Stop Me If You've Heard This One

by bert
Flipping around the dial on the radio while driving yesterday, I heard Michael Savage seriously ask (it was more like a yell) why Hillary Clinton was never subjected to the kind of scrutiny that Sarah Palin is now suffering under.

Mission Accomplished -- Democrats Unified

Keith Schmitz

(Denver) -- Dabbling in the news myself, I know how this business demands conflict.

Unfortunately, this convention is not giving it to them so they have to make it up.

I have yet to make it to the Pepsi Center, being a guest to the Denver and credentials as you would well imagine very much in demand. So to date we have been catching it in group TV watching parties, though we will have the thrill of reaching the Center today.

But one advantage over watching it home is afterwards, catching up with the delegates. And last night the story from all the Hillary delegates is that their hero, who has richly desired the title, brought them on board with the Obama campaign.

I didn't just ask. I probed and all they said was basically "we have to go to work to elect Barack Obama."

Went to a DNC strategy session with Howard Dean, David Plouffe and others from the Obama campaign. According to Dean, "we are coming out of this convention unified, with 99.9% of the delegates behind Obama."

"It seems that the folks on cable don't have much to do," observed the Governor. "Anyone who wants to whine and moan will make it on TV."

Later, went over to the very well attended SEIU health care session and Hillary capped it off with a speech. We ALL rose to our feet to welcome her.

One last thing. We now have lots of concern trolls wringing their hands over Obama's decision to not invite Hillary onto the ticket. Who knows why? But I think we should all know Obama wants to win, and somehow Hillary did not work into the equation. That's politics and as it has been said politics is not beanbag.

Van Mobley from Concordia suggests that McCain should "exploit" Obama's "blunder" of not picking Hillary, and that McCain should pick woman. yeah, that should bandage over his inability to vote for a single woman's health care bill over his entire career in the Senate.

Penn

by folkbum

I think we should all be able to agree now that Mark Penn should never work in Democratic politics again:

Mark Penn, the top campaign strategist for Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign, advised her to portray Barack Obama as having a “limited” connection “to basic American values and culture,” according to a forthcoming article in The Atlantic.

The magazine reports Penn suggested getting much rougher with Obama in a memo on March 30, after her crucial wins in Texas and Ohio: “Does anyone believe that it is possible to win the nomination without, over these next two months, raising all these issues on him? ... Won’t a single tape of [the Reverend Jeremiah] Wright going off on America with Obama sitting there be a game ender?” [. . .]

Penn, the presidential campaign’s chief strategist, wrote in a memo to Clinton excerpted in the article: “I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values.”

I mean, the fact that Mark Penn managed to lose an un-losable campaign should have been the first clue; the fact that he was pushing for Clinton to start spreading the same bogus attacks that have been the bread and butter of the lowest scoundrels of the FOXNews-Rushbo set. Kudos to Hillary Clinton for not resorting to those tactics. And shame on Mark Penn for thinking that was the kind of campaign a Democrat should run.

And who will treat our mothers as real human beings?

by folkbum

(Not to suggest that mothers don't care about tax policy, of course.)

This should be required reading for every woman--commenter Fair Play, for example, and Debra Bartoshevich, in particular--who would have voted for Hillary Clinton in November but now plans to vote for John McCain:

For anyone--male or female--who cares about reproductive rights, family planning, and women's health issues, the choice this fall is not even close.

And yet many voters have no idea how extreme McCain's position on these issues is. [. . .] Forty-nine percent of women in battleground states who currently favor McCain are pro-choice. Twenty-three percent of them believe McCain agrees with them on choice.

The good news is, 36 percent of pro-choice McCain supporters are less likely to vote for him after learning that McCain opposes Roe v. Wade and favors making most abortions illegal. That number hits 38 percent when those voters learn that McCain has also consistently voted against expanding access to programs that reduce pregnancy and the need for abortion, consistently voted in favor of abstinence-only programs, and against legislation requiring insurance companies to cover birth control. [. . .]

Since 1983, in votes in the House and the Senate (where he has served since 1987), McCain has cast 130 votes on abortion and other reproductive-rights issues. 125 of those votes were anti-choice. Among his voting lowlights:

He has repeatedly voted to deny low-income women access to abortion care except in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother's life (although McCain is now wavering on trying to put these exceptions into the party platform).

He voted to shut down the Title X family-planning program, which provides millions of women with health care services ranging from birth control to breast cancer screenings.

He voted against legislation that established criminal and civil penalties for those who use threats and violence to keep women from gaining access to reproductive health clinics.

He voted to uphold the policy that bans overseas health clinics from receiving aid from America if they use their own funds to provide legal abortion services or even adopt a pro-choice position.

Of his anti-choice voting record, McCain has said, "I have many, many votes and it's been consistent," proudly adding: "And I've got a consistent zero from NARAL" through the years. And last month he told Chris Matthews: "The rights of the unborn is one of my most important values."

I get the feeling, just having read about and things by some of "McCain Democrats," that a lot of McCain-leaning liberals have a vague sense that McCain is going to be somehow more reasonable or thoughtful, particularly on issues like reproductive rights, than his record suggests.

I remember listening to a Ben Merens show a few weeks ago, with a guest from, I think, The Atlantic or something like that, talking about McCain v. Obama. This was just after Clinton ended her run, and Merens was actively soliciting Clinton voters to call in and talk about what they would do now. One woman called in who described herself as a life-long Democrat, a liberal, and so on, but she would simply not vote for Obama. At some point the guest asked her about foreign policy: Did she think McCain would invade Iran? Of course not, she said. McCain's not crazy and the Democrats in Congress would never give him approval. The problem, as the guest pointed out, was that this woman's perception of McCain's sanity and his willingness to listen to Congress was totally at odds with reality and McCain's own rhetoric. How many millions more people out there have a similar warped perception of McCain?

