home

Late Night: Losing My Religion

REM, Losing My Religion

No explanaton needed, This is an open thread, enjoy.

< Greta Interviews Hillary | Governor of Puerto Rico Indicted >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    The Subprime Primer (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:41:51 AM EST
    a cartoon (this is hilarious)

    Eggs-ellent! (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Fabian on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:47:33 AM EST
    We need a sequel for Wall Street bail out now.

    Parent
    Reminds me of (none / 0) (#19)
    by magisterludi on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:53:32 AM EST
    Animal House when Otter (Tim Matheson) explains  to Pinto (Tom Hulce) why everything is going wrong- "You f**ked up. You trusted us."

    Parent
    Thank you sir! (none / 0) (#28)
    by white n az on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:18:33 AM EST
    May I have another?

    Parent
    Thanks. Education (none / 0) (#81)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:26:07 AM EST
    w/humor.  Great combo.

    Parent
    Thanks for a great morning laugh! n/t (none / 0) (#110)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:11:35 AM EST
    Read (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by tek on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:31:00 AM EST
    some more on the DNC plan to end the primary season early.  At first I thought maybe they were going to seat MI and FL.  But that's not it.  They are determined to have Obama.  They are contemplating RIGHT NOW calling all SDs to a meeting in Washington and making them cast their vote NOW.  They are pushing the theory that the candidate who is ahead now should be the nominee and they're going to pressure the SDs to vote for Obama.  Then, the convention will just be an academic exercise.  

    I can't think of a worse scheme to rip off the Democratic voters of this country.  I really think the Dem insiders do not care about the people of this country and certainly not the people of their party.  That's why Nancy Pelosi keeps talking about the "new, exciting young voters Barack Obama is bringing in."  They want a new party so they can amass greater power.  If they have a strong president, they'll have a diminished role.  

    Well, that's my say.  I'm just really disgusted with these people at this point.

    try to look on the bright side (none / 0) (#32)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:48:08 AM EST
    if they do this Obama will lose and all the people making these decisions will be gone by the next elections.
    its thin comfort I know but . . .

    Parent
    If they do this (none / 0) (#41)
    by hookfan on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:59:16 AM EST
    then McCain looks alot better. At least he was nominated fairly. Watch the party self destruct.

    Parent
    republicans cant wait to run against Obama (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:02:54 AM EST
    this is why FOX, Dick Morris and others are making a career of bashing Hillary.
    as far as MSNBC I cant say if they are calculated or just stupid.

    Parent
    You had better believe this...... (none / 0) (#58)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:27:48 AM EST
    A set up....

    Get your party to choose the other's party nominee that will most falter.

    Parent

    Howdy... (none / 0) (#137)
    by oldpro on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:17:26 PM EST
    actually almost NONE of the people making those decisions would be gone by (or even at) the next election(s).

    Their turnover rate is extremely low and they hate change if it involves them...so, don't count on party reform that means anything...to anyone...anytime...anywhere.

    Parent

    you could of course be right (none / 0) (#146)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:02:43 PM EST
    hope springs eternal.
    I would hope it depended on how humiliating the defeat was.
    can you say third party?


    Parent
    So let me ask you this... (none / 0) (#84)
    by Faust on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:34:35 AM EST
    Lets say they all got together right now and exercised their independant judgement and decided that Hillary was cleary the best candidate to lead the party foreward.

    Would you be OK with that?

    Parent

    No, it would not be okay (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:14:38 AM EST
    at all, regradless of which candidate benefits. It makes a complete mockery of the nomination process.

    I'm starting to think Howard Dean should be charged with fraud.

    Parent

    Or shot. (none / 0) (#138)
    by oldpro on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:20:58 PM EST
    But that's just me.

    Irish, through and through.

    Which is why I've never allowed myself to have a gun.

    But I've added Howard to my list anyway.

    Parent

    It would appear (none / 0) (#98)
    by Josey on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:57:00 AM EST
    Hillary's supporters are more certain than Obama's "Dems for a day" ploy to game the system in his favor.
    When Limbaugh does it - it's bad.
    When Obama does it - it's ignored.


    Parent
    That response doesn't answer my question (none / 0) (#107)
    by Faust on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:08:10 AM EST
    Or even make sense in and of itself.

    Parent
    The Iraq Quagmire Continues (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by john horse on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:41:45 AM EST
    The Iraq Quagmire continues.  It is starting to look like the "temporary surge" in American troops is nothing less than a permanent escalation.  The truce between Sadr and the Americans is unraveling.

    As Josh Marshall at TPM points out (McCain's Achilles Heel), this is bad news for McCain.  Wasn't it just a week or so ago that he along with Senators Graham and Lieberman) were telling us how the surge was succeeding?  If McCain's wishes were horses then the GOP would ride.  

    We need to get out of Iraq.  Politicians like McCain, who want to continue Bush's failed Iraq strategy need to be voted out.  Noone should have to give their life for light and transient reasons.


    Puerto Rico's Dem Governor Indicted (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by eleanora on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:51:12 AM EST
    "SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico - U.S. authorities have announced an indictment charging Puerto Rico's governor with 18 counts in a long-running campaign finance probe.

    Acting U.S. Attorney Rosa Emilia Rodriguez said Thursday the indictment also charges 12 other people associated with Gov. Anibal Acevedo Vila's party.

    Rodriguez told reporters that the 13 are accused of running a conspiracy to illegally raise money to pay off Acevedo's campaign debts in 2000."

    link

    Between this and Mike Gravel turning Libertarian, I'm feeling a little woeful this morning.

    This is what BDT must have been (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by NJDem on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:06:19 AM EST
    talking about when he said the PR Gov. endorsing BO wasn't a good thing:

    SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico - U.S. authorities have announced an indictment charging Puerto Rico's governor with 18 counts in a long-running campaign finance probe.  LINK

    Writing letters have an effect (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by ding7777 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:23:44 AM EST
    TL posted this story a couple of days ago

    Father Released From Prison To Visit Dying Daughter

    calling for Obama to step down (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by DandyTIger on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:27:26 AM EST
    OK, couldn't resist that bit of snark. This Wright stuff looks bad. The latest revelations about bigoted statements towards Italians is pretty horrible. I just don't see how Obama can win in the GE. Especially given what the repugs can do. I think Clinton will have an uphill battle, but at least she has a chance.

    In other news, apparently there is a sniper in my quiet town of Charlottesville. Roads are shut down, schools are closed. I think there will be a news conference soon, to be carried on the cable spews channels. I'm staying inside today I think. Yikes.

    My nose (5.00 / 0) (#101)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:59:46 AM EST
    is just fine thank you and yes I eat garlic and yes it pissed me off.

    Parent
    You can make just as unreasonable... (none / 0) (#67)
    by Exeter on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:40:12 AM EST
    ...an argument that Obama should step down as unreasonable the arguments that Hillary should step down.

