.
Yeah, that fat.
But you know, it wasn't even the adults that bugged me so much. I mean they were huge. HUGE. There was a lady with more cellulite on her arms than most people will ever accumulate on their entire persons. And it was pretty repulsive, sure. But you know what was really upsetting?
The fat kids. The HUGE kids. The "heart-trouble-before-they-are-sixteen" kids. I saw more kids with twice the body fat they should have over the past 24 hours than I ever hope to see again in my life.
What kind of parents are these? If my kids looked like the tubbos these kids were, I'd sure as hell do something about it beyond throwing more Twinkies into the crib. It was really disturbing. You wanted to run out and buy a truckload of celery and yell to these kids "There is another way! Leave your fatty parents behind and enter a new world of non-blubbitude!"
But no. These poor little tykes are going to grow up and be the same corpulent swine as their parents.
And it's a damn shame. It really, truly is.
Friday, May 2, 2008
Bush is #1!
Hey, look, the guy has the toughest job in the world, he's in way over his head and he's surrounded by some of the meanest dudes on the planet. So it's about time we gave Chimpy some props, dontcha think? Well here it is:
Congratulations, George! You're officially the most unpopular President in modern times!
Let the pigeons loose! Crack open a bottle of (non-alcoholic) champagne and lift a glass! You didn't think you could do it, I'll bet, George but by gum you did!
Oh, sure, the American people hated Richard Nixon. And ooooh, a lot of folks sure were ticked off at Clinton for the whole Monica fiasco. And L.B.J. didn't make a whole lot of friends ramping up the Vietnam War. And, of course, your daddy was no slacker in the Dislike Department.
But you? Man, you topped 'em all! Because guess what?
EVERYONE HATES YOU!
Enjoy those last few months, banana-boy. Then go away as quickly as possible, won't you?
Congratulations, George! You're officially the most unpopular President in modern times!
Let the pigeons loose! Crack open a bottle of (non-alcoholic) champagne and lift a glass! You didn't think you could do it, I'll bet, George but by gum you did!
Oh, sure, the American people hated Richard Nixon. And ooooh, a lot of folks sure were ticked off at Clinton for the whole Monica fiasco. And L.B.J. didn't make a whole lot of friends ramping up the Vietnam War. And, of course, your daddy was no slacker in the Dislike Department.
But you? Man, you topped 'em all! Because guess what?
EVERYONE HATES YOU!
Enjoy those last few months, banana-boy. Then go away as quickly as possible, won't you?
Thursday, May 1, 2008
More (Hopefully the END) of Rev. Wright
I've never done this before, but I'm going to take one of the comments on yesterday's post and "front page" it. It bears examination, so let's have at it. One of my readers (yes, I'm looking at both of you), specifically "kelli," had this, and quite a bit more, to say on the good Reverend:
Rev. Wright, for all his flaws (and all his paranoia) has been very good both for and to Barack Obama. He has counselled him spiritually, advised him, married he and Michelle, baptized their children and has proven to be a great leader of his community. For all these reasons, Obama was more than reluctant to turn his back on the man. He owes the Reverend a lot.
On the flipside, Rev. Wright holds some opinions about this country, and this government, that are far from the mainstream. His belief that the government manufactured the AIDS virus to control or kill off the black population of this country is only one example. Sadly, Rev. Wright is not alone in these suspicions. I won't say that most African-Americans share his views, but quite a few do. (I have a number of friends who labor under the misconception that George Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened but I remain friends with them, despite my differing opinion. Side note: How do I know that Bush had nothing to do with 9/11? Because if he had, he would have made sure not to look like such a dingus when it happened. Another reason, courtesy of Bill Maher: We know Bush wasn't involved with 9/11 because it worked. But back to business.)
Many of us have mentors, advisors, pastors and priests who have deeply held beliefs that we, ourselves, do not share. I hold a great many people in high esteem whose personal opinions I find both disagreeable and downright disturbing. Still, as long as they're not trying to shove it down my throat, I say live and let live.
But Rev. Wright, when his YouTube appearances started making headlines, had a choice. He could have shut up and let Barack handle it, defend himself briefly and simply and go away or...he could have done what he did: strode into the spotlight and opened his big yap. Barack's defenses of Wright were then useless and he had no choice but to distance himself. I'm sure it must have been difficult.
Bottom line: Barack Obama is not Jeremiah Wright. I neither conflate the two nor do I believe they have matching worldviews. Obama is his own man. And the Reverend is....
...well, I think I've made it plain. He's really frickin' annoying.
Excellent questions, all. Here's my take on it:There is the question of "why now?" Why did you wait this long? He's said all this goofy stuff before, what's different? Perhaps because it really is personal. I suspect he has been a very loyal member of the church and a follower of this guy, as he's claimed. Gave the church a ton of money. And now, his friend, pastor, mentor has essentially thrown him under the bus. Politics aside, he didn't want to disown him when this came up last year in Rolling Stone or last month in Pennsylvania. Said he couldn't! It would be like disowning the black community or his white grandmother! He didn't want politics to rule his associations. And the republicans, and maybe even some dems in the remaining states, will remember that. And the November voters will, too.
Rev. Wright, for all his flaws (and all his paranoia) has been very good both for and to Barack Obama. He has counselled him spiritually, advised him, married he and Michelle, baptized their children and has proven to be a great leader of his community. For all these reasons, Obama was more than reluctant to turn his back on the man. He owes the Reverend a lot.
On the flipside, Rev. Wright holds some opinions about this country, and this government, that are far from the mainstream. His belief that the government manufactured the AIDS virus to control or kill off the black population of this country is only one example. Sadly, Rev. Wright is not alone in these suspicions. I won't say that most African-Americans share his views, but quite a few do. (I have a number of friends who labor under the misconception that George Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened but I remain friends with them, despite my differing opinion. Side note: How do I know that Bush had nothing to do with 9/11? Because if he had, he would have made sure not to look like such a dingus when it happened. Another reason, courtesy of Bill Maher: We know Bush wasn't involved with 9/11 because it worked. But back to business.)
Many of us have mentors, advisors, pastors and priests who have deeply held beliefs that we, ourselves, do not share. I hold a great many people in high esteem whose personal opinions I find both disagreeable and downright disturbing. Still, as long as they're not trying to shove it down my throat, I say live and let live.
But Rev. Wright, when his YouTube appearances started making headlines, had a choice. He could have shut up and let Barack handle it, defend himself briefly and simply and go away or...he could have done what he did: strode into the spotlight and opened his big yap. Barack's defenses of Wright were then useless and he had no choice but to distance himself. I'm sure it must have been difficult.
Bottom line: Barack Obama is not Jeremiah Wright. I neither conflate the two nor do I believe they have matching worldviews. Obama is his own man. And the Reverend is....
...well, I think I've made it plain. He's really frickin' annoying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