I know that we're five months out from the election, and many "McCain Democrats" will probably come home. (Recent polling suggests that a bit of a "unity bounce" has already begun.) But to hear from Democrats now that somehow McCain will be better than Obama on our core issues is just insane. McCain is a conservative, he always has been. He's not going to magically become a pro-choice moderate with a sensible foreign policy. It will not happen. And the sooner these "McCain Democrats" stop lying to themselves and to everyone else, the better.

Race and the Race

by folkbum

One of the last times I ran for any elected office was when I ran for treasurer of my high school senior class. (I lost.) The day before the vote, the school dragged all the kids in my class down to the gym and sat us on the bleachers where we were forced to listen to speeches from all the candidates for all the various offices.

My high school was suburban, but racially integrated as the result of a merger between a number of districts a couple of decades before. In the district's single high school, perhaps 30 or 35% of the students were of African or Asian descent, and the rest of us were white. I do not remember the complete breakdown of who from what racial background was running for which meaningless post my senior year, but I do remember one jerk from the audience that year, a white jerk.

As the students were streaming out of the gym back to class, speeches finished and hopes lifted, this guy yelled out, several times, "Vote for all the white people!"

Let me show you a map:


You've probably seen that map already; it's the counties so far that have voted 65% or more for Senator Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary. I took this from DHinMI from before the West Viginia primary, and could not find an updated one from afterwards, but imagine, if you will, that most of the gray WV-shaped area there is also purple (not all, just most).

It's pretty easy to see that Clinton excels in a range stretching from the Appalachians across the Ohio River valley to the Ozarks. (At the link above, you can view the 65% maps for Senator Barack Obama to see that he, too, has areas of strength.) Let me blow up that segment of the map:



I've added a yellow circle showing, roughly, where I come from, where my high school was located that some idiot in a mullet and a heavy metal-band t-shirt can shout out "Vote for all the white people!" before the election of senior class officers. I'm from right there in the thick of it. (It will look even more like it after Kentucky votes on Tuesday.) These voters you hear about in West Virginia who still think Obama's a Muslim or who can't imagine relinquishing control of the US to a black man are, in a very real way, my people.

I knew well enough at 17 that I didn't want the vote of our racist antagonist here, but I also knew that I would be getting it whether I wanted it or not. In this one small way, I think I can say I know how Hillary Clinton feels.

I do not want to suggest in any way that Clinton has gotten as far as she has solely on the basis of some racist vote. On the contrary, when you look at the map of Clinton's 55% and higher victories, you can see that she pulls in the votes pretty well in minority-heavy districts all across the country. I voted for Clinton here in Wisconsin for two solid reasons that had nothing to do with race, making up my mind literally in the voting booth that afternoon. (And if that racist vote were really that powerful, I would have been treasurer of my high school senior class.)

However, it is clear that race is playing a role in this primary for Clinton, as sure as it is for Obama--many of his 65% counties are concentrated across the South where blacks are often the bulk of Democratic primary voters. But there is, I think, a very real difference in the two.

For Clinton, not because she wants it, not because she's cultivated it, not because she deserves it, there is a "vote for all the white people!" mentality that is boosting her vote totals across a limited geographical spread. Again, please do not think that I am accusing Clinton of being racist--she is not--or accusing all those who voted for her of being racist--the vast majority are not. But the difference between a mere victory for Clinton and a blowout across a swath of America has been, I think, those who are motivated by race.

And the same for Obama. However, instead of an antithesis of the "vote for all the white people!" mentality that Clinton has benefited from, there is instead an energy and excitement among African American voters about the chance to finally vote for someone who isn't white. Obama has motivated black voters in this cycle like no one has before, theoretically putting states into play--like Mississippi, where the biggest Democratic upset of the year came largely thanks to black voters even as whites were winning West Virginia for Clinton--that would not have been in play in anyone's wildest imaginations a year ago.

I do not think that my Ohio Valley brethren are enervated over the opportunity to vote for a white presidential candidate. Seems to me that they've had the chance to do exactly that for the last, oh, 200-some years. Rather, a "vote for all the white people!" mentality is a move to protect perceived power as opposed to spread power to traditionally disenfranchised groups.

The irony, of course, is that the poor whites who inhabit the Appalachians and Ozarks and points in between, and who have been giving Clinton her blowout margins, are the furthest thing away from any source of real power. In the same way, the kid who shouted out to my senior class was someone I didn't know (in a class of more than 450 students, that's not that hard), and who likely didn't have any connection to any of the other non-mulleted candidates for any of the offices in that year's low-impact election. Yet at least in the white candidates, there's enough of an "us" (versus "them") to believe.

African Americans across the South, too, who gave Obama his biggest margins, also lack access to traditional structures of power, but are turning out in record numbers.

In many ways, this is perhaps what's most exciting about this election: Both candidates are drawing in huge numbers of Democratic voters whose interests are usually not served by the primary or general election process. No one would have guessed a year ago or even a few months ago the nomination process for either major party would be fought out among those whose voices are usually silenced in the decision-making process. (Both parties count, often too heavily, on the votes of those out of power to help maintain their power; see, for example, What's the Matter with Kansas?, or any one of a billion internet screeds about how the Democrats take the black vote for granted.)