    Parent
    Chimpy McFlightsuit talking now (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by DandyTIger on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:32:43 AM EST
    about Iraq. He's going from picking on FDR to not knowing what is where in Iraq. Of course it's all about Al Qaeda for him.  I used to get mad when I would see him talk, now it's sort of embarrassing.

    its funny (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:35:28 AM EST
    I have sort of started to enjoy watching him.
    it is almost unbelievable that person had the most powerful job in the world for 8 years isnt it?
    he is, particularly if O is the nominee, the only chance we have in Nov.
    we should want him on teevee 24/7.

    Parent
    On another note (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:32:46 AM EST
    When the DNC called for money last night, they got an earful regarding MI & Florida. And no money. Plus I sent my membership card back to cancel it. Like the card means anything except a request for a donation.

    Are the pro-Hillary blogs (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Fabian on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:34:04 AM EST
    as bad as the pro-Obama blogs?

    By that, I mean when you read the posts and comments, do you feel the urge to yell "Have you all lost your collective minds?".

    There are real issues, substantive criticisms and so forth but when I read "Bill Clinton is a Republican.", it just suddenly seems all so ridiculous and pointless.  Why does anyone need Reason #4,871 to not like Hillary?  These are people who don't need any more reasons.  What are they doing, counting coup or something?

    Are they afraid they might accidentally like him/her if they don't constantly attack him/her?

    As for Obama, I was going to change my dk tag to "Obama: Nice guy or really nice guy?" but I thought it would get me in more trouble than my current one: "Proud member of the cult of issues & substance.".

    Pro Hillary blogs are not all Pro Hillary (5.00 / 5) (#97)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:56:19 AM EST
    commenters. On DK for 4 years but once it was taken over by Obamania, it was no longer any fun. And unless you went along with the crowd, you had no chance of defending your position. Knowing this, you stop posting comments and diaries. I use to watch TL when there would only be a few comments to any diary. 200 now. Pretty good. And mostly DK long timers. We left DK because we were not welcomed and that is fine. People do not tell Obamaias to get off of here but I know they are here because we are for Hillary. We walked away whereas they still cause trouble for us even here. It comes down to looking around and finding no one else to fight with and thus, going to 'their sites to harrass them'.

    Parent
    It's not so bad here. (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Fabian on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:08:36 AM EST
    It can be just head bangingly painful at dk.  What would be over the top snark here is said in all seriousness there.  Any incident is beat to death for days.  "Snipergate"?  Worth a notice and a discussion, but it's not earth shattering.

    And then when issues do come up, I get assertions that because Obama has good character, we know he will deal with Climate Change.  Yeah, right.  Neither candidate has convinced me it's anything but a back burner issue.

    My first real world education with politicians came from a printer I was working for.  "Politicians pay cash up front." he said.  I asked why - that wasn't our standard policy.  "Because that way you know you'll get paid." he replied.

    "Show me the money!" took on a whole new meaning for me.  

    Parent

    No really. (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Fabian on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:47:50 AM EST
    My experience is a lot different than here.  Here we can discuss the whacked primary system and admit that both candidates play the system for all their worth.  At dk, Hillary isn't a player, she's a thief or worse.

    Actually, that's not what did it for me.  It was the  Cindy McCain diaries - ostensibly about the "love my country" statement but the comments were all about shredding Cindy for any and everything.  Top of the rec list too.  It was nothing less than a mob.

    Parent

    starting to really really like this person (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:51:42 AM EST
    anglachelg.blogspot

    My post yesterday called out the degree of violence, particularly misogynistic violence, present in the current Democratic contest. However, the characterization of Democrats who would not support the Democratic nominee in the general as "infantile" has stuck with me. I'm dropping the snark for a post and really looking at what blind spots are demonstrated through this stance. My point is not to criticize a particular blogger (richly though he may deserve it), but to get into the center of some profound self-deceptions going on with people all over the Left over the nature of political legitimacy.


    Yes, wow. She calls it correctly as class (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:44:37 AM EST
    warfare within the party more than race or gender factors.  And the next post about the standard infantilization ploy toward women, calling it correctly as psychological domestic violence within the party as well -- it's a treat to read someone who knows theory and also knows how to apply it and write it so well.  Bookmarked the blog; thanks for the tip!

    Parent
    I agree... (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Oje on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:13:10 AM EST
    Great analysis that identifies some of the synergies between the Obama campaign and Obama bloggers.

    I am struck also by the impression that TPM is trying to reconstruct the "cult" argument as a characterization of Clinton supporters: They Trust What She Says (title on the front page not included on the permalink).

    Parent

    Thanks for posting that (none / 0) (#77)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:15:55 AM EST
    When I first stumbled onto the internet to look for alternative narratives back in 1999, it seemed obvious that it would be a place where people who feel somewhat isolated by dominant narratives would find others who have had similiar experiences.  In so doing that, their  own opinions solidify, in short the striking phenomenon takes place, the realization occurs:  "I've been called an idiot (in the case here: Infantile), but I am not alone and there is, in the end, strength in numbers."

    That's the internet.  And that phenomenon is not owned by any one person (Dean?  Trippi?  Markos?) let alone that person's movement.

    It belongs to everyone.


    Parent

    wow, powerful post over there, nice find n/t (none / 0) (#78)
    by DandyTIger on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:20:16 AM EST
    I wonder who she is (none / 0) (#80)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:24:53 AM EST
    She's quite a prolific and intelligent writer.  I'd love to know her background in politics.

    Parent
    I don't know who she is but she's 100% right (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by RalphB on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:22:44 AM EST
    Those on the AdoreObama blogs (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by alsace on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:10:04 AM EST
    sound more and more like the remaining supporters of dubya - certain that the rest of us are simpletons who don't have their marvelous insight.
    Although Obama is on the bottom of my preference list, he IS ON my list. Whenever I read all the "never vote for Clinton" posts, though, I get a strong emotional urge to remove him.

    Obama supporters believe Obama (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Josey on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:07:56 AM EST
    can "unite the country" (forget about uniting the Dem Party!), but don't view him as a Centrist.
    However, if Bloomberg endorses Obama today...


    Parent
    I'm sure they will see (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by alsace on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:03:49 PM EST
    the endorsement by the billionaire Independent, former Republican, former Democrat as further proof of Obama's appeal to all classes and political persuasions.  That's why they are so willing to write off the rest of us Democrats.

    Parent
    It would be most interesting (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by jen on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:33:26 AM EST
    to find out how many paid GOP operatives have infiltrated the pro-O blogs. It would certainly explain the intense, over-the-top, almost scary Hillary hatred, and the turn from rational, logical  discussions to rabid, and sometimes violent postings.

    It would (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:54:14 AM EST
    be a relief to find the evil republicans behind it all, but alas, it seems to be an all democrat deal.

    Parent
    Blue Majority Obama endorsement (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by fuzzyone on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:09:10 AM EST
    I have not seen this mentioned here but I wanted to say that, as an Obama supporter and a past Blue Majority contributor I think this is a mistake.  I felt the same way about the MoveOn endorsement.  

    I think those organizations have done some great things and I think that there are times when a primary endorsement is warranted (Lamont over Lieberman pops to mind).  In this case, with the party so divided I just don't see it as helpful.  

    Those organizations (though Blue Majority less so given its constituent blogs) could have been in a position to unite the party, especially the netroots, once we have a candidate.  That possibility is gone. And the worst part is nothing is really gained since the one thing Obama does not appear to need is fundraising help.  He and Hillary are already sucking up all the oxygen so that house and local races in particular are having fundraising trouble.  Blue Majority and ActBlue were a great place to donate to those downticket races.  I fear the result of the Blue Majority endorsement will also be bad from that perspective

    Halperin: If Obama Has The Nomination Wrapped Up! (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by TalkRight on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:16:26 AM EST
    HALPERIN'S TAKE: If Obama Has The Nomination Wrapped Up, Why is His Campaign Going After Clinton So Hard?

    1. They want to drive up Clinton's negatives as high as they can, to keep her from improving her standing in head-to-head matchups with McCain, because they know the Clinton campaign would use such polls as an important electability talking point with superdelegates.

    2. They want to get the media focus off of Rev. Wright.

    3. They want to demonstrate their toughness (to themselves, to the Republicans, and to those watchful superdelegates).

    4. They want Clinton to feel there is a cost for staying in the race.

    5. They want to remind superdelegates that Clinton would carry substantial baggage into the general election as the nominee.

    6. They want to improve Obama's standing with white voters by artfully playing the Lewinsky card (as when they talked about the circumstances that led to Bill Clinton being photographed in the White House with Rev. Wright).

    7. They are angry at the Clinton campaign.

    8. They think -- contrary to the media conventional wisdom -- that Clinton can still beat them.

    9. Because they can, they are the media darlings: the media continues to highlight the Clinton campaign's negative tactics in a disapproving way, but only rarely points out the intensified negative tone and rhetoric Obama's campaign has been using - even though it conflicts with the candidate's professed desire for a new kind of politics.


    The Cameraperson (none / 0) (#1)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:59:13 AM EST
    On Greta's show needs to sober up.


    Positive results from the Boycott! (none / 0) (#2)
    by toddy on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:03:55 AM EST
    enough Hillary supporters migrating to MYDD.com
    to generate revs for Jerome to institute some order.

    ............

    He's got too much cred. We're instituting a one week freeze on new accounts tomorrow
    that ought to give us time to clear it out to just leave the thinking.
    by Jerome Armstrong on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:51:28 PM EST

    I'm a refugee from Brand X and would like to support this site through a subscription
    or a donation, but I don't see a link for that.
    I'm awfully glad to be here.
    by Radiowalla on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:01:18 PM EST

    It gets enough on the ad rev side to pay these guys out, but thanks.
    by Jerome Armstrong on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:08:56 PM EST

    http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/3/26/212852/240/113#113

    ............

    got to wonder why no traffic bump for sites like Openleft.com as they
    have similar web software.

    down with the great Orange satan. adv rev must be hurting
    ;o)

    It's Amazing that the Poll... (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by Exeter on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:37:37 AM EST
    ...Showing that realistically both sides are tied at 22-22 and that 61% of Democrats aren't really that enthusiastic about either candidate, that the Obama blogs just don't get it. They are still operating under this cult-like belief system that EVERYONE loves their leader Obama, that he is then next Ronald Reagan, that he will get 60%+ of the vote in biggest landslide of all time, when, in fact there is ZERO basis for that belief system. He has never been about 50% in any poll of Democratic voters and his favorability with all voters has never been much higher than 50%...  and this is after perhaps the best press coverage of any presidential candidate in American history.

    Parent
    who is Jerome referencing? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Josey on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:15:06 AM EST
    >>>He's got too much cred

    Who is he?

    Parent

    who is Jerome referencing? (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by toddy on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:14:49 AM EST
    don't know.
    too much time to follow the drama.


    Parent
    might be 2 soon 2 tell (none / 0) (#3)
    by thereyougo on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:43:16 AM EST
    its become a yoddlers dream at DK. I love Taylor Marsh's site. I'm glad to have found MyDD.

    MI state primary law ruled unconstitutional (none / 0) (#5)
    by Josey on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:11:29 AM EST
    This ruling probably (none / 0) (#8)
    by digdugboy on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:15:36 AM EST
    rules out any re-vote in Michigan. The only part of the statute that was ruled unconstitutional was the part that authorized release of voting lists to the political parties only. Since the democratic party cannot now get the voting list from the disqualified January primary, it cannot comply with DNC regulations that would disqualify any voter who voted in the earlier republican primary from voting in the democratic primary

    Not that a new vote was likely going to happen anyway.

    Parent

    Does this mean that no lists will (none / 0) (#54)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:16:34 AM EST
    be released to anyone,  or that they will be released to the Democratic party, Republicans AND other partys that request them.  i.e. Green, Libertarian etc.

    Parent
    I thought that (none / 0) (#102)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:03:38 AM EST
    lawsuit was in reference to a State funded primary that was for only Dems?  It was considered exclusionary.  The DNC on the other hand can finance a Dem only primary?

    Parent
    I don't think the Michigan primaries (none / 0) (#139)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:28:58 PM EST
    have any party restrictions or party registrations.  i.e. Due to local laws anyone could vote in either primary,  though they were only supposed to vote in one.

    Parent
    Note to BTD (none / 0) (#6)
    by digdugboy on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:12:49 AM EST
    There is an interesting article at DKos on the popular vote in the democratic primary. The diarest, pocketnines, makes a good argument for why the popular vote argument is bogus on its merits:

    In the general election, every state but Maine and Nebraska run their electoral vote the same.  But in the nomination process, the states are given the ground rules by the DNC, and then they decide whether to hold a caucus or a primary.  Either method is a time-honored way of selecting delegates to the national convention.  This isn't something radical and new.

    However, if state parties believed that their voices would only be proportionally represented based on a popular vote number, which state would select caucuses as its method of voting?  You can't be intellectually honest and argue that any state party would rationally choose the caucus method if it knew its input on the national level would be fractionally diluted.

    Moreover, there is no uniform national rule for counting popular vote - closed vs. open primaries change the calculus.  If Clinton argues that indies and Republicans voting in some states but not others pollutes the purity of the popular vote total, it simultaneously undermines her national electability argument, since indies and Republicans will vote in the general.  But this inconsistency, along with the caucus argument, further shows how illegitimate the popular vote argument is.