Much about this election season has made me uneasy, not the least of it the bringing back up unpleasant high school memories. But a lot of it has also left me feeling pretty positive about the direction of my party, specifically, and of the country, more generally. The incidental ugliness from some voters will end up, I believe--I hope!--no more significant in the long run of this election than a solitary mullet-head shouting out to 450 kids in a hallway.

In the end, we'll have made history--and that's something people from all different backgrounds should be proud of.

Where are the concern trolls "professionals" now?

by folkbum

Two weeks ago, after the Pennsylvania primary, the "professional" Brian Fraley wrote that it was all over for Barack Obama because "[b]lue collar white catholic swing voters, who may have been warming up to [Barack] Obama at one point, are running away from him in droves."

Let's look at Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Indiana, shall we?
White Obama Clinton
OH     34%    64%
PA     37%    63%
IN     40%    60%

Cath. Obama Clinton
OH     36%    63%
PA     30%    70%
IN     41%    59%

<$50k Obama Clinton
OH     42%    56%
PA     46%    54%
IN     50%    50%

Running away in droves my foot. And, no, Obama didn't win clear majorities in these categories; but the predicted collapse didn't happen in PA and it didn't happen last night, either.

Selective Outrage on Display. As Usual.

by folkbum

Nothing so amuses me as watching the molehills of everyday life become mountains of self-righteous outrage on Wisconsin's right. Usually, the indignation dies a quiet death, because in righty space, no one can hear you scream, thank jebus.

Other times, real people get hurt, physically or financially, because some nut or another gets his Hanes in a bunch over something that, left alone, would have hurt no one at all.

The latest is the news that comedian Bill Maher will be in town, sponsored in part by WKLH radio and American TV. Because Maher dislikes religion--he's got animosity for all religions, in equal measure, as it turns out, not mere "anti-Christian bigotry"--some righties are leading a charge against the sponsors. Mike Plaisted and the Illusory Tenant have a good discussion going about just how ridiculous it is.

But I will ask, as is my wont in these situations (I even have a rule named after me just for this!), why Maher is subject to a standard from righty bloggers that others are not.

John McAdams, the Marquette professor (chair of the Department of Outrage, I believe) who is leading the Maher reaction, has a whole category of posts tagged with "free speech" (a tag missing from his Maher posts!) that include things like praise for the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee for bringing noted anti-Muslim speakers Walid Shoebat and David Horowitz to campus (flashback: David Horowitz hates me!). The bigoted (by the Maher standard) messages of Shoebat and Horowitz are sponsored at UWM by your tax dollars and mine, which to me suggests that they might be afforded greater scrutiny than those sponsored by the commercial enterprises like American TV. (I tend to believe that American and WKLH know the market well enough to make decisions that benefit them financially. They know that Bill Maher is going to make them more money than would be lost from the sad protests mounted by Milwaukee's Perpetually Offended. It's all a part of the belief that the free market knows what's best for itself. If McAdams wants to dispute that, he's welcome to.)

Yet the anti-Muslim speakers get a pass and the anti-Muslim sponsors get kudos because the targeted religion is not McAdams's Catholicism, but Islam. (One wonders if Maher had been booked to play UWM instead of the Riverside whether McAdams would have praised UWM for "bringing controversial speakers to that campus" or still have launched this little jihad.)

And then there's the case of bigots on the blogroll. McAdams, just to the right of the space where he denounces Maher's supposed anti-Christian commentary, permanently links to a blogger who regularly calls Islam the "Religion of Piece (of Arm, of Leg, of Torso)" and mocks celebrants of sacred holidays like "Ramalamadingdong." If anti-religion is the test, McAdams's links fail, miserably.

So it seems to me there's a bit of beam in McAdams's own eye that needs to be addressed before he can reasonably complain about the mote at American TV.

--

This is the nut, by the way, of the Wright-Hagee--and I would add Rod Parsley to Hagee--controversy that has been all bubbly here on the blog lately. Liberals are held to standards by the right and by the media that conservatives are not. Barack Obama and John McCain are not being treated equally at all. And don't give me that "Obama knew Wright for 20 years" crap--McCain, knowing Hagee's and Parsley's views, actively sought their blessing and their spiritual advice, and he continues to relish the endorsement of those two clear bigots without facing any media scrutiny.

The McCain camp knows exactly what they are doing with this, too: They know that the John McAdamses of the world will vote for McCain regardless of what anti-Catholic horse they hitch the "Straight" Talk wagon to (as far as I can tell, McAdams has not written a single word about Hagee, and neither has Patrick Dorwin, whose BadgerBlogger is helping to attack American TV). However, McCain's people know that some voters in key states like Ohio and Florida will veer to a third party or just stay home if they don't hear the dog whistles from Hagee and Parsley. It's a calculated pander, like Hillary Clinton's insistence on rolling back the federal gas tax--it's a stupid idea but apparently it polls well in Indiana. Clinton is willing to take an image hit among people who will vote for her over McCain anyway in order to score a few thousand votes in the tight Indiana primary tomorrow.

However, in keeping with the theme, Clinton is getting nailed for this pander while McCain keeps getting a pass. See also the "McCain Flag Lapel Pin Watch." Or the "McCain's hiding assets" watch. Or the "McCain's got lobbyists running his anti-lobbyist campaign" watch. Or the "McCain's lying about Democrats and health care" watch. And so on.

I do not expect the media to turn around and apply the same level of scrutiny to McCain as to Obama and Clinton any more than I expect John McAdams or Patrick Dorwin to chastise the vulgar anti-Muslim bigots on their blogrolls the way they have American TV. But as long as I have this small microphone, I will never let them forget that they are hypocrites.