    That's essentially what the popular vote argument seeks to do - to punish states after the game has been played under rules everyone knew going in.  It's an argument that requires a lack of integrity to make.

    Nevertheless, the diarist goes on to make some projections about likely outcomes of the popular vote for the remaining primaries. It's worth a look if you're inclined.

    frankly, any state (5.00 / 7) (#9)
    by cpinva on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:28:22 AM EST
    that chooses, willingly, to use the caucus method is in no position to be declaring anyone else irrational, period.

    the caucus is anathema to the democratic method, as commonly praciticed in the US, since the constitution was ratified.it is illicit on many levels, and has no business being used by any purported "democracy" as a method of electing representatives.

    however, i must say this primary season has been quite educational: prior to this, i honestly had very little understanding of the caucus method, since it's not used anywhere in va, for any elections.

    i've concluded it should be dumped in the trashbin of history, as another bad idea gone horribly wrong.

    Parent

    I don't disagree that it should be dumped (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by digdugboy on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:19:09 AM EST
    However . . . since going into the 2008 primary season caucusing was a recognized and legitimate means to select delegates, and in states that are exclusively caucus states there is no popular vote tally, a state that selects its delegates in that way  doesn't have its selections weighted as heavily as a state that selects its delegates by vote, if the popular vote is deemed ex post facto relevant.

    As it happens, Obama won Iowa (25-14), Nevada (13-12), Alaska (9-4), Colorado (35-20), Kansas (23-9), Idaho (15-3), Minnesota (48-24), North Dakota (8-5), Nebraska (16-8), Washington (52-26), Maine (15-9), Hawaii (14-6), Wyoming (7-5), and the caucus in Texas. In other words, Obama won all the caucus states, and picked up 280 delegates from them, almost twice as many as Clinton, who picked up 157.

    There are no popular vote tallies from any of these states.

    If somehow the popular vote is now inserted as a factor for superdelegates to consider, how will they account for the absence of popular vote totals from any of these states?

    Parent

    Laughing... (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:01:36 AM EST
    "popular vote argument" bogus.  Just those words alone are such a laugh.  

    Parent
    Don't most of the (5.00 / 0) (#105)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:07:14 AM EST
    caucus processes include signing in or signing a card?  People line up on one side of the room or another and someone counts, they don't write this down anywhere?  What do they do, toss everything in the garbage when they are done?  Seems convenient to not keep records that can be reviewed.

    Parent
    There are popular vote tallies (none / 0) (#103)
    by badger on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:04:13 AM EST
    from TX and WA.

    Extrapolate.

    Parent

    Yeah, I guess it was just imagination (none / 0) (#122)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:24:38 AM EST
    Washington State primary (popular vote) results:

    Obama 51%
    Clinton 46%
    Edwards 2%
    Kucinich 1%

    Parent

    Response (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Dan the Man on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:32:02 AM EST
    that any state party would  rationally choose the caucus method if it knew its input on the national level would be fractionally diluted.

    The count of caucuses are not fractionally diluted.  We do not, say, count all of the primary votes and only 2/5 of the caucus votes - that would be fractionally diluted.

    Moreover, there is no uniform national rule for counting popular vote - closed vs. open primaries change the calculus.

    Sure there is.  One vote = one vote.  And so what if there is no "uniform national rule" in some sense?  There is no "uniform national rule" in some sense in general elections either.  Some states, say, require registration 30 days in advance for voting.  Others allow same day registration.  This changes the calculus also. That does not undermine the legitamacy of the "popular vote" in general elections either.

    Parent

    Perhaps we're not arguing the same point (none / 0) (#13)
    by digdugboy on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:23:13 AM EST
    If popular vote is considered some kind of tiebreaker or significant factor in deciding who is to be the nominee, how do superdelegates account for the absence of any popular vote from any of the caucus states?

    The other point you make -- one person, one vote -- sounds fine on its face. However, if states with closed primaries knew, going into the season, that popular vote might be a factor, perhaps they would have opened their primaries to allow voters who were not registered democrats -- i.e., independents -- to vote in the democratic primary.

    In 2008, anyway, with the jumble of different methods for selecting delegates, the popular vote totals are too imprecise a measure to be given any substantial weight.

    Parent

    Nope (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:33:15 AM EST
    I guarantee you that states with completely closed primaries are getting plenty of turnout this year. They're actually growing the part too, instead of trying to undermine it.

    Meanwhile, we know from observation that caucuses severely reduce turnout. That reduces the popular vote total overall. the advantage that Obama gets from reduced turnout is a higher percentage of the vote. So to the degree that caucuses are disenfranchising, they benefit him, even when we're discussing the popular vote.

    Parent

    Are you arguing that the Obama (none / 0) (#20)
    by digdugboy on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:54:53 AM EST
    won caucuses in a disproportionate manner so that these victories compensate for the absence of popular vote tallies in those states? Am I reading your comment correctly?

    Parent
    Not exactly (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:58:45 AM EST
    Obama did win caucuses disproportionately--just look at Washington State. Obama's delegate lead comes almost exclusively from those unfair and disenfranchising caucuses. That's a real benefit that he would not have had in an all-primary situation, and it more than counterbalances the popular vote ambiguity that arises from caucuses.  

    Parent
    Okay, I understand your argument now. Thanks (none / 0) (#24)
    by digdugboy on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:08:19 AM EST
    Can you estimate by how much Obama would have won the popular votes in those states, or is that completely irrelevant to using the popular vote as a metric for selecting the nominee?

    Parent
    Washington caucus versus primary (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by urduja on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:23:43 AM EST
    WA caucus results

    Obama     21,629  67.51%    
    Clinton   9992    31.2%    

    WA primary results

    Obama 354,112     51.22 %
    Clinton 315,744    45.67 %

    Parent

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by hookfan on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:48:32 AM EST
    Look at that huge difference in percentage outcome between the two. No way does the caucus represent the actual will of the party voters. The huge variance in results to me suggests that the caucus in no way reflects the larger will of the voters.
      The Democratic Party has selected an extremely undemocratic means of candidate selection.
      This is even more clear in Washington where the caucus results were decided as determinative by the State Dem Party against the expressed will of the people determined by voter initiative.

    Parent
    What floors me (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by eleanora on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:01:28 AM EST
    is the difference in vote totals. ~670,000 for the primary and ~31,700 for the caucus.  Dean offered to print 150,000 ballots for a Florida re-vote caucus, because that would show the will of the people just as well as the 1.7 million who voted in the primary? I'm not so sure the math works on that.

    Parent
    The 31,700 is not the vote total (none / 0) (#65)
    by zzyzx on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:37:11 AM EST
    That's the number of delegates to the district conventions.  This has been explained multiple times.

    Moreover, once again, the primary outcome was skewed due to there being school levies on the ballot in the counties that were more favorable towards Clinton while there was nothing at all in the King County ballot other than the beauty contest.

    Parent

    And many of them were not voters (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:12:53 AM EST
    as it turns out, with reports (see earlier threads) from Washington State that participants in caucuses were not registered to vote.  And some became delegates to the next stage of the caucus process!

    That's another reason to distrust the so-called national delegate counts and especially those of the candidate who did disproportionately rely on caucuses.  None of those caucus states has picked national delegates yet, all those counts are soft and can change with the re-caucusing at each step still to come.

    And the candidate who relied on the caucus strategy alerted a lot of us this year to how undemocratic they are, and thus another reason to look to the popular-vote count -- even with the comparatively low turnout for caucuses.  Tough.  The candidate cannot trumpet the higher turnout at caucuses this year and argue that it was unfairly low turnout.  So it goes.

    Parent

    The primary numbers are dubious (none / 0) (#123)
    by Faust on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:31:54 AM EST
    Everyone in Washinton knew that the Feb 19th primary didn't count. It occured two weeks after the caucus. I voted in the caucus and not in the primary. Same with my wife. I know many people who voted in neither.

    There was campaigning by both Clinton and Obama prior to the caucus. I recieved 4 robo calls from Clinton surrogates prior to Caucus. Zero calls prior to primary.

    The Washinton primary is not good data as it doesn't represent an active campaign environment.

    That's not to say that I don't agree that Clinton would have done much better in a Washington primary. On the flip side

    Honestly Oregon will be a good test of her strength in the NW demographics in a primary scenario because Oregon and Washington are quite similar.

    Finally, the popular vote argument is kind of strange. If it's a popular vote race lets make that clear from the outset and all campaigns can focus on it if it's the best criteria for legitimacy.

    In the current system it's a delegate race. Until Feb everyone agreed on that. Post super tuesday of course the arguments started to change.

    Parent

    I also chose not to vote in the WA primary (none / 0) (#125)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:38:19 AM EST
    just like many of my friends and colleagues. I will always view this state's vote totals -- both caucus and primary -- as illegitimate.

    Parent
    if you have turnout figures, you can do basic (none / 0) (#27)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:18:32 AM EST
    division. the numbers are tiny compared to what you'd get out of a primary, though.

    Parent
    We're introducing lots of speculation (none / 0) (#134)
    by digdugboy on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:05:43 PM EST
    for a measure that's supposed to be about electability, aren't we?

    Parent
    There are total turnout numbers... (none / 0) (#48)
    by Exeter on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:05:57 AM EST
    ...from caucus states and it can be figured out -- as realclearpolitics has done.  

    But, I get your larger point that the popular vote counts from open primary states, closed primary states, caucus states, states with same-day registration, and generally all states, and, in fact, all counties, being a little bit different.  However, I think there is a way to roughly glean popular vote totals from each state in a way that roughly approximates the will of the voters better than the convoluted delegate system.


    Parent

    I agree completely (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by ChrisO on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:21:19 AM EST
    that the popular vote can't be used as a strict determinant of the winner of the Democratic nomination. The system hasn't been set up to count the popular vote consistently in all of the states, and the DNC rules weren't written to follow the popular vote.

    HOWEVER, the superdelegates certainly can use the popular vote as a determinant in deciding who to support. You don't need perfect math for that. If taking a critical look at the numbers leads a super to decide that Hillary (or Obama) is the better choice, then they can use that to make their decision. Hell, some of them will be using their prospects of landing a Federal job as their determinant, so I  don't think looking at the popular vote is any less legitimate.

    Parent

    I would agree with you except (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by hookfan on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:40:24 AM EST
    that I'm doubting there is a valid way to determine what actually is the popular vote given all the variables and lack of clear election criteria to determine that. Numbers don't mean anything if they are not valid.

    Caucuses don't reflect the popular vote, that is clear. And while people voted in them, due to the restrictive conditions under which they are held, the results are terribly skewed. I doubt one can make valid predictions from the skewed samples without huge margins of error. The range of results for a valid prediction would be so huge as to nearly be meaningless.
     One can't rule them out-- people did vote. Can't rule them in. They're invalid or useless for determining the will of the people for any state.

    Parent

    I agree this issue should be... (none / 0) (#17)
    by Exeter on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 07:44:51 AM EST
    ...considered, but that doesn't mean the popular vote argument is bogus on the merits-- it means that, like everything else, it shouldn't be taken at face value and be considered with caveats and asterisks. (Which IS possible-- the superdelegates are not kindergartners.)

    I think, all and all, Obama still has an advantage in the popular vote calculations, as they are now presented and, therefore, its fine to use them. For example, NY has a closed primary and Ill has an open primary--that fact alone probably cost Hillary a quarter of a million votes in the popular vote tallies. You have to look at it state by state, but overall I think Obama has an advantage in the way the popular vote is presented.

    Parent

    Did you really mean (none / 0) (#37)
    by hookfan on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:52:40 AM EST
    it's okay to use popular vote when it benefits Obama? That is suggesting extreme bias.

    Parent
    No... (none / 0) (#51)
    by Exeter on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:13:38 AM EST
    ...I was saying (or trying to say ;), that the Obama camp seems to be completly averse to considering popular vote totals, but even in the imperfect totals now being bandied about, they are a reflection of eletion conditions that favor Obama.

    You have to look at each state. Some states are open primaries, some closed primaris, some have same-day registration, some are caucuses, ect. and I'm saying that when you do that, more states have been favorable to Obama when it comes to the popular vote tallies being discussed.

    Parent

    Thank you =) (none / 0) (#76)
    by hookfan on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:15:15 AM EST
     Please bear with my idiocy this a.m., but I don't understand how the results from any state caucus can be a reflection of the general voter wishes in any state unless we have comparison primaries that are considered standard. But that doesn't exist.. Isn't the potential for sampling error extreme due to the small numbers and different conditions under which caucuses are held? Wouldn't the margin of error be extreme in making any prediction of similarity? I don't get how promaries and caucuses can be viewed as similiar at all.
      Consider also, that the delegate selection process in many caucus states isn't even completed yet so the final count of delegates isn't even determined yet. So that standard for comparison doesn't exist yet either. Comparison seems like a statistical nightmare with huge invalidated assumptions to make anything work.

    Parent
    Yeah.... (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Exeter on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:54:17 AM EST
    ...you're right: you're never going to be able to get a total popular vote that cleanly meshes with the totals from other states.  

    As for caucuses, for the most part, almost all of them have been just between Clinton and Obama and if you take total caucus turnout and get a popular vote from it. I know those turnout numbers aren't going to be the same as primary states, but perhaps, we could use Texas as a standard, where X number of people voted in the primary but Y percent of those people voted in the caucus, and use that number to number to adjust the caucus states. Similar math could be done to adjust open primaries to closed primaries.

    Parent

    In any case the measure of victory is delegates (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by digdugboy on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:39:07 AM EST
    The nationwide popular vote is being offered up as a measure of electability that would justify a superdelegate casting her vote for the popular vote leader instead of the pledged delegate leader.

    Here's a diary  that explores this electability issue. Apart from the limitations of popular vote arising from caucusing states and closed primaries vs. open primary states, there is good reason to doubt that a nationwide popular vote has any substantial correlation with electability.

    Parent

    Nobody knows what each super delegate... (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by Exeter on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:59:12 AM EST
    ...will weigh or not weigh in making their decision, we can all only offer up our own opinion of how we think they should vote. They could vote on who has the best horoscope, for all we know. I think they should look at electability, try to ascertain the will of voters, who would be best for the party if elected, and many more things that have more value than pledged delegate count.

    Parent
    Actually I think (none / 0) (#142)
    by hookfan on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:34:15 PM EST
    neither the popular vote (because I don't see how it can be validly determined), nor the caucus delegate count (because it clearly does not represent a valid  measure of the popular vote) is valid to use in demonstrating what the voters want. I am sorely disturbed by this. It looks like a "sham" election, the outcome of which will be determined by party bosses based on whatever subjective factors turn them on. Sad.

    Parent
    That's some progress (none / 0) (#124)
    by hookfan on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:34:16 AM EST
    However making the assumption that Texas is a standard for the rest of the country just wont fly. The demographics for Texas and, say, Idaho is like assuming apples and volcanoes are identical, or even similar. The conditions vary too much from state to state to make valid predictions that way.
       I really wish we had a clean primary, and some clear results. But with all the voter disenfranchisement, voter intimidation, and sampling problems I just can't swallow it.
      Unfortunately, for me what that leaves me with is viewing the whole contest as just a beauty contest and the bosses will decide based on purely subjective factors. I resent that my vote does not mean much.
      The only benefit from my perspective is that "the math" really doesn't matter.

    Parent
    Heh.... (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by oldpro on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:01:05 PM EST
    "purely subjective factors" pretty much describes anyone's vote, wouldn't you say?

    Parent
    yes (5.00 / 0) (#136)
    by hookfan on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:10:11 PM EST
    But sadly it is not MY subjective factors that seem to count!

    Parent
    Greta had a poll on Wright last night. (none / 0) (#22)
    by Saul on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:03:27 AM EST
    Why do you think that Wright was canceling all his talks, Fl, Tx and other states.  Choices were
    A. He was sick.  B. Lack of security for him.  C. He was being influenced by Obama and his supporters to keep quiet and not say anything.  D Forgot what the last one was.  At the end of the show the overwhelming answers from the poll was C.   Do you think they can keep him quiet from here on out to Nov?

    the pastor is back in the news today (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:46:03 AM EST
    calling Italians insulting names and saying the KKK is run by the government.
    keep digging Rev.

    Parent
    As to the KKK, he's not wrong historically (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by fuzzyone on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:46:33 AM EST
    I should say I have not heard these comments, but if you think there was no connection between the KKK and the government, especially state and local governments, you know nothing about the history of racism in this country. Well into the 60s the FBI was ignoring at best and covering up at worst the terrorist atrocities of the KKK in the south.  To this day there are very serious concerns about the infiltration of white supremacist groups into the military.  The Southern Poverty Law Center is a great source for current info on hate groups like the Klan.

    Parent
    If Obama is being honest (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by ding7777 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:53:51 AM EST
    about not wanting to refight the battles of the 60's, why would he chose as a mentor, someone who has never stopped fighting those old battles to agitate his flock?

    Parent
    Now that is the question (5.00 / 0) (#118)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:20:09 AM EST
    Sooooo many contradictions.  And expose his children to those outdated battles.  

    Parent
    gee (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:05:19 AM EST
    I thought we had already discussed at some length that the issue with the pastors remarks in general is not the truth they may or may not contain but the effect they will have on the general population.
    I doubt most people will like hearing this any more than the aids comment.
    as far as "garlic noses".  count me in.  I love garlic.

    Parent
    You may not be interested in the truth (none / 0) (#120)
    by fuzzyone on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:21:23 AM EST
    but on this particular subject I think its actually pretty important.

    Parent
    Words matter (5.00 / 0) (#127)
    by ding7777 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:46:33 AM EST

    As Obama says, words matter,  and the Rev Wright uses inflammatory words to agitate his flock.

    Parent

    And there are some things we should all (5.00 / 0) (#129)
    by fuzzyone on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:49:35 AM EST
    be agitated about.

    Parent
    WTH (none / 0) (#133)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:04:32 PM EST
    Is that guy's problem?

    Parent
    The Rev Wright versus the Government. (none / 0) (#92)
    by Fabian on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:52:05 AM EST
    So the good Reverend likes to beat up on the government as the source of this nation's evils?

    Is there any politician he does like besides Obama?

    Parent

    I'll take a national tour (none / 0) (#23)
    by Fabian on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:05:53 AM EST
    featuring Rev Wright and Donnie McClurkin.

    I'll even attend!

    Parent

    MSNBC (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by magisterludi on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:47:04 AM EST
    has picked up the Wright "Jesus-was-lynched-Italian-style" letters story. The Rev has decades of writings to sift thru. These will pop up until Nov. Drip, drip, drip.

    Scarborough was interesting this morning. He said Obama doesn't know the meaning of hardball politics until he gets in the ring with the RNC (paraphrasing). Basically he was warning political neophytes they ain't seen nothing yet. The RNC will not throw a measly kitchen sink at him, they'll be hurling olympic-size swimming pools.

    And he said republicans don't care if others call them racist, which I thought pretty stunning.

    Parent

    Ralph Reed agrees (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:50:15 AM EST
    "I think it's more likely to be a serious issue in the general election, more than in the primaries"

    Parent
    Stunning? (none / 0) (#52)
    by Fabian on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:14:32 AM EST
    Not really.  Listen to enough right wing radio and nothing will really shock you.

    Glenn Beck's argument about how the strain of being PC will cause people to snap under the strain and become violent was interesting.  The argument was that letting people be openly bigoted was better than forcing them to hold all their bigotry inside.

    Urgh.

    Parent

    it is a bit stunning that Scarboro said it (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:19:26 AM EST
    he has said a lot of interesting things lately.
    this morning they read a couple of letters, clearly from Obama supporters, basically calling a Hillbot.
    however the idea of what the republicans will do is not stunning at all.  it is the argument many of us have been making for weeks.
    the republicans will have no high minded tortured discussions about the high road.  
    think purple heart bandaids.

    Parent
    hmmmm, you are right. (none / 0) (#70)
    by Fabian on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:44:35 AM EST
    Let's see how many letters he gets denouncing that statement from Republicans.  Or Limbaugh.  Or O'Reilly.

    Let's see a movement in the GOP to re/denounce bigotry.  

    Parent

    Bloomberg (none / 0) (#25)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:16:17 AM EST
    will be introducing Obama today at a speech at Cooper Union. Probably with an endorsement since his office issued a press release on it.  He would be my choice for the Obama VP spot...

    I wonder what names... (none / 0) (#26)
    by proseandpromise on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:18:30 AM EST
    Carville will call him?

    Parent
    "Republican " ? (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by eleanora on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:53:09 AM EST
    Governor of Puerto Rico Indicted (none / 0) (#36)
    by Saul on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:52:28 AM EST
    Bad for Obama  

    why? (none / 0) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:54:21 AM EST
    Campaign Finance Probe. (none / 0) (#40)
    by Saul on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:57:29 AM EST
     SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico - U.S. authorities have announced an indictment charging Puerto Rico's governor with 18 counts in a long-running campaign finance probe.
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Acting U.S. Attorney Rosa Emilia Rodriguez said Thursday the indictment also charges 12 other people associated with Gov. Anibal Acevedo Vila's party.

    Parent

    The Governor is backing Obma (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Saul on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:01:40 AM EST
    Obama took his endorsement.

    Parent
    AH (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:03:14 AM EST
    got it

    Parent
    And Clinton took Spitzer's (none / 0) (#90)
    by fuzzyone on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:48:15 AM EST
    and neither matters.

    Parent
    but why (none / 0) (#42)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:00:40 AM EST
    is it bad for Obama specifically?
    I was just wondering why you thought that.


    Parent
    He knew he was being investigated (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Saul on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:08:06 AM EST
    when he took the endorsement.  Kind of a bad judgment or guilt by association thing.

    Parent
    What, and because Spitzer endorsed (none / 0) (#140)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:30:05 PM EST
    Hillary she is guilty by association?

    Parent
    I said it kind looks like that (none / 0) (#144)
    by Saul on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:39:08 PM EST
    I don't mean it is correct. People will perceive it like that especially the opposite side.   The big difference between the two candidates and the two governors is that Obama knew the PR governor was under a federal grand jury investigation and he alos knew the PR governor could be indicted when he accepted Vila's endorsement.   No one hand any clue that Spitzer was under investigation.  Plus NY is Hilary home turf and the governor's endorsement was a natural endorsement.  I do not think Hilary would have taken the endorsement if she knew Spitzer was being investigated for a federal crime.

    Parent
    Puerto Rico (none / 0) (#62)
    by Coral Gables on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:33:29 AM EST
    Not so good news for the Obama campaign out of Puerto Rico this morning as Obama supporter Governor Aníbal Acevedo Vilá is indicted in San Juan, the culmination of a three-year investigation into the governor's campaign finances.

    Gov. Aníbal Acevedo Vilá is expected to be arrested Thursday and charged with six campaign related charges: conspiracy to violate election laws, making false statements, wire fraud, program fraud, conspiracy to defraud the IRS and filing a false tax return.

    My question (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:54:11 AM EST
    How will the Obama camp spin this so it's Clinton's fault?

    Parent
    I wonder if, besides the endors., (none / 0) (#82)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:33:23 AM EST
    the Gov also raised money for Obama campaign.

    Parent
    My favorite quote of the day... (none / 0) (#68)
    by proseandpromise on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:40:13 AM EST
    Clinton added that the recent rough tone of the campaign didn't trouble him. "I don't give a riff about all this name-calling that's going on. They've been going on ever since Iowa. I've heard them say all these things about her," he said. "Apparently it's okay to say bad things about a girl."

    Bill Clinton suggesting sexism in the media and the campaign - no problem.  But don't suggest that the Clintons stir up race.  That isn't fair!

    and mine (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:43:04 AM EST
     "If a politician doesn't wanna get beat up, he shouldn't run for office," he said. "If a politician doesn't wanna get beat up, he shouldn't run for office. If a football player doesn't want to get tackled or want the risk of an a occasional clip he shouldn't put the pads on."

    -Bill Clinton

    Parent

    peace (none / 0) (#73)
    by Really Madison on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:01:24 AM EST
    Why not allow that people can become more than they have been in the past?  I know I have misjudged.

    I am so over (none / 0) (#86)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:43:53 AM EST
    "Losing My Religion." I have heard it so many times. By now Michael Stipe should have either lost it or found it again.

    How about some other great REM songs, like "Welcome To The Occupation" or "Exhuming McCarthy"?

    because religion is in the news today (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:36:28 PM EST
    and the song came to mind as I was reading it. How about you start your own blog and pick the songs?

    Parent
    I thought it was a clever choice (none / 0) (#147)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:22:01 PM EST
    and a belated thank-you for yesterday's choice, one of my favorites, a beautiful song.

    Parent
    Obama contacts head of (none / 0) (#93)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:52:35 AM EST
    Dem. party in FL.  Snippet says Hillary Clinton has done nothing to push for re-vote in FL.  
    Another snippet says Obama says it would be extremely helpful to have a Dem. nominee now.  No kidding!
    OBAMA RE FL

    In all fainess, she didn't. (none / 0) (#99)
    by sweetthings on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:57:54 AM EST
    Even BTD felt the need to take her to task on that subject. Her super-delegates blocked everything Nelson could come up with, and Hillary herself stayed silent on it until it was way too late.

    And it would be extremely helpful to have a nominee now. But I don't see any way to end this before PA unless the Supers decide to get their collective butts off the bleachers.

    Parent

    Nelson's plan (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:12:23 AM EST
    Was an insult to anyone who voted.

    It wasn't Clinton's job to resolve this.

    It was Dean's.

    But everyone knows he wants Obama to win.


    Parent

    Revotes (none / 0) (#117)
    by sister of ye on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:18:44 AM EST
    I don't blame her for not pushing for a FL revote - her position is that a vote where all the candidates were on the ballot is a legitimate indication of the voters' preference and should be counted.

    I don't feel a revote is needed here in MI either, given that Obama's surrogates were actively pushing an "uncommitted" vote to go to him. And that Obama only began whining about an "illegitimate" vote after a majority went for a candidate who showed her interest in their votes by staying on the ballot. And when the states Obama (and Edwards) were pandering to were also allowed to break the rules to keep their tired first-voting supremacy.


    Parent

    DK diary title: Al Gore as VP (none / 0) (#100)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:58:57 AM EST
    to Obama!

    Done to death. (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Fabian on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:14:34 AM EST
    And anyone who suggests it doesn't know Gore.

    I can't see Gore wasting four years playing veep when he could be getting real work done.  The man has campaigned three times, been veep for eight years and spent the last seven years doing what HE wants to do.

    Go play veep?  Not for either one.  They'd have to promise him something incredible to get him on the ticket - like real progress on Climate Change and a couple billion dollars to spend.