Vote-suppressing, Pro-Hillary Group Operated in Wisconsin

via MAL Contends

A voter-suppression group operating in North Carolina, exposed in the journal Facing South (see also Talking Points Memo), was operating in Wisconsin before its primary on Feb. 19 as part a national voter deception strategy targeting black households and those likely to vote against Sen. Clinton.

And with the same apparent motive: To suppress voter turnout and minimize the margin of an expected Clinton defeat.

The story, broken by Chris Kromm, and aired on CNN, exhibits another example of Hillary Clinton borrowing from the Karl Rove playbook; and Hillary can expect a serious backlash.

Writes Kromm:

Who's behind the mysterious 'robo-calls' that have spread misleading voter information and sown confusion and frustration among North Carolina residents over the last week?

Facing South has confirmed the source of the calls, and the mastermind is Women's Voices Women Vote, a D.C.-based nonprofit which aims to boost voting among 'unmarried women voters.'

What's more, Facing South has learned that the firestorm Women's Voices has ignited in North Carolina isn't the group's first brush with controversy. Women's Voices' questionable tactics have spawned thousands of voter complaints in at least 11 states and brought harsh condemnation from some election officials for their secrecy, misleading nature and likely violations of election law. ...

In Wisconsin, state officials singled out Women's Voices for misleading and possibly disenfranchising voters, stating in a press release [PDF]: 'One group in particular -- Women's Voices. Women Vote, of Washington, D.C. -- apparently ignored or disregarded state deadlines in seeking to register voters,' sending in registrations past the January 30 deadline and causing 'hundreds of Wisconsin voters who think they registered in advance' to actually not be. ...

... Bob Hall at Democracy North Carolina said in a statement:
'This is another in a long line of deceptive practices used in North Carolina and elsewhere that particularly target African-American voters. In our view, this phone message plainly violates North Carolina law. We ask the Attorney General, State Bureau of Investigation, and the State Board of Elections to investigate, expose, and prosecute the sponsors of these calls.'

[UPDATE by folkbum: The WVWV response; perspective from Matt Stoller and Chris Bowers; and note my official skepticism that there was any tie between the Clinton campaign and WVWV, as that would be both fairly easy to prove and so incredibly illegal.]

Update II: See WVWV staff bios and Kos by stefanielaine for additional Clinton connections; also see DKos, Women's Voices has not answered our investigation: ["First, it's important to note that Gardner's statement in no ways refutes, or even addresses, any of the basic facts put forward by our investigation."]. Let the stonewalling begin.

Via Kos by stefanielaine

(John Podesta) actually responded, which I didn't expect, though his response was less than satisfying:

Podesta:
Believe me, you were no more shocked than I was. WVWV has a strong record of registering disenfranchised people so that they can participate in the political process. Over 400,000 in this cycle. With respect to North Carolina, remedial action is being undertaken. While I believe the calling program there was a mistake of judgment and execution, and not an attempt to disenfranchise voters, as a board member, I have asked for a full accounting of the circumstances of the North Carolina events.

stefanielaine

It's great that he's asked for "a full accounting of the circumstances," but seriously, I don't understand thinking this is all a big coincidence. So, my response: Thanks for responding, John. I'm glad to hear that you've requested an accounting of what's happening in North Carolina but frankly North Carolina is just the tip of the iceberg - WVWV has apparently executed similar "lapses in judgment" in Virginia, Arizona, Wisconsin, Florida, Michigan, Colorado, Louisiana, Kentucky, and Arkansas, usually immediately before those states' primaries. I have an incredibly difficult time believing this is anything less than voter disenfranchisement - if their intentions were good, why wouldn't WVWV identify themselves on the call? Why target black voters? Why use a fictitious identity for the call, and why else use the name Lamont, if not to immediately establish the caller's racial identity? Why choose the week before an election to suggest to these (largely black) voters that they may not be registered to vote? From my perspective, the odds of all these factors being coincidental is virtually nill. But I look forward to the full accounting, which I hope you will encourage WVWV to make public.
Thank you. Stef

He's Back

By 3rd Way

Today is a good day. Thomas Friedman has returned to the NYT opinion page. I will never forgive him for his support of the Iraq invasion, but he is one of the few pundits whose writings I make sure to read.

His latest column blasts our energy policy and the pandering of Clinton and McCain with their gas-tax holiday nonsense.

He rightfully describes it as "so ridiculous, so unworthy of the people aspiring to lead our nation, it takes your breath away".

Yeah, because when I want cogent commentary on the Democratic primary, I'll ask a Republican. Whatev.

by folkbum

There's nothing quite so insulting as what we in the business call a "concern troll." They're everywhere, these days, even if they don't know what they're doing, talking about Democrats and the nomination process. Just trolling away, sounding quite, quite sincere in their wish for the Democrats to nominate someone who can win in November. Who are these people?

McCain voters.

I know, I know, it doesn't compute on its face, or even, for that matter, several dense troll-packed layers down. What possible reason could Republican, conservative, McCain-voting bloggers have for tsk-tsking the Democrats over our rush to nominate Barack Obama, whom they see as the weaker candidate against McCain? Well, it's the same reason why the Republicans are planning to air some pretty ugly ads against only Obama--not Hillary Clinton: Obama is the presumptive nominee (no matter what Clinton thinks) and, frankly, they're scared pantsless of how bad for their side a McCain-Obama race would turn out.