    But it's always amusing to watch the insecure Obama fans grovel, beg and demand that Al Gore do their bidding.  There's confidence for you!

    Parent

    Keep The Faith (none / 0) (#115)
    by EZSmirkzz on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:16:02 AM EST
    Having read many blogs, and thanks to Anglachel for posting her link, both pro Obama and Clinton, and those anti Obama and Clinton, I think it is important to remember the difference between being a party activist on the net, and one on the ground.

    The blogosphere is learning the lesson late in the game, but the fact remains as I have stated over and over before, you cannot control the machine, you have to become the machine. You have to take over the precinct, county/district, state apparatus, all while somehow not becoming so cynical that you wind up being a professional politician.

    I have not participated in the blogosphere, or fora for all these years to advance any political candidate, but to advance a more progressive agenda. Contrary to assertion of many, those who cannot or will not support the Democratic nominee are not infantile or misogynists, or any other pejorative we wish to apply to them. They have rocks in their heads.

    I think that we progressives, or bleeding knuckle liberals, as I've called myself for years, need to keep in mind the big picture, and that is the movement is not culminating in this election, nor the next, or the one after that. I fully expect to criticise whomever is elected, be they Clinton or Obama, and I fully expect a divide progressive movement will have even less influence on their policies than we could expect if we were to keep our eyes on the prize.

    This election is not, contrary to political assertions by some, about you, it is about us. We have brought this movement to this point, and there is no room in the progressive movement for cults of personality, be they of politicians or bloggers. As individuals we remain as insignificant in politics as we do in life, As a group, history will note that we have passed this way.

    The Difference I See (none / 0) (#141)
    by Jaman on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:31:34 PM EST
    It has been said over and again that there is very little real political difference between Clinton and Obama.  There is a big difference.

    The most powerful institutions in our world today are not governments they are corporations.  Relying on the Fourteenth Amendment, added to the Constitution in 1868 to protect the rights of freed slaves, the Court ruled that a private corporation is a natural person under the U.S. Constitution, and consequently has the same rights and protection extended to persons by the Bill of Rights, including the right to free speech.  Unless and until the Supreme Court revisits this radical decision we cannot take the corporate money out of our politics.  Any law that attempts to limit the money corporations can spend to influence our laws and policies will be struck down using this precedent.  Corporations are not people.  The word "corporation" does not appear anywhere in our Constitution or Bill of Rights.

    Hillary and Bill Clinton have mastered the art of using corporate money as their political tools.  That is the how NAFTA and Welfare Reform came to be.  This money has corrupted them, as well as most of our representatives of both parties.  We all need to examine our religions; how we believe what we believe.  Realizing not one politician has explained the above is the primary example of how powerful this corrupt system is.  It is no mystery how we came to this.  One bad Supreme Court decision, referenced over and over put us where we are.

    Will Obama change this?  I have no idea, but I am positive another round of the Clintons and the DLC will not.


    I disagree (none / 0) (#149)
    by AlSmith on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:11:39 PM EST
    I disagree.

    People often call the President the Most Powerful Man in the World, but that is because the public like to deal in generalities and vague thinking.

    In reality, Presidents make speeches and set policy but its up to Congress to pass new laws. Which they usually dont. The power and the shape of a presidency comes from the people that a President appoints to various department positions. The President may never speak to them again, or even know much about them in the first place but they way they decide to interpret the Congressional mandates their departments are enforcing can totally change the face of government.Take the Dept of Education- the pendulum can swing wildly based on who is departments and yet nothign has changed in the statues.

    So in reality I think there would be a great difference between an Obama and Hillary term even though they look to have essentially the same policies. I have no faith in the people Obama would appoint- they would either be from his Chicago machine or the type wooly headed dreamers who are unable to administer. Those are the type who have been attracted to his vague, Jessica Alba based campaign.

    I tend to base my vote on the administrative base I think the candidate would bring in so my first choices would have been Biden and Romney, so oh well there.

    And I think you are totally wrong on corporations. As anyone who works in one knows, a public corporation is totally focused on quarter to quarter returns.  Maybe you could run a project on a 1-year payback, but the idea that there are these big corporate black ops budgets that have no payback or measurability? Not plausible.

     

    Parent

    Mark Penn: Liberal = bad (none / 0) (#145)
    by fuzzyone on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:56:45 PM EST
    Or so he seems to think.

    I guess this answers the question of who liberals and progressives should support.  (And explains why she is not popular at places like Kos, though that does not excuse some of the nastiness)

    It's always good to go to the original source (none / 0) (#148)
    by tree on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:34:34 PM EST
    Here's the New Yorker piece that has the quote from Penn. I'm certainly no fan of Penn but I think the point he is making is a valid one about electability. Here's an extended quote, which isn't really a liberal=bad argument at all but more an analysis of what the Republicans will be able to do to influence the voters' perceptions of Obama.( The piece in which he was quoted was apparently written before the Wright flap.)

    Penn's poll-defying arguments about Obama's electability against McCain will be pressed ever more forcefully as both campaigns move to the dénouement of the primary season. From Penn's standpoint, Obama's freshness is his greatest vulnerability. "The G.O.P. attack machine redefines the Democratic candidate," Penn said recently. "It's formidable. It commands a vast media network. And it has been able to skew the perceptions even of such distinguished public servants and well-respected Democrats as Al Gore and John Kerry, creating impressions of them very quickly that were out of step with reality." Hillary Clinton, he went on, "has withstood the full brunt of this kind of attack and will be able to neutralize what is likely to happen, particularly with the nominee who is not as well known through public life."

    Clinton is stressing in all her appearances--another point that Penn sees as essential--that Obama will appear distinctly weaker on national-security questions in relation to McCain. (This infuriates Obama's supporters--after all, he alone among the surviving candidates opposed the invasion of Iraq.) The Clinton campaign will also press the claim that Obama will not be able to withstand heightened scrutiny of his domestic-policy views. The implication is that Obama is unacceptably liberal, while Clinton, despite the similarity of her positions and voting record, is not. "How much do Independent voters really know about Barack Obama, his voting record, and his past positions?" Penn asked recently. "Certainly less than Democrats know. In a general election the Republicans would spring into action, and quickly, if he were the nominee, roll out his full record. And the kind of Independent support that you see in places like Idaho would consequently evaporate."

    Penn pushed this idea last week when he told me, "People want to have a nominee that's going to win. So a lot of the things they accepted initially may not hold up. Independent and Republican support is diminishing as they find out he's the most liberal Democratic senator"--a reference to recent rankings by the National Journal. "As they get more of a sense that he's not ready to be Commander-in-Chief, a lot of Independents who were supporting him are disappearing.

    "

     Penn's not saying that liberal=bad. He's saying that Republicans are less likely to vote for a candidate they perceive as "too liberal".

    Parent