Maybe not all of them got a memo, no. But you can bet it's the talking-point of the rightward set, circulated at all levels and bubbling forth in public for consumption from a number of otherwise-reasonable people.

Exhibit A would be Rick Esenberg. He sidled into concern troll mode with a post early election morn, wondering, goshdarnit, what's making it so hard for that nice man to seal the deal with Democrats?

But don't Democrats have to be worried about a guy who can't put away such an empty suit? And no matter what the polls say about a race that hasn't started, it's hard not to conclude that Obama has left folks in places like Pennsylvania and Ohio unimpressed. You can make a fairly strong argument that, for a Democrat to win, Pennsylvania shouldn't even be in play. How do you get to 270 if, after McCain actually campaigns there, it's in the GOP column?

So many breathless questions, so much concern trolling. If there were a concern troll scale--like, say, the Richter Scale, or the Manly Scale of Absolute Gender--this would be peaking at a fairly solid 6 or 6.5, starting, of course, with his labeling of Clinton as "an empty suit." It takes a lot of, erm, concernes, as they might say en espanol, to paint someone who still can win a hot primary and run neck-and-neck with Obama with that kind of brush. Voters clearly don't see that suit as empty at all; in fact, one Clinton voter (*cough*me*cough*) highly resents the implication that I'm too dumb to pick an empty suit out of a crowd. But because Obama is presumptive nominee, such lies are not intended as lies per se; rather, they are to be read as an acknowledgment of reality, sort of a paternal pat on the head to reassure us that he, too, knows Obama's in the driver's seat of this race, something most Dem readers of Esenberg's blog figured out weeks ago. (NOTE: Had he gone with "an empty pantsuit," as many of his colleagues are wont to do, he would have slipped from concern trolling right into flat boorishness and lost credibility. That's what I like about Rick--he knows which lines to dance up to but not cross.)

Further, there are some other Esenberg concern-troll lies not meant to be read as such. For example, suggesting that Obama has not impressed the voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania. It feels true, again, because, well, Obama lost those states. But there are any number of ways to put the lie to it. For example, since the start of the elections this year, Obama has drawn more money in contributions from Ohio and Pennsylvania that Clinton has. Two-thirds of Ohio and Pennsylvania primary voters said in exit polls that they would be satisfied in Obama won the nomination--considerably more voters than actually voted for him. And while Obama may be behind McCain in Pennsylvania according Pollster.com's trendlines this morning, that's almost entirely because of Republican polling firm Strategic Vision, as opposed to non-partisan polling firms finding Obama ahead for the last month. Pennsylvania hasn't voted for a Republican since they voted against Dukakis--and they keep electing Democrats lately to state-wide office. It's nice Rick, that you seem to care, but, please, keep it and your falsities to yourself.

The Recess Supervisor makes a lot of the same concern-trolly points Esenberg does about Obama's losing to Clinton in states that will be important in November (apparently, McCain's losses in key Republican swing states like Colorado, Minnesota, and Louisiana don't matter). But RS's additional complaints concerns--not to mention his use of ultra-violent bullet points--put him onthe concern troll scale at about a 7.5 to 8. Here's some of his "concern":

Barack Obama outspent Hillary Clinton 3-to-1 in Pennsylvania and lost by ten. Shouldn't that be story? [. . .] Why won't the talking heads mention how Obama's narrow lead in pledged delegates and the popular vote owe largely to his running up the score in states in the Great Plains and the Mountain West that Democrats have absolutely no chance of winning in November? Are Obama's whopping victories in states like Utah, Wyoming, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Kansas really the stuff that Democratic superdelegates want to base their decision on? The voice of voters who will do NOTHING to bring them the White House come November? [. . .] Obama's spent a year trying to sell voters the yellow brick road, and it's starting to come up short. Swing voters aren't buying it.

Money: I think the story is that Obama is outraising Clinton three-to-one. How in the world can we expect Clinton to compete with McCain's campaign finance shenanigans if she can't raise money herself? That is my real concern as a real Democrat, not some phony ginned-up trollishnes of the Supervisor's.

"No chance" states: Montana, North Dakota, Kansas, and Nebraska have been electing Democrats state-wide lately. There will be close House contests in Utah. Colorado and Nevada--not on RS's list, but implied--will be battleground states in this cycle, based on changing Demographics if nothing else. As a Democrat, I want a candidate who can make those states more competitive. I want a Democrat who can have coattails in states like Utah or Kansas. I want Republicans to have to spend money to defend in those places, instead of in Ohio or Pennsylvania, and I want Nevada and Colorado to go blue this year. The Dems' win without the South strategy has always gone through the Mountain West, and if Obama can make it happen, that's a good thing.

The "yellow brick road": I see that RS has bought into the BS that Obama's campaign is some kind of fantasy of hope and change rather than a coherent and extensive collection of detailed policy proposals. It's funny--Esenberg calls Clinton the empty suit, and here the Recess Supervisor implies that it's Obama, instead, whose suit is empty. Is it too much to ask that the concern trolls settle on a single storyline?

But the concern-troll cake of the week has been taken by Brian Fraley, whose post yesterday goes off the scale completely. What makes Fraley bury the needle is not merely that he's demonstrably wrong in his concern trolling--and in total denial about it--but that he does it with a snippy I-told-you-so attitude:

After Obama’s ‘Bitter, Cling to Guns and God’ jab was made public I wrote:

If he actually said this condescending, elitist claptrap it will take all his vast rhetorical skills to talk himself out of the firestorm heading his way. And not because us rubes are going to merely cling to our guns and our religion. But rather, because he just insulted the largest block of swing voters in America.

Well, how did my prediction shake out after the first contest since his San Francisco treat? Well, look at how Hillary Clinton trounced Barack Obama in Pennsylvania’s rural counties and the northern suburban counties outside Philly. It’s not a matter of her winning there. Look at the numbers. The percentages are staggering. White middle class, and Catholic voters went to Clinton by unbelievable margins.

Lucky for us, we can actually look at some polling data to find out if what Fraley said here is true. We can compare what happened in Pennsylvania to what happened in neighboring Ohio, as the states share some demographic qualities as well as a border, and Ohio was the last major primary before Obama's "cling" statements were made public. (In general, Ohio's electorate is a little more amenable to Obama--more black voters and more younger voters than Pennsylvania--so that fact that Obama did better in PA is itself notable.)

Comparing CNN exit poll data (same company, same questions, already linked above) between Ohio and PA, you find that Obama actually improved this week! More whites voted for Obama in PA (34% OH, 38% PA). Obama gained among white men (from 39% to 44%) and white women (from 31% to 34%). He gained among those earning less than $50k a year (from 42% in OH to 46% in PA). He did fall among Catholics (from 36% in OH to 31%) but he gained among Protestants (from 36% to 53%)–and remember, his “cling” to religion comment was not specific about which religion, so it should have offended everyone equally. Fraley restated his claim in a comment even more explicitly: "Blue collar white catholic swing voters, who may have been warming up to Obama at one point, are running away from him in droves." And to prove it, he reiterates his point about Obama's losing Tuesday in areas that were Clinton strongholds. I don't see anyone leaving Obama "in droves," though. Maybe you can, and if so, I would appreciate it if you explained it to me.

And if you're thinking about concern trolling, please, keep it to yourself.

POST SCRIPT: Former Republican John Cole has a solid take on all of this:

I have had the tv on for 2 minutes and am already ready to scream as Joe Scarborough asks why “obama can not close the deal.”

Gee. I dunno. Because he is running against an exceedingly popular candidate who has a 16 year advantage building a political machine who just a few months ago was Mrs. Inevitable?

For Your Entertainment... Democracy

By 3rd Way

The pundit consensus going into yesterday's primary seemed to be that Clinton needed to win by at least 10 points to stay in the race. Even if she won by 15 points it would still be nearly impossible for her achieve a clean victory and take a lead in total primary votes cast, but stating that fact does not sell as must-see punditry. The pundits today are all opining on how Clinton made it to the all important 10 point mark and sent the race for the candidacy in to overtime.

I guess we should be pleased that the Democratic race is more interesting than American Idol. But I question why all media outlets today reported that Clinton won by 10 points, when she really won by 9. The media has a vested interest in extending this race all the way to the convention. A fracas at the Democratic convention complete with 1968 style demonstrations would draw superbowl-like numbers of viewers to network news.

If Obama wins big in North Carolina in two weeks, as he is expected to, he should eliminate any claim Clinton can make about still having a shot at being the legitimate candidate. Nothing will stop her from making that claim, I just hope the media at some point starts reporting the hard facts about the numbers game and stops feeding this fantasy about a comeback kid.

NYT's Rich Wrong to Hit Hillary/ Obama on Iraq War

via MAL Contends
Madison, Wisconsin—Frank Rick has a piece in this morning’s Times arguing that Obama and Hillary “are flat-out wrong” in condemning John McCain for McCain's allegedly having expressed a willingness “… to keep this (Iraq) war going for 100 years,” as the two Democrats on the campaign trail state their desire for withdrawal, contra McCain.

Rich, among the most perceptive columnists today, cites other writers and fact checkers making the same point, including Zachary Roth in the Columbia Journalism Review.

So what are McCain’s words about the U.S. occupation/war made at a town meeting in January, and repeated since?

Video of McCain saying “10,000 years” in Iraq with permanent bases on Face the Nation and Meet the Press


Said McCain, “Make it a hundred (in Iraq). ... We’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me, as long as American, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. It’s fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintained a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting and equipping and motivating people every single day."

Writes the CJR’s Roth, “It’s clear from this that McCain isn’t saying he’d support continuing the war for one hundred years, only that it might be necessary to keep troops there that long.”

What?

Rich, though he goes on to blast McCain and the Neocon enablers on other points, chides the Democrats on the 100-year war point, writing: “…The sum total of (McCain’s) public record suggests that he could well prolong the war for another century — not because he’s the crazed militarist portrayed by Democrats, but through sheer inertia, bad judgment and blundering.”

What, how again are Hillary and Obama "flat-out wrong"?

McCain predicates his anti-withdrawal position on a lie—that troops can remain in Iraq without being injured, harmed or wounded—and McCain's conclusion, that of a multi-decade-long occupation, should be taken as a commitment for a multi-decade-long occupation that will be justified by still more lies.

If you have US troops in Iraq, they will remain targets. McCain is simply throwing a bone to the public in his conditional reference (taken as fact, and not a lie, without challenge by the fact checkers) to maintain "...as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."

No doubt, Rich and the fact checkers, having blasted Hillary and Obama for their critiques of McCain, will point to McCain's pursuit of withdrawal, for full context. No, they don't.

Then Rich and company will point to McCain's candid acknowledgement of the Neocon enterprise in Iraq, for full context? No, they don't.

Perhaps Rich and company will at least point to McCain's rejection of permanent bases, a super permanent embassy, and McCain's commitment to Iraqi control over their own natural resources. Wrong again.

Let's acknowledge that McCain's statement is compound-complex and not a model of clarity. Indeed, the statement is predicated on false premises and lies.

But reading Rich and the fact checkers we are to believe ".... only that it might be necessary to keep troops (in Iraq) that long,” (Roth) and that "...(McCain’s) public record suggests that he could well prolong the war for another century ... through sheer inertia, bad judgment and blundering;” (Rich); but Hillary and Obama's charges that McCain wants to keep the war going for 100 years are nevertheless bogus.

What has happened to Rich and Roth on this one?

Bush, McCain and Neocons don't want out; they want a client oil state, and they will commit troops there as long it takes to establish such a geopolitical agent, while spewing the WMD, al Qaeda, regional stability, and whatever other justification they come up with for however long this Neocon propaganda will hold up.

So Obama and Hillary are spot-on to blast McCain for his 100-year, one-million-year (whatever time comes to his mind) idiocies.

Their criticism accurately reflects his anti-withdrawal commitment and accurately reflects his pro-war statement.

Again, McCain predicates his anti-withdrawal position on lies—that troops can remain in Iraq without being injured, harmed or wounded, (and let's not forget that al Qaeda and Islamofascism are the threat in Iraq)—and McCain's conclusion, that of a multi-decade-long occupation, should be taken a commitment for a multi-decade-long occupation that will be justified by still more lies.

Rich and the fact checkers ought to give this affair a rethink.

Hillary Says 8-Year-Old Bosnian Girl Was Actually Sniper

Lifted from Andy Borowitz

Bouquet of Flowers Hid Semiautomatic Weapon

Accused in recent days of embellishing her story of a brush with sniper fire in Bosnia, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton today said “don’t be fooled” by photos showing her being greeted at the airport by a pony-tailed 8-year-old Bosnian girl with a bouquet of flowers.

“That was no little girl,” Sen. Clinton told reporters in Gary, Indiana. “That was a covert ops midget sniper.”

The New York senator said that moments after the “so-called little girl” presented her with the flowers, she revealed what the bouquet had been hiding: “a tiny semi-automatic weapon.”

“Fortunately, I had the presence of mind to use some of the Tae Kwon Do techniques I had learned in preparation for the Northern Ireland peace talks,” she said.

Defending his wife against charges that she had yet again fabricated her exploits while First Lady, former President Bill Clinton told CNN’s John King that “Democratic voters have a clear choice this election: do they want a liar or a plagiarist?”

“Hillary tells some real whoppers, but at least they’re original,” he said.

In response to a question about whether he believes his wife’s account of the events in Bosnia, Mr. Clinton said, “All I have to say about that is Reverend Wright Reverend Wright Reverend Wright Reverend Wright Reverend Wright.”

No Excuse for Supporting Hillary Now

by Michael A. Leon

Update: A reader left this comment worth posting: "Hillary is a political succubus. She will suck the energy and will from this party until we are broken and defeated. ... Even if one does not consider the supposedly inflammatory nature of the Wright sermons, she took an opportunity to promote healing or at least thought provoking discussion, and instead parroted a line that even the conservative nominee and the man he defeated has abandoned. ... I have no doubt Hillary would have left her church and the place that introduced her to Jesus because it is abundantly clear that there is no belief, no ethic, no moral, or important relationship she would not gladly sacrifice in order to further her own naked ambition."

"And you know I'm just speaking for myself, and I was answering a question that was posed to me," said Hillary Clinton as she reads from her notes. TPM video of Clinton:

Does anyone have any doubt now that Hillary Clinton has crossed the line using racism in her pursuit of political power?

And Rep. Tammy Baldwin, a superdelegate pledged to Hillary, will you now disavow Hillary Clinton? Tammy, you know appeals to bigotry when you see them, and Hillary's is as ugly and potentially destructive as the national Democratic stage has seen in decades.

Clinton's latest tactic came in an interview with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, during which Clinton suggested that Reverend Wright is guilty of "hate speech," and said, "He would not have been my pastor. You don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend."

Obama's campaign has hit back immediately:

"After originally refusing to play politics with this issue, it's disappointing to see Hillary Clinton's campaign sink to this low in a transparent effort to distract attention away from the story she made up about dodging sniper fire in Bosnia. The truth is, Barack Obama has already spoken out against his pastor's offensive comments and addressed the issue of race in America with a deeply personal and uncommonly honest speech. The American people deserve better than tired political games that do nothing to solve the larger challenges facing this country," said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.

But Hillary is threatening the historic coalition with black America and her attempt to secure the nomination has to be shot down now and hard. I mean playing on racism, are we going to countenance this?

A piece in Kos eloquently calls for an end now to Hillary's appeals to hate. Personally, I think Hillary is considering a third-party run. From Kos:

Clinton is not only presumptuous, she is vicious and divisive and hurtful. She should be defending Barack Obama against unfair attacks, and defending and contextualizing the tradition of black sermonizing. In his speech, Barack Obama sought to educate and bring reconciliation. Clinton's response is to throw it all back in his face and suggest that there is something wrong with him for
attending his church. ...

If Clinton succeeds in pushing this racial polarization to the point that white people will not vote for Obama, the black community will never, ever, forgive her. ...

At this point it is absolutely imperative that the party leaders step in and stop the Clinton campaign from inflicting lasting damage to the relationship between the party and the African-American community. She cannot be allowed to even try to win the nomination this way, let alone actually win it.

This is poison of the worst possible kind. It will destroy the party's electoral viability more swiftly and more surely than anything I can think of.

I call on Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid, Chairman Dean, and the other leaders of the party to step in right now and call this contest.
The Clintons absolutely must not be permitted to do this. It must be stopped.

Myself, I call on Tammy Baldwin to step up right now and denounce Hillary Clinton. Silence is a betrayal to every progressive who has worked with you and the cause of justice.

The Clinton Ice Capades

By Keith Schmitz

This is s knee slapper. Pardon the pun.

Why are Hillary and her intermediaries trying to destroy Obama, going so far to laud John McCain while disdaining Barack?

On the condition of anonymity, the way a member of the DNC put it to Jake Tapper with ABC is that the Clinton Campaign is pursuing the Tonya Harding option.

It's up to you to cast the rest of this movie.

Hillary: I'm Losing, Change the Rules

Update: Listen to Hillary on Michigan: Pathetic.

After agreeing not to campaign in Florida and Michigan last year, Hillary Clinton now wants the elections, such as they were, to count.

From the Miami Herald:

Trailing Democratic rival Barack Obama in delegates and running out of options, Hillary Clinton's campaign on Tuesday launched a two-pronged attack in Florida.In Fort Lauderdale, supporters brandished petitions and called for the Jan. 29 primary -- which she won -- to count toward delegates.

If you're losing the game, change the rules, the goalposts, and make a new game.
Reminds me of Bush on the Iraq War for which Hillary voted, though she still denies that she did so.

From Time:

The Pledge Clinton Signed

WHEREAS, Over a year ago, the Democratic National Committee established a 2008 nominating calendar;

WHEREAS, this calendar honors the racial, ethnic, economic and geographic diversity of our party and our country;

WHEREAS, the DNC also honored the traditional role of retail politics early in the nominating process, to insure that money alone will not determine our presidential nominee;

WHEREAS, it is the desire of Presidential campaigns, the DNC, the states and the American people to bring finality, predictability and common sense to the nominating calendar.

THEREFORE, I, [Name], Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as "campaigning" is defined by rules and regulations of the DNC.

McAuliffe Cuts (the video feed) and Runs

By Keith Schmitz

Surprisingly with all of the dissection going on of the Democratic Presidential candidates, this one didn't make it on the cable news shows.

Last week on Bill Maher's "Real Time" Clinton campaign chair Terry McAuliffe was on live during an early part of the show.

McAuliffe stepped into a grilling so sizzling you could almost smell the hot grease. That's the risk anyone runs when they offer themselves up on "Real Time."

Russert and others who head up interview shows want to have the guests come back and so they pull punches.

Maher on the other hand subjects his guests to pointed questions -- and follow ups.

Apparently the McAuliffe or someone on the Clinton staff couldn't take the heat about Hillary's experience and her praising John McCain , so to get him out of the kitchen something unusual happened. Someone cut the feed.

Fact: Hillary Clinton will not win the Democratic nomination by running like a Republican

It's true.

Clinton's Hail Mary

via MAL Contends

Let's put tonight’s democratic presidential debate in football terms.

Hillary is down by 13 points, her team has the ball on her own 30-year-line with four minutes to go in the fourth, having displayed no ground game and an inconsistent passing attack.

Her opponents’ defensive cornerbacks are Lester Hayes and Mark Haynes (of Raiders fame), the pass rush is the 1985 Bears, and the linebackers are a bunch of LTs.

MSNBC bills the debate as Hillary’s Last Stand. The debate’s headline ought to read: Abandon hope, Hillary, if ye enters here.

It would take a hail Mary pass, an immaculate reception, a drive to end all drives, and Barack Obama's invoking the name of Satan for Hillary (the let's-trust-George W. Bush-to-do-the-right-thing-on-Iraq Hillary (Vote: Oct. 11, 2002)) to win this game.

I do not think that phrase means what you think it means

by folkbum

I didn't watch the Democratic primary debate last Thursday. I feel relatively confident that I know enough about the candidates now without having to suffer through Wolf Blitzer to learn more. Besides, I am planning to remain firmly neutral right up until that moment I step into the booth next February, by which time the nominee will almost certainly be decided.

However, I do enjoy reading other peoples' takes on the debates, as I find those responses much more revealing about those responding than about the debate in the first place.

Take Jessica McBride (please!). While McBride will almost certainly not be voting for a Democrat for president, she has still taken a keen interest in our debates. And, though Hillary Clinton is probably the last Democrat McBride would vote for even if she were to slum over here on the left, you can always count on McBride to stand up for Women Scorned Everywhere Even If They Are Democrats:

This was the nails-on-chalkboard question of Thursday's Democratic presidential debate. It was also, arguably, sexist. They ask the female candidate about jewelry????! (But, to the media, Republicans are supposed to be the sexist ones, right???) This is right up there with the media writing about Hillary's cleavage. Who cares????!!!

The women's solidarity there is touching, isn't it? You can tell how much she cares by the punctuation!!!! McBride never misses an opportunity to stand up for women maligned, regardless of who they are.

Until, that is, she remembers that it's Hillary we're talking about:

If they're going to plant a question, at least make it a good one. Like,

Hillary, since you claim to support women's rights, do you think Juanita Broaddrick and Kathleen Willey were telling the truth?

I don't know McBride's Women's Studies bona fides, but I do not think the accepted definition of "women's rights" includes swallowing wholesale the lies of liars that even Ken Starr didn't believe. "Women's rights" doesn't include believing allegations made, retracted, inconsistently remade, and never verified by any news organization (the Wall Street Journal editorial page is not a news organization).

Of course, I'm not a woman. I could be wrong.

(I should note that, in getting ready to post, I discovered capper beat me to it.